UK Military Rifle L85A1 Garand Thumb British Army Vet Reacts
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- Original Video - • The United Kingdom's M...
Channel member - / @combatreadyhq
Instagram - / craigvieirahollman
Discord - / discord
Supplements - www.combat-fue... use discount code CH15
My Amazon Shop - www.amazon.co....
OPENRUN PRO by SHOKZ
UK Website:bit.ly/3Hr9du4
Amazon：amzn.to/36CMIp4
Muscle Food - For high quality meats and prep meals
www.awin1.com/...
Collabs or partnerships email me at craig7647@gmail.com
Copyright Disclaimer: - Under section 107 of the copyright Act 1976, allowance is mad for FAIR USE for purpose such a as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statues that might otherwise be infringing. Non- Profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of FAIR USE.
I'd love to see more Garand Thumb reactions. He's done some awesome videos with some really interesting weapon systems.
Yes definitely, I really enjoyed watching his video, and would be up for doing more reactions.
@@CombatReadyHQ you seen his videos on the new US Armies guns?
Guns.........Its a god damn gun. Stop saying "weapon systems", ffs.
@@jerrythebaum4388if a gun is modular and can use various external accessories - such as UB grenade launchers, different scope/optics that are attachable via pic rails, different stocks, different barrel lengths, different suppression (flash hiders also), IR laser/illuminators....
Then it's a weapon system.
Even a pistol can be a weapon system if it can be further customised and accessorised outside of its original factory standard.
You played his Sponsor ads rather than fast forwarding through them: Class Act mate - Thumbs up and subscribed.
Thank you mate 🙏 He puts out mega content and want to help other creators as much as I can especially as they help me
In reality he did it because he's interested in the ad... Duh..
I just realized that he's cosplaying CPT. Price from COD, or at least I think he is.
No, that's just him lol
He's 100% doing a nod to Cpt. Price with that modded boonie hat.
All that’s missing is the Cigar.
He's very familiar with the video games.
think its the other way around.
These guys are good shooters, but this level of shooting skill is not uncommon in the US these days. Competition shooting and advance gunfighter courses exist all over the US for civilian and military alike.
most military units do not get the range time that civvys with a bit of money and the will to do so can get. I used to get more range time in a month than most servicemen would get in an entire career and although I was 'good' I didn't get really good and fully understand it until I left and took up shooting in civvy street.
I'm proud of us. Rediscovering and embracing our roots as a people.
He's also ex USAF SOCOM, specifically a TACP with multiple deployments and a SERE instructor.
In Europe we require our shooters to have a high degree of skill to be able to even get a license for said weapon system. One reason why there is less misshaps going on over here.
Yeah most people think that being in the military gives more weight when it comes to guns and shooting when thats not really the case. Most regular guys that just enjoy shooting as a hobby are better than the vast majority of the military. In fact some of the most unskilled and unsafe handling I have seen has been from retired or active military.
For context, just in case you don't know. Garand Thumb is an ex U.S. Airforce TACP, which stands for tactical air control party. That means he was attached to seals, rangers, green berets, etc, etc, in order to call in and coordinate air support for them. That is a highly skilled and technical job at that level because a TACP has so many aircraft at their disposal they can call in at one time that they practically have to be civilian air traffic controller certified. He is also S.E.R.E. qualified to perform it and teach it.
Thank you, yes I had heard he was TACP, very cool bloke and a great shot. Would love to come over and do a video with him one day
@CombatReadyHQ He'd probably be happy to have you. You should reach out.
No, the early M16 was worse. More so as it was introduced during a war, the Vietnam war 🫢
The A2 was much better & current A3 is a Very Good reliable weapon. Why don't you cover the early A16 & current A3.
Was really impressed with GT's review. He summed it up perfectly. Great concept, just a few things to iron out. Don't forget that this weapon system was designed and specced during a time when we were operating in FIBUA during the troubles in NI. We needed a compact weapon that could be used debussing from vics and moving through houses and tight spaces whilst still maintaining a long barrel for longer range engagements in traditional combat, the cold war and BAOR was still a thing at this point. This was a perfect compromise in theory but poorly executed on the first go. The weight on the rear, although not optimal for shooting accuracy, mitigated the bigger problem of tiring you out before you even get to shoot it. You'll spend a lot of time stood around or carrying the weapon rather than firing it. It's very comfortable to handle in day to day despite its higher weight. I really like the L85. I think it gets an undeserved bad reputation in its current form once a lot of the initial problems were ironed out but as they say, you only get 1 chance to make a first impression.
The British also took a shorter weapon because they were preparing to fight the Russians in Europe and their Doctrine was based around Armoured Infantry (as we are returning to). So they needed the shorter barrels to get in and out of Warrior Tanks quickly. Same reason the French went with their Famas and guns like the Steyr Aug and FN F2000 were popular. The Germans just added a folding stock to with G36 to keep the length down.
GarandThumb was Airforce Special Operations. He doesn't really say much more than that. If you watch his latest vid, he mentions that. Micah, the other guy is just a rifle enthusiast who can clearly fire a rifle. 😁
Yeah he was a SERE instructor as well. Dude is probably one of the most actual qualified guntubers in the realm of all the tactical training stuff.
@@nukiesduke6868 Agreed.
