Your favourite gun/weapon
- Thread starter Commander of pie
- Start date
Okay, you got me there... I only know of the weight of the L85/98/86 (and a Type 56 owned by Cpt Rose but that's irrelevant). But it still feels light, and is pretty easy to hold using 3 fingers on one hand. And, I may be wrong here, but, I thought the RPK was a LSW (heavier barrel, longer barrel) than the AK74, used in a LMG role because it fits that. If it is an LSW then it's comparable to the L86...Treblaine said:
Okay, that wasn't an actually serious argument, but I don't see how the gas system has been ripped out... Unless I happen to have spent half an hour cleaning other peoples usless fake junk. If the gas parts were removed then I must've been looking at the Silent a lot because I don't remember ever having to cock the weapon between rounds.
Oh FFS, I've never had any problem with them and I'm a fifteen year old army cadet who's not exactly known for their physical prowess in anything except stamina... I have never had problems with the safety, the change lever is only difficult if you try to use it without doing it right.
C'mon! You have got to be making this shit up, the only time I had ANY problem with the magazine release was my first use of the rifle when I loaded it incorrectly. No magazine that I've seen has 'fallen out' and I've never seen anther instance of one failing to come out.
And is this a problem with the weapon, or the Bullpup style?
Oh, I don't know - maybe try the bolt release catch on the left side of the rifle... As in, the only way you're meant to release the bolt.
So, in under 5 seconds or so? That's about as long as it takes me to do so during a weapon handling test. The Captain in charge of our CCF section (Ex-army) is able to entirely strip it down in under 15 seconds, I can do it in under 30.
A good gun shouldn't need this many excuses and exceptions.MrJKapowey said:
That is the point of the comparison of the L85 and the RPK-74, and the same weight comparison is there with the original RPK in 7.62x39mm. The fact that an assault rifle designed in the 1980's weighs more than a machine gun designed in the 1940's
The comparison is EVEN WORSE with the L86 LSW, as it is even heavier (8kg loaded) than the RPK yet is still inferior as a support-weapon. For one, it is not light, it is as heavy as a Belt Fed weapon like the FN Minimi. And secondly it cannot do "support", as the barrel cannot take such heat stress and it has always had a split-group problem. The first shot goes on one trajectory and the subsequent rounds on full auto go a different trajectory. This is TERRIBLE for having a set "beaten zone" which is the entire point of these kind of support weapons. In practice it is fired almost exclusively in single shot because:
-the magazine is so small anyway
-the weapon can't handle the heat stress of much sustained auto fire
-it is so far the only way to get a set group
In practice, it isn't much of an improvement over one infantryman with an SLR.
As to weight, that WILL wear you down. Go into a gym and pick up a 3kg weight (it will be one of the smallest bar-bells) that's how light an M4 is. That's the point of a short handy weapon, that it is light. The problem with L85 more than any other bullpup is it treats weight as something the soldier can overcome by just "manning up". No. I have worked in the radiology department full of training British soldier trying to "man up" with ever more ridiculous loads put on them. Guys in their 30's had the hips and knees of 70 year old men. The human body is a machine and if you push it too hard it will break, yet there are entire quangos piling more and more crap onto soldiers with weight as the last consideration rather than the first. Yes they need body armour, but did you give no consideration to how you are making soldiers carry more weight than a medieval knight in a suit of armour?
When you weight people down they get slow, they get sloppy, it DESTROYS moral! Soldiers are not pack mules.
The entire SA80 series is overweight and under-performs.
Also, you shouldn't have to "do it right" with the safety-catch/mode-selector on almost every other gun, where it is simple, straightforward and easy to use without changing your stance. See while you are shifting around out of position for 5 seconds in 1.5 second and M4 could have reloaded and not lost sight picture. Just a twitch of the thumb rolls between safe, semi and auto. You shouldn't have to worry about breaking position to change fire modes, it should be just the twitch of a finger.
PS: it literally takes a second to partially strip an M4 Carbine. It opens right up like a break action shotgun. Next second you pull out the bolt carrier and that is almost every working part exposed for cleaning or examination. And you don't need a desk or flat ground, you can do it one handed, the other hand remaining on the pistol grip.
For example, how quickly could you clear a squib from the L85A2? Could you do it while standing in a boat?
it's not from a game, and it's not specifically a weapon, but I don't really care. I want the powers of Misaka Mikoto from "A Certain Magical Index"/"A Certain Scientific Railgun".
