you are currently viewing: Discussion Forum
 
 

 
 

The Rorke's Drift VC Discussion Forum
(View Discussion Rules)

** IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO ALL USERS **

PLEASE NOTE: This forum is now inactive and is provided for reference purposes only. The live forum is available at www.rorkesdriftvc.com/forum


(Back To Topic List)

DateOriginal Topic
13th March 2005Is the SA80 a good replacement for the British Army ?.
By Coll
I know this is dealing with more modern firearms, but I wondered what the view was about this particular firearm, advantages and disadvantages, or if there was an opinion on the type of weapons our soldiers should be armed with as an alternative to this one ?.

Coll
DateReplies
13th March 2005Trevor
No offence mate.
But this question has bugger all to do with what this site was set up for?
13th March 2005Coll
Trevor

The development of the british army from then to the present, I think, is a part of what this site is about.

The uniforms, methods of fighting, etc., including weaponry, as the changing face of battle involves updating these aspects.

The Martini Henry had to progress onto a new firearm, then again another, and so forth, each meeting the requirements necessary for the battlefield of the time, right to the present-day.

I only asked a general question to see if the SA80 was a good choice of firearm to be issued to the modern british forces, after the changes made to the weapons from the AZW and through campaigns since.

However, it is unfortunate you didn't just ignore my question and leave it unanswered.

Coll
13th March 2005atkins
this may not have much to do with this site, but as i have had first hand experience of this particular weapon. i know this is an alround ideal weapon easy to clean simple to fire easy to load. also combined with the LSW and possibly the GPMG has an awesome effect. the tacic i prefere is the 30 rounds covering fire on the LSW then 2 rounds on the SA80 followed by simply advancing with a charge and fire.
13th March 2005Paul Cubbin
The 5.56 Enfiled (SA80) is lightweight and easy to use and was hailed as being 'squaddie proof' at its inception due to its simplicity of operation and sturdiness. One of the main factors was its versatility and the ease at which its components can be converted to a support weapon. Unfortuantely it is pants in this role (magaziine fed - useless in modern conflict) and the GPMG still outclasses it. The FN FAL SLR was popular due its stopping power but was deemed too heavy and, at 7.62mm, incompatable with the majority of the NATO 5.56 ammunition. The two desert wars showed that the 5.56 Enfield, unfortuantely did not hold up particularly well in sandy conditions and was prone to clogging; having said that, so was a lot of British kit since most of it was designed with European conflicts in mind. The 'bullpup' configuration with the magazine behind the grip appears to improve accuracy (the Steyr is popular in police and security personel worldwide) as it transfers the centre of gravity towards the body and also may reduce jamming. With a good battle sight and simple telescopic sight the Enfield is certainly accurate and the lighter calibre may improve this. Also it fires 'tumble rounds' that spin end over end in flight, causes horrific wounds on contact with flesh (they tend to pinball and ricochet off bones internally) at the expense of armour piercing ability (not generally needed). Although it hasn't lived up to all its original promise, the Enfield encompasses a unique strap system that allows the weapon to be slung in a variety of positions that still makes it swiftly available for firing, and is certainly popular with soldiers. The new weapon on the horizin is rumoured to herald the dawn of an entirely unique projectile and ammunition system, although exactly what is beyond my ken.

But yes, this does have bugger all to do with Rorkes Drift, so stop it or you'll get a smacked wrist.
13th March 2005Coll
Atkins and Paul

Thanks for your detailed replies.

Coll
14th March 2005Neil Raaff
Hi all,

My experiences of this weapon have been fairly good but that's not to say it's a good weapon!

Accurate and compact it does a fairly good job providing it's well maintained. If you don't keep it clean you're going to hit problems...

Two bad examples of this weapon spring to mind.

The first was an occassion when the DS where giving a fire and manouevre demonstration. All four of those advancing on the position had their weapons fail and had to work to action to chamber each round!

The second was on a range shoot. It was a really hot day and at the end of the day we had a load of ammunition left. The DS decided it would be best to use it all up so all us bombed up all our mags and were told to give it some rapid fire. Of the 10 of us 6 weapons failed...one had a broken firing pin, another the extractor sheared the base of the brass casing (leaving the rest in the chamber) and the others were inoperable due to overheating. I suppose it could be put down to poor fire control but I wasn't impressed!

If I were to suggest a replacement it would be something along the lines of a G36. Enough of me talking "off topic".

Neil
14th March 2005Chris Collier
Historically speaking, probably the most important point of interest relating to the SA80, is the step change in British Army thinking which it's introduction marked. Up until the introduction of this weapon, the British Army placed great emphasis on long distance accuracy when procuring replacement rifles. This line of thinking culminated with the introduction of the SLR, which was a 7.62 semi-automatic rifle, capable of long distance, single shot accuracy. However, as modern warfare has placed new demands on soldiers and their weaponry, there has been a gradual change of thought regarding the desirable attributes of a modern infantry weapon. Most importantly, history tells us that modern infantry contacts are fought over shorter distances than in the past, therefore long distance accuracy is no longer of paramount importance. Instead, the capability to put down a high rate of suppressive fire, coupled with the obvious benefits offered by a shorter lighter weapon (especially in house to house fighting scenarios) are considered to be the primary requirements of a modern assault weapon. The SA80 undoubtedly satisfies modern requirements in this respect. I don't think it is fair to say that the SA80 is a better weapon than the SLR or vice versa, as effectively they were designed with different roles in mind. One thing is for sure, either weapon would have been very welcome at Isandlwana!
14th March 2005Trevor
Me again Coll.
If you look at the top of this page, you'll see "The RORKS DRIFT VC DISCUSSION FORUM"
Unless i'm finally going ga-ga. That means discussions about that battle. But if we want to push it to a "general question" Then that i believe covers the zulu wars. What on earth has a 21st century weapon got to do with a 19th century war. Lets stick to what this site is really about. It was a fair question Coll. And the reply's are intelligent and interesting. But again I say. "Bugger all to do with this site!!!!"
ANYONE ELSE AGREE????????????
14th March 2005Neil Raaff
Trevor,

Perhaps there will be a late director's cut of "Zulu Dawn" with the 24th re-equipped with SA80's.

And this time they win (only if they have the A2's though!).

:-)

Neil

14th March 2005Coll
Trevor

If you look back at previous topics, you will see references to the Alamo, Little Bighorn, the Boer War, etc., including other subjects not directly related to the AZW.

The mention of the above were used as comparisons to events in the AZW, or as an example of other elements that appeared in different campaigns to this one.

Are you telling me that this topic - which is enquiring about a firearm associated with the British forces and if it is thought to be a good choice for modern warfare, which would almost be an identical question asked over a century ago, when the Martini Henry first appeared and was compared with firearms issued before it - is any major difference to subjects mentioned on other topics ?.

I suggest you contribute your own topic(s) on subjects of your own choosing regarding the AZW, instead of criticising myself or anybody else, as I 'm not exactly sure what you are hoping to gain by making these comments.

Additionally, if you check back previous topics started by myself, you will be aware that I am an avid AZW enthusiast and have asked several questions regarding aspects of the AZW, and I object to be judged in this manner, when I pursue a different line of approach out of curiosity.

Coll
14th March 2005Peter Ewart
Trevor

It's true that Coll's thread can be said to have nothing to do with the Defence of Rorke's Drift, or even with the AZW generally. However, if he'd been crafty enough to wrap his opening query up with a line purporting - however weakly - to be seeking comparisons with 1879 (as he rather defensively found himself forced to do in his second posting!) the actual relevance of the topic probably wouldn't have raised an eyebrow.

The vast majority of topics discussed on this forum are AZW related, even if a few do tend to go off at tangents - but those that do, or those which are only tenuously linked, have often proved to be among the most fascinating and prolific.

It can be irksome to see non-related items come up, or topics veer off at strange angles, but I suspect most of us have been guilty of that over the years on this forum and I reckon the examples of unwelcome subjects have been very few and far between, partly because the contributors tend to "police" their own discussions and ensure there aren't too many examples of such. The extremely low number of occasions on which Alan or Peter need to come on and blow the whistle or leave a friendly warning is surely the proof of this - as is the fact that, already, up to half a dozen interested responses to Coll's question have resulted in 24 hours.

For example, it can't be the first time that a question on a much broader military topic has come up and been answered by those who saw it because they also happen to have an interest innthe AZW. On balance, as long as they don't occur too regularly or if they have some broader significance, I'm of the opinion that a little understanding would be in order. Obviously, if it occurred too often we'd soon hear from the "controllers."

And, of course, with Coll's thread being very clearly headed up, we dont have to click to read the entries if we don't want to, do we?

Peter

P.S. Hoping this gives me licence to bang on now & again about cricketing Zulus!
15th March 2005Trevor
Oh Bugger it!!!!!
Fair enough Peter.
Well done Coll.
Thought you kept your cool rather well!
I'd have told me to. "BUGGER OFF"

16th March 2005atkins
just thought i'd let you know the current standard firearm is now being changed to the SA90 which is more powerful and less likely to break when sand and grit is inside the firearm
16th March 2005Coll
Neil, Chris and Peter

Thanks very much for your replies.

Trevor

I'm glad it is sorted out.

Atkins

Thanks for the update.

Coll

16th March 2005Coll
Although I have seen photographs over the years of British rifles as they developed since the AZW, it would be interesting to see them placed side-by-side to really appreciate the progress made - from the Martini Henry right up to the SA80.

Coll
16th March 2005atkins
the best place to do this is to simply go to royal armoury in lecicter it really is great there
16th March 2005Coll
Atkins

Thanks for your reply.

I was thinking more on the lines of a firing range, where all the weapons are tested at agreed distances (single-shot only) for accuracy and bullet effect on targets.

However, the older weapons may be at a disadvantage due to age, which may affect their true performance on the range.

Although it would be good to compare the various designs of the actual weapons, bullet types and accessories that were/are issued for each individual firearm.

A tv documentary covering these weapons would be good.

Coll
16th March 2005Paul Cubbin
There was a fantastic programme I watched about the development of the rifle in warfare (Discovery, UK History, one of those) that was very interesting. When I was a cadet we used Lee Enfield .303 bolt action rifles (mark IV I think) - beautiful weapons. Variants are still used today as sniper rifles. It will always be my favourite, I think, perhaps due to its solid reliability and the 'feel' of it in the hands. I think it represents the last generation of the soldier's non-automatic rifle and served its country well (through various marks) for almost as many decades as the Brown Bess.
17th March 2005Neil Raaff
Atkins,

Is the SA90 the designation for the A2 model of the SA80?

I know the A2 model solves some of the problems that the A1 suffered from (inherent poor concept ideas aside) but I can't see how that makes it more powerful as they're both firing the same round.

Or have I misinterpreted your post entirely (quite plausible!).

Regards,

Neil
17th March 2005atkins
it's not the round that makes the diference in this case, you may or may not understand power effiency. it's how much energy is wasted in shot, for example 20% used for recoil 10% used for round case disperse and 5% used for pin recushoin then the rest for the shot itself, in the SA90 the the %s are less on the secondary actions therefore more energy is used for round dispertion. its hard to understand
17th March 2005Paul Cubbin
- further to Atkins' above. If the propellant in the round discharges and drives the bullet forwards, there is necessarily a proportion of that energy that escapes round the side of the bullet, out the back of the chamber etc.. and is not directly pushing the lead straight out. If these wastages are reduced, the muzzel velocity is increased. Its why the old Wild West's .44 Winchester had a greater range than a revolver that took the same round.
17th March 2005atkins
paul thanks for helping me out, there are intotal about 100 ways to lose energy in the SA80, i have found out the martini henry had an extremly high efficeny percentage.
17th March 2005Paul Cubbin
Perhaps the simplicity of earlier rifles helped out here. Rule of thumb - less working parts, less to go wrong, like the old Sten SMG.
17th March 2005atkins
its due to the percenatages of energy needed, there is hardly any energy used to disperse the casing as this is done manually so nearly all the energy is used to fire the shot 85% i think
17th March 2005atkins
its due to the percenatages of energy needed, there is hardly any energy used to disperse the casing as this is done manually so nearly all the energy is used to fire the shot 85% i think
17th March 2005David Alan Gardner
Paul,

Just a wee point about the ballistics here.I think you'll find that a bullet leaving the barrel of the SA80 does not in fact "tumble".

The gun is a rifle, therefore the round is "spinning" around a longitudinal axis if you will.
However it is fair to say the round is unstable in that if it hits anything at all eg a blade of grass, then the "tumbling" starts and can end up anywhere.
17th March 2005Neil Raaff
Atkins,

As I understood it the newer rifle has considerably stiffer recoil springs etc in it to make the action more strenuous to reduce the effect dirt/grit may have in the action (correct me if I'm wrong on this). I never really considered what impact this would have on the power.

If anything I would have thought more power would be required in blowing back the mechanism/ejecting round etc?

Are there more significant changes to the rifle apart from better mags, strengthened mechanism, strengthened firing pin, etc etc? As Paul suggests there a difference in the barrel in each version?

I'm intrigued.

Neil
17th March 2005David Alan Gardner
Paul,

Just a wee point about the ballistics here.I think you'll find that a bullet leaving the barrel of the SA80 does not in fact "tumble".

The gun is a rifle, therefore the round is "spinning" around a longitudinal axis if you will.
However it is fair to say the round is unstable in that if it hits anything at all eg a blade of grass, then the "tumbling" starts and can end up anywhere.
17th March 2005Paul Cubbin
Neil - no, I didn't suggest a barrel difference, must just be the way you read it, sorry.
David - no, but it is still referred to as a 'tumble round' because of the manner of its flight (I'm not a ballistics guy, just an applicator).
18th March 2005atkins
when i said the SA90 has more power i talk more of the power efficency more than the actual power althrough its is slightly more powerful. the more power needed for the stiff spring is made up by decreasing the the places the power can escape. i didnt invent the weapon so i dont no asactly but i know it is more power efficent
18th March 2005Neil Raaff
Atkins,

Apologies - I misunderstood you. When you said it was more powerful I understood this to mean that the bullet carried more energy. As it's the same round being fired the only way this could be achieved would be to increase the muzzle velocity (as I understand it).

