This is it.

[Paratrooper 0]

I know the topic has been discussed but there is something new. The SA 80 is going to go through tests against other weapons in the desert.

BBC

It is expected to be retained as the A2 version is "A capable weapon". What do you all think will be the SA80's fate? And what if it is replaced?

[Cloney 0]

Go with the M-16... Its cheap, readily available and reliable. Plus we probably have thousands upon thousands of them lying around. Ammo would be cheap and plentiful because it uses the same ammo as the SA-80 and you have interchangable weapons parts with one of your allies.

I say go with something thats proven ... the M16A2

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Cloney @ Sep. 17 2002,02:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Go with the M-16... Its cheap, readily available and reliable. Plus we probably have thousands upon thousands of them lying around. Ammo would be cheap and plentiful because it uses the same ammo as the SA-80 and you have interchangable weapons parts with one of your allies.

I say go with something thats proven ... the M16A2<span id='postcolor'>

I would agree with you, but I think a few things need to be considered; A British owned company (like H&K) would be more appropriate and support jobs. Also when the SA80 is replaced it will have to last at least 20 years, it needs to be as up-to-date as possible while using proven technology. Or so I see it.

[Cloney 0]

Yes but the M16s would be dirt cheap. You do have a point though, Unemployment is rediculously high in UK...

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Cloney @ Sep. 17 2002,03:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes but the M16s would be dirt cheap. You do have a point though, Unemployment is rediculously high in UK...<span id='postcolor'>

No it is one of the lowest in the west.

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 16 2002,17:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Cloney @ Sep. 17 2002,02:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Go with the M-16... Its cheap, readily available and reliable. Plus we probably have thousands upon thousands of them lying around. Ammo would be cheap and plentiful because it uses the same ammo as the SA-80 and you have interchangable weapons parts with one of your allies.

I say go with something thats proven ... the M16A2<span id='postcolor'>

I would agree with you, but I think a few things need to be considered; A British owned company (like H&K) would be more appropriate and support jobs. Also when the SA80 is replaced it will have to last at least 20 years, it needs to be as up-to-date as possible while using proven technology. Or so I see it.<span id='postcolor'>

Chances are that by the time a contract is awarded, it won't be British-owned anymore. Negotiations are underway to sell H&K to a group of German investors, and the deal is nearly done.

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ Sep. 17 2002,03:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 16 2002,17:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Cloney @ Sep. 17 2002,02:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Go with the M-16... Its cheap, readily available and reliable. Plus we probably have thousands upon thousands of them lying around. Ammo would be cheap and plentiful because it uses the same ammo as the SA-80 and you have interchangable weapons parts with one of your allies.

I say go with something thats proven ... the M16A2<span id='postcolor'>

I would agree with you, but I think a few things need to be considered; A British owned company (like H&K) would be more appropriate and support jobs. Also when the SA80 is replaced it will have to last at least 20 years, it needs to be as up-to-date as possible while using proven technology. Or so I see it.<span id='postcolor'>

Chances are that by the time a contract is awarded, it won't be British-owned anymore. Negotiations are underway to sell H&K to a group of German investors, and the deal is nearly done.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't expect the SA80 to be replaced. The A2 hasn't had any major flaws and should be worked to perfection.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

I personaly would stay away from the M-16, but thats just my personal prefrence. If the SA-80A2 does fix the problems with jamming and the magazines falling out, then stick with it becuase the SA-80 is known world over as one of the best guns around despite it's flaws. If you want real cheap weapons athat are really reliable, get a Kalishnakov! Sure, there would be people who would complain about using a weapon made in the east, but who cares?

Grt something like the AK-74M or the AK-103/107 and your all set to battle in any bloody weather condition you want! They dont have the accuracy of Western weapons, but they have reliability and toughness that far surpasses the M-16A2.

[ralphwiggum 6]

as long as soldiers keep their weapons as they are supposed to, then they should get the best one. i hope the test is as rigorous as the real combat. dirts and crawling and etc.

but then again, who has time to worry about cleaning your rifle when you are in middle of operation?

[Assault (CAN) 1]

Didn't anyone see that Janes article posted here a little while ago? I remember it saying that the SA80A2 is still a bad weapon.

G36 all the way.

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Sep. 16 2002,20:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Didn't anyone see that Janes article posted here a little while ago? I remember it saying that the SA80A2 is still a bad weapon.

G36 all the way.<span id='postcolor'>

Here is a quote from HKPro:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">9.13.2002: The apparent rumors of the SA80A2 being still unsatisfactory are untrue. Previously reported by Jane's and the London Telegraph, links to these articles removed.<span id='postcolor'>

No further information is being provided, and even though Jane's is highly respected and very reliable, the story appears to have been false.

