|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the SA80 article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 L103 A1 and A2 Drill Purpose Rifle
- 2 Picture
- 3 Manufacture of XL64 prototypes at Sterling???
- 4 Weight
- 5 Sale to private bidders
- 6 Production Line
- 7 Safety Catch
- 8 SA80 is NOT based on the EM-2
- 9 March 2005 study
- 10 Template
- 11 Users of the SA80?
- 12 Manufacturer?
- 13 Use in Fiction
- 14 "Don't use the carrying handle as a carrying handle"
- 15 "Some internal parts are interchangeable"
- 16 Source
- 17 "Tap forward assist"
- 18 Claim regarding L98A1 Cadet GP Rifles in ATC vs ACF service
- 19 Pictures
- 20 Left handed problems?
- 21 Unisex Rifle
- 22 Criticisms
- 23 Cadet GP
- 24 L98A1 "FUN"
- 25 LxxAx
- 26 Criticisms section
- 27 SA80 based on the Armalite AR18?
- 28 A question about forward assists
- 29 L22 carbine clarification
- 30 Use of pre-production XL70 and XL73 in the Falklands Conflict
- 31 SAS
- 32 Page merge with SA80
- 33 New SA80 rail interface system and forward hand grip?
- 34 User: Serbia
- 35 Sa80 in use by the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces?
- 36 Cadet Rifle Articles
- 37 LEI SA-80 .22-Lr
- 38 AR-18 and Stoner 63 bullpup conversions
- 39 4.85 x 49mm Enfield
- 40 Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
- 41 L98A1 .22 conversion kit NOT semi-auto
L103 A1 and A2 Drill Purpose Rifle
The picture is of a 3rd Batallion, the DZ flash is clearly green and not blue, however I don't know on what operation the photo was taken so am loathe to edit it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Manufacture of XL64 prototypes at Sterling???
"Both designs were manufactured in Britain by Sterling Armaments Company alongside their similar but improved SAR-87."
Is there a citation to show evidence that the XL64 prototypes were manufactured at the Sterling Armaments Company?? I have never seen any evidence to suggest that Sterling had a direct role in the SA80's design or manufacture. Strangways (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"Weight remains the L85A2's most cited drawback. As with the L85A1, with most of the weight near the back, a large metal counterbalance in the foregrip was required." - I saw this on the main page, does anyone know who wrote it, because having used the weapon for years (and done all the associated stripping, cleaning and reassembling) I am still to come across this large metal counterbalance. Horatio Hornblower Senior 12:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've never seen one either - the foregrip's always been hollow. I've removed this unless someone has a reference for it, and replaced it with a more factual observation re: the rifle's weight. njan 19:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- The only L85s with a counterbalance in the grip and forestock are airsoft reproductions. I think this is rather telling of that particular claim, and the user who added it ;-) --220.127.116.11 13:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Sale to private bidders
I have a question about the SA80. I believe a portion of this article described the sale of some SA80s by either Zimbabwe or Mozambique to private bidders. The MoD were not pleased by this, as part of the terms of sale were that the weapons would not be sold on. Can anyone verify this, or was is removed because it was untrue? anon.
I thought the SA80 was given away by the british government as 'aid'. certainly no one in their right mind would actually choose buy this wretched weapon.
Not really, the L85A2 is supposedly the most reliable service rifle in the world. I can understand with the A1, but unless you state 'A1' you are just insulting the whole group, including one of the best rifles in the world... 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The SA80A2 is, but the weight is still out of balance though.
Why was the SA80 put out of production in 1994?, Was it due to the soldiers complaints?
User:Jetwave Dave 02:35, 8/07/07
It is a piece of crap
- Of course, you've used and had experience with the weapon, havn't you? Zanusi 09:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Safety catch as an issue of contention? I use the rifle regularly and there's not a damn thing wrong with teh location of the safety catch? All it takes is a tiny movement of the fingers to switch it, so I don't know where all this is coming from. The A2 is a bloody brilliant rifle.
I have used the A2 in many extereme/filthy climates and enviroments from the tropics, deserts and the British winter and have always found it to be very reliable and robust, it is a vast improvement over the A1 in this respect. I can count on one hand the amount of stoppages I have had with this weapon despite infrequent cleaning and heavy usage. I much prefer it over the M16A2 and M4 carbines I have recently used on an exercise in Florida, I routinly had stoppages with these systems and found them to be flimsy and not at all accurate in relation to the A2.
Never heard of a problem with the safety catch before. I found that it was in the right place and all of the catches were actually a little stiff more than anything! --Pudduh 20:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think the perceived "problem" with the safety catch is that "by the book" you're supposed to use your trigger finger to switch from SAFE to FIRE. However, like most people I imagine you used the fingers on your left hand and thought nothing of it. If anything I find it's the change lever that's awkwardly placed. Just try firing a couple of shots then switching to auto to let off a burst without losing you target! A combined, thumb-operated, safety catch and change lever above the pistol grip (like AR15 and most H&K weapons) is better IMO, or do away with the change lever altogether and replace it with a two-position trigger like the Steyr AUG. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 08:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC) it is also a cadet weapon wich is used by 1* and above
Given the longer barrel, muzzle velocity really must be greater for the LSW. And I concur with Khendon on the assault rifle history part. - JidGom 23:14 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
The LSW muzzle velocity is indeed greater - unfortunately I can no longer remember the actual figures. I have a feeling the cyclic rate might vary too, though I'm not sure.
