Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: t3e!rogersh@cs.man.ac.uk (rogersh) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Small Arms Message-ID: <1991Mar7.014859.3212@cbnews.att.com> Date: 7 Mar 91 01:48:59 GMT References: <1991Mar4.212601.9682@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker) Organization: Murder Inc. Lines: 48 Approved: military@att.att.com From: rogersh In article <1991Mar4.212601.9682@cbnews.att.com> scott@swindle.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey) writes: > > >From: scott@swindle.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey) >Also, I noticed some scenes of British infantry scouting out an Iraqi bunker > for hostiles ... they tossed in a grenade. They were carrying a very modern > looking assault rifle that I've never seen before. It was sand colored > and had the magazine (and I assume the firing mechanism) BEHIND the pistol > grip. This makes the weapon somewhat short I assume. Can anyone explain > what rifle this is? Is it standard issue now? When did they get it? How > does it compare with the M16A2? > The rifle is a SA80. The position of the mag. makes the barrel longer than that of a M16A2 (and the rifle more accurate) but the overall length shorter. It has a hardened optical sight as standard, with a variable luminosity internal indicator for night usage. The rifle takes NATO standard ammo/mag.s (same as M16A2 I think but I may be wrong). It has fully auto and semi auto modes, and is the first standard issue British Army *rifle* to have full auto, succeeding as it does the SLR which was a modified Belgian FN FAL with only semi auto. I think it's made by Royal Ordnance at Enfield, which is a privatised company which was govt. owned until the mid 80s. It has been issued to all regular units, and most TA and Cadet units as far as I know. There is a standard version, and an extended barrel version with tripod which is the new ground support weapon. The latter version has been heavily criticised since the perception is that ground support weapons need belt fed ammo or v. large capacity magazines. 30 rounds get used up fast... Another criticism is that M16 ammo is too light, the old SLR with it's 7.62mm ammo packed a much harder punch (like Kalashnikovs I think), and could e.g. take an arm/head off in one shot at long range. Accuracy is about the same (SLR compared to SA80 - as I mention above accuracy is a *lot* better than the M16A2). The rifle is very butt heavy because as you guess the mechanism is all behind the mag. and in the butt, however this makes it very compact. Soldiers initially complained that it was difficult to shoulder as a result, but this seems to have been a temporary acclimatisation problem. There were some stories that it fell apart/discharged if dropped from a height (in one particular report one was dropped out of a hovering chopper on exercise and discharged causing injury), even if the safety was on. Later (current) versions corrected these problems. [ H.J.Rogers (INTERNET: rogersh%p4%cs.man.ac.uk@cunyvm.cuny.edu) ] [ ,_, (BITNET/EARN: rogersh%p4%cs.man.ac.uk@UKACRL.BITNET) ] [ :-(_)-o (UUCP: ...!uunet!cunyvm.cuny.edu!cs.man.ac.uk!p4!rogersh) ] [ _} {_ (JANET: rogersh%p4@uk.ac.man.cs) ]