USAF Special Warfare operators are no joke. Particularly them PJ's (when SOF call 911, it's these guys that respond). Absolute gods amongst men. 24th STS are probably the most nails unit on the planet. A few of their 24th lads (CCT's) have done solo last man stands and rained death upon the enemy. Imagine being the last man and radioing accurate 9 liners to command whilst fighting tooth and nail. Brains, brawn and bravery. o7
Yeah except he wasn't no PJ, he was better, be was a TACP. That means he was connected and assigned to all sorts of SEAL, Ranger, Green Berets, etc, in order to call, coordinate, and assign air support for the.@@robbiepemberton
Lol "better"..what are you twelve years old? @@WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot3267
Including the early concept prototypes... it's design was actually in the late 40's to early 50's.
The problem can be specifically tracked to Enfield firing all their gunsmiths and hiring basic engineers in the 60's-70's. The A2/A3 are not actually "Bad", as the various small errors in engineering are pretty much gone.
It's sad... as the original designs and concepts were well ahead of their time and any problems (common to new rifles) should of been easy to iron out with experienced gunsmiths.
That rifle is the reason the SAS use M4'S 😂
The SAS use many different weapons depending on the situation, not just M4s
Probably more to do with plausibly deniability. Not much point being secret squirrel if your IW immediately identifies your nationality is it?
They fire the same round @@jamesbothoms6009
Colt Canada C8s, they’re an AR pattern rifle but with a bunch of different specs and improvements compared to the M4.
Sig Spear now no?
Time to back this up. The standard issue rifle for the 1970s & mid 80s, the 7.62mm FN FAL. A good rifle. but the MOD wanted something smaller to go inside an armoured vehicle. Then along comes the SA 80, oh dear. This bullpup weapon fired the 5.56mm round and could use magazines for the M16! A less known fact, if necessary, the rifle could be altered to fire a smaller round, the 4.85mm round. Overall, the SA 80 is an inferior weapon.
I joined when we still had SLRs, the SA80 tended to get double feed jams but the second generation (the one with the curved cocking handle) was much better.
it was totally shite, i got issued the LSW version with the bipod, i loved the SLR, could hit a 2 pence piece at 100 m with iron sights. i actually chose to carry/use the gimpy instead for the company.
Thank you for your service from a American 🇺🇸 🇬🇧 💪
Thank you very much. 🇬🇧🇺🇸
So great seeing people react to garand thumb and the fat electrician, I don’t even know why I like these I guess I’m just interested in the British prospective on patriot culture
Thank you and I’ve only recently found this two but have seriously enjoyed their videos and doing a review/reaction to them
While its cool to have you mention what the proper handling drills are for the rifle, I think it's pretty obvious that garandthumb has never handled one of these rifles prior to the video and just operated it based solely on his past firearms experience and nothing more.
In other words, he doesn't know the British Army standard L85 drills, so of course he's going to operate it in a way that isn't 100% like what you were taught lol
Thank you for the comment and Yes and I knew this but I just wanted to pass the information onto viewers on the how drills are and that there is an easier way when changing the magazine. 👍👍
Typically garand thumb is pretty good about this type of stuff, I almost wonder if the rifle was broken, and that bolt release catch was just non functional, and he didn't realize.
I remember these being issued and training on them in Germany in the eighties. We'd been using the SLR (semi auto FN FAL) and were really happy with them, but a brand new rifle would come with upgrades and improvements. We saw the new rifle and it was pretty space age looking, we knew it had a long barrel and was going to be accurate, then we actually picked them up and yikes! Everything was really flimsy and fragile, but we still looked forward to seeing how they performed. They came with the SUSAT sight but we'd actually had these for a while welded onto the top slide cover of the SLR. It was very unbalanced with all the weight at the rear necessitating a fiddly sling which felt like it snagged on everything. We didn't use a sling previously as we were required to have the weapon in the hand at all times. Anyway, on to training drills and the 'forward assist '. What? The last weapon to have forward assist was bolt action. Automatic means the weapon does it not you. The SLR had a lovely smooth charging handle, which for us never failed; it was explained that the metal stamping of the body was thin and flexed, so the working parts would often grind to a halt just before cocking. Lol! We realised that it had been badly made and then knowingly issued anyway. So the forward assist, which begged the question; if you had to cock it almost like a bolt action, why, when the weapon was right hand only, was the charging handle on the right? This meant you had to tilt it over and use your left hand to knock it home. A few goes at this and one or two people had knocked the plastic cocking handle off, requiring a visit to the armourers. Something as simple as loading a magazine was a test of faith; it's rattling around in the housing, is it actually properly in? If you gripped the magazine instead of the front stock in an attempt to make sure it stayed home you discovered the mag was flimsy as well, and squeezing it stopped the rounds being pushed up the mag. Was it accurate? Yes, very. Could it be used in the field? Not easily, as discovered in Gulf one. It didn't like being outdoors and any dirt, soil, sand and the inevitable stoppage which meant ignoring the IA drills and proceeding straight away with a strip and clean. I came out after Gulf one so I never saw the improvements but I'm very glad they were made for the sake of the lads and lasses who served after and now. It's hard to overstate just how poor these rifles were when they were very first issued and it had been done knowingly by the MOD.
Forward Assist has nothing to do with semi auto or fully automatic. Look at an AR-15 or M4 and there is a what looks like a button on the rear of the right hand side of the lower receiver. It’s there to make sure the bolt is fully seated and able to fire when using the rifle in an environment where it might be a little longer than usual before cleaning. It’s also used to make sure the bolt is fully seated after slightly pulling back the charging handle to make sure there is a round in the chamber.
@@OlDirtyBandit AR15 forward assist is on the upper, not the lower.
My old man was in the army from the 70s to the 90s, my brother from the 90s to the mid-00s.
