Best 5.56 Assault Rifle?
- Thread starter Shazam
- Start date
stormbringer
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- S.W. Ontario
He indicates that he would pick an AR any day of the week.
He has NOT used a Galil or a Daewoo.
He was issued an AR (C7 is my guess) and trained on it therefore he has the most appreciation for its function.
You like what you know so to speak.......
Clear?
now.......of course not having used a Galil or Daewoo would explain him not picking either of those over the AR. If he had tried them I am certain that he would have picked one of those. I LOVE my Daewoo and dream about Galils.
He has NOT used a Galil or a Daewoo.
He was issued an AR (C7 is my guess) and trained on it therefore he has the most appreciation for its function.
You like what you know so to speak.......
Clear?
now.......of course not having used a Galil or Daewoo would explain him not picking either of those over the AR. If he had tried them I am certain that he would have picked one of those. I LOVE my Daewoo and dream about Galils.
Some guys must love the L85
Members of the Irish Republican Army would be my guess. God knows how many of them are alive today because British assassination teams were stuck using this worthless piece of $hit.
But it sure looked good when it came out. As far as I know, nobody guessed it was fundamentally unsound, until the field reports came in. It seemed to have all the bells and whistles; it made the M-16A2 look passé, if not obsolete.
Something must be terribly wrong in the British Army, that men’s lives are being put into jeopardy and nobody has the guts to pull the plug by scrapping it and finding a replacement. My guess is that someone in the chain must have been given a colossal bribe. I remember reading that Margaret Thatcher’s relatives were involved in all sorts of shady dealings with Government, where useless equipment was purchased at great expense. Maybe the L85 is part of the legacy of corruption. I can think of no other explanation for fielding and then retaining the thing, in the face of undeniable and insolvable defects, while viable alternatives abound.
It is hard to believe that this is the same outfit that built the Lee Enfield, and perfected the BREN.
BB
Members of the Irish Republican Army would be my guess. God knows how many of them are alive today because British assassination teams were stuck using this worthless piece of $hit.
But it sure looked good when it came out. As far as I know, nobody guessed it was fundamentally unsound, until the field reports came in. It seemed to have all the bells and whistles; it made the M-16A2 look passé, if not obsolete.
Something must be terribly wrong in the British Army, that men’s lives are being put into jeopardy and nobody has the guts to pull the plug by scrapping it and finding a replacement. My guess is that someone in the chain must have been given a colossal bribe. I remember reading that Margaret Thatcher’s relatives were involved in all sorts of shady dealings with Government, where useless equipment was purchased at great expense. Maybe the L85 is part of the legacy of corruption. I can think of no other explanation for fielding and then retaining the thing, in the face of undeniable and insolvable defects, while viable alternatives abound.
It is hard to believe that this is the same outfit that built the Lee Enfield, and perfected the BREN.
BB
Last edited:
It really is odd that the L85 would be such a pile of crap. They started with a sound design, the AR18, but some how managed to complete screw it up. Typical British manufacturing is my guess. What more to you expect from a country that actually has a trade called a "fitter" whose soul job is to make parts fit as they can't figure out how to make parts the same?
My pick is the sig 551-3 why??? cause I have one and like it more than my auto M4. It is a good gun that shoots much smoother than an M4, and really does not need any after market accessories, but I prefer my M4 when it is suppressed as it is waaaaay quieter than a sig. Two great guns and I really can't say one is really hands down better than the other.
dangertree
Business Rep
- Location
- NL/ON/FL/PL
? What do you base this statement on? The L85-A2, has been in service in the UK since at least 1998 (because that's when I first shot one, and not everyone had the A2 at the time), and is apparently reliable. The UK troops I worked with seemed to still like the AR/C7/M16 over the SA80 for lot's of reasons, but they did say the A2s are working, and many stated they were a vast improvement over the original design.
Or maybe I'm out to lunch... could you expand on your statement about men's lives being put into jeopardy or the undeniable and unsolvable defects that remain?
