Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: donozark
"... Hence the "sand cuts." During Desert Storm, Brits experienced numerous failures with SA-80. They quickly pulled the trusty FN-FAL out of armory."

... which they started re-shelving again from their front-line troops because of the same jamming problem. The 'sand cuts' in the L1A1 SLR were an afterthought technique adopted from the IDF who found that it didn't do much to help the problem when the dust encountered was like talcum powder. The IDF had always had the gimmicky 'Sand Cuts', who chucked it for the Galil.

For a short time, the British front-line troops in the first Gulf War had even taken to using Greek-licensed copies of the Hk G-3 rifle, or borrowed M16/A1s fitted with A2 handguards from the USA and C7 rifles from Canada.

Also, the 7.62mm rounds they distrubuted with the re-issued L1A1s was delinked machinegun ammo from their L7A2s that's designed to fire inconsistently to create a 'beaten zone'.

The only reliable arm the British brought to the desert was the Sterling SMG.

My opinion is that the British should take the cue from the Australians and adopt the Steyr AUG if they want a real bullpup.

19 posted on 02/28/2003 11:49:44 AM PST by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: The KG9 Kid
As long as they buy from the original designer, Steyr of Austria, the AUG would be a good replacement.

The Australian built AUG has been used in New Zealand for 20 years and has suffered from fogging optics, junk magazines, a barrel that can not sustain a reasonable rate of automatic rifle fire and fallible safety mechanisms.

The Australian AUG can be summed up by an actual order by the Australian Army, order No. 7196-94 which indicated that the Steyr should not be used on rapid fire for long because the plastic parts melted.
23 posted on 02/28/2003 1:10:07 PM PST by spitz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: The KG9 Kid
Differing views on IDF switch to M-16. Many feel for the same reason as Abrams tank. U$ "grant$" to purchase back US products. Also, weight of FN-FAL was a factor. As it was for the Galil.

I tend to side with the individual soldiers, in this case the Brits. Most would eagerly trash the SA-80 for a FAL anyday. In early days of Afghan war, I noted Brit SAS carrying M-16s (full size) as well as the M-4 "shorty." Also saw a couple of FAL paras. Of course these elite forces have options. Little guy? Take what ya get and like it...Just hope it doesn't cost anyone his life.

27 posted on 03/01/2003 5:35:49 AM PST by donozark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson