Time up for the SA80 rifle

[rcx132]

Shamelessly stolen from Wikipedia but I believe the M4 has similar issues to the SA80.

The M16 was rushed into service which caused those early problems. Basically, post war, most of the world had realised the benefit of sacrificing calibre to get automatic fire. But the Yanks were unwilling to switch because, you know, bigger is better. Then in Vietnam they came face to face with Russian made assault rifles and had to quickly deploy their own, causing all the teething issues.

 

[tom2207]

Shamelessly stolen from Wikipedia but I believe the M4 has similar issues to the SA80.

By late 2002, 89% of U.S. troops reported they were confident with the M4, but they had a range of problems. 34% of users said the handguards rattled and became excessively hot when firing, and 15% had trouble zeroing the M68 Close Combat Optic. 35% added barber brushes and 24% added dental picks to their cleaning kits. There were many malfunctions, including 20% of users experiencing a double feed, 15% experiencing feeding jams, and 13% saying that feeding problems were caused by magazines. 20% of users were dissatisfied with weapon maintenance. Some had trouble locking the magazine into the weapon and having to chamber a round in order to lock the magazine. Soldiers also asked for a larger round to be able to kill targets with one shot. New optics and handguards made usage of the M4 easier, and good weapon maintenance reduced the number of misfeeds.[75]

Having used both variants of SA80 those sound like similar problems to the early version, most of which we're cured with the A2 and other upgrades.

I know the SA80 isn't brilliant, and isn't loved, but it was a darn sight better than lugging a hefty great SLR round with you, and doesn't try to break your shoulder every time you fire it either.

I have a very soft spot for the old SLR ,, maybe more accurately the 7.62 cartridge , things you hit with it stayed hit. Maybe the envisioned criteria has changed and its thought of more as a close quarters rifle now with a more urban battle in mind for future combat .

 

[premmington]

The Concept of the SA80 started in the 1950's. But when NATO went for the 7.62mm round the idea was mothballed.

Then in the late 70's and early 80's when NATO was looking to adopt the 5.56 NATO round, it was reborn. Preproduction models even went down south in 82.
Vickers was up for sale, so they looked good to a buyer the government went forward with full production of the SA80, knowing full well it had issues.

Then when it reached the Army, no one had worked out a suitable change over from the iconic SLR, a license copy of FN FAL. to the Mk0 SA80.
By that time many departments had got involved.

The issues were they wanted a carry handle, take a standard mag(never happened in NATO. Was short compact and good for urban combat. But it also had to have open ground ability. It had to have stopping power, but not to much to prevent accidents.
They also wanted to have it suitable for all 3 services. Plus a .22 for cadets.

The ongoing designed fault was the gas port holes, being the same size os the sprung loaded bearing on the gas piston. Meaning if you assembles it wrong, it got jammed. Rendering the gun all but scrap.
The answer.
Given them correct training!!!!!

When H&K were asked to re work the SA80 this could not be corrected. By the H&K are owned by BAE.

The SA80 never stood a chance, as poor training on change cover. Meaning it had range issues.
Plus we wee using American 5.56 rounds. They are not as powerful as a NATIO/Europe 5.56. That was because the american 5.56 was redesigned round the M16. That gun had many more issues than the SA80, that's another story.

Then when the SA80 got to the RN it was not made Marine proof. Meaning it rusted. The rotating bolt soon pitted so you had blow backs.

The mags on board ships, the spring would rust, or stay compressed, so we had to reduce the amount of rounds loaded.

As the Mag was meant to be interchangeable with an american system, The MOD brought Mag loaders. Good for one to 5 loads. But it deformed the top, leading to feed jams.

To get over the rusting issues, the bolt, chamber and the rest were given a chrome covering. This meant you then had to bring in Forward assist on cocking.

The Susat sight was a cock up from day one. It was not water prove. It meant the carry handle was usless. Plus it made the user head was higher. a better target.

So that great design of a sling was developed. It was over complicated. But the MOD did not want to buy a FN sling.

If Vickers were allowed to have 2 more years before they forced into full production most of the SA80 flaws would pf been sorted.

I could write more, but I will not.


The Lee Enfield, Sten and the Lanchester sub machine gun were really the last of the fully designed personal weapon.

Am I right in saying?

As body armour plates get better - rounds will have to get bigger?

 

[tom2207]

Am I right in saying?

As body armour plates get better - rounds will have to get bigger?

or smaller , harder and faster ,,,

 

[The_Yellow_Ardvark]

Am I right in saying?

As body armour plates get better - rounds will have to get bigger?

Not 100%
Penetrating power has to improve, hence why the new russian 5.56 has a DU penetrating rod.
Power is increased by the new generation of propellants.
If it doe not penertarte, it will still injure. By concussive force or by twisting and entering a uncovered part.