- I believe the muzzle velocity of the LSW is 960m/s. I can't point to a source for that, though. PeteVerdon 13:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I also wonder about some of the praise heaped upon the weapon here - although the SUSAT is indeed pretty good, I've not heard any particular reports of the SA80 being "widely regarded as the most powerful and accurate mass-production 5.56mm rifle." The claim that the Cadet GP's cocking handle extension makes it "the fastest action of any manual rifle" also seems pretty dubious for what is basically a bodge welded on the side to improve the ergonomics of a system never designed for manual operation. 22.214.171.124 02:50, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well i will not talk about myself personaly to avoid bias, but all i have spoken to who have used the a1 and a2, confirm it is noticably more accurate than an m-16 c-7 and g-36. It has a bad reputation because the original was terrible. But the A-2 is outstanding. remember the royal marines replaced there sa-80's with c-7's until the sa-80 A-1 came out to a degree, and total went back when the a-2 came out. look up the uk navy news site, and search for an article called testing times for a new weapon. There is a testimony from the head of the royal marines there. as for the reliable sourse if you check the article sa-80 mistake or maligned it actualy has links in it to mod and other sources. there about as offical as you can get. also qouted on the army technologies website. in desert tests under matching conditions for all weapons, the a-2 got a pass rate of 85% the second best was the m-16 with 46%. rich tea man.(but yes the cadet gp rifle is very bad.) http://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/current_equipment/the_infantry_small_arms_in_the_section.htm
Why is the effective range of the SA80 stated as 400m, when the M16 page claims 500m? I'm sure that with the longer, heavier barrel, and optical sight, the SA80 is better at range than the M16. Perhaps this is from US/UK diffs in mil. definition of 'effective range'?
A single rifleman with an SA80 is defined by the British Army as 'effective' to 300m; although the SUSAT is adjustable to higher distances. A section of eight men is defined as being effective to 600m. Draw what conclusions you want. 126.96.36.199 21:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I've edited the effective range of the L85 and the L86LSW with data from the MOD. I would have thought that they would be our most reliable source of information on this?--Wikipediatastic 15:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
With respect to the L22A1's effectiveness I would like to know how those conclusions were reached in regard to the performance of the 5.56 NATO round. For example the NATO SS109D round is more than twice as heavy as the P90's 31gr. Veritas Panther 02:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
SA80 is NOT based on the EM-2
I've removed the part of the history section which states that the SA80 has its historical origins in the EM-2 rifle. This is not the case unless what was meant was the commonality of a bullpup arrangement. The mechanism and manufacture of the EM-2 are different to that of the SA80, in that it uses flap-locking rather than a lugged rotating bolt, has a sprung firing pin rather than a hammer, etc and was manufactured using more traditional techniques involving a lot of machining tather than the stamped pressings of the SA80.
I'm not sure that I'm entirely happy with my rewording of the first sentence though! Chris 12:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The design maybe totally different but the design layout and concept are all derived from research done on the EM-2 and it is a part of the SA80's history. Koalorka (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, agree with all of the above, but it is a widely held (if erroneous) opinion that the SA80 is based on the EM2, therefore it is appropriate and important to comment that, while the SA80 superficially resembles the EM2, it is not mechanically related to it. The political issues and unfinished business surrounding the dumping of the EM2 due to the US pressure on NATO to adopt the 7.62x51mm round were clearly a heavy influence on the emergence of the SA80 (though I cannot provide a written reference except for the now-defunct UK 'Handgunner' magazine test of the L85 in 1987 which commented that the new British rifle was going to be a bullpup no matter what due to the "ghost of the EM2" (or words to that effect). It also commented that the L85 was destined to be 'a winner in a one-horse race' and its adoption by the UK forces was going to assist it in RO's privatisation. The problem is I do not have a copy of the article. Perhaps someone here does. Strangways (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the SA80 is based of this rifle (L 64, also known as 4.85mm experimental) L64/65 http://www.joysf.com/files/attach/images/3081440/828/099/004/l64%20rifle.jpg (Fdsdh1 (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC))
March 2005 study
A reliable source is needed for the March 2005 L85A2/M16/M4/AK47/AN94 study. I've not found anything on Google. --AndrewKerr 23:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The results were published in a restricted publication. -- anonymous
If that's the case then they shouldn't be mentioned here, because wikipedia demands verifiability --Khendon 06:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Bf2 came out March 2005. The topic of the thread was the best assault gun. Jemme101 had posted a bit of text from wikipedia to prove a point in the thread. Right before this a anon had reposted the bit of text about the none existent test.All the weapons that are part of this none existent test are part of the game.--M8v2 23:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- This was removed by another wikipedian, since it seems not to be attributable at all, and wikipedia does indeed require verifiability. However, I've dug up what appears to be a good reference to another study done by the ITDU. Any comments? njan 19:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- The test results were briefly available online through the MoD website. They included a breakdown of performance in each category for each weapon tested. I can testify to reading them, however, I can no longer find a copy of the test. The information included in the March 2005 study section was accurate (with respect to the reported results), however cannot be included without a reliable reference. It would be interesting to see ITDU results.- anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I changed the template to what I thought was the standard template for firearms, but if you dont like that, OK. Mainly because the image looks awkward off center and lacking a caption, the other way looked better, but do what you want.
- the template used is parameterised which makes for easier editing. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Weaponry#Table_templates GraemeLeggett 30 June 2005 13:08 (UTC)
Users of the SA80?
Was this used by Zimbabwe and Jamaica? I know that Jamaica uses Colt weapons systems, but I think Zimbabwe uses Russian (and possibly Chinese) rifles.
I had no idea about that one, as far as i knew the only people using the bullpup SA80 was the british.
Strange, the info said that Jamaica and Zimbabwe use them.
I don't think there's anything strange about former British colonies, Jamaica and Zimbabwe, using British standard firearms. I'm only surprised more ex-colonies didn't use them.
The Romanian Navy got some A1's when they purchased some ships
I'm fairly certain one of the Caribbean states was gifted L85s for its defence force, it may well have been Jamaica. DG 8-4-2006
Mozambique were also provided with a quantity of A1s by the Uk government.
Jamaica has been using them since 1992 so it says on thier website.
User:Jetwave Dave 02:30AM, 8/7/07
I've noticed that the article, unless I missed something, fails to clearly mention the manufacturer of the SA80 series. (Unless it's actually made by the British government?) -- anon
How's that? --Khendon 15:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Manufactured by Royal Ordnance (Now part of BAE Land Systems) // Upgrade of original rifles to A2 performed by H&K 184.108.40.206
I don't know if it's worth mentioning as part of the above that H&K was also part of BAE at the time of the rework, though it's an independent company again now. DG 8-4-2006
- No it isn't. BAE sold H&K to private investors in 2002 , long before the formation of its Land Systems division.--AlexCGW (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The weapon was made by RO Defence but the HK symbol appears on most of todays rifle due to the fact of their rebuilding in Germany. King Konger
Its still the original A1 frame but with H&K parts installed into them making it the A2. The rifle hasnt been in production since 1994.
User:Jetwave Dave 02:33, 8/7/07
It was developed at RO Defence Enfield, but production was done at RO Defence Birmingham after Enfields closure, i believe. (220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)) Didn't Argentina carry the SA80 in a fully automatic version? PFC USMC "Anarchy" —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnarchyElf (talk • contribs) 04:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
"Didn't Argentina carry the SA80 in a fully automatic version?"
Doubt it. In the early 80s we were at war with argentina, so its unlikely we would willingly sell them SA80s, perhaps they were captured during the falklands war? (i know a number were)
- AnarchyElf is confusing the SA80 with its predecessor the SLR which was available in various forms, including a full auto one used by the Argentine Army, as the FN FAL. --AlexCGW (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
During the Falklands the Argentinians used the FN FAL which was automatic, we used the SLR which was a semiautomatic version of the FAL,our version was superior. the SLR was very long, didn't fire automatic (otherwise it would be uncontrollable) and the 7.62 NATO was a heavy round, which was why it got replaced with the SA80 (Fdsdh1 (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC))
Use in Fiction
I would have thought a possibly better occurrence of the L85 in film is 'Dog Soldiers' (2002), where the patrol is initially armed with L85s with the blank firing adaptor, though they rapidly swap to MP5s, G3s and shotguns with live ammo when they find the massacred SF team. DG 8-4-2006
- Is it worth mentioning the 'Soldier, Soldier' and 'Redcap' UK TV series as well? -- Lordandmaker 14:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Someone seems to have removed this section. Personally I'd rather keep it. Opinions? Chris 17:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Pop culture sections do not add anything to the article, and are merely lists of trivia, not to mention they tend to become excessively large. Many other firearms articles have been through this, and it has been generally agreed that "In fiction" or "Popular culture" sections should be avoided. It should be fine to have a mention of the weapon's frequent appearance/use in popular culture (although it is not really the case with the SA80, if you compare it to, say, the M16). —Squalla 17:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- I just thought that its pop culture features gave an interesting counterpoint to its definite lack of popularity in real world use, at least formerly. Chris 18:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
"Don't use the carrying handle as a carrying handle"
I've never come across this restriction. It sounds like the kind of myth which abounds in the Cadets in particular, and in any case if the zeroing was that likely to change then it would be a problem in normal use in the field even without carrying the rifle by the carrying handle. Logically the problem would apply to the SUSAT and CWS as well, particularly the latter due to its weight. Running with a CWS attached would subject the sight mounting to far higher instantaneous loads than walking about non-tactically with the rifle suspended from the sight. I'm going to remove this phrase; the originator is welcome to reinsert it provided they can provide a reasonable justification here. PeteVerdon 13:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- As a cadet we were always told not to. In the TA, we were told that was "bullshit". I presume the idea was to make Cadets hold the rifle 'properly' more, or that they couldn't be trusted to tell when it was and wasn't appropriate. -- Lordandmaker 14:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- I do know that our CTT sergeant didn't like people using the carrying handle (he likened it to a handbag) but we assumed that was due to him being an infantryman (SUSATs with everything) and hence unfamiliar with rifles being carried like that. On the other hand, if you're a skill-at-arms instructor like I was, laying out rifles ready for a lesson, then the ability to carry three or four in each hand is very useful - try doing that without a carrying handle! PeteVerdon 15:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I remember reading the small tounge in cheek magazine that was distributed in the Army when I was a kid which scolded you for carrying the rifle by the SOUSAT. Haven't heard anything about carrying it by the handle. The closest I've heard is in the OTC where it was frowned upon because "you looked like a tramp or a ned, possibly both" by carrying it by the handle.--Pudduh 20:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Making cadets and recruits carry the weapon properly and not using the carrying handle is indeed more to with turning them into something that resembles soldiers rather than anything to do with it damaging the sights, although it also ensures the weapons are under proper control. As an ex-infantryman I dislike the handbag handle and slings, but tend to carry my rifle by the body, not the pistol grip: for that "casual, not too green" look. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 08:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- I wouldn't think twice about this. Its nonesense. Its the kind of thing that your told in the army so you make silly mistakes like carrying the rifle by the carry handle and can be drilled harder for your minor error. Such formalities are abundant in the British army; For instance people getting in trouble for calling an L85 an SA80 (because an SA80 ISNT a rifle, its a group of weapons.) Or getting in trouble for calling an L85 a gun. As a gun is technically something over 105mm in caliber which the L85 certainly is not, technically its a 'firearm'. The term 'gun' for handgun etc. is an Americanism and shouldn't be confused with the true UK-English meaning of a gun. In short its all bollocks basically. Designed by NCOs to let their recruit and junior soldiers slip up on silly errors and drill them for it. 18.104.22.168 17:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
It very definitely IS a carrying handle, as the manual lists it as such. However, I can't think of a source for this that isn't restricted which will make verification a bit difficult. I did think that there might be officially produced posters with the parts listed, unfortunately the only one I could find on Google was just a tiny bit too small to read the writing! Jellyfish dave (talk) 10:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
"Some internal parts are interchangeable"
I believe I originally wrote this (a couple of years ago) as "all removable internal parts are interchangeable" or words to that effect. Would anybody care to remind me which removable internal parts are *not* interchangeable between the LSW and the Rifle? PeteVerdon 13:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
-- I have to admit, i dont know exactly which parts it is, but i do know that things like the cyclic rate on the LSW is different to the SA80 due to very slightly different internal parts. 80% interchangeability i believe. Obviously things like the handguard/barrel/bipod/rear pistol grip/butt plate, arent interchangeable 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
As no-one can say what is different about the internal parts, this should be removed. Cyclic rate may differ due to gas port pressure differences caused by different barrel length, but this is not sufficient to determine internal parts are modified. Strangways (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
a good article and a few links to official mod odcumentaion. and mentions the test.
