lockheed-martini:fonchi262:lockheed-martini:fattoler:peashooter85:The SA80 — “A giant scandal of pla
lockheed-martini:fonchi262:lockheed-martini:fattoler:peashooter85:The SA80 — “A giant scandal of plastic and metal” -Ian McCollumBy the 1970’s the British Army was considering to replace the L1A1, the British variant of the FN FAL which served as Britain’s standard service arm since 1954. The L1A1 was chambered for the 7.62 NATO cartridge, however by then most NATO and Western countries had adopted or were adopting the 5.56 NATO cartridge. In addition the L1A1 was a comparatively large rifle weighing around 10 lbs (4.4 kgs). Thus in the late 1970’s British weapons designers set to work on designing a new, light, and compact rifle chambered for the 5.56 NATO cartridge. By 1984 their design was introduced as the SA80 or L85A1, a bullpup rifle developed from a number of other bullpup designs dating as far back as the end of World War II. With the action located in the stock, the weapon was highly compact but did not compromise range and accuracy. The SA80 was officially adopted in 1985 and was considered to be a futuristic step in British small arms technology because of it’s unorthodox design. Little did the British know the nightmare that would ensue in the coming decade.Soon after adoption complaints arose that the SA80 had some severe reliability issues. The British Army and British Government addressed these complaints by putting their fingers in their ears and shouting “LA LA LA LA LA! I CAN’T HEAR YOU! LA LA LA LA LA!” Ignoring reports that the SA80 was a flawed weapon, the British Government allowed the rifle to continue in service unaltered. However, British involvement in the Persian Gulf War in 1990-1991 would reveal the numerous problems of the SA80 as the unforgiving climate of the Mesopotamian deserts would lay a beating on the poor rifles.Problems included but were not limited to…— Parts breakages causing inoperability of the rifle.— Jams, failure to feeds, misfires, and various malfunctions.— Severe susceptibility to dirt, dust, and particulates which caused the rifle to jam.— The 30 round magazine had to be partially loaded to prevent jams and failure to feeds, usually only 25 or 26 rounds due to faulty springs. — Any small bump or jostle would activate the magazine release and cause the magazine to fall out.— The cheap plastic furnishings on the stock would fall off or melt due to the hot sun or exposure to bug repellant.— Mounted with a scope and full magazine it was roughly about the same weight as an FAL— Cleaning, maintenance, or field stripping was exceptionally difficult.— During firing, the rifle would often eject empty casings into the soldier’s face. After the Persian Gulf War the British Government continued to ignore reports that the SA80 was a flawed weapon. However by then the weapon had received a nasty reputation as a piece of junk in the ranks of the British Army. In 1992 a report from the Ministry of Defense was leaked to the public reporting 50 faults of the SA80. At first the government passed off the report as fake, then claimed that the report wasn’t an official report, then admitted that the report was genuine. The result was a national scandal as it was revealed to the public that British soldiers were being forced to use substandard equipment. However the government continued to stonewall and did nothing about the problem. It wasn’t until the year 2000 that action was taken to fix the SA80’s problems. Around 200,000 rifles were taken out of service and sent to the British owned German arms company Heckler & Koch where they were completely redesigned and rebuilt lock stock and barrel at a price of £400 each. The new model was called the L85A2.At this point the current model is the L85A3, a further improvement of the L85A2. In addition there are various models of carbines and squad automatic weapons. Apparently now the SA80 is a reliable and quality rifle. I don’t know if this is true or not, if there are any current or former British soldiers or marines who would like to opine, please do. Regardless the SA80’s history has cast a permanent negative reputation on the weapon system. Britain has always had a reputation for producing fine quality small arms. The Enfield P53 musket was the 2nd most commonly used weapon in the American Civil War. The Lee Enfield was used through two World Wars, Korea, adopted by dozens of countries, and is still found on battlefields all over the world to this day. Nobody wants the SA80. Outside of the UK, the SA80 is only used by a few African countries who received them as military aid, and beggars can’t be choosers. Apparently Jamaica has adopted the rifle, cause they be jammin’.Having used the A2 and A3 versions, they’re fine, but as I have nothing else to compare it to that might not be saying much. From what I’ve been told the C8 is much handier. I think what a lot of people forget is that at the end of the day, as long as it doesn’t jam (I think I’ve had two in my time and both were quickly remedied by drill) and it shoots straight (no issues there), a rifle is only as good as the person carrying it.Really it’s just a sad end to a proud history of British small arms development, but maybe it’s a good thing to be building ploughshares rather than swords… Assuming we can still buy good rifles for when we need them!I can chip in on some of the issues.Mostly, the failings of the L85A1 can be put down to the death of the British smalls arms industry in the middle of the 20th century. Guns are tricky things to design, and all the engineering know-how in the world doesn’t match the experience and intuition of a good gunsmith. The L85A1 was the result of giving general engineers the task of designing a gun, when most had never done so before. What works on paper does not always cut it in reality.Even from an engineering standpoint, it must be said, they did a poor job. Materials analysis and selection, what’s that? How a half competent engineer would select a plastic for a military service rifle without considering resistance to heat, and chemical corrosion from common products used in the field, baffles me. It’s so stupid and elementary level, but was overlooked at multiple stages and entered mass service anyway. The, you have the construction of steel, when everyone else was using stainless steel, aluminium or polymers. Not only does it make the rifle incredibly heavy, but also adds more pain to maintenance by requiring the weapon by oiled to prevent corrosion, which is a practice totally incompatible with desert warfare, as the Italians found with some of their guns in WW2.While the A2 is serviceable, and the A3 is quite good, the two are still much heavier, more awkward and less ergonomic, harder to maintain, and generally just worse designed rifles than what many of our allies have. All the German polish applied to them has helped, but there’s only so much you can polish a turd, and the A1 was very much one.Best bit is, they’ve correctly depicted the A1 throughout. Attention to detail in your animu grill parody of the worst rifle. -- source link