Time to buy ACOG for the SA80

[Belladonna]

they arnt getting them... project rejected

[Jaager]

Apart from ruining the look, won't it also cost a lot of money to replace all the L85s with ACOGs? Just for saving a hundred odd grams.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

the L85 is the rifle, not the sight (susat) (mental image of a squaddie running round with just a scope, ahh terrorists throw scope at them)

 

the ACOG looks okay on the SA80, but in no way is it going to be squaddie proof, the SUSAT is a heavy metal tube and its almost imposible to break. (on my last exercise only one susat was damaged, (1 out of 4 wasnt bad) but it was because it hadt been attaached properly and was loose on the rail.)

I used the SUSAT on the L86a2 (real steal) on a blank fireing exercise, and its good enough, i dont know why they dont keep the SUSAT untill they introduce the G36 as that has an integrated 4x magnification scope anyway.

[doc_newstead]

I see no ships.

[WickedBassie]

untill they introduce the G36 as that has an integrated 4x magnification scope anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Now that would break my heart...

[xerxes]

Can people please stop using the Star SUSAT as an example.

 

I'm with Bo0m3r, the a2 series are a god send, stop bad mouthing them.  Most of you have never ever shot them.  Also the real SUSAT doesn't have eye relief problems.  Also I promise a squaddie will destroy an ACOG in under an hour.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Agreed, SUSAT is a fantastic system, especially so at 100M plus. You can't fail to hit things with them when shooting.

[Frangible]

untill they introduce the G36

 

I thought that was just a nasty rumour???

[Habakure]

Dont tell me I've got to buy a G36 in the near future to complete the load out, damn.

[Samm]

In the next 10 to fifteen years I imagine, don't start fretting yet

[Jaager]

well i heard from some guy whos mate was told by his dad who happens to know someone in the Army who knows some one in the REME who said they would be getting the G36 in 2015

 

however THEY shall still use C8s cuz theyve gotta be different

[Frangible]

Chapter and verse then. I'm convinced!

[Samm]

well i heard from some guy whos mate was told by his dad who happens to know someone in the Army who knows some one in the REME who said they would be getting the G36 in 2015

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Knowing you, I can't tell if that's a joke or not

[Eddie182]

ACOG, replacing the SUSAT.

 

ROFLMAO..............

 

It was rejected a while back afaik, just like aimpoints were, mainly because apart from being generally rubbish, the ACOG just wasn't able to be used on as many weapon systems as the SUSAT.

 

We use the SUSAT on everything from the L85A2 up to the .50 HMG (incedentally, my old warrant officer designed the SUSAT mount for the .50 MG). You just can't use the same acog variant like that.

 

Plus which, the british forces have a simple philosophy.... If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And I think that it applies here.

[Prolific]

Replacing Tritium is difficult and costly.

 

Tritium is applied in a protected environment because of the radioactivity... Not that it is going to harm anyone in everyday use, but at the factory there are higher potentially dangerous levels of radio activity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's actually suprisngly easy and safe. Storage is very simple, it's done in radioactive gas sealed containers. There are different types of radiation, and tritium (which is actually just a hydrogen isotope) is only very slightly radioactive. It's half life is about 12 years, but contrast the half life of uranium 235 (an isotope of uranium used in nuclear bombs) has a half life of 700 million years!!! This means it will take 12 years for the radioactivity of tritium to half, while it will take 700 million years for a comprable sample of uranium 235 to half in radioactivity. Because the half life of tritium is about 12 years, after this time the scope stops glowing, so the internals must be replaced. This will be verified by those who worked in armouries, who may remember scopes being sent off for 'refilling'.

 

The SUSAT is whats called a Traser. The problem with them isn't so much the tritium like many people think, but actually another type of chemical used inside the scope called a phosphor (its ironically not actually phosphorous which is another chemical.) In a SUSAT its probably something like calcium sulfide or zinc sulfide.

 

The problem comes in making tritium, its very expensive to obtain. I expect the tritium in the SUSAT probably costs more than the rest of the scope combined. But it can't be a matter of cost, because the ACOG is a traser scope to! it has tritium just like the SUSAT, infact, i expect the ACOG is more expensive than the SUSAT. Has anyone considered, it may simply be that the manufactuer of the SUSAT has stopped making them?? I mean they are getting a bit old now. Perhaps a more modern ACOG scope is preferable, and it can always be used with whatever replaces the L85? (Which btw isn't definately the G36.)

