British Army Weapon's- In Detail...

A long time ago, the Yanks (bless 'em) used to send all their M16 barrels to BAe so that they could be chromed, because they didn't know how to do it properly. Do they still do that?

Those pics of the SMLE .303, the No 4 Sniper rifle and my all time fav, the FN FAL and SLR with the useless SUIT (sight post the wrong way up!!!!!), brought all kinds of emotions rushing back to me.

In the old glory days, I used to have a 'General'. It was and still is one mean mother Then they were taken away from us because the poor Paras moaned and the even poorer Marines groaned as we got their baksheesh LMG's. Now that was a bugger and damned awkward in any circumstances when you had to turn the gas down. (Burnt my hand many a time!)

Then we were introduced to the L86A1 or Gun, Light Support or LSW. It was to be my personal weapon for ten long years.

It proved to be just as accurate as the LMG and at least could be fired from the shoulder like a rifle whereas the LMG could only just about be controlled when fired from a hip!

As to the L85 A1 or A2. What a waste of a Bullpup design. Nowif only they'd do it in 7.62mm....................

I duno fritz, its already changed from 4.8-5.56 and 7.62 is a BIG round.

Originally posted by devilwaspI wouldnt say so, IMO its not that bad a rifle actually.
Oh and PS, why the fk would want american rifles?

Maybe because all the elite units in the British Army including the SAS already use the M16 in preference that firearm equivalent of a council estate (the SA80A2).

Funny how elite units chose the M16 over everything else.

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
Maybe because all the elite units in the British Army including the SAS already use the M16 in preference that firearm equivalent of a council estate (the SA80A2).

Not specifically true, they use it in some cases but other rifles in others.
All units ( all of our SF teams) use MP-5's.
All units use the G-3 and G-36's.
Does that mean we should use only german weapons?

The SA-80A2 would also show which country they are from, that is a no no.

Funny how elite units chose the M16 over everything else.

Umm no, they use it because its a good rifle.

Sry double post

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

we also have alot of people complaining about the Steyr Aug that we use.
but i dont mind it.
the only real problem is the scope.
its utter cr4p!!!
especially when in a close environment.
but then muscle memory helps a lot with that.
the LSW C9 that we have is awesome though.
i love it.
carried that thing for 4 years.
by the way,
LSW C9 is what we (and some others maybe?) call the Minimi LSW that you no doubt all know.
i love it.
much better than carrying a GPMG around.
i much prefer to let someone else carry a gimpy and then fire it myself but ya just cant do that can ya!!

Sorry Wardrobe but you is soooooooooooooo wrong. Nothing, but nothing, beats the General. Except the Browning .50 but then that's a crew served HMG and not a squad weapon.

So sorry, even your much loved Minimi cannot get the better of a General!

Originally posted by devilwaspNot specifically true, they use it in some cases but other rifles in others.
All units ( all of our SF teams) use MP-5's.
All units use the G-3 and G-36's.

Firstly the MP-5 is a sub-machine gun we're talking about rifles here. All units use the G-3 & G-36?? - what on earth are you talking about. There may be some G-36s out there, but G-3s are as old as dirt - and what do you mean by "all units" anyway ?

Originally posted by devilwaspThe SA-80A2 would also show which country they are from, that is a no no..

So you're trying to tell me that the SAS always go into combat out of uniform. And if they are captured - well - ever heard of name, rank and serial number. "They don't carry the SA80A2 because you'd know where they are from", man that one's priceless.

Originally posted by devilwaspUmm no, they use it because its a good rifle.

It must be amnesia because you're the one who asked "why the would we want an American rifle", and now suddenly the M16A4 is a good rifle.

I do believe you have now answered your own question, congrats.

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
Firstly the MP-5 is a sub-machine gun we're talking about rifles here.

Ok, sorry but it was part of my example.

All units use the G-3 & G-36?? - what on earth are you talking about. There may be some G-36s out there, but G-3s are as old as dirt - and what do you mean by "all units" anyway ?

All units use them, mabye not in every mission but they do use them,
SAS,SBS, SRS.
All of them use the G-3 and G-36.
BTW, just because its old doesnt mean its bad, we used the .303 rifle for what? 60+ years.

So you're trying to tell me that the SAS always go into combat out of uniform. And if they are captured - well - ever heard of name, rank and serial number. "They don't carry the SA80A2 because you'd know where they are from", man that one's priceless.

BTW, I am not simply talking about the SAS, they are just one SF unit.
They go into combat with 0 markings, 0 trace left.
Name rank and number doesnt tell them what unit, country or even service there from.
Mabye the rank bit in certain cases but not all.

It must be amnesia because you're the one who asked "why the would we want an American rifle", and now suddenly the M16A4 is a good rifle.

Just because its a "good rifle" doesnt mean we would use it.
If we have to depend on america to supply us with weapons then we are not independant.

I do believe you have now answered your own question, congrats.

Not really no.
But hey thats your opinion.

