I can never understand why a lot of people feel that the AR-18 would have been a possible alternative for the L85. True, it was made by Sterling for a brief time, but it had sold off the AR-18 tooling in 1983. I can't imagine the AR-18 is a better rifle or even on the same page as the L85.
I never handled a L85, but used to own a semi auto AR-180 and can tell you that, it is not something I would want to beat around with. The barrel is to thin and from what I have read also tends to flex when using the sling during firing. The plastic stocks are fragile and the receiver is very weak too. People joke about the M16 being a crappy weapon for melee combat, but the M16 is built like a tank compared to the AR-18. Also, it's true you could use M16 magazines with the AR-18, but they have to be modified. The magazines have to have a slot cut in the side for the magazine catch and if you want the bolt hold open to work the magazine follower has to be modified too.
I could see the L1A1 being brought back or the Bren gun in place of the L86. The only people I think that had used the AR-18 in the U.K. was the IRA. Heck, I think a old Enfield .303 might even be a better choice as far as ruggedness. The AR-18 is just to fragile to take to war, but I don't know anything about the L85 to make a real judgement on it.
|