 

[The_Yellow_Ardvark]

The M16 was rushed into service which caused those early problems. Basically, post war, most of the world had realised the benefit of sacrificing calibre to get automatic fire. But the Yanks were unwilling to switch because, you know, bigger is better. Then in Vietnam they came face to face with Russian made assault rifles and had to quickly deploy their own, causing all the teething issues.

More GI's were lost due to M16 issues than by direct contact.
The M16 was rubbish then and still has major issues. The barrel has a short life, it chrome finish still flakes. mags have weak top lips.
The plastic furniture still suffers from UV rotting.

 

[premmington]

Not 100%
Penetrating power has to improve, hence why the new russian 5.56 has a DU penetrating rod.
Power is increased by the new generation of propellants.
If it doe not penertarte, it will still injure. By concussive force or by twisting and entering a uncovered part.

So faster - a bigger bang - more muzzle velocity required.

From original post on this thread - they on about suppression in the video.

I thought the faster things went the more noise they made - speed of sound (sonic boom?)

Or am I being dumb?

Interesting subject this - one of which I know very little about mate @The_Yellow_Ardvark

 

[fractured]

The post modded versions were ok (excellent, I’d go as far as to say) , even the pre modified was ok as long as you remembered the “forward assist” part.

I used both the SLR and the SA 80 (slr was still around until only a few years ago for RAS line firing on board ships) and much preferred the SA…I’m not left handed though

Did you use the M4 platform? I agree the 7.62 SLR had a kick to it. Not sure how the calibre performs on other platforms. I used the AR15 5.56 in the States and found it to be manageable and I enjoyed the experience. Its a pity we can't use them for sporting shooting here.

 

[daleyd]

@daleyd
The SA80 could be used in RAS, line throwing. But you needed a special round and the gas port shut.

When I did my armourers course in 96 or 97 we still covered the SLR because the SA80 wasn’t used for RAS (it hd been out of service with the rest of armed forces for about 10 years at that point), and up until I left in 2001 we had a couple on board which were used for RAS duties. I remember it quite vividly as OOQ I had to sign the 7.62 ammo out of my magazine every time we did one.

 

[daleyd]

Did you use the M4 platform? I agree the 7.62 SLR had a kick to it. Not sure how the calibre performs on other platforms. I used the AR15 5.56 in the States and found it to be manageable and I enjoyed the experience. Its a pity we can't use them for sporting shooting here.

I’ve shot a few types, but the one we had on board that i was most familiar with was the standard Brit L1A1 type.

With a RAS attachment (looks like a big yellow d1ld0 ) the kick back was ferocious, as the attachment was weighty. Firing a standard ball round after that was quite tame even in 7.62 - but for me 5.56 was always more controllable, not that I was much of a marksman mind you!

 

[The_Yellow_Ardvark]

So faster - a bigger bang - more muzzle velocity required.

From original post on this thread - they on about suppression in the video.

I thought the faster things went the more noise they made - speed of sound (sonic boom?)

Or am I being dumb?

Interesting subject this - one of which I know very little about mate @The_Yellow_Ardvark

To give a round more stopping or penetrating power. You need to convert the energy from the propellant burning to the round(ball).
Any bang is wasted energy. The round needs to be compact. A case, brass, steel or plastic is wasted space.
H&K tried to produce a case less round or even a multiple shot round. We are still waiting.

More power in a round, means the weapon needs to be stronger. EG heavy. This means less equipment the user can carry.

Currently the best power to round is the Russian 5.56.

The weapon has to be useful in all situations, so it becomes a compromise.

 

[The_Yellow_Ardvark]

When I did my armourers course in 96 or 97 we still covered the SLR because the SA80 wasn’t used for RAS (it hd been out of service with the rest of armed forces for about 10 years at that point), and up until I left in 2001 we had a couple on board which were used for RAS duties. I remember it quite vividly as OOQ I had to sign the 7.62 ammo out of my magazine every time we did one.

The SLR was retained, due to the points about needed in special round. The Slr simply used a 7.62mm blank.
When I was involved in the fun with the SA80 the RN had stated from the start it needs to be made suitable for sea service.

The SLR had a kick, made worse if your didn't shoulder it correctly.

Mind you the M14 had a mean kick.

The Lee Enfield was a good gun to use. I was lucky enough to use one. The M4 was the best Mk5 was a pig.

 

[KemppiFrog]

Read yrs ago that towards the closing of the WW11, both Russian and Germany realised that most combat was at short range, so developed suitable auto weapons. IIRR the Sten was a cheapo to use the huge amounts of 9mm from the Germans after the N. Africa campaigne. Cost 7s & 6p, at the time. Result was the AK47, one of the most produced of all time, because it was, and is, suitable for rough field use.
The Vietnam War was a monumental disaster at all levels. Cost many lives and ruined many others. The M16 was only suitable ofter they chromed the receiver, way after it was known as a problem and cost plenty of casulties.

