SLR / SA80 or M16!

Wilf wrote:

................. so my question was: has the army finally dumped the idea of the bullpup rifle?

Can't see it happening any time soon. If it had been seriously considered, it would have been more logical to re-arm before the SA 80s were de-snagged by H & K. And it's pure hear-say but, apart from the range limitations which are common to any 5.56mm kit designed for close quarter ops & clambering into APCs, the SA 80 seems to have evolved into an acceptable weapon. Remember the GIs went through similar problems in Vietnam with early M16s. With a bigger kitty than we have they taught the grunts the advantages of proper servicing rather than go for a replacement.

cartav wrote:

oldman1952 wrote:

I was brought up with the SLR and loved every minute of it. I'm left handed too and short armed. ...........

Me, I'm an Enfield fan.......  No.4 that is , not the Snider thing which we did fire once when we shared the range with a civvy rifle club........  Much more accurate than SLR & we zeroed them by shooting at a 20-fag packet stuck in the middle of the bull on a 4 ft. target.  But was SLR left handed shooter friendly ?  Didn't the empties eject a bit close to the sniffing tackle ?

The last time I fired the .303 I was assisting the NITAT team at Senne.
To drive home the point that you should choose your location before taking cover, they had me put ten rounds into a breezeblock wall. Behind the wall was a couple of Fig.12 targets and the mess that was made of them was quite impressive.
Even so, the SLR was a powerful bit of kit too.

cartav wrote:

Wilf wrote:

................. so my question was: has the army finally dumped the idea of the bullpup rifle?

Can't see it happening any time soon.  If it had been seriously considered, it would have been more logical to re-arm before the SA 80s were de-snagged by H & K.  And it's pure hear-say but, apart from the range limitations which are common to any 5.56mm kit designed for close quarter ops & clambering into APCs, the SA 80 seems to have evolved into an acceptable weapon. Remember the GIs went through similar problems in Vietnam with early M16s.  With a bigger kitty than we have they taught the grunts the advantages of proper servicing rather than go for a replacement.  

To be fair Cartav, I think if logic had come into it we would have adopted the M16 rather than go through years of design & development followed by years of pain with the SA80. By the time we changed from 7.62 to 5.56 the M16 was a tried and trusted weapon.

brum wrote:

Even so, the SLR was a powerful bit of kit too.

No argument there Brum..........  The higher MV  ( 2800 fps to 2440 fps) probably helped.  And in spite of  the SLR having an aperture backsight  much larger in diameter, and therefore less easier to point in the right direction, the average squaddy we had could get a better score than when he might have come out of the aim to work the bolt on the No.4. And  the fag packet on the bull was of little consequence when any shot on one of those cammed up crouching figure things counted as a good one.  Hrrumph !

[quote="cartav"]

brum wrote:

And in spite of  the SLR having an aperture backsight  much larger in diameter, and therefore less easier to point in the right direction,

That ceased to be a problem with the advent of the SUIT.

brum wrote:

cartav wrote:

brum wrote:

And in spite of  the SLR having an aperture backsight  much larger in diameter, and therefore less easier to point in the right direction,

That ceased to be a problem with the advent of the SUIT.

I bet Shelldrake knew that.......... And he'd also be aware that the grouping capability of the SLR was twice the diameter of that achievable with a .303.
No big deal, I suppose if you a aiming at well fed opposition.......... Dunno how an SA80 compares, it'd be interesting to compare all three.

cartav wrote:

brum wrote:

cartav wrote:

brum wrote:

And in spite of  the SLR having an aperture backsight  much larger in diameter, and therefore less easier to point in the right direction,

That ceased to be a problem with the advent of the SUIT.

I bet Shelldrake knew that.......... And he'd also be aware that the  grouping capability  of the SLR was twice the diameter of that achievable with a .303.
No big deal, I suppose if you a aiming at well fed opposition..........  Dunno how an SA80 compares, it'd be interesting to compare all three.      

I did actually, having completed the SA OAs Course at Warminster in 1974.   I also know that there is no holdall for SUIT!

Pre 1960 we qualified on Bren and 303 at 400/300 to 100 yds with emphasis on grouping. In the Post 1960 new Army we had a stressed march and onto the firing point at 200 yds to 100 yds. There was also the change from LCTs to para entry to battle zone However this had to be modified as the new radio eqpt couldn't be dropped without damage. Thus we were allocated Beverleys. I especially liked the 58 webbing and the new cookhouse with MENUS.

We started at 600 yards with the LMG, the usual fig 11 targets were invisible at that distance so we shot at large square targets with a large white circle in the centre. Still looked like a pinprick in the distance but the LMG was a good gun. Given the choice of the modern LSW or the old fashioned LMG I know what I'd put my trust in. The Bren/LMG is one of the best light machine guns ever developed.

