Greg Hennessy wrote in message . ..
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:12:21 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Greg Hennessy

Since this was a demonstration rather than a formal like-for-like trial,
the MoD refused to specify the other weapons or their performances.

One wonders why.

However, IDR's own sources indicate that among those taken were the
Diemaco C7 version of the M16A2 (as used by the UK SAS and SBS), the
Heckler & Koch G36, and the Steyr AUG.

Strange that, one must assume there was an 'improved' version of the SA80
available for spanish army trials last year, one wonders how if it faired
there if at all.

It is understood whichever
alternative weapon they used, none of the participants was able to match
the SA80 A2 in either accuracy or reliability during this demonstration.



Until there is independently verified proof of such assertions one is
inclined to take them with a large shovel of NaCL.


THe MOD has now wasted the price of 4 alternatives on each and every weapon
so far. It wouldn't be the 1st time one has heard the usual 'its working
now honest' honest from them.

I have received some comments from British soldiers returing from
Iraq. They had no complaints about the L85A2 performance. You can be
certain that after the huge - and seriously over-hyped - press row
about alleged early 'failures' of this weapon (see:
http://www.navynews.co.uk/articles/2...1002111301.asp for what
REALLY happened), we would certainly have heard of any problems. One
commment was that the compact bullpup layout was much handier than the
much longer M16 when travelling in vehicles such as Land Rovers, and
it also helped to have the magazine more inboard.

Quite a contrast with the various news items about the jamming of
M16s, M249s and even the .50 M2...

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/