This is likely to be the mother of all TL;DR, but ho hum...
---
Trivun said:
Here in the UK we use the L-98 series. Single-shot, have to cock it after each shot, but a very good range and easy to use and maintain. ... I trained with a cadet version when I was in the CCF (Combined Cadet Force) in school
Trivun said:
As far as I'm aware it's the L-98, but I only ever used it at school, which I left two years ago, so it might have changed since then.
Trivun said:
Never used the SA80 myself, but the L-98 was what we always used on our own shooting range,
J03bot said:
I'm fairly sure that it's just the cadet version of the L-98 that's single shot and needs cocking each time - the military version can switch from semi-automatic to fully automatic.
BiscuitTrouser said:
It im a pretty good shot with the old bolt actions though, reminds me of the SA80 which i thought was our current gun no?
gh0ti said:
The Cadet version has the gas parts removed, which is why it functions as a bolt-action. The cocking handle is also much larger, so that children can operate it with their right hand, meaning they don't have to support so much of the weight of the weapon when cocking it/performing safety drills. The military version also (usually) has a SUSAT scope attached, rather than iron sights.
Perhaps I can clarify things a bit.
The SA80 system - Small Arm for the 80s, tellingly - consists of a series of weapons loosely based on the EM-2 programme of the early 1950s.
The main item is the L85 IW (Individual Weapon), currently in its A2 incarnation with improved reliability and a variety of ergonomic improvements. In fact, Gh0ti, tooth arms nowadays have an even more updated version with a railed forend and ACOG-type sight system; the SUSAT unit, much as I love it, seems to be being phased out.
The second item is the L86 LSW (Light Support Weapon), again in an improved A2 form, distinguished by the significantly longer barrel, attached bipod and shorter forend. Originally intended as a section machine gun, its magazine feed made it unsuitable for the sustained fire role. Its improved accuracy has instead resulted in the L86 being used in something approximating a DMR (Designated Marksman Rifle) role.
There is a carbine version, often referred to as the AFV (Armoured Fighting Vehicle) or, erroneously, the commando version. I think it's the L22, but my memory could be failing me. They're generally issued to certain armoured regiments.
Now, the one you're all talking about is the L98 Cadet GP (General Purpose) rifle. It's intended for the cadet forces only;
the regular British forces DO NOT use the L98.
Its original incarnation was essentially an L85A1 with the gas parts and flash suppressor removed, firing - as you say - in essentially a bolt action mode. In recent years, an A2 version has been brought out replacing the gas system (semi-automatic only, without the full-auto capability the rest of the SA80 family has) and flash suppressor, which allows the use of a BFA (Blank Firing Adaptor) and thus means it can be safely used on nitexes.
So yeah - SA80 is the whole family, and thus techically both all the weapons and none of them. So yes, BiscuitTrouser, the SA80 is our current rifle, but the bolt-action L98/L98A1 is not.
---
As for the actual point of the thread, there are very few - if any - of us who are really qualified to comment. After all, most likely none of us are in military procurement, and most of us aren't in the US military, so any comments we make will be academic. The M16/M4 series as it stands is a weapon system that has matured and is, these days, a genuinely good rifle (much as I hate to admit it, I loved it when I recently got the chance to try an M4).
So the question is what needs to change, and what changes are just changes for the sake of changing things.
The reliability of the current crop is overall good; few weapons will match the legendary reliability of the Kalashnikov family, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect it from a weapon designed for other priorities. The current M16/M4 series is adaptable, accurate, light, and as reliable as is reasonable to expect. Yes, it could be made better, and indeed there are vast swathes of after-market accessories to do so, but overall the benefit of those accessories doesn't, for most troops, justify the cost.
Several people in the thread have advocated some international options; AK-47 (which has been obsolete since 1974), FA-MAS, etc. Realistically, the American military is unlikely to buy a foreign weapon, let alone a Russian one (and, to be honest, given the differences in training and doctrine, the Kalashnikov series isn't suitable). There are exceptions to this, of course; the Italian Beretta pistol, the Belgian Minimi (M249), MAG 58 (M240) and M2HB/M3M machine guns, the Swedish AT4, and so forth. But an AK-47? No. It won't happen.
There are always studies in progress to evaluate new options for a service rifle, and until one shows a significant
and cost-justifiable improvement over the current rifles the M16/M4 will remain the norm.
That said, as I see it, there are a few front-runners at the moment.
- The H&K 416
- The FN SCAR-L
- The M468
- The Bushmaster ACR (formerly the Magpul Masada)
There's one thing common to most of these: they can pretty much all be described as "essentially an M4 made better". The M468 offers greater stopping power, after reports of the M193 5.56mm round all too often being incapable of a first-shot stop (although it's worth noting that the European STANAG round, the SS109, uses a heavier, slower round with, some argue, better terminal ballistic performance). The 416 primarily focusses on improved reliability, and the SCAR and ACR mostly have ergonomic and functional improvements.
Personally, I like the Swedish AK5, but that's just because it's the one I'm most used to; very reliable, very accurate, but heavy and cumbersome. And it really isn't a likely candidate.
Of the more outlandish options, I think the non-STANAG magazines used by the G36 make it a very unlikely candidate, though with the addition of a STANAG magazine well conversion I could imagine it happening. The FN F2000 is another possibility, eliminating many of the traditional problems with bullpup weapons - but with its mechanism relying on a small plastic rocker I wouldn't feel comfortable relying on it in a combat situation.
Realistically, I suspect the M16/M4 series will remain in service, with incremental improvements borrowing the best of those four front-runners, for at least the foreseeable future. Would America's military capability be improved by a newer weapon? Sure - but not enough to be worth it, I think.
Wow. That got long.
