Faults found in army's new rifle

ic Wales ^ | 3 July 2002 | staff

[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.

[He Rides A White Horse]

I thought maybe it failed some eco-weenie 'emissions test' when fired.

[B4Ranch]

Try using Militec-1. It can be found at .com. That stuff does miracles for guns and engines, actually anything metal.

[Ben Hecks]

The M-14 was adopted because the Army wanted to go to the NATO 7.62 round. I liked the compact M-1 Garand better - the only M-14 feature that I thought was an advancement was the removable magazine.

[Khepera]

Don't they test these first?

[45Auto]

Sure, but they probably test 'em in damp, old England, and not in the 1% humidity and dust of North Africa (or Afghanistan).

[Valin]

It *is* a sweet-looking rifle.

You want to carry it in combat? Not me!

As an aside when I was first stationed at Duluth AFB we carried the M-1 carbine, now it didn't look pretty and it weighted a bit more than the 16 and it didn't put out to rounds that the 16 did BUT the damn thing worked. Rain, shine, summer, winter. Plus as an extra added bonus if you ran out of ammo you had a club unlike the 16, you run out with that...weapon(?) you've got a big piece of plastic.

[68 grunt]

Sure man, our Ministry of Defense is all over it! :)

[Euro-American Scum]

My M1A1 is not among them.

Ditto that. This weapon is a pure joy to shoot.

[tortoise]

I was just going to mention the M-14. Why on earth they left that fine rifle, I'll never understand.

They left it because it was an obscenely expensive rifle to produce for its capabilities, making the inordinate expense extremely difficult to justify in the long run. Good riddance I'd say, and a smart move in any case.

[Lurker]

The M1A1 is the civilian issue of the M14 FYI. I also own a Garand, and it's a fine piece that's for sure. However, for accuracy, the M1A1 runs rings around the Garand IMO.

I also obtained an Indian Army Enfield (Ishapore Arms) chambered for 7.62 Nato and I love it. That rifle is built like a tank and boy it's fun to shoot. I paid less than $200.00 US for it from a surplus outfit in New Jersey. It took a built of elbow grease and some spare parts from a friend but it's a darn fine shooter.

I've been recommending them to friends who want a reliable, inexpensive, and rugged rifle in a common caliber.

If you have the means, I highly recommend them.

Regards,

L

[Parmy]

My first M-16 would invariably fire 3 rounds and jam. When we got the A1, it was better. Never had it jam.

[chuknospam]

I don't think the British or the French ever built a weapon that was worth a hoot. Now the the Germans were another story!

[Lurker]

I took a pre-ban NM M1A1 and pretty much built a tactical model myself.

The longest range I have been able to shoot it is 500 yards and it's plenty accurate at that range. I can hit the center of a gallon milk jug just about every time. Not many production semi-auto rifles can do that.

I had a guy offer me 2 grand in cash for it one day and I turned him down flat.

I'm gonna have that rifle till the day I die.

Regards,

L

[tortoise]

The SA80 is dog, through and through. It's been de-listed from NATO standards, among other reasons, because it finds most standard military loadings of 5.56mm to be "too hot" and tend to break when using US or Canadian ammunition. Hence why the British 5.56 is underloaded by everyone else's standards.

The story behind the SA80 as I understand it, is that the UK wanted to issue a domestically produced rifle, mostly to prop up the failing Enfield company. The SA80 is the result. A smarter move would have been to license one of the numerous superior designs out there and have Enfield manufacturer it.

[tet68]

I have one of the 2As it's great to shoot.
Like these even better and the price keeps coming down.
Around $400 now for one built on an import receiver.
Mine works great and magazines are only $4.95 at Tapco.

[tortoise]

The longest range I have been able to shoot it is 500 yards and it's plenty accurate at that range. I can hit the center of a gallon milk jug just about every time. Not many production semi-auto rifles can do that.

One of the quirks of American military history is that historically we have always adopted anomalously accurate firearms for military weapons. The US is the only military that I know of that has routinely adopted firearms that could trivially be converted into match grade weapons in their day. I don't know if it has made a difference militarily, but Americans sure do have a taste for quality firearms.

[Willie Green]

I took a pre-ban NM M1A1 and pretty much built a tactical model myself.

I'm not sure I'd have the nerve to do something like that.
There's just something elegantly "pure" about the standard iron sights.
I wouldn't want to "ruin" it with modifications.
But if I could have one of EACH, as originally built...

Hey! I'm allowed to dream, aren't I?

[meyer]

One of the quirks of American military history is that historically we have always adopted anomalously accurate firearms for military weapons. The US is the only military that I know of that has routinely adopted firearms that could trivially be converted into match grade weapons in their day. I don't know if it has made a difference militarily, but Americans sure do have a taste for quality firearms.

I do beleive that the German army had some rather fine firearms as well. It may not be as important today with the abundance of rapid-fire, but in the days of semi-auto and bolt-action weapons, accuracy was quite important. To a sniper, war is the ultimate rifle match. :^)

You're right on the point that we Americans like quality firearms. Well, at least I do. Actually, I like fine quality machinery in whatever form it comes. (Unfortunately, I drive a rather ordinary car, but I suppose we all have to make sacrifices. Besides, a car is not a quality investment, but that's a story for another thread).