British SA80


PDA






52grain
February 2, 2011, 08:38 PM
We never talk about the British service rifle (the SA80) around here. What opinions do people have of it? Is there a civilian equivalent?

If you enjoyed reading about "British SA80" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TexasRifleman
February 2, 2011, 08:43 PM
Story was that a company called Prexis was going to make a US semi auto variant.

PL-85 is the supposed name. It's not on their website anymore so it might have flopped.

http://www.prexis.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?

gunnutery
February 2, 2011, 09:07 PM
Hasn't there been a lot of controversy surrounding the SA80? Lots of upgrades and such. Or am I thinking of something else?

Dr.Rob
February 2, 2011, 09:14 PM
It was built by Enfield, repaired/improved by FN and repaired/improved again by HK. (Or so the story goes). Like the AR-15/M-16 there are as many urban myths as truths about the rifle, but the fact is the design was overhauled several times.

There has never been an imported semi auto version of it available in the US unless you count airsoft.

You have to sort of 'dig' through a lot of stuff with the search function but we've had threads about the SA-80 and the British view of the effectiveness of 5.56mm.

gaijin6423
February 2, 2011, 09:19 PM
Thanks to some crazy Royal Marines visiting Quantico for some training, and running the airfield at a joint US/UK FOB in Afghanistan, I've shot the SA80 a few times. Most of the Brits I know will attest to the pre-HK version being absolute garbage, and I'd say about 50% of them said they would prefer our M-4/M-16A4s. Personally, I would agree.

sappyg
February 2, 2011, 10:18 PM
lovely rifle IMO... wish i could get my hands on one.

a vet that i know mentioned that brit ammo was poorly made and was a poor performer in his M4. could that have something to do with our view of the SA-80 or am i off base here?

68wj
February 2, 2011, 10:24 PM
The few Royal Marines and soldiers that I have had the pleasure of working with all spoke poorly of their rifles. Surprisingly, they followed up those complaints with great comments about their bayonets. :confused:

The Aussies all loved their AUGs.

Z-Michigan
February 2, 2011, 11:08 PM
a vet that i know mentioned that brit ammo was poorly made and was a poor performer in his M4. could that have something to do with our view of the SA-80 or am i off base here?

UK 5.56 ammo is deliberately loaded to a lower pressure and different pressure curve than US and most other 5.56 NATO ammo in order to help reliability in the SA80. It performs poorly in anything else. The UK ordnance factory (Radway Green) is perfectly capable of producing good ammo as shown by their 7.62x51mm when it's sold as surplus.

Z-Michigan
February 2, 2011, 11:11 PM
A friend of mine was in USMC back in the 1990's and got to do some training with UK forces in Scotland. He mentioned at the time that the SA80 was a piece of junk and not liked by its users. This would have been around 1996 +/- and I don't know if that's before or after the HK reliability upgrades were made.

Even if the SA80 has been finally brought up to decent reliability, it still looks like the very worst western assault rifle and, after India's frankenstein monsters, among the worst anywhere. And it's heavily derived from the AR-180 that worked so effectively against the British in northern Ireland. How ironic.

HorseSoldier
February 3, 2011, 02:04 AM
Is there a civilian equivalent?

When we were all waiting on a table at Crackerbarrel at the last Larry Vickers class I took (2008) he mentioned that a handful of semi-only L85s had made it into the country at some point and that he was always looking for one to add to his collection. He was guessing it would be around $15K to get one if he ever found one for sale, though.

I would normally wonder about a one off sort of rumor that I'd never heard anywhere else, but he didn't seem to pulling our legs and the man does know his weapons stuff exhaustively.

Maverick223
February 3, 2011, 11:43 AM
It is a bullpup based upon the AR-18 operating system, so I cannot help but like it (I'd love to get my hands on one). It is very similar (in function, not form) to my favorite rifle...the M17, which has proven to be the antithesis of the performance claims of the SA-80 (other than accuracy...it still does well in that respect).

:)

mordechaianiliewicz
February 3, 2011, 02:31 PM
Well, from everything I've read and heard, they should have just adopted the AR-180 without trying to modify it to bullpup configuration.

Shoot The Moon
February 3, 2011, 02:47 PM
According to Wiki....

A rimfire variant of the L85-A1 is being offered by LEI - Law Enforcement International Ltd. of St. Albans, Hertfordshire. It is essentially identical to an L85A1 assault rifle, except for being only semi-automatic in operation and feeding through a small, curved magazine of various capacities chambered for the .22 Long Rifle cartridge. The LEI SA-80 is available on several civilian markets in Europe.

However, the trail runs out there. I will make some enquiries for you..

Maverick223
February 3, 2011, 02:59 PM
Well, from everything I've read and heard, they should have just adopted the AR-180 without trying to modify it to bullpup configuration.While the AR-180 (or 18 in he FA configuration) is an outstanding long arm, I strongly disagree. There are numerous benefits gained by transitioning to a bullpup (including but not limited to: compactness for confined spaces, superb balance, quick maneuvering, as well as a greater bbl/OAL ratio for better ballistics). Despite a few design problems (controls, sight radius, et cetera) that must be overcome, these advantages greatly outweigh the unfavorable aspects IMO (When, and only when, the platform has been properly designed from the ground up).

:)

68wj
February 3, 2011, 03:04 PM
While the AR-180 (or 18 in he FA configuration) is an outstanding long arm, I strongly disagree. There are numerous benefits gained by transitioning to a bullpup (including but not limited to: compactness for confined spaces, superb balance, quick maneuvering, as well as a greater bbl/OAL ratio for better ballistics). Despite a few design problems (controls, sight radius, et cetera) that must be overcome, these advantages greatly outweigh the unfavorable aspects IMO (When, and only when, the platform has been properly designed from the ground up).

:)
While we are disagreeing, I disagree with the balance being superb. Especially loaded, I find bullpup balance obnoxious. Of course, that is just as subjective. I see their role, but have no desire to own/use one myself. :)

UKarmourer
February 3, 2011, 03:13 PM
And finally, a thread where I get to talk about something I know lots about!

I have used the L85 & L86 A1 &A2 for the past 17 years.
The early A1 rifles wre ok, if a bit rattly, as long as they were cleaned well and not bashed about too much.
A lot of the stoppages were from the mags, very nasty cheap things, I personally had 8 colt mags, much better.
The forward assist tap was included in the drills when making ready (cocking the weapon) as it would not always allow the bolt to fully close and lock when just releasing the bolt release.

They were made in two different factories, UE serialised were from Enfield, UN ones were made in Nottingham.

HK made the big changes to the weapon system, I got mine issued in 2003, about 2 months prior to deploying to Iraq on the invasion.
The difference to the feel of the weapon was night and day, more robust feeling, not so rattly, barrels were stronger, a lot of components had been changed, springs made tougher and stronger, the trigger mech insert was strengthened and lots of other little bits.
The weapon still shot just as straight (bullpup, long barrel, short body) the weight distribution is spot on, it is very easy to manouvre with. The mag change is easy, if trained well, the drills have been shortened slightly, some things not required with the improved weapon. The mags were redesigned by HK (we are now getting Pmags from the US, lighter weight being the primary factor)

All in all a succesful mid life remodel (or what it should have been in the first place)
The carbine version (L22) is good fun, brought in for tankies who dont have much room, it was used extensivley by our infantry strike teams for dynamic entry while in Iraq.

The addition of the HK under barrel grenade launcher is good, I prefer it to the M203 myself.

The sights. The Iron sights are basic, the SUSAT is a x4 optical sight with a trilux pointer, not too bad in use, the ACOG is widely used in Afghan, but apparently we are getting the Elcan sight instead.
Our sight rail is a 'NATO std rail, however we are the only ones to use it!
The daniel systems rail system is good, the foregrip/ bipod is mediocre, I swapped mine for a Plain foregrip I got from a friendly american!

The rifle has taken some flak in the past, its done with now, it is a good weapon.
Soldiers will always want what is different, I had great fun firing an M4 in Iraq, would I swap? Nope!

Our SF types now use the diemaco C8 with all the bells and whistles, our designated marksmen use the LMT produced 7.62 L129, reports are good on that one.

We will undoubtedly be looking to replace the L85/86 family at some point in the future, who knows what we will get.

From my point of view as an armourer, it is quite fiddly to work on and recruits are constantly breaking the damn thing. I have 2000 of them to look after and it does provide constant workflow!

I hope my post isnt too rambling for you guys, makes a change to be able to speak with authority on a subject!

Shoot The Moon
February 3, 2011, 03:29 PM
UK armourer, hi - very interesting info - as a civvie, I am interested in the semiauto .22 version mentioned on the SA80 Wiki page... would certainly be an interesting change from the usual UK club shooter's fare of 10/22's - do you know anything about it?

