Professional Weapons

[Watchman]

Don't believe there is an official site, as Enfield was effectively absorbed into the Royal Ordnance Division (part of BAe industries).

Also, my previous info was out of date. it appears that BAe sold H&K back to a "new" German Heckler & Koch company. This company was apparently formed specifically to undertake this sale, which was concluded late last year.

I've been on the K&K website a few times & there's no mention of the SA80, which is attributed on the British Army 's official site to H&K (UK) and I haven't been able to find a H&K (UK) site yet. Maybe you could have more luck.

[BlueRose_76]

Hmm, sounds like a conspiracy...

Im only familiar with the german and usa site of H&K.

Is BAe an brittish government or an private enterprise? (never heard of it anyways)

BR

[Tom]

BAE Systems is a combination of British Aerospace and Marconi Systems. Its a private company that works in partnership with the UK government on bigger projects such as the Eurofighter, Air craft carriers, etc. Its basically all that is left of the British Defense Industry. They make everything from Harrier Jets to Asute Class Attack Subs and the 120mm AMS.

[Streinger]

The M4 is a carbine version of the M16. Its shorter, lighter wich makes it perfect for swat and or urban/short distance warfare, or as a defense weapon for guys who are not on the frontline and dont need extreme firepower. On long ranges it got less accurate and less powerfull. Its just another type of weapon like for example the MP5 is

Not quite so...M4 is chambered for 5,56mm NATO rifle round, whereas H&K MP5 is chambered for 9x19mm Luger pistol round. Although both weapons are gass operated, which is tipical rifle construction, the ammo type actualy determines the first one (M4) as a carbine, (shortened rifle, since it's chambered for a rifle round), and the second one (MP5) as a SMG since it's chambered for a pistol round. No need to point out the M4 is far more powerfull then MP5.

Hmmmm......seems like every guns need to be cleaned up before use or else it jam.

Is there any guns that does not require any cleaning works and would not jam on you??? I doubt so. lolz....

AK-47 requires verry little cleaning...at least it is so with M-70 variants (Yugoslavian AK-47 copy) I used during my service in the Croatian army.

[Tom]

In reference to "ex-military".... Unless they were deployed alonside Brits at some point, your average PFC or Lance Corporal would not know an SA-80 if it hit them upside the head. At best it may have gotten a passing reference in a classroom. And I never met many non-commisioned officers who read Janes Defense Weekly. In OPFOR, you go up against the 11th cav using facsimile’s of soviet weapons. So they get no exposure to the SA-80 there either.

In my opinion, they will continue to do some upgrade to the SA-80 system (basicaly because they can't afford to replace them all at once), but it will be phased out. Most notably the shorter barrel version. Less barrel velocity equals less killing power. Same with the M4. Reliability and killing power were a problem in Afghanistan. The jury is still out on the M4. As for the M4, it will survive, but I don't see it becoming the standard US military rifle. The SA-80 on the other hand should for the most part fade away over the next 3-5 years.

[GRIN_Wolfsong]

But any military that want's it's people to be able to actually do some good in combat at least informs them of what weapon systems are out there and in what regions they can be found. We even do it in Sweden, which isn't really a "combat" involved nation besides our UN peace missions.

[Tom]

But any military that want's it's people to be able to actually do some good in combat at least informs them of what weapon systems are out there and in what regions they can be found. We even do it in Sweden, which isn't really a "combat" involved nation besides our UN peace missions.

Wolf. the US concentrates on Soviet armaments and their eastern bloc, China and N. Korea variants. Thats what we expect the "bad guys" to use. Basically the min requirements for a U.S. "rifleman" is to qualify on the M-16, SAW, and the M4 in most units now.

We tend to concentrate on our own weapons and those we expect to encounter in a hostile situation. Don't get me wrong, 8 out 10 "trigger pullers" probably have heard of the SA-80 or at least the L85.. By "trigger puller" I mean the people that actually do the fighting. For instance, in Iraq, of the 200 to 250,000 men deployed, perhaps 30,000 were "trigger pullers."

Edited June 11, 2003 by Tom

[Pyro_Monty]

But any military that want's it's people to be able to actually do some good in combat at least informs them of what weapon systems are out there and in what regions they can be found. We even do it in Sweden, which isn't really a "combat" involved nation besides our UN peace missions.