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ Sep. 17 2002,05:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Sep. 16 2002,20:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Didn't anyone see that Janes article posted here a little while ago? I remember it saying that the SA80A2 is still a bad weapon.

G36 all the way.<span id='postcolor'>

Here is a quote from HKPro:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">9.13.2002:  The apparent rumors of the SA80A2  being still unsatisfactory are untrue. Previously reported by Jane's and the London Telegraph, links to these articles removed.<span id='postcolor'>

No further information is being provided, and even though Jane's is highly respected and very reliable, the story appears to have been false.<span id='postcolor'>

I did see the SA80 post Can, but this is new. Yes I was also interested to read that the SA80 A2 is still ok. I don't trust the Telegraph on military matters as they just don't know anything about it. I think there were 3 jams in Afganistan which could have happened to any gun and in a number of ways. I think the SA80 is worth working at. After all if it is still faulty then they can bloody well go back to HK to whom we paid Å92 million!

[ran 0]

if they still go with the sa80 , at least they have to change the LSW .........a real cheap ass support weapon ...... it sucks ... hard time

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Sep. 17 2002,18:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">if they still go with the sa80 , at least they have to change the LSW .........a real cheap ass support weapon ...... it sucks ... hard time<span id='postcolor'>

Most front line troops are using the Minimi now. But hopefully the LSW will be brought up to scratch too. It is very accurate after all.

[madmike 0]

I read in last months Soldier magazine that the British Army is currently testing a SMG that will be in service by 2003/4, weather this is a Minimi or a brand new weapon I dont know but it is going to be used as a closer range weapon to support the LSW role

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 17 2002,19:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Sep. 17 2002,18:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">if they still go with the sa80 , at least they have to change the LSW .........a real cheap ass support weapon ...... it sucks ... hard time<span id='postcolor'>

Most front line troops are using the Minimi now. But hopefully the LSW will be brought up to scratch too. It is very accurate after all.<span id='postcolor'>

it's accurate because of its heavy barrel

i don't consider the lsw as support weapon , it's just a bulkier assault rifle to me , the only three more things it has compared to a basic sa80 , new carrying handle , heavy barrel and bipod

it still has the same ammunition , trigger group , firing mechanism ,same sights .......

they made it only as an excuse to justify more weight to carry around for the machine gunner and to make them look like heavy (ok not so heavy , but support) weapon operators

the lsw is not the first weapon in this case , the south american made an heavier version of the FAL and called it a "support weapon"

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (madmike @ Sep. 17 2002,10:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I read in last months Soldier magazine that the British Army is currently testing a SMG that will be in service by 2003/4, weather this is a Minimi or a brand new weapon I dont know but it is going to be used as a closer range weapon to support the LSW role<span id='postcolor'>

Might be the new H&K MG43...

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ Sep. 17 2002,19:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (madmike @ Sep. 17 2002,10:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I read in last months Soldier magazine that the British Army is currently testing a SMG that will be in service by 2003/4, weather this is a Minimi or a brand new weapon I dont know but it is going to be used as a closer range weapon to support the LSW role<span id='postcolor'>

Might be the new H&K MG43...<span id='postcolor'>

mg43 = licensed built minimi by hk

-edit-

if it isn't then they look really similar

[joltan 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Tests are believed to have shown that, among troops using cleaning methods associated with the old version of the rifle, reliability was just 17%.

However, among those following a new maintenance regime, the figure was 85%." BBC news<span id='postcolor'>

Well, 85% of what? Number of shots fired? I don't know, but even 85% is a (too) low figure if it concerns something you gotta trust your life on... That's still a failure rate of 15 out of 100!

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (joltan @ Sep. 17 2002,20:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Tests are believed to have shown that, among troops using cleaning methods associated with the old version of the rifle, reliability was just 17%.

However, among those following a new maintenance regime, the figure was 85%." BBC news<span id='postcolor'>

Well, 85% of what? Number of shots fired? I don't know, but even 85% is a (too) low figure if it concerns something you gotta trust your life on... That's still a failure rate of 15 out of 100!<span id='postcolor'>

it's not the number of round fired but the availability of the rifle i think ....

[Paratrooper 0]

5--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (joltan @ Sep. 17 2002,205)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Tests are believed to have shown that, among troops using cleaning methods associated with the old version of the rifle, reliability was just 17%.