Back to the SA80, I was a british infantryman for a number of years and am still serving in the army and have used the SA80A1 for most of that time. The A1 was a load of cr@p at the best of times, and flippin dangerous at the worst. However from recent experience, the A2 is like firing a different shooter altogether. The main difference is when I squeeze the curvy bit on the A2, it goes bang and rounds fly out of the long hollow bit. Can't ask for more than that. The thing is far from perfect, but I have yet to use a gat that is. The reliability of the A2 will easily challenge the M16, and requires about the same amount of cleaning. Plenty of oil will keep in going longer than the energiser bunny.

PS This is coming from personal experience and not from some dodgy web site or prat in a magazine.

Name rank and number doesnt tell them what unit, country or even service there from.
Mabye the rank bit in certain cases but not all.

DW don’t worry even a moron could figure out their accent, unless they teach the SAS how to speak like a white boy from Texas.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
DW don’t worry even a moron could figure out their accent, unless they teach the SAS how to speak like a white boy from Texas.

Actually they teach the SAS to speak forign languages.
Also, just because he has an accent doesnt mean he's british.
I mean take American troops, you guys have people from all over the world, you cant tell me that there is only 1 accent there..

Originally posted by fritz
Sorry Wardrobe but you is soooooooooooooo wrong. Nothing, but nothing, beats the General. Except the Browning .50 but then that's a crew served HMG and not a squad weapon.

So sorry, even your much loved Minimi cannot get the better of a General!

Someone will have to tell me what the General is.

But if I had my choice of LMG (never having fired one) I'd probably take a 7.62 Bren!

Greetings all.

I too was in the Army Cadets and got to use the L98A1 Cadet GP rifle and also the LSW.
The GP did jam a hell of a lot but at least was accurate on the range.
The LSW was a lovely weapon and the extra weight to carry round on exercises was worth being able to fire bursts of blank rounds as opposed to 'cock and fire' with the GP.

If the Armed Forces want to keep the LSW that is fine, but I really think they should replace the SA80.

well fritz.
my reason for thinking that the C9 is best is because it is the best,
of the Lmg's that i have used.
even if i had fired all the Lmg's in existence i would still not be qualified to say whats the ABSOLUTE best because its different for everyone.
it depends on the firer to determine that for themselves.
And what exactly is the General?
never heard of that,
i would love to check it out.
and i cant comment on the Browning .50 cal because, well.............
thats the only Hmg iv used.
i have nothing in my experience to compare it with.
i liked it though.
mortar handlers course was better in my opinion.
PIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[edit on 28-8-2005 by Wardr08e]

PaddyInf - I just loved your post. I'm still chuckling, but you hit the nail on the head!

The General

The 'General' I speak about, is the most natural born killer of them all, on
todays battlefield. It is black and even looks mean - although I'm sure it's not meant to.

When it's in action, it can create a 'beaten zone' of about 100 L x 50/75 W
metres, through which anything moving will simply get shredded by the big
punching 7.62mm FMJ rounds.

It's the best General purpose machine gun of it's type - anywhere in the world, in service with hundreds of countries, from guerillas to SF, from peasent armies to professionals - it's the FN MAG.

(Tried to upload a pic but failled - help!)

yeah she's not bad.
thats the same GPMG we used use.

Ahhh...

GPMG, gimpy.

Certainly the best available, why else would everyone replace their M60s with it?

Would like to get a hands-on-experience report of use of a 7.62 Bren...

Of course the GPMG and the SAW fill diffrent roles though, i mean, really, a SAW is better for fire supression, even the name implies it...squad, automatic weapon, not to mention you can carry more ammunition and more rounds per mag combined with a higher rate of fire, its a lot more infantry friendly then a GPMG

QUOTE : "Would like to get a hands-on-experience report of use of a 7.62 Bren... "

my views on the L4A1

overall - a fantastic weapon , it inspires confidence from the moment you see it , nothing feels flimsy / shoddy , and your hands just fall naturally to every control you need , everything works with a solid click , and can be worked with cold / wet fingers ,

on the range - it simoly fires when and where you want , without any effort or uncertainty . exactly what you need in a weapon - you have more important things to be thinking about than " is the mag still seated correctly "

good points :

solid construction - build quality and design are just exquisite

accuracy -

detatacble box magazines - yes i have listed this as both a pro and con - , dependant on situation , there were times that a GPMG belt was a huge emburgerance [ see my comments below ]


bad points :

weight - its closer in weight to a GPMG than the SLR

detatchable box magazines - firing at the reccomended 100 rounds / min , 6 magazines disapear dammed quick


neutral :

top loading magazine

offset sights -

having read both these " criticisms " in other reviws , i dunno how they reached the conclusion that these were drawbacks



we should have had the brens for use in ulster , none of its " drwabacks " would have been an issie , and infact the box magazine would have been far surerior to attempting to juggle a gimpie belt


as it was the only times i saw them acually issued was added fire power to terretorial units and defence of second line bases / logisitis vehicles where its portability and finite ammo was not an issie

but having said all that , it really has " had its day " , and should be confined to the reserves

as i have opined , there are situations where it would be usefull , but the latest short barrel ` para ` version of the FN minimi is more managable and shares common ammo with the rest of the section



hope this helps

YRS - APE