UKarmourer
Member
Yeah that would have beena cp team from the royal military police.
i'm trying like mad to get assigned as an armourer for them!
i'm trying like mad to get assigned as an armourer for them!
British SA80
- Thread starter 52grain
- Start date
- Status
Al Thompson
Moderator Emeritus
52grain, it's my understanding that the British and Australian SAS units use ARs on occasion. The Aussies where I was had AUGs.
HorseSoldier
Member
Apparently the problem with the L85 was largely one of garbage-in/garbage-out, in this specific case the original version of the weapon completely meets the specifications required for it . . . which were written by some committee who apparently thought that infantry in a WW3 scenario in Germany would mostly sit around doing any number of things that were not shooting their rifles. I don't recall the specifics on the performance requirements, but they were bizarrely low, and allowed a lot of room for corners to be cut and still meet the operational requirements.
When the Brits contracted with HK to do the A2 upgrades, they had a much more extensive and rigorous requirements list. The basic features of the L85 design were easily upgraded to the more stringent requirements -- problem back in the day was just that MOD initially, in essence, ordered a cheap rifle, and got what they requested.
(Or so I'm told by a former British Army officer I worked with a bit along the way.)
Maverick223
Member
HorseSoldier, that was my take on it as well...the operating mechanism is well proven; poor quality materials and workmanship were the only places to get it wrong (which is apparently the route they took).
InkEd
Member
I think it is a really good LOOKING gun. Very sleek and attractive.
I haven't gotten to shoot one though. As others have commented I've heard the horror stories about the first ones. The H&K rework seems to have helped alot.
If I was looking to buy a bullpup the AUG is probably the way to go. One thing that design has going for it that I haven't seen offered in any other is the ability to swap the bolt and make it eject on the left side. Which is nice since having hot brass in your face isn't too fun. (Some of the FN designs have solved the lefty issue too.)
While the AUG seems to perform better than the SA series of bullpups, at least they have tested better than the French FAMAS. Of course, in all fairness to the French the only test they care about is the "drop test." (j/k)
I haven't gotten to shoot one though. As others have commented I've heard the horror stories about the first ones. The H&K rework seems to have helped alot.
If I was looking to buy a bullpup the AUG is probably the way to go. One thing that design has going for it that I haven't seen offered in any other is the ability to swap the bolt and make it eject on the left side. Which is nice since having hot brass in your face isn't too fun. (Some of the FN designs have solved the lefty issue too.)
While the AUG seems to perform better than the SA series of bullpups, at least they have tested better than the French FAMAS. Of course, in all fairness to the French the only test they care about is the "drop test." (j/k)
PercyShelley
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,075
I've only read accounts of the rifle, not fired it personally, but I had a slightly different take:
The first prototype rifles were banged out in the mid '70s, but the first was only issued in the mid '80s. Development was a substantially slower process than with its stablemates the AUG and FAMAS. During that time there were problems getting the prototypes to work, and the response from the government was a Dilbert-esque, never-ending series of team reorganizations and other disruptive, unhelpful changes. Anyone who knew what they were doing soon left and any sort of continuity in the project was severed.
Let me also say that, having owned an original Stirling AR-180, I don't think it's the bestest ever basis for development. I find it particularly odd that a lot of the new modular uberrifles are based on the AR-18, because the original AR-18 design is very not-modular.
So, the program is in development hell, and they're still having problems. Solution? Downrate the program requirements! If you can't make progress by solving the problem, you can avoid failure by redefining success.
Steve Raw's book The Last Enfield makes a fairly good case that test results were finagled and project requirements were adjusted down so the design could pass them.
HorseSoldier
Member
That does make sense. I'd never underestimate the ability of a government, on the far side of a big pile of money thrown down a hole, to just change the rules so they can declare victory rather than do any hard work to fix the problem.
Last edited:
Maverick223
Member
I dissent, the unusually compact and robust operating mechanism make it ideal for use in such designs, particularly bullpup configurations.
UKarmourer
Member
Just to clarify, the last few modifications Post HK revamp have been:
New handguard, then another new one, now onto RIS from daniel defense of the USA.
Vortex flash hider from Surefire (USA)
PMAG (yep you guessed it USA)
ACOG (again USA)
soon to be Elcan (Canadian?)
So the brits designed it, built it and it was a bit rubbish.
the Krauts cam ein and re-engineered lots of components and made it good
You lot got involved and we get lots of goodies to bring it into the 21st century
as an aside, I did an inspection of a pl who are paasing out of basic this week.
HIDEOUS!! these are early A2 models that have been well and truly battered.
Trigger mech inserts cracked, phospahting gone, recoil rods loose as heck, a mess.
it has taken 4 of us 3 days to inspect and repair 2 troops of weapons, the first troop were very good.
