And all because it has a three round burst capability...

http://www.heckler-koch.de/html/english/behoerden/03_rifles/03_05_index.html

Mr. Free Market--As far as I know the 7.62 Nato round and the .308 Win. are fully interchangeable. Bolt actions are most common around here, though semi-autos are not uncommon. 7.62 military ammo is available to sport shooters in the US at reduced prices, and I am not aware of any problems with it in commercial firearms, regardless of action. The military ammo fires a 150 grain bullet, and that is also what recreational folks at the range and in the field mostly use.

I don't recall ever seeing anyone trying to shoot commercial .308 in military weapons, like theM-14 or M-60. The Geneva Conventions would forbid using it in war, but I can't think of mechanical reasons why it wouldn't work, unless it had something to do with a slightly different amount of pressure being developed, messing up extraction, ejection, and feeding. A switch in powders might cause that in a semi-auto. I can't see how it could affect other actions....

What problems have you encountered?

That .280 that you mention in the “bullpup” layout EM2 assault rifle really interested me. Was that a true .280 or a 7mm?

I have a Win. model 70 in .280 Rem. that I love. Of course, that round is really a .284 (7mm). The .280 Rem. surged in popularity in the US in the late 1980s but the surge seems to have abated. New short magnums are all the rage.

The .280 Rem and .308 Win. are my favorite rifle calibers. With a .308 Rem. 700 (Leupold Vari- III 4x14),two other guys and I shot 8 deer in 2 hours one night on the runways of Dulles International Airport! Legally! If you are landing and think, "That looked like a muzzle flash..." maybe it was, hehehehe...

The horrid details of .308 vs. 7.62, in depressing full colour.

http://www3.sympatico.ca/shooters/7_62vs308.htm

Basically NEW cartridges are usually interchangeable, but some idjit at NATO or SAAMI specified the chambers differently.

Sigh.

Thankfully, even though the "Assault Weapons Ban" of 1994 would seem to preclude it, the FAL is still available here in the states in "post-ban" form. Assuming that the ban sunsets or at least is not modified, my next "black rifle" WILL be a metric FAL made by DSA.

http://www.dsarms.com/subcats.cfm?Category=01&storeid=1

I've handled and shot a couple and I believe that it is the finest battle rifle that was ever made.

You are clearly a discerning gentleman, sir

Ahhhhh, so it is just reloaded ammo that causes trouble.

With excellent milsurp going for 15 cents per round, why bother with reloads?

Here is one site selling Aussie 7.62/308 milsurp, 800 rounds for $125. They say free shipping east of the Mississippi, but they don't say how far east, hehehehe. Just scroll down to page bottom.

http://www.dansammo.com/ammo.asp

Regarding reloads:

Neck-sizing cases for either autoloaders or lever-action rifles is an invitation to a jam. Neck-sizing works great for bolt-actions and single-shots, but autoloaders especially need the case to be back at factory spec.

Why reload? Because those 15¢ rounds use cheap components, and as someone famous once said, "Only accurate rifles are interesting." Milsurp ammo is not conducive to accuracy. Handloads are. (Not that some fine shooting hasn't been done, but there's a reason that militaries have "match" ammo made vs. the standard stuff.)

The real problem with 7.62 vs. .308 is that commercial .308 loaded to SAAMI specifications MIGHT be hot enough to rupture a case in a maximum-tolerance 7.62 chamber, and there's no real agreement about what the rated pressure of the 7.62 is vs. the .308's 62,000cup.

When handloading for the 7.62 I would stick exclusively to military surplus (thicker) brass, full-length resize, and not load to listed maximum. Re-use the case not more than three times, and discard (milsurp brass is cheap too.) Because the chamber dimensions are larger than .308, the case will be worked more and will be prone to case head separation much earlier, especially if thinner commercial brass is used.

But you can load up some really high-performance bullets, and shoot nice little groups a long way out there, so long as the rifle is up to the task.

