h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Your report on the SA-80 is very interesting but some parts are slightly inaccurate.

1. It is not called the SA-80 that is a generic term for the family of weapons. The IW is infact the L85A1, the LSW is the L86A1 and the Cadet GP is the L98A1

2. It can be fitted with 3 sights. Iron Sight, (SUSAT) Sight Unit Small Arms Trilux, and (CWS) Combat Weapon Sight or Clear Weapon Sight (I cant remember which it is) this is a big sight that is Night Vision only. I believe that it can also be fitted with what they call a KITE sight but I have had no contact or details of it.

3. Out of interest it use's 4 types of ammunition of the 5.56x25 variety. 1. Ball (real ammo), 2. Blank, 3. Tracer, 4. Drill (used for practice.

Just thought I would points those bits out!

Thankyou for the comments.

In response, the SA-80 is the name which has been used for the set of weapons since they were originally conceived, in the form of a single prototype weapon, the successor to the self loading rifle. As such, the variants which exist (such as the light support variant and the cadet gp) are simply variants of what is the final version of the SA80 concept rifle, just as the M16, when first issued, was also modified to form a sniper variant (which lasted about as long as it took to take it to a range and test it) and a light support variant (which I haven't seen evidence of, other than in photographs).

The L designations are military designations, and not necessarily a reflection of the weapon itself. For example, the Steyr AUG (the only other 5.56mm bullpup assault rifle in service, as far as I am aware) has different designations in Austria and Australia, two countries which use it.

I hadn't realised that there was a third sight, the ironsights and the tritium sight being all that I've used on this weapon. How often is the CWS used? My guess is that, the SA80 being a fairly silly choice for special forces work, it isn't used ostensibly, although I may be wrong. The only sight of this type which I've used has been on a target rifle, and also an armed police MP5.

The Kite site (Night Image Intensification Sight, or Maxi-Kite sight), is - as far as I'm aware - only used on American M16 and Canadian C7 rifles; I have no doubt that it can be fitted to the SA80 rifle as a function of the fact that most sights use (to some degree) standardised mountings, but I don't think that the sight has seen any action on the SA80 rifle, and the idea in writing the article was to give an impression of regular use of the weapon. (Hence not mentioning the bolt-action versions of the lsw which have been manufactured, for example).

Ammunition would have been an interesting addition to the page, but would only have made the article much longer: perhaps there is scope for a seperate article on common types of ammunition and variants (possible mentioning, but not limited to, 8mm blank, 9mm, 10mm, .375, .375 sig, .45, .50, 5.56mm (.223 rem), 7.62mm (.308 win), .338, and .50 BMG (12.7mm) ammunition. More obscurely, 20mm ammunition and proprietary calibres such as 7.62 * 37 (subsonic rifle calibre) would make interesting additions). This opens up a whole tin of worms I didn't want to touch.

The L85/SA 80 is not a development of the EM2. This was designed by Stefan Jenson using a tilting block mechanism, not a rotating bolt. It used a .28 (7mm) intermediate round developed from an earlier Enfield cartridge and influenced by the German 7.62mm short of the Sturmgewehr 45.

It was exceptional in two ways; it was the first practical bullpup design and also featured a 1x optical sight as standard. The x1 sight, which sounds ridiculous, made sighting easier to teach as it eliminated the changes in focus required for accurate shooting with an iron sight

These two are the only common features between the two designs. The EM2 was accepted as the Army's standard weapon in 1951. However, politics with a deal of US influence (bullying?, intransigence?) saw the adoption of the 7.62 x 51 NATO round and the FN FAL otherwise known as the SLR (Rifle L1A1).

The L85's mechanism is similar to the Armalite AR18 so perhaps it is there you should look for a link.

Sorry to butt in on your conversation, but if
Researcher "202489"
would go back to their own page and then click on the "EDIT PAGE" button and then write a little something about your self, as this will activate your page and then a ACE can come and welcome you there properly
Sorry for interrupting your conversation

Manda

I knew that was going to happen.

I sort of knew too BUT is this a way of avoiding a reply?

Well, in a way.. the EM2, identical as it isn't, was unmistakably the forerunner of enfield's infamous set of weapons; the calibre isn't the same, granted, but then, the kalashnikov family haven't stuck to a calibre for any more than a few years either. And the bolt mechanism, I think, falls under the remit of reasonable innovation: the rotating mechanism, based as it is upon an HK design, was added to the weapon after the original drawing board stage. I just don't want to argue.

I'm staying out of the techie fight, been a while since I used one of them!

I used to be in the ACF and never got the chance to fire an SA-80, although LSWs were sweet. Will you expand on them at all?

What expansion were you looking for, exactly?

Why?

Personally, I'd like to know a bit more on the background, and as I understand it, they're of the same family...aren't they?

The Light Support Weapon (LSW) is a heavy barelled version of the L85 with about 80% commonality of parts. It is longer, with a bipod for front end support. It also has a 'rear grip' to prevent the weapon twisting when fired on automatic. This is an indication that it is perhaps too light for the role of sustained fire support.

The concept of the Support Weapon is more US Forces than European. For most European countries, the rifle section consists of a body of riflemen armed with the standard issue weapon and a support group with a light machine gun. The German army call these 'machinegun sections', which shows their preference. When NATO went over to the 5.56mm round, the German army said they would never get rid of the MG3 (their GPMG) from the section as it was the only weapon battle-proven to break up a Russian 'human sea' attack.

For years (c1916 - c1990) the British army had a Light Machine Gun (LMG) as part of the rifle section, The Americans, on the other hand had no LMG as such, but a 'heavy barelled' rifle for support. Having self-loading and automatic weapons, they officially saw no need for the LMG. However they were extremely envious of the Bren LMG, but politics dictated supply.

Today, the US Forces ( plus Canada and Belgium)have the FN Minimi 5.56mm LMG - belt-fed and capable of sustained support fire and we have the LSW (Light Support Weapon). Although capable of a higher practical rate of fire than the L85, it suffers from the same problems. The Paras prefer their fire sections to have TWO GPMGs instead of the LSW.

I have had good results with the LSW on the range but I remain sceptical about its value on the battlefield. The job of the support automatic is to engage the enemy at a greater range than the standard rifle. Even with the SUSAT and a heavier barrel, the LSW leaves a lot to be desired in penetration and sustained fire at long (500m) range. It may still have a use with support troops but I fear that the infantry needs something better.

I was not a tooth arm user of the LSW. Any comment from the Infantry?

Thanks!

I'm involved in one of the many UOTC (University officer training corps) around the country. Having recently joined the Infantry wing and been issued with an LSW I'll comment on it.

It's only advantage over the SA80 IW is that when putting down rounds on "fire-support" during an attack the bipod becomes very useful. The handle at the back is a waste of space as most users prefer to place the left hand in-front of the SUSAT to balance the weapon.

The longer barrel makes for higher round exit velocity as each round is accelerated by the gas for a longer length. However, having to change mags every 30 rouns is quite ridiculous for a support weapon.

Recently there has been some talk of bringing the GPMG down a level and allowing platoons or maybe sections to have them.

The difference between the british army and 3rd world armies? 3rd world armies use belt-fed support weapons.

And finally, I've never had a stoppage when using the IW or the LSW. But I haven't used them in extreme conditions yet.

Actually, simple physics dictates that using the handle at the back (and the fold out shoulder rest which goes over your shoulder to stop you having to hold the weapon when hiding for hours at a time with your weapon fixed, which you may not have noticed; it's a piece of bent coathanger wire. ) is more accurate. I certainly always found it to be so in all of time I shot LSWs.

i was in the Cornwall and Somerset light infantry for 4 years and i was a lsw carrier. i loved the weapon even though it carried the same 5.56mm round as the l85a1 it was far more accuret and had a better range in my oppinion it was better than the l85a1. i could use it a a presision sniping weapon if needed.
the only problem i found is that if you keep up sustanined fire for a very long period it realy badly over heated because of it bieng air cooled. and there is no quick change barrel.
ps And yes i do know about the open bolt system on the l86a1 but it still over heated

the piece of bent coat hager that you talk about is usualy taken of because i had 4 changes of lsw and evey one did not have it.
ps u try staying un notesed in a field for 7 hours then you would know how FUN the army is.

I thought the LSW was gas cooled like the SA80?

you are both right the lsw is gas cooled but it had an open bolt cooling system were by the bolt stayes open between each rond bieng fired to aid in cooling.