They are a good weapon, when looked after, its not an AK, the parts are in very close proximity to each other in the trigger mech, if something starts to bind then it causes all manner of problems.
I'll be doing some images for an equipment care briefing soon, if theres interest I'll post some up
New handguard, then another new one, now onto RIS from daniel defense of the USA.
Vortex flash hider from Surefire (USA)
PMAG (yep you guessed it USA)
ACOG (again USA)
soon to be Elcan (Canadian?)
So the brits designed it, built it and it was a bit rubbish.
the Krauts cam ein and re-engineered lots of components and made it good
You lot got involved and we get lots of goodies to bring it into the 21st century
as an aside, I did an inspection of a pl who are paasing out of basic this week.
HIDEOUS!! these are early A2 models that have been well and truly battered.
Trigger mech inserts cracked, phospahting gone, recoil rods loose as heck, a mess.
it has taken 4 of us 3 days to inspect and repair 2 troops of weapons, the first troop were very good.
They are a good weapon, when looked after, its not an AK, the parts are in very close proximity to each other in the trigger mech, if something starts to bind then it causes all manner of problems.
I'll be doing some images for an equipment care briefing soon, if theres interest I'll post some up
Maverick223
Member
UKarmourer, pitchurs are always good!
Z-Michigan said:
The IRA had far greater success with bombs than they ever had with firearms. If you want irony, the IRA were far more adept at killing civilians than they ever were at killing soldiers or police.
UKarmourer, I'd like to see photos too.
HorseSoldier
Member
Which Elcan are they going to? If it's the Canadian issue ones, my apologies, but the new Specter DRs that toggle back and forth from x1 to x4 seem promising.
ELCANs are made by Raytheon, also an American defense contractor.
HorseSoldier: From playing with 1-4x scopes, they are really handy, but they are also surprisingly heavy, I found. That said, I do think they are the wave of the future as far as combat optics go.
HorseSoldier: From playing with 1-4x scopes, they are really handy, but they are also surprisingly heavy, I found. That said, I do think they are the wave of the future as far as combat optics go.
HorseSoldier
Member
For something like a Short Dot or similar, yes.
Elcan's offering in the field isn't fully adjustable, it just switches between x1 power and x4 power with the throw of a selector lever. It's very compact compared to things like the S&B Short Dot (or the Horus Talon I used to run on my AR and, for a bit, on my issue rifle), but they were just getting issued as part of the SOPMOD 2 kit when I was getting off active duty, so my experience with them is limited to handling them a bit, haven't put it through its paces to see if some of the issues with earlier Elcan scopes is still a problem, etc.
Not to highjack the thread, but regarding the Elcan...
I've been running the Specter DR 1-4X for the last twelve months of deployment. With acessories (bikini cover, killflash, and top mounted Doctor J-Point), that package goes to nearly two pounds of additional weight on my M4A1 and is a bit heavier than the current SOPMOD issue ACOG (16 oz) or the SA80's SUSAT (~15 oz). I found the J-Point to be a redundancy, as my eye was naturally drawn to the cavernous rear lens of the Elcan even when firing at short range. I used the Elcan's internal red-dot exclusively vice the illuminated reticle cross hair option. It's an amazing piece of glass that provides great 4X clarity at the simple gloved flip of a lever. It offers you the option to go with multiple illuminated NVG compatible dot or crosshair settings by clicking a rather stiff illum/brightness knob to however many intensity clicks you need. Not as light as the old standby M68, but it gives you the best features of both the ACOG and the M68 (with a weight penalty). Price-wise, not for the faint of heart (if you aren't issued a free one). All in all, a lot of neat features and performance but big and heavy in comparison to other sights.
A minor bitch about the Elcan Specter (besides its weight) is its difficult-to-use battery compartment. The damn near unbreakable all-metal (brass?) threaded cap and compartment (a good feature) is really difficult to thread closed, requiring the user to apply pressure against the compartment battery spring, line up the microscopic threads just so, and then really torque the cap down to the point that you get good electric contact. On more than one occasion, I found that the cap had backed off ever so slightly, killing power to the selected dot or reticle. Not a biggie in summertime Iraq...just an annoyance. However, it would be a huge pain in the ass to try the same battery change with gloved hands, under wet/cold/freezing conditions, or in the dark.
My SA80/SUSAT comparison is based primarily on using the that rifle and optic while conducting exchange training with UK SAS back in '91. Our SAS hosts loathed the rifle, but really liked the tritium optic, telling us that it allowed shooters with hamburger marksmanship abilities to perform at a steak level. On the other hand, they had just carried the weapon back from the recently concluded 100 Hour War and had a lot of complaints concerning reliability and parts breakage. Almost to a man, they preferred either their old L1A1 FALs or UK procured "Armalites". Classic examples of either "Old Reliable" or "The Grass Is Greener" syndromes. Sound familiar?