Maverick223
February 3, 2011, 03:41 PM
While we are disagreeing, I disagree with the balance being superb. Especially loaded, I find bullpup balance obnoxious. Of course, that is just as subjective. I see their role, but have no desire to own/use one myself.Nothing wrong with that. I am probably have a bit more familiarity with the bullpup platform than most folks (being a fairly early adopter), so my experience and preferences may not reflect the average person.

UKarmourer, it is refreshing to see someone with a good bit of experience not only using, but also outfitting and repairing the platform. Thank you for your input.

:)

UKarmourer
February 3, 2011, 05:18 PM
StM, as far as I am aware the only .22 versions are the old A1 rifles fitted with .22 conversion kits used in places like tin city at traing areas for live fire practise in built up areas. i have not heard of any being produced, in fact their are no more being built full stop! Hence having back load any written off bodies for further repair!

Maverick, thanks for your thoughts, most of my experience is with our weapons, so I know the rifle system & browning HP inside out, and everything else is NFA for you guys!
As an indication of my trade, it encompasses about 4 US Army MOS's, our basic armourers trade training is 9 months- not including basic inf trg or driving courses, the class one course is a further 4 years in the field followed by 6 months back in the class rooms/ shop. As a cl1 I am expected to be able to work on everything from 9mm pistol to 105mm artillery, including AFV turret systems, mortars and trailers. Head full of mess! and also should be able to figure out/ fix any small arm that I may come across if required. Love my job!

Just a shame there are not many civilian jobs where I need those skills!

henschman
February 3, 2011, 06:42 PM
I like a rifle with a short body and a LOOOOOOOOOOONG barrel!

My friend was stationed with some British dudes in Iraq, and got to play with the SA80 some. He said he loved it, and preferred it to his M-4. he said it was very light and handy, and fairly controllable on full auto (he sent back a vid of him doing a mag dump, lol). He got a bunch of those H&K mags from the Brits... he used them over there and brought them back with him. He won't use anything else in his AR or his duty M-4. He swears by those mags. They appear to be very high quality. Unfortunately they are very expensive.

Al Thompson
February 4, 2011, 10:15 AM
appear to be very high quality

Appearances are deceiving in this case. ;) The H&K magazines I've seen (USMC issue) are very soft steel and tend to get damaged very easily.

Interestingly enough, the Brits I worked with in 2008 carried Glocks and M4s.

UKarmourer
February 4, 2011, 01:40 PM
Al, the brits you worked with were not regular army then, the glock is not on issue to army units- close protection units may get it, op dependent. It took us long enough to get the P226 on general issue!

The M4 was probably a Diemaco C7 or 8.

The HK mags we get are pretty robust, but they are pretty thick steel.

Carter
February 4, 2011, 01:47 PM
great comments about their bayonets

I had a Scottish professor who used to talk about a certain British regiment that specialized in using their knives in combat. Could be a Britt thing.

I like the SA80, but from what I've read there are better bullpup's out there.
I'd still love to have a civilian variant.

UKarmourer
February 4, 2011, 03:50 PM
Our bayonet is pretty good, dont know how yours fits on but ours has a hollow handle that fits over the flash eliminator, blade bends/ snaps easily though

Al Thompson
February 4, 2011, 05:23 PM
UK, you are correct, it was a small group consisting of a British Brigadier General and his staff. Never got a close up of their M4 style rifles, I'll certainly bow to your expertise. :)

We had Danes as well. Their handgun was a SIG 210. :what:

UKarmourer
February 4, 2011, 05:32 PM
Yeah that would have beena cp team from the royal military police.
i'm trying like mad to get assigned as an armourer for them!

52grain
February 6, 2011, 10:31 AM
UK- Appreciate the comments. I didn't expect to get a response from someone with that level of experience. I'd be interested to hear an outsiders opinion of our own M16/M4 family.

Al Thompson
February 7, 2011, 04:11 PM
52grain, it's my understanding that the British and Australian SAS units use ARs on occasion. The Aussies where I was had AUGs.

HorseSoldier
February 7, 2011, 04:25 PM
It is a bullpup based upon the AR-18 operating system, so I cannot help but like it (I'd love to get my hands on one). It is very similar (in function, not form) to my favorite rifle...the M17, which has proven to be the antithesis of the performance claims of the SA-80 (other than accuracy...it still does well in that respect).


Apparently the problem with the L85 was largely one of garbage-in/garbage-out, in this specific case the original version of the weapon completely meets the specifications required for it . . . which were written by some committee who apparently thought that infantry in a WW3 scenario in Germany would mostly sit around doing any number of things that were not shooting their rifles. I don't recall the specifics on the performance requirements, but they were bizarrely low, and allowed a lot of room for corners to be cut and still meet the operational requirements.

When the Brits contracted with HK to do the A2 upgrades, they had a much more extensive and rigorous requirements list. The basic features of the L85 design were easily upgraded to the more stringent requirements -- problem back in the day was just that MOD initially, in essence, ordered a cheap rifle, and got what they requested.

(Or so I'm told by a former British Army officer I worked with a bit along the way.)

Maverick223
February 7, 2011, 04:33 PM
HorseSoldier, that was my take on it as well...the operating mechanism is well proven; poor quality materials and workmanship were the only places to get it wrong (which is apparently the route they took).

:)

InkEd
February 7, 2011, 05:49 PM
I think it is a really good LOOKING gun. Very sleek and attractive.

I haven't gotten to shoot one though. As others have commented I've heard the horror stories about the first ones. The H&K rework seems to have helped alot.

If I was looking to buy a bullpup the AUG is probably the way to go. One thing that design has going for it that I haven't seen offered in any other is the ability to swap the bolt and make it eject on the left side. Which is nice since having hot brass in your face isn't too fun. (Some of the FN designs have solved the lefty issue too.)

While the AUG seems to perform better than the SA series of bullpups, at least they have tested better than the French FAMAS. Of course, in all fairness to the French the only test they care about is the "drop test." (j/k)

PercyShelley
February 9, 2011, 04:00 PM
Apparently the problem with the L85 was largely one of garbage-in/garbage-out, in this specific case the original version of the weapon completely meets the specifications required for it . . . which were written by some committee who apparently thought that infantry in a WW3 scenario in Germany would mostly sit around doing any number of things that were not shooting their rifles. I don't recall the specifics on the performance requirements, but they were bizarrely low, and allowed a lot of room for corners to be cut and still meet the operational requirements.

When the Brits contracted with HK to do the A2 upgrades, they had a much more extensive and rigorous requirements list. The basic features of the L85 design were easily upgraded to the more stringent requirements -- problem back in the day was just that MOD initially, in essence, ordered a cheap rifle, and got what they requested.

(Or so I'm told by a former British Army officer I worked with a bit along the way.)

I've only read accounts of the rifle, not fired it personally, but I had a slightly different take:

The first prototype rifles were banged out in the mid '70s, but the first was only issued in the mid '80s. Development was a substantially slower process than with its stablemates the AUG and FAMAS. During that time there were problems getting the prototypes to work, and the response from the government was a Dilbert-esque, never-ending series of team reorganizations and other disruptive, unhelpful changes. Anyone who knew what they were doing soon left and any sort of continuity in the project was severed.

Let me also say that, having owned an original Stirling AR-180, I don't think it's the bestest ever basis for development. I find it particularly odd that a lot of the new modular uberrifles are based on the AR-18, because the original AR-18 design is very not-modular.

So, the program is in development hell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_hell), and they're still having problems. Solution? Downrate the program requirements! If you can't make progress by solving the problem, you can avoid failure by redefining success.

Steve Raw's book The Last Enfield (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Last-Enfield-SA80-Reluctant-Rifle/dp/0889353034) makes a fairly good case that test results were finagled and project requirements were adjusted down so the design could pass them.

HorseSoldier
February 9, 2011, 04:07 PM
That does make sense. I'd never underestimate the ability of a government, on the far side of a big pile of money thrown down a hole, to just change the rules so they can declare victory rather than do any hard work to fix the problem.

Maverick223
February 9, 2011, 05:01 PM
Let me also say that, having owned an original Stirling AR-180, I don't think it's the bestest ever basis for development. I find it particularly odd that a lot of the new modular uberrifles are based on the AR-18, because the original AR-18 design is very not-modular.I dissent, the unusually compact and robust operating mechanism make it ideal for use in such designs, particularly bullpup configurations.

:)

UKarmourer
February 9, 2011, 05:20 PM
Just to clarify, the last few modifications Post HK revamp have been:

New handguard, then another new one, now onto RIS from daniel defense of the USA.
Vortex flash hider from Surefire (USA)
PMAG (yep you guessed it USA)
ACOG (again USA)
soon to be Elcan (Canadian?)