Got to agree .. for its time is was a great weapon, if possible too accurate.
The Soldiers Friend

Gathered in a training room, May of fifty-one,
Attempting to grasp the workings of the light machine gun.
The instructor looked exasperated at our lack of ken,
As he sighed, and tried one more time, to impart the workings of the Bren.

There are, he said, five main groups making up the gun,
Now pay attention carefully as through the groups I run.
First there is the barrel, then there is the butt,
Then comes the body - don't forget the locking nut.
Now to remove the piston, you move it fully to the rear,
Twist off the bi-pod, place it carefully over here.

Everybody got it, the instructor asks, with a fiendish grin,
But we were all still struggling - with a body locking pin.
Once you've learned this lot, and got it off by heart,
We will quickly go over another 365 listed working parts.
Magazine holds thirty two - you load only twenty eight,
This here is the gas block - to regulate, rotate.

Leaf backsight for accuracy - graded to a thousand yards,
This here is the trigger - this the trigger guard.
Now we'll strip the trigger - pay attention here,
This item is called the bent - this here, is the seer.
Spring retaining plunger - must be pressed of course,
Some say the gun kicks like a mule, not so, more like a horse.


Your weapon is your best friend, so treat it with respect,
You will learn to handle it with ease, sooner than you expect.
I look down at the monster, stripped and at my feet,
And shudder at the prospect, that an enemy I'd meet,
What with body locking pins, and spring retaining nuts,
I'm of the firm opinion, that I hate its bloody guts.


Len Payne (Ciphers)

[quote="Shelldrake"][quote="cartav"][quote="brum"][quote="cartav"]

brum wrote:

I did actually, having completed the SA OAs Course at Warminster in 1974.   I also know that there is no holdall for SUIT!

I knew I could rely on you ! We were sucking on the hind tit when it came to such exotica as a 4x Trilux thingy and never got an issue. Was it normal gear for all teeth armed units, or was it limited to specialist Foxhounds or similar?

And ref Cipher's & Wilf's praise for the Bren, there were a couple of US inspired TV progs. recently, Weaponology. or something like that. In one an expert special forces chap said the Browning BAR with its 20 round, underslung mag was preferred to the Bren, the follow up prog. criticised the Bren for its 30 round mag and despised its slow rate of fire. Said it only fired auto, but a skilled operator could loose off a single shot with careful finger pressure. He was properly full of praise for the MG 42, and especially amazed at the change barrel facility. Bren never got any such accolade.

All goes to show you shouldn't believe anything in print or on TV. Yes, yes
I know where my stuff comes from at times !

I've never come across anyone who had a bad word for the Bren/LMG but if the yank you speak of didn't like it, fair enough he's allowed an opinion.

During Gulf 1 we visited a US unit at Al Jubail to scrounge some kit. One of our lads had an old Sterling SMG, the yanks absolutely loved it, they were passing it around and going through the motions of shooting it. They all wanted it and were prepared to swap just about anything for it!

The moral of the story is, just because they were yanks doesn't mean they were right!

Bren had two firing positions, single shot and burst, selector switch was on left hand side above trigger, operated by thumb. Because of its accuracy we were instructed to fire bursts of 3 to 5 rounds only. Its only drawback was its weight and a two man team, but as a section support weapon to the rifle section it was invaluable.
I was in the butts on Ash Ranges during competition in 1949/50, when a section of the Parachute Regt let loose all on one target to give us a perspective on concentrated fire. The whole bloody back of the butts just disintegrated in front of our eyes.

Len (Ciphers)

Check this out ..

Len (Ciphers)

https://youtu.be/c-CfuvCHq4I

Good find Ciphers.

However, if he was shooting from the hip from any distance I doubt he would have hit any of the targets due to muzzle creep. Looks like this guy was taught to shoot by John Wayne!

ciphers wrote:

Check this out ..

Len (Ciphers)

https://youtu.be/c-CfuvCHq4I

Good stuff !   This guy seems to talk sense..........  I can remember that the previous comparison thing I saw was done by an ex-Foreign Legion ex-Delta Force or something.  He seemed to have the wrong idea, thought the Bren was primarily meant to be fired on the move,  following French WW1 SOPs for
advancing to contact over No Man's Land.   This might fit with the reasoning behind the BAR, but that mag change must have been dodgy in any role.

There's a bit on the Sten which comes up on the same site. The presenter loves it but hasn't learned the correct location for the front hand.

I liked the bloke who was trying out the .303/STEN, better than that prat trying to fire the BREN from the hip.
I can't see why they were comparing the two anyway, one's a sort of assault rifle and the other's a very accurate, (and heavy !) light machine gun.