My dad loved the SLR, carried it with a SUIT sight and had won marksmanship competitions with it. The SA80 came around and he absolutely despised it. It was small, it was flimsy, it used a smaller caliber round and he also found it too "light" to carry which is interesting consider the weight of it? He instead opted for the L86 LSW as his weapon which as a "Support Weapon" for him was a time machine back to training on the Bren which he was happy to carry and use. Not that he ever stopped complaining that the SLR was the greatest rifle ever made and we needed to go back to it.
My brother meanwhile, used the A1 which he found to be great on guard duty in the UK where it had little to do, fine in the Balkans and a horrific piece of shit in Iraq. He wasn't one of the lucky ones who had an A2 during the invasion and said it was nothing short of useless a lot of the time, although the one time he really needed it to work flawlessly it did, ironically.
@@CallsignWulf I meant upper
I've never played around with the A1 but with my experience with the A2 I will say that it's a very nice rifle to shoot *IF* you haven't had any prior experience shooting traditional AR/SLR style rifles. My only gripes with the A2 is that they're so old and beat up now that half the times the mags (especially the BFA ones) don't wanna fit in. I also got real unlucky once and got issued a converted A1 (not an A2, I wanna make this very clear, it was an A1 that had it's guts ripped out and fitting with A2 internals and cocking handle) that was so beat up that the upper receiver was literally shaking itself apart.
Aside from this I don't really have any complaints with the A2 since I've just gotten used to it and all it's quirks
The rifle is extremely outdated and inefficient. There is no argument for it otherwise compared to modern weapon systems.
Tbh, garand Thumb was a usaf tacp. That's probably why his aim is so good lol
Hahaha I don’t know if that’s the reason 😂
@@CombatReadyHQ oh come on😂
"God help anyone who goes to war with America" -Pearl Harbor
Ex Armourer here. Garand Thumb is indeed correct, the A1 is a terrible system. Brittle plastics, weak springs everywhere (particularly the ejector), heavy, poor ergonomics, TMH pins that are easy to strip out leaving the circlip contracted so you can't put them back in easily.
The A2 was a reliable gun, but the ergos and weight are still poor, as is the trigger. But at least the springs aren't from a mechanical pencil
I knew you would mention him ignoring(not being aware of) the correct bolt release
The only stoppages i ever had was the empty case catching on the cocking handle..A2 delt with that ...love this weapon
I never had one on the A1. Most of the problems from my perspective was feeding issues from dented mags.
I never had a stoppage with the A1.
@@navnig got suspended by RUclips
@@robbiepemberton by my time the mags were good and some of us had got hold of US mags
You could easily zero a SUSAT with a small adjustable spanner, and a slotted screwdriver - even a leather an as the tools to do this, but since zeroing is done at 100m, and he’s firing at less than 10m, id say he doesn’t know how to zero, and its said just for the video. If you can’t hot a fig11 at the range you don’t deserve to have an option to be honest.
I was issued the A1(with SUSAT) from ‘96-‘03, before swapping to the A2, In all that time, I can honestly say, it wasn’t at all a bad system, and it makes me laugh to hear people refer to is a POS in the same sentence as “I’ve never fired this before”, even if it is just for views.
It was the blend of the AUG and the AR180 'widow maker' that the British came to respect in the hands of the IRA (or was that the SAS False Flagging as the IRA per Simon Mann?).
Drawing anything from the AR15, which does not offer a functional model after you bayonet or buttstroke and opponent, was not a consideration.
A fairly reasonable idea at the time, but Lee Enfield could not make any reasonable quantity of them. Apparently, their tooling was worn to the point that they ceased to possess the means of production.
Furniture formulation was never going to be tested as long as the gun could not be produced.
Reading the UK publication series "Combat and Survival" I learned of the horrors of the SA80 saga, and the horrid view of the STANAG Magazine. That drove me in the direction of Galil and Kalash for a 308, having also taken a pass on the 556/223. Later getting into the AR15 world, I have perceived ETS Mags to be produced in a way that solved the STANAG Problem, but there are still so many frail little parts. Then being drawn to the 6.5G and the 6ARC, I am embracing the STANAG Problem.
What is working against the bullpups is the expanding use of body armor changing the Length of Pull when used in that combination.
AR15 and the new MCX family adjust.
Original FAL/Galil do not adjust.
But the Russians and Americans are making the indefatigable AK Adjust now, so it will continue to maintain respect.
The issue with the A1 was Enfield was being shut down and all the engineers let go, so they half arsed the production even though they knew it would be squaddies lives at risk.
The lenders of the rifle should of given a brief run down on how to use it, or didn't they wonder what the little square nub did? Weird
You mention that the SA-80 was designed in the 70's, the M-16/AR-15 was designed in the 50's, and adopted in the 60's yet still works just fine. The SA-80/L85 system just isn't a very good design. There's a reason the SAS uses the M-16/M4 platform instead.
Some regiments in the british military are getting the KAC KS1
See previous comment regards to plausible deniability and identification ref SAS usage. As for M16 AR15, your guys would all be using SCAR platform rifles now, but for political shenanigans. Never underestimate the influence corporations play in what gets paid for out of the public purse.
To be fair, these guys are shooting daily-weekly, on a variety of platforms and have been doing so for at least a decade. They're just used to handling firearms.
One thing the British military (non-SF) doesnt get enough of is range time and we dont have a strong culture of more widespread firearms ownership here in the UK due to the stupid statutory laws.
Well mate,you have to remember that the manual of arms on the L85 series differs greatly from the AR-15/M16 platform we are used to on this side of the pond🤙
Yes mate I know thank you, I think he gave a great review and video considering his lack of knowledge on that weapon system but his whole knowledge on weapons and rifles is mega
@@CombatReadyHQ GT is number 1 on my "Top ten people to have in your team when the Zombiepocalypse happens"....
