StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I find this highly dubious since:

-The gov't just spent a whole lot of cash trying the get the A2 working, it is a whole lot different to the XL-70 prototype.

-The SA-80 only exists to keep British jobs (even if you don't take second best in warfare and Smith and Wesson and H&K are British owned).

-There are a lot of rifles out there just to scrap and what would the replacement be?

-No other news service has mentioned something like this considering it was almost front page news when a fault was found in the A2 variety.

But I'll keep open minded and hope they do scrap it for either the M-4, Steyr of some sort or a H&K model.

I've already heard.

Well technically there scraping the L85A2, which is the rifle. The SA-80 refers to the combination of the L85 and the L86 Light support weapon, which was possibly the worst modern light machine gun in the world. The LSW has already been scrapped.

Just imagine, all the L85's problems, combined with sustained full auto fire..

I bet the replacement will be the G36 rifle. Heckler&Koch is now a British owned company, and UK police have already bought it. It's an excellent rifle, and quite conventional in design without any bullpup related crap.

Now if only they had replaced it before weasting 92 million pounds on upgrading the thing. That could have bought over 400,000 M16A2's or a couple hundred thousand other rifles..

The Tories made this piece of shit called the Enfield weapon system. What a waste.

Now hopefully Labour can make one good thing from being in power by getting a H&K weapon like the G36, hell, even the OICW!#

Anything! Please!

Admiral Valdemar wrote:The Tories made this piece of shit called the Enfield weapon system. What a waste.

Now hopefully Labour can make one good thing from being in power by getting a H&K weapon like the G36, hell, even the OICW!#

Anything! Please!

The Britsh would need somthing like a 100,000 new rifles, and even the US army only wnats 45,000 OICW. That wont happen..

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Admiral Valdemar wrote:The Tories made this piece of shit called the Enfield weapon system. What a waste.

Now hopefully Labour can make one good thing from being in power by getting a H&K weapon like the G36, hell, even the OICW!#

Anything! Please!

The Britsh would need somthing like a 100,000 new rifles, and even the US army only wnats 45,000 OICW. That wont happen..

Only as a stand in for other asault weapons. The US can't replace every M-16A2 with an OICW. It was a funding nightmare just like the F-22 has become.

But maybe we can get discount if we throw in the old SA-80s.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Admiral Valdemar wrote:The Tories made this piece of shit called the Enfield weapon system. What a waste.

Now hopefully Labour can make one good thing from being in power by getting a H&K weapon like the G36, hell, even the OICW!#

Anything! Please!

The Britsh would need somthing like a 100,000 new rifles, and even the US army only wnats 45,000 OICW. That wont happen..

Only as a stand in for other asault weapons. The US can't replace every M-16A2 with an OICW. It was a funding nightmare just like the F-22 has become.

But maybe we can get discount if we throw in the old SA-80s.

Given the quality of construction, I doubt you'd get much money from selling the scrap. And of the US army wanted bad assault rifles, then it can just throw some M16A3's in the mud, then fire mid 1960s ammo through em without cleaning...



I dont think the Uk will ever buy more then 500 or so OICW's, and only after they have been deployed by the US Army. Such would likley be on hand only for SAS and SBS teams who might like its long range supression capacity on short term missions, and perhapes to the Royal Marines.

Yeah, bodes well for a weapon when your special forces don't even use the bloody thing! Even they use the M-16 in outdoor missions.

I still want to see what they replace it with and I also want to see if OICW is actually worth it.

The Tories made this piece of shit called the Enfield weapon system. What a waste.

It's not entirely the fault of the politicians in this case; they coughed up the money that the army and industry asked for which is what they're supposed to do. The initial problem lies in fundemental design flaws introduced by industry and in the stupid & unrealistic design requirments the army drew up.
Also you definatly can't claim the Tories in particular for this cock-up, as the program was started back in the late 60's, and was developed under both Labour and Tory administrations. It was originally intended to enter service in about 1980, rather than 1984/85 as happened.

That said we CAN blaim the Tories for not undergoing a proper review of the weapon earlier - especially after the Gulf war when it was realised that even after the teething problems had been solved, the weapon still had 'issues'.

Whatever rifle they eventually choose, I just hope they test it properly BEFORE they buy it!
I wouldn't touch the M4 though, it is said to lack stopping power. I'd either go with the Canadian version of the M16 (called C7), or the G36.

Too bad H&K never got their G11 out. Apparently they abandoned it at the last moment for the G36, for reasons I am not aware of. The G11 would have been pretty good as an infighting weapon - enclosed mechanism means it doesn't jam easily, 50-shot mag. About the only problem would have been killing power.

Akm72 wrote: Whatever rifle they eventually choose, I just hope they test it properly BEFORE they buy it!
I wouldn't touch the M4 though, it is said to lack stopping power. I'd either go with the Canadian version of the M16 (called C7), or the G36.

Yes, I've heard that about the M4. Something about the shorter barrel limiting muzzle velocity. Personally, I think the UK should've invested in some M16A2s or G36s a long time ago...

Evil Sadistic Bastard wrote:Too bad H&K never got their G11 out. Apparently they abandoned it at the last moment for the G36, for reasons I am not aware of. The G11 would have been pretty good as an infighting weapon - enclosed mechanism means it doesn't jam easily, 50-shot mag. About the only problem would have been killing power.

A big reason was evidently cost, the weapon and ammunition was going to be extremely expensive. The ammunition however has been recycled to create the MP-7 PDW


As for the M4, the shorter barrel cuts about 75 meters off the effective range. However, just how effective it is is more a product of what ammunition you fire from it.

And in the end, having 75 meters less effecive rnage does not matter, almost all combat with rifles still takes place well within its effective range.

As for the M4, the shorter barrel cuts about 75 meters off the effective range. However, just how effective it is is more a product of what ammunition you fire from it.

And in the end, having 75 meters less effecive rnage does not matter, almost all combat with rifles still takes place well within its effective range.

How important the extra range is depends totally on the environment. In Afganistan for instance or in the desert, a long-range 7.62mm semi-automatic rifle would probably make more sense than a general-purpose 5.56mm assault rifle. In the jungle or in the european theatre the additional range would only rarely be used.
As the existing 5.56mm rounds arn't much good at long range as it is, and as our assault rifles are intended to serve as both SMGs and as long(ish) range rifles, I'd prefer not to lose 75m in range. Though I grant you the difference is smaller than I'd expected.

Akm72 wrote:

As for the M4, the shorter barrel cuts about 75 meters off the effective range. However, just how effective it is is more a product of what ammunition you fire from it.

And in the end, having 75 meters less effecive rnage does not matter, almost all combat with rifles still takes place well within its effective range.

How important the extra range is depends totally on the environment. In Afganistan for instance or in the desert, a long-range 7.62mm semi-automatic rifle would probably make more sense than a general-purpose 5.56mm assault rifle. In the jungle or in the european theatre the additional range would only rarely be used.
As the existing 5.56mm rounds arn't much good at long range as it is, and as our assault rifles are intended to serve as both SMGs and as long(ish) range rifles, I'd prefer not to lose 75m in range. Though I grant you the difference is smaller than I'd expected.

The chances of hitting anything in that extra 75 meters are slim to none. YOu really need at least a SAW to do any good. Long range fire is not useful, espicaly not with a semi auto weapon.

Troops in Afganistan would actualy be much better off with M4. The redcued weight makes bringing up extra ammunition for crew served weapons and carrying the large numbers of needed Bunker defeat Munitions much easier. Same for the desert.

In any form of open conditions, crew served weapons and to an extent SAW's become the real killers both in the assault and defense, the riflemen keep them from getting flanked and mop up under covering fire.

And an argument can be made that with modern fire control, everyone's real job is to protect the forward artillery observer.

Perhaps they should gradually phase the SA-80 out? It would be the cheapest method of getting rid of it. They should adopt a rifle in use by other NATO nations, like the AUG, as a replacement. Just my .02 as I'm high from putting too much DEET bugspray on

The British are not about to adapt another bullpup. Many of the problems that they had with the L85 were inherent to any Bullpup, like the need to sit down and hold the weapon in your feet to fix the bayonet and the inability to fire around corners effectively.

By all rights they should trash the thing as quickly as possible. Training men to maintain a different rifle is not that hard, and things like the G36 and M16A2 are produced by the thousands each month.

There only waiting till 2008 so the MOD can save face and lie about brining forward a replacement date that never existed.

