Comments on: SA80 – the Most Accurate Assault Rifle

By: better than thou

better than thou — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 01:41:18 +0000

@john….. do you have any idea what your talking about?????? you say that, “the SLR is actually more suited to the type of combat now ongoing in afghanistan…..huge open spaces and engagements at ranges that the sa80 is rather ineffective at” do your homework before you make a fool of yourself, over 3 QUARTERS (75% for all you dumb shits) of all contacts in Afghanistan last year were between the ranges of 50-80 meters, a range well within the effective range of the SA80, i think you will find. And the reason why the Armys shoting policy has changed to put a greater emphisis on Close Range Marksmanship…..go on….. i fucking DARE someone to argue with me on this……

By: john

john — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:00:53 +0000

errrr “money and man hours” but i guess “monkey” would fit to some degree to as they spent decades “monkeying” with the sa80 to turn it into a viable combat weapon……

By: john

john — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:51:43 +0000

sa80 seems to be a decent gun now….and it only took 30 years to get that way………IMO. the brits should have stuck with the SLR….they could have just modified it to fit their needs in whatever conflict they were in..could have saved alot of monkey and man hours doveloping a weapon that wouldnt be “battle ready” for several decades. FN stopped making FALs and their parts?? dident ROF make these things under license? couldent they still be making SLR parts if they had wanted to? anyways i have an IMBEL made FAL and it shoots like a dream….easy to feildstrip, reliable as an AK, accurate out to (and if your good, past) 800 yards and has stopping power dudes with SA80s could only dream of. the SLR is actually more suited to the type of combat now ongoing in afghanistan…..huge open spaces and engagements at ranges that the sa80 is rather ineffective at…

By: M, Norway.

M, Norway. — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 01:58:27 +0000

I have to agree with a few statements made in here:
If you’re experience and knowledge of the weapons mentioned here are purely based on wikipedia and CoD; Shut up, you ignorant little twat and go to bed before mummy founds out your up past your bed time.

Now to the 5.56 ammo issue:
Yes, when trying to engage targets past 600 meters it’s not very effective, yes, when using a short barrel the stopping power is questionable. But, when using a barrel no shorter than 16.5 inches(419mm) it does yaw upon entering a targets body, and stopping power increases. At ranges over 600 meters, an infantry squad is typically going to use a gpmg, or a 7.62 marksman weapon to engage those ak-weilding rag heads.
Im not saying I would protest if my particular armed forces where to switch to 6.8 or 6.5 mm round, but due to NATO, that’s not gonna happen any time soon.
And alot of promesing developments is being made to 5.56 platform.
A heavier 77grain 5.56 round was introduced a few years back, capable of making acurate shots at 700 meters. The USMC is currently testing the M855A1 round which hace been proved to outperform the NATO 7.62 Ball against certain types of targets, and the french has developed a revolutionary round for they’re future standard infantry weapon with a maximum range of up to 1300 meters(early testing and protype stage).
The french round is apparantly capable of being fired through a 5.56 platform. Not sure if you would need a whole lot of modification on exsisting 5.56 weapons to fire it or not though.
All im saying is, be patient and see what happens during the next few years with the newly designed 5.56′es before wrting it off as an obsolete round.

I serve in the Norwegian armed forces and use 16.5 inch HK416, wich I’m very pleased with reliabilty and performance-wise.

PS: please exuse any bad grammar, it’s been a while since high school and english grammar classes ;)

By: elvira

elvira — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 10:20:51 +0000

guys has anyone tried the ARX-160 , i did and i assume is far better than the SA80 and the sig 550 put together

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 26 May 2010 03:50:12 +0000

I agree with the EOD guy above, since H&K improved it, it does now work reliably and they are accurate (hardly surprising given the thickness of the barrel), however the SA80 is heavier than the L1A1 SLR it replaced and it’s poorly balanced with all the weight to the rear. I used to hate and despise the SLR during FIBUA exercises, it was too bloody long plus they were all worn out in my unit. The SA80 is nice and short but it’s just too butt heavy for my liking and too heavy overall. There were plenty of other rifles around when it was adopted that were lighter and still shorter than the SLR. I’ve used the French FA MAS G2 and that is a much better bullpup rifle overall imv (I’m not a big fan of the AUG but overall it is better as well). I notice the Jamaican Defence Forces have ditched the SA80 and gone to the M16A2 and also UK Special Forces don’t use it either, they use the Diemaco L119A1 SFW.

