Compared to all the other military clone bulpups on the market? Yes, absolutely. I mean look at it this way, if it were so good why didn't it replace the FNC in Belgian service and was fairly quickly shuffled aside for the SCAR?
I disagree.
The F(S)2000 is probably one of the best bullpups that has been made. They are very reliable, accuracy is average, solve the ambi ejection problem, and were great with the old FN eco-sphere of products like the EGLM.
Main downside is that you can’t see in to clear the action without raising the trap door, and the trigger has the usual mushiness you’d expect, but it was a solid performer all around otherwise and better than most competitors.
The gun faded like all bullpups do, they enjoy popularity for about 5-10yrs, then everyone moves on to an AR-type rifle and they become curio items. Then a new bullpup is released and the cycle repeats.
SCAR program also put a huge/final nail in that coffin.
The L85A2 isn't awful, it's just mediocre. It's needlessly heavy for a 5.56mm infantry rifle, BUT, it does however function like it's supposed to, without hickups, so you could do a lot worse.
Remember that it was the L85A1 which was brundlefricked, and that Heckler & Koch rebuilt those rifles almost completely to create the L85A2s.
They finally threw away that garbage fire?
https://i.imgur.com/HKnxyz2.jpg
is...is the finish hand brushed on???
Probably, INSAS is fricking ridiculously bad, particularly in manufacture.
Yep, apparently slated to be replaced with AKs though I forget if they’re going to be Russian built or Indian made. Mind you that's old pre war news so the plan has likely changed
It was cheaper to send them to swarthyland and let the goblin tinker than to replace them
If this is a sense of pride for you then ok
Your self esteem must be very low
It's ok swarthy boi don't have a nice day
But we know your suicide rates are much higher than ours in the anglosphere
Is ok swarthyboi
It was cheaper to send them to swarthyland and let the goblin tinker than to replace them
If this is a sense of pride for you then ok
Your self esteem must be very low
It's ok swarthy boi don't have a nice day
But we know your suicide rates are much higher than ours in the anglosphere
Is ok swarthyboi
You're right my mistake it was the Royal Ordnance of Nottingham.
No, BAE did, they used H&K (who they owned) to do some design work, and they got Enfield (who they owned and renamed Royal Ordnance) to do the actual work.
This is like saying that the G36E made in Spain isn't an H&K rifle. At the end, brits couldn't make work their own rifle and needed krauts to remake it.
If you want to brag and feel proud about your weapons, use a better example like the L96. The SA80 was a disaster that has only been keep around to save face no matter the cost like you were chinese or something.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>The SA80 was a disaster that has only been keep around to save face
It's more accurate and has a higher MRBF in all condition than issued DI AR's
1 year ago
Anonymous
The extremelly small difference in accuracy is irrelevant for an assault rifle and lol at made up MRBF numbers to justify the even heavier A2.
The UK should have bought Diemacos instead of putting lipstick on a pig. There's a reason the Royal Marines and UKSF were already using AR15s once the SA80 was revealed as a dud. Frick, even buying G36s would have been a better idea.
1 year ago
Anonymous
The l85a2 and a3 are objectively fine, replacing them would be a waste of money. Yes the a1 was shit. Yes they could have just bought a different ridle to start with, but they didn't. None of that magics the a2 into suddenly being an unreliable nightmare of a rifle, it works fine. Train soldiers well and they're effective with it. Also it looks neat in a ugly way, like the gun equivalent of a BF109 E
1 year ago
Anonymous
Also royal marines use the L85, did so throughout the afghan war, its only certain units that don't. AR pattern rifles are objectively better, but not to the degree its worth replacing the entire military's rifles
1 year ago
Anonymous
I saw in an article that Royal Marines are switching over completely to AR15s
1 year ago
Anonymous
UKSF has used 5.56 ARs near enough since their inception
From my experience (and I repeat it every thread) is the only issue with A2 is it is heavy (ergonomics), cold as frick when you gotta keep it in your bag and it isn't suited for lefties. That's literally fricking it. People who say it is shit have never used it. The A1 was awful yes (but not as awful as some weapons) but the A2 was literally fine. A3 and A4 are good too.
>The A1 was awful yes (but not as awful as some weapons)
What else besides the INSAS? The L85A1 was legendarily trash, bad magazines, bad furniture, bad bolts, bad carriers, bad firing pins, bad pistons, etc, etc.
It's not even the fault of British designers themselves. It's the Crown giving all of them the boot after the design was finalized, and then getting newly graduated rookie engineers to develop the manufacturing, which they completely fricked up beyond belief. It's a good lesson in how when you're trying to cut a lot of corners to save money, the corners you cut may end up costing you a LOT more than what you first saved. You can see it mirrored somewhat in the M16, if not as bad in most ways, and far easier to fix.