So the brits designed it, built it and it was a bit rubbish.
the Krauts cam ein and re-engineered lots of components and made it good
You lot got involved and we get lots of goodies to bring it into the 21st century

as an aside, I did an inspection of a pl who are paasing out of basic this week.
HIDEOUS!! these are early A2 models that have been well and truly battered.
Trigger mech inserts cracked, phospahting gone, recoil rods loose as heck, a mess.
it has taken 4 of us 3 days to inspect and repair 2 troops of weapons, the first troop were very good.

They are a good weapon, when looked after, its not an AK, the parts are in very close proximity to each other in the trigger mech, if something starts to bind then it causes all manner of problems.

I'll be doing some images for an equipment care briefing soon, if theres interest I'll post some up

Maverick223
February 9, 2011, 05:31 PM
UKarmourer, pitchurs are always good! http://forums.nitroexpress.com/images/graemlins/smilies/general/toothless.gif

1858
February 9, 2011, 06:00 PM
And it's heavily derived from the AR-180 that worked so effectively against the British in northern Ireland. How ironic.

The IRA had far greater success with bombs than they ever had with firearms. If you want irony, the IRA were far more adept at killing civilians than they ever were at killing soldiers or police.

UKarmourer, I'd like to see photos too.

HorseSoldier
February 9, 2011, 06:09 PM
Which Elcan are they going to? If it's the Canadian issue ones, my apologies, but the new Specter DRs that toggle back and forth from x1 to x4 seem promising.

-v-
February 9, 2011, 11:14 PM
ELCANs are made by Raytheon, also an American defense contractor.

HorseSoldier: From playing with 1-4x scopes, they are really handy, but they are also surprisingly heavy, I found. That said, I do think they are the wave of the future as far as combat optics go.

HorseSoldier
February 10, 2011, 12:04 AM
From playing with 1-4x scopes, they are really handy, but they are also surprisingly heavy, I found. That said, I do think they are the wave of the future as far as combat optics go.
Today 02:09 PM

For something like a Short Dot or similar, yes.

Elcan's offering in the field isn't fully adjustable, it just switches between x1 power and x4 power with the throw of a selector lever. It's very compact compared to things like the S&B Short Dot (or the Horus Talon I used to run on my AR and, for a bit, on my issue rifle), but they were just getting issued as part of the SOPMOD 2 kit when I was getting off active duty, so my experience with them is limited to handling them a bit, haven't put it through its paces to see if some of the issues with earlier Elcan scopes is still a problem, etc.

Chindo18Z
February 10, 2011, 12:32 AM
Not to highjack the thread, but regarding the Elcan...

I've been running the Specter DR 1-4X for the last twelve months of deployment. With acessories (bikini cover, killflash, and top mounted Doctor J-Point), that package goes to nearly two pounds of additional weight on my M4A1 and is a bit heavier than the current SOPMOD issue ACOG (16 oz) or the SA80's SUSAT (~15 oz). I found the J-Point to be a redundancy, as my eye was naturally drawn to the cavernous rear lens of the Elcan even when firing at short range. I used the Elcan's internal red-dot exclusively vice the illuminated reticle cross hair option. It's an amazing piece of glass that provides great 4X clarity at the simple gloved flip of a lever. It offers you the option to go with multiple illuminated NVG compatible dot or crosshair settings by clicking a rather stiff illum/brightness knob to however many intensity clicks you need. Not as light as the old standby M68, but it gives you the best features of both the ACOG and the M68 (with a weight penalty). Price-wise, not for the faint of heart (if you aren't issued a free one). All in all, a lot of neat features and performance but big and heavy in comparison to other sights.

A minor bitch about the Elcan Specter (besides its weight) is its difficult-to-use battery compartment. The damn near unbreakable all-metal (brass?) threaded cap and compartment (a good feature) is really difficult to thread closed, requiring the user to apply pressure against the compartment battery spring, line up the microscopic threads just so, and then really torque the cap down to the point that you get good electric contact. On more than one occasion, I found that the cap had backed off ever so slightly, killing power to the selected dot or reticle. Not a biggie in summertime Iraq...just an annoyance. However, it would be a huge pain in the ass to try the same battery change with gloved hands, under wet/cold/freezing conditions, or in the dark.