But you know they FIXED things when it came time for the 5.56 / .223 Remington, right? Sure they did. This time around the 5.56 is the higher pressure round and the chambers for 5.56 have a longer throat than the .223 does. That means that when firing a 5.56 NATO round in a .223 Rem chamber the bullet hits the rifling sooner and pressure goes WAY up.

Finding a third way to mess this up will be a real test of ingenuity. Meanwhile, I can only conclude that the armies of the world are trying to kill us all.

Kevin--I have never understood what Townsend Whelen could possibly have been thinking when he said that. Rifles lose interest once they become accurate. The interesting thing is figuring out why an inaccurate rifle ain't accurate, and then making it accurate, and then moving on to the next rifle.

It just doesn't make sense to me to fret too much about making any of these milsurp semi-auto rifles accurate. If accuracy is the summum bonum, a bolt action is what ya want.

But milsurp rifles can be fun, and, for fun, 15 cent a round is the way to go, by my lights, because you can shoot the Hell out of the universe.

Oh, well, one man's poison is another man's belladonna cocktail!

Fred--The pressure may go up, but when was the last time you heard about a .223 going kerplooey from a 5.56 round? I've seen guys shoot thousands of rounds without incident.

For that matter, seating the bullet shallow (say .01 off the lands) will make pressures go up too, but, if you want to milk real accuracy out of a load, you seat 'em shallow. .

I truely hold the FAL in high praise. I've never shot one myself. But it is legendary for it's reliability as well as accuracy. And I'll avoid the 5.56 v 7.62 debate as well (especially when in use with full auto).

The disparaging comments about the GPMG do however seem to rub me a bit. Now I am a veteran of the use of the M60, but I have used the M240C and G withing the US military (the C model as a coaxal MG on the Bradley and M1 and the G Model is our infantry model). And I do have to say that I'm impressed with the weapon, heavy as it might be. It has a higher rate of fire than the M60, fewer parts to clean, and an interchangeable barrel that is easier to use. The US version has the advantage that it has a heat sheild/handguard so that our troops can carry it without worrying that they're burning their fingers. But overall I am impressed with the capabilities of the M240/ GPMG and am intreaged with your disdain for it.

I also have high praise for the Browning HP 9mm which I own a WWII model of. Still accurate even with old iron sights.

shame they commissioned the sa80; used the slr, what a weapon. the sling on the sa80 requires an a level degree, and just dosn't have the pleasure of the slr. loved it.

i cant see y the british army opted for the 5.56 SA80 when they had this perfectly good speciman of a weapon. the SLR is absolutely fantastic. wheras the SA80 is a pile of poo.

I think you would find the SA80 was forced on the British Army by our (British)own Gov.to save jobs

All i can add to this little forum is that i have
used most assault weapons and i have found that the SLR, although heavier than most assault rifles, is worth it's weight in gold when the
'shit hits the fan' so to speak!

In respect of the L1A1 SLR 7.62mm aka 'The Big Bang Stick,' I whole hearedly agree with the post by Mr Free Market. The mere mention of the SLR makes the hairs stand up on the back of my neck. What a superb piece of kit! In joined the TA infantry reserves in 1989 at 18yrs, I am 35yrs now and still 'in.' I was fortunate enough to use the SLR from 89-93. I can still remember the sense of awe it inspired in me when I first handled it. I was already familiar with firearms and had been shooting rifle & pistol since I was 15 yrs.
I have nothing but affection for ol' nasty. It was very robust, easy to maintain/clean, worked in all environments, it could be fired from both shoulders-unlike that nasty plastic thing that replaced it!
I remember in 92, I was away on a FIBUA EX at Copehill Down. We had a presentation on SA80 from the lads who assess weapon systems for the army. The SGT who took us through the SA80 spoke candidly when asked what he thought of the SA80.

He stated:-"Officially, it's the best thing since sliced bread. In my opinion, it's a piece of shit. Give me an SLR everytime....."

