PC: UK adopts the SAR-87

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by SealTheRealDeal, Oct 9, 2019.

  1. SealTheRealDeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2017
    If the SA80's development is delayed by two years or the SAR-87 is developed two years ahead of OTL could the UK adopt it instead of the SA80 or was the MoD dead-set on getting a bullpup rifle?

    Additionally, in that case would it be likely that its 9mm variant is also adopted?
     
  2. Cryhavoc101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2014
    Location:
    1123 6536 5321
    My weapon of choice in the mid 80s is to jump in with the Canadians and licence build the C7 and C7A1

    Maybe the Aussies and Kiwi's could jump in as well instead of the F88

    The timing is about right
     
    Blue cat likes this.
  3. fastmongrel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Location:
    Lancashire UK
    The AR18 so deadly it killed 3 armaments companies in a row.
     
  4. StevoJH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Location:
    Newcastle, NSW
    Why the hate for Bullpups?
     
    yulzari likes this.
  5. Not James Stockdale Those Protestants... Up to no good, as usual

    Joined:
    May 3, 2016
    There's never been a good bullpup trigger, and you can't peek half of all the corners you encounter without getting brass blasted into your face. The barrel length issue isn't as important with modern ammunition and bullpups are generally heavier than conventional rifles with the same barrel because they require a huge shroud to protect the fire control linkages.
     
  6. SealTheRealDeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2017
    A lot of rifles have brass deflectors, but then there's still the hot gases.
     
    Crowbar Six likes this.
  7. Coiler Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2009
    They have a lot of tradeoffs (which @Not James Stockdale mentioned) in exchange for just being shorter (done more to make them easier to fit into vehicles than anything else).
     
    stephen the barbarian likes this.
  8. Cryhavoc101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2014
    Location:
    1123 6536 5321
    Oh people will go on about muscle memory and squishy triggers or even the evils of ‘length of pull’ etc I never remembered the trigger being bad (it always went bang when I pulled it and I never had an issue hitting paper fairly accurately) and it’s the only gun I fired a lot. So it was not a problem as such for me. I guess if you are used to a more conventional layout or AR15 controls for example then muscle memory would make it seem awkward. Today with much improved ammo making shorter barrelled weapons like the M4 more lethal etc then Bullpups make less sense as there is no longer a massive need to have 20” barrels. But that was not the case in 1985.
     
    Blue cat likes this.
  9. steamboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2015
    I don't think it would be that much of a change, save not costing UK tax payers a LOT of money and giving the MOD a LOT of bad press considering all the work that was needed to be done to fix the SA-80.
     
  10. fastmongrel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Location:
    Lancashire UK
    A lot of criticism of bullpups is about the ergonomics and balance but nowadays all sorts of tacticool accessories are bolted onto rifles so I imagine that's a moot point
     
    Some Bloke and Thoresby like this.
  11. b0ned0me Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2011
    This has always baffled me as a point of criticism. As I understand it military rifles are typically issued with triggers set up so that the enlisted can’t easily break them and wont inadvertently fumblefinger a round off at a bad time. So heavy gritty triggers are the order of the day, regardless of whether the platform could theoretically support a world class target trigger pack.
    Then militaries also fit things like the 3-round burst ratchet on the M16A2 which apparently did terrible things to the trigger, so they seem to have very little interest in how much the PBI enjoy shooting their rifles.
     
  12. fastmongrel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Location:
    Lancashire UK
    Armies want rifles that go bang, comfortable smooth triggers are probably at the bottom of the memo
     
    Derwit and yulzari like this.
  13. jsb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2013
    Why licence build?

    Would not just agreeing to some swap buying rifles for something that GB makes of equal value (that's a plenty long list) not be better after all why have three separate commonwealth rifle production lines for the small numbers needed in the 80s?

    Total of 600,000 SA80 and maybe 200,000 each CAN and AUS/NZ?
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2019 at 11:17 AM
    Blue cat likes this.
  14. Cryhavoc101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2014
    Location:
    1123 6536 5321
    The Crooks at HMG were trying to sell the Small Arms Factory Enfield business (I think it was called - It was later in Nottingham) and a factory that is not making guns is not going to sell for much

    So yes while what you propose is a sensible idea the politics of the day probably would not make it a workable one

    But that aside what would the Canadians want the most?
     
    Derwit likes this.
  15. jsb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2013
    Since Enfield was closed anyway its just a case of not setting up the new site at ROF Nottingham?

    As to what to trade what did AUS/CAN buy in late 80s defence wise GB produced just about everything so what do they want?

    I just think it would be far more efficient that three different production lines.
     
    Derwit likes this.
  16. Blue cat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2010
    I seem to recall the Canadians / Diemaco (subsequently Colt Canada) acquired a licence from colt to build the C7/C8 etc and sell it to NATO nations ? (I'm not sure how Australia / New Zealand might have fit into that arrangement ? But presumably that could have been worked out if needed ? This is all based on memory and there may be some details I am unaware of.)

    Presumably production in other commonwealth nations would have required suitable agreements with Colt ?

    I'm inclined to agree that producing rifles in Canada would likely have been the simplest approach from a commercial perspective. That being said I suspect the UK and Australia would have wanted their own domestic production lines.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2019 at 2:28 PM
    jsb likes this.
  17. Blue cat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2010
    I suppose the UK could have swapped the upholder subs for rifles :)
     
    jsb likes this.
  18. Cryhavoc101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2014
    Location:
    1123 6536 5321
    I thought that as well - the British produced I think it was 320,000 L85A1s and 30,000 L86A1s

    Not sure of the cost per unit but Upholder total cost is about $600,000,000 US dollars in 1992 exchange rate - so I am not sure how many C7A1 rifles that would buy?

    Individual cost of a L85A2 in 2017 is listed as £1000 (interestingly with all the extra equipment, Elcan sight and magazines etc its as high as £4000 per rifle!) - the actual cost per rifle as built back in the late 80s early 90s is withheld!

    So lets say in 1985 - the Sub (still building at this point) is costed at $600 million USD and 320,000 C7A1 are (lets say $1000 USD each - so $320 Million)

    Perhaps add in 30,000 C9s - say $2000 each (total guess) - so another 60 million

    So we are in the correct ball park!
     
    jsb and Blue cat like this.
  19. MickCz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2013
    The UK government killed Sterling Armaments, not the AR18.....in effect a political assassination concerning the UK's Middle East policies.
     
  20. Peg Leg Pom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    The UK government killed a lot of British companies one way and another.