Wolf. the US concentrates on Soviet armaments and their eastern bloc, China and N. Korea variants. Thats what we expect the "bad guys" to use. Basically the min requirements for a U.S. "rifleman" is to qualify on the M-16, SAW, and the M4 in most units now.

And it's not important to know what the "good guys" (and I use that term pretty loosely) are using?

By the way, there's a lot of misinformation going about this thread. There is, effectively, only one version of the SA80/L85. There is no longer a 'short-barrel' or 'carbine' varient. As far as I know, that never even went into production and it definitely never entered service with the British Army.

If the GR manual is saying something about the weapon in GR being a scaled-up or -down version of something else... it's incorrect.

[Heavy Sarcasm]Hey, maybe if I make this post enough times, it will catch on and people will learn.[/Heavy Sarcasm]

[Copenhagen]

oh yar, have u all heard of the gun called "Smith & Wilson" . It a kind of pistol used by my country police officers on patrol.

I dunno know whether the name "Smith & Wilson" is separated or not. Have only a vivd ideas of it. But i studied these two guns years ago, when i was in the Student-Volunteered Police team.

It belong to the small arms category. Had a maximum capacity of 6 bullets. Does yours country police officers use them too????

Do you mean Smith & Wesson? Most people in the US use them as a hunting or pesonal defence pistol. Or just shoot'em for fun at the range. There are few police officers that carry revolvers these days.

[Watchman]

[by the way, there's a lot of misinformation going about this thread. There is, effectively, only one version of the SA80/L85. There is no longer a 'short-barrel' or 'carbine' varient. As far as I know, that never even went into production and it definitely never entered service with the British Army.

Good point.

I never saw any variants along this line, having said that I've been out a long time. In fact one of the main benefits of the bullpup design is that you are able to achieve longer effective barrel lengths in a more compact package. So it seems to defeat the object to have a rifle & carbine version.

Certainly during my service the only other variant was the Light Support Weapon (LSW), which had a longer , heavier barrel equipped with a bipod and was intended as a light squad machine gun. It didn't have the SUSAT and could never have been mistaken for a rifle.

[GRIN_Wolfsong]

Wolf. the US concentrates on Soviet armaments and their eastern bloc, China and N. Korea variants. Thats what we expect the "bad guys" to use. Basically the min requirements for a U.S. "rifleman" is to qualify on the M-16, SAW, and the M4 in most units now.

To inform on all modern weapons is a way to make the soliders more versitile and it is also good extra info for them to be able to quickly identify personell as camo can be harder to determine at range. At least that is my experience.

I use to be the one who infomred about inernational weapons during basic training as the commanding officer in the weapons mainenance shop at the fighter wing. And weapons like SA-80, AUG, FAL, G3A3, G36, MP5, P90, Sig550, FAMAS and so on are "western" weapons so widely used that they are standard in that information package. We even have them to show most of the time (only have a few sets that rotate in the armed forces so sometimes you can't get it there).

But then again. According to UN surveys, Swedish and British soldiers are the best overall trained and educated in the world. I guess we do more then is actually needed but still good for them to have knowlegde about.

[Stalker]

in the Iraqi war all the british guys ran around with sa80.....

[supasniper]

Not quite so...M4 is chambered for 5,56mm NATO rifle round, whereas H&K MP5 is chambered for 9x19mm Luger pistol round. Although both weapons are gass operated, which is tipical rifle construction, the ammo type actualy determines the first one (M4) as a carbine, (shortened rifle, since it's chambered for a rifle round), and the second one (MP5) as a SMG since it's chambered for a pistol round. No need to point out the M4 is far more powerfull then MP5.

True but there are also SMG versions of the m4 available in both 9x19mm Parabellum and .45ACP

[Streinger]

True but there are also SMG versions of the m4 available in both 9x19mm Parabellum and .45ACP

Agree 100%

[mob]

There are some western weapons that can operate reliably with almost no cleaning, and most of them are H&K's. The old roller-delayed blowback designs (G3, MP5 and everything in between) don't use gas to operate and have forceful cycling, so they can churn along without maintenance for thousands of rounds (still not a good idea when your life depends on it). The G36 is gas operated, but the gas vents a few inches behind the gas block and doesn't get near the action, meaning no gas fouling a la AR15 series. It can churn along without cleaning a still look brand new on the inside.

