- Thread starter fizzy
- Start date
Nice to see how my favourite rifle was made .
In the right hands it was a very very useful weapon , . you wouldn't have wanted to be 600 yards away from me and think you were safe . The Americans I met often called it the Elephant gun and loved how little recoil there was from it .
In the right hands it was a very very useful weapon , . you wouldn't have wanted to be 600 yards away from me and think you were safe . The Americans I met often called it the Elephant gun and loved how little recoil there was from it .
oldbikedavey
Member
- Messages
- 1,970
- Location
- London, England
Awesomely detailed video , is that.
Well done Mr Ferguson, yet again.....
Well done Mr Ferguson, yet again.....
RWD3M
Forum Supporter
- Messages
- 3,957
- Location
- Wiltshire, UK
Yep, I remember it fondly. This new (I say new, that's probably older than the SLR was when I first became acquainted with it!) SA80 doesn't have nearly the stopping power.
For many years the Yanks reckoned 5.56 was more than enough. Until they went to Afghanistan where tribesmen were taking potshots with old Lee Enfield 303s and they couldn't get near. Now the Yanks are switching to a bigger calibre that is seriously over powered.
Fighting in Ukraine is totally different to Afghanistan and 5.56 makes more sense.
Its so true that the weapons used by the military are one war behind !
Tinbasherdan
Bodger in chief
- Messages
- 7,594
- Location
- Bolton, England
5.56 was never designed to kill, that wasnt the doctrine. military doctrine said that if you kill one man, thats one man out of the fight. if you wound him pretty decently, it takes 2-3 more out to look after him. of course, back then we were fighting enemies that didnt see dying as a bonus
I was taught from being a 15 yr old that you did indeed shoot to kill , your'e more likely not to kill . IIRC shooting to maim is not in the Geneva convention rules of war .
Not allowed
Shooting to wound is not allowed under the Geneva Convention rules of war. The rules prohibit killing, torturing, or performing biological experiments on the wounded and sick. The Geneva Conventions require that wounded and sick individuals be collected and cared for by the party to the conflict that has them in its power. Protection also covers medical personnel, establishments, transports, and equipment. The emblem of the Red Cross or the Red Crescent is the sign of such protection and must be respected. Attacking anyone or anything bearing this emblem is a grave breach of the convention.
International Committee of the Red Cross+1
It seems that the Russians don't care for their own let alone anyone else's troops as they rarely ever recover their injured troops , unless daddy is a colonel in the GRU or related to Putin .
Not allowed
Shooting to wound is not allowed under the Geneva Convention rules of war. The rules prohibit killing, torturing, or performing biological experiments on the wounded and sick. The Geneva Conventions require that wounded and sick individuals be collected and cared for by the party to the conflict that has them in its power. Protection also covers medical personnel, establishments, transports, and equipment. The emblem of the Red Cross or the Red Crescent is the sign of such protection and must be respected. Attacking anyone or anything bearing this emblem is a grave breach of the convention.
International Committee of the Red Cross+1
It seems that the Russians don't care for their own let alone anyone else's troops as they rarely ever recover their injured troops , unless daddy is a colonel in the GRU or related to Putin .
With the MAU MAU our troops found asingle 9mm from a SMG would not stop even when very close up . them so we (mainly SAS ) decided to do the double tap , or to lesser mortals like me two quick well aimed shots . I think it became SOP's for all our small arms as a result .
Craig-SM
Member
- Messages
- 2,357
- Location
- Heckmondwike
It was also that you could carry more ammunition with the lighter round
oldbikedavey
Member
- Messages
- 1,970
- Location
- London, England
There's no such thing as an obsolete weapon.....
Indeed so - apparently some of the Tribesmen were using Martini Henrys! 5.56 against those
When we discussed the SA 80 v the SLR on a weapons course it was said that the SA80 came about because it was calculated that the majority of fatal shots were done at 300m or less.
, AKA set your to battle sights ..300m
So a less powerful automatic rifle was needed to follow the American idea of slinging as much lead at the enemy as possible , bringing the supposed advantage of being able to carry more rounds...... and as been found waste most of them .
The SLR design requirements were for a single shot rifle with capabilities akin to the .303 but to use NATO rounds , with it to be a 20 round magazine to conserve ammo , as the treasury didn't like squaddies blatting off hundreds of un sighted rounds . Unlike the Belgian FN which had an auto change lever position as standard
, AKA set your to battle sights ..300m
So a less powerful automatic rifle was needed to follow the American idea of slinging as much lead at the enemy as possible , bringing the supposed advantage of being able to carry more rounds...... and as been found waste most of them .
The SLR design requirements were for a single shot rifle with capabilities akin to the .303 but to use NATO rounds , with it to be a 20 round magazine to conserve ammo , as the treasury didn't like squaddies blatting off hundreds of un sighted rounds . Unlike the Belgian FN which had an auto change lever position as standard
daleyd
Member
- Messages
- 10,424
- Location
- Wrexham, North Wales
I was still looking after a few (half a dozen) SLR up until the early 2000s - they were still used for line throwing attachments for Replensihment at Sea duties with a Balistite round. Think they got replaced with a modified SA80 not long after.
Served us well in the Falklands - the Argies had fully auto ones.
Craig-SM
Member
- Messages
- 2,357
- Location
- Heckmondwike
The NATO standardisation was on the premise of lighter weapons with increased rate of fire and that included being able to carry more ammunition. This also changed tactics as you weren't reliant on an LMG or GPMG to lay down the rounds so had fire teams that would could move faster whilst being more manoeuvrable too compared to the older section methods
Onoff
In the land of the unfinished project I am King!
- Messages
- 13,274
- Location
- Sevenoaks, UK
Back in the late 40s / early 50s we had the EM1 Thorpe rifle then the EM2 Jansen rifle, the later often call "the best battle rifle that never was". Two bullpup designs that superficially resembled the SA80 though thankfully the internals were a bit different.
The Yanks got involved and pushed for adoption of the 7.62mm NATO round that a couple of their designs used. Lots of trials where the EM2 pi$$ed all over the US and Belgian FN competition. The Yanks slagged it off for being "too powerful" for one. US pressure won...sound familiar?
The SA80 let's face evolved into something quite good after H&K got hold of it and ironed the defects out.
The Yanks got involved and pushed for adoption of the 7.62mm NATO round that a couple of their designs used. Lots of trials where the EM2 pi$$ed all over the US and Belgian FN competition. The Yanks slagged it off for being "too powerful" for one. US pressure won...sound familiar?
The SA80 let's face evolved into something quite good after H&K got hold of it and ironed the defects out.
Tinbasherdan
Bodger in chief
- Messages
- 7,594
- Location
- Bolton, England
Like the PIAT, it’s only fair if you have a 40% chance of dislocating your shoulder whilst firing
