AKS-74U Shorty Assault Rifle.
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.
Thanks in advance.
L
I bought the basic rifle (basic National Match model anyway) from a guy who was getting a divorce for the outrageous price of $500.00. Yea, I felt guilty for a while but I eventually got over it. I had the stock bedded and tapped for the bipod by a gunsmith I know. I got the Gen III scope mount from Springfield and then scrimped and saved for a year until I could afford a Lueopold scope. To tell you the truth, I spent more for the scope than I did for the rifle.
I even managed to find the proper bayonet at a gun show a couple of years ago.
The nice thing about the factory scope mounts is you can still use the iron sights without any modification to the rifle. All you have to do is look a bit lower. If you have to, you can remove the scope in about 20 seconds without a screwdriver.
Out to about 250 yards my aging eyes are still able to be pretty good over the iron sights. Beyond that, I use the scope without feeling guilty about it at all.
It's good to see someone else with a taste for fine rifles around Mr. Green.
Regards,
L
It's true that 30-06 is a more powerful cartridge than .308. However I recall reading somewhere (reloading manual? gun magazine?) that .308 is inherently more accurate. Something about the smaller case optimizing internal ballistics, (chamber pressure, etc. etc. etc.), resulting in more consistant external ballistics.
LOL!!! I wasn't concerned with the difficulty.
My hesitancy at alteration would be more out of respect for maintaining a fine rifle in original OEM condition.
There are some mechanisms in this world that just beg for an engineer (such as myself) to tinker with and modify/customize for improvement and personal preference.
Others are so beautifully designed that they demand preservation and use in their original form.
The SA80 is based on the Armalite AR18, which they converted to bullpup, and screwed up in the process. But domestic politics and pride demand that it be used by the troops, even if they despise it.
Except for the elite, like the SAS. They use M16s.
Probably the chamber is too tight, the same fault as M16s - results in an accurate "peacetime" rifle but one that jams as deposits build up in the chamber.
Blowing hot gases directly back into the chamber doesn't help. If they used a piston operated system like AK etc.; FNFAL etc.; slight additional weight but much more relaible.
What we would call a .260 Remington in the civilian world (or a 6.5-08 in the old days). The 6.5mm bullet on the .308 case is just about optimal if you look at the performance envelopes as a function of bullet size. It would out-penetrate a .308 for sure and be usefully accurate at ranges a good ways beyond what any man is likely to be able to shoot with military iron sights.
Don't get me started with Lee Enfield No. 4's. I've owned a number of them over the years - probably the best combat bolt action rifle ever made.
I'm assuming you actually believe this, but you couldn't be more wrong. The British Lee Enfield rifles were far superior combat rifles than any Mauser.
I strongly suggest you read up on the penetration profiles of standard military loads. You'll be surprised. Also, have you actually looked at studies of the effect on bullets when they hit twigs and such? All bullets will deflect when they hit twigs and such, far more than you would expect and even for large bullets like .50 and 20mm. There is no practical difference between the deflection sensitivities of .22 and .30. Hell, you've dragged out just about every myth about .223 versus .308. Next you'll tell us about the "stopping power" of the .308 versus .223.
Quite frankly, the only roles for which the .308 is clearly superior are roles for which the .308 is inferior to a whole lot of other common calibers. For most people in this day and age, there are few compelling reasons to select the .308 over the plethora of other cartridges available.
Insignificantly more oomph. The .308 has an accuracy advantage, which is why snipers chose it over the 30.06. The only advantage to the 30.06 is for big game hunting. You can put 220 grain bullet in a 30.06 case, but you can't do that with a .308.
Very true, but the .308 is a more accurate design. The problem is that the .30 caliber bullet is too large for the .308 case if you want to do really long-range shooting. The 6.5mm bullets on the same case perform very well and really open up the range envelope, staying supersonic out past 1,000 yards with most commonly available bullets if I remember correctly. I know a lot of long distance shooters who have converted their .308s to 6.5-08 for accuracy reasons (including service rifles) and they have been very pleased with the difference at the more extended ranges.
After much thought over the years, and owning many rifles in .308, I've pretty much decided that the .308 was a cartridge that should never have been. The case is too small for heavy duty hunting loads (unlike the .30-06), and smaller bullets on the same case look better ballistically for long-range accuracy and arguably even for hunting (due to better penetration profiles). Such is the history of cartridge development.
As old as it is, the 6.5x55 Swedish Mauser is looking more and more like the ideal infantry caliber.
It is still a very serviceable cartridge because of its excellent ballistic characteristics. The slightly better modern equivalent is the .260 Remington (6.5-08), but you could still out-gun most other calibers with a 6.5 Swedish. As an interesting bit of trivia, 6.5 Swedish is one of the few cartridges that Federal loads Gold Medal factory match ammo for.
Try Hornady 55 spitzer over max load H335 [disclaimer: start 10% low as you know]. I have a stainless Ranch Rifle which gets neatly under 3 min with that load, unmodified, and that with a 4X scope off sandbags, and I'm not a particularly good marksman either.
Partly true
They are using the C7A1, a Canadian adaptation of the M16A1E1
More robust.
Agreed.
Simple, robust and accurate.
Kept on working even under the worst conditions.
More robust.
From what I've seen of the C7A1, it's a M16A1 with the addition of the case deflector bump of the A2. What makes it more robust than keeping the original fire control mechanism of the A1, rather than the damnable burst fire setup of the A2?
I've heard that Canada settled on that configuration because the royalties were less than paying Colt for the A2 configuration. And even then, it costs three times more to make a C7 than to buy the equivalent from Colt, but politics demanded it.
What you were taught about the magazine confirms my experience. There's no jamming if I load the thing from the top, leaving the magazine seated properly. Disturbing the arrangement can leave the magazine seated a bit wrong, a situation which shows up in bad feeds.
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.