The INSAS is designed to cost more money to make than it'd need to, and then it gets the everloving frick fleeced out of it during manufacturing, so there you have fricking industrialized corner cutting.
Hakim, despite being a fairly solid rifle, was a horrible design for its time since it entered production in the 50s when the big 3 battle rifles and the AK were starting too. It's a rifle on par with a Garand or a SVT having to rub shoulders with FALs. Same with the Madsen M47, great bolt action, but why the frick are you designing a new bolt action infantry rifle after WWII? Yugoslavia gets a pass because they were using preexisting Mauser tooling to make cheap stopgap rifles
The Hakim is just dated though, the thing actually works alright, and you've got lots and lots of M1s still in widespread use at the same time, as well as no small numbers of SKS, with the French rocking the MAS-49 at the time, which is very similar, even mechanically, though generally executed better.
The Hakim may not have been as flashy as the FAL, M14, BM59, G3, or even AK, Vz.58, and M16, but it certainly wasn't alone as being a rifle with a (semi) fixed magazine. Mind, the Egyptians didn't make THAT many of the Hakim rifles, and only a few thousand of the 7.62x39mm Rasheed carbines, moving on to making licensed AK clones in the 1960s.
Any AG-42 derivative is a bad combat rifle just by virtue of how you're supposed to reload it. Engineers would really go >yes you're supposed to put it on safe every time you reload or lose fingers
That said, I kinda want one. Would never clip load it though
The rifle being too heavy and not usable left handed are pretty big flaws though, and you can't blame someone for prefering a lighter ambidextrous. About 11% of people are left handed, which is not an insignificant number if you have say 100,000 users for the rifle.
Probably not soon, fricking up the SA80 program costed them a moronic amount of money (I think the total development cost skyrocketed up to over £350 000 000 000, again, should have just stuck with the original engineers), so they want to get as much worth out of the things as they can, especially when the L85A2 actually works like it should.
To move away from the SA80 now, it would have to be either some very significant advancement in small arms technology, or they'd have be vastly increasing the size of their army to the point that they need to procure far more guns than they currently have. As it is now, they're just gonna be occasionally upgrading remaining L85A2s to L85A3 spec.
The L85A3 is very subtly lighter (as in a few ounces), but has railz for attaching modern toys as needed, along with a paintjob and a new optic. The old optic is the SUSAT, which is a 4x illuminated one with backup irons on top, and it was actually good for what it was back in the day, particularly in durability, but therein lies one of the drawbacks because it's very overbuilt, adding about 1lbs to a rifle which already is heavy, so in the past decade they've been slowly replacing those with nicer and lighter ELCANs and ACOGs, which they put a little backup red dot on top of. The MOD said something about keeping the thing going to 2025, but realistically it's probably gonna stay in active service at least until the 2030s.
It's still chunky for 5.56mm, has awkward controls, and lefties better learn shooting it right handed, but unlike an L85A1, where if I had to depend on one in a life and death situation, I'd be praying I only need a couple of shots, while if I had to depend on an L85A3, I'd be perfectly confident in the thing performing.
Probably not soon, fricking up the SA80 program costed them a moronic amount of money (I think the total development cost skyrocketed up to over £350 000 000 000, again, should have just stuck with the original engineers), so they want to get as much worth out of the things as they can, especially when the L85A2 actually works like it should.
To move away from the SA80 now, it would have to be either some very significant advancement in small arms technology, or they'd have be vastly increasing the size of their army to the point that they need to procure far more guns than they currently have. As it is now, they're just gonna be occasionally upgrading remaining L85A2s to L85A3 spec.
The L85A3 is very subtly lighter (as in a few ounces), but has railz for attaching modern toys as needed, along with a paintjob and a new optic. The old optic is the SUSAT, which is a 4x illuminated one with backup irons on top, and it was actually good for what it was back in the day, particularly in durability, but therein lies one of the drawbacks because it's very overbuilt, adding about 1lbs to a rifle which already is heavy, so in the past decade they've been slowly replacing those with nicer and lighter ELCANs and ACOGs, which they put a little backup red dot on top of. The MOD said something about keeping the thing going to 2025, but realistically it's probably gonna stay in active service at least until the 2030s.
It's still chunky for 5.56mm, has awkward controls, and lefties better learn shooting it right handed, but unlike an L85A1, where if I had to depend on one in a life and death situation, I'd be praying I only need a couple of shots, while if I had to depend on an L85A3, I'd be perfectly confident in the thing performing.
The Royal Marines are currently in the process of switching to the Colt C7. There are rumours that the British army was preparing to begin the search for a new rifle in 2025 but that was before the Russo-Ukraine war began in earnest. Bongs are probably holding off on replacing the SA80 for now as to not get caught with their pants around their ankles should article 5 be triggered.