"Tap forward assist"
At the OTC, we mainly used the A1 version. One of the things we were taught during rifle drill was "tap forward assist" a very scientific term for "bashing the cocking handle forward a couple of times to make sure it goes all the way forward." This was explained as because the spring was quite weak, the cocking handle doesn't go forward sometimes. Should this be added if it is true?--Pudduh 20:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- The forward assist is a standard British Army drill regardless of the weapon. The M16A2 actually has a button protuding from the RHS which can be hit to push the bolt fully forward (as forward assisting the cocking handle would be no good, due to differences in the design). I don't think it's anything to do with a specific weakness with the L85/86. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 08:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- It might be now, but I remember it being introduced on the SA80 in the early 90s. Caused me no end of trouble because I was used to working without doing it and ended up failing a weapon handling test. at the time it was explained that it was a weakness in the return spring.ALR 14:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
In lewis page's book he says that the "tap forward assist" was added to the drills instead of actually fixing the weapons.Corustar 13:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- I wouldn't take much notice of Page, he spent his rather short career doing one type of job and appears to have no real knowledge of the acquisition process. He makes some valid points, but more by luck than judgement.ALR 13:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- I thought that about his book too and im not in the forces yet. its just that he made the comment abount the "tap forward assist" being added to the manual instead of the weapons being fixed and i was wondering if its true. Truefully reading his book makes him sound like he was bitter about the career he chose and felt leaving the forces and writing a book would be a better move.Corustar 01:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- When it was introduced a lof ot instructors were saying that was the reason, but logically it takes time to introduce a fix; find a more resilient spring, buy enough, distribute them and ensure that configuration control is maintained etc... ALR 08:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, we were specifically told by our instructors that the reason for the "tap forward assist" was because of a weakness in the spring. --126.96.36.199 01:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I am in the Light Infantry, and we are still taught to forward assist with the A2s, indeed it is part of our stoppage drills. I have been told that this was originaly brought in with the A1s because of the weakness of their springs, I am not sure why it is still taught with the A2 as the spring is now a lot stronger than the ones in the A1.
Having recently used the A2s on ex in Germany, I can say that the forward assist is there to make sure that the bolt really locks forward with the chambre. I believe that it is not officially attributed to weak recoil rod springs, but simply as a precautionary measure. The IA drill for all the SA80 weapons should be to tap the cocking handle forwards, as in the L85, L86 and L98A1 the bolt may not be all the way forwards. Tapping makes sure the bolt is firmly locked forwards. I have found once on exercise that the forward assist during the Make Ready saved me an un-neccessery stoppage. It also came into play on the DCCT range, where the operator decided to give me a stoppage! -anon
Not actually true, a forward assist on the L98 is specifically prohibited, due to the way the rifle is cocked it leads a lot of cadets to slam the cocking handle forward with the palm of their hand. This can be extremely dangerous if the round has mis fed. This is less of a problem under the "tap" the left and would give an L85/6. Also, due to the size of the cocking handle, the momentum is allmost allways enough to load a round correctly, assuming the weapon is well oiled.
Claim regarding L98A1 Cadet GP Rifles in ATC vs ACF service
I've removed the following claim from the main page,
|“||...especially on ATC weapons, which tend to see a higher level of use that ACF weapons.||”|
Without some kind of credible citation it just doesn't stand up. Army Cadets use the Cadet GP as a regular part of their generic "soldier" like training, including a large amount of use in the field and the firing of large amounts of blank ammunition, away from the close supervision of range staff. I believe there is a ban on blank ammunition in the ATC and the rifles are used strictly for range practices, skill-at-arms "dry" training and weapon handling tests. This would suggest the ACF rifles are more likely to incur damage through excessive use (unless, of course, the ATC don't look after theirs properly). As a former ATC cadet who has subsequently assisted in ACF training I have no bias one way or the other, but do have some insight. Yorkshire Phoenix 15:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- I may have introduced some potential for confusion here as I changed the original contributor's mention of CCF to ACF, on the possibly questionable basis that the ACF has a page here and CCF doesn't seem to, at least as far as I could see. I doubt it makes much difference, but thought that it was worth pointing out anyway.
