Time up for the SA80 rifle

[Ross365]

It's hard to believe the SA80 is still in service... but not for much longer... https://www.forces.net/technology/w...-gen-british-army-and-royal-marines-new-rifle

I've never had anything to do with the SA80, but I did work for Royal Ordnance at the time it was being introduced, kicked off at the Enfield gun factory (now a housing estate?) and then transferred to the RO factory at Nottingham (now a shopping area). That being so, it's hardly a surprise that the new gun is being bought from the US.

 

[fractured]

That looks a much better system than the SA80. I thought the SA80 looked like a great system when it was introduced (saw it first in 1982 at a welding exhibition of all places ). However, with more experience you realise how unsuitable the bullpup design is, so it will be good for our forces to have a more usable system.

I did think the military were looking to up the calibre though? I thought they were looking for a 6.? calibre for its greater accuracy but also to cope with an opponents use of body armour.

Let's hope it serves our forces well. I hate to think of them having to work with s**t kit in some of the situations they end up in.

 

[angellonewolf]

looks very much like m16 ? light weight stock and differant barrel ?

 

[bourbon]

scandalous that we can't even make arms for our own forces anymore. Armstrong must be turning in his grave

 

[Migmac]

looks very much like m16 ? light weight stock and differant barrel ?

My first thoughts too. Barrels only 13.5 inches long, to me that’s quite short for a rifle barrel. I wonder what powder they use in their ammunition?

 

[Migmac]

scandalous that we can't even make arms for our own forces anymore. Armstrong must be turning in his grave

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

 

[Robotstar5]

That looks a much better system than the SA80. I thought the SA80 looked like a great system when it was introduced (saw it first in 1982 at a welding exhibition of all places ).

When I worked for ABB I went into a factory better known for telecoms stuff (may have been north wales) and they were welding the 2 halves of the main body together for the SA80.

 

[rcx132]

That looks a much better system than the SA80. I thought the SA80 looked like a great system when it was introduced (saw it first in 1982 at a welding exhibition of all places ). However, with more experience you realise how unsuitable the bullpup design is, so it will be good for our forces to have a more usable system.

I did think the military were looking to up the calibre though? I thought they were looking for a 6.? calibre for its greater accuracy but also to cope with an opponents use of body armour.

Let's hope it serves our forces well. I hate to think of them having to work with s**t kit in some of the situations they end up in.

Was the proposed higher calibre to do with the shorter barrel on modern rifles?

I think most new designs from the last two decades are bullpup. I assumed the US objected to bullpups purely because the AR-15 has become something of a cult or national symbol.

 

[Seadog]

It's hard to believe the SA80 is still in service... but not for much longer... https://www.forces.net/technology/w...-gen-british-army-and-royal-marines-new-rifle

I've never had anything to do with the SA80, but I did work for Royal Ordnance at the time it was being introduced, kicked off at the Enfield gun factory (now a housing estate?) and then transferred to the RO factory at Nottingham (now a shopping area). That being so, it's hardly a surprise that the new gun is being bought from the US.

When were you at Enfield. I had a mate who worked there during the 70s right up to the time that it was closed.

 

[Agrismith]

I read that as only being certain more elite elements to be using it? And I was under the impression that the elite units haven't used the SA80 for a long time if atall??

 

[Wedg1e]

It's hard to believe the SA80 is still in service... but not for much longer... https://www.forces.net/technology/w...-gen-british-army-and-royal-marines-new-rifle

I've never had anything to do with the SA80, but I did work for Royal Ordnance at the time it was being introduced, kicked off at the Enfield gun factory (now a housing estate?) and then transferred to the RO factory at Nottingham (now a shopping area). That being so, it's hardly a surprise that the new gun is being bought from the US.

I did a job at RO Notts many years back (literally weeks before it closed): they used to make the (24 foot long, I seem to recall) tank gun barrels and I had to repair the mag particle crack detection machine - 6000 Amp trailer mounted monster. It's still in service elsewhere...

 

[tom2207]

I dont think the SA80 will be missed . It wasnt popular at introduction , and its reputation went down hill rapidly as basically it didnt do what it said on the box reliably , a major upgrade program got it to work ok in the end though , I was about at the changeover period [ Falklands to Desert Storm] , and a lot of folk simply did not change over at all or at least not to the SA80.
This guy has a whole series on the SA80 , well worth a watch if your into the fresh smell of gun oil in the mornings.

 

[rcx132]

I dont think the SA80 will be missed . It wasnt popular at introduction , and its reputation went down hill rapidly as basically it didnt do what it said on the box reliably , a major upgrade program got it to work ok in the end though , I was about at the changeover period [ Falklands to Desert Storm] , and a lot of folk simply did not change over at all or at least not to the SA80.
This guy has a whole series on the SA80 , well worth a watch if your into the fresh smell of gun oil in the mornings.

Yup we insisted to build British and then had to pay the Germans to remanufacture all the SA80's to get them working

 

[tom2207]

Yup we insisted to build British and then had to pay the Germans to remanufacture all the SA80's to get them working

Sure the car industry went the same way. German and Japanese seem to be the quality standards ,, [mind you best we dont mention British Leyland ].

 

[fractured]

Was the proposed higher calibre to do with the shorter barrel on modern rifles?

I think most new designs from the last two decades are bullpup. I assumed the US objected to bullpups purely because the AR-15 has become something of a cult or national symbol.

I think the larger calliber has proven to be a stable and accurate round but I can't tell you more as haven't focused on that side of shooting. I have however heard that they are very flat shooting. Also their increased mass would have a better penetrating action.

I personally don't like the bullpup design for a few reasons. Mag changes are more awkward, you can't use the firearm from the weak shoulder and the moving parts are right by your ear. I am not sure where you would stand with the ballance either.

 

[premmington]

I can't understand why they did not just buy into an existing - proven design!

M4's or the SIG XM7 with the larger 6.8 x 51mm Fury round

When they went over to issuing Glock 17's from Brownings - I thought they were going for "off the shelf" solution.

Not like we got a huge Army is it?

 

[DanZac]

I can't understand why they did not just buy into an existing - proven design!

M4's or the SIG XM7 with the larger 6.8 x 51mm Fury round

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.

 

[daleyd]

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

 

[The_Yellow_Ardvark]

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.

 

[The_Yellow_Ardvark]

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