Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Steyr Versus SA 80

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Victor
    replied
    No, I just like rooting for the underdogs...
    Says the guy who like to drive around in an Abrams

    Leave a comment:


  • California Tanker
    replied
    No, I just like rooting for the underdogs...

    Besides, the problem is that everyone here is condemning the L85A2 on the basis of the problems of the L85A1. I am just pointing this out.

    You'll note that never have I said it's better than the AUG.

    NTM

    Leave a comment:


  • yooklid
    replied
    CT you've become a zealot about that thing....

    Leave a comment:


  • California Tanker
    replied
    According to one of the Brits on Tank-Net, the lads at Hereford are reconsidering the L-85 in light of recent performance.

    NTM

    Leave a comment:


  • rod and serpent
    replied
    Come to think about has anybody ever seen any photos of the British special forces using or carrying the SA80. Nope I did not think so.

    Leave a comment:


  • Docman
    replied
    Originally posted by California Tanker

    The LSW is not being replaced by Minimi. Rather the Minimi is being brought in as a second team weapon: It seems that the British had a problem with the LSW being too accurate for the suppression role: With its abilities and sights, teams were using it more as a sniper rifle!
    The LSW is being replaced as the Fire Support weapon in the squad by the Minimi. It was discussed in another thread. The LSW is being retained within the squad as an accurate backup to the Minimi. While the Minimi lays down fire on the enemy, the LSW pins down the enemy by accurate suppressive fire- accuracy with firepower. Have to check my facts but I believe the new squad layout consistes of 2 Minimi, 2 LSW, 2 SA-80A2 w/ Gren Launcher and 2 SA-80A2. Have to check to be sure.

    Leave a comment:


  • rod and serpent
    replied
    The OTC is part of the TA so the weapons they have are invariable old stock they were probably found at the back of an armoury some where. The soldiers who would get the A2 would be front line troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think the squaddies out in Bosnia are still using the A1 version.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sluggie
    replied
    Zeroing the standard optical sight on the styer is a simple matter performed in seconds by the trained soldier having fired a 4-8 inch group of five rounds from 100m. Once the adjustment has been calculated only two screws must be turned using a special key.

    The sight is zeroed for 300m allowing a difference of 12cm for the trajectory of the round. It is zeroed for 300m as the sight is designed so that the average 5' 10'' man will fit perfectly into the kill zone of the reticle(circle at the centre of the crosshairs) at 300m.

    Leave a comment:


  • California Tanker
    replied
    Zeroing many optic sights is a bit of a nuisance. For example, I attached my ACOG to my M-4 last week. Here's the process:

    1) Zero laser boresight system. Involves taking readings at 180 degree rotations, and cancelling out the discrepancies.

    2) Set up 25m target for ACOG sighting. Because the target is designed to be used with live rounds, not a laser, we do some maths to discover the new point of aim. (About a half centimeter up).

    3) Unscrew the adjustment covers, both elevation and windage.

    4) With one man peering through the scope, the laser held on target by a second, a third man follows the first's instructions to adjust the aiming reticle (With a screwdriver) until the crosshair moves on top of the appropriate mark on the target.

    5) Screw back on the covers for the adjustment screws.

    My Hakko has a similar process, whereby one size hex-key is used to loosen up a screw used by another sized hex-key.

    With M68 CCOs, there's an extra step. Once the dot is zeroed, you then adjust the back-up iron sights to the dot, co-witness.

    So far, three for three seem to match the SUSAT complaint. What did he expect?

    NTM

    Leave a comment:


  • andy
    replied
    California Tanker im not so sure about the merits of the SA-80 or whether they have fixed all of its problems. Yes there are a 1 or maybe 2 good components but I still belive its a flawed weapon and poor design.

    I was talking to a friend who was in the OTC (officer training corps in Northern Ireland) about the weapon about a year and a half ago. They were issued with brand new SA-80's in their boxes with all the ties that come with them. I think it was after the major modificiations.

    Any way, they still said that they had numerous problems with it, and spent most of the day trying to fix them. For example, zeroing the sight is a tedious task. There is 2 screws on each side which have to be loosened and then the others tightened and then the screws which were loosened first tightened again(sorry about all this i hope u follow). He was saying that it was a real pain in the ass, zeroing the sight.