As for the SA80 carbine, GR takes place in the future and it would be no great feat to whip up a carbine version of the full-size rifle, so its inclusion in the game shouldn't be considered a mistake. The image used in-game, however, is that of the full-size rifle.

[Streinger]

The old roller-delayed blowback designs (G3, MP5 and everything in between) don't use gas to operate and have forceful cycling, so they can churn along without maintenance for thousands of rounds (still not a good idea when your life depends on it). The G36 is gas operated, but the gas vents a few inches behind the gas block and doesn't get near the action, meaning no gas fouling a la AR15 series.

Hm..I'm not trying to start a fight here, but I think you might be mistaken. Although G3 an MP5 have roller-deleyed bolt type, they still are gass operated (they have gass cylinder, piston and carrier that pushes the bolt backwards)

AK-47 on the other hand has a rotation-locking bolt , a verry reliable bolt locking system, but the rotating masses cause the rifle to flip up and to the right, especialy when set to full auto fire.

Forcefull cycling that you described is (I think) a trade of some SMGs, like old WWII Thompson M41A, MP40 Schmeisser and more contemporary UZI...

[MarkVanDamme]

By "trigger puller" I mean the people that actually do the fighting. For instance, in Iraq, of the 200 to 250,000 men deployed, perhaps 30,000 were "trigger pullers."

FYI

The British term for these is Bayonet

In a regiment there may be 1200 folks, but remove the fat-splashers, door-slammers and WAAFs and there may only be 600 troops - ie 600 bayonets.

[MarkVanDamme]

hmmmmm...............sa80 doesn't seem to have a very good image in real life military combat.

Even its modified version sa80-A2 can't escape the fate of being critized and might be scraped anytime.

I'm sick of hearing this, it's not as gucci as M16's and such, but it's a real rifle, and it works.

The soldier behind it is the real "weapon".

[BlueRose_76]

Not quite so...M4 is chambered for 5,56mm NATO rifle round, whereas H&K MP5 is chambered for 9x19mm Luger pistol round. Although both weapons are gass operated, which is tipical rifle construction, the ammo type actualy determines the first one (M4) as a carbine, (shortened rifle, since it's chambered for a rifle round), and the second one (MP5) as a SMG since it's chambered for a pistol round. No need to point out the M4 is far more powerfull then MP5.

I mean, you cant compare the M4 to the M16, just as you cant compare the MP5 to the M16. They are in an other legue.

regards, BlueRose_76

[mob]

Streinger...

If you look at a technical diagram of the old H&K designs, it shows that the tube above the barrel is not a gas cylinder/piston assembly. Also, the HK barrels are free-floated, meaning there is no point of contact at which the gas could be tapped for cycling. A clear demonstration of this is the MP5SD, which has a barrel that stops short of the end of the upper tube containging the cocking rod assembly, and which has an integral suppressor completely enclosing the barrel (so the gas can't leave at any point but the muzzle).

By forceful cycling I meant that the extraction/ejection movements of roller-delayed HK's can be quite violent. I think you mistook me for meaning that they use simple blowback, which is obviously not the case (except for the UMP/USC).

[GRIN_Wolfsong]

That mechanism is why it's really easy to see if a shell casing comes from a HK weapon of that sort. The casings get tiger stiped by the gasses passing back by the casing and pushing the mechanism back instead of being tapped from the barrel further ahead.

[Streinger]

If you look at a technical diagram of the old H&K designs, it shows that the tube above the barrel is not a gas cylinder/piston assembly. Also, the HK barrels are free-floated, meaning there is no point of contact at which the gas could be tapped for cycling. A clear demonstration of this is the MP5SD, which has a barrel that stops short of the end of the upper tube containging the cocking rod assembly, and which has an integral suppressor completely enclosing the barrel (so the gas can't leave at any point but the muzzle).

By forceful cycling I meant that the extraction/ejection movements of roller-delayed HK's can be quite violent. I think you mistook me for meaning that they use simple blowback, which is obviously not the case (except for the UMP/USC).

I stand corrected...