What does /k/ think of the SA80?
>>28076074
oh look this thread again
>>28076074
The A1 a shit
The A2 is good
>>28076074
>jams a little too often
>ugly green (its light green not even OD green)
>looks like shit without a railed handguard
Overall 6/10
>>28076074
I'd fuck her.
But seriously, its a decent design, after all the a1's bullshit got sorted out. The LSW setup is especially good. I do wish the magazine was farther back but whatever.
having shot it i can say that as a rifle it works very well but if not taken care it becomes fucking useless quickly also big fan of the lsw
pic is not me btw
>>28076221
>tetas enormes
I'm no beaner but I like the sound of that. The question is why does that child have enormes tetas?
>>28076544
Sounds pretty standard for most guns.
A1 was full of flaws. It was made with poor quality control and had tons of flaws, from what I've heard mostly with the magazine area, charging handle and bolt group.
H&K improved the problematic areas drastically in the A2, putting their reliability among that of other NATO rifles i.e. pretty good. They're also one of the most accurate NATO assault rifles because of the barrel length.
I'd suck dick to shoot one, let alone own one.
>>28076074
Enfield version a shit.
HK revision is good.
>>28076074
Bongistani memepup
Does nothing better a M4 does except being slightly shorter and much more heavier
>posted 5 hours and 56 minutes ago
eyy
>>28076192
both are shit and you know it bong.
>>28079329
And more accurate
>>28076074
So shit that even H&K couldn't fully unfuck it.
>>28078063
Because Japan.
>>28080494
[citation needed]
I love how anglophiles and bongers rush at every opportunity to defend their increasingly irrelevant military & their equipment.
The SA80 is a poor design and prone to a lot of problems. The M16/M4 isn't superior in ALL regards, be it is in MOST of them.
When dudes raised on the SA80 switch over to M4s (and even the M16A4 fence-post) they love them, especially when I show them the versatility of the system.
It is heavy. It feels like an AK, weight-wise. It is primarily constructed from stamped sheet metal.
The trigger has serious issues, and under a heavy firing schedule are prone to failing. I have personally seen three guns go down almost simultaneously with the same problem.
The handguard has a mounting screw that goes through the gas-block on the barrel which makes the gun very susceptable to POI change due to pressure on the handguard from aggressive hold, VFG use, or supported positions. This is not changed with the DD handguards- which have their own problems. They are prone to loosening of the retention screws (one through the gas-block and one that presses into the front of the receiver), which results in drastic POI variance. The gas block is exposed, and it happens to be right where the support hand wants to be for good front-end control. The top rail is lower than the top of the gas-block which severely limits a 12:00 light mount.
It is highly trigger sensitive and prone to having consistently low groups during rapid fire or rapid trigger manipulation.
It is no more accurate than an M16 or M4 when compared with similar optics.
The line of sight over bore is really high, especially when using a piggybacked MRD.
The NATO rail is severly lacking.
The SUSAT is a nightmare. Since the thread didn't really get into it I won't either, but if you want I am more than happy to discuss it.
I have not seen the magazine well bend. However, I have seen what we would call the "lower receiver" (TMH here) bow outward which results in the magazine over-seating (like crappy 10 round 1911 mags do) during speed reloads.
The weapon can be fired left-handed, but only if you are very very careful and have a laser.
The rearward weight distribution makes the gun bouncy during multi-shot engagements and auto. I can hold 20 rounds on an IPSC on FA with an M4A1, about 10 to 12 with the SA80.
The lack of adjustability of the LOP makes the gun sub-optimal for CQB. Everybody touts the thing for being so short, but the LOP is barely shorter than an M16A2. Combined with the 0 eye-relief of the SUSAT, CQB work with it when wearing armor sucks unless you want to rely solely on the laser (if you get one) or until the ACOGS come in (which have a MRD piggy-backed). The long LOP prevents the 3-man from carrying in the high port, which results in a less than speedy 3-man's gun in the room/fight.
It is virtually unusable with a single-point sling though the issue 3-point essentially configures into a single point, it isn't really. The sling sucks hard, but that will probably be a non-issue since we do have options.
The pistol grip is uncomfortable unless, get this, you hold it with all of your fingers. That's right- it's more comfortable to carry in a non-firing grip than with a finger straight and off the trigger.
The position and type of safety requires the shooter to use the left hand to engage the safety. It's a cross-bolt safety just forward of the trigger guard.
The mag catch is stiff and only operable with the left hand.
The placement of the mag release and charging handle (left side and right side, respectively) means that you have to flip the gun back and forth for stoppage reduction instead of just canting it and running it. The bolt-catch is handy though. Unfortunately, the bolt release is tiny and requires a bit of dexterity to consistently manipulate it.
The short handguard makes it impossible the grip out on the rail where you are most efficient, but you have to hit the safety with the left hand anyway, so it's just a forced compromise anyway. It feels like a pan of water during SOM.
The trigger mechanism is slightly less complicated than the interior of a combine harvester, and prone to all kinds of fouling and unnecessary play, resulting in a great trigger (sarcasm).
The buttstock is ribbed, but doesn't stick in place during firing like a decent stock should. It is also heavily curved which makes running in the frontal pocket with armor more difficult than it needs to be.
You need two hands to work the gun and a functioning right side hand, arm, and clear line of sight to the right eye. This implies a lot of of failure points when in unconventional positions.
The SA80 is a bit better with the COG, but it doesn't do a damn thing about the problems with the system. The mount is a weak point. The ACOG needs to be cantilevered forward with the mount due to the rail being too short, and there are numerous accounts of a dropped rifle breaking or bending the mount. Implying that system would be fixed with an optic is grasping for straws and trying to obscure the real issues.
I have sufficient experience in CQB to say that the short overall length of the SA80 is not an advantage over an M4, especially considering that the length of pull is not adjustable. Most movements within the enclosure will be done from a compressed position with the barrel pointing either upward or down. Virtually no actions will be taken with the gun up unless covering a danger area or threat, in which case the shorter OAL does nothing. Indexing the gun sucks since the bolt travel will cause the cocking handle to strike the bicep if brought into an under-arm position, which means that I can actually make the M4 protrude a shorter distance and still be usable for extremely close contact. I have hopped into and out of vehicles a few times and I can positively say that the SA80 is barely better than a SAM-R (USMC's version of the Mk11 SPR essentially), and no better than an M4 in those conditions.
Why can't people be honest about things like guns? The SA80 is a POS. A better gun backed by better training would yield a better result. Why don't people want that to happen? As it is, HK is running out of SA80 receivers (I forgot to note, they are prone to cracking), which means that the MOD will have to accelerate their selection of a new system. I know this because I was in a tri-service meeting about the topic.
>>28076074
I wanted one bad when I was 14 because of 28 days later
actually got pretty into the British military and thought about going over there for a few months
>>28078063
According to the manga (And shows) top heaviness and trigger gaurd size determines breast size. I wouldn't say child simce the SA80 has been here since 1987, however compared to other service weapons (WW2 weapons for example, which are displayed as middle aged adults) she's only been recently made (Plus the type of round they fire also determines age)
>>28081464
Bulk and handguard, not trigger guard, determine bust size in upotte. At least it's not as weird as stocks determining undergarments or having cat ears only if you're a commie bloc rifle (7.62x39 HK rifle had cat ears while Sako and Galil are an elf and dog respectively)
>>28076221
As a bullpup, shouldn't her legs be coming out of her ears or something?
>>28081274
>The SUSAT is a nightmare. Since the thread didn't really get into it I won't either, but if you want I am more than happy to discuss it
I could stand to hear some more about it.