Number 2 is Aragorn, number 3 is Richard Branson - he owns an island.
I'd be very interested to see if training instinct for not dropping your mags on the floor as mentioned at 12:57 would hold up in an actual conflict. Just looking at Ukraine war footage and those lads chuck them right onto the floor, reload, eliminate the threat and then pick up the mag when safe to do so as there is no time to drop it into a drop pouch depending on the firefight. Just seems like that extra second or two saved could be critical whilst rounds are flying towards your position.
I only ever fired the cadet version (L98A1) I liked it. I would have LOVED to try the real rifle. Side note: it never ceased to amaze me just how loud 5.56 is in real life. No film or computer game can ever convey that.
I found the A2 was way more reliable. Tbh I liked the compact rifle and enjoyed the A2, the A1 not so much
its always got to me why people hate on the SA80 so much. the A1 fair enough wasnt great. Lucky for me it was replaced by the A2 while I was still at my first unit. after this I NEVER had any trouble at all with it. I absolutly loved the rifle.
noone who seems to do videos on the SA80 has a clue how to use it right. as you say his skill at arms has a lot to be desired. no wonder they struggle with it.
He was very fair on his assessment…… I’m an SLR user…… thank god I’d didn’t have that weapon 🙏🏼😎👌🏽
The SA 80 was just being introduced when I left the army.. So I never got to fire it...i had the 7.62 fn fal, SLR rifle.it had hitting power but a little heavy.i guess proper zeroed in L85 could probably be pretty accurate.. It's a trade off I think.. I'd rather take the fn into battle because of the better hitting power at long range...
The thing is that the Americans love to give this rifle tones of shit but didn’t the A1 of the m16 face similar issues?
Yes more than likely, Americans just love to try and give the Uk shit
The AKB 23 bullpup kit released last week looks almost identical to the l85. Might pick one up if they're any good.
My M4 in Afghanistan, and ARs I can run all of the controls ambidextrously solely from my firing hand, thumb and trigger finger only (trigger, safety, bolt catch/release, mag release). Far superior setup. When people saw it they'd think it was wizardry.
Your non-firing hand is then only for charging handle (also ambidextrous) and handling magazines. And mag forward is superior to bullpup both for reloading as well as weapon balance and natural accuracy.
M4 was much lighter than the L85 too. Modular and accurate. I could hit at 500m with ease in Afghanistan using the M4 and Eotech (never tried shooting further at a known distance with that setup), almost effortlessly.
Until u want to have some authority in what u hit at 600 metres the longer barrel on the sa80 will out range the m4 any day
@@MrTangolizard Guys can hit out to 1200M with a 20in M16. And if I could hit at 500m with an M4 like child's play, 600m probably wouldn't be that much harder, just never tried it personally, but I know guys who've shot even further with 14.5in barrels or shorter.
Marines hit out to 600m with the M16 no big deal.
Most guys can't reliably hit at even 300m though.
But none of that offsets the many other disadvantages of the L85
@@SoloRenegade a longer barrel is better for longer ranges this is just a fact now im not arguing that the sa80 is better than the AR platform it’s not but compared to the m4 it hits harder and shoots longer and it’s the same length so CQB is no better with the m4 in reliability tests the sa80a2 scored higher than the m16a2 and g36 the AR is way more ergonomic than the sa80 however this video is a bad example of ergonomics as it hurt my brain how he operated it , also remember when the sa80 was issued the u.s military was using m16 with iron sights the sa80 for its time had a decent optic
@@MrTangolizard The US had already fielded Carbine M4 and optics in Vietnam, 2 decades ahead of the SA80.
I get that the weapon could have been operated better than shown in the video, but mind you these guys had one day to play with it and no formal training on how to operate it efficiently, they had to figure it out on their own in a hurry. The fact a rifle requires so much formal training to operate properly, rather than instinctively, is not a good thing. That is evidence of a poor design (speaking as a combat veteran and Mechanical Engineer here).
Even after optics were being issued, my unit went to Iraq on its first deployment with M16A4 and iron sights. Someone filled out the paperwork wrong, apparently not knowing the difference between M4A1 And M16A4. The "4" and "A" apparently confused them. I'd still choose the M16A4 with irons over the SA80.
@@SoloRenegade I assumed u knew I meant optics being issued wide spread not on select rifles for certain special operations and I’m not having a dig at the guy operating the rifle like u said he had no experience on the platform, for example with the sa80 u load the mag and then just press the button on the left hand side working parts go forward and u shoot, personally I would choose the sa80a3 over a m16a4 with iron sights anyday the only advantage I can see with the m16a4 over the sa80a3 is the magazine release catch other than that in this imaginary setting the sa80a3 is lighter than the a2 the new handguards makes laser lights accurate and the pretty good ELCAN sight makes seeing targets better than irons I don’t see the m16a4 having any advantages
Out of the team of 19 engineers that designed the L85A1 none of them had any experience in gun design, It is brilliant that H&K got it to work as well as it does. The M16 had a few problems when it was first sent to Vietnam. A big problem was the ammo issued, ball powder caused longer peak chamber pressure, causing timing, thus extraction problems, no cleaning kit, no chrome lined barrel, no forward assist but all these problems are solved and the family of AR rifles are brilliant.
This guy called it a "cocking handle" and I now know why we went to war. Great video though! Fun times.
That's because it's called the cocking handle.
Actually the H&K redesigned ones we had in the RAF reg weren't that bad. I think the Yanks have just jumped on stories from decades ago. I ended up working for IWM and I remember hearing stories about how the m-16 was a pos when it first came out as well.