Treblaine said:
How was the RPK-74 made in the '40s? The RPK was made in the '50s and the RPK-74 in...
1974!
And how do you have to 'break position', you have to remove your left hand from the handguard and flick a lever.
You also forgot to address some of my points, including a complete fabrication on your part.
EDIT -
Two complete fabrications...
PS: if you cover my ENTIRE quote in spoiler-tabs then I don't get any notification.
You don't know what a squib is? Maybe you call it something different but it's when a round "half fires" because the powder is wet or somehow compromised you feel a jolt but no bang nor does the action cycle. You cycle the action and the case comes out but no bullet. The bullet is stuck in that barrel. If you try to fire another round with one already stuck in there you risk severely damaging the gun and your face. It's one of those major things to look out for as just assuming it is a dud isn't enough if you don't eyeball that the supposedly dud cartridge came out whole.
You need to have complete open access to the chamber to ram the bullet out the end.
(PS: I figured out you must be using the L98A2, that has the gas system but semi-auto only. You just called it L98 I reasonably assumed you meant the L98. On the L85 and L86 you can't just reach over and "flick" the fire-select switch, you have to lever your whole shoulder into it)
I'm you have to break position by taking your hand off the gun and especially to change the fire selector you have to lever your shoulder right into it. If you've only ever had the L98 cadet version maybe you don't know the L85 and L86 which I know for certain has an unreasonably stiff fire mode selector.
You would have the problem of:
-losing cheek weld
-losing point of aim
-likely lose shoulder position
It's definitely not a case that you can stay sighted in track targets and just switch from semi to full auto.
And on the disassembly with SA 80 you end up with two separate parts completely dislocated. With M4 and similar all the parts are open and accessible yet it stays as one piece, like breaking open the action of a double barrel shotgun.
Here, a Private shows his wife how simple and convenient the M4 Carbine is to disassemble:
See how it opens up like a break action shotgun? All the parts are accessible yet it is still all in one piece. You don't need to put anything down your other hand is free to clean or examine for breakages or blockages.
Either way, L86 LSW is grossly overweight and underperforms. It doesn't even live up the Soviet standards of the beginning of the Cold War, as RPK (both variants) were capable of much more support fire and used ample 75 or 100 round capacity drum-magazines. Then there were weapons like the Ultimax 100 produced from 1982, now THAT was an impressive light-support-weapon, notable for it's gardening-hose like controllability yet compact size and low weight.
For comparison at the same time you had the Steyr AUG where any of the weapons could be converted to a Light Support Weapon with a HBAR long and heavy barrel, and an extended 42-round magazine. The great thing about this is it defies even conventions of the weapons category as the barrel/gas-system is quick to replace you are capable of far more sustained fire.
This was on the table from 1978, and The British Government turned it down for the first domestic rifle design for a military rifle since the Brown Bess (even Lee Enfield was of Canadian/American design). There was no bidding by Royal Ordinance nor anyone else, there were few conditions, they were given a blank cheque to make a relatively minuscule order of weapons because at the time the Conservative government were looking to sell of Royal Ordinance and having a full order book made the company look lucrative. In the end the buyers liquidated Royal Ordinance and sold their Enfield property for trendy flats. And The British army was left with a no-specification rifle, it had no standards, it just had to be made and had to be British.
You know what I see a lot with the SA80 series: soldier overcoming the adversity of getting the most out of sub-standard weapons and mistaking that achievement as some property of the superiority of their firearm.
British soldiers are some of the best trained in the world but they are still living with the legacy of the monumental blunderin in the procurement of the SA80 series.
I don't know why the government spent $2000 per gun to upgrade each one when even if you solved the reliability problems you'd still have a sub-standard rifle. They should have swallowed their losses and recognised that a better way to spend that money would be to follow suit of NATO, Commonwealth and Irish allies and just buy a load of Steyr AUG rifles. Yes, there would have been a slight twinge of shame that the British Design had to be scrapped but at least it wasn't sending good money after bad.
I can understand, as a cadet you pretty much HAVE to love the SA80 series, you don't have a choice. It's all you've got.
So I'll totally understand if you tell me to take my opinion and shove it, but just consider this: don't let the necessary element of bravado self-confidence in the Army's productions decision let that get in the way of betterment. Part of the problem with SA80 series procurement is soldiers would say what they thought they had to say to remain in positive moral and maintain confidence, not to air concerns for fear of spreading the seeds of doubt.
