Reiver, Ale, Cuts, 2nd of foot, Pdf27, Crabtastic, Tubbyboy and Bluffcove,
thats 8 guys, who wants to shoot him?
From the very sight you quote:
“SA-80 Carbine, a short-barreled version of the basic design, fitted with the detachable open sights and carrying handle. Only few SA-80 carbines were ever made”
The SA-80 Carbine, is, well, a carbine! :lol: Any rifle of the same action using a long barrel is, well, not a carbine! :lol: Are you even awake?
Yea, I’ve been to that site. It has no index and is not from an official government or a military weapons trainer. I’ll tell you again: at 600m, an assult rifle is worthless. You have tried to salvage your ridiculous claim that it is effective at 600m by trying to change the debate to “section fire is effective at 600m with AR’s”, but you have failed.
YOU JUST DON"T KNOW WHAT TO SAY, DO YOU?
sight - iron thing, look over it identify things you want to shoot
site - location
get it right my language before it was yours please look after it.
The SA-80 Carbine, is, well, a carbine! Any rifle of the same action using a long barrel is, well, not a carbine! Are you even awake?
exactly, its an assault rifle when it has a standard length barrel the shorter version is a carbine, I can only presume you were looking at the standard rifle, the Carbine is the stupid looking thing! where all teh weight is somewhere by your nipple when its in the high port and it has a fore-pistol grip.
Hope that is where you are going wrong otherwise this is another hole you will have to dig yourself out of!
Regarding the pam that was shown to you, How official does it have to be?
SAY… a forum populated entirely by the British armed forces and associated hangers on?
incidentally - you never got back to 2nd of foot as to whether your hunting qualifications were comparable to his 23 years service?
Your argument, Me 
bothered?
please ironman i want Pdf27, Crabtastic, Tubbyboy and Bluffcove, they are mine,you kill the rest 
Ironman, I am still awaiting a withdrawal or apology.
As to the SA80 Carbine, it was only announced that it was going into full production and issue to armoured vehicle crews this week, I’ll have a squint around for details/link in a mo…
The SA-80 Carbine, is, well, a carbine! Laughing Any rifle of the same action using a long barrel is, well, not a carbine! Laughing Are you even awake?
Yes, the SA80 carbine is a carbine, the SA80 is an assualt rifle. Much like the M16 is an Assualt rifle, and the M4 carbine is a carbine.
You have been contending that an assualt rifle has to be a carbine, haven’t you.
Yea, I’ve been to that site. It has no index and is not from an official government or a military weapons trainer. I’ll tell you again: at 600m, an assult rifle is worthless. You have tried to salvage your ridiculous claim that it is effective at 600m by trying to change the debate to “section fire is effective at 600m with AR’s”, but you have failed.
YOU JUST DON"T KNOW WHAT TO SAY, DO YOU?
In that case, find me a military or government website which says that Assualt rifles are not effective at 600m in section fire. We have always maintained that it is section fire that we are talking about, no one has, AFAIK claimed that all AR’s are effective at 600m individually, have they?
Bluffcove; I would love to old bean.
Got it, SA80 Carbine being issued to British Tank Crews:
http://www.mod.uk/dpa/news/preview_jul04.htm
Its about half way down the page. BTW, mod=ministry of defence. Thats as official as it gets. 
However, your original contention was that an AR was effective at 600m, which it is not. And 8 men shooting an AR at someone 600m away is 8 men wasting ammo. Section fire at 600m is done with MG’s and cannon.
You fail to understand something about what an effective range is:
“NATO) The maximum distance at which a weapon may be expected to be accurate and achieve the desired result.”
If the result is to kill a man by penetration, and the effective range of an AR is 500m, then at 600m an AR is not going to do that effectively. I mean, yea you could get lucky and hit a man in the head or throat if you fired 5,000 rounds in his direction at 600m with an AR. lOl One might actually hit him there!
What are you arguing about? Your contention that assult rifles are effective at 600m is incorrect.
Sure you were. It was indescent too. Even mentioning the weather when trying to argue that the M1 Carbine was not used to kill many at Chosin was terribly distasteful. Shame on you.
