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

To avoid being sued?

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.

Was it even entered? (I don't think the line is still open)

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.

Talk to the troops. They're the ones using the weapon.

THe MOD has now wasted the price of 4 alternatives on each and every weapon
so far.

What basis was that calculated on, pray tell? Alternatives usually end
up priced lowball per rifle... but then you find the cost for
(proprietory) magazines, cleaning kits, spares, armourer training etc.
(all of which you need for changeover) is not included.

It wouldn't be the 1st time one has heard the usual 'its working
now honest' honest from them.

So, where's the "it's useless and it won't work" stories now?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk