Hi there



This is a really interesting question and while I cant give you the definitive reason I can talk you through why I personally think the Army uses SA80



The M4's shorter barrel actually reduces muzzle velocity and therefore effective range compared to the SA80, which could be a disadvantage in long-range engagements.



While the M4 has proven reliable, its direct impingement gas system is more maintenance-intensive than the SA80's updated gas system (post-H&K upgrades). Though it is fair to say that reliability was a concern for earlier variants of the SA80.



The M4 is highly modular, but this can sometimes be a drawback, as constant modifications may compromise standardisation across the force affecting logistical burden and performance in the field.



While the M4 is an excellent rifle with widespread use, the SA80, particularly in its upgraded L85A3 configuration, aligns better with the UK's specific operational, logistical, and doctrinal needs. It offers superior accuracy, range, and cost-efficiency while maintaining compatibility with existing infrastructure and training.



As with every discussion like this there are pros and cons to everything and every point can be argued. Ultimately the weapons we use fill all the requirements we need them to. When they don't, and the advantages are outweighed by the disadvantages we replace them. For example, there are parts of the British Army that use the KS1 as the SA80 didn’t meet their specific needs. but likewise we cannot field many different bespoke rifle solutions for different parts of the army as it would be a logistical nightmare.



I hope this helps.

15 November, 2024 16:35