Author Topic: Enfield L85A1 (SA-80) (Read 919 times)

GtoRA2 · « **on:** March 25, 2003, 04:37:54 PM »

I have heard it sucks, can any one fill me in on why or provide links?

Dowding · « **Reply #1 on:** March 25, 2003, 04:42:51 PM »

They reportedly fixed the problems with a multi-million pound refit. But I see a lot of British troops with M16s at the moment.

The problems were various. IIRC, the placement of vents allows dirt, sand or dust to cause repeated jams. The magazine is placed in such a way that a soldier running with it close to his body can hit the magazine release catch. The LMG version was woefully unreliable too. In short, many British soldiers hated it and ot was atrociously bad in the last Gulf War.

The SAS don't use it, they use M16s. I think that says quite alot.

But like I said, things might have changed with the new version.

Makarov9 · « **Reply #2 on:** March 25, 2003, 04:49:20 PM »

I like the bullpup design of the Israeli TAVOR-21 .

Btw if you like any of the Rainbow Six series games and want virtually try out some of these weapons then I highly recomend picking up Ravenshield . Great graphics, playability and a blast online.

Dune · « **Reply #3 on:** March 25, 2003, 05:20:11 PM »

Used to own an AUG. Found it very balanced and accurate.

Replicant · « **Reply #4 on:** March 25, 2003, 05:28:28 PM »

The L85A1 is a pile of junk... however the L85A2 is somewhat better but only after a major refit by Hecklerr & Koch (British owned). It fires the standard NATO 5.56mm SS109 (if I remember correctly) round - the same as the M16A2.

The main problems were the cocking handle was unreliable, catching on clothing/webbing when in prone position. Also the rifle suffered rounds jamming, either directly in the breach or a magazine fault.

There are still a few 'reported' problems with the A2 but the MOD insist that after proper & more thorough cleaning it shouldn't be an issue. I've heard reports from the British Army saying it is 100% better and some friends have also said it is more reliable. Only time will tell and post-war analysis will prove whether the upgrade was worthwhile or not.

Having said that, it is still probably the most accurate standard issue infantry rifle in the world, but accuracy is negliable against reliability.

BTW Dowding, I haven't seen any Regular (British) Army soldiers using the M16 during the current crisis. I don't think they'd be allowed to even if they wanted. Only the British Special Forces may choose which ever weapon of their choice and is not just limited to the M16A2 or Carbine versions.

Some good links:-

http://www.britainincanada.org/Defence/newsa80.htm

http://www.britainincanada.org/Defence/sa80a2.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/657127.stm

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #5 on:** March 25, 2003, 05:38:48 PM »

Wow - when someone chooses an M16 in the desert over another rifle something's wrong.

Reschke · « **Reply #6 on:** March 25, 2003, 06:18:08 PM »

In the firefight they showed on television over the weekend they reported it was British Marines on the Al Faws peninsula and from what I saw the guys were using a mix of weapons. One in the foreground was using the L85?? (sorry don't know it well enough to say which model) and the rest looked like M4 carbines (shorter M16 version. While I also saw a couple of LMG's being used. It looked like the guy with the L85 was having a slower rate of fire than the others. But he could have just been taking his time instead of just sending rounds downrange to keep heads down.

I have used the AUG and the M4/Car-15 and really like the feel of both weapons. But then during training in ROTC (especially live fire) I enjoyed carrying the M60.

Yeah I know I am a sadist but WTH.

With a cyclic rate of 550 rpm I enjoyed firing that gun. I also remember having a friend of my family who was in Viet Nam saying that they never had the chance to change the barrels after 100 rounds as suggested by the maker and the gun performed nicely. I have never had a chance to fire a SAW but I hear it is just as nice to blast away with downrange.

