I stand corrected!
I get your arguments regarding some of the spoons that are in the Reserves and Regulars. But I would suggest that the public tend to accept (or probably understand) training ‘accidents’ to adults in the military, but similar accidents to cadets will always attract attention and can never be justified. The lean towards safety and not generally allowing cadets to do the same things with weapons that Regulars do is therefore understandable.
[quote=“Gunner” post=6318]The questions is: ‘Is there a NEED for cadets to fire bursts?’
Personally, I don’t think so.[/quote]
They already can fire weapons which have the capability and Leeroy points out that they can fire bursts on the right range.
So the question is: ‘Is there a NEED for cadets to have a different service rifle to the armed forces?’
And I can’t see that there is. It just seems like a baffling decision.
I’m not saying bin the L98s and relace them with L85s, that would be silly. I’m just saying it seems silly to have adopted them in the first place. The only convincing argument for inventing the L98A2 rather than upgrading L98A1s into L85A2s seems to be that putting the selector lever on would have been more effort than necessary.
maybe its a legal point of view?
By which I mean the L85 A2 is classed as a current military weapon capable of full automated fire therefore to equip under 16 could be seen as training child soldiers? does explain why 16 is the age for LSW too!
Also the main reason why the 98A1 was up graded was to bring it inline with the safe system of training (new BFA and blank mags)also it allows the same parts and repairs system as the regular A2 as well as better for marksmanship training (you do not need to break position to cock it every time)
[quote=“tango_lima” post=6326][quote=“Gunner” post=6318]The questions is: ‘Is there a NEED for cadets to fire bursts?’
[/quote]
They already can fire weapons which have the capability and Leeroy points out that they can fire bursts on the right range.
[/quote]
i’m sorry but i dont think that answers the question that was asked
do Cadets NEED to to fire bursts?
not “yes they do already so its a mute point” do they need to, is there any genuine advantage to teh Cadet experience to be able to?
i’m not asking is there need for a L98A2 and can there be justification for the “expense” i’m specifically interested in the Cadet experience, what is in it for them
i understand there are some Cadets who do get to, either with blank or DCCT but both situations offer less fatal consequences should things go wrong.
but is there any CADET benefit in firing burst?
+ve > trained on the same infantry weapon as they’ll use if they join up
-ve > offers no benefit to the Cadet marksmanship scheme
-ve > has increased “danger” and risk involved
in some lights i can see where you’re coming from and agree, but looking at it from the other point of view, what benefits does firing the same service rifle Vs the aims of the Corps/shooting?
you could ask the same question about the Vikings and Vigilants, is there a need for Cadets to have their own specific aircraft? why not use the service trainer (Tutor) as the rest of the RAF?
both gliders are simpler aircraft, slower and more forgiving to the student pilot than the Tutor, in much the same way the 98 is simpler and more forgiving, with a slower rate of fire than the L85
the gliders are intended to offer an introduction for Cadets in getting airborne/becoming a pilot rather than filtering them to through a military training scheme (EFT in the Tutor), in much the same way the 98 does, it introduces to the Cadets a military style weapon system without needing to adopt all of the military skills required
I think that regardless of whether some Reservists and Regs are not that bright, they are still all adults and as such, there is no issue with what they get to use as I mentioned in a previous post. But cadets are in the majority, children, who have no formal military status, hence why, I suspect, that we might want to give them a weapon that is as similar as possible to one which the military use (to enhance their ‘military’ training and rationalise maintenance support), but not one which has the full range of military capability.
Several people have commented on why should we want to give children general (albeit supervised) access to a fully automatic weapon? It serves no useful purpose in terms of their training. True, cadets used to fire Lee Enfields and SLRs, but they were not fully automatic weapons. And yes, cadets did get to use Brens and other such kit, but it was highly supervised and they rarely, if ever, got to use SMGs - even on semi automatic.
