Is the L85 one of the worst rifle of modern firearm design?

>>33947407
Watch the entire video, Ian says the A2 is an acceptable weapon.

>>33947407
At the time of the A1 introduction, yes. Arguably the worst rifle fielded by any nation in large numbers. Then the INSAS came in, and took that role. And then the A2 was adopted, which is a phenomenal rifle.

You won't get and non-biased opinions on the rifle here, though. Though, I've never actually come across anyone on /k/ disagree that the A1 is shit. Generally, everyone agrees the A2 is a good, even fantastic, rifle. You have one or two shitposters who spur stuff from aniboo's, but that's it.

The SA80 A2 is on par, or arguably, better than most NATO rifled currently being fielded.

File: 1493467969720.jpg (55KB, 258x360px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 258x360px

>>33947419
>phenomenal
>fantastic
>better than most NATO rifles
>bullpup

>>33947407
Do not expect /k/ to give accurate opinions, only a few days ago some anon was bitching about the selector switch at the same time not knowing where the safety is.

>>33947419
>At the time of the A1 introduction

A1 wasn't the introduction The original had no A- designation, just written in the books as SA80.

Service weapons are usually broke down into; the first batch of the originals (around 3000 made), the second which were adopted universally, then the A1 and finally the A2.

A1 was a lot closer to A2 than it was to the original.

>>33947457
SA80 is a family of rifles.

The first one in service was simply L85.

More like L85 rifle program is one of the worst design projects in pretty much all aspects.

>>33947501
But that's the Bradley project, though.

File: 1404950828133.jpg (355KB, 2000x1179px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 2000x1179px

>>33947407
nah

>>33947457
>>33947485
No shit, captain obvious. I was calling it the A1 to differentiate it from the A2.

And no, it wasn't "just called the SA80" The L86 and L85 were both with their respected designations. The L86 was referred to as the L86 in writing, but was called the LSW in form.

>>33947519
>I was calling it the A1 to differentiate it from the A2.
No, you made a mistake. You talked about the A1 being introduced, as it was the first in the series. It was not.

>And no, it wasn't "just called the SA80" The L86 and L85 were both with their respected designations
Never been in an armoury where they wrote anything other than SA80 on the sheet.

You, on the other hand, have never been in an armoury.

>>33947529
What garrison, mate?

File: maxresdefault-4.jpg (125KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1280x720px

>>33947407
rude

>>33947407
The INSAS will always be the worst.

They had a concept that wasn't all that well executed the first go around. So they improved upon it. It is just like the M16 for the US. The first version had some issues and complaints about it, so they revised the design and made the A2.

It is a pretty decent gun now that it has been reworked.

>>33947529
>You talked about the A1 being introduced, as it was the first in the series
No he didn't, sperglinger.

Not this thread again

>>33947457
>>33947529

>A1 wasn't the introduction The original had no A- designation, just written in the books as SA80.
No the XL85 and XL86 were the original introduction series rifles and "SA80" refers to the "Small Arms for the 1980s program" which is a family of weapons designed with commonality in mind ; L85 IW (Individual Weapon), L86 LSW (Light Support Weapon), L98 Cadet Rifle, and L22 Carbine

>Service weapons are usually broke down into; the first batch of the originals (around 3000 made), the second which were adopted universally, then the A1 and finally the A2.
30,000 XL85 and XL86 introduction series rifles were produced in five test models variants. The XL85E1 and XL86E1 models variants were chosen as the variants to go into production and so the XL85 and XL86 series were adopted as the L85 and L86 respectively.
When the SA80s series riles went into production they had the prefix A1 added the their variant designation ; L85A1 and L86A1
L85A1 and L86A1 was accepted into service with the British Armed Forces in 1985

>A1 was a lot closer to A2 than it was to the original.
Thats how prototyping works, is it not?

>No, you made a mistake. You talked about the A1 being introduced, as it was the first in the series. It was not.
He did not

>Never been in an armoury where they wrote anything other than SA80 on the sheet.
It's official designations are L85A2, L86A2, L98A2, L22A2, but in practice however, the term SA80 get used to refer to the rifle version

>>33947436
> no argument so just post 'haha le bullpup' meme

Yankee doodles are just pissed they had to switch to the M4 to get the same effect as a bullpup

>>33947457
this

A1 was a designation applied to SA80s that were never converted to the A2 standard.

>>33947518
What in all hell is that? The bastard child of an FN FAL and an AK with G36 mags?

>>33947419
>The SA80 A2 is on par, or arguably, better than most NATO rifled currently being fielded.

Hold my sides. How do you figure?

>>33951148
All in front of some kind of lgbt tank

>>33950013
>Yankee doodles are just pissed they had to switch to the M4 to get the same effect as a bullpup

>"Same effect"

You mean "Better in every conceivable way"? Wait, let me go ask SAS what they're using... Huh, that's strange, it's not the L85, I wonder why that is? Hold on, let me go ask the sharpshooters what they're using... Hmm, it appears to be an AR-based platform! How can that be if the L85 is so amazing and great and completely infallible!? I'm just as puzzled about this as you are!

>>33951555
Because it's greater in literally every aspect of most rifles.

How'd you figure it isn't?

>>33951650
>Because it's greater in literally every aspect of most rifles

Such as? Is it lighter? More reliable? More accurate? Cheaper to produce? More modular? Where's your proof?

>How'd you figure it isn't?

>Le burden of proof maymay

That's not how it works champ. You don't make a claim and then tell ME to back it up.

>>33951650
Which is why it's been adopted by militaries around the world right?

>>33951650
I am a former British Infanteer, get back under your fucking rock. The L85A2 is accurate and reliable but also heavy for a 5.56 rifle and a bastard to clean. It is not the worst rifle in NATO but is not the best either, stop stirring shit.

>>33951721
>and a bastard to clean

How pirbright treating you, fella?

even fucking craphats know the rifle is piss easy to fucking oil and clean

>>33951713
>only 300k produced
>BAF numbers consist of 250k men

Idk anon

>>33951759
So you're saying they didn't sell any to other militaries because they're too lazy or stupid to make more?

If it's really the best rifle out there don't you think somebody would be setting up contracts to get more made?

>>33951650
Let's look at some modern NATO service rifles/carbines:
M4A1
C7A2
HK416
Beryl
FNC
G36
(The FAMAS is getting replaced atm)

I'd say that most NATO armies have a clearly better service rifle. The only rifle on that list that might be considered inferior is the G36 which the Krauts expect to replace.

Face it, the reason why so many bongs consider it to be a good weapon is because they haven't tried much else.

>>33951879
>Face it, the reason why so many bongs consider it to be a good weapon is because they haven't tried much else.

Surely this logic can be applied to any of the nations and weapons on that list?

>>33951953
Well no, because their service weapons are demonstrably better.
The L85 weighs far too much, it's bulky as all hell, cannot be used left-handedly, the controls are terribly positioned, and so on and so forth.

Sure it's sort of accurate, but that quality is seen as being of rather dubious value for a service rifle and every rifle on that list is considered adequate to superb in the accuracy department, possibly excepting the G36, but chances are that thing's actually fine as well.

>>33951583
Thats a lot of butthurt for one post mate, did Nigel fuck your mother and take away your xbox?
One of the main reasons why UKSF uses Diemaco C8s is because it is literally retardproof, has few parts to strip and mainly because you can reach the selector switch without taking both hands off the weapon. Even then, all forces supporting them, i.e the SFSG, as well as generalists, CS ops etc all use L85s. Its a case the Blades going 'we want these fancy toys', getting tired of them after something new comes out and everyone else gets the hand-me-downs.

>>33951748
Unless youre a silly cunt who forgets to clean it for consecutive days after firing, in which case its your own fault.

Which battalion? Got a mate who wants to join the Paras, any advice for him?

>>33952098
Start running and lifting weights. If you think you're not fit enough, you won't be up for it.

It's all in the mind. Lot of recruits who try P Coy are fit and built like tanks, but lack the fire in them which makes a para a para. As long as you're determined, dedicated and put a 110% effort into it, you'll hopefully go well.

>>33952125
Hes a strong lad, really good on situps and fairly decent on pushups. It pisses me off though because every time I go for a run or a tab I ask if he wants to come with and he pars it off, saying 'I hate running so Ill do the bare minimum I need to get in', i.e all he does is run 1.5 miles if he ever does go out running.
Hes got decent drive when he wants it, but only doing stuff when youre 100% comfy isnt the way to go, and ive told him that if all he can do in basic training is pass the bare minimum then hes gunna have a shite time. Ive offered to teach him fieldcraft and the like but again he pars it off.

Sorry for the blog post, hes a good lad but just gets on my tits that he wants to join the Paras but cant be arsed to push out of his comfort zone.

>>33952216
>It pisses me off though because every time I go for a run or a tab I ask if he wants to come with and he pars it off, saying 'I hate running so Ill do the bare minimum I need to get in', i.e all he does is run 1.5 miles if he ever does go out running.
He is fucked, I guess he did not hear about the warm up that is harder that the PFT.

>>33952240
I think its one of those things where he likes the idea of it (he would be the 6th generation of his family in the army) but when it comes to crunch time if he isnt comfy with it he wont do it. I want him to go just to get a kick up the arse to be honest. He sees me come back and hears about cool shit (18 Sigs) but pushes off the stories of the beastings and thrashings.

Anything you could tell me that I could use to scare the everloving shite out of him?

>>33952267
Forget trying to help him, he needs to want to help himself.

>>33952294
Fair enough mate, I suppose if he cant do it without a helping hand he has no chance when it gets tough.

For those trying to say the A2 isn't a great rifle without having ever handled one, they really ought to read this.

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/SA80.htm

"The British have continued testing the L85A2 in adverse conditions, and have reported that it consistently beats all competition (most notably the M16 family) for reliability - and by a considerable margin too. There have been no reports so far of problems in the current Gulf conflict.

"In conclusion, it seems clear that the L85A2 is now at least as reliable as any other 5.56mm weapon, and a lot more so than most. In military rifles probably only the Kalashnikovs are superior, but they were designed to achieve reliability in the face of complete neglect by untrained troops, and suffer the consequences in terms of poor accuracy. So how does the L85A2 now compare in other respects?

Given the importance of striking velocity to the effectiveness of the 5.56mm bullets, the higher muzzle velocity conferred by the longer barrel, compared with the American M4, is significant. Once source states that when fired from the short M4 barrel, the bullets will only reliably fragment (and thereby achieve maximum effectiveness) out to 50-100m compared with 150-200m in the L85 and M16 barrels"

Thorough read that explains the full list of A1 issues, the exact fixes and the long testing for the A2 that followed.

>>33947507
>He thinks Pentagon Wars is real

>>33951148

Remember, only Poos can fuck up an AK/FAL hybrid,

File: 10410439_779016638826753_3664560400744498770_n.jpg (35KB, 540x400px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 540x400px

>>33952081

lol no

The reason is the L85 is a bad joke that took Germans to just get it "decent" with the A2.

It is the worst bullpup rifle period, and that puts it well below most 5.56 service rifles.

You either are a nogunz 15 year old Brit or just a retarded faggot.

>>33947518
thats such a good looking rifle

>>33952365
Article literally written by no gunz journalists.


> In military rifles probably only the Kalashnikovs are superior

reported that it consistently beats all competition (most notably the M16 family) for reliability - and by a considerable margin too

Literally the whole article is "THE SA80 IS GREAT BECAUSE MUH LONGER BARREL BULLPUP God Save the Queen!

>>33952511

Read this >>33952365

And no actually, at the time H&K was owned by a british defence firm, hence why they took it there to get it sorted.

And no, I'm in the army. One of us here is a 15 year old faggot and it aint me. Good effort though wee lad, does your mum know youre on the internet?

>>33952655
>HK was owned by the British
Doesn't change the fact that it's a German company, in Germany, staffed by Germans.

>>33952640
So apart from 'reeeee bullpups arent allowed to be good!' what counterevidence do you have to support your claim of the A2 being a sub par rifle? It does what its meant to do, and does it well.

>>33952683
He didn't say it was sub par, he was criticizing a blatantly biased article written by an idiot.

>>33952534
From a distance, yes, i could see how you could think that. But the furniture is literally made by a furniture company

>>33947518
that dude in the middle has one big noggin.

File: Screenshot_2017-05-14-02-16-37.png (228KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 720x1280px

>>33952674
With subsidiaries in the UK, France and other places. The reason why Enfield wasnt contracted is because they had closed down, and thats the exact reason that quality control on the A1s was shoddy at best.

And if youre seriously making the argument of 'well another country made/upgraded your weapon so you must be shit' then I advise you look at the multitude of weapons in the US arsenal. Also, basic economics of supply and demand as well as the lowest cost per unit clearly is well over your head.

Remember, you need to be 18 to be on here, you might see some stuff your mummy might not approve of.

File: loluz.jpg (55KB, 479x361px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 479x361px

>>33952683

The base L85 is a crudely made ripped-off rifle that is not modular and took another arms manufacturer to fix.... key word just fix. It does it's basic function now, but everything else sucks.

The AUG has had decades of success, the FN 2000 is very advanced, and the Tavor is the new heat.

All of these pale to the M16 base family including DI and Piston just due to everyone wanting a M4 Carbine.

You know how Aussies and Kiwis ditching AUGs for AR because even the AUG is inferior despite being an outstanding rifle.

Want the L85 to be a good gun? Buy the AR-18 License from Sterling. A basic Armalite AR-18 from the 1970s would have been the better choice, and the UK WOULD have had a rifle on par with the Lee Enfield and L1A1.

Instead, you throw I'm in the British Army M8 to a fucking American who actually *gets* to own nearly all of these rifles, and can be objective.

wasn't the intiial problem of the SA80 project, that the gubment decided to MAKE IT CHEAPER, while the more expensive prototype version were actually pretty good?

>>33952828
No

The Brit Government did not want to pay Sterling for the AR-18 patent. Then they put together a bunch of engineers that had no firearms engineering experience to build a stolen rifle design into a bullpup.

H&K fixed most of the problems, but Brits think that "We fixed your totally fucking shitty rifle into an okay rifle" is the same as "OMG the L85A2 is now the BEST rifle".

>>33952800
> everything else sucks
Have you ever used one? It does the job its designed to do.
> im in the british army m8
Where exactly did I say that to you in our conversation in defence of the L85? I stated it in response to an allegation of being 15 years old and never having touched a gun. How exactly would my being in the army affect the quality and performance of a series of weaponry..?
> everyone ditching their platforms for m4s
And who exactly in this thread is saying the AR platform is bad? Thats right, nobody. Yanks just have this retarded passion for shitting on the A2 despite it being a perfectly acceptable service rifle. Just because it isnt an AR platform doesnt make it inferior.

What exactly is your point? The A1 was shit, congratulations, big news to us all. The AR platform is more widely used, again, massive surprise. But nobody has yet provided evidence that the A2 is a sub par rifle or performs on an inferior level to anybody elses service rifle.

So I say again, what exactly is your point..?

>>33952901
Can you provide any evidence of British soldiers or command stating their opinion that the L85 is the best rifle in the entire world? Or are you just talking shit and putting words in other peoples mouths just because Brits defend the A2 as a good rifle when Yankee doodles come and attempt to shit on it.

>>33952936
I'm speaking about no-gunz Brits who defend the L85A2 as being a great rifle.

It is simply adequate for combat now, and all the money poured into the program could have been fixed except for government bureaucracy.

>>33952365
Jesus, I agree that the A2 is a nice rifle now but why the fuck do they have to lie about the qualities of other rifles they compare it to?

File: 1486634331799.png (41KB, 232x293px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 232x293px

>>33947407
FAMAS/steyr aug are better.

>>33952968
And how would that be any different from serving army member who also say it is a great rifle? Nobody is denying its had a bad history, and neither is anybody saying its the best rifle in the entire world. Anyone whose actually used one will say it does what its supposed to do when it needs to do it, end of.

File: huh!.webm (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x720px

It's funny.
There are really only two sets of people who can really give opinions in threads like these:
1) British (ex)HMAF members, who rarely get any meaningful experience with other rifles, and cannot experience other rifles in civvy street and
2) People with experience of other rifles, but not the SA80 series on account of not being in HMAF.

Obviously, group one cannot compare the SA80 family to rifles they've never really tried, and group two cannot compare their rifles to the SA80 family as they've not meaningful experience of it.

This asymmetry is why neither side can appreciate the ups and downs of the other side's proposed champion rifle.

>>33952999

>Someone posts detailed source which corroborates the details that serving members have confirmed on /k/
>L-LYING

>>33952770
>Subsidiaries
That exist for importing rifles and various administration. The only factory outside of Germany is in the US. I don't give a shit and am not the anon you think I am. You're the one getting butt blasted by another country having to fix your weapon because your national arsenal was incompetent.

>Well another country made/upgraded your weapon it must be shit
No, I'm saying it's not shit because HK had a go at it. It was shit when you lot made it.

>Remember you have to be 18
>Lel ebic underage b& me.me

>>33952917
>Who is saying the AR is bad
Either you or another salty limey here >>33950013

>No evidence the L85A2 is a sub par rifle
Because no one argues that. It's a perfectly adequate rifle, except people like >>33947419
>>33951650 are saying it's "fantastic," and, "better in every respect," that other NATO rifles. Which it isn't. With the addition of the DD rail it managed to keep up as a service rifle but is otherwise not very flexible.

>>33952365

For you assblasted bongs trying to use this as some sort of "gotcha!", some things really stood out to me:

- They compare a "trial" to actual combat use of worn ass AR's.

- Most of the AR's had problems with magazines, which has since been addressed.

- I can't tell because the link is dead, but that report on the AR seems to be older than the test of the A2's, I'd be surprised if practically NEW guns did worse than beat-ass ARs

- They had to come up with a strict regime on how to take "proper" care of their A2's, hinting at it being finicky and less reliable if not meticulously maintained.

- They say "Only 89% reported confidence in the AR". Excuse me? "ONLY" 89%? Well golly gee, must be pretty shit if NEARLY ALL users were happy with their beat-ass, old-ass, magazine-finicky ARs. They're really reaching here.

- "One interesting comment from a soldier involved in the trials, is that not all NATO 5.56 mm ammunition performs in the same way. The trials were conducted using British ammo, but some German and American types were tried. It was found that the German ammo fouled the gas ports very quickly, whereas the US ammo sometimes didn't seem to produce enough pressure to cock the gun reliably, with a stoppage occurring once every one or two magazines." Huh, seems like their rifles are ammo-sensitive. AR's tend to run most any ammo put through them.

- Again, hinting at the age discrepancies between the two "tests" or what-have-you, and the stupid "hurr durr, muh 14.5" barrel no good for woundings!!!!11!!" nonsense memepupfags spout, they don't seem to make mention of Mk 262, Mk 318, or M855A1, which all but nullifies any "muh barrel length!!!" espousing from dumbass bongs.

Should I go on?

>For those trying to say the A2 isn't a great rifle without having ever handled one, they really ought to read this.

I don't need to "handle" something to know data points like this in comparison to others. What a stupid talking point.

>>33953433

Furthermore, what is a bong going to tell me about "handling" anything? What's the most you shitstains are allowed to "handle" over there? Excuse me while I go fingerfuck my AUG and AR's. I wonder if "handling" them makes me a super elite operator capable of giving scientific remarks on their capabilities?

