It would have been a very useful attribute of the M16’s in the Vietnam era, which is where my knowledge of that weapon starts and stops.
“The first clue (for 2/3) that something was wrong came during the battle of Hill 881 North… but all the Hill Fights at Khe Sanh in April ’67 came up the same – dead Marines with cleaning rods stuck down the barrel of their M16s to punch out cartridge cases that refused to extract.”
http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/index.html
This might not have been a fault with the weapon per se. It could have been on account of the abusage/misusage the weapon received, and the way it was passed from man to man, and unit to unit as tours of duty were completed, and it was handed on to the next soldier.
I don’t think it was though - they had the same problem right from the start with the very early weapons, and it was fixed with a design change to the chamber (Stoaty may remember the details).
The essential problem with the early M16’s was that the bean counters decided to use standard ball powder rather than the specified, and slightly more expensive, specified powder, so they didn’t work as designed. It’s covered in detail in the link in my last post.
The early colt manufactured ones had badly cut chambers which had been reverse engineered from production cartridges (!!!). That in combination with the wrong powder caused the problems.
IIRC, the armalite manufactured AR 15s used by the British prior to the US adoption had no such problems.
Bladensburg - that bull pup is interesting and of course overcomes the major objection to that construction. It will be interesting to see, however, if the balance is appalling like the SA80. If they have managed to get the balance directly over the pistol grip, it might be okay
In 1984, Rifle Magazine published an article which had been written by a retired U.S. Army Lt. Colonel. In the article, the Colonel describes his experiences during the Vietnam conflict. He describes how he considered the weapon handling, and marksmanship skills of the average G.I./ Marine as being very poor and how this was reflected by the amounts of ammunition which was expended in ‘contacts’ as compared with the amount of strikes.
The Colonel went on to explain how, many of the M16’s - which the troops had inherited from their predecessors – were in pretty poor shape with, for example, rifle boring being worn down and foresights having been broken off. To prove his point, he asked the members of one particular rifle company which of them was the worse shot. All fingers pointed to one chap. The Colonel took him aside and gave him a couple of hours individual coaching. After this, he had the whole company carry out a shooting practise on the ranges. The result was that the worse shot had transformed into the best shot in the company.
The Colonel went on to explain that a lot of the problems with the weapon were a result of the way in which soldiers were drafted and shipped out to Vietnam, without adequate training, and then being exposed to life-threatening danger.
I am not saying that the design faults – as described by others – are negligible (indeed, the wearing of the rifle barrels highlights them), but the situation described above compounded them – hence my previous posting.
Due to other issues I have not been able to post for some time so was unable to comment at the start, but I have been keeping track.
I have used both weapons extensively with the SA80 coming in about half way through my career. I have not used the A2.
Some points
Left handed shooting was never taught as a conventional skill with the SLR, it only came in as a result of NI. Observing from the left of cover was taught but not shooting. Within the op banner trg package (I took part in quite a number and was safety on a lot) left shooting was taught and practised but only so that the soldier was confident in aiming and firing. Targets were set at 100m and no record of score was kept. It was discovered after about 4 years of op banner that soldiers werer not hitting the enemy and “shoot to kill” was publish in about 75. It was found that shots fired to hits was about the same as those in Tangiers in 1665. This also led to SUSAT being introduced and other types of aiming aid. Firing from the left hand was never practised out side of NI because the trg ammo was not available and range time was very limited. Most time you had one range day with zero in the morning and APET in the afternoon or zero before on the 25m then APWT. I have spent most of a two day range package reteaching soldiers to group before they could zero and fire the APWT. The best you could say about left handed shooting is that it would keep their heads down and look threatening as you observed round a corner.
I liked my SLR and I was a competent shot firing at Bisley in 77. but you must look at it as a weapon system not just the rifle. Stick a bayonet on the end and your performance went down hill quickly. It was heavy although after 6 month walking the streets you got used to it. Some found it difficult to shoot particularly shorter soldiers and gun shy was a real problem. The ammo was very heavy with front line scales of 80 rds +50 link/bandoleer at about 6 pounds.
Although the SA80 was just lighter than the SLR the weight was all to the butt. This made it easier to carry for long periods particularly with the sling. With the butt in the shoulder the weight was in your body and supported by your right elbow. The left arm had to contend with very little weight and was free to move and support the rifle rather than take the weight. You could almost fire one handed. You could now carry far more ammo. The introduction of what is all but a pare of binos to every infantryman cannot be underestimated. It meant that you were observing with your rifle not with it to one side. The eye is slightly higher and this did cause a number of problems with muzzle clearance.
