RN> >         Actually, the design predates the selection of the 5.56mm
  > > SS-109 Cartridge. If memory serves, your ordinance people were
  > > originally experimenting with that rifle as the 4.85mm individual
  > > weapon and was
  > > originally intended to use a British cartridge. I remember several
  > > articles that I'd read during the late 70's and early 80's describing
  > > that rifle with it's orphan cartridge.
RN>They decided in 1979 to replace the FN with a 5.56 for compatibility,
  >the change to be implimented by 1985.
RN>After all the politics were finished the army were given only three
  >weapons to choose from,the SA80,the M16,and the Steyer AUG :-(
RN>No-one wanted the M-16,few wanted the SA80 because of its complexity,
  >and the Steyer got my vote because it was easier than either to use.
        The Steyer's got good ergonomics and it's a lot cheaper to make,
and that's a fact.
RN> >         Is the British design that bad to where Steyr's rifle looks
  > > that good?
RN>Its over designed and too fragile IMHO.
        But it was invented in Britain, and I'm sure that this was an
issue.
        The original concepts date from the late 40's when the EM-1 was
developed by a team under a Mr. Noel Kent-Lemon. This was followed by
the EM-2 from the same team. Both were gas operated bullpup
configuration rifles and were capable of selective fire. The Brits
designed a .280, (7mm) cartridge for these rifles and both had fixed
optical sights as primary sighting systems, the first shoulder arms to
do so.
        Unfortunately for Mr. Kent-Lemon's team, the US insisted on the
7.62 NATO cartridge which was too large for the EM-2 design to be
redesigned to accomidate. This forced the Brits to adopt the FAL, which
was originally intended for a case based on the German 7.92mm round, but
which was adaptable to the NATO cartridge.
        Like most ordinance bureaucracies, the Brits kept the design on
a back burner and when it came time to adopt a new NATO standard rifle
cartridge, they came out with a 4.85mm Individual Weapon, which was the
conceptual decendant of the EM-2. They did, however, remembering the
problem with us ramming our cartridge down everyone elses throats, leave
the rifle so that it could be redesigned to handle other cartridges, and
when the Belgian SS-109 was adopted, it was easily converted to handle
this round, which is how it wound up being adopted as the SAA 80, which
is a little bit easier to use from an infantry fighting vehicle's firing
port than a fully stocked conventional rifle is, even though firing port
weapons aren't all that effective.
        At least they kept up with the French and their FAMAS. 
RN> >
  > >         Back when I was in the Army, I had a plan for what I was going
  > > to do in the event of war and somebody stuck me with an M-16 of any
  > > kind. First thing is to acquire a Kalashnikov from the nearest dead
  > > Russian available.
RN>There were one or two unfortunate Australians up on charges for
  >"loseing" their FNs :-)
        It's all in how well you understand the system and how well one
can justify the actions in a Letter of Circumstances for a Report of
Survey. It's just a matter of being able to remember which day you came
under artillery fire or some such that resulted in accidently combat
lossing your M-16.
RN>BTW,the thing I couldn't understand was why you guys put up with
  >those MREs,I thought the British "compo" rations bad till I ate
  >a MRE !
         It's because they were such an improvement on C-Rats,
or more formally, Meal, Combat Individual Type C. Until you've eaten
something like eggs and ham slices, cold, which tastes like and has the
same consistancy as congealed grease, you'll never understand just why
MREs are such a delicacy.
___
 X SLMR 2.1a X ECONOMY OF FORCE THROUGH STRATEGEM.
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------