However, among those following a new maintenance regime, the figure was 85%." BBC news<span id='postcolor'>

Well, 85% of what? Number of shots fired? I don't know, but even 85% is a (too) low figure if it concerns something you gotta trust your life on... That's still a failure rate of 15 out of 100!<span id='postcolor'>

Those figures don't make sense, I would ignore them.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

I shall quote you a post from a guy that is a weapons expert of some sort in the British Army

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">oooooh what an awful lot of wpns experts we have in here today

M16 developed to what it is today after going through at least 10 different phased modifications

M16 drag it through mud, rain and snow and also desert sand and it will fire like any other rifle, the only true rifle that tends to operate well under all conditions like that is the AK47, simply because its a pressed construction and has much more lenient tolerances in design, nothing more nothing less

Accuracy? an M16 wont touch the Rifle 5.56 (its not an SA80)

and an AK47 is nowhere near, in fact the only weapon close enough to touch our rifle in terms of accuracy up to 600 metres is the 36.

The Rifle itself initially was designed by Target shooters, which probably explains why the rifle got such a bad press from the soldiers initially it simply had too many little plastic bits that got broken off under rigorous training

The faults themselves have never been serious ones to the point that a soldier would be in serious danger, no more than any other rifle stoppage, the key in fact is that the soldiers who use them are drilled more in how to keep a rifle firing than anything else

Weapon cleaning has been a massive issue, dont be misled by people telling you that the Marines have been used as a scapegoat, i can tell you now that i could walk into my armoury and pull out of 40 rifles at least 10 that need a good clean but the soldier cant be bothered or cant clean it properly

The recent A2 version also fired 500,000 rounds in all climates and suffered less than 150 stoppages in total, this was in 50 degree heat in the desert too, now can anyone show me where the press are reporting this? they havent but i have read the weapons test document labelling the outcome of the trials, why because i run an armoury and need to know what the current status of the wepaons and mods are.

Steer clear of the Media, they dont fire the damn things, they do however blow everything out of proportion when the government spend large amounts of money, if the rifle didnt work or wasnt thought worthy of keeping then we wouldnt be using it.

Stoppages to date for me? none other than a few dodgy rounds

Oh and did i mention that 18 months ago a whole batch of ammunition was withdrawn from service? it wasnt mentioned in the press but it was all destroyed because it was due to the incorrect grain of powder in the casing failing to give enough pressure to operate the working parts and thus eject the empty.

Lots of hype and not enough fact unfortunately, i havent come across any of my guys, or guys i have worked with who have moaned about the rifle, and lastly who are the top rifle shots in the Military world? The British Army and all using the L85A1 too

I could droan on for hours about why each modification was needed, most were down to the rifle being a bit flimsy, a lot of the ones that were done within that budget were also for other reasons related to ease of use in Chemical kit etc and not down to weapons functionality

ah well the wonders of the press, bout time they actually gave us some news to read instead of picking up half baked sotries and blowing the top on it, i mean just how many soldiers who have fired the modded weapon have been interviewed about it?

oh and the reason why it uses a 5.56mm round is because of it being a standard NATO size and also the casualty factor

a 7.62 round will put a hole straight through a man at 400 metres, a 5.56mm will be deflected off bones etc rather than passing straight through, 7.62 wounds tend to be fatal in most cases, 5.56mm incapacitates and gives more casualties for the medical services to deal with, thus putting extra pressure on the enemy logistic and medical resources

<span id='postcolor'>

If you wish to read the whole thread regarding the SA-80 discussion, the thread starts here, keep on reading it, it is well worth it!

[ran 0]

you can be withdrawn from the battlefield because of a 2nd degree burning caused by a hot ejected shell casing (talking to the left handed)

on the famas , you can change yourself the case ejection system in less than one minute

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Sep. 17 2002,10:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><Snip>

mg43 = licensed built minimi by hk<span id='postcolor'>

Nope, it's not the same weapon.

Also, as far as I know, H&K has never licensed any other company's designs for its own production, while they have licensed their designs to other companies and governments.

H&K has sold non-H&K products in some markets under their own name, but they did not produce those firearms. For example, I own a Benelli Super 90 M3 that was imported by H&K and stamped with the Heckler & Koch name on the barrel and receiver.

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ Sep. 17 2002,20:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Sep. 17 2002,10:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><Snip>

mg43 = licensed built minimi by hk<span id='postcolor'>

Nope, it's not the same weapon.

Also, as far as I know, H&K has never licensed any other company's designs for its own production, while they have licensed their designs to other companies and governments.

H&K has sold non-H&K products in some markets under their own name, but they did not produce those firearms. For example, I own a Benelli Super 90 M3 that was imported by H&K and stamped with the Heckler & Koch name on the barrel and receiver.<span id='postcolor'>

i've edited my post before you posted yours