Last edited:
Apart from that, the L85 is just great
I thought not to bother with a reply, since virtually every authorities source on small arms dismisses the L85 as trash. But spite got the better of me, and I will reprint a post from Wikpiedia, contained below. Note item two in the listed defects. The receiver is simply too thin, made of cheap materials by an incompetent design team ignorant as to the basic requirements of service rifles. It is a flaw that cannot be remedied, save for to scrap the gun entirely. If you require further justification to my statement that the L85 is trash, and that every supporter is an idiot of a profiteer, then look for Peter C. Kokalis's reviews of the rifle, as found in Soldier Of Fortune magazine. YouTube is full of video depicting this $hit box jamming every twenty rounds or so.
But apart from that, the L85 is a crackerjack rifle. Just keep a stiff upper lip, laddy, and ignore the comments of ignorant colonials. That type of reasoning worked at the Somme and Dieppe and it made the British Empire what it is today. Rule Britannia!
Wikpedia Quote wrt defects in the L85:
"• The lack of a magazine release guard, which meant that the release had a bad habit of catching on a soldier’s webbing/belt kit and ejecting the magazine. A release catch guard was first added to a single rifle by S/SGT Michael Pen-Collings of REME while based in Tidworth barracks after troops returned from a tab holding the magazines. The design of the guard was slightly changed and then added to all rifles.
• The walls of the receiver were so thin that the bolt could be stopped from moving by squeezing too hard or denting the chassis.
• The various plastic parts on the weapon were of an overall poor quality and were known to break or fall apart if not handled with care. The standard-issue mosquito repellent 'melted' (pitted) plastic parts of the rifle.
• The top cover was not secure and was often fixed down with gaffer tape or a rubber band.
• The gas plug could (unlike that on the SLR which preceded it) be inserted upside down resulting in it jamming in the gas port. When it is inserted incorrectly, the weapon is rendered useless and it has to be drilled out and replaced.
• The magazine design and materials. Stoppages (weapon jamming) caused by mis-fed rounds from damaged British-issue magazines have earned the rifle as a whole a reputation for unreliability which is not completely deserved.
The springs used in the magazines were of poor quality, and while the magazine had a maximum capacity of 30 rounds, this was not recommended as it was known to put too much pressure on the spring, inevitably causing a stoppage. The soldier’s work-around was to fill the magazine with 25 or so rounds as the reduction in pressure made the magazines more reliable. This problem was not fully corrected until the issue of a new magazine with the A2 variant.
Feed lips would bend out of shape, particularly when dropped. A work-around adopted by some troops was to use the magazine designed for the American M16 rifle.
• The weapons were criticised for ejection jams, often attributed to a cocking handle that sometimes deflected empty cartridges back into the ejector port and also due to a sensitivity to dirt.
• Their weight - approximately 1 kg heavier than contemporary 5.56 mm weapons like the M-16, H&K G36, and Steyr AUG and no lighter than most of the previous generation of military rifles, such as the SLR. While additional weight can help reduce recoil and increase the accuracy of an infantry arm, it is questionable whether the additional gain in accuracy is of any benefit in a 5.56 mm infantry rifle or light support weapon. Moreover, much of the weight is in the butt of the weapon, requiring more weight in the front handguard to retain balance and pointing qualities.
• Extreme hot and cold conditions performance. Although this has not explicitly been confirmed by the British government, many soldiers complained that while in terrain such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Norway, the weapons would malfunction due to heat or cold alternately expanding or contracting metal parts inside the weapon, causing stoppages.
• The bullpup layout makes this rifle impossible to fire from the left shoulder. Regiments trained left-handed firing with the SLR, enabling the soldier to fire aimed rounds around right-handed hard cover. With a bullpup the firer can only engage by firing un-aimed rounds or by exposing his body (thus negating the hard cover) to enable the weapon to be fired from the right shoulder.
• The bayonet, while less important on today's battlefield, is also the source of some criticism.
o The bayonet's handle is metal and touches the barrel, and it can get hot very rapidly during shooting.
o Users have complained about it bending and in some cases the blade breaking or shattering. There is, however, limited official documentation on this.
Some of the rifle's problems were corrected though modifications (e.g. the magazine release guard) but complaints over reliability in service continued.
Reports by H&K suggested that over-zealous cleaning had a detrimental effect on the rifle. This includes using abrasives on parts not suited to them, as well as simple over-cleaning. During service in Kuwait and Afghanistan, the weapon would frequently malfunction when not cleaned thoroughly and often.
