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

IainWR wrote:So, serious question again, what defines a "black gun" if not the colour?

Generally they are poorly finished rattly plastic guns, that are inaccurate and unreliable....

....

So a soldier (who needs a gun that is reliable, accurate and, until he decides to use it, silent) wouldn't want one then?

IainWR wrote:So a soldier (who needs a gun that is reliable, accurate and, until he decides to use it, silent) wouldn't want one then?

Some of the best service weapons ever issued (the SLR and AK47) first came with wooden furniture....

....if you had to go into battle (not 'house to house') right now, and were offered the choice between a No.4 and an SA80...which would you chose?

Dougan wrote:

IainWR wrote:So a soldier (who needs a gun that is reliable, accurate and, until he decides to use it, silent) wouldn't want one then?

Some of the best service weapons ever issued (the SLR and AK47) first came with wooden furniture....

....if you had to go into battle (not 'house to house') right now, and were offered the choice between a No.4 and an SA80...which would you chose?

SA80 - Ammunition would be plentiful!

BTW the AK-47 rattles with the best of them.

Sandgroper wrote:SA80 - Ammunition would be plentiful!

But can it shoot through a car...or hit something 500 yards away? - I'd sacrifice the extra ammo...

Yes, and yes.

Cars (other than the engine block and related major powertrain components) are mostly penetrable by even quite modest calibres. And the one thing the SA80 has always had going for it is accuracy.

IainWR wrote:Yes, and yes.

Cars (other than the engine block and related major powertrain components) are mostly penetrable by even quite modest calibres. And the one thing the SA80 has always had going for it is accuracy.

OK, you know more than me - but you still haven't said which you'd rather have, between the No.4 (I've left the SLR out of it to make it more interesting) and the SA80...?

Going to war, I'd take the SA80 anytime unless I knew absolutely for certain (and in war there is no certainty) that it was going to be fought only at 800yds plus. And I'd take the SLR before either, because it's ambidextrous (I'm left handed and left eye dominant) and it's what I was brought up on.

In GW1, I carried an L96 (and a Browning 9mm). But that wasn't a battlefield weapon, it was the last ditch for a Forward Air Controller to do something about the opposition's anti-air weapons if the artillery you normally use to shut them up didn't turn up before the flyboys. If we had had a .50" in the inventory at the time I would have asked for one. It was pretty much a suicide option and I am very glad that the one major war I attended turned out to be mostly a walkthrough. No disrespect to the men and women who lost their lives to liberate Kuwait, but the losses on the Coalition side were remarkably low.

And of course the reason I could have done something vaguely useful with an L96 was that I had practiced for years on Stickledown. The NRA fulfilling its Charter Objective of the encouragement of marksmanship.

Iain

Iain, I hope you realise that I'm not really being serious - my argument only just had some credit as we are comparing No.4s, SLRs and SA80s...and I do realise that there are some excellent modern weapons around the world.

I have only handled (not shot unfortunately) an L96, and was well impressed by how solid and not 'rattly' it was...but I wouldn't consider it a 'black gun' - I can see the appeal of 'black guns' (and would never say no to having a go...obviously)...but prefer to own something made of wood...

I would still take the No.4 though over an SA80 razz

The other thing is the sa80 can go full auto when it is needed.




:flag5: zzzzom zzzzom