Compare and contrast, M 16 series, L 85(SA80) series

Which would you grap?

  • L 85 series

    Votes: 3 27.3%

  • M 16 series

    Votes: 2 18.2%

  • Which ever one is closer

    Votes: 3 27.3%

  • I have served with the L 85 series

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I have served with the M 16 series

    Votes: 4 36.4%
  • Total voters
    11
Yossarian

Yossarian

Forum Resistance Leader
I always considered these two rifles, well not look alikes, but in the same category, and in the same genre of the same category. But, just wondering, since some of you on this very forum, have or are serving with one of these two rifles. I was wondering, if you had the choice, if each was set out on a table in front of you, which would you pick?

Also, I mean the entire Series,

Example: M 16 A1, A2,(not the AR 15, or M 4 Carbine Series, service rifles only) so on and so on. Same with the LA 85.

I do take attention that a rifle is as effective as the shooters ability's, so lets say we picture them on a firing tripod in a lab for the ballistics performance. But the reliability and field testing is up for any one who has done there homework on it, or just have been issued one.

But for those of you are serving or have served with one or the other,feel completely free to leave your comment, no matter how long on the weapons. And please, don't stray from these two fire arms to some other firearm, only if you are referring to a predecessor or a replacement, or rival design. Also, if you have been issued one in the military, feel free to speak your mind about what model you were issued.

(last note, if you HAVE served with either design, then vote twice, one for what rifle you have served with, or your choice)
 
Last edited:
I've fired both rifles many times. I carried the M16A2, M4, M4A1, and the M16A4. As of right now I carry the Colt AR-15A3 (Law Enforcement/Civilian Rifle). I find the British SA80 (L-85) to be a okay rifle but I will list the pros and cons of it.

The SA80 is a bullpup rifle. Some bullpup rifles can be fired from either side but the SA80 cannot due to it's design. it does not allow the shooter to switch the ejection port like the Steyr AUG. It does have a shorter overall length then the AR family of rifles. The design in of itself has some issues. When it was first fielded and issued the stock had some chemical issues with the then standard bug spray that was given to all of the troops. the Bug Spray would melt the plastic stock parts. That issue has been resolved back in the 1980s. Also when it was first field it was such a piece of crap that Heckler and Koch of Germany had to step in and redesign many of the part and production tooling for the British Government.

As of now, it's an okay rifle but it's not the best in the world. The AR series of rifles is a very modular platform and also very ergonomic. Both left and right handed shooters can fire the AR series without a problem expect for the first batch of M16's and Colt SP1's (First Production of rifles without a forward assist and a shell deflector). More optics, calibers, sights, barrel lengths, suppressors, rail systems, stocks, weapon lights, magazines, slings, etc... are made for the AR series of rifle. For the SA80, what you see is what you get.

In the end, I believe that the British should adpot a new rifle design. Whether it is as simple as going with a AR-15 type rifle or with a completely new design like the Magpul Masada or a FN SCAR or some other rifle. As of right now to my knowledge, the British SAS use the standard Colt Canada AR-15 Series of rifles [Diemaco C7/C8]. Which is nothing more then an American AR-15 made in Canada and given a different nomenclature number and company brand.

My choice for my service rifle is the Ar-15 series of rifles.
 
Last edited:
I'd go with the L85A2, with the M16A3 a close second choice. M16A2/4 would be my third choice. The rest I wouldn't want unless I couldn't get anything else. Especially not the original L85. I'd sooner trust my life to a surplus Makarov than that thing.
 
although it pains me to say this (lol), im going to have to go with the m-16 family.


im a firm believer in the bullpup layout (from my own experience with the AUG), but it think in this comparison, the m-16's battle record and modularity win out.

i think the brits will be looking at something similar to the g-36 before long


i will add this though, the l-85 SUSAT sight is excellent, and both families had MAJOR teething problems in the early days.
 
Well you have a point, the SA 80, has some accessories, like a L9 A1 optical sight, and maybe a laser pointer.

Both rifles did indeed have some teething problems.

But just for a better idea for accessories, here is a M 16 A2 I believe.

M16w-att-s.jpg


with all that on there it should weigh like a recoilless rifle.
 
Sukio said:
Well you have a point, the SA 80, has some accessories, like a L9 A1 optical sight, and maybe a laser pointer.

Both rifles did indeed have some teething problems.

But just for a better idea for accessories, here is a M 16 A2 I believe.

M16w-att-s.jpg


with all that on there it should weigh like a recoilless rifle.
Click to expand...

That's the M16A3/A4 package. The A3 is fully automayic and the A4 is Three-Shot Burst.

It's actually pretty light for a full size service rifle.
 
I have never seen a large package for the L 85, only a simple optical device. Nothing major like a thermal scope.
 
I've heard glowing reports on what the L85 can do (typically from friends who were issued the things) so I've always wanted to fire one. I've fired the civi version of the AUG and found the bullpup design to be quite comfortable after some time. It's been a few years since I fired a mil-spec M16, but I remember it to be a fine rifle, and I've enjoyed experiences I've had with civi models since then. Considering the fact that I have no combat experience with any of the rifles, I'd probably have to go with whatever is closest.
 
Having fired both (but, obviously, the M-16 (A2 and A4) more), I have to say that I'm much more comfortable with the '16. Firing the SA80 just feels odd after being trained on conventionally laid-out weapons.
 
Unfortunately I have not fired the SA80 or a modern M16 variant.

I have a great liking for the bullpup system, it shows that the designer was thinking with his boots on. Simple matters like weapons only having single sided ejection just shows a complete lack of forethought. I did once have a Hi Standard Model 10 riot gun and absolutely loved it. It's only downfall was that due to the short barrel length it would only work 100% reliably using 3 1/4 inch magnum shells or solid slugs.
 
Now the L85 has longer and heavier barrel and was designed to be used as a LMG with it's small bi pod this weapon is accurate at 1000 metres. The SA80 is a compact rifle that is accurate up to 600 metres and it's optical sight will give accuracy up to that range. Although like most new weapons it had it's teething problems but you never hear the any complaints from the troops that are now using it in action. There is now a shorter version of this weapon that is just 35 inches long and had a range of 400 metres, this is given to tank crews and other personnel in transport where they need a smaller gun with hitting power.
 
That makes sense but, is the tanker version of the SA 80 a more reliable model from the start? I will research on this.
 
It should be remembered that many countries having been designing their own weapons based on the SA80 configuration. One of the latest is Israel, the Russian and the Japanese have also gone down this road
 
LeEnfield said:
It should be remembered that many countries having been designing their own weapons based on the SA80 configuration. One of the latest is Israel, the Russian and the Japanese have also gone down this road
Click to expand...

Everyone is design their rifles off the Bullpup idea. Not the SA80 design. Everyone is actually looking at the H&K G36 Action.
 
LeEnfield said:
It should be remembered that many countries having been designing their own weapons based on the SA80 configuration. One of the latest is Israel, the Russian and the Japanese have also gone down this road
Click to expand...
I'm not sure is the SA80 the first bullpup small arm... The EM-2 was first, but it apparently was not taken in service eventually, so I guess first service bullpup weapon will be French FA MAS...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top