Posted on 07/05/2002 2:24:39 PM PDT by 45Auto
Soldiers in Afghanistan have reported three faults with the army's new SA80-A2 rifles, the Ministry of Defence say.
Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon has told troops he would investigate claims the weapon misfires badly, the same problem suffered by the gun it replaced.
Armed forces minister Adam Ingram told shadow defence secretary Bernard Jenkin that three formal equipment failure reports had been filed from Afghanistan.
He said: "The SA80-A2 is operating in a very difficult environment in Afghanistan with both dusty conditions and extremes of temperature.
"In an operational environment any concerns are treated very seriously and a specialist team on the ground is investigating these reports as a matter of urgency."
The original SA80 was suspended from the Nato Nominated Weapon List in 1997 after soldiers experienced problems such as jamming in extreme weather.
Following a £92 million modification programme, the revised weapon was declared one of the best in the world by the MOD and was introduced earlier than planned for use by troops in Afghanistan.
I said that it is more robust because the SAS tested it in 1999 and found it to be more robust. The SAS was sufficiently impressed that they bought it for the whole regiment and were willing to pay extra for it.
"I've heard that Canada settled on that configuration because the royalties were less than paying Colt for the A2 configuration."
My understanding is different.
Canada had purchased production rights to the M16A1 which is an improvement on the M16.
In tests to determine what would replace the FNC as the standard light infantry weapon, the M16A1 came in dead last.
However, Canada already had production rights, so it made sense to take what would have been a good civilian rifle and re engineer it so that it was useful as an infantry weapon. The result was the C7A1.
The US tested it, liked what they saw, and re-purchased production rights the modified weapon, changed it and produced the M16A2.
The C7A1 had an optical sight instead of a carry handle and it fires simi and full auto instead of being limited to 3 round bursts (Canada still trusts its soldiers to decide on how much of a burst is appropriate).
Unless I'm mistaken, the FN-FAL used by the Commonwealth was modified for Australia with recesses milled in the bolt to held clear grit and crud out in dry climates.
I wouldn't put too much faith in "published statistics" if I were you. What you are looking for in the feild is a weapon that stuill fires enven if you were just in the creek, and that "punches" through stuff. Thge M14 round may twitch if it hits a twig, but by God it keeps going in a straight line to the target. The M16 won't.
I'll clue you in on another "remarkable". The AK47 is superior to the M14. It's as smooth as butter on the recoil and much eaasider to control. But they wouldn't let us keep and use the ones we picked up. "Against policy". (We picked up a lot of them.)
Various tests that I have read about list the Steyr AUG, FNC, and M16 as being the only rifles to pass all NATO tests, with the AUG first, and M16 last. The Galil (an AK47 knockoff) flunked the arctic tests.
Australia seems to be using AUGs. Yesterday I saw a news photo of US Special Forces training Phillippine rangers, who carry AUGs. A number of countries make (or once made) M16s under license. Red China made them without a license, and they are supposed to be the better all the others, including the American ones.
Don't miss this one.
The bottle is designed to hold mineral jelly. The device attached to the cap is a spoon.
Until about 1946 the bottles were brass and there was a leather cap washer.
LOL, thanks for the link. I bought a new Benchmade Griptillian Mini yesterday and their instructions recommended Militec-1. I was hoping I'd remember to track em down.
I love synchronicity.
We went and saw 'Windtalkers' last night and the BAR was prominently featured in the combat scenes. I never knew that thing would fire hundreds of rounds without a reload. heh heh
Can I be in your will? I could be the older son you might have had.
At one time this country had a respect and appreciation for those country boys who knew how to shoot. They built weapons worthy of their skills. There are those in America who would see that skill set vanish forever.
I'm really jealous about the 34. I've been lusting for the 35 (.40) to keep my 23 (compact .40) company. In fact, I'm thinking of getting the 35 and trading the 23 for a 36 (slim .45).
That is an appeal to improper authority. There have been studies done where they shot through twigs and other things and the .308 was affected just like the .223, the .45, the .50, and bevy of other weapons. They actually measured the keyholing and deflection by sticking plants and stuff in the flight path while shooting the various cartridges. They offer a reproduceable test, you do not. I have a hard time believing that large bore bullets only destabilize when hit by a twig when you are not shooting them.
Incidentally, I live with a guy who has seen more action than you and I combined (and even then by a factor of two or more), who has used just about every weapon in combat the US and Commie arsenals have produced at one time or another. His favorite combat weapon after all these years: the M2 .30 carbine. I'm sure your reaction is something like mine was, but he likes the trade-off the weapon makes so who am I to argue; I've never used the .30 carbine in combat.
I wouldn't put too much faith in "published statistics" if I were you. What you are looking for in the feild is a weapon that stuill fires enven if you were just in the creek, and that "punches" through stuff.
You are aware that the "black tip" .30-06 bullets were designed to improve the "crappy penetration" of the .30-06 through heavy cover aren't you (it isn't "AP" as commonly sold)? The SS109 .223 bullets were designed to do the same thing for the .223. There is no widely deployed equivalent for the .308. Unless you believe the .308 intrinsically out-penetrates the .30-06, there is a problem with your line of reasoning. You might be surprised to find out that the standard NATO .223 load will demonstrably punch through hard cover better than the standard NATO .308 load. Not only has various NATO countries tested this, but myself and some other people have too, using standard military ammo. The NATO .223 loads penetrate masonry and structural material surprisingly well.
I'll clue you in on another "remarkable". The AK47 is superior to the M14. It's as smooth as butter on the recoil and much eaasider to control.
I've owned AK47s from all over the world, and while some of the finer AK47 variants are quite smooth for their kind (e.g. Valmets), they hardly have "butter smooth" recoil in any absolute sense when talking about other weapons. I will agree with the relative ease of control though. However, going back to a previous argument, the 7.62x39 deflects AND penetrates worse than .223. Ballistically it is a real dog.
My biggest complaint about the AK47, other than the crappy cartridge, is the really poor ergonomics. It is a very slow and awkward weapon to operate, and while that may be adequate for peasant soldiers, it is inadequate for highly-trained combat soldiers. I will also add that the supposed horrible "inaccuracy" of the AK47 is largely BS. Using good quality American ammo, decent quality AK47s will shoot as well as most of the other European combat rifles all day. While you'll get better accuracy out of a rack grade M16, I've owned a few AK47 variants that could shoot 1.5-2MOA all day with decent ammo. Most are a bit worse than this but still serviceable (certainly no worse than a Mini-14).
Your books must be several years old. There is a 6.5-06, but it has lost favor to the more accurate 6.5-.284 (which is factory loaded). The 6.5-.284 is a real screamer, and the bullets can stay supersonic for close to a mile depending on your load (not because it is particularly fast, but because the very high BC means they don't bleed velocity).
The 6.5-08 is a relatively old "wildcat" cartridge, that first showed up in print a few decades ago IIRC. The .260 Remington is the commercial tag the 6.5-08 was given sometime in the late '90s. A number of rifle manufacturers produce rifles in it now, and most of the major American ammo manufactures produce a variety of factory loads. I own a rifle in it, and have found it to be an excellent and superbly balanced North American hunting cartridge. And with the extreme penetration profile of the loads, I wouldn't hesitate to use it on really heavy game in a pinch (6.5mm are the only "small" bores that have been used very successfully on game up to and including elephant in Africa).
Two thumbs up for the .260 Remington from me. It is a very capable cartridge in a nice package.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.