I spent most of my time with the A1 and yes it did have issues but ot gets more hate than it deserves. The most common cause of malfunctions i experienced was the flimsy feed lips on the cheap aluminium magazines we were issued instead of the steel ones it was designed to use they could be straightened out but that just left them weaker and more prone to dammage. The polimer replacements fixed that issue the round cocking handle's habbit of deflecting spent brass straight back into the ejection port was infrequent but bloody anoying. And the lack of a feed ramp causing the lower locking splines in the breech to shave slivers of brass from every casing which built up and gummed things up ( the reason we needed to forward assist. )
I like to remind people who bash the SUSAT that it was the first optic to be issued as standard to every infantryman it isn't great by modern standard hell it wasn't all that good at the time but it is a solid sight which will hold zero even after you beat an enemy over the head with it.
It maybe kind of shitty but gotta admit the gun still looks pretty vibey
Yeah mate especially the A3 with the new modifications and attachments you can add now such as the LLM new sights
Thank you for your service! Your country has a great and proud history (nobody is perfect), I wish more Brits had a better opinion of their country and were move vocal for one of the countries that has been a massive positive for the world.
Why was it approved for service. Surely field trails would have seen all the issues it had. I thinks backhanders with Enfield and scummy politicians had a lot to do with it.
Imagine having to tap the forward assist as standard operating procedure. Failure. Just use the M4 you silly geese
Us yank American gun owners have A LOT of trigger time (most of us since kids) and honestly probably have shot more than most countries soldiers as its a skill we do throughout our lives...having said that...I wish I could see myself the old SA80/L85's trigger myself as I have always heard it's pretty "bad", but like Garand mentions... you have to put it in context to the times... you can't compare the old trigger to a modern bullpup like the new Tavors or if your a lucky American gun owner can own a Springfield Armory Helion which obviously the designers have learned from the past predecessors like the SA80, either way, carry on Brits rocking those bullpups!
Too much trigger time makes you sloppy and complacent.
I've seen the RUclips videos of American fun,gun shooting and the drills & safety are dangerous and questionable.
The beauty of being in the UK with strict gun laws is the military train seriously,work hard on their drills and shooting for the limited time we do ranges.
Our attitudes are more...tools of the trade rather than new toys to play with and that's what makes our soldiers more professional than the Americans.
You only have to look at Blackwaters reputation in Iraq to see there's truth in what I'm saying as I'm still operating there armed years after Blackwater was kicked out for brassing up the locals 😂
of course you talk any smack about American shooters or equipment you are going to get about 1000 invites to come over here and show us how it's done, on the clock.
GT and Micah demonstrating why UK civilians are royally SCREWED if we're ever invaded?
Like.. "Hang on a minute Mr Enemy Soldier, let me go get my rusty spoons with the edges I sharpened and you'll really be in for it my boy, let me tell you!"
Hey at least now the UK and US both have badass rifles, the KS-1 from Knights and the Sig Spear both are neat.
LA85 IS LIKE british teeth.
If you don't know grand thumb is no scrub he is SF in USAF survival instructor .also as a former us army guy that weapon does rank as one of the worst I've ever played with .
I find it very hard to take a video seriously when the guy opens by repeatedly calling the weapon system a piece of shit. It's pretty clear he's decided what to think of it before he even picked it up.
I think part of the problem is they've decided they are going to hate it before the start . Yes, it was crap but its had two updates since then. Their comments are not relevant to the modern weapon in service today.
New sub, good show. Thanks for sharing! USN Vet
Ah mega! Thank you very much, appreciate the comment and support
The insas is by far the worst service rifle in history
In regards to the way they were doing the reloads, we get taught two types of reloads in the US: tactical, and speed. What you were talking about is what we refer to as a tactical reload. It's a reload you do when you probably still have a few rounds in the mag, but you've got time to get behind cover and change it before moving, or you're about to go into another room, and you want to make sure you've got a full mag beforehand. When doing a tac reload, we do retain our mags, though unlike what you describe we retrieve our full mag BEFORE dropping the partial and either do a side-by-side reload or a teacup (or L) reload in which we quickly swap out the partial mag for the full one with the same hand so that the time in which there is no magazine in the weapon is minimized. What they're doing in the reload drills is speed reloads, which we do to simulate a mag running dry while mid-engagement. In that case, the empty mag is dropped as the weak-side hand moves to grab a full mag and jam it into the magwell and drop the bolt as quickly as possible to stay in the fight. If there is a chance later to go back and pick up the empty that was dropped, we'll do that. But in the moment it is much more important that we get rounds back in the weapon. I can't speak to what was taught pre-GWOT, that is what we were learning in the 2000s, and is still what is taught today. I fought in Iraq during the surge, and I had mags run dry. Practicing speed reloads is good training. Shit comes in clutch.
This is a good explanation from a former Army SF guy on how we do it, and the thought process behind it.
ruclips.net/video/HoVHMG1r9iA/видео.html&ab_channel=SheepdogResponse
Useless information part 9987, HK was par of British Aerospace's Royal Ordnance at the the time of the upgrade program
That Micah is so annoying and I really don’t like their anti woke humour.
It is amazing to me that we have a L85A1 in circulation in the US. I wonder if it is transferrable or a pre (or post) 86 sample. Either way that is a VERY expensive gun (in the US, anyway).
They were never released onto the civilian market. I read somewhere that there are 4 in the US in total, 2 came direct from the UK for evaluation purposes and the other 2 were brought in from Bolivia privately.