Replicant · « **Reply #7 on:** March 26, 2003, 02:39:14 AM »

GScholz

Taken from the H&K homepage http://www.heckler-koch.de/html/english/company/03_history/03_00_index.html

"1991
HECKLER & KOCH became a part of the international engineering company British Aerospace / Royal Ordnance. "

Dowding · « **Reply #8 on:** March 26, 2003, 02:52:19 AM »

Nexx - I've definitely seen British troops with the M16 or M16 derived small arms. Either that or it was a bunch of Yanks with the wrong helmets, and in British BDUs.

I was very surprised.

funkedup · « **Reply #9 on:** March 26, 2003, 02:59:04 AM »

I think there are three major reasons you see UK troops with M16 and variants:

1. The original SA80 had problems.
2. The M16/M4 can be used with the M203. Royal Ordnance made a grenade launcher for the SA80 but apparently it was really clunky and unpopular.
3. The SAS uses the M16/M4. Everbody wants the neato SAS gear.

I think Nexx is right though, that it's not used by regular army units. If you see M16 it's Marine brigade recon or some other special unit.

Replicant · « **Reply #10 on:** March 26, 2003, 03:08:55 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by funkedup
I think there are three major reasons you see UK troops with M16 and variants:

1. The original SA80 had problems.
2. The M16/M4 can be used with the M203. Royal Ordnance made a grenade launcher for the SA80 but apparently it was really clunky and unpopular.
3. The SAS uses the M16/M4. Everbody wants the neato SAS gear.

I think Nexx is right though, that it's not used by regular army units. If you see M16 it's Marine brigade recon or some other special unit.

Yep, it must be some form of special forces if they're choosing the M16.

The British did choose an Israeli grenade launcher for use with the SA80. I can't remember its designation but it's the type that fits on the end of the barrel and requires one rifle round to fire it. It beat competion from the M203. No one likes the Israeli design mind

They've also been using a 'Minimi' 7.62 GPMG since the L86A2 (Light Support Weapon) cannot maintain sustained fire due to having a magazine rather than ammo belt.

funkedup · « **Reply #11 on:** March 26, 2003, 03:20:12 AM »

Minimi is 5.56, same weapon as the M249 SAW.
GPMG is 7.62, totally different, much larger weapon.
Both are designed by FN in Belgium though.

Also I don't see how a muzzle mounted grenade launcher could beat an M203 style grenade launcher. The beauty of the 203 is that you can have the rifle and the grenade launcher both ready to fire.
Maybe the M203 mounting on the SA80 was so clunky that they preferred the older style muzzle launcher?

devious · « **Reply #12 on:** March 26, 2003, 04:03:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Heckler und Koch is British now???

British owned. The design bureau and main plant are still right here (a 5 mins drive from my home

) and have the same employees.

Replicant · « **Reply #13 on:** March 26, 2003, 04:15:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by funkedup
Minimi is 5.56, same weapon as the M249 SAW.
GPMG is 7.62, totally different, much larger weapon.
Both are designed by FN in Belgium though.

Also I don't see how a muzzle mounted grenade launcher could beat an M203 style grenade launcher. The beauty of the 203 is that you can have the rifle and the grenade launcher both ready to fire.
Maybe the M203 mounting on the SA80 was so clunky that they preferred the older style muzzle launcher?

Yeah, I just used the term GPMG (Gimpy) loosely to describe what type of weapon it was. Didn't know the Minimi was 5.56 though. GPMG used to be in British frontline service, well, it still is within certain areas. Not a bad weapon, very easy to strip & clean.

Trying to find info on the grenade launcher, think the main issue was price.

I think they chose the Israeli grenade launcher around 1997 because I worked at RAF North Luffenham then and had close dealings with the RAF Regiment. It also meant that I used to read all their Jane's magazines etc.!

So if anyone has access to Jane's Defence they maybe able to do a search.

Replicant · « **Reply #14 on:** March 26, 2003, 04:16:50 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by devious
British owned. The design bureau and main plant are still right here (a 5 mins drive from my home ) and have the same employees.

That's the best way, why throw away years of experience and expertise!

Smith & Wesson used to be British owned, I haven't a clue if it still is?