[Unperson-S]

Now, many people say how bad the SA80 is, but rarely does anyone actually mention what the problem is. Normally, on Pofo, theyre refered to ask crap, but rarely does anyone (never from what Ive read) what the problems with them actually are.

I know that they are prone (before they were upgraded, but I presume this problem hasnt be fully dealt with), to clogging, I remember reading that they had to be modified for use in desert conditions, as the sand made them clog up. But aside from this I cant find anything.

Is it the bull pup design? If so, then that doesnt really answer anything, as loads of guns are bull pup design.

I asked my freind, (he has only use the L95, the cadet version, which isnt fully automatic - I never used it in cadets, I failed my safety all for forgetting one word, bolt... fucking rules...) and he said that the problem with that (he said he doesnt know whether its the same with the proper version, as he has never used it) is that because you have to cock it everytime, and something about something else, I cant remember lol, that the empty cartrigde can get half stuck in the barrel, so if you try and shoot again, it will bust.

But thats the only explanation to the problem I have heard, and it wasnt even for the proper version.

SO PLEASE can someone explain to me the full list of problems with the SA80?

I know theres lots of gun nuts on pofo, so please can someone help me?

[Boondock Saint]

SO PLEASE can someone explain to me the full list of problems with the SA80?

I was under the impression that jamming was the problem.

The actual mechanics behind the jamming I am not educated on, it could just be simply a design flaw.

[Smilin' Dave]

Using my amazing research abilities:

The initial version of the weapon quickly gained a poor reputation for unreliability and fragility in trials. Lack of a guard for the magazine ejector button meant the magazine would sometimes fall out while walking. The walls of the receiver were so thin that the bolt could be stopped from moving by squeezing it, and was prone to being dented. Occasionally the top cover would fly open while the weapon was being fired and needed to be taped down.

Many of these problems were rectified with the A1 version which became the main production model, but its reputation had been made. However, reports of high incidences of jamming continued, attributed to a cocking handle that sometimes deflected empty cartridges back into the ejector port, and sensitivity to dirt. Reports by H&K have also suggested that over-zealous cleaning had a detrimental effect on the rifle. This includes both using abrasives on parts not suited to them, as well as simple over-cleaning.

Other criticisms have been that during extreme climates, the guns lock up, or have a slower rate of fire. Although this has not explicitly been confirmed by the British government, many soldiers complained that whilst in terrains such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Russia, the guns would malfunction due to the heat expanding metal inside the gun, or the cold narrowing the already thin parts of the gun

Over zealous cleaning? That's a bit of a worry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-80

[Boondock Saint]

Over zealous cleaning? That's a bit of a worry.

A gun without oil is a gun in trouble.

[Smilin' Dave]

Isn't oiling a firearm part of cleaning it? I assume you would have to change the oil if grit got into it.

I found it an interesting complaint since early problems with the M16 were blamed on not enough cleaning.

The article also mentions that the SA-80 has no capacity to carry a cleaning kit.

[War Angel]

I found it an interesting complaint since early problems with the M16 were blamed on not enough cleaning.

The M16 will fire and work like magic - untill it gets a little too dirty, then it starts giving you trouble.

[scooby]

There is a good standard cleaning kit, but it's webbing mounted not with the weapon, Feed jams are frequent, and often difficult to clear, my unit had problems with the buttstock becoming detached at really fu**ing awkward moments. The mag housing is not the quickest to align and there are a lot of instances of mags becoming detached and falling from the rifle.

The bullpup design is not bad, and when it is working properly the SA80 is a good weapon, but it is a good weapon built cheaply. My personal opinion is that we should have kept the L1A1 SLR it was a far superior weapon, heavy yes, ammunition heavy yes but it was more reliable and if all else failed it was a bloody good club. Or failing that a British licensed version of the Israeli Galil.

[Boondock Saint]

Feed jams are frequent, and often difficult to clear

Being a Yank my experience with the rifle in question is ... well ... zero.

However, I thought the entire problem with the rifle were feed jams and that barring that particular issue, which I recall hearing was a design flaw, the rifle was fine ... as you say.

So why the feed jams? What happened from design to factory to soldiers hands?

The M16 will fire and work like magic - untill it gets a little too dirty

The AR-15 rifles do get fussy when dirty but they should be fine provided regular upkeep ...

They won't last like an AK mind you but then, in an urban firefight, I would take an AR over an AK.

[War Angel]

The AR-15 rifles do get fussy when dirty but they should be fine provided regular upkeep ...

They won't last like an AK mind you but then, in an urban firefight, I would take an AR over an AK.

For anything that isn't a jungle-crawling, dune-striding, long campaign where I'd have to completely rely on my weapon... I'd take the M4-A1 over any type of the AK-47. It's just a better weapon. But, if you asked me what assault-rifle I'd take with me to a lonely island or a long campaign in harsh enviorments with little to no aids for cleaning... then it would be the AK-47. Like most tools Russian, it's heavy, durable, and performs well at all times... but other than that, it's got very little other merits.

I'd take the M-16 to be my mistress, and the AK-47 to be my wife.