MrJKapowey said:
You don't know what a squib is? Maybe you call it something different but it's when a round "half fires" because the powder is wet or somehow compromised you feel a jolt but no bang nor does the action cycle. You cycle the action and the case comes out but no bullet. The bullet is stuck in that barrel. If you try to fire another round with one already stuck in there you risk severely damaging the gun and your face. It's one of those major things to look out for as just assuming it is a dud isn't enough if you don't eyeball that the supposedly dud cartridge came out whole.
You need to have complete open access to the chamber to ram the bullet out the end.
(PS: I figured out you must be using the L98A2, that has the gas system but semi-auto only. You just called it L98 I reasonably assumed you meant the L98. On the L85 and L86 you can't just reach over and "flick" the fire-select switch, you have to lever your whole shoulder into it)
I'm you have to break position by taking your hand off the gun and especially to change the fire selector you have to lever your shoulder right into it. If you've only ever had the L98 cadet version maybe you don't know the L85 and L86 which I know for certain has an unreasonably stiff fire mode selector.
You would have the problem of:
-losing cheek weld
-losing point of aim
-likely lose shoulder position
It's definitely not a case that you can stay sighted in track targets and just switch from semi to full auto.
And on the disassembly with SA 80 you end up with two separate parts completely dislocated. With M4 and similar all the parts are open and accessible yet it stays as one piece, like breaking open the action of a double barrel shotgun.
Here, a Private shows his wife how simple and convenient the M4 Carbine is to disassemble:
See how it opens up like a break action shotgun? All the parts are accessible yet it is still all in one piece. You don't need to put anything down your other hand is free to clean or examine for breakages or blockages.
I made clear I was referencing the RPK. The RPK and RPK-74 weight the same. The RPK was designed in the 1940's (as big brother to AK47) but was not produced till the 1950's. It IS 1940's technology and design. Then you have the RPD (7.4kg, like L86 LSW) that most definitely is of 1944 vintage and weighs the same as L86-LSW but not "quite" comparable as it is belt fed but arguably that is superior to Magazine fed support-weapon.treblaine said:
Either way, L86 LSW is grossly overweight and underperforms. It doesn't even live up the Soviet standards of the beginning of the Cold War, as RPK (both variants) were capable of much more support fire and used ample 75 or 100 round capacity drum-magazines. Then there were weapons like the Ultimax 100 produced from 1982, now THAT was an impressive light-support-weapon, notable for it's gardening-hose like controllability yet compact size and low weight.
For comparison at the same time you had the Steyr AUG where any of the weapons could be converted to a Light Support Weapon with a HBAR long and heavy barrel, and an extended 42-round magazine. The great thing about this is it defies even conventions of the weapons category as the barrel/gas-system is quick to replace you are capable of far more sustained fire.
This was on the table from 1978, and The British Government turned it down for the first domestic rifle design for a military rifle since the Brown Bess (even Lee Enfield was of Canadian/American design). There was no bidding by Royal Ordinance nor anyone else, there were few conditions, they were given a blank cheque to make a relatively minuscule order of weapons because at the time the Conservative government were looking to sell of Royal Ordinance and having a full order book made the company look lucrative. In the end the buyers liquidated Royal Ordinance and sold their Enfield property for trendy flats. And The British army was left with a no-specification rifle, it had no standards, it just had to be made and had to be British.
You know what I see a lot with the SA80 series: soldier overcoming the adversity of getting the most out of sub-standard weapons and mistaking that achievement as some property of the superiority of their firearm.
British soldiers are some of the best trained in the world but they are still living with the legacy of the monumental blunderin in the procurement of the SA80 series.
I don't know why the government spent $2000 per gun to upgrade each one when even if you solved the reliability problems you'd still have a sub-standard rifle. They should have swallowed their losses and recognised that a better way to spend that money would be to follow suit of NATO, Commonwealth and Irish allies and just buy a load of Steyr AUG rifles. Yes, there would have been a slight twinge of shame that the British Design had to be scrapped but at least it wasn't sending good money after bad.
I can understand, as a cadet you pretty much HAVE to love the SA80 series, you don't have a choice. It's all you've got.
So I'll totally understand if you tell me to take my opinion and shove it, but just consider this: don't let the necessary element of bravado self-confidence in the Army's productions decision let that get in the way of betterment. Part of the problem with SA80 series procurement is soldiers would say what they thought they had to say to remain in positive moral and maintain confidence, not to air concerns for fear of spreading the seeds of doubt.