I was just intrigued/confused as the weapons are very similar and didn't think there could be much difference in muzzle velocity unless there were changes more significant than I was aware of.

I'm neither a firearms nor ballistics expert but the concepts of power efficiency the you mentioned are quite interesting. How to balance and apportion the finite power in a round - the number of factors that come into play must be quite astounding.

Regards,

Neil
18th March 2005David Alan Gardner
Paul,

Yes I can see why they would call it that, but it is a misconception to think the round is tumbling before it hits anything.
Project Salvo conducted by the Americans in the fifties started to look at the "lethality" of rounds within what they took as the most common infantry kill zone, I think it was upto 300yards.
At that sort of range, the lethality of the .223 remington was more often greater than heavier calibres.
Interesting reading.

18th March 2005Atkins
there as i said before about 100 ways the SA80 lost power, although most of them holding only 0.001 % but it al adds up
18th March 2005Paul Cubbin
Its interesting how in the C19th American arms manufacturers were accused of being obsessed with muzzle velocity whereas British arms manufacturers went for higher calibre. Presumably catering to different markets. It is also interesting to note how military weaponry is now geared towards injuring, rather than killing, an opponent since a wounded man takes two others to carry him off the battlefield and ties up an enemy's resources. Presumably this was another factor in the change from the heavy 7.62mm FN FAL rifle to the 5.56mm ENFIELD.
19th March 2005Neil Raaff
Paul,

Most definitely a major factor. That and you can carry more of the smaller ammunition. I think it's a standard infantryman load of 300 rounds 5.56 vs 200 of 7.62.

Neil
19th March 2005Derek C
Trevor,
No offence mate.
But Isandlwana has bugger all to do with what this site was set up for? (re: Rorke's Drift). Breaking my own rule, responding to an off topic subject only churns up the feeding frenzie (36 posts & counting). Recently it appears that there are more un-answered questions regarding Isandlwana than RD., but that is where the topics tend to lean right now.

If a topic appears that's of no interest, just ignor it, it'll fade, no big deal <shrug>. I, personally like the broard spectrum covered here, ranging from world class ....to ...me! So long as I learn, I don't mind making a fool of myself (again!).

Personally, I'm soul searching because I was a member of the conscripted S.A. Defense Force from 1978 onwards in Namibia, and I still don't know if what I did was right (no options really) and I'm trying to tie this in to Anglo & Zulu perspectives (me being a "Boer" supporter by default, Service No. 75523019
Pro Patria Medal No. 63818 and a fractured pevis from a land mine to boot).

Bottom line .... did the Zulus' really need the white man? Shepstone / Frere?

Also, regarding the mutilation subject, I've seen stuff that I wish I hadn't, it DOES happen.

Gosh, way too many beers,
Cheers.

19th March 2005Coll
All

Thanks guys.

After the initial bad start to this topic, I expected zero replies.

This discussion has been very interesting to follow, being highly detailed and informative.

I guess I could have tried another forum with this subject, but I think it would have got lost amidst the discussions about other modern military equipment from other countries.

I felt on this site, especially with the interest in the Martini Henry rifle, that views on the SA80 would kind of 'belong', maintaining the British connection between both weapons.

Does this make any sense ?

Coll
20th March 2005Peter Harman
Spears.
They seem more effective that bullets
22nd March 2005Derek C
Hey Peter,
I don't know that there's a big difference between a spear or a bullet hole through the gut. Both seem to ruin your day and play havoc with your plumbing. Now if we're talking a clean bullet and a dirty spear........ or visa versa. Rule of good health, avoid both!
Cheers.
25th March 2005Richard
The SA80 is in my opinion a heap of junk compared with the SLR. The SLR was and indeed still is an ambidextrous weapon, unlike the SA80.The French have a weapon of similar design, it comes equipped with a cover which makes the weapon ambidextrous, why doesnt the MOD do something similar to the SA80?
26th March 2005Neil Raaff
Richard,

I think they have dug themselves into such a hole with the SA80 and are too proud to admit their/it's failure.

I was told that the whole army could have been equipped with brand spanking new M16's for the cost of the A2 'upgrade' (which still doesn't overcome the righties only problem).

It all goes to pot when politics get involved!

Regards,

Neil