Bottom line-it is a soldiers weapon through and through. People rave about AK47's. Granted, it is a good piece of kit. I did an exchange with the Slovakian army in 03, they had latest incarnation. Umm, can't say I was overly impressed. I still think the SLR is THE DADDY of all semi-auto rifles.

In terms of stopping power, I was on SENTA CQB ranges in 1991, I saw what happens when 7.62mm x 51 hits a sheep! The round penetrated the left shoulder, span through the torso, and blew the back end off the poor sheep. Massive hole-good night Vienna! The DS made sure everyone had a good look at it in order to ram home exactly how deadly the 7.62mm round was. The SLR is a shoulder launched artillery piece!

I did an exchange with the US army in 98 at Minnesota. Used the M16 5.56mm-good piece of kit, questionable stopping power though.

I have a friend who is ex SAS, he has been working in Iraq for the last two and a half years on VIP protection work. His team got hold of an SLR. They call it 'THE DOG.' They have used it on numerous occasions to take out the engine blocks of cars that have got to close to their convoy. He rates it very highly.

Just a crying shame we have such draconian firearms legislation in the UK. I miss that distinctive crack & thump and the reassuring kick in the shoulder!

Cheers,

Pete

totally agree, i am an ex royal anglian soldier and I loved the SLR because it got me out of the shit on several occassions. a true classic.

Was trained on SLR but had to 'convert' to the SA80 :( SLR as mentioned was heavy but it would never let you down even if it wasn't looked after properly. I did like the SA80 as it suited my role better but never used it when my life depended on it. I will say that it felt very cheap and flimsy. Also the SA80 was not very good for ceremonial duties.

RAF 1980 TO 1989.MARKSMAN 300 METRE RANGE 8 YEARS OUT OF NINE.WITH SLR 7.62.TRULY THE BEST WEAPON I HAVE EVER USED.

Well despite only getting a really nice SLR after leaving the Army I carried it in Preference to the GPMG in crossmaglen.I was miffed that they withdrew the LMG and replaced it with the L86. What a waste of space that was!
I had plenty of choice over what to carry and I think that a nice SLR was about right. Even the Rural peelers would get them.

I used the Canadian version of this (FN C1 A1)when I was 'in' over there. Absolutely beautiful piece of kit.We also used the C2 which had a heavy barrel, 30 round mag and full auto select fire as our squad LMG. Not quite up to the Bren it replaced, but damned close.

There seems to have been "golden age" of battle rifles for a couple of decades after WWII. We can agrue all day about the relative qualities of the M-14, H&K G3, and FN L1A1. They are all better than what we have now.

I have used military and civilian versions of the M-14 often. Discerning U.S. soldiers and Marines mourn its passing and have the M-16 the way you hate the SA-80. Quite a few M-14's have made there way out of the old arms lockers and into the hands of our folks in Iraq and Afganistan. It is an infinetely better rifle for desert and mountan warfare.

I own a HK91 (civilian G3). Never had a problem feeding any type of .308 ammo through the M-14's or the HK.

Someday when I have several thousand dollars laying about, I too will but myself a nice DSarms FN.

Bram - I take your point, but we all have a pretty good handle on the sort of wars we are fighting now as well as the capabilities of respective weapons. Therefore, I thought that I would be interesting to see which, of the 3 most recently issued British Army rifles, people prefer - sighting systems aside.

I suspect that the results thus far (FN FAL / SLR well in the lead) could well be a function of the fact that a lot of my readers are a bunch of retired Cold War Warriors (well I am). I notice however that a few have gone for the SMLE, but I can guess who voted for that!

Not many have opted for the SA80A2 - which in all fairness isn't such a bad weapon with by far & away the best sights. It could be the cartiridge or as I said above, it could be that we are a bunch of old farts - however, if I had to go to war next week, give me the SLR everytime

The American M-14 vs. M-16 debate has similar results. The old-timers and people who shoot on their own, prefer a .308 rifle. The youngsters who don't know better prefer the lighter and easier to use M-16 family. The U.S. Marine Corps as a service, has a higher regard for the M-14 and long-range accuracy in general.