From the very sight you quote:
“SA-80 Carbine, a short-barreled version of the basic design, fitted with the detachable open sights and carrying handle. Only few SA-80 carbines were ever made”
The SA-80 Carbine, is, well, a carbine! :lol: Any rifle of the same action using a long barrel is, well, not a carbine! :lol: Are you even awake?[/quote]
First, I didn’t quote that [i]sight /i.
Secondly, I was not talking about the old SA80 carbine. I was talking about the new SA80A2 carbine variant made by HK.
Thirdly, you have just agreed with me that not all assault rifles are carbines. Hoist by your own petard methinks.
Yea, I’ve been to that site. It has no index and is not from an official government or a military weapons trainer. I’ll tell you again: at 600m, an assult rifle is worthless. You have tried to salvage your ridiculous claim that it is effective at 600m by trying to change the debate to “section fire is effective at 600m with AR’s”, but you have failed.
YOU JUST DON"T KNOW WHAT TO SAY, DO YOU?[/quote]
No. I do know what to say, you seem to have an amazingly short memory - you say one thing and then deny ever having said it.
It may not be from an official site, however, if you look at the top of the first page, you will see the Ministry of Defense logo and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office logo. Both are part of the British Government.
You say that assault rifles are useless at 600m. I have said before and I will say again, assault rifles are effective at ranges up to 600m in section fire.
YOU JUST DON’T KNOW WHEN TO GIVE UP DO YOU?
SA80 carbine
Carbine SA80A2 to equip tank crews
British Army Tank crews are to have their personal firepower boosted with the introduction of a brand new model of the SA-80A2 assault rifle.
The MoD has placed a £1 million contract with Heckler and Koch to convert 1,400 standard weapons into a new, shorter, ‘carbine’ design. Currently the four-man crew of a Challenger 2 tank is equipped with a combination of SA-80 rifles and Browning 9mm pistols. The new SA-80 carbine will replace both weapons when it enters service in 2005.
Dismounted Close Combat Team Leader, Colonel Simon Deakin said: “This new rifle is a radical re-design of the SA-80.
The barrel has been shortened by almost a foot – to half of its original length – a new 20-round magazine has been developed and a forward hand grip replaces the hand guard, making it lighter and easier to store and manoeuvre from inside the tight confines of a tank.
thats a carbine its got a foot missing!!!
http://www.mod.uk/dpa/news/preview_jul04.htm
now see that we were talking about an assault rifle! it is a standard assault rifle not a carbine, not all assault rifles are carbines in direct oppostion to your earlier comment.
Section fire, is effective at 600 yards in its upper limit, you are the only one to have contended it and contend it you did! do you still agree that assault rifles cannot be effective at 600 yards?
Please understand that I did not say or imply any of the kid’s comments. You don’t need a dictionary for that.
Now I could be petty and ask for a website to back up that quote, however, I won’t.
Must I say it yet again? Assult rifles are short-batrreled rifles. They are carbines. Variants of assult rifles are not short-barreled rifles (none with a long barrel anyway). Are you comprehending?
Now you want to try to change the debate to what constitutes a carbine because you have made an idiot of yourself by saying that assult rifles are effective at 600m. They are not.
:oops:
yeah shame on you Ale, how dare you bear testament to the mettle of the USMC that could surive the cold at Chosin when the chinese couldnt!
How dare you slight there character by stating that they had the will and resolve to stay and fight!
To bite there lips and fight on in the perishing cold (where if im not misake hair tonic was used to keep the weapon operating)
If ever there was hell on earth it was at that place and you betray their honour by saying they had the pluck and grit to survive it when others couldnt!
You bastard!
"section fire at that range is done by cannon and MG.
too true it was only the other day that me and the boys were on the range and the PSI said
“hey lads fuck that for a laugh, dont bother with section fire, here you matey boy, you the tall one. you look strong carry this cannon around with you, its alot simpler than the boys putting rounds down insection firer, and who knows by the time you get into battle carrying that cannon in an infantry support role the war might be over anyway”
If a bullet is effective to 500 metres anyway, why would you not fire at a target at 600 metres, you still ahvent explained what this effective bullet does when it reaches 501 metres, unless you do I shall rely on my previous suposition that the bullet falls from the air!