- -- Chris (blather • contribs) 16:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oops, a second search has revealed that I must've pressing the wrong keys when I tried to do a search on Combined Cadet Force the first time around, so my change of CCF to ACF was somewhat misjudged after all. I'll not change the above quoted text back, though, otherwise that'll really confuse things.
- -- Chris (blather • contribs) 16:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
We could do with a picture of each of the 4 different types of SA80 currently in service 188.8.131.52 13:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Left handed problems?
Can the A2 be fired left handed? I think its implied but not actually stated. this seems important Askin 12:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- No it can't, the ejection opening is on the right hand side of the weapon, same as the A1. If you fired it left handed you'd get a cocking handle and spent case in the eye.--184.108.40.206 14:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Few armies train their soldiers in left handed shooting these days anyway; even lefties are tought to fire right handed. A poster on TankNet mentioned that the US Army certainly doesen't and the M16 can be fired left handed.
I guess in theory one could be turned on its side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- The US Army most certainly DOES train soldiers to fire left-handed. Leaning out around the left side of cover far enough to fire right-handed exposes one's entire head and upper torso to enemy fire. Not a good thing, and one of the weaknesses of the bullpup designs like the SA80.
- Furthermore, left-handed soldiers are not forced to shoot right-handed in the US forces. There was even a "left-handed firing adapter" issued for use on firing ranges to reduce the chance of ejected cases coming back into a left-handed shooter's face when firing an M16 or M16A1. M16A2s and later variants, including the M4 carbines, have a shell deflector formed into the side of the upper receiver specifically for that purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
When the SA80 was first introduced it was quickly nicknamed the 'unisex rifle', presumably because the adoption of a smaller calibre lightweight bullpip rifle co-incided with frontline female soldiers. No mention of this in the article. Also because soldiers in general saw the SLR as a superior weapon a lot of effort went into convincing soldiers that flat shooting small calibre guns were more effective on the battlefield, including a demonstration of shooting a brick wall 3 times with the SA80 and once with the SLR, and also a discussions about not having to kill a man in modern warfare. etc.
- I couldn't cite a reference, but i understand that during the Falklands war British soldiers were known to take enemy weapons due to their automatic capability, something that the SLR lacked and ultimately one of the contributing factors for converting to the SA80 weapon system. But yes, you're quite right about not having to kill a man in modern warfare. A dead man is one taken out of action, an injured man is three.--22.214.171.124 14:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
(I apologise for this edit, but I'm not sure how to make my protest known in another way)
I use the SA-80 regularly and what was written above about the criticism of the safety catch was (in my opinion) clearly written by someone who has never held, let alone fired, the weapon. Unless you intend to fire the weapon your finger should not be on the trigger and instead should rest in its natural extended position which leaves it (guess where) right over the safety. A tap of the safety makes the weapon ready to fire and from that action to having your finger on the trigger takes under a tenth of a second. I once again apologise, but must fiercely protest the accuracy of what I have read above. The SA80-A2 is a fine weapon and I've never experienced a problem with it, despite submerging it, coating it in mud, firing in sub zero temperatures and in desert conditions.
- Yep, but not everyone knows what an L85 is, because it's a Brit Army designation. Even though said designation is in the article, if you posted on here talking about the L85 someone would say "This is the SA80 article, you fool." SA80A1/A2 is commonly used when discussing the weapon with those unfamiliar with Brit Army L-series designations, and even in informal discussions between those who do know of the L-designation (e.g. ARRSE forums). Geoff B 17:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note sure if this helps but I think some of the criticims of the safety catch may have originated from those of us who switched from the SLR (L1A1) to SA-80 (L85A1). With the SLR all you had to do was move your thumb to take the safety catch lever on/off and it was easy to check whilst keeping your finger on the trigger. SA-80 is a tiny plastic button ahead of the trigger guard, you have to take your finger off the trigger and it never appeared to us as that intuitive but you got used to it. On the early models of the SA-80 the safety catch was relatively weak and apparently you could break the safety catch by pulling on the trigger - though that story may well be apochryphal. Most of the old hands adored the SLR and considered the SA-80 that replaced it a piece of crap. Justin talk 13:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the statement:
"However, because the cocking handle is connected to the rod by a pin, it occasionally breaks. Another idiosyncrasy of the GP rifle is that adding an extra mechanism complicates the maintenance of the rifle, and it is possible to detach the rod from the bolt carrier in such a manner that it is only partly functional."
It is indeed possable to do this... however, it is also possable to put the weapon together without the bolt in it. The fact this can happen is irrelivent. Also, the cocking handle dosent comlicate maintainance at all. Gas parts can take upwards of an hour to clean after extended firing, whereas the cocking handle and runner, takes perhaps 30 seconds with a combat jacket and a pot of oil.
Please discuss if you think it has been removed unfairly. Teta 19:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Whether or not the additional assembly "complicates" maintenance is of course up for debate, but the malfunction mentioned is far and away the single most common mistake I've seen made during routine cleaning of the Cadet GP, and for this reason alone I think it's worth a mention in this context. njan 20:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say anyone who makes that mistake, has merely been badly trained, or wasnt paying attention when the reassembled it, its hars to miss a huge thing like that!. It's a human error, but its not a problem with the rifle it's self, so i wouldnt say it needs mentioning. Also, leaving the tiny cocking handle off the LSW is a far more common mistake, since it's s tiny! Teta (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- The design of the rifle causes the error to be able to be made in the first place; many other flaws with this, and other rifles - such as the lack of a guard around the safety catch, malfunctions when not cleaned, or even the need for a safety catch in itself, could also be attributed to a greater or lesser degree, to "mishandling", particularly when under stress, tired, etc. I'd say it's meritous enough to warrant a short include. njan 19:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I removed the quotation "the L98A1 is known as an accurate and "fun to use" rifle among cadets." because this is not true, the accuracy isn't brilliant and the only reason it is called "fun" is because its normaly all cadets get to use Fwed66 14:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, considering the tight groupings we achieve, in my personal ecperience the Cadet GP is a highly accurate weapon.