"it truly has earned its title as the 'Rifle of the Free World'."

So naturally it is illegal to own in the Great State and Criminal Enterprise of New Joisey.

& also illegal in Blighty (aka "mother of the free" ... as the song goes)

For those who are interested, Anthony Williams discusses the .256 British ( and other similar cartridges) here:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/256brit.htm

Cheers

Having used the SLR initially then converted to the SA80 in 1987 when it still had all its teething problems, I would go for the SA80 partly for the SUSAT and more importantly for the amount of extra ammo that can be carried and the greater capacity of the magazine. Frankly, whether you're hit with a 7.62 or 5.56 round you're not getting back up so I don't consider "stopping power" to be a major issue unless you're trying to knock over a brick wall. The SLR was so much better for battering down a door or wrapping the butt around somebody's head but that isn't its primary role, is it? The issue of the amount of ammo to be carried is the single most important thing to me when discussing these two weapons. As a former paratrooper I'm concious that resupply is not always just around the corner - witness Helmand 2006 (and notwithstanding what our government says, probably 2007).

Mr. FM,

I'm curious about your offhand comment describing the GPMG (MAG 58) as a "pig".

That was the epithet we in the colonies reserved for our esteemed M60 GPMG. Our version of the FN-MAG 58 was the M240 which we had mounted as a coaxial in the tanks. The reason we had that gun in the coax and the M60D on the pintle mount by the loader's hatch was political -- the M60 was "Made in the USA", so we had to have one somewhere. However, the M60 was (thankfully) unsuited to mounting as a coax gun, so we had the only MAG-58s in the US Army (at the time) mounted in our tanks.

As an aside, this gave us fully 8 weapon systems we had to train with on our old M1s:

1911A1 .45cal pistol (one per crewman)
M3A1 .45cal Submachine gun (2 in tank)
M16A1 5.56mm Assault Rifle (2 in tank)
M203 40mm Grenade launcher (1 mounted on M16A1)
M60D 7.62mm GPMG with Spade Grips (loader's hatch)
M240 7.62mm GPMG (coax mounted)
M2HB .50cal HMG (TCs cupola)
M68 105mm Rifle (main gun)

The endearing quality of the M240s was that they almost never jammed, which is a good thing if you have ever tried to clear a jam from a coax gun mounted next to the main, way in the front of the turret while you're bouncing along some forest trail.

The M60Ds jammed all the time, but we rarely used them, so I guess it was OK.

Cheers!

The fact that you're still issued M3 Grease guns and 1911 pistols speaks volumes.....

The SLR's problem (apart from crap sights) was it being to long and unwieldy for troops operating out of armored vehicles (like the 432 command track I worked in back then); ammo supply could have been improved by just issuing the NATO Bren mag which my SLR took quite happily. And of course, sometimes you *need* to knock over (or a least punch through) a brick wall, which the SLR was very good at.....

Reliable, easy to maintain and whatever you hit stayed hit, top marks all round. Should have been rechambered and shortened slightly, which would have saved British jobs as well as money.

RAF marksman also, 76-80. : SLR was / is my favourite.
Cracking gun and as a previous poster said, a good way to stop motors.
Re- the sheep getting totalled, the effect on the (human) sternum at 100 yards is an eye opener.

Wish I had one here, alas the Plods would object.
(I'm in the Far East).