This poor reputation led to regular criticism by British soldiers and marines, a fact picked up by the UK media, for example the Bremner, Bird and Fortune satirical comedy documentary Between Iraq and a Hard Place included the line: "The SA80 is a lethal weapon, especially for the person trying to fire it," stolen from a description of the Vietnam War era M16. The writer Andy McNab stated in his book Bravo Two Zero, that the British Army procured a "Rolls-Royce in the SA80, albeit a prototype Rolls-Royce." Because of the poor performance of the L85A1, the rifle's export sales were largely a failure. To date, the only other nations to use the SA80 are Jamaica, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, all of whom received quantities of the SA80 as foreign aid. In the mid-90s Venezuela purchased a small lot of these weapons for use by their Special Forces, with the possibility of replacing the aging FN-FALs of the entire Armed Forces with the SA80. General discontent with the design and alleged reliability problems, particularly in jungle settings, quickly led to the dismissal of this weapon from all active service within Venezuela."
I thought not to bother with a reply, since virtually every authorities source on small arms dismisses the L85 as trash. But spite got the better of me, and I will reprint a post from Wikpiedia, contained below. Note item two in the listed defects. The receiver is simply too thin, made of cheap materials by an incompetent design team ignorant as to the basic requirements of service rifles. It is a flaw that cannot be remedied, save for to scrap the gun entirely. If you require further justification to my statement that the L85 is trash, and that every supporter is an idiot of a profiteer, then look for Peter C. Kokalis's reviews of the rifle, as found in Soldier Of Fortune magazine. YouTube is full of video depicting this $hit box jamming every twenty rounds or so.
But apart from that, the L85 is a crackerjack rifle. Just keep a stiff upper lip, laddy, and ignore the comments of ignorant colonials. That type of reasoning worked at the Somme and Dieppe and it made the British Empire what it is today. Rule Britannia!
Wikpedia Quote wrt defects in the L85:
"• The lack of a magazine release guard, which meant that the release had a bad habit of catching on a soldier’s webbing/belt kit and ejecting the magazine. A release catch guard was first added to a single rifle by S/SGT Michael Pen-Collings of REME while based in Tidworth barracks after troops returned from a tab holding the magazines. The design of the guard was slightly changed and then added to all rifles.
• The walls of the receiver were so thin that the bolt could be stopped from moving by squeezing too hard or denting the chassis.
• The various plastic parts on the weapon were of an overall poor quality and were known to break or fall apart if not handled with care. The standard-issue mosquito repellent 'melted' (pitted) plastic parts of the rifle.
• The top cover was not secure and was often fixed down with gaffer tape or a rubber band.
• The gas plug could (unlike that on the SLR which preceded it) be inserted upside down resulting in it jamming in the gas port. When it is inserted incorrectly, the weapon is rendered useless and it has to be drilled out and replaced.
• The magazine design and materials. Stoppages (weapon jamming) caused by mis-fed rounds from damaged British-issue magazines have earned the rifle as a whole a reputation for unreliability which is not completely deserved.
The springs used in the magazines were of poor quality, and while the magazine had a maximum capacity of 30 rounds, this was not recommended as it was known to put too much pressure on the spring, inevitably causing a stoppage. The soldier’s work-around was to fill the magazine with 25 or so rounds as the reduction in pressure made the magazines more reliable. This problem was not fully corrected until the issue of a new magazine with the A2 variant.
Feed lips would bend out of shape, particularly when dropped. A work-around adopted by some troops was to use the magazine designed for the American M16 rifle.
• The weapons were criticised for ejection jams, often attributed to a cocking handle that sometimes deflected empty cartridges back into the ejector port and also due to a sensitivity to dirt.
• Their weight - approximately 1 kg heavier than contemporary 5.56 mm weapons like the M-16, H&K G36, and Steyr AUG and no lighter than most of the previous generation of military rifles, such as the SLR. While additional weight can help reduce recoil and increase the accuracy of an infantry arm, it is questionable whether the additional gain in accuracy is of any benefit in a 5.56 mm infantry rifle or light support weapon. Moreover, much of the weight is in the butt of the weapon, requiring more weight in the front handguard to retain balance and pointing qualities.
