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

Since the British Army's standard issue weapon, the SA-80, has just been revamped to critical acclaim (?), Njan and I decided to write a guide entry on it.

http://www.h2g2.com/A648083

As a Quaker, pledged to uphold the Peace Testament, I'm not sure I ought to be commenting on this, however ...

A couple of questions (if I've missed this in the text, please pardon me). When was the new weapon issued? How many have been issued? Have all the old ones been withdrawn?

(Wonders how much this all costs, mutters about the arms trade ...)

It looks like a good article. I don't think the smiley will last.

One thing I saw was in this line:

The modified rifle has been tested in a variety of locations, Alaska, UK, Brunei, and Kuwait, in a variety of enviroments from cold and dry to hot and wet.

After locations, there shouldn't be a comma. It should probably be a colon.

It says (I think in the 1st paragraph) that the new weapon is starting to be issued on a gradual replacement basis starting this December.

Yeah, I'll fix the wording.

Oooh, this I like A few small points...

"the SA-80 A1 was the second most accurate assault rifle on the planet"

Which begs the question of course, what was/is the most accurate?

Also, it might be better to put the "sighting system" section before the "problems..." section - I think it would flow a little better.

Footnote 6: what is a USP pistol? (not Ultra Small Pistol, I assume)

All fixed.

A few things;

Isn't the production company just 'Enfield', not Lee-Enfield (AFAICR is those bolt action rifles built by Royal Ordnance/Enfield with the Lee mechanism).

It might be worth mentioning that the SA80 is almost a plastic, mass producable version of an experimental bullpup by Enfield, the EM2, which was one of the earliest bullpups (maybe the earliest - can't say I know enough to assert that), made in the 1950s to replace the Lee-Enfields in the British Army.

Oh, and the weapon was originally designed for a new 4.85mm, but as 5.56 was adopted for NATO wide use it was modified. I've heard anecdotally that a lot of the feed problems etc, arose because this conversion proved problematic.

Konrad

A great entry - it was on my list of "things I must write an entry about one of these days" and now I don't need to because you've said *almost* everything - excellent!

A few comments...

"more wieldy"??? How about "easier to handle", "less unwieldy" or something else. Please don't think I'm disgruntled about the entry - I'm *completely* gruntled. But "wieldy" is used without "un-" about as often as "gruntled" is used without "dis-", I think...

Muzzle velocities are 940 m/s (IW) and 980 m/s (LSW).

Penultimate paragraph - it's "environment" with an "n" after the "o".

Feel free to ignore the next bit, as the entry is really quite complete as it stands, but...
How about a comparison with the main "competition", i.e. the M-16 and the AK-47? Main points being bullpup vs. conventional, magazine size, firing rates, effective range, maintainability, operational details etc. One thing that springs to mind is the fact that on an (I think) M-16 one lever operates from safe to semi to full auto, on the right thumb, so you end up walking around stroking that thing with your thumb. On the SA-80, the change lever is at the back and operated separately by the left hand, and the safety is operated by the right index finger - quite a different motion, much less prone to affect aim.

My two-pence worth. This entry as it is now should be in asap IMHO.

H.
trying to dredge some figures on the LSW from memory...

I've decided not to compare the weapons: which weapon you like is generally a matter of personal opinion, and if I say something that could be interpreted as "the SA-80 is better than the M-16" then it'll just make trouble.

Apart from that, thanks for your input! As far as I can tell, this article is as "finished" as I can make it - although someone's sure to come along and say "No it's not"...

I suppose you're right. I meant only to include things like the details of differences - placement of safety catch, weight, length, firing rate, number of moving parts, size/shape of magazine, known variants etc. without implying one was better/worse than the other. But now you mention it, saying anything in that context is bound to bring out the fans of each weapon in one of those meaningless discussions like "oo wood win out of Alien and Species?" (League of Gentlemen, series 2).

Good entry, and good luck with it. Thanks for saving me from having to write it, apart from anything else!

H.

i'm an army cadet at the moment, and as such get to use the GP version of the SA80. It was interesting to hear more about the gun, and the upgrades brought to it in version 2. Just 2 things : not sure if this is allowed or something but it'd be good to include a pic of the rifle, also i'm just reading bravo2zero now, and in there the reason SAS don't use SA80s was the need to use the trigger finger to switch off the safety catch. nice article neway

Hi! Yeah, I'm a cadet too - RQMS Peter Brett, Contingent Armourer.

I didn't know that about the SA-80 - I'll include it.

Editorial Note: This conversation has been moved from 'Peer Review' to 'The SA-80 Assault Rifle'.

This thread has been moved out of the Peer Review Forum because your entry has now been recommended for the Edited Guide.

You can find out what will happen to your entry here: http://www.h2g2.com/SubEditors-Process

Congratulations!

three things...

one, the most accurate is the Sig 552.

Two, the USP was, in german, the Universal Selfloading Pistol. The acronym works in English too.

Three, if you're competant, you use your left-hand little finger to take the safety catch off and your right-hand thumb to put it on, so you don't have to move the trigger finger.

The reason the SAS use the M16 is other stuff, like the reliability issue, and the fact that the M16 is easier to get parts for, has more interchangable parts with other weapons, is more easily field servicable, and has a variety of accessories the SA80 doesn't have, like the M203 grenade launcher.

- Njan.

Personal opinion only: if your left little finger can reach the safety catch, your left hand is too far back.

Every single instructor I ever had (which included three ex- and one just-about-to-be-SAS) demonstrated firing by holding the thing in a rock steady grip in the left, right hand round the pistol grip, right index on the safety. Slight pressure with right index takes the safety off (crucially without affecting the left hand *at all* and therefore allowing the aim to be maintained) and the finger then slips naturally down onto the trigger.

As I say, my experience/opinion only. I could, of course, be well out of date. (codger that I am...)

H.

OK, OK, stop moaning. I'll fix it.

BTW, see you tonight.

Ah. Well, I've never been known for my conventionality. Still. I managed to outshoot every member of a 12 or so man (and woman) group of trainee US Navy Seals, who'd won a competition in general soldiership and hence come over here to "show [us] brits a thing or two" (their words, not mine) last time I was shooting, so presumably I'm doing something right.

I shoot unconventionally when pistol shooting, but last time I was target shooting (Browning High-Powers), I put a clip through the forehead of a fig. 11 target (I forget the range).

:-p

- Njan.

Hi. I'm a cadet as well. I've spent the last week carrying a cadet GP rifle and they are very heavy... As for how to release the safety catch, I use my right index finger, then take aim after.

ah.. bad practice. .. the easiest thing to do on GPs is to have your left hand back on the grip, and use the middle finger / thumb of your left hand to do it.

but they are fairly heavy; not that it's anything out nof the ordinary by comparison to any other assault rifles.

This rifle was designed to be mass produced using stamped steel wherever possible but it was not based on the similar looking EM2,except for the bullpup layout.

It was based on the AR 18 which looks nothing like it!

The SA 80 was designed from the start to adaptable to take either of these cartridges depending on which won a N.A.T.O. competition.

The 4.85mm round was a necked down variant of the 5.56mm cartridge.

Other than the smaller calibre barrel there were few changes.

I have heard that problems arise when the rifle is used with ammunition manufactured in other countries to different specifications.

The U.S. M16 originally had problems with cartridges using the wrong powder,perhaps this is the same problem.

By the way,can anybody tell me why this type of rifle is called a "bullpup"?