Doesn't the British Army accept weapons into the armed forces with the A1 suffix in their initial set up? The start uses A1 for the L22 and other derivatives but just lists L85 and L86 for the IW and LSW weapons (And this continues later down, that it was accepted into service as the L85) Narson 21:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the criticisms and fallout from them is an important part of the historical record for the SA80 series. That being said, I think it needs to be added in a functional and objective manner that notes the importance of it without being just someone's personal rant and anecdotes. Citing from the news stories and official documentation would be the best way. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Tony Williams has some great stuff on his site that could be incorperated at http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/SA80.htm . Worth a look Megapixie (talk) 02:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, it's a very good synthesis of the information available. Though I probably wouldn't describe guns.ru as an 'excellent site', have seen suspect claims on there sometimes. Incidentally, has anyone seen a good source on the AR-18-based development claims? I think I've seen something quoting the guy whose company built AR-18s in the UK saying he recognized the bolt... actual information on what, if anything, was used un- or lightly modified would be nice. John Nevard (talk) 05:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
SA80 based on the Armalite AR18?
Just take a look at the two gas systems and you'll know it's an AR-18. The AR-18 is actually currently the most copied gas system of operation in use in the G36, CIS weapons, Japan's Howa rifle, Beretta AR 70/90 etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koalorka (talk • contribs) 07:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've seen stuff about the G36 having a AR-18 derived bolt, too. But the gas system claim seems more dubious. We should have precise, well-verified sources for anything making similar claims. Of course... that's assuming that there's anything new under the sun with firearms, which really isn't often true. John Nevard (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Side by side comparison of a disassembled SA80 and AR-18 makes it blindingly obvious that the SA80 is very closely based on the AR-18. I defy anyone with one specimen of each weapon disassembled in front of them to insist that they are not almost identical internally. It is not just the 7-lug rotating bolt itself, which is similar to the Steyr AUG, M16, M4 and others, but the whole package. The AR18 does not have a removable gas plug with adverse setting (which the SA80 has), but the gas system is otherwise almost identical in both appearance and disassembly procedure. The bolt carrier, bolt, cam pin, firing pin retaining pin, detachable cocking handle, etc are all but identical. The only real change is minor - the SA80 has an extra (third) middle guide rod added to carry the return spring leaving the other 2 rods to guide the bolt group, where the AR-18 has only the 2 guide rods, but both have return springs on them. The guide rod assembly is otherwise almost the same. Disassembly of the whole weapon is very similar. Also, look where the change lever is. If you imagine that there is a pistol grip in its non-bullpup conventional place behind the magazine, the change lever falls exactly under your thumb - exactly where the safety/change lever is on a AR-18. Take an AR-18, remove the (folding) butt from it, move the pistol grip forward of the magazine, put a SUSAT on top and you have 90% of a SA80. Strangways (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Further to my last, here is the 2002 Guardian article referred to above quoting James Edmiston, former owner of Sterling (licenced manufacturer of the AR18): 'Many of the key parts of the SA80 were copied from the US Armalite AR18, then made in Britain under licence by the Sterling gun factory in Dagenham, using the pressed-steel technique. The former owner of the factory, James Edmiston, says that his chief designer had seen an early prototype SA80 at an arms fair, stripped it down and discovered that bolt, bolt carrier, magazine, springs and firing pin had been taken from an AR18. "Not once did Enfield ever ask Sterling for information on the AR18," he says. "I know of at least one component that they 'copied' incorrectly which could well have made a difference to reliability." ' This is by James Meek from the Guardian Thurs 10 Oct 02 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/oct/10/military.jamesmeek). There is a cross section of the AR18 on this page: http://www.weaponryonline.com/Reviews-req-showcontent-id-15.html which on examination might appear familiar to those who have seen the inside of the SA80. Strangways (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
For comparison between the 2 different weapons, here are links to pages containing images of a disassembled SA80 and disassembled AR18 (actually the reintroduced AR180 semi-auto only variant).