• Extreme hot and cold conditions performance. Although this has not explicitly been confirmed by the British government, many soldiers complained that while in terrain such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Norway, the weapons would malfunction due to heat or cold alternately expanding or contracting metal parts inside the weapon, causing stoppages.
• The bullpup layout makes this rifle impossible to fire from the left shoulder. Regiments trained left-handed firing with the SLR, enabling the soldier to fire aimed rounds around right-handed hard cover. With a bullpup the firer can only engage by firing un-aimed rounds or by exposing his body (thus negating the hard cover) to enable the weapon to be fired from the right shoulder.
• The bayonet, while less important on today's battlefield, is also the source of some criticism.
o The bayonet's handle is metal and touches the barrel, and it can get hot very rapidly during shooting.
o Users have complained about it bending and in some cases the blade breaking or shattering. There is, however, limited official documentation on this.
Some of the rifle's problems were corrected though modifications (e.g. the magazine release guard) but complaints over reliability in service continued.
Reports by H&K suggested that over-zealous cleaning had a detrimental effect on the rifle. This includes using abrasives on parts not suited to them, as well as simple over-cleaning. During service in Kuwait and Afghanistan, the weapon would frequently malfunction when not cleaned thoroughly and often.
This poor reputation led to regular criticism by British soldiers and marines, a fact picked up by the UK media, for example the Bremner, Bird and Fortune satirical comedy documentary Between Iraq and a Hard Place included the line: "The SA80 is a lethal weapon, especially for the person trying to fire it," stolen from a description of the Vietnam War era M16. The writer Andy McNab stated in his book Bravo Two Zero, that the British Army procured a "Rolls-Royce in the SA80, albeit a prototype Rolls-Royce." Because of the poor performance of the L85A1, the rifle's export sales were largely a failure. To date, the only other nations to use the SA80 are Jamaica, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, all of whom received quantities of the SA80 as foreign aid. In the mid-90s Venezuela purchased a small lot of these weapons for use by their Special Forces, with the possibility of replacing the aging FN-FALs of the entire Armed Forces with the SA80. General discontent with the design and alleged reliability problems, particularly in jungle settings, quickly led to the dismissal of this weapon from all active service within Venezuela."
dangertree
Business Rep
- Location
- NL/ON/FL/PL
My mention of the A2 improvements on a gun I detest inspired spite. LOL!
Fair enough, knowing this, I concede.
dangertree
Business Rep
- Location
- NL/ON/FL/PL
Actually, if we're quoting wikipedia, the next paragraph from the stuff above is....
Is my timeframe was off? Was it 2000 before this started? It was mid summer 98 I was shown the 'new, improved' rifle that some guys had, and compared them back to back with the 'old' version that guys from another trade still had. I clearly remember the Sgt mentioning there were X number of improvements over the old L85 and them all saying 'big improvement'. The new one had the SUSAT. Was there a mod in between, or prior to 2000, or is wiki wrong, or am I on crack? I'm no expert on these rifles.
Final word for me. I'd take an AR over an SA-80 ANY day. But I wouldn't feel my life was in dire straights if given an L85-A2.
Is my timeframe was off? Was it 2000 before this started? It was mid summer 98 I was shown the 'new, improved' rifle that some guys had, and compared them back to back with the 'old' version that guys from another trade still had. I clearly remember the Sgt mentioning there were X number of improvements over the old L85 and them all saying 'big improvement'. The new one had the SUSAT. Was there a mod in between, or prior to 2000, or is wiki wrong, or am I on crack? I'm no expert on these rifles.
Final word for me. I'd take an AR over an SA-80 ANY day. But I wouldn't feel my life was in dire straights if given an L85-A2.
Last edited:
And there is the big issue, the SA80 =/= L85A2.
When we say the SA80 is junk, that's because it is. No one is disputing that the re-manufactured L85A2 is decent rifle. Hell, look how long it took the M16 to iron out the kinks. No rifle is perfect straight out the gate. The SA80 was just laughably terrible with the glaringly obvious issues it had.
When we say the SA80 is junk, that's because it is. No one is disputing that the re-manufactured L85A2 is decent rifle. Hell, look how long it took the M16 to iron out the kinks. No rifle is perfect straight out the gate. The SA80 was just laughably terrible with the glaringly obvious issues it had.
Last edited:
