Why don't they just update this shit? Or abandon it completely

>>34919223
>Why don't they just update this shit?
They did, like 2-3 times, and it apparently worked pretty well.

>>34919223
They are too proud to admit that the ar is better

>>34919223
Does anyone else think it's aesthetic?

>>34919223

Because it works very well now.

Same as the last thousand times you made this thread.

>>34919236
Is that why the British Army was using AR 15 in 1961 and has used it ever since?

>>34919223

Because the reliability issues are fixed, it's a good rifle regardless of how bad the A1 was.

L85A2 has a 'mean rounds between failure' of 25,000 rounds as opposed to M4/M16 which have a MRBF of circa 5000.

The weight and balance make it far more accurate when firing multiple rounds.

It will continue to be updated until NATO move to a new caliber.

>>34919276
>The weight and balance make it far more accurate when firing multiple rounds.
No guns britbong detected.

>>34919260
Yes

Even though they know its better and use the ar when they have to, they are too proud to fully adopt the superior weapon

The L85A1 was a piece of shit, all of the guys I know who were in the forces said it was shit, would get fucked by sand.

L85A2 Is good. It works, accurate, small, not too heavy. Only real problem Ive had with it is the charging handle and I feel sorry for lefites in the army.

Also, the A3 is a conspiracy and doesn't exist, it's just one part that's changed, but it's still an A2.

>>34919281

>i've never fired a gun but pretend i have

The higher weight and the placement of that weight to the rear of the weapon mean the barrel moves less between rounds and is easier to control.

You don't even have to of fired rifles to understand this, shotguns and to a much lesser extent handguns display the same properties.

>>34919312
Weight at the front of the weapon prevents muzzle rise, not weight at the rear.

>>34919319
Not on a bulpup where both of your hands are forward.

>>34919336
Take physics 101 and get back to me, specifically levers around a fulcrum, in this case your hands. Excessive weight at the rear makes an action to raise the other end easier if anything, not more difficult.

>>34919319
is true story, /k/omrades

>>34919348
>Excessive weight at the rear makes an action to raise the other end easier if anything, not more difficult.

Which is exactly why having both hands forward of the centre of mass makes the rifle easier to control.

Come back when you've actually fired an L85.

and while you're working on that, have a listen to gun jesus - because he agrees with me and my personal experience.

https://youtu.be/js4d8c7KzCQ?t=1001

>>34919319
Doesn't work like that when you're firing a bullpup. Or at least it doesn't for me. The ergonomics are daft if you're used to firing a conventional rifle but that assessment is broadly correct, it's easier to follow up with repeat shots.

>>34919311
What the SA80 did best was put to bed the ridiculous arrangement in which some parts of HM Forces were equipped with Sterling, other with SLR and as mentioned above a good chunk of the Infantry with AR type weapons for certain tours.

At the risk of pissing off the FN FAL fan club (6 billion members and growing), I thought the SLR was adequate at best and by the time it was being phased out it was genuinely shocking. The Sterling was a stupid contraption and I was reliably informed it was involved in most NDs in the British Army, despite being infrequently issued.

>>34919223
>>34919229
>>34919236

If I'm right the reason for it was along those lines.
It was in order to protect British industry and prestige of having our own rifle. On top of that after the first upgrade to A2, if preform acceptably and did not warrant a further upgrade at the time. I guess in the wake of BREXIT and Britain's interest of independence from European affairs, the A3 upgrade on the way was picked in order to continue the current trend already set.

I could be entirely wrong about this though so pinch of salt lads.

>>34919384
>Sterling was a stupid contraption and I was reliably informed it was involved in most NDs in the British Army, despite being infrequently issued.

Yeah, it was an open bolt smg, who's safety was based on pulling the bolt back and lifting it into a notch. If the bolt slipped from your fingers when pulling it back or if you released it too quickly after unsafing then you could get a ND.

>>34919312
>You don't even have to of fired rifles to understand this

>basically admitting that he hasn't fired rifles

bruh

File: ICS-Airsoft-Gun-L85-A2-ICS-85-1.jpg (110KB, 1602x340px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1602x340px

>>34919384
>>34919373
Final (you) because at this point I'm tired of explaining basic principles to people who think bullpups change basic physics.

Tell me which of these you think would be harder to raise the muzzle end of, and you'll realize why you're fucking retarded.

>>34919400
>the A3 upgrade on the way

There is no such thing. People keep mistaking new body kits and furniture for a new version.

>>34919400
>It was in order to protect British industry

Sort of. There's a lot of disagreement about this but the clever money is on the government at the time only being in a position to sell off what was left of Enfield if they had orders on the books. An approved design and order of 300,000 or so rifles for the Army, RAF and RN was what investors and buyers wanted to see. It turned what was effectively a shell of a company into an attractive investment.

>>34919408
Except i'm not, and i most certainly have. Its a figure of speech to quantify how simple the relation between weight and recoil is.

>>34919414
The whole thing weighs under 5kg. You've essentially got slightly more weight to the rear of the rifle as you would do with a conventional one, which is then offset by the fact your grip on the weapon is further forward.

>>34919414
You're taking most of the weight in your shoulder though.

>>34919432
>>34919439
It was an arbitrary weight, and thats not the point.

Weight distributed across the entire rifle, or skewed towards the muzzle reduces muzzle rise. Weight at the rear has the opposite effect. You might think that the L85 is good for follow up shots, but thats because its fucking heavy in the first place and fires 5.56

>>34919414

The centre of gravity is roughly over the magwell. - almost the same place that the momentim orginates from.

The recoil will first push the weapon back into your shoulder - the higher weight will reduce this feeling compared to other rifles of the same calibre.

What movement is experienced will be compensated by your hands which are at the far end of the rifle from the source of movement, meaning the recoil is more controllable due to the leverage you have.


How about you go out and shoot some rifles before trying to tell people how their weapons shoot?

>>34919464
>Higher weight will reduce recoil
I wouldn't have disagreed with this had he said that, but he didn't.

>>34919276
>L85A2 has a 'mean rounds between failure' of 25,000 rounds as opposed to M4/M16 which have a MRBF of circa 5000.

get a source and dump that in an AR thread, the butthurt will be hilarious

File: Screenshot 2017-08-20 at 14.53.25.png (91KB, 1832x468px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1832x468px

>>34919475
I'll give you the deets and you can do it yourself.

>USMC officials said the M4 malfunctioned three times more often than the M16A4 during an assessment conducted in late summer 2002 for Marine Corps Systems Command at Quantico, VA. Malfunctions were broken down into several categories, including “magazine,” “failure to chamber,” “failure to fire,” “failure to extract” and “worn or broken part,” according to the briefing documents. During the comparison, the M4 failed 186 times across those categories over the course of 69,000 rounds fired. The M16A4 failed 61 times during the testing.

>The Army conducted a more recent reliability test between October 2005 and April 2006, which included 10 new M16s and 10 new M4s… On average, the new M16s and M4s fired approximately 5,000 rounds between stoppages, according to an Army official who asked that his name not be released

>http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/

>>34919223
Can't update trash

>>34919472

The weight is the primary factor in recoil reduction - never said otherwise.

The bulk of the weight being to the rear makes it a very controllable weapon, especially when pivoting.

>>34919236
But it is an ar-18???

>>34919417
Well thats what we do in the us.
We just change furniture and optic and call it the next variant of whatever.

>>34919223
hey it's a hk rifle they make good rifles those german jews.

>>34919511

In the UK it's only a new version if you make a change that makes it incompatible with previous versions.

Everything else is just furniture and accessories.

If we used the same thinking as the US for Its M1A2 SEP V3 (each being minor upgrades) we'd be on Challenger 10 by now.

We tend not to give minor changes or 'options' designations because there can be so much variety.

>>34919506
>The bulk of the weight being to the rear makes it a very controllable weapon, especially when pivoting.

That's simply not how it works.

>all this L85 apololgism lately
Is this the newest meme or is there a former Bongistani with some service time that fired a couple mags through it that has a lot of freetime to post on 4chan

>>34919828
>facts are apologism

>>34919837
>"the L85 isn't heavy because the weight is towards the rear"
>facts
Nah I'm seeing a lot of retarded mental reaching lately that's trying to paint a shitty-rifle-turned-acceptable as great and my legumes are jiggled.

>>34919828
It's bongs being bongs, like the leafs here swearing the Ross wasn't a disaster

>>34919856
No one said that

>>34919870
The miltary Ross was a perfectly fine rifle, even the US was issuing it. The problem came from the fact that those of us in NA actually made guns with chambers in spec. The Brits with their loose chambers got lazy on the ammo end and any rifle ammo had a chance of jamming it. When fed quality ammo meant for the machine guns it worked fine.
The other issue of the bolt coming apart was a myth created to dicredit Ross and hurt his political career. Miltary rifles were either riveted or of the third model that could not be reassembled wrong. The Senate inquiry found no serious injuries or deaths were ever attributed to the rifle during the war. There were injuries ten years prior before the bolts were riveted. These were used by Ross's political enemies to paint him as an uncaring war profiteer who used his connections to force through a rifle.