 

[The_Yellow_Ardvark]

Read yrs ago that towards the closing of the WW11, both Russian and Germany realised that most combat was at short range, so developed suitable auto weapons. IIRR the Sten was a cheapo to use the huge amounts of 9mm from the Germans after the N. Africa campaigne. Cost 7s & 6p, at the time. Result was the AK47, one of the most produced of all time, because it was, and is, suitable for rough field use.
The Vietnam War was a monumental disaster at all levels. Cost many lives and ruined many others. The M16 was only suitable ofter they chromed the receiver, way after it was known as a problem and cost plenty of casulties.

Yes the Sig 44. Easy to make, easy to use. suitable for the conditions.

The Russians went down the AK road.

The americans went to up grade the M1, leading to the M14, what would of been a great system. Until some said, lets make it automatic.
The M16 was still rubbish, even after the chroming. As the first chromed existing parts. making them a tight fit. Leading to hot feed jams.
So they made them smaller to be chromed, then machined to fit. leading to slacker tolerances. Leading to hang fires, if it was dirty of a defective round.

To help theses issues the american 5.56 rounds caan be fired in a NATO 5.56 weapon. But NATO 5.56 can not be used in a M16.

They had Sig 44 in Warminster, very nice to use.

 

[addjunkie]

To give a round more stopping or penetrating power. You need to convert the energy from the propellant burning to the round(ball).
Any bang is wasted energy. The round needs to be compact. A case, brass, steel or plastic is wasted space.
H&K tried to produce a case less round or even a multiple shot round. We are still waiting.

More power in a round, means the weapon needs to be stronger. EG heavy. This means less equipment the user can carry.

Currently the best power to round is the Russian 5.56.

The weapon has to be useful in all situations, so it becomes a compromise.

Another factor is weight, not so much in the gun but the ammo. Not much weight difference between a 7.62 round and the 5.56, till you multiply it by a couple of hundred being carried. Even the difference between boxes of 20 is quite noticable

 

[KemppiFrog]

Another factor is weight, not so much in the gun but the ammo. Not much weight difference between a 7.62 round and the 5.56, till you multiply it by a couple of hundred being carried. Even the difference between boxes of 20 is quite noticable

I always thought that that was the point of lower calibers? Couple of hundred .5 caliber for the modern sniper stuff must weigh a bit?
I looked at the belts in a P51 and the 'whole nine yards' was not something I would like to cart about.

 

[Craig-SM]

When I served we went from SLR and LMG (Bren) to SA80 and LSW. I mention the other two as I was unlucky enough to have them as personal weapons. I always found myself to be more accurate with the SLR than the SA80 where I could get consistent tight groups but really struggled with the SA80, we had iron sights as I was RCT at the time. The LSW was also iron sights too for a short while before they got SUSAT.
At the time of change to SA80 I remember we also changed to the infantry Charlie and Delta fireteams, I can’t remember what tactics we used before but it was due to having automatic fire instead of single shot. We were also told the reason for the change to 5.56 was to carry more rounds and can testify to that. Also the tactics were to create casualties than to kill as it took more men out of the fight as they required medical aid when a dead body doesn’t.
Despite being a better shot with the SLR I would choose the SA80 as the SLR was cumbersome especially getting in and out of vehicles regularly. Many times I’ve seen mags fall off and rounds scatter as well as the rifle get dropped disembarking. Not great fun in Belfast or Londonderry at the time. I did one tour of Northern Ireland and the Gulf War with the SLR, the later with LMG and GPMG too. I kid you not. The GMPG was for top cover and then had both the SLR and LMG, this was in a TM with limited space, you just know that LMG got flung everywhere.
The SA8O I did 2 tours of Northern Ireland with and was much more suited. After the last tour we were amalgamated and I ended up with a posting to Aldergrove and then Lisburn, even though the SA80 was still my personal weapon I only used for fitness tests and annual weapons testing as I used MP5K and Browning 9mm as daily weapons.

 

[Brad93]

We make sniper rifles, so not all doom and gloom. I know what you mean though

The barrels are german though i should think?

 

[Brad93]

Who is this Knight Armament group? Never heard of them.

I get they wanted an AR platform but how has some relatively unknown company beat the likes of SIG, H&K and Glock?

 

[DanZac]

Who is this Knight Armament group? Never heard of them.

I get they wanted an AR platform but how has some relatively unknown company beat the likes of SIG, H&K and Glock?

See the Backhanders and Corruption thread.

Brigadier General Sir Humphry Dogsbody Knight knows someone that makes guns and just happens to work in procurement (probably).