I am fortunate enough to have been trained on the SLR when I joined the New Zealand Army in 1980. We swopped them for M16's soon thereafter, then traded these in for the AUG Styer. 3 rifles in a 7 year period!!!
The SLR remains the prefered weapon for most of us who first trained wih them. But.....remember the weight...and the length getting in and out of APC's or choppers? What about the recoil and the fewer rounds of ammo that you could squeeze into your webbing? Pity they can't combine the hitting power of the SLR with the weight of the M16 and the sight of the Styer...

i was in the Australian army between 80 84 and used the SLR and never used a better weapon as a general service rifle,,,while in the 2/4 th Bn RAR.and met a LOT of veterans of vietnam and had most of our sgt-wo's as vets and talking to them I was amazed at the affection the the bloody bang stick(SLR)was held by these men.one of these blokes fought at long tan,he made the point that the hitting power of the SLR made BLOODY sure that if you hit it,,,,,,IT STAYED DOWN...and i would have to agree we used the m-16,,,,SLR,,,,and have seen the SLR with a 203-40mm grenade-launcher added,,,,AUS SAS(crazy bastards)ha ha ha i also got to use the F-88 which i must say was even worse than the m-16 which i didnt much,,,,we tested the H-K G-3 ,,,some ak-47s as well as the AKMs and i have to say you must admit that the old SLR will always be rated if not the best then in the top 2 rifles ever...!!!!!

Like others here I was RAF marksman on SLR but used old 303 in the field. The SLR was an awesome bit of kit but wooden ones caught fire and plastic ones melted and it could also inflict damage to users on ceremonial duties with its sharp edges and heavy weight. The 303 was a lot easier to handle, especially for consistency, as it didn't rock on its magazine and it was shorter. I succinctly remember my first encounter with the SLR on the range at RAF Swinderby - firing prone the recoil pushed me off the mat and after just 50 rounds I had a shoulder full of burst blood vessels and episode of tinnitus! Goodness knows how I managed to qualify as a marksman, but I still remember the SLR with affection.

I was a Royal Marine and used the SLR during the Falklands. I later become an SA80 instructor, I have used many weapons including the M16, AKM, SKS and H&K. There are weapons I would use in training exercise but when your life depends on it you need a weapon that does what it says on the box. The SLR does exactly what it says on the box, "if you can see them you can kill them" in all weathers, climates and conditions. Its the only weapon I would fully trust with my life.

i remember walking into an armsroom on our base near jerusalem in 1991 and finding racks of near new FN fals and m-14s i took four of each to the range and shot them for group and kept the best two as they would shoot right about minute of angle at 100m call a friend back in the states and he sent scopes and mounts for both the other guys and gals in my unit could not belive that i wanted to carry a heavier rifle when i didnt have to. but the first time we had a terr shoot at us and I didnt wait for him to pop up but fired though the wall he was hiding behind convinced then that the extra weight was worth it.I did however keep my short m-16/m-4 for up close work along with my mossberg 12 bore and 1911 .45 pistol the sameone my grandfather carried on D-day. oh yes i think the GPMG is a pig also Fing heavy bitch

All this nostalgia..... There is something about the L1A1 though, and for many years I have wanted to get my hands on one again. I Finally went and and got myself a permit and bought a reconditioned one. When I get to the range and pull it out, it always attracts a crowd, everyone wants a go. It is still grouping perfectly at 300 m (have not found a longer range). Very satisfying !! All I need now is a SUIT and an IWS. As you probably guessed I am no longer resident in the UK.

Be careful of stereotypes. I'm of the "Too young to know better" generation (I'm 41). As the former Para says, I'd take the larger ammo loadout every time. And I've had negligible problems with the AR15/M16 series.

I do, however, think the FAL makes the M14 and G3 it's BITCH, in the .308 class.

FWIW, I'm a former Brit, now in the US, and own over 100 rifles. Army 6 years, USAF 17 years, 23 Expert ratings, and two rotations in the Sandbox.

With all due respect to you old-skool guys the SLR is a nice rifle but the new (relatively) SA80 A2 was designed with combat in mind.
Have you ever tried to clear a confined-space building with an SLR? in a FIBUA or FISH scenario the SA80 is easier to bring to bear, has an extra 10-rounds per magazine and if thats not enough you can fit a 40-rnd mag. The lsw though does have some problems though because I remember a friend of mine was in an ambush position with an lsw and on the order to fire he had a stoppage but when he tried to sort it out he ended up with a 5.56mm round facing backwards in the breach. Maybe that was just his fault though.

