Tony Williams
Member
Actually I did, but since you don't seem to have read the article at the link I posted, I'll put some extracts for you here:
"It should be remembered that only a handful of cases of jams were reported from Afghanistan, and the problems were much less serious than the news media made out. Here is what happened, from the man in the centre of it: http://www.navynews.co.uk/articles/2002/0211/1002111301.asp"
[conclusion of this report, by the Royal Marine Platoon Weapons Instructor who reported the initial problems to do with the cleaning regime]:
"“And we have now walked away from there, very, very happy; we’ve also got some extremely good results. There are other weapons in service, but in comparison the A2 has come out superior.
A weapon system is called a system for a reason. It is not just a weapon, it is a cleaning kit, it is a person, it is the bayonet, it is everything. The weapon system is a package, and the package needs work, and if we do that, we are going to turn the 95 per cent pass rate to 99 per cent. And there is no other weapon system in the world that can do that. For a basic infantry weapon, that the Royal Marines need, the A2 is the weaponhead.
You can use it in the desert, you can use it in the jungle, you can use it in the Arctic, you can use it for offensive operations or to blow up areas. It’s a good compromise for everything that we need. We don’t need a new weapons system. This system does it all. I have sat on the fence on this one, I have seen the results, I have fired the weapon operationally and on the ranges. I am convinced there is no problem.
If you want a weapon that looks Gucci and good, well great, look somewhere else. But I am telling you now, I don’t care what it looks like, the A2 is the better weapon.
Those people who keep writing into the Daily Telegraph are bored ex-Royal Marines who are fed up of doing the gardening and don’t know what to do today. I’m currently serving in the Royal Marines and I’ve got a message for you: this A2 is a hoofin’ weapon – write to me!"
The results from the trials of the L85A2:
"On completion, survey results:
• 95% felt A2 reliable
• 100% happy with accuracy
• 100% felt it was easy to clean in the field (operational oiling taking approx 10-15 seconds)
Results: The Individual Weapon fired 165 battlefield missions, each comprising 150 rounds over a period of 8 mins 40 secs. A total of 24,750 rounds fired and only 51 stoppages
• Out of 165 battlefield missions, A2 passed 156: of the 9 failures stoppages were easily cleared and not mission critical
• A2 achieved a 95% success rate, above operational requirement of 90%, and its nearest rival of popular choice achieved only 47%."
And:
"At the same time, the US troops using the Army's M4 carbine were reporting a catalogue of problems: among them, 20% reported double feeding, 15% reported feeding jams and 13% reported that the feeding jams were due to magazines. Only 89% reported confidence in the weapon (see: http://www.geocities.com/usarmyafghangearproblems/tsld017.htm ) "
And:
"So what will be the future for the SA80? Is it worth keeping, or has its past deplorable history damned it so much that the army will never gain confidence in it? Experience in the 2003 Gulf War suggests that the problems have been (almost) solved. The only reported issue concerned the safety catch: soldiers on several occasions released the safety catch only to find they still could not fire. Armed forces minister Adam Ingram said afterwards: "Work has been undertaken on the safety catch/plunger, and following successful trials of a revised safety plunger, a contract will be let shortly". Despite this glitch, reports from troops have been almost universally favourable, so the future of the SA80 seems assured for the time being."
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
