The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Oh come on everybody was being nice for five minutes!

Why not ask him, I suspect he probably means you.

Could be I won't lose any sleep over it, but i haven't made any claims about my experience regards the rifle, unlike some i don't claim to have shot every British army rifle and put 25,000 rounds through the SA/80. Interesting you find your own post funny.

Chairborne Commandos spouting forth the facts and fallacies they've

Ok, believe what you will. Your opinions are as valid as anyone else's; they are wrong but nevertheless they are yours.

Why are you so argumentative?

Why are you so argumentative?

Seriously. OK on topic what do you find so good about the SA/80, please don't say its reliable, it would need to be after the time and money has being spent on it. And what advantages in your view it has over other rifles in service.

So, in your vast experience a reliable service rifle is not important. I am also guessing that being accurate is not on your list of priorities, nor the ability for a service rifle and well trained user to deliver hits on target out to 600m, well beyond its required effective range.

When suggested by serving member of HM Forces that they would trust their life on an L85A2 over anything else, you dismiss it. Is your opinion more valid than his?

When told that the L85A2 is better than a Lee Enfield SMLE, No.4, No.5, No.4T and SLR you dismiss it as irrelevant, yet you fail to understand that in order to hit a target at distance you need to be able to firstly see it and then have a weapon that can accurately deliver a hit when used by an average soldier. I'm bemused at your total lack of understanding of what is required by the military today.

What is your experience? Please do tell us as I'm sure plenty of posters would like to know.

Come on guys not wishing to be the referee but I think you are now talking past each other.

Ordnance, there certainly was a trust issue in the 90's but we should not dismiss that current serving infantry trust the rifle with their life. But I can see how the argument John makes that it is superior to every service rifle in British service that predates it as a complete system.

John MH, I don't think he was dismissing the views of serving members of our armed forces rather coming at it from a cold procurement sense. Putting aside the general overall service satisfaction with the L85A2 it is worth investigating how a procurement competition would fare now including the L85A2 as a benchmark. The rifle whilst being fit for service certainly has some foibles both in weight and ergonomics. Would it fare so well in an open competition, there are rifles out there that are lighter and have superior ergonomics that are as reliable. There are also rifles that massively over rated and would probably fall flat in any serious trial. The L85A2 has an incumbent's advantage in that it is in service, trusted and all the training is built around the rifle.

Exploring any future procurement competition is an interesting thing to explore but should be treated with a dispassionate eye.

So, in your vast experience a reliable service rifle is not important. I am also guessing that being accurate is not on your list of priorities, nor the ability for a service rifle and well trained user to deliver hits on target out to 600m, well beyond its required effective range.

I will read my post again but I don't think I said reliability is not important, I said after thirty years and millions spent I don't think its anything to shout about, regards the original design. As for accuracy its not a target rifle there has to be acceptable accuracy in an assault rifle not pin point accuracy. The most used assault rifle in history the AK/47 is not renowned for its accuracy.

When suggested by serving member of HM Forces that they would trust their life on an L85A2 over anything else, you dismiss it. Is your opinion more valid than his?

I didn't dismiss it, I would be interested why and what other rifles he has used and evaluated to make that judgment.

When told that the L85A2 is better than a Lee Enfield SMLE, No.4, No.5, No.4T and SLR you dismiss it as irrelevant, yet you fail to understand that in order to hit a target at distance you need to be able to firstly see it and then have a weapon that can accurately deliver a hit when used by an average soldier. I'm bemused at your total lack of understanding of what is required by the military today

You are not comparing like for like, you can not compare the earlier rifles, I am surprised with your lack of understanding trying to compare them. As for having to see the target what has that to do with the rifle, any rifle can be fitted some form of an optical sight. Do you know anything about the development and theory behind the assault rifle, accuracy was not top of the list.

OK on topic what do you find so good about the SA/80, please don't say its reliable, it would need to be after the time and money has being spent on it. And what advantages in your view it has over other rifles in service.

You didn't answer the question, what makes the SA/80 so good in your opinion. I would be interested to know.

John MH wrote:

ordnance wrote: How do you know he is not talking about you .

Why not ask him, I suspect he probably means you.

Exactly - the award for the most ridiculous dick waver and pontificator on this topic goes to Ordnance


PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD - IT'S PAST ITS SELL-BY DATE

I have no understanding or experience of this subject, please forgive me and ignore anything that I've posted.

Try not to let the Walts bait you, oomans, no good comes of it...