The SLR is a great rifle! I own two. One is a Century arms CA1. I bought the Century Arms gun in the early 90's for about $400, which was a hell of a deal. I lived in California and could no longer buy a FN-FAL because they were banned by name. I always wanted a FAL and settled for the Century Arms. I shot the CA1 quite a bit out in the desert and never had any problems. It was great fun and even though it was a pieces-parts gun it worked great. I probably put about 2000 rounds through it and never had a malfunction.

My second FAL is a DS Arms SA 58 carbine. It cost me about $1800, but I was unmarried and had to get it before the peoples republic of CA banned them. It's a beautiful weapon. I didn't put as many rounds though it as the CA1, but I never had any problems with that as well.

I also own an M14 made by Fed Ord Armory in CA. This was a pieces parts gun as well and cost about $700. It was a hell of a lot cheaper than a Springfield. I put a hell of a lot of rounds through this one in the CA desert as well. I never had any stoppages with it, but when I shot prone I would sometimes get 2-3 round bursts. I'm sure this was due to a worn trigger sear. I mounted a Leupold scope with a Springfield Mount and I shot tighter groups with the iron sights....

I own two M16 clones. One an HBAR with a 20" barrel and the other a M4 with a 16" barrel. They are both a lot of fun and I have never had any major malfunctions with them.

On the other hand I have an FNC-para which I love. It's great fun to shoot, but I get double feeds quite often with it.

When I was deployed to Iraq I was only issued a M9 pistol as our unit didn't have enough rifles for the PltSgts. I picked up a Chinese AK with an underfolder and carried that. It was beat to hell, but I cleaned it and the only problems I had with it were due to bad ammo.

My unit was attached to the British 7th Armoured Brigade and my brother was deployed with one of their FO teams. They were on a rooftop outside Basrah and they were attacked by Fedayeen. My brother had the team's SAW and his M16A2 with a Trijicon scope. The Brit he was with had the SA80. When the bullets started flying the SA80 jammed. And my brother tossed the Brit the M16. They had no problems with the M16....

That being said, I worked with 40 Cdo of the Royal Marines at 29 Palms in 2002. I shot the SA80 on the range and liked it quite a bit. The sights were great and I didn't have any problems. I was on the squad defense range and shot about 75% on popups. (the tgts are up for about 5 seconds, then fall) For a rifle I had not trained on, I thought that was pretty good. The Royal Marines I was with said the SA80 is a great range gun, but not so good in the field.

So which gun would I prefer? Well, I have a little over 21 years of service and I would say the M4. With all the advances with optics and the training I have had, I just feel most comfortable with the M4. I like the ammo loadout and the wpn is very ergonomic. If I had to pick between the FAL and the M14, I'd pick the M14. It just feels better to me when I shoot it. I like the way it fits me and with my guns, I've shot better groups with the M14. I also like the trigger pull with the M14.

All in all, I'd say I'd feel totally comfortable going to war with the FAL, M14 or M16. I think they're all great guns and all have their ups and downs. There is a lot to be said for the 7.62 and the knock down power does weigh heavily in that debate. I never experienced it, but I have heard stories from buddies that shot insurgents with 5.56 who didn't go down..they kept going. Of course, I wouldn't want to get shot with any of them. Great debate!

the good old slr theres nothing in my book that can beat it i can even recall that if you turn the safty catch round a bit more it would fire as a full automatic for a while anyway but enough to get you out of the shit long live the slr

the good old slr theres nothing in my book that can beat it i can even recall that if you turn the safty catch round a bit more it would fire as a full automatic for a while anyway but enough to get you out of the shit long live the slr

Loved using the Rod of Death (SLR). You knew that the enemy you took on would stay shot. The weapon is heavy, but has reassuring ergonomics, resting it in the crook of an arm, or ready to brought into a clear aim when patrolling. I have happy memories of being on the range at akrotiri firing on the etr range and being given the order Stop! and the mesage that our rounds were bouncing off the side of ship out in the bay..the crew were a little tense at the clangs of 7.62mm!
The SLR was a great bit of kit, and very much an icon of my time in the RAF Regt.