Wilf wrote:

We started at 600 yards with the LMG, the usual fig 11 targets were invisible at that distance so we shot at large square targets with a large white circle in the centre. Still looked like a pinprick in the distance but the LMG was a good gun. Given the choice of the modern LSW or the old fashioned LMG I know what I'd put my trust in. The Bren/LMG is one of the best light machine guns ever developed.

I'd never really fired the LMG until I went on my Master Coach course at Senne. I liked the way that the mag didn't flap around in the breeze like it did on the BREN.
That was the day I saw "swirl" for the first time.

It would have to be a bloody strong breeze to 'flap' a Bren Magazine - and to roll two posts into one, he did a great job of hip firing, that ain't easy my friend. I wish I could have had the accuracy with the Sten that he had  ... then again he possibly fired off more grounds in that video clip than I did in total service.
'I have no live round or empty cases in my possession, Sir'

Len (Ciphers)

[quote=

I can't see why they were comparing the two anyway, one's a sort of assault rifle and the other's a very accurate, (and heavy !) light machine gun.[/quote]

I would have guessed you were right Brum, but I checked my sources.  Weight wise there's not much in it.

One glossy tome gives BAR a weight of 19.4 lb.  and the Bren at 22.12 lb.and maybe that includes the spare barrel.  Here it says both poop off around 500 rpm. but the BARs rate was variable from a fast 600rpm to a slower 450 rpm.

Master Gunner Ian Hogg has it slightly different. but expands with reasons.
BAR 22 lbs ,   Bren 22 lb 5 oz.  are Hogg's figures, and it would be a brave man who argued with the Master  Gunner.  He does say that, at first, the BAR didn't have a bipod and as such it was only 15.5 lbs in weight in original form.  As such, however. the action was so fierce that it was almost uncontrollable and it was tweaked to reduce the rate of fire. When the US found themselves without an LMG in WW2, the bipod was added to what you rightly describe as an assault rifle.

I remember that changing mags on the Bren was fast & easy,  Hit the mag retaining catch with the palm of the right hand, then extend the movement forward to grab the empty mag. Slipping in  a full one was easy, too. Front bit into the hole first, then mag pulled back into a firm location.  And if youve never guessed it, those big ammo pouches we stuffed with shoe brushes, KFS , mugs enamel  and hard tack biscuits, were sized for Bren mags.

Only snag I could see with the Bren was that by putting the mags on top  the rear aperture sight and the front post had to be side mounted.  More problems for a left handed operator, and I don't recall whether or not dolly handers ever fired it.

Anyroadup !
Getting back to the original subject.
As a boy soldier I trained on the No 4 .303.
I had the No 4 (T) in a shooting type theatre.
I know absolutely toss all about the SA80.
Given the choice I would prefer the SLR to get me out of trouble.
SAH !

brum wrote:

Anyroadup !
Getting back to the original subject..........
SAH !

Irritation noted !  

Only time I was in what was in a potential,and very unlikely, live fire situation was as an armed guard in a QL.  Me in front, one other in the rear both with a No. 4.  If fired at I could put five rounds in the mag, then dismount and hand the other charger of five .303 to the one behind.  On expressing dissatisfaction with this arrangement,  suggesting that a Sten  would be handier in the confines of the cab, I was told not to be stupid, Stens were dangerous, I might hurt somebody.  
 
And after limited experience with an SA 80, that would have been handier too.

Irritation ? None intended old chap.

I was trying a bit of military style brevity,(to go with my avatar).

cartav wrote:

oldman1952 wrote:

I was brought up with the SLR and loved every minute of it. I'm left handed too and short armed. ...........

Me, I'm an Enfield fan.......  No.4 that is , not the Snider thing which we did fire once when we shared the range with a civvy rifle club........  Much more accurate than SLR & we zeroed them by shooting at a 20-fag packet stuck in the middle of the bull on a 4 ft. target.  But was SLR left handed shooter friendly ?  Didn't the empties eject a bit close to the sniffing tackle ?

No Cartav, My nose is still here. Really it was a great weapon for left handers. Ejecter housing was about 6.5 inches away. The only thing it did have was a bit of a kick and if
you didn't hold it tight into the shoulder you would have a sore left cheek bone or right if you were right handed. It used to fire the Energer grenade. To blow tanks up if you hit them where the turret met the chassis. You fired it from your hip. Great fun.

I trained with the Mk4 Lee Infield, and the FNC1(loved it) but it was long and heavy, but it was my favorite weapon to use and trained with the Bren Gun too while in Sea Cadets and Army Cadets.

I did a 2 week secondment with the Canadian Army Reserves as a Army Cadet and trained with the FNC1 til I could memorize every part of it in my sleep. Don't ask me to do that now