I believe that trying to make a comparison between what cadets fired years ago and what they do now is not a simple matter. The capabilities of the standard service weapon are hugely different from 20-30 years ago so that just extrapolating its use across the cadet organisations is not sensible. What is required is a compromise between training realism for the cadet as an aspiring military person, and common sense and safety. Overall, the L98A2 probably achieves that.
Cadets don’t have to be 16 to use the LSW.
People are getting far too hung up on the bursts issue. Having the function doesn’t mean that you have to use it.
I’m not saying we should now introduce the L85. I’m not saying cadets should have the God given right to fire off a full mag of thirty in a oner. Most users of the L85A2 will never fire it on bursts, ever, under any circumstances. I’ve never fired one live at ‘A’ and only ever twice with blank (for a total of about ten rounds).
What I am asking is: why was a different rifle adopted in the first place, if the only difference is lack of bursts and cadet specific drills that involve applying the safety catch more often? The L98A2 does nothing that the L85A2 can’t and it would create a wider pool of rifles for cadet forces to draw from.
I can understand the reaction of ‘OMG! Machine gun!’ and I guess it must be the reason behind the adoption of the L98A2.
[quote=“tango_lima” post=6341]The L98A2 does nothing that the L85A2 can’t and it would create a wider pool of rifles for cadet forces to draw from. [/quote]That may actually be part of the reason - if we were going to use the L85, logically there’s no point in our having our own rifles at all - just give the regulars a few more and we can use them when required… meaning that training for regulars takes priority over our training and we end up not having the rifles when required.
Sensible…didn’t the ACF lose a lot of L86s a few years ago because the Army decided they wanted them? Was that before or after L98A2 was adopted?
Sensible…didn’t the ACF lose a lot of L86s a few years ago because the Army decided they wanted them? Was that before or after L98A2 was adopted?[/quote]
Mostly before but it is an ongoing problem. We have about 6 for the county. Annoying the regular army rarely actually use them.
[quote=“tango_lima” post=6341]
What I am asking is: why was a different rifle adopted in the first place, if the only difference is lack of bursts and cadet specific drills that involve applying the safety catch more often? The L98A2 does nothing that the L85A2 can’t and it would create a wider pool of rifles for cadet forces to draw from. [/quote]
I would put my money on it being a political compromise between warring factions within HQ Land:
Lt Gen Bogey - but we can’t give them the L85A2, they might kill people.
Lt Gen Smith - but they can’t keep this L98A1, it’s a ridiculous rifle.
Capt Bloggs - why don’t we compromise between the two. Give them a L85A2 without a change lever, and insist that they apply the safety catch on IA, just like with the L98A1?
Both Gens - Mmmm yeeess. We agree.
I agree entirely with the idea that everyone should use the L85A2. One system, one pamphlet, one set of engineering instructions, one set of quals etc.
I used to think that the L98A1 was introduced as a knee-jerk reaction to the Hungerford or Monkseaton shootings in the late 80s (we can’t let cadets have automatic weapons, look what they might do!) hence why we ended up with the thing we did. But I think the L85A1 (and L98A1) were introduced in or around 1987/88 and would have been developed before then, so the dates don’t fit.
Cadets don’t have to be 16 to use the LSW.[/quote]
Fair enough must have been a thing my county did then when I was cadet
I also suspect that a large factor in the adoption of the L98A2 was due to cost and manufacturing contracts.
Why on Earth would anyone want an LSW? They’re awful.
Why on Earth would anyone want an LSW? They’re awful.[/quote]
This was before they replaced them with minimis.
Why on Earth would anyone want an LSW? They’re awful.[/quote]
This was before they replaced them with minimis.[/quote]
Going off topic…
The LSW makes an awful machine gun.
It makes a pretty good Light Support Weapon.
It just turns out the British Armed Forces actually want machine guns, not light support weapons.
The USMC are in the process of replacing their SAWs (Squad Automatic Weapon = minimi) with their own IAR (Infantry Automatic Rifle): mag fed, 5.56mm, based on the HK416. Apparently it’s proving very popular.
Edit: Oh, sorry…I meant to say: defense politics and manufacturing costs seem like reasonable reasons for the L98A2.