Hi, I was trained with the SLR (early 80's Royal Anglian Regiment) & I loved it, Ok bit long & kickback but it was powerfull & most of all reliable.
We used to put a bit of matchstick behind the firing pin (within the moving parts)to hold the pin out. Hold the rifle tight, cock it hard & it would empty the whole mag in seconds.

Rob

I loved my SLR. Loved it! We got "new" reconditioned ones with plastic furniture admittedly, and I got one of the best of the lot. With it I could get 5 out of 5 falling plates out up to 300 yds, which I'm still quite proud of. The only thing I didn't like was the way the cocking lever would chew your finger up on exercise if you didn't have a BFA. Otherwise, nothing to reproach it with at all.

Now I've got a Belgian-made FN which retains the fully-auto capacity, and has the original non-folding cocking handle. But it isn't quite an SLR.

I have served in the British Armed forces twice... The first time was before the SA80 was introduced (thank the stars) and the SLR was standard issue... WOW, what a beauty and pleasure it was to fire an SLR, the great big boom, like a cannon being fired from the shoulder and the re-coil.. sheesh. The reason as to why the British forces did away with auto fire on their SLR is because it was bloody pointless, if you have ever shot an AK47 then you will know that on auto they shoot up into the air.. The SLR would have done pretty much the same!!! A waste of ammo and tax payers money... The second time I was in SA80's were standard issue... All I have got to say is that I have 2 gas powered BB guns and would rather go into battle with these by my side...!!!
Re-introduce the SLR and give our boys a fighting chance and the enemy none....

I HAVE A British GPMG L1A1 IWS scope, WORKING. IT IS THE IWS IN THE GREEN CASE, AND HAS A SLOT MOUNT FOR THE BRITISH GPMG.
ANY OFFERS,
PLEASE EMAIL ME,
THANKS, JONATHAN

I HAVE A British GPMG L1A1 IWS scope, WORKING. IT IS THE IWS IN THE GREEN CASE, AND HAS A SLOT MOUNT FOR THE BRITISH GPMG.
ANY OFFERS,
PLEASE EMAIL ME,
THANKS, JONATHAN

I too were in the TA in the mid-1980s (5th Btn, Royal Anglians) and remember the SLR with fond memories. In fact, shooting that is what got me into full-bore rifle shooting, something I still do today. Although it had a fair kick (about the same as a .303 Lee Enfield but not quite as bad as a Mauser Kar98k) I don't remember having any reliability problems with it. As to George Lee's question about the EM-2, it was actually a .276 calibre round (7x43mm) but redesignated .280 to prevent confusion with previous cartridges (.276 Pedersen and .276 Enfield P13 being examples). The case was enlarged very slightly so it would be easier to rechamber existing weapons so it bacame known as the .280/30 calibre. It was actually accepted into service in August 1951 following the decision in April by the UK Defence Minster, Emanuel Shinwell, as the 'Rifle, No. 9 Mk 1' and the .280 cartridge as the 'Cartridge, SA, Ball, 7mm Mk 1Z'. Churchill however, rescinded the decision when the Tories got back into power, due to pressure from the USA who wanted NATO to standardise on THIER cartridge design, 7.62x51mm, and were in a position of being able 'influence' a bankrupt Western Europe (also known as the Marshall Plan). See my article on our website, if you're interested in more info: http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_EM-2_rifle.html.
P

My late father used the SLR in the SBS marines and he always said that particular rifle and his GPMG (he used to file the round tips on his GPMG) were the best two single weapons he used during his 9 years of combat in Aiden and various other missions. I have also fired this weapon and fell in love with it immediately. Simple, easy to use and an absolute pleasure in firing, I do want one. Alan

PS just noticed Jonathan you have a GPMG for sale. I would be most interested if able to clear customs in Malta.

