Staskala said:
Treblaine said:
I thought they became rather reliable after H&K fixed them? At least that's what the officials say.
Notice how almost all those points had nothing to do with reliability and still apply with the A2 variant (that is, post H&K modification).
The fundamental ergonomics are terrible. It is overpriced and under-performs.
H&K refit made the weapon even heavier, I actually forgot a lot of other contras (there are so many):
-terrible cocking handle position, especially hard to clear faults (compared to FAMAS/AUG)
-heavy has hell, over 5kg / 11-pounds it is the heaviest rifle British soldiers have ever had to heft yet the rearward centre of gravity means it is still a ***** to control on full auto
-H&K retooling cost a LOT of money and worse than that, 1/3 of the MoD's rifles had to be cannibalised for parts for the other two thirds.
-Refit left many rifles out of action for an inordinately long time
-Bayonet is a diabolically bad design
-SA80 was based on AR18 design yet when the designer of AR18 inspected the SA80 he found numerous flaws with the "adaptation" that you can't fix with retooling
-it is still too hard to clean and disassemble
Ultimately the SA80 is an example of how officially corrupt the entire establishment has been with such a lack of accountability.
All throughout the SA80's procurements and deployment there has been a catalogue of whitewashing, biased testing and dismissing. Especially when you consider how at the time of procurement the government was trying to sell off Royal Ordinance, it helped if they had just delivered a "successful" new military rifle so the government could sell the company for a high price.
It was a waste in the end, the people who bought Royal Ordinance liquidised its Enfield properties to sell the land to build expensive flats for rich Londoners.