The SA80A1 was actually pretty good
I served in the RAF Regiment from 1989 to 1992. For most of Basics and on posting to my squadron, an SA80 was my personal weapon. The L85A1 version, to be precise, and I had a positive opinion of it.
For the first six weeks of training, I used the SLR.
And then after that it was the SA80 all the way.
At that time, everybody, and I mean everybody, was a total SLR fanboi. They loved it and they simply wouldn’t hear a bad word said about it. And when I went to Catterick for Basic Gunner training, with the SA80, they obsessed about the SLR even more, and totally hated on the SA80.
My time with the SLR was admittedly limited, but here’s my take on the two.
The SLR was meaty, solid, everything about it was big, much bigger than the SA80, and it was also really, really long, 114cm if you’re running metric, 3ft 9 inches if you’re not. And for getting in and out of vehicles, moving around buildings, especially when you’re being shot at, it wasn’t the easiest to handle. It fired the venerable 7.62mm round, which as every SLR fan will tell you, can stop an elephant.
Which is essential for all of those times that Hannibal gets resurrected and you have to face a battalion of charging elephants.
So, the SA80, and despite the legion of haters all around me, as you’d expect on Basics, I spent a lot of time with the weapon, and really got to know it. With out too many SLR preconceptions, all I had was my own opinion. The SA80 was much smaller than the SLR, weighted about the same, the SUSAT optical sight was state of the art at the time. The whole thing was much better balanced, easier to handle, it had auto fire, and the sling system made it practically impossible to lose.
Firing the new NATO standard calibre, 5,56mm, it meant you could carry more ammunition than the SLR, and more ammunition meant potentially more enemy casualties.
What’s that? Stopping power? Yup, the SA80 didn’t have the same punch as the SLR. It couldn’t possibly have, the bullet was smaller. Sounds logical, but on Basics we were shown several training videos, including actual footage of the SA80 rounds going straight through brick walls. The videos said the SA80 ammunition, known as SAA80, while the same size as the American 5.56mm, was actually constructed differently, and more powerful. Not only that, but it was actually just as powerful as the 7.62. True or not? I don’t know, but that’s what I was told.
Just for completeness, I also used the L86 Light Support Weapon (LSW). Firing prone and using the bipod, it was uber accurate. For as long as the bipod lasted, that is. I was LSW gunner on my final training exercise, and the bipod pinged apart the first time I went to ground. Not helpful.
I mostly used the SUSAT, but when I was on selection for a competition held in America, the selection shoots were done with iron sights. It gave the weapon a very handy carrying handle.
The bayonet was a definite statement, the scabbard even came with a built-in bottle opener, although the fold-out saw blade was even flimsier than the LSW’s bipod.
When I was posted to my squadron, they still used the SLR. A few months after I was posted in, the squadron got its stock of SA80’s and a few weeks later, we deployed to Op Granby. Being quite new, I stuck to my drills, cleaned my SA80 every day, and I never had a problem with it. While there were reports of it happening to other people, my handguard never dissolved in the sun and I didn’t get any stoppages.
I have no doubt that plenty of people will disagree with my views, but I got on fine with the SA80, even the much maligned A1 version. And maybe I didn’t know anything else, but even if I did, no one was going to give me an SLR just for old times sake, so like it or loathe it, you had no choice but to make it work.
Which is pretty much what most people did.
Comments
Post a Comment