My late father used the SLR in the SBS marines and he always said that particular rifle and his GPMG (he used to file the round tips on his GPMG) were the best two single weapons he used during his 9 years of combat in Aiden and various other missions. I have also fired this weapon and fell in love with it immediately. Simple, easy to use and an absolute pleasure in firing, I do want one. Alan

PS just noticed Jonathan you have a GPMG for sale. I would be most interested if able to clear customs in Malta.

I am very pleased to have been issued the SLR. It was a magnificent weapon built to tolerances not found in today's
weapons. Plus which if it malfunctioned, you could bludgeon some poor bugger to death with it, clear, strip and reassemble and start firing where you left off with no penalties to accuracy. I shall never forget it. SA80, bollocks

Michael Z. Williamson, all weapons have advantages and drawbacks. If there were only one "best" gun, there would only be one gun.

That being said...

It IS rather difficult to clear a corner without looking like one of the THree Stooges using the SLR... ANd negotiating a hallway?
ANything narrower than 6' wide, and the weapon becomes a slight liability if your muscle-memory hasn't incporporated the appropriate motions to turn around safely. ANything narrower than about 4' and the weapon becomes an instant curtain-rod if you get spooked by a sound coming from behind you.

However, the round is potent, the gun is capable of delivering that round with extraordinary efficiency...

I suppose that's what they asked for.

L1A1 best of the bunch. Comfy and ergonomic, falls to the hand, welds to the cheek.
If UK (we're not allowed full bore semi-autos or Pistols) beware though - don't be tempted by the .22LR versions.
These are in the main Brazilian Embels and a dog.
Mine cocked up first day - but full marks on service to Sabre Defence, they refunded.

I used the FN for 9 years whilst in British Army. Great gun, never jammed, when getting dirty in barrel just adjust for more gases coming back to reload. I really liked that gun. NOw I have an old Brit Army Lee Enfield in like new condition, and it's fabulous to fire.

The Aussie Federal Police have gotten hold of a bunch (some of the last in existence) of ADF surplus L1a2's, which are the heavy barrel, bipod equipped, select fire version of the SLR and have modernised them by re-rifling them, lightening them and incorporating modern components, rails and ergonomic furniture.
They've gotten hold of transluscent 30 round mags, such as is seen on the AUG and G36 and have a 4X scope with red dot designator.
Just awesome for a weapon with a 30-40 year old reciever and these weapons are fielded in Afghanistan now by the AFP in it's drug interdiction program.

While it is true that the 'Stupidly Long Rifle' was something of a liability in FIBUA situations there is no doubting the knock down effectiveness of the 7.62x51mm NATO round.

From the use of the SLR by Aussies in Vietnam to the 're-imagining' of the FAL format by DSA Arms of the USA, 7.62 FN battle rifle is a beast to be reckoned with.

It is no co-incidence that US force in Afghanistan and Iraq found that that they needed to bring the venerable M14 and AR10 inspired SR-25s into play. The 5.56mm round has consistently show it's weakness in the face of determined adversaries.

The DSA inc. SA58 series and, in particular, the OSW variant show that there is plenty of life in the FAL format yet, and that you can have a short 7.62mm carbine - as practical as a M4 - that won't dislocate your shoulder!

Until the US military finally make it's mind up whether to adopt either of the two 6+mm calibres that have been created to solve the 5.56 v 7.62 issue soldiers do need the contingency of being able to turn to an update version of the FN FAL...

This is exactly why the US Army has commissioned the FN SCAR in 'H' (heavy) variant. It's simply a modern take on the good old L1A1, with all the advantages but none of the disadvantages.

200yards rapid fire 20 rd's 5" spread on a home bilt kit. centery arm's recever& aussie kit LOL very acc. Oh yes I forgot ATN Pro scope 40-60-60