CS: Misc-Defects of the SA80 Rifle.
From: Jonathan Spencer, [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm no apologist for the SA80 series, but I can't sit idle and let a blinkered diatribe like this go without comment. SA 80 "Rifle" By a WW11 Rifleman. What a rambling, biased article! No wonder he writes under a nom de plume. It is horribly misshapen. Matter of opinion, and personal preference, not fact. Of course, it's compact dimensions has advantages over the SLR, for example. And disadvantages, of course. It's more manoeuvrable is close spaces but has a short sight radius. Because the stock is so short, the weight is mostly at the butt end; so that the barrel throws up at automatic, An AK47 does the same thing. Most assault rifles do it. The HK11 is the only exception I'm aware of. So it's not a criticism solely of the SA80. The shape of the rifle has developed over hundreds of years of trial and error. Why this strange departure? So, innovation should be stifled, is that what you're saying? The SA80 isn't the first bullpup. The AUG has been successful, for example. The telescopic sight is useless at close quarters, where a riflemen with a conventional "V" back sight (as on the old Lee Enfield, Such as the No 4? I thought that used an aperture rear sight? better at close quarters than the aperture sight favoured by the Americans) and, of course, worse at the longer distances. And iron sights require greater marksmanship skills too. And are fairly useless in low light conditions, such as the streets of Belfast or Kosova at night. will be able to shoot an SA80 wielder several times before the poor fellow can acquire a target. You'd have to be *very* close for a 4x to be too much power. By that stage a 'point and shoot' would suffice IMO. It has no satisfactory open sights. Because of its short butt, the telescopic sight is set on legs so that the riflemen can get his eye to it, so exposing his head from behind cover. Oh really! Do you genuinely think that lifting your head by an inch or so is a real issue, compared to all the other risks facing the modern soldier? It cannot be fired from the left shoulder, Also true of many of it's competitors. It fires from a closed bolt, so preventing cooling air circulating down the barrel, when not firing. Also true of its competitors. Name a comparable rifle that fires from an open bolt. An open bolt design, of course, allow dirt ingression into the action. And the movement of the bolt adversely affects accuracy (c.f. the Sterling SMG versus the MP5). The bayonet is the first in the world to be fixed on one side, You sure about that? which must deflect the flight of the bullet. Hence it will fire differently with bayonet fixed. At the kind of distances where you will fix bayonets, I suggest that any such deflection is insignificant. I'd be more worried about being over run and skewered myself than worrying about whether my bullet was 1/2 inch off target. The barrel is so flimsy that it is liable to bend in bayonet fighting. I understand that bayonet drill has been revised to avoid this. Were that so, then I think bayonet training of infantry recruits must have bent an awful lot of barrels. I haven't seen this particular fault mentioned in any of the reports. It is heavier than the SLR which it replaced. True, and it should have been lighter. But for the same quantity of ammunition that the soldier carried, say 100 rounds, it weighed less. So that is a 'gain'. Of course, the soldier is then made to carry more ammunition up to the old weight limit. What is to be done with left-handed soldiers? 90% of the population is right handed. Some people, some gun manufacturers included, think we don't have to consider the south paws. The lighter bullet slows down very quickly on entering its target's body,. It "tumbles" end over end, No it doesn't. It enters the tissue, and rotates through 180 degrees until it's base is facing the direction of travel. It does not turn end over end. It you want to study this farther, then a literature survey for Dr Martin Fackler's publications on the subject would tell you what you want. Or try subscribing to International Wound Ballistics Review. Or buy Vincent Di Miao's book, Gunshot Wounds. Please don't repeat urban myths. tearing hideous gashes in the flesh, Yes, true enough. Also true of the 7.62 bullets, bayonets, land mines, hand grenades, artillery shells, Take a look at La Garde's book Gunshot Injuries (which includes artillery wounds). The damage done on rout cannot be repaired. To remove the bullet requires an X-ray machine, not available in forward dressing stations, so the soldier must be taken to a rear hospital for what will often be deep and dangerous surgery. Removal of the bullet is not generally necessary. In many (most) cases, the presence of the bullet is not of medical significance. (See La Garde for x-rays of survivors carrying bullets/schrapnel decades after being injured.) Dealing with the
CS: Misc-Defects of the SA80 Rifle.