Nope - all of the A2 weapons are refurbished/upgraded A1s, except for the L98A2s which were L85A2s with a new trigger mech insert without the necessary gubbins for automatic fire. There were 380,000 SA80 A1 weapons, including Rifles, LSWs and Cadet GPs, ordered from Royal Ordnance in two separate batches. The first weapons rolled off the Enfield production line in 1985, and I think the first L98A1s were built in mid 1987. Certainly the first manuals to support the A1 in the ATC were issued in late '87. RO Nottingham built the second batch of SA80s (of all types) from 1991 onwards.
As for the L98A2 trigger mech, you can’t just whack a change lever in and go auto - you need an armourer to swap the trigger mechanism inserts, and that’s deliberate. The L98A2 mechanism lacks the automatic sear of the L85/L86/L22, so even if you did put a change lever on the main sear axis pin (? might be the other axis pin) it wouldn’t have any effect.
Somewhere I have a photo of one of the very first L98A2s and you can clearly see the overpainted L85 markings on the TMH. I would have thought the majority of the L98A2 fleet, after the initial batch, were upgraded L85A1s.
I’ve always wondered why the L98A1 was such an abomination. It was clearly designed to be a Section 1 firearm (i.e. civvy-legal) and I think that may have been because Sea Cadet units at the time were holding their weapons on civilian firearm certificates. However, there’s always been rumours that Royal Ordnance at the time wanted to sell the new SA80 to civilians. I suspect the L98A1 may have been designed with that in mind and then foisted on the cadet forces as a “safer” alternative to semi-auto weapons. It’s probable, after Hungerford, that the government stopped the sale of military-style firearms to civilians by government manufacturers for political reasons.
No SA80 has been built from scratch since RO Nottingham closed its doors in 1994. Heckler und Koch are now the design authority and have all the blueprints etc to build them, but all the jigs and so forth went with the RO factory closures.
[quote]You can guarantee that a cadet will ‘have a go’ at getting away with firing on automatic. As I said earlier, I’ve seen them ‘forget’ the change lever on the DCCT and have even had them say, ‘oh, it slipped into that position by mistake’.
I suspect that the safety catch issue is to focus attention on safety rather than combat efficiency. There is after all, no need for a cadet to ‘get back in’ quickly.[/quote]
I’d agree with that, it’s all about making the cadet think about safety rather than being safer, per se.
I don’t know how the drills have changed since my day but there was definite overuse of the safety catch, suggesting whoever wrote the drills didn’t fully understand how the weapon works. The SA80 safety is a trigger block - all it does is stop you pulling the trigger. It’s not a true mechanical safety like the Lee Enfield series/No.8 is, which physically disconnects the trigger mech from the striker.
(Try it - next time you have a No.8 out, close the bolt and apply the safety catch. You’ll see the cocking piece move slightly to the rear, which is the half-moon of the locking bolt - the bit you’ll see rotate in the raceway for the bolt if you take it out and then apply the safety - engaging in its bent on the cocking piece, forcing the cocking piece rearwards and taking the weight off the sear. When you pull the trigger with the safety applied, although the sear drops as normal the cocking piece is no longer resting on it and so can’t travel forward)
Put simply, applying the SA80 safety during an IA drill does not make the weapon any safer. Teaching the firer to keep his fingers off the trigger, however, does.
I don’t really agree the LSW is a good support weapon. Firing the thing, prone position, left arm wrapped around to the rear pistol grip and bipod deployed, it’s rather good. But try tabbing with the blasted thing or (worse) advancing with it at low port, and it’s a front-heavy nightmare.
FWIW I think the L98A2 stoppage drills are on balance a hazard. That’s because I operate with a large number of ex-regulars and there is a danger of wrong drills being taught as a result. As they don’t make things safer (as per The Marskman’s very true comments about the mechanism) they are slightly worse than leaving things alone.
Aren’t the L98 drills identical to the L85 except for application of the safety catch?
I could agree that it probably doesn’t make things any safer in real terms, but I certainly can’t see how it could make things less safe.