While the M4 has less effective range then an M-16, both have effective range beyond that of your standard soldier. In non combat situations an M-16 and M4 are both effective with a standard trained soldier up to 600 meters in range. Depending on the assault rifles the range might increase or decrease slightly, but 600 meters is about the human limit in range for use of an assault rifle. The extra range is used more often by the soldiers who have more accuracy at range, a demi-sniper so to speak. In standard combat, the M4 will outperform the M16 due to its smaller profile for close range combat and it still being able to perform well out to the 600 meter range. It should also be noted that durring combat it is expected that 6 soldiers firing at a single target, only one is expected to hit the target at a range of 600 meters. Combat ranges are far shorter then that of training firing ranges. So the distances are again not entirely an issue. This is again where the M4 comes into play. Because of its smaller stature over an M16, it can be aimed faster at long distance targets. This is why the M4 is slowly phasing out the M16 in the US military.

The chances of hitting anything in that extra 75 meters are slim to none. YOu really need at least a SAW to do any good. Long range fire is not useful, espicaly not with a semi auto weapon.

1) If long range fire is so useless to riflemen, why are so many armed forces sticking scopes on their rifles?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The chances of hitting anything in that extra 75 meters are slim to none. YOu really need at least a SAW to do any good. Long range fire is not useful, espicaly not with a semi auto weapon.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



1) If long range fire is so useless to riflemen, why are so many armed forces sticking scopes on their rifles?

So they have a better chance to hit at mediumranges?
The scopes on so many modern rifles (like the G36, AUG or the much maligned SA-80) are in the x1.5 to x4 magnification range.
Not exactly sniper material, but useful if you want to hit a target 3-to 600m away.
And a human at that range is rather tiny a target, and if the guy's behind cover and you have to aim at the head...

Batman

Batman wrote: So they have a better chance to hit at mediumranges?
The scopes on so many modern rifles (like the G36, AUG or the much maligned SA-80) are in the x1.5 to x4 magnification range.
Not exactly sniper material, but useful if you want to hit a target 3-to 600m away.
And a human at that range is rather tiny a target, and if the guy's behind cover and you have to aim at the head...

Batman

Me thinks we are splitting hairs here, as far as I'm concerned, long-range in this context is anything beyond let's say about 200m.

Me thinks we are splitting hairs here, as far as I'm concerned, long-range in this context is anything beyond let's say about 200m.

That very much appears to be the case. AFAIK, 'long range' for rifles means 600 or so meters and beyond.That is the definition I was working with, as, it seems, were my fellow posters.
My apologies

Any competent soldier can hit a target up to 300 meters on a firing range using Iron sites alone, with an M4, or M-16. And competent soldier can hit a target up to 600 meters away with a scope on either rifle.

The scopes extend the range from 300 to 600 meters. The effectively double the distance that a soldier can hit a target at. While combat accuracy drops compared to firing range accuracy, the range boost is still very important because it gives the soldiers an edge.

Combat ranges are the relevant issue here IMO, and many of the worlds armies have shown that they regard a low-power scope as providing an advantage at those distances.
Surely no one is going to choose a 5.56mm rifle round if they're intending to regularly engage targets on the battlefield at over 300m (which is only going to happen in really wide open spaces)? 5.56mm is said to be fine for killing people at distances of below 200m (as the bullet will often break up inside the unfortunate target's body at shorter ranges), but IMO the further you go beyond that the more attractive 7.62mm rounds begin to look.

However I do withdraw my earlier comment about the current M4 varients. Now I look closer at them I see that they are not significantly less powerful than the full-size M16s. Any opinion I had on the M4 was based on the much earlier carbine varients like the XM177/CAR15/GAU5.

Akm72 wrote:Combat ranges are the relevant issue here IMO, and many of the worlds armies have shown that they regard a low-power scope as providing an advantage at those distances.
Surely no one is going to choose a 5.56mm rifle round if they're intending to regularly engage targets on the battlefield at over 300m (which is only going to happen in really wide open spaces)? 5.56mm is said to be fine for killing people at distances of below 200m (as the bullet will often break up inside the unfortunate target's body at shorter ranges), but IMO the further you go beyond that the more attractive 7.62mm rounds begin to look.

However I do withdraw my earlier comment about the current M4 varients. Now I look closer at them I see that they are not significantly less powerful than the full-size M16s. Any opinion I had on the M4 was based on the much earlier carbine varients like the XM177/CAR15/GAU5.

Some M4 information.

http://community.webshots.com/storage/1 ... SuE_ph.jpg

If you can’t view that, cut out the http:// part.

Ok, some good info on the M4

http://www.quarterbore.com/images/sopmodm4.jpg