 

WHEN the army decides to replace the L85 and look for a new model, they will run test after test after test on many guns and a length government/army procurement process will begin. Until they decide on a gun, it could be anything. It's only been suggested on a few occasions, namely because an army test on different guns in 2005 rated the G36 in second place only to the L85A2. I'm also sure i remember there was a general who said "I would like my boys to have the G36" or something sombre to that effect. But they wont replace the L85 i expect until at least 2012, maybe as late as 2015-2020, and many new models of gun have/will come out before then so I think its far from definately being the G36. Knowing the army it'll be something no ones ever heard of.

 

edit: equally, even if the government do buy G36's, I doubt they will just straight up buy 200,000 G36's. THe army are likely to have their own specific requirements, and a new 'Britishised' version of the G36 will be manufactured, major differences probably being things like the optics, maybe even as major as the stock, magazine etc. I imagine (given our close involvement with the USA) that a gun which can take STANAG mags would be more desirable than the G36's current set up.

[Jagdraben]

Of course it has everything to do with your closeness with the US and nothing to do with the fact that you, too, use STANAG magazines and have tens of thousands of them.

[Belladonna]

indeed, if we get g36s and its not certain, they will likely have stanag mods...

no new mags

no new kit...

and btw, acog discussion am failed, its ancient history, shouldnt this be a new 'what am next gun?' topic?

[Lord Blackgoat]

And that STANAG specs are more or less required by NATO (that's what STANAG has been created for after all...)

But the replacement of the SUSAT (I know, it has been aborted) would bring many high quality scopes on the market, hence with a low price...

[Prolific]

Of course it has everything to do with your closeness with the US and nothing to do with the fact that you, too, use STANAG magazines and have tens of thousands of them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I kid you not, you have no idea how our government works. It actually really would mean more to them that the US use it than it would that we already have hundreds of thousands of them.

[Belladonna]

true

[Stealthbomber]

I kid you not, you have no idea how our government works. It actually really would mean more to them that the US use it than it would that we already have hundreds of thousands of them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And yet even with that "closeness" we have given the ACOG the heave-ho?

[Jagdraben]

I kid you not, you have no idea how our government works. It actually really would mean more to them that the US use it than it would that we already have hundreds of thousands of them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Then why didn't you guys adopt the M14 instead of the L1A1 SLR?

[Lord Blackgoat]

Both were tested. The L1A1 has probably been considered better, what it probably was. Keep in mind that the M14 as had the shortest service life of all US Army rifles, IIRC. Even if the new versions are coming back, with better accuracy etc. it was not that good at that time. Proof : FALs and G3 are in conflicts in Africa for almost as long as AKs, and are still working like charms, while beeing owned by an African militian is probably any weapon's worst nightmare. The M14 is great, but needs extra care...

[Belladonna]

we like the americans, but we arnt stupid.... m14s would count as loose...

[Prolific]

Then why didn't you guys adopt the M14 instead of the L1A1 SLR?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It was a different era, when buying british was a bigger deal than it is these days. I'm not saying that was the defining reason but in those days procuring M14's would probably have only been done under license, I can't imagine they'd have ever just plain bought them from the US and imported.

 

At the end of the day, the current government do have a point: why waste money in R&D when you can just buy the products the US makes, who spend rediculous amounts on defense (far more than the UK, even per capita), especially in areas like R&D.

 

Equally, the current problem with buying British designed things is that British industry has become so expensively unfavourable that it's not worth designing and making something like an assualt rifle 'in-house' anymore, its easier to out-source it to a coporation to make, especially if that corporation is part British owned. Hence why H&K (when under british ownership a few years ago) were so popular, and why BAE systems, Augusta Westland and lots more are.

 

edit: typo.. d'oh

[Jagdraben]

Both were tested. The L1A1 has probably been considered better, what it probably was. Keep in mind that the M14 as had the shortest service life of all US Army rifles, IIRC. Even if the new versions are coming back, with better accuracy etc. it was not that good at that time. Proof : FALs and G3 are in conflicts in Africa for almost as long as AKs, and are still working like charms, while beeing owned by an African militian is probably any weapon's worst nightmare. The M14 is great, but needs extra care...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The likeliest reason the M14 had a short service life was that it was a Battle Rifle when what the administration wanted was an Assault Rifle. And the M14 has survived in the arsenals of the Army as the M21, in the arsenals of the Marines as the M14 DMR, and in the arsenals of the Navy as both an EOD rifle and the Navy SEALs' arctic warfare rifle or choice.

 

And a comparison between the M14 and the FAL and G3 cannot really be made on taking African-style bearings, as not many M14s have found their ways into the arsenals of African militias.

[joeking27]

I wonder why...