I've watched a number of youtube vids now of British military members canting their rifles left and doing that sweep thing over the charging handle side. I was wondering what that was about. Good to know. As I posted on garand thumb's review, as an American I'd *totally* throw down the money for a semi-auto version if they were imported. Just a thought, HK. Just a thought.
Mega mate glad to hear you’ve taken something away from my review and comments. Thanks for the comment and yes it would be so good if he could do that
Maybe it doesnt have the bolt release on the other side on the A1? Might have been an A2 upgrade
3:55 I like you explaining how you do it, but this just makes me hate this rifle more than I already did (worked with the Brits in Afghanistan).
Thank you 👍a lot of people say that but it’s really not as bad as people say lol
@@CombatReadyHQ When we exchanged rifles with the Brits, the novelty of the rifle wore off pretty quick, we were eager to get our M4s back, and they didn't want to give them up.
The M4 is lighter, more ergonomic, smaller, faster, more modular....
In Afghanistan I had replaced the pistol grip, added a sling mount to the buffer tube, changed charging handle, changed safety lever, changed the mag release, changed the bolt catch, added a 3x zoom to the eotech, added a lightweight bipod (detachable), custom sling, and some guys also changed triggers and butt stocks, custom magazines, hand guards, etc. (all our own personal equipment we brought from home). Other guys were running either Trijcon ACOG or Aimpoints (Our unit had all three types of optics and let everyone choose what they wanted to run), We even had a handful of compact thermal sights a few guys mounted on their M4. I still run this setup today with slight tweaks whenever I find a better solution for something.
The sling I use to this day allows a degree of speed and flexibility that makes other guys jealous. It works great in vehicles, urban ops, just standing in line, etc. And allows for 100% ambidextrous operation of the rifle, able to switch hands back and forth in less than a second. Works with or without body armor.
I doubt I could get the L85 to work so cleanly as my M4/AR does.
If You can't improve what I already have/do, then it's inferior. If you can do better than what I have and can do, then I think we'd all already know about such a solution by now.
What you have to understand is that Americans are VERY competitive. We are always looking for a better way to do things,better equipment, better tactics, etc. My unit modified our equipment endlessly, changed our unit tactics daily. We were constantly evolving. We wanted to win, and not just survive. And we did just that. My unit curb stomped both the Taliban and Al Qaeda insurgents we faced. We did so good it actually made it harder, because the enemy stopped fighting my unit. Units that came in later to replace mine always got hit HARD within their first 2wks in country because the enemy saw them as easy pickings compared to us. They hadn't evolved nor adapted, they weren't ready to face them like we were.
If you give us "good enough" equipment, we'll find ways to make it better, and then some veteran will go home and start a business selling those modifications to others. And if a technique or modification is good enough and people adopt it widespread enough, the US military will adopt it as well.This is how the modern AR15 and gunfighting came to be. OIF and OEF vets came up with that stuff. Guys took what they learned in combat, and developed better solutions while back at home in the US.
@@SoloRenegade The thing is, anyone would prefer their own service rifle over one they aren't familiar with. Even before the L85A2 entered service, British soldiers preferred their A1's over the service rifles of other armies they trained with. The L85 might not have many options for customization in the receiver itself, but other than that it's fair game. The optics, magazines, bipod or handguard can all be changed if you want to. And at the end of the day, the L85 does offer some pretty big advantages. The full length barrel increases it's effective range without requiring a full length rifle. It is heavier than an AR15, but the weight is balanced over the grip. The L85A2 also surprisingly smashed other service rifles during extreme reliability tests, with almost twice as many rounds before jamming in dust testing than an M4.
@@joost1120 "The thing is, anyone would prefer their own service rifle over one they aren't familiar with. "
well aware, but I've addressed this in my multiple decades of analysis. I know how to be be objective and stick to the facts.
if I were wrong, more nations would be ditching teh AR platform for rifles like the L85, but they are not, and UK is in fact looking to switch to an M4 variant.
"The full length barrel increases it's effective range without requiring a full length rifle."
this is not that big of an advantage as you think. M4 rifles are as small and lighter.
" It is heavier than an AR15, but the weight is balanced over the grip. "
but that's not where a rifle should be balanced. this type of balance leads to needless fatigue.
"The L85A2 also surprisingly smashed other service rifles during extreme reliability tests, with almost twice as many rounds before jamming in dust testing than an M4."
I'd like to see that. I've never once had a single jam in any M16A2, M16A4, M4A1, or AR15 I've ever fired. Not in training, not in combat. The only failures I ever had were either bad ammunition, or bad magazines. Been shooting these rifles for 20yrs now. And in numerous mud tests the AR15 platform tends to reign supreme. I've gone weeks, even months, without cleaning my rifle too, and it still never jammed. I've fired it with moon dust and even sand in the receiver.
Bullpups are unbalanced, more awkward to handle, have less inherent accuracy for low skill shooters (relating to both grip and other factors), shorter sight radius, less space for certain accessories, hand protection issues, and more.
I used to be a fan/advocate for bullpups years ago. No more. I've since changed my stance.
@@joost1120I just wonder ho performed those reliability tests? Was it by chance the British!
So I guess it would be fair to say the L85 is the British M16
Is it still the case that left-handed shooters just have to... learn to shoot right-handed... with the L85/L86?
It's just puzzling that a modern and professional western military decided to adopt a rifle where left-handed shooters either have to risk having their face rearranged or having hot gases/brass thrown into them instead of just... allowing the user to switch the ejection port.
The irony here being that with the EM-2, at least you could technically get away with shooting it as a left-handed person due to the forward charging handle. Well, from the XL 60 prototype onwards that wasn't a possibility because they had that reciprocating bolt right there in the rear.