We Colonials loved the weapon 'cause it was new and looked Battle-Star Galactica cool, but quickly came to really appreciate the 4X German Post optic, which allowed everyone to become boringly accurate at distance, day or night. We did a lot of day/night field firing and it was an easy weapon/optic combo with which to make hits against fleeting or moving range targets.
Although the SA80 rifle actually sucked at that time, the optic was something new to us as we had not yet fielded ACOGs or Aimpoints for general issue across all Army SF units. Most of us found it easy to simply put the chisel point of the tritium obelisk post on a target and put the bullet where desired. At distance, you had to utilize hold over with the base of the post obscuring targets, but it was still pretty easy to do.
The fixed 4X SUSAT was not particularily good for close-range MOUT [or FIBUA (Fighting In Built Up Areas) as our British bretheren called it]. I found standard iron sights on our M16s to be much faster at close range than the top-mounted SUSAT BUIS. Obviously, the SUSAT was not designed as a CQB sight. Rather, it was designed for the BAOR to engage targets across the Northern German Plains with an emphasis on giving rudimentary day/night DMR capability to every rifleman.
The SUSAT has always seemed to me to be a very rugged and accurate optic, representing the first generation of Advanced Combat Optics we all take for granted today.
During initial fielding the SA80 got cool points for its bullpup look, but was really a poor infantry rifle. Our 1980 era M16s would have benefited from being equipped with SUSAT rather than ACOG, as I have always felt that the ACOG reticle was too busy and difficult to quickly aquire in comparison to the simple hunting post of the SUSAT.
I mentioned weight when comparing several sights because with all the crap (quad rails, IR/Visible lasers, bipods, VFGs, tactical lights, optic mounts, BUIS, slings/adapters, and scope covers) hung on today's carbines, we are rapidly approaching WWII BAR carry weight for everyone.
I'd really like to try the 1-6X Specter...that significant optical gain would certainly justify the added optic weight.
I just want a sight that offers the light weight, ruggedness, and battery durability of the Aimpoint CompM4...the low profile of the Eotech...the flip-of-a-lever magnification of the Elcan...the tritium of the SUSAT & ACOG...and the ability to do thermal imagary. All for a price that would allow me to actually buy one for my personal AR.
On the other hand, you can keep the SA80.
I've been running the Specter DR 1-4X for the last twelve months of deployment. With acessories (bikini cover, killflash, and top mounted Doctor J-Point), that package goes to nearly two pounds of additional weight on my M4A1 and is a bit heavier than the current SOPMOD issue ACOG (16 oz) or the SA80's SUSAT (~15 oz). I found the J-Point to be a redundancy, as my eye was naturally drawn to the cavernous rear lens of the Elcan even when firing at short range. I used the Elcan's internal red-dot exclusively vice the illuminated reticle cross hair option. It's an amazing piece of glass that provides great 4X clarity at the simple gloved flip of a lever. It offers you the option to go with multiple illuminated NVG compatible dot or crosshair settings by clicking a rather stiff illum/brightness knob to however many intensity clicks you need. Not as light as the old standby M68, but it gives you the best features of both the ACOG and the M68 (with a weight penalty). Price-wise, not for the faint of heart (if you aren't issued a free one). All in all, a lot of neat features and performance but big and heavy in comparison to other sights.
A minor bitch about the Elcan Specter (besides its weight) is its difficult-to-use battery compartment. The damn near unbreakable all-metal (brass?) threaded cap and compartment (a good feature) is really difficult to thread closed, requiring the user to apply pressure against the compartment battery spring, line up the microscopic threads just so, and then really torque the cap down to the point that you get good electric contact. On more than one occasion, I found that the cap had backed off ever so slightly, killing power to the selected dot or reticle. Not a biggie in summertime Iraq...just an annoyance. However, it would be a huge pain in the ass to try the same battery change with gloved hands, under wet/cold/freezing conditions, or in the dark.
My SA80/SUSAT comparison is based primarily on using the that rifle and optic while conducting exchange training with UK SAS back in '91. Our SAS hosts loathed the rifle, but really liked the tritium optic, telling us that it allowed shooters with hamburger marksmanship abilities to perform at a steak level. On the other hand, they had just carried the weapon back from the recently concluded 100 Hour War and had a lot of complaints concerning reliability and parts breakage. Almost to a man, they preferred either their old L1A1 FALs or UK procured "Armalites". Classic examples of either "Old Reliable" or "The Grass Is Greener" syndromes. Sound familiar?