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] SA 80 "Rifle" By a WW11 Rifleman. It passes comprehension that it should be proposed to throw even more millions after those already wasted on the useless SA 80 "rifle" (if it can be called such!), on top of the original 500,000,000 wasted on its development. It is horribly misshapen. Because the stock is so short, the weight is mostly at the butt end; so that the barrel throws up at automatic, something which the straight butt is supposed to avoid. The barrel waves about wildly, so that the benefit of the vaunted telescopic sight is negated. The shape of the rifle has developed over hundreds of years of trial and error. Why this strange departure? The telescopic sight is useless at close quarters, where a riflemen with a conventional "V" back sight (as on the old Lee Enfield, better at close quarters than the aperture sight favoured by the Americans) will be able to shoot an SA80 wielder several times before the poor fellow can acquire a target. It has no satisfactory open sights. Because of its short butt, the telescopic sight is set on legs so that the riflemen can get his eye to it, so exposing his head from behind cover. It cannot be fired from the left shoulder, because the empty cartridge cases would hit the user in the eye. It may be expected that inconsiderate opponents will take care to advance down the inconvenient street, down which aimed fire will be impossible. It fires from a closed bolt, so preventing cooling air circulating down the barrel, when not firing. The bayonet is shoddy and breaks, but will not take an edge. The bayonet, although useful at close quarters when a magazine is empty, or for use as a dagger, is more usually a tool for chopping wood and all the purposes for which ramblers and Scouts use their sheath knives. This rubbishy thing is useless even for such purposes. The bayonet is the first in the world to be fixed on one side, which must deflect the flight of the bullet. Hence it will fire differently with bayonet fixed. A criticism of the Russian rifle used by the Republican forces in Spain was, that it was designed to be fired with the bayonet fixed, and so fired high without it. That was not too difficult to compensate for, especially with telescopic sights. How does a rifleman compensate for sideways deflection? What lunatic thought of this method of attachment? The barrel is so flimsy that it is liable to bend in bayonet fighting. I understand that bayonet drill has been revised to avoid this. It is heavier than the SLR which it replaced. In the 1985 trials, it failed the sand test three times. What criminal lunatic authorised its production after that? After 300 rounds, if it succeeds in firing that many, the piston has to be removed and carbon deposits scraped off. The piston is in two pieces, and this is a delicate operation. In battle, when the adrenaline is flowing, the soldier's reactions are accelerated, but there is a recognised loss of capacity for fine movements. It is doubtful if this operation could be carried out in action. 300 rounds are nothing with modern automatics. The "Section Support Weapon" derived from the SA80 is even more pitiful. The idea of converting an automatic rifle to a light machine gun, with interchangeable parts, was abandoned by the Americans. The Kalashikovs AK47 and small calibre AK74 were converted successfully, by fitting heavier barrels which do not heat up so quickly, and which can be screwed off and changed when hot. The SSW has the usual slender fixed barrel, which heats up so quickly that guns have to fire in pairs, alternately. The weapon is so flimsy and vibrates so much, that at 300 yards, a burst of 5 rounds ends up 2 feet 6 inches to the left, and higher, than the first round. Consoling thought to those to whom "covering fire" is being given. Some genius has solved this problem. "Fire at single shot". The rate of fire is pitifully slow, limited by the speed at which the gunner can pull his trigger. Presumably, gloves are issued to avoid blistered trigger fingers. The Royal Marines, I am told, have sensibly refused to surrender their tried and trusted Bren Guns. What could be done to make even a cheap cotton purse out of this ugly pig's ear? At enormous cost, involving totally new manufacturing facilities, it could be finished to the same standards of precision engineering expected of weapons on which the very survival of nations may depend, so that it will fire when only lightly oiled, with a smear of graphite grease, or even dry, in sandy or dusty conditions, instead of being so badly finished that it will only fire when awash with oil. It could be assembled more permanently than with weak spot welding, which causes it to fall to pieces if dropped. The flimsy bits of plastic which break off, could be replaced with durable material. The butt could be replaced by plastic which does not melt in contact with insect repellent. A new and better bayonet could be fitted in