I actually just looked up the "89%" report, it's from a 2006 CNA paper that is from a much larger pool of samples. I could compare it to this (https://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/examining-the-complaints-about-american-rifle-reliability/?_r=2) and say "AHA! No problems WHATSOEVER!" but that's retarded, ain't it now? Practically brand-new rifles in smaller numbers vs. a huge number of older/worn AR's in much different circumstances hardly seems "fair", don't it? How about we send a bunch of factory-fresh, kitted-out, whiz-bang ARs to our dudes over in Syria or Iraq right now and see how those results change?

Really seems like Britain's superiority complex is getting to them again where they have to try and find any possible thing they remotely can to try and say "L85A2 is b-better than the AR-15, p-promise!".

At least you morons got Brexit right.

>>33953433

I should clarify on the the third tick:

"Older" as in the AR test came latter than the A2 testing. The AR paper was 2006 apparently, the A2's were deployed in, what, 2001? 2003 maybe?

>>33947419
>>33947436
>>33950013

Bull pups are the like the NSACAR of rifles. They are awesome if every corner you need to go around is a left turn.

If you need to go around a right hand corner though you either switch hands and get a shell to the face, or you expose your whole body to get in a clean shot, yeah there is kind of a reason why bullpups always fail at gaining wide spread acceptance

>>33954617
*NASCAR*
fuck I need to get some sleep

>>33954617
I can't understand why forward ejection a la F2000 or downward ejection like the lel keks isn't more widespread.

File: What the fuck dude.jpg (129KB, 813x1428px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 813x1428px

>>33947419
>The SA80 A2 is on par, or arguably, better than most NATO rifled currently being fielded.

wtf anon? That thing weights 3000kg, is near impossible to clean, and is made out of melted down hot-wheels toys and tin pots.

You really think that the SA80 is on par, let alone better than modern M4's and M16's?

ITT: Brits try and defend the A2 as a rifle that does what its meant to do and suddenly every Yank is a master gunsmith, historian, shooter and ergonomics expert

>>33953279
All that because he said it performs the same effect of (i imagine) being short and manouverable..?

>ITT asshurt americucks can't admit the SA80 rifle is better than their pos 40+ year old rifle

Good luck trying to drop targets at 700 while I can easily go 800, fatniks. Your rifle a shit and your military a shit.

stay buttmad

>>33953555
excuse me while I go finger my SA80, C8, L129, L7 and L11 you fat cunt

The L85A2 is better than your M16\M4 in literally every way.

>inb4 weight
lift you noodle armed fucking manlet

>>33947419
>The SA80 A2 is on par, or arguably, better than most NATO rifled currently being fielded.

Fuck off. Its +70% on weight, made out of steel plate and has no buttstock adjustment. And its a bullpup. Fuck off. I know you're bait.

Lel, manliest complaining about the weight.

>>33956297
*manlets. Damn autocorrect.

>make AR18 bullpup, AR18 is known for being extremely reliable even in shit tier conditions
>end up with one of the least reliable military rifles ever fielded
K I N O
I
N
O

You know this thread wouldn't be so bad if there wasn't obviously some people trying to reverse bait by overly shilling to try and build up hate against the Brits.

It's a good rifle. Reliable, accurate, good add ons these days, quite comfy and easy to point and you can hook it under your arm easily to remove much of the weight issue when moving. It's just a little ergonomically odd for people first coming to it until you've had a lot of time with it, hence why there's such a disparity of opinion.

>>33956508
This.
For some reason, us saying 'L85 is a solid dependable rifle that does its job and performs well, despite its flawed history' is taken as 'LELELEL L85 IS BEST RIFLE EVAR WAY BETTUR THAN ANYTHING ELSE' and is equally called horrendous and crap by people who have never used one, touched one or even seen one IRL.
Sadly this is the way L85 threads always turn out.

File: ak80.jpg (45KB, 1024x508px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 1024x508px

>none of these faggots using the ak80
t r u l y b e s t r i f l e
r
u
l
y

b
e
s
t

r
i
f
l
e

>>33954617
Which is why bullpups with forward/downward ejection are starting to appear. Besides model-specific issues, what advantages does a traditional style rifle have over a bullpup with forward/downward ejection?