We Colonials loved the weapon 'cause it was new and looked Battle-Star Galactica cool, but quickly came to really appreciate the 4X German Post optic, which allowed everyone to become boringly accurate at distance, day or night. We did a lot of day/night field firing and it was an easy weapon/optic combo with which to make hits against fleeting or moving range targets.
Although the SA80 rifle actually sucked at that time, the optic was something new to us as we had not yet fielded ACOGs or Aimpoints for general issue across all Army SF units. Most of us found it easy to simply put the chisel point of the tritium obelisk post on a target and put the bullet where desired. At distance, you had to utilize hold over with the base of the post obscuring targets, but it was still pretty easy to do.
The fixed 4X SUSAT was not particularily good for close-range MOUT [or FIBUA (Fighting In Built Up Areas) as our British bretheren called it]. I found standard iron sights on our M16s to be much faster at close range than the top-mounted SUSAT BUIS. Obviously, the SUSAT was not designed as a CQB sight. Rather, it was designed for the BAOR to engage targets across the Northern German Plains with an emphasis on giving rudimentary day/night DMR capability to every rifleman.
The SUSAT has always seemed to me to be a very rugged and accurate optic, representing the first generation of Advanced Combat Optics we all take for granted today.
During initial fielding the SA80 got cool points for its bullpup look, but was really a poor infantry rifle. Our 1980 era M16s would have benefited from being equipped with SUSAT rather than ACOG, as I have always felt that the ACOG reticle was too busy and difficult to quickly aquire in comparison to the simple hunting post of the SUSAT.
I mentioned weight when comparing several sights because with all the crap (quad rails, IR/Visible lasers, bipods, VFGs, tactical lights, optic mounts, BUIS, slings/adapters, and scope covers) hung on today's carbines, we are rapidly approaching WWII BAR carry weight for everyone.
I'd really like to try the 1-6X Specter...that significant optical gain would certainly justify the added optic weight.
I just want a sight that offers the light weight, ruggedness, and battery durability of the Aimpoint CompM4...the low profile of the Eotech...the flip-of-a-lever magnification of the Elcan...the tritium of the SUSAT & ACOG...and the ability to do thermal imagary. All for a price that would allow me to actually buy one for my personal AR.
On the other hand, you can keep the SA80.
Last edited:
Grunt Medic TXARNG
Member
'Company' is a generous term for Prexis - it's a one man shop run by Mike Jestis. The PL85 has yet to ship, but there are 18 of us who ponied up the money for the kits - and are waiting as patiently as possible for Mike to get them out. He's using UKGI furniture and isn't trying to be more than externally faithful to the SA80 in design.Texas Rifleman said:
UKarmourer
Member
The SUSAT, Sight Unit Small Arms Trilux.
Built like a brick as mentioned by the previous poster.
I hate the iron sights on the the L85, (maybe because at 300m the foresight blade obscures a fig 11 target)
SUSAT, shoot all day and pretty much with a zeroed sight what you see is what you hit.
Downsides-
Average infanteer (all the way up the rank structure too) cant get the idea of adjustment.
'this sight is broken, wont hold a zero' (Infantry coy comdr)
'are your azimuth nuts tight and secured sir?' -me
''of course they are cpl ***' Offr
'then why is this wobbling side to side sir'-me
offr
me!
the way the sight is zeroed using the mounting nuts is pretty unfriendly tbh, also if not cared for (seeing a trend here?) then the range drum at the rear of the sight can gum up with rust/ grit, then when you try to adjust for range you actually start shifting the zero point.
the rails are made of soft cheese and warp pretty easily, the rail on the rifle itself is held on by 2 spot welds, let the water stay in there too long and snap, no sight rail!
Built like a brick as mentioned by the previous poster.
I hate the iron sights on the the L85, (maybe because at 300m the foresight blade obscures a fig 11 target)
SUSAT, shoot all day and pretty much with a zeroed sight what you see is what you hit.
Downsides-
Average infanteer (all the way up the rank structure too) cant get the idea of adjustment.
'this sight is broken, wont hold a zero' (Infantry coy comdr)
'are your azimuth nuts tight and secured sir?' -me
''of course they are cpl ***' Offr
'then why is this wobbling side to side sir'-me
offr me!the way the sight is zeroed using the mounting nuts is pretty unfriendly tbh, also if not cared for (seeing a trend here?) then the range drum at the rear of the sight can gum up with rust/ grit, then when you try to adjust for range you actually start shifting the zero point.
the rails are made of soft cheese and warp pretty easily, the rail on the rifle itself is held on by 2 spot welds, let the water stay in there too long and snap, no sight rail!
- Status