AR18 article (scroll down to bottom of article to show images of disassembled weapon): http://www.cruffler.com/review-January-02.html
SA80 disassembled image: (click on 'enlarge image' on centre image entitled 'Disassembled SA80 rifle): http://www.armedforces-int.com/projects/firearms/l85a2-iw-sa80.asp
- For future reference, the Guardian article is the key there. The rest of the text is interesting to read, but it's original research; it seems obvious to you, and it's probably true, but we only have your side of the story, and to an inexpert eye the comparison images are just a lot of metal parts. Imagine a similar discussion going on at e.g. Hulk Hogan, in which one poster argues strenuously that Hogan stole his stage makeup from another wrestler of the 1970s. It might seem obvious to him, but to a non-expert it is meaningless, and the evidence he presents might be skewed or incomplete. However the Guardian article is a cite, a good one, in a major newspaper. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I am aware that, without citing a published source, asserting similarities between the two weapons in the manner I did could be construed as original research - comparison photos or not. Therefore, I added the Guardian article cited, which contains a quote from the former owner of Sterling who makes the point very well. Other articles about the AR-18 also mention its influence on later weapons, for example this one in Guns Magazine from June 2003: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_6_49/ai_100727290/ Strangways (talk) 03:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
While on the subject of original research not backed up by published sources, something else I find interesting is that in the Wikipedia SA-80 article someone has deleted the AR-18 reference and inserted instead the Sterling SAR-87, even to the point of adding the words "...and its British SAR-87 derivative..." to the direct quote from the Guardian article in the references section, which are not present in the original article shown in the link. I would have thought that altering a direct quote from a cited source would be against Wikipedia guidelines. Not only that, but it is a red herring; the SAR-87 is also a AR-18 derivative, appeared after the SA-80, and is far more obscure than the AR-18, so I can't see the relevance. On the SAR-87 talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sterling_SAR-87 it is stated that: "The development of the SAR-87 seems to be so insignificant that it wasn't even included in the book "The Guns of Dagenham," which was co-authored by one of Sterling's last directors". So why the insistence on deleting the mention of AR-18 and replacing it with the (irrelevant and un-cited) SAR-87?? Strangways (talk) 03:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
A question about forward assists
In the article Forward assist, it states that the SA80 more or less requires the usage of the forward assist, much more than other rifles, but that is not mentioned here. Is that article incorrect, or should this one be corrected to include that information? Parsecboy 20:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
As stated above, The L85A2 no longer requires a forward assist to allow for proper operation. This is due to the heavier springs and modification on the bolt locking splines. However, all soldiers are taught to carry out a forward assist during the 'make ready drill' and it is required as part of the Weapons Handling Test. This can be seen as allowing continuity of good practice from what has been learnt from the L85A1. Forward assisting confirms that the round is correctly seated and the bolt is locked fully, so why not do it? One day it may save your life. Lt REME British Army
L22 carbine clarification
I understood that the L22 carbines were made a few years after the L85 assault rifles were made. I know that the L22A2 was made with improvements due to the Iraq War, but was the L22A1 made with the SA80 family? Regards. Ominae (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Eh, the AFV carbine is a tad difficult to name. When first produced and released (the same time as the rest of the SA80 family), it was simply known as the SA80-AFV, L85-AFV or SA80-carbine and amongst the personel who used it, the "Shorty". It was not called an 'L22' until the second generation of L85's became A1s - the SA80 AFV became the 'L22 AFV'. When the A2 mods came out the L22 became the 'L22A1 AFV'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The UK's Ministry of Defence refer to the current L22 variant with Heckler Koch's 'SA80 A2' improvements, as RIFLE SA80, 5.56 MM L22A2 SA80K (http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/36563/response/96971/attach/3/07%2006%202010%20162425%20003%20Matthew%20Davis.pdf). The span of EFRS reports in the above reference cover the 2005-2006 period when the Carbine was first adopted by British forces (http://www.modoracle.com/news/SA80-At-21---A-Weapon-Comes-Of-Age_15793.html) - with all reports under the L22A2 'variant' header, with no EFRS entries or other references to a L22A1 version of the carbine from the types introduction in 2005, to today. Comparatively there are separate entries for the A1 and A2 versions of the L110 LMG, and A1 and A3 versions of the L115 LRR. Additionally, the receivers on L22s with 'A2' improvements are marked L22 A2 5.56 x 45, (http://worldwide-defence.blogspot.com/2011/07/sa80k-l22-a2-carabine-rifle-british.html) rather than L22A1. - 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Use of pre-production XL70 and XL73 in the Falklands Conflict
Can any users provide confirmation of the use of the pre-productions weapons during the Falklands Conflict. I am aware of the use of the M16 in various formats by UK forces at the time but have never seen nor heard any mention of either of the XL's use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockape73 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Not sure, M16A1's were used by the SAS though but dont know of the XL70.
Worth noting that when this gun was described the SAS refused to use them and instead ordered a shipment of M16s from the U.S Army? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
No, Not least because: It's not a 'Gun', they did not order M16s and the neither US Army nor a US Weapons supplier supplied the weapon system they chose in its stead.Blackshod (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
They use the A2 when posing as standard soldiers, otherwise they use either the G36K or the HK417 or the C7/C8 rifle which is a Canadian version of the M16/M4 rifle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viper D07 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Page merge with SA80
- I know it is a variant but there is enough information to warrant a separate article. This can then be summarized in the SA80 article per WP:SUMMARY. Whilst it may be a variant, it is a completely different rifle to the SA80. Woody (talk) 09:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- How is it a completely different rifle? It is an L85A1 with a different cocking handle and no gas tube. There is no unique information on the separate Cadet rifle page. Most of it is recycled from the SA80 article and the rest is an instruction manual and a list of personal experiences and folklore from the kiddies that used it. Koalorka (talk) 04:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- It is an L85A1 with a different cocking handle and no gas tube - that's why. It's got a completely different operating mechanism, and you can't even cock the two weapons with the same hand - for the L85 you use the left hand, for the L96 it's the right hand.Captain Seafort (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I object. I feel that the L-98 and the L-85 both warrant their own page. They are completly different. One is a fully-automatic, selective fire assault rifle meant for combat soldiers and the other is a manually operated training rifle meant for cadets. Physically, externally and internally, they are different. They fulfill different roles completly. By merging this article one would set a precedent. This precedent would say that anything that is a variant of anything, no matter how different they are physically or in what role they fill, they would technically, in the eyes of the precedent, be the same. You might as well merge articles about the male sex and the female sex. They are different physically, and they fulfill different roles in continuing the species, but, in the eyes of this precedent, they would be the same.SAWGunner89 (talk) 04:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- That's a very colourful analogy, but the L98 is still just a manual repeater version of the L85 with a cocking handle mechanism and no gas system. The L98 page only exists because of enthusiastic children sharing their experiences as cadets. Koalorka (talk) 05:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Just noticed the L98A2 has been split from the article. This is out of hand. These rifle are simple repeater versions with no divergent evolutionary history or significant modifications. Koalorka (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
(add) sorry I should elaborate, thought I was commenting on the new L98A2 page. The L98A2 page should be merged into the L98A1 page, and the L98A1 page is a keeper. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
No merge. The rifles, although externally similar, are very different. As well as the differences mentioned above, it should also be noted that, unlike the SA80, the L98 has no flash supressor. Although the L98 article may need some cleanup, putting all the useful information in to the SA80 article would look ridiculous. The SA80 is a fully-automatic assault rifle, and the L98 is a single-shot cadet target rifle. I'm sure that lots of examples like this exist throughout Wikipedia.ANHL (talk) 07:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- It should also be mentioned that on a normal strip-down there is little parts commonality between the two weapons; I think that only the bolt is the same. I think that the SA80 has a different spring.ANHL (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- No Merge .The L98A2 page has been merged with the L98A1 page, since they are all but the same rifle. The same cannot be said for the L98A1 and the SA80. On completed roll out of the L98A2, i belive these pages should be merged, because the L98+L85A2 will be identical but for the change lever. PS: Even the bolt is different now the L85A2 is in service!Teta (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
New SA80 rail interface system and forward hand grip?
