Assault rifles: SA80 vs M4 - which is better?

Just a simple question. I'm not really into guns but I was just curious.

 

columbine

 

Two kids going nuts has to do with what here?

-P!-

 

M4, hands down. Yes, there have been problems with the shorter M4 barrel overheating with sustained fire, but the British SA80 is a piece of crap. It has poor weight balance, can only be fired right-handed, fouls up easy in even slightly harsh conditions, and is generally unreliable. Even after its redesign by H&K, the rifle is still problematic. The only good thing about it is its accuracy and power.









»Who dares wins«

 

Excellent post!

 

I would say it is hard to compare the two guns to one another.
Better for what?
Overall performace?


Yeah I would say that Jon has summed it all up there.

 

The M4 is a good submachinegun. I wouldn't call it any kind of rifle though.

 

Actually, the M4 is technically a carbine... which is an assault rifle with a barrel length greater than or equal to that of an SMG, but less than that of a traditional AR, such as the M-16 or AK-47. SMGs are automatic weapons that fire pistol cartridges.

There is, however, an SMG that utilizes a modified M4 frame called the Colt model 635.












»Who dares wins«

 

I know that. Technically, it may not be an SMG, but I think it's better suited to the submachinegun role. The miniturisation of rifles, both in caliber and in overall size, has gone so far that it's become more of a submachinegun than a rifle or even a carbine.

 

Why is the SA80 poorly weighted? Is it because the weight is all towards the back?

Also, why would those silly Brits use something that was 'crap'?

 

I agree. Its accuracy isn't anything to write home about, and the barrel heating issue is getting to be a real problem.

Still, given the choice between an M4 and an SA80, I'd pick the M4 without a second thought.









»Who dares wins«

 

THE BRITISH SAS USES IT!

[image=http://www.btinternet.com/~the_22nd_sas2/sem/weapons/sa80.jpg]

its got to be good!

 

Yes, the SA80 is way too heavy in the ass. It was just a poor design. Personally, I don't like any bullpup configured rifles, but there are some out there (FAMAS, Steyr AUG, etc...) that do have a proper weight balance.

As for why the Brits continue to use them, the answer is a simple one really. They made too many of the damned things, and it's a logistical pain in the ass to re-equip your entire army with a new standard rifle. Mercifully, they are being slowly phased out in favor of (most likely) the Heckler & Koch G36.


EDIT: Actually, the SAS, more often than not, uses AR-15 (U.S. M-16) type rifles.








»Who dares wins«

 

I love the M4 personally. Fires very easily, very accurate, very good overall.

Haven't had the honor to fire the SA80, but it sounds like it could be a good one.

All-in-all, I'd have to go with the M4. With an underslung M203 grenade launcher of course.




Anata Baka?!

 

You're not missing anything, jifty. The SA80 can be uncomfortable as hell to shoot.

Still, it does look pretty cool. I'll give it that much.









»Who dares wins«

 

it's a logistical pain in the ass to re-equip your entire army with a new standard rifle.

True, but the US is planning to phase out the M-16 in the coming years to be replaced starting 2005 I believe with a new gun that will be able to fire bullets as well as incendiary and gas rounds, each has a small computer built into it and can be set to explode in mid-air. I thought that was pretty sweet

Goodbye M-16, you've done well

Hmmm...my uncle's got at least one M-16, i gotta go shooting with him sometime

 

I prefer throwing eggs to machine gunning. It's funnier.

 

Don't know a whole lot about the SA80, but I guess based on other comments I'll go with the M4. Although, overall, I still have a tendency to go with an AK-47(74). Sure it's a relatively simple design, and is lacking in a lot of the high performance areas, but it's that simplicity that makes it so great for its intended purpose. You can take an AK, and use and abuse it. Then, treat it like a wicked red headed step child, and it will still keep on working.

 

No, the M16 still has a long future ahead of it. The OICW (Objective Individual Combat Weapon) is intended to replace M-16/M203 grenade launcher combinations in infantry squads. The weapon combines a heavily modified G36 assault rifle with a magazine-fed 20mm High Explosive round gun. It has a computerised fire control system integrated into the scope.

Eventually, the OICW (in some form or another) will be an integral part of the United States' Land Warrior system. This, however, is a long way down the road.

Personally, in its current state, I see the weapon as a bulky, ugly looking piece of ****. It has lots of nice, high-tech features. However, their practicality on the battlefield has yet to be seen.








»Who dares wins«

 

The M4 is a good submachinegun.

What M4 are you talking about?

The last I checked it was an Assault Rifle with Semi And Burst. There is nothing Sub Machine gun about it.

Anyhow I dont like the M4. I had one when i was in the ARMY and personally I would rather have prefered my Deer rifle. A remington model 7 bolt action with custom trigger and leopald scope.

But since i have to pick either or.......i say the M4 cuz its very easy to maintain, light.

The shorter barrel doesnt over heat if you use it too much by the way. You have a designated Rate of Fire per minute and as long as you stay under it you wont have to worry about overheating.

 

after playing a game of Rogue Spear (which makes me very educated in this field), I'm going to have to say the M4 Carbine.

 

Which is better? Your mom.

 

Nice post VaderFett .

 

[image=http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ARPAPOP.jpg]

 

I'd rather use an M4, but I shoot left handed, so it's not much of a choice.