>>34919802

If you've never even held a bullpup why are you posting? It really shows.

>>34919856

I'm yet to see you respond the facts in >>34919490

>>34919229
/thread

>>34919223
Google before talking shit

>>34919238
I do.

Shit makes me rock hard and I'm fucking bitter I can't have one.

>>34919414
Tell me when you fired the SA80 A2 and how you know of it's recoil. Thanks

>>34919856
>shitty-rifle-turned-acceptable
we're discussing the L85A2 here, not the M16.

>>34919311
What's the problem with the charging handle?

>>34919238
>>34921170
>actual serving bongfag here
Its fucking disgusting, the plastic, the weight, the flimsy scope, the fact that you have the extend it to the size of an m16 during exercises thuss defeating the point of a small bulpup weapon that can be used to quickly repspond to threats, making all training during exercises near obsolete.
Im honestly embarrassed when we get to operate with foreign forces

>>34921523
Doubt that mate.

Genuine serving Bong here

You're speaking out of your arrse. The only scope thats fragile is the ACOG.

>>34921550
>>34921523
why do you both get some proof, just for the record?

>>34921523
>the flimsy scope
I know it has been phased out now but the SUSAT was solid, I once saw someone drop one down concrete steps so it bounced and it was right as rain.

>>34921563
The fuck are you talking about? I don't need proof to build upon years of experience based on the weapon.

Its accurate, reliable, study as hell and pretty much squady proof with exception to gas block plunger.

>>34921587
SUSATs still in service with REMFS and those that haven't been issued LDS yet.

Agree though, i only ever saw one break and that was when it got stuck in the infamous warrior door.

Only bad thing i have to say about it was reticle and adjustment.

seen plenty of acogs break though.

>>34921550
By flimsy i meant that its just a shit sight when compared to ar-15, and the colts that the marines are getting

>>34921652
Its blatant you're not british or serving.

Everyone in service refers to it as something else.

regardless i'll bite.

the susat is still better than any iron sights and was the first mass produced for mass distribution for people other than snipers, sharpshooters and marksmen.

>>34921681
>the susat is still better than any iron sights and was the first mass produced for mass distribution for people other than snipers, sharpshooters and marksmen.
This needs drilling into peoples heads, British forces were being issued SUSATs as standard while most of the world (including the US) was still using irons. It is dated by modern standards but it is not a modern sight.

>>34921726
It may be ageing, but its better than nothing, to me as a soldier in the field, i'd take it over a non magnifying reddot, because i know i can hit those figure 11s are 500 with it.

>>34921628
I also think the SUSAT has an unfair reputation for being shit. As a left-eye dominant shooter, shooting right hand, it was nice and easy to quickly jam that right into my eye socket and instantly snap to the top of that fuck huge reticle.

I haven't had much experience with it but it was much, much harder to do this with an ACOG and its tiny, fiddly sight picture.

The LDS has managed to avoid these problems though.

>>34921652
Why are you comparing sights to rifles. I don't think you know anything.

>>34921837
LDS is fantastic, if only had the adjustability of the ACOG.

>>34919802
Not only do you obviously have no experience with the specific topic at hand (l85a2, bullpups in general), it's also obvious that you don't have the experience in physics that you are pretending to have.

Simply put, that IS how it works. It's called "moment of inertia". Centrally distributed mass (weight at a rifleman's shoulder, not at muzzle which is extended) has a lower moment of inertia and responds more to smaller controlling forces.

Forward weight only helps with muzzle climb (not overall recoil), and it does so at the cost of a higher moment of inertia, creating a weapon that is more difficult to reposition dynamically (or control any.

Bottom line is that if you need forward weight to mitigate the muzzle climb of a 5.56 rifle, you should just put the damn thing down and go back to knitting. I have a MID(not even heavy) contour ar-15 and it takes more strength to hold the muzzle stable from gravity than it does to completely eliminate muzzle climb from firing.

>>34919223
>>34919229
>>34919276
>>34919311
The problem is at they keep retrofitting the same old guns. A2 wasn't a new weapon it was a retrofit of the A1's. Of course the retrofit went over budget and ended up costing just as much as ordering new rifles would have been. Every L85 in British service was made in the 1980s and they are fast approaching their original wear out date at which time the MOD will probably just do the same thing. Eventually these things are gonna wear out, if they really like them that much then they should build some new ones and if not buy something else but the time is now.

>>34919223
>ywn own one of these
;_;