My SA80/SUSAT comparison is based primarily on using the that rifle and optic while conducting exchange training with UK SAS back in '91. Our SAS hosts loathed the rifle, but really liked the tritium optic, telling us that it allowed shooters with hamburger marksmanship abilities to perform at a steak level. On the other hand, they had just carried the weapon back from the recently concluded 100 Hour War and had a lot of complaints concerning reliability and parts breakage. Almost to a man, they preferred either their old L1A1 FALs or UK procured "Armalites". Classic examples of either "Old Reliable" or "The Grass Is Greener" syndromes. Sound familiar?

We Colonials loved the weapon 'cause it was new and looked Battle-Star Galactica cool, but quickly came to really appreciate the 4X German Post optic, which allowed everyone to become boringly accurate at distance, day or night. We did a lot of day/night field firing and it was an easy weapon/optic combo with which to make hits against fleeting or moving range targets.

Although the SA80 rifle actually sucked at that time, the optic was something new to us as we had not yet fielded ACOGs or Aimpoints for general issue across all Army SF units. Most of us found it easy to simply put the chisel point of the tritium obelisk post on a target and put the bullet where desired. At distance, you had to utilize hold over with the base of the post obscuring targets, but it was still pretty easy to do.

The fixed 4X SUSAT was not particularily good for close-range MOUT [or FIBUA (Fighting In Built Up Areas) as our British bretheren called it]. I found standard iron sights on our M16s to be much faster at close range than the top-mounted SUSAT BUIS. Obviously, the SUSAT was not designed as a CQB sight. Rather, it was designed for the BAOR to engage targets across the Northern German Plains with an emphasis on giving rudimentary day/night DMR capability to every rifleman.

The SUSAT has always seemed to me to be a very rugged and accurate optic, representing the first generation of Advanced Combat Optics we all take for granted today.

During initial fielding the SA80 got cool points for its bullpup look, but was really a poor infantry rifle. Our 1980 era M16s would have benefited from being equipped with SUSAT rather than ACOG, as I have always felt that the ACOG reticle was too busy and difficult to quickly aquire in comparison to the simple hunting post of the SUSAT.

I mentioned weight when comparing several sights because with all the crap (quad rails, IR/Visible lasers, bipods, VFGs, tactical lights, optic mounts, BUIS, slings/adapters, and scope covers) hung on today's carbines, we are rapidly approaching WWII BAR carry weight for everyone.

I'd really like to try the 1-6X Specter...that significant optical gain would certainly justify the added optic weight.

I just want a sight that offers the light weight, ruggedness, and battery durability of the Aimpoint CompM4...the low profile of the Eotech...the flip-of-a-lever magnification of the Elcan...the tritium of the SUSAT & ACOG...and the ability to do thermal imagary. All for a price that would allow me to actually buy one for my personal AR. :D

On the other hand, you can keep the SA80.

Grunt Medic TXARNG
February 10, 2011, 01:06 AM
Story was that a company called Prexis was going to make a US semi auto variant.

PL-85 is the supposed name. It's not on their website anymore so it might have flopped.'Company' is a generous term for Prexis - it's a one man shop run by Mike Jestis. The PL85 has yet to ship, but there are 18 of us who ponied up the money for the kits - and are waiting as patiently as possible for Mike to get them out. He's using UKGI furniture and isn't trying to be more than externally faithful to the SA80 in design.

UKarmourer
February 10, 2011, 03:18 PM
The SUSAT, Sight Unit Small Arms Trilux.

Built like a brick as mentioned by the previous poster.
I hate the iron sights on the the L85, (maybe because at 300m the foresight blade obscures a fig 11 target)

SUSAT, shoot all day and pretty much with a zeroed sight what you see is what you hit.
Downsides-
Average infanteer (all the way up the rank structure too) cant get the idea of adjustment.

'this sight is broken, wont hold a zero' (Infantry coy comdr)
'are your azimuth nuts tight and secured sir?' -me
''of course they are cpl ***' Offr
'then why is this wobbling side to side sir'-me
:cuss: offr
:D me!

the way the sight is zeroed using the mounting nuts is pretty unfriendly tbh, also if not cared for (seeing a trend here?) then the range drum at the rear of the sight can gum up with rust/ grit, then when you try to adjust for range you actually start shifting the zero point.
the rails are made of soft cheese and warp pretty easily, the rail on the rifle itself is held on by 2 spot welds, let the water stay in there too long and snap, no sight rail!

If you enjoyed reading about "British SA80" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!