Have seen pictures of the Royal Marines using what looks like a rail interface system and a forward hand grip on the SA80. See here for some pictures:
It seems to be a pretty standard fixture amongst the marines in the pictures above. I can't find any reference on the net to this new addition, but if someone can find anything about it and add a reference to the article, I think that it would make the article more comprehensive.
- Like this bit perhaps?
Sa80 in use by the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces?
Apparently it is, according to: Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces. You may want to add it to the list of users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Used by their special forces no-less...something just doesn't sound right here. Can anyone actually confirm/deny this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Cadet Rifle Articles
I cannot see any justification for the two separate pages on the two L98 cadet variants of the SA80 system. The are less different than the L22 or L86 from the 'base' L85 model and of little wider significance as they are soley used by the MoD youth cadet organisations. I suggest they are subsumed into the relevant sections here. Brookesward (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Good idea. No need for a separate article's on firearm variants. --MFIreland (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
LEI SA-80 .22-Lr
I've noticed there's a "Citation Needed" note under this voice as far as it concerns the manufacturing company (LEI - Law Enforcement International, Ltd.) being of St.Albans, Hertfordshire.
Here is their address anyway:
Law Enforcement International Ltd.
PO Box 328
St. Albans - Hertfordshire
AL4 OWA England
Tel: 01727-826607 (Allow for Intl. numbers)
Web: http://www.lei.co.uk/ (under construction)
AR-18 and Stoner 63 bullpup conversions
The Sterling AR-18 and Stoner 63 bullpup conversions, both look as if they were made from Enfield EM-2s.
Ionbh 01:14AM, 28/09/2011 (UTC)
4.85 x 49mm Enfield
Hi Synaptic peach, some good info on the 4.85mm Enfield, but I have a couple of suggestions to amend it for clarity if I may:
"5.56mm Remington" is a conflation of the military 5.56x45mm NATO and the sporting .223 Remington versions of this cartridge, which though generally interchangeable, are produced to different specifications, including soft point sporting projectiles of various weights for the .223 Rem. The version that I think you are referring to as "then existing" is the US 5.56mm M193 round, which was introduced with the original M16/M16A1 which had a 55 grain projectile. The version that competed with (and was victorious over) the 4.85mm was the Belgian FN-designed SS109 5.56x45mm round which used a heavier 62 grain projectile.
You probably need to find a source for the assertion that the 4.85mm round was seen to be superior. There is one, as I have read it somewhere, can't remember where though. If I recall correctly it is related to the greater sectional density of the projectile which (other things such as muzzle velocity and projectile weight being similar) would mean superior performance at longer ranges.
"far more rounds of ammunition could be carried by an individual soldier". Undoubtedly true when compared to the 7.62mm, which is where the comment undoubtedly originated, but the weight difference between the 4.85mm and 5.56mm rounds is negligible - they are almost the same overall size (i.e. fit in a M16 magazine) and based on the same case, and the projectile weight is within a few grains (437.5 grains in an ounce).
"Remington and its supporters" Remington wasn't the advocate and was really nothing to do with it - it was the US Government who once again wanted its chosen solution to be adopted by NATO (unsurprising as they constitute more than 50% of NATO contributions). You are right about money being a big factor though.
Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
- Triggered by
\barmy-technology\.com\bon the local blacklist
- Triggered by
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
L98A1 .22 conversion kit NOT semi-auto
Contrary to the article as of 7/2014, the .22 conversion l98A1 (in my experience) was definitely NOT semi automatic. Semi automatic would have required significant re-training for cadets, and would have complicated the very usage of the weapon that the kit was intended to negate.
- "Supply of Handguards and Downgrips for SA80A2". European Defence Agency.
The Combat Support Equipment Integrated Project Team (CSE IPT), part to the Ministry of Defence United Kingdom, has a requirement for design, production and supply of a new Handguard and Downgrip for the SA80A2 Rifle to give improved grip capability. There is a possible requirement for up to quantity 8,000 of each item for Urgent Operational Requirements. There is a further possible requirement for up to quantity 15,000 to replace in service equipment.
- "Kit Magazine, Issue 62 Winter 2007" (PDF). Ministry of Defence. Retrieved 2008-03-16.
This technology is here now! So if you see strange looking SA80s being carried by strange looking men, then rest assured, those users that had the requirement, had the make-over, at a price.