Snub nose taurus judge, I just think it looks like a awesome futuristic P.I. carry.
Samesies
Also FN f2000
>Also FN f2000
Is it awful?
Compared to all the other military clone bulpups on the market? Yes, absolutely. I mean look at it this way, if it were so good why didn't it replace the FNC in Belgian service and was fairly quickly shuffled aside for the SCAR?
I disagree.
The F(S)2000 is probably one of the best bullpups that has been made. They are very reliable, accuracy is average, solve the ambi ejection problem, and were great with the old FN eco-sphere of products like the EGLM.
Main downside is that you can’t see in to clear the action without raising the trap door, and the trigger has the usual mushiness you’d expect, but it was a solid performer all around otherwise and better than most competitors.
The gun faded like all bullpups do, they enjoy popularity for about 5-10yrs, then everyone moves on to an AR-type rifle and they become curio items. Then a new bullpup is released and the cycle repeats.
SCAR program also put a huge/final nail in that coffin.
>Warriortard makes the thread again.
L22A2 though if you're asking.
>tfw it's so bad even India admitted defeat and got rid of it
I need to sample this degree of awfulness
is...is the finish hand brushed on???
The L85A2 isn't awful, it's just mediocre. It's needlessly heavy for a 5.56mm infantry rifle, BUT, it does however function like it's supposed to, without hickups, so you could do a lot worse.
Remember that it was the L85A1 which was brundlefricked, and that Heckler & Koch rebuilt those rifles almost completely to create the L85A2s.
They finally threw away that garbage fire?
Probably, INSAS is fricking ridiculously bad, particularly in manufacture.
Yep, apparently slated to be replaced with AKs though I forget if they’re going to be Russian built or Indian made. Mind you that's old pre war news so the plan has likely changed
I think the poos were going to just make them themselves, and not even bother asking russia for help producing them.
>H&K rebuilt the rifles
Nah it was Enfield, H&K had nothing to do with it.
m80 pls
pls
It was cheaper to send them to swarthyland and let the goblin tinker than to replace them
If this is a sense of pride for you then ok
Your self esteem must be very low
It's ok swarthy boi don't have a nice day
But we know your suicide rates are much higher than ours in the anglosphere
Is ok swarthyboi
Are you having a stroke?
Nah I'm fine xox how are you?
You're right my mistake it was the Royal Ordnance of Nottingham.
H&K got contracted to rebuild L85A1s to L85A2s.
No, BAE did, they used H&K (who they owned) to do some design work, and they got Enfield (who they owned and renamed Royal Ordnance) to do the actual work.
This is like saying that the G36E made in Spain isn't an H&K rifle. At the end, brits couldn't make work their own rifle and needed krauts to remake it.
If you want to brag and feel proud about your weapons, use a better example like the L96. The SA80 was a disaster that has only been keep around to save face no matter the cost like you were chinese or something.
>The SA80 was a disaster that has only been keep around to save face
It's more accurate and has a higher MRBF in all condition than issued DI AR's
The extremelly small difference in accuracy is irrelevant for an assault rifle and lol at made up MRBF numbers to justify the even heavier A2.
The UK should have bought Diemacos instead of putting lipstick on a pig. There's a reason the Royal Marines and UKSF were already using AR15s once the SA80 was revealed as a dud. Frick, even buying G36s would have been a better idea.
The l85a2 and a3 are objectively fine, replacing them would be a waste of money. Yes the a1 was shit. Yes they could have just bought a different ridle to start with, but they didn't. None of that magics the a2 into suddenly being an unreliable nightmare of a rifle, it works fine. Train soldiers well and they're effective with it. Also it looks neat in a ugly way, like the gun equivalent of a BF109 E
Also royal marines use the L85, did so throughout the afghan war, its only certain units that don't. AR pattern rifles are objectively better, but not to the degree its worth replacing the entire military's rifles
I saw in an article that Royal Marines are switching over completely to AR15s
UKSF has used 5.56 ARs near enough since their inception
Ok but we built west Germany swarthy boi
not awful, heavier than a M4 yes, awkward if used to M4 sure, but A2 was reliable and the most accurate assault rifle in NATO.
It's a warriortard thread, anon.
From my experience (and I repeat it every thread) is the only issue with A2 is it is heavy (ergonomics), cold as frick when you gotta keep it in your bag and it isn't suited for lefties. That's literally fricking it. People who say it is shit have never used it. The A1 was awful yes (but not as awful as some weapons) but the A2 was literally fine. A3 and A4 are good too.