We have said effective for the duration of this thread, section fire is effective you yourself have quoted the NATO definition of effective.
“Desired effect” on the other hand is a bone ill give you to play with for a while, before running you over as I reverse out of the drive and go to do more importnat things, good boy! fetch!
Effective range - The maximum distance at which a weapon may be expected to be accurate and achieve the desired result.
Gosh! maximum range? Not almost maximum? Not getting near the “maximum”? 
OK I’ll be petty now, what is the official website that you have got your quote from?
However, your original contention was that an AR was effective at 600m, which it is not. And 8 men shooting an AR at someone 600m away is 8 men wasting ammo. Section fire at 600m is done with MG’s and cannon.
Ahh, the UK Forces don’t use cannons anymore, bit dated I’m afraid. Its not 8 men wasting ammo, its 8 men shooting at a target. At 600m a 5.56 NATO round still retains about 400-500ft/lbs. More than your precious .30 carbine does at 200, IIRC.
You fail to understand something about what an effective range is:
No, I don’t. See above.
“NATO) The maximum distance at which a weapon may be expected to be accurate and achieve the desired result.”
If the result is to kill a man by penetration, and the effective range of an AR is 500m, then at 600m an AR is not going to do that effectively. I mean, yea you could get lucky and hit a man in the head or throat if you fired 5,000 rounds in his direction at 600m with an AR. lOl One might actually hit him there![b]
500ft/lbs is more than a 9mm pistol puts out at the muzzle. Sounds lethal enough to me, I think.[/b]
What are you arguing about? Your contention that assult rifles are effective at 600m is incorrect.
No, it isn’t.
As I said in bold really, at 600m a 5,56 NATO round still has more power than a 9mm pistol at the muzzle, 500ft/lbs compared to 300ft/lbs. I think that that is still effective. More to the point I’VE SEEN IT DONE. IN REAL LIFE. WITH MY OWN EYES!
Sure you were. It was indescent too. Even mentioning the weather when trying to argue that the M1 Carbine was not used to kill many at Chosin was terribly distasteful. Shame on you.
I assume you mean indecent. Its not. I think that my point and the spirit in which I made it is perfectly clear, and I am sure that everyone here will agree with me that I am not trying to insult anyone, merely explain a cold fact.
If you were English I would assume that you were being ironic, as that is such a fucking ridiculous statement, but as you are an American and an apparently ill educated one at that, I’ll have to take it at face value as the kind of twattish cnuttery it appears to be.
Must I say it yet again? Assult rifles are short-batrreled rifles. They are carbines. Variants of assult rifles are not short-barreled rifles (none with a long barrel anyway). Are you comprehending?
so a short barreled rifle is an assault rifle - check
a carbine is a short barreled rifle - check
a modified assault rifle is not short barreled rifle (provided it doesnt have a long barrel)- check
so a normal length barrel rifle is;
not an assault rifle
not a carbine
nor a variant of an assault rifle, unless it has a long barrel.
wait what is an M-16 before it gets made into an M4 carbine again?
is that a sniper rifle?
I suppose we could pelt the enemy to death at 600m with assult rifles and truckloads of ammo. I mean, in Biblical times, people got stoned to death ya know?
If the weapon were effective at 600m, the manufacturer would give it an effective range of 600m. But alas, they did not. If your desired effect is to penetrate the body cavity, you may not be so lucky. But then, you might be, if you could actually raise the barrel enough to compensate and estimate the horrendous bullt drop and actually hit them at 600m!
LMAO
I suppose we could change the subject couldn’t we? Answer the fecking questions posed to you before you come out with more patronising, idiotic claptrap.
I suppose we could change the subject couldn’t we? Answer the fecking questions posed to you before you come out with more patronising, idiotic claptrap.[/quote]
You want us to believe that a little M1 Carbine could not even penetrate a winter coat at Chosin (0-150 yards), but you want us to believe that an AR (more powerful no doubt) is effective to 100m beyond it’s manufacturer’s listed maximum effective range?
Your contention was that assult rifles were effective at 600m. They are not. Even thier manufacturers state that they are not. Sorry.