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 the right place, under the rifle. The Section support weapon could
be scrapped, and the Brens restored. Disposable and light plastic magazines,
as used in the Austrian Steyr, which the tiny Falklands degfence force
prefers to the SA80, and in the AK 47 and AK74. instead of the crudely made
SA80 magazines, with rough welds on which the points of rounds jam.. None of
this would eliminate the bad design, the closed bolt, the evil balance, the
weak barrel, the awkward piston, the lack of satisfactory open sights,
the impossibility of firing from the left shoulder. What is to be done with
left-handed soldiers? Must they be allocated to non-combatant units?
One atrocious characteristic of the SA80 is a cause of much concern to
soldiers and musketry instructors. The SA80 has the horrific "tumbling
action" of some small calibre weapons. The lighter bullet slows down very
quickly on entering its target's body,. It "tumbles" end over end, tearing
hideous gashes in the flesh, often coming to rest far from the entry wound.
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. Instructors have told soldiers that this violates the Geneva
Convention, as worse than dumdum bullets. Not only are soldiers disgusted
with carrying a weapon which outrages those chivalrous and honourable
standards by which decent fighting men throughout the centuries have sought
to make war no worse than it has to be, which is bad enough, but if taken
prisoner, they could be shot, as is recognised treatment for any soldier
found with dumdum ammunition.
Poor British soldier! His shoddy rifle may not fire, and readily jams when
it does. He may be shot if taken prisoner. His shoddy boots fell to pieces
in the Falklands, compelling him to take the boots from the Argentinian
dead. The replacement is little better, with soles stuck on to the uppers,
instead of having a securely stitched leather sole to which the rubber sole
is glued and screwed, and leather far inferior in quality to the "Ammo
Boots" of the Second World War. Sent to the Falklands in green camouflage,
useless in the scrubby terrain, and to the Gulf in the same uniforms, the
stocks of desert camouflage having been sold to Saddam Hussein. Poisoned in
his hundreds by radioactive depleted uranium, used in reckless profusion in
Iraq and Kosovo. Whilst denying any harmful effects, the MOD has ordered
that "contaminated sites" must only be approached in full radiological
protection gear. The fine dust from this wicked material, active for 4.5
billion years, blows for miles, producing cancers and hideously malformed
babies.
Any replacement for the SA80 must be free from "tumbling action" We owe
that to our honour as a nation and to the honour of the British Army. The
American M16 is even worse than the SA80, with a muzzle velocity of 3,00-
feet per second, so that when the bullet ricochets off a bone, it sends
splinters spraying into the flesh., It should be withdrawn from use by the
SAS, who confirm all I have said by their refusal to have the SA80 "rifle".
"Tumbling action" is not inherent in small calibre weapons. 22" rifles and
pistols behave quite normally. The Japanese used small calibre rifles in the
War. If they had had this barbarous effect, we should have shouted atrocity
to the rooftops. I am informed by a friend who secured advice from a
Lt-Colonel of the GRU, that the first models of the AK74 were found to have
this action, and that the Soviet Army were horrified, and insisted on it
being eliminated. This is quite easy. The lighter bullet needs sharper
rifling, so that it "spins" faster, preserving its gyroscopic stability
after entering the body. Are we to take lessons in humanity and soldierly
honour from the Japanese militarists and the much-abused Bolsheviks? This
issue cannot be dodged. For eight years, I have met a wall of official
denials and excuses. That is not unusual, but quite intolerable in these
circumstances. British soldiers and the British people have the right to
demand an end to these prevarications, the dismissal of the liars and
incompetents responsible, and the urgent replacement of this disgusting
rubbish rubbish. The AK74 has a range of 800 yards, is beautifully
balanced, easy to use and to hold on the target, and extremely reliable, and
comes in several versions for different purposes. The machine gun version is
also excellent. If no better weapon, free from tumbling action can be found,
at a reasonable price, we should purchase stocks for immediate use and
should manufacture it under licence, possible introducing improvements. Its
bayonet is convex on both edges, so can be withdrawn cleanly, without the
tearing action of the SA80 bayonet, with its concave Bowie knife back and
saw edge, which is useless for cutting wire. Mr Putin is
hard up. It should not cost much!
--
The AK74 does not have a usable range of 800 yards, try hitting anything
with an AK at any distance past about 200. The SS109 bullet does
not tumble either, that is one of the main complaints about it, high
velocity acupuncture, especially the US version with the tungsten insert
instead of steel.
Also the SA80 has many defects but the first one he mentions is somewhat
off-base. It has a pretty heavy barrel so it is not as butt heavy as
you might think and it is the most controllable rifle on full-auto I
have shot expressly because of the weight. Until it jams, of course,
around 300 rounds. I don't think criticising closed bolt action makes
much sense either, the AK uses it as well.
Steve.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