The one thing no-one ever mentions is the Meccano holes in the receiver that let all sorts of shit in around the barrel, I hate that. And the newer recessed magazine release is too difficult to use and the “improved” trigger that came out in the late 80s is too wide.

By: Thors Hammer

Thors Hammer — Fri, 07 May 2010 00:37:38 +0000

in my 11 years of service in the US Army i have trained on a lot of different weapons. i personally like the l85a2 its a good weapon. my only issue with it is ergonomics, having to move my hand from the front grip to drop a spent mag then reach into my ammo pouch for a replacement, then load and return to the ready position takes to long. in a cqc situation or when some one is shooting at you it seems like forever. with my m4 i could change mags in a fraction of the time.
the new top dogs in the assalt rifle class are the robinson XCR, the bushmaster ACR, and the fn scar.
i own a robinson XCR, 18″ barrel in the 6.8 rem spc. cal(way better than the shitty 5.56) i would have given my left nut to take this gun with me to iraq or afganistan. it is an infantrymen’s wet dream. :) way better than anything i was issued or got to train with.
as for the most accurate assalt rifle in use by a military in todays wars i would have to go with the old m14. 800m effective range 7.62×51nato great stopping power but if your not socom you cant have one. sorry legs

By: LED TV

LED TV — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 04:30:16 +0000

Hi there, I found your blog via Google while searching for first aid for a heart attack and your post looks very interesting for me.

By: King's Royal Hussar

King's Royal Hussar — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:29:53 +0000

As a serving soldier, I believe that over half of you are talking shit. Looking down the list I see alot of posts commenting on weapons such as the FN Scar and the Tr21. However, earth calling to all you CoD players…the SCAR is still in testing and has not seen battle yet, and until it does we will not know how it will handle. The M16 looked fantastic and in tests was simple to maintain, as soon as it hit the ground in Vietnam all sorts of jamming and breach problems occurred. So to sit on your wheelie office chairs, the xbox probably on standby, and dictate to the world which rifle is better than which is fucking ridiculous.

The L85A1 had its problems, however these have been rectified with the A2, I have noticed the difference myself, though being a Cavalry soldier, I don’t do as much with them as the infantry, however I do enough to leave a comment. The other thing I will point out is that the G36 and the SCAR came way after the SA80, it is expensive to change arms as soon as a new one comes out, and why oh why would we take the G36K and not the G36? Why do we want a carbine, tank crews get carbines, I get a carbine! The infantry want something that can reach out and hit something and kill/ seriously wound it. And all this shit about the G3…come off it, its old and out of date, the British Army is bringing in a new squad based, single fire rifle that will be used in the same way that the Dragunov was used in the Russian forces (it wasn’t intended as a snipers rifle but as a weapon that would increase the effective range of a squad to beyond 600 yards) So the G3 is not needed.

And to AntiSA80 when your in the Army you essentially get what your given, this isn’t woolworths, there isn’t a pick and mix, some people get the option for a GPMG but the Army doesn’t give a shit if today you fancy using the SCAR but tomorrow you would like to try out the G36 guess what they’re still going to issue you with what they have which is an SA80 in most cases. Get off CoD and at least read a book on this or join a Cadet force. You like the German weapons because they are made by good companies??? Well the SA80 was made by Enfield, a world renowned arms company and tweaked by your favourite HK, so do your research you ignorant little fuck.

Thank you and good day

By: better than thou

better than thou — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:12:12 +0000

One thing i dont understand is this : Why oh why, do you little kids who watch dvds and videos on youtube about soldiers think you’re qualified to comment on ANYTHING to do with what we real soldiers do? Just because your gay-assed little computer games dont have an SA80 in them doesnt make it automaticaly the worst weapon in the word, on the contrary actually.

While im not the biggest fan of the SA80 by a long shot, its a fucking good weapon that does its job! and thats all that matters. And unless you take the weapon to an operational theatre where people are shooting at you, and your shooting back, youll never know anything about it, aside from what you can read on wikipedia. but spouting that shit off in forums makes you look like the little kid you are.

And I will say this, for those who love the C8, although the weapon has been beautifly designed, with all the controls in the right place, it leaves alot to be desired when it comes to accuracy and range, two areas where the SA80 happens to excel.