    The other thing he was saying that the weapon kept jaming and there was a great deal of cleaning to be done.

    There were other bits and bobs that i cant remember but the jist of the conversation was that it wasnt though highly of.

    This is only 1 persons experience and they could have well sorted it all out by now. However history will probably record the weapon as a failure, largely because of a poor (stupid?) design. It is after all 20 years old and they are still modifying it just to get it on a level with other weapons. The BA have served in numerous conflicts in its history and it has let them down.

    Various components may have their merits but as a wepons platform its crap. If a solider needs a better sight, he can simply attached one on.

    Leave a comment:


  • California Tanker
    replied
    Being a former British NCO implies that he has had no operational experience with the A2 either... Unless he retired in the last.. oh.. 8 months or so.

    A lot of people who used to use an old weapon find a certain affinity with it over the new-fangled things which appear later. For example, SLR over SA-80. M-14 over M-16. Colt .45 over Beretta/SIG 9mm. And so on, simply because the old one worked, and they were happy with it: Anything different was automatically considered inferior. Believe it or not, I'm happier going into battle with the M-16 than the FAL, though I believe the FAL to be an outstanding rifle of greater reliability and punch.

    Frankly, from what I'm reading, I'd rather an L-85A2 than the M-4 I'm going with.

    NTM

    Leave a comment:


  • hptmurphy
    replied
    having spoken with aformer BA NCO on the subject he often felt that occasionally they would have been better off with bows and arrrows.

    having fired the weapon does not make any body an expert. You have to have used it on exercise and operationally and have expierince of comparitive weapons to be able to declare to all and sundry that you are an expert.

    In fairness to alot of younger BA guys they don't have anything to compare it with as they would never have used the likes of the SLR.

    It is a true sign of professionalism when they make the best of what they have got....and continue to get the job done regardless of poor equipment.This is very true of our own DF for many years.

    Leave a comment:


  • FMolloy
    replied
    I have recently seen an article stating that FN is working on a 7.62 minimi.
    Correct, here it is:



    And here is the spiel:

    http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg38-e.htm

    Leave a comment:


  • California Tanker
    replied
    Or maybe NATO removed the SA-80 because the production line had closed. I was very surprised to note that they re-opened it for the carbine version. (Which itself should say something: They're opening the thing for an entirely new mission which can be met by other weapons currently available. For example, US tankers have expressed a liking for the MP-5.. if the MOD has gone to that trouble or expense, they may have done something well.)

    The official British AAR from the Iraqi war only ever mentions the A2 in a positive context. It states that the few problems with the A2 found in Afghanistan were ultimately removed by a correct cleaning regimen. (The original used to be about 15 pages long, before they recently 'soldierised' it)

    The LSW is not being replaced by Minimi. Rather the Minimi is being brought in as a second team weapon: It seems that the British had a problem with the LSW being too accurate for the suppression role: With its abilities and sights, teams were using it more as a sniper rifle!

    I remain unmoved by comments such as 'Rumour has it it sucks'. Many of these rumours can exist long after the initial problems they faced in earlier versions have been long gone. Examples were the M-16 and the Shilleleagh.

    I really would only take note of people who have used the thing in the last eight months (in the desert!) and see what they have to say, particularly if they're new recruits and not so affected by the stigma of the earlier version.

    The AUG seems to be a nice enough weapon. Bear in mind, I've only ever fired one bullpup, the M-17, and the general balance seems about the same. The forward hand grip I need to get used to as well. The sight seems basic, but looks like it'll do the job. I have not as much as handled an L-85, so I am not qualified to comment on its merits.

    NTM

    Leave a comment:


  • Come-quickly
    replied
    Firing the rifle does seem to happen on regimental visits, which take place at least once, the whole process takes six months to a year to get from initial interview, which is just for career guidance purposes anyway and the actual Regular Commissions or Admiralty boards (to Sandhurst and Lympstone respectively [god bring on thursday so I can afford to rejoin the gym]); Therefore unlike our own dear Defence forces they keep you busy with mock interviews and physicals as well as regimental visits so you don't forget what you've started..

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X