The change lever being at the back was brought up when the weapon was on its way round to as part of the info tour in 80/81. This was explained that to move it forward would cause a complication in the operation and I never found it a great problem. I never had a problem with the safety catch but then my rifle came to me first and not 10 years down the line. As for putting it off in a hurry, as my finger would normally be in that position, not on the trigger, with the SLR there was never an issue. The cocking of the rifle again was not a problem, same as the SMG. And as I would normally make ready as I was heading for cover it was the same action just that now I would tilt the rifle to the left instead to the right as I cocked.
The mag release catch was an issue which was pointed out as soon as it reached my Bn. We were the first Bn to use the weapon on ops and it became quite clear very quickly that there was a problem. Our armourer designed, made and fitted (with araldite) the shroud around the release catch. This solved most of the problems but not all and so soldier would attach cord between the mag and the rifle so that they would not loose the mag is it came off. I think the locating of the release catch had more to do with a job lot of Colt mags than any thing else.
Lots of the problems that are associated with the A1 I never encountered. This may have more to do with my rifle being new then the design. I had one for 14 years and it worked very well with no discernable difference to the number of stoppages then the SLR.
As for the bullpup system, until you have had to run around leaping in and out of vehicles, through windows, crawling through the undergrowth and generally carrying a rifle 24hrs a day you cannot comprehend the difference that a shorter rifle makes. For a long time I could not understand why I saw photos of US soldiers with the butt of the M4 over the shoulder and aiming. It was then explained that they do it to shorten the rifle in house entry. May be the need for a bullpup has been seen?
The only real thing people have against he SA80 system is that you cannot fire left handed, so what, they never could with the SLR.
Given a chose, and I have thought long and hard about this, I would pick the SA80 weapon system over the SLR.
Well, thank you for that, 2nd! I opened this thread in order to stimulate a little debate and, perhaps, explore some of the opinions of those that have used the SA80 (which I haven’t). I was being a little tongue-in-cheek, at times, and more than a little sceptical of some of the comments, but that can sometimes serve to liven things up a bit. I have to say, I feel better informed than I was at the beginning and would thank all of those that have contributed.
I imagine, and hope, that there are those who continue to disagree with what has been posted and will come forward with their arguments. If not, then I can only presume that they concur.
What has been considered so far:
SLR and SA80 - which is the better;
Shooting form the opposite shoulder;
It’s not just about the weapon system, but it is also about professionalism and training;
The AR15/M16 design faults and effectiveness in Vitenam.
Just shot the SLR in a practical rifle competition yesterday, came second to a Galil Carbine, with 98% of his score… grumble…
I certainly won the prize for “longest rifle” though…
Get back on that range and practise, soldier…! 
I would have won had I not dropped all my magazines on stage six and fumbled picking one up… that cost me 19 points, and I came second by six. Doh!
Shit happens!
You really must concentrate on controlling your emotions when you’re winning:
"…also is the stoat’s whirling Dervish-like dance that mesmerises other animals until it darts forward and seizes one. Slightly less explicable is the dance that witnesses have reported the stoat performing as if in triumph over its already dispatched prey: “It gambolled round and round the …”
that must explain the dropped mags?
Could be that… more likely something to do with the open pouch and the five thumbs on my left hand…
There is a certain quality in your character - if you do not play cricket, perhaps you ought to take it up.
I was once considered quite adept with the L42A1. Using it was always a turn-on. Only on one occassion did I doubt it, and that was when crossing terrain, at night, where the locals were most decidedly uncooperative.
I was wondering what you tech. spec. types might think of it, as compared with its modern replacement (which, I presume, is generations ahead?) - is the modern replacement such a pleasure to shoot?
I beleive the L96 is the replacement for the L42
Has anyone used them both?
Yes, I have used them both on the range. The L96 is significantly more accurate and comes equipped with all mod-cons ( modern scope, bipod, modern trigger mechanism, flushing toilet, etc), but there is something exceptionally rugged and sexy about the last Lee-Enfield.
“Heard on the range”, so probably not true, that THEY have dragged the L42 out of storage and mounted the L96 scope on them because the L96 is not rugged enough for the Hereford gun club… it’s probably beaulocks though.
I give up.
It’s been bugging me how that electric cartridge looks different to a standard ball powder cartridge apart from the T and ? filament thingy on the end of the T projecting from where a normal primer would be.
Please, please put me out of my misery and tell what it does look similar to?
And please don’t say it looks like a normal ball powder cartridge. :neutral:
I forget really what it was all about but it was back in the IRONMAN days. Said he invented the electric cartridge or something. Im sure MOS remembers the whole story.