If u have the LDS with Reddot sight fitted you can fire left handed for close quarters battle. Standing/kneeling posn not prone. 👍
Remember that for most young men and women joining the UK armed forces the first firearm they ever fire will be their service weapon, It may well be the first firearm they've ever seen. So you don't really have the issue of having to teach left handed shooters to shoot right handed so much because none of your shooters know any different than the right handed position they are taught when you first put the rifle in their hands. If its the only shooting position you've ever know I'd assume its a hell of a lot easier to just get used to it.
the croatian VHS-2 is like the perfect bullpup, it literally can do it all, has an extremely stable mount for zeroing optics
Ok so, as brits don't tend to shoot habitually, it's actually easier to shoot right handed if taught from day one.
@@gozewstuffnthings5837
It is never easy for a *_left-handed shooter_* to just "learn" to shoot right handed.
There is a reason all other nations and that have bullpups have rifles that can get around the left-handed shooter issue.
If memory served the gun was referred to as the civil servant because it was shit and fired
No, because it didn’t work and you couldn’t fire it
@@digitaal_boog that's it I couldn't remember how they said it.
Its a cool looking gun from the grip forward.
Yes it is
"AT LEAST OWAH SKOOLS ARENT A SHOOTIN GALLERY!!" 🤣
Always needing to hit the forward assist every time is bad
the UK really dropped the ball when they got rid of their FALs...L85 would have failed in the Falks..
Do you think? The SA80 did hold up in Afghanistan and Iraq I know it was the A2 but it did well
The L1A1's were all shot out and obsolete.
3:53 we call them jams or a jam, that specifically we call a "stove pipe"
I feel criticism of the SUSAT is a little harsh. It was kept in service for too long but it was first fielded nearly 40 years ago- for its time it was an exceptional optic and ahead of its time; one of the first in the world issued as standard to frontline soldiers and ridiculously tough.
Good optic to be sure, but the m16 (ar10&15) predated the rifle by almost 15 years from prototype to prototype. The AK by another 20.
Not bad but 40 years isn't really old enough to excuse the issues. But then again those issues are kind of inherent to bullpups in general.
@@tsoliot5913 I think 40 years old is a reasonable excuse for the SUSAT- it was a great sight for it's time and optics have come a long way since then. The issues with the L85 were mostly do do with production. Having used both, the A2 was/is a very reliable weapon and the fundamental design is pretty much identical to the A1.
The Steyr AUG with its integrated 1.5x optic beat the SA80 by nearly a decade.
I’m kinda glad I left the British forces whilst the old L1A1 was still the standard rifle, I got to handle an SA-80 on the range at Bisley back in 1983, but what we were using was one of the pre-production rifles and it didn’t seem to show any of the issues the later production rifle had.
The EM2 from what I hear was even better.
@@samuel10125 The EM2 was adopted as the standard British rifle for about 2 months, as the Rifle No9 Mk.1, but political interference reversed the decision.
I know nothing about guns, so take this with a grain of salt, but apparently the issues with the SA80 A1 were in the quality control. This happened mainly once they had to mass produce the rifle and some guys would receive one with very few issues whereas other guys would get one that would basically jam and fall apart after a few rounds. As I say, I don't know myself but that's what I heard from Jonathan Ferguson from the Royal Armouries and he's written an entire book on the SA80 so I think it's probably true and it would match your personal experience also
@@matthewwalker5430 The quality control issues may have had a lot to do with the Royal Small Arms Factory Enfield, or as it became known Royal Ordnance, being bought by British Aerospace, when it was government owned it wasn’t required to turn a profit supplying rifles to the British forces but BAe, being a company with shareholders, did require a return on their investment, as a result a lot of smaller components normally manufactured “in house” by Enfield or by trusted suppliers were sub contracted out, normally to the lowest bidder, to companies with shall we say less stringent quality control.
@@samuel10125
It likely was better. No badly done polymer furniture of dubious quality on the EM-2. Plus, the EM-2 had a forward charging handle which meant that someone that was left-handed could shoot the rifle... whereas if you do that in a normal stance with an L85 with its handle attached directly to the bolt (and is reciprocating... good job there, guys) you're going to get your face rearranged very painfully.
Great content..... The weapon system was ok. I joined in 88 as a junior soldier and we were the first lads to use them with in the Teeth Arms.(As far as I know).... it did have issues first time around but so did the Ar15/M16.....
If he was taught to use it correctly he would have a different view..... There was so much wrong with his shooting it was unreal.... The main point he was using the EMB (Emergency Battle Sight) and not the SUSAT.
The M16 rifle never had any issues whatsoever, the US gov changed the ammunition specs without consultation.
@@snowflakemelter1172mate it was made by the lowest bidder, with several poor QC issues down to use of cheap materials too
@@jamesbothoms6009 there were no bidders on the SA80 contract , it was developed by the state owned Royal Ordnance over a long period and the contract was given without competition partly in order to boost its transfer to the private sector.
@@snowflakemelter1172 I was talking about the M16, if I was describing U.K. military purchasing I’d have said the only bidder. Because even if someone else wins a contract BAE fucking Systems will buy them shortly afterwards
With live fire I didn't have that many problems the A1. Blanks was a different matter... Just mag related. The A2 was much better.
With the mags I stuffed them down my smock.
R - Rounds / repetition
A- 'Ave some
How do y'all understand each other over there?
Not a huge fan of bull pups but having a 4x optic on every single rifle was pretty awesome for when it came out. The AUG also had an optical mount but it was only a 1.5x magnification. The US didn't make the M4 with the ACOG, the standard rifle until 1994. It didn't see action till 1999.