>The A1 was awful yes (but not as awful as some weapons)
What else besides the INSAS? The L85A1 was legendarily trash, bad magazines, bad furniture, bad bolts, bad carriers, bad firing pins, bad pistons, etc, etc.
It's not even the fault of British designers themselves. It's the Crown giving all of them the boot after the design was finalized, and then getting newly graduated rookie engineers to develop the manufacturing, which they completely fricked up beyond belief. It's a good lesson in how when you're trying to cut a lot of corners to save money, the corners you cut may end up costing you a LOT more than what you first saved. You can see it mirrored somewhat in the M16, if not as bad in most ways, and far easier to fix.
The INSAS is designed to cost more money to make than it'd need to, and then it gets the everloving frick fleeced out of it during manufacturing, so there you have fricking industrialized corner cutting.
Hakim, despite being a fairly solid rifle, was a horrible design for its time since it entered production in the 50s when the big 3 battle rifles and the AK were starting too. It's a rifle on par with a Garand or a SVT having to rub shoulders with FALs. Same with the Madsen M47, great bolt action, but why the frick are you designing a new bolt action infantry rifle after WWII? Yugoslavia gets a pass because they were using preexisting Mauser tooling to make cheap stopgap rifles
The Hakim is just dated though, the thing actually works alright, and you've got lots and lots of M1s still in widespread use at the same time, as well as no small numbers of SKS, with the French rocking the MAS-49 at the time, which is very similar, even mechanically, though generally executed better.
The Hakim may not have been as flashy as the FAL, M14, BM59, G3, or even AK, Vz.58, and M16, but it certainly wasn't alone as being a rifle with a (semi) fixed magazine. Mind, the Egyptians didn't make THAT many of the Hakim rifles, and only a few thousand of the 7.62x39mm Rasheed carbines, moving on to making licensed AK clones in the 1960s.
Any AG-42 derivative is a bad combat rifle just by virtue of how you're supposed to reload it. Engineers would really go
>yes you're supposed to put it on safe every time you reload or lose fingers
That said, I kinda want one. Would never clip load it though
The rifle being too heavy and not usable left handed are pretty big flaws though, and you can't blame someone for prefering a lighter ambidextrous. About 11% of people are left handed, which is not an insignificant number if you have say 100,000 users for the rifle.
When are the Brits choosing a replacement?
Probably not soon, fricking up the SA80 program costed them a moronic amount of money (I think the total development cost skyrocketed up to over £350 000 000 000, again, should have just stuck with the original engineers), so they want to get as much worth out of the things as they can, especially when the L85A2 actually works like it should.
To move away from the SA80 now, it would have to be either some very significant advancement in small arms technology, or they'd have be vastly increasing the size of their army to the point that they need to procure far more guns than they currently have. As it is now, they're just gonna be occasionally upgrading remaining L85A2s to L85A3 spec.
The L85A3 is very subtly lighter (as in a few ounces), but has railz for attaching modern toys as needed, along with a paintjob and a new optic. The old optic is the SUSAT, which is a 4x illuminated one with backup irons on top, and it was actually good for what it was back in the day, particularly in durability, but therein lies one of the drawbacks because it's very overbuilt, adding about 1lbs to a rifle which already is heavy, so in the past decade they've been slowly replacing those with nicer and lighter ELCANs and ACOGs, which they put a little backup red dot on top of. The MOD said something about keeping the thing going to 2025, but realistically it's probably gonna stay in active service at least until the 2030s.
It's still chunky for 5.56mm, has awkward controls, and lefties better learn shooting it right handed, but unlike an L85A1, where if I had to depend on one in a life and death situation, I'd be praying I only need a couple of shots, while if I had to depend on an L85A3, I'd be perfectly confident in the thing performing.
Finally the bongs are replacing the Susat sight.
Frick you, the SUSAT is a lovely sight, the only people to complain are armlet smallgays who need to lift more, and people with absolutely no taste.
Finally? It's been replaced for years.
The A3 also has a free floated barrel and is significantly better at longer ranges. You can reliably hit targets out to 600m and have seen 800m
The Royal Marines are currently in the process of switching to the Colt C7. There are rumours that the British army was preparing to begin the search for a new rifle in 2025 but that was before the Russo-Ukraine war began in earnest. Bongs are probably holding off on replacing the SA80 for now as to not get caught with their pants around their ankles should article 5 be triggered.
It's a bullpupped saiga shotgun with a long ass carry handle and looks like an assault rifle from halo. I want it even though it's fricking moronic
That kit could probably be used or adapted to a 5.56mm Saiga
I thought that was some Pimp My Gun shit at first kek.
The gun that won the west
Not sure if it counts as awful with a 50 round magazine but for me it's the 1909 Sunngård
I know all 50 are not in one single magazine but I still like it.
hey it's that gun from rainbow six