I transitioned from the SLR to the SA80. The first thing we noticed was the increase in accuracy when troops switched, The target acquisition between shots was massively quicker. Watching falling plate competitions between SA80 armed and SLR armed teams the difference was night and day. We could carry a lot more ammunition with the reduced size of the rounds. The sling system meant you simply never detached from your weapon. That said the early SA80 had some chronic teething problems. We had gas plugs melting. Stoppages when firing on auto when two rounds were jammed into the chamber. Had this a few times and the quickest way to fix it was to hook the rounds out with the can opener on my clasp knife. Which I always had in the top left hand pocket of my smock attached via a lanyard. Mags would fall off as the release catch was exposed, one of the first mods. The cheek pad melted when exposed to mossie repellent. The dust cover would fall off. To name but a few. But that was the A1. As for the forward assist. Nothing new, the M16 had a button for it, we just gave the cocking handle a tap.
That’s interesting to hear the difference between SLR and SA80. 👍
I was a serving RAF Leading Aircraftsmen, when we switched from the L1A1 to the L85.
Yes!! they were somewhat problematic. But they still did the job. You work with what you're given. Simple as. Ours is Not to reason why.... etc etc
P.S. In his defence... He's not been drilled into it's use. So he will be unfamiliar with the correct technique that we were all trained in.
Did you actually have combat
fooking helll, thats only 10 yds away, we shooting 100yds in cadets, with the slr, when i was 14! cwrt gothlen
If you’ve ever had to yell “SAFETY CATCH! CHANGE LEAVER!” SMASH the like button
You got a license for that camera?
What I find funny is that while everyone who hasn't served with this rifle calls it horrible, and even the ones who served with it disliked it for its flaws, EVERYONE seems to forget that when this rifle went into service it was so accurate a shooter and the scope was good enough that the MARKSMANSHIP STANDARDS in the British military had to be reevaluated and RAISED at ALL LEVELS, cause the rifle/Scope was accurate enough that everyone was scoring beyond average or normal or even beyond MARKSMANSHIP standards
This rifle is good looking, but one thing i never understand, why did the brits never did a left handed version, like our FAMAS?
Bullpup are the best king of platform fir me, but the fact that the case hit you in the face every time you shoot is not very Nice. And i wonder, how did left handed shooter use the L85. Like right handed even thow it's their weak eye who are on the Sight?
If you got to train and use this rifle, then your manual of arms is second to none!....the L86 or LSW is a drilling machine!...Being a "necky git" had to hump this unbalanced brick for 3 years!....Forget squad fire support, it's actually a squad sharp-shooter at 600m!
Major issue 76- issued 87 ..thats 30 years after the ar15 so he's right the should known better lol . but ofcourse HK upgraded it ...cough*416
Imagine a videogame where you could play as Michah, and every time you get a sub oar gun, you get a stat bonus while everyone else gets a penalty, but then with nice guns, everyone else gets a bonus while he just does okay; Captain So-so.
Flannel Daddy....mmmmm.
He's left handed...
I can see why we are getting the KAC KS1
Rediculously expensive for what it is. 1 KAC would buy 5 L119's
I've fired a bullpup and it seemed a bit awkward in a prone position both for firing and reloading. Is there some major advantage in that form factor over standard that I'm missing?
It's a compromise you get a shorter overall weapon which is easier to maneuver in tight spaces without sacrificing muzzle velocity but with slightly awkward ergonomics which can be mitigated with training and experience. The idea is if you are fighting targets at range and you are prone or behind cover the slightly longer reload time is less critical however when clearing buildings or trenches the ability to bring your shorter weapon to bear quicker than an enemy is a life saver. The US went with the option of short barrel rifles for the same purpose but that obviously reduced muzzle velocity and makes the weapon useless at longer range requiring two separate weapon's to be issued as required depending on the mission. Subsequent battle experience has shown side ejecting bullpups like the L85 are less than optimal when clearing right hand corners (who knew ejecting spent cases directly into a soldiers face was a bad idea?) Newer designs can either be changed to eject to either side or eject down and forwards.
most countries eschew using it so must not be overall measurably better all 'round@@ianjardine7324
@@ianjardine7324And of course the US can easily afford to issue multiple service rifles, so it was no problem for them. The UK, on the other hand, has to be more frugal with their military spending.
I don't have a huge amount of shooting experience, but I've got some with both bullpups and ARs, and I don't find the former to be any more awkward when firing from prone. Reloading? Eh. Maybe a little, but I find it's balanced out by the weight distribution, which I find very comfortable. I like both layouts.
Yeah....they want to replace all rifles and sub guns in service with 1 single weapon to make things easier and cheaper. Also a shorter weapon is an advantge in CQB.
It is not a gun, it is a rifle.
The biggest problem we had with this weapon in the early days was build quality. Very few issues with reliability, clean it, oil it, it works. I have used it on Ops and exercises all over the world and had very few problems.
Am I right in thinking the rifle was designed by engineers that were NOT shooters. Hence when it went HK, people who knew firearms fixed it.
L85a1
I appreciate you not getting butt hurt about all the British jokes lol I feel like it’s our civic duty as Americans to give the British shit but we love you guys you are one of our closest allies throughout history post revolutionary war
i had the A 1 it was dog shit
lsw was my baby
All you do is get a 12.5 AR upper problem solved. Both will be the same length without the bullshit awkward design.
The army loves bullshit though
The reduction in effective range would be kind of a problem in military use...
It's not fucking awkward, it just involves more brainpower than a yank can put into it.