SA80-A2 Propblems Military Intelligence
British SA80-A2 Problems
SA80 A2 � Questions and Answers Q What is the SA80 A2 weapon system? A It is the name given to the SA80 Individual Weapon (IW) and Light Support Weapon (LSW) that were introduced into service in 1986 as the new general purpose small arm for the Armed Forces. The A2 variant is the modified version of both the IW and LSW. Q How does the MOD measure reliability? A It is measured by how often the weapon fails during a battlefield mission. It is presented in terms of Mean Rounds Between Failure (MRBF). Q What is MRBF?A This is a measure of the average number of rounds that are fired between failures of a battlefield mission test. The battlefield mission requires the IW to fire 150 rounds in 8 minutes 40 seconds and for the LSW to fire 960 round in 36 minutes (see the Q&A on the SA80�s initial in-service reliability on page 5 for further information). Q What is the A2�s MRBF? A The MRBF varied in each of the test environments and between weapon variants:
The minimum expected life of the new components is 10,000 rounds. It is, therefore, possible for an A2 to suffer no stoppages during its life. Q Why does the MRBF vary between environments?A Each test environment � arctic, jungle, desert and temperate � places different demands on the weapon system. Deserts, for example, are the most challenging environments for all mechanical devices, not just weapons. Sand makes its way into the weapons mechanism and this causes advanced wear and can foul the working parts. All weapon systems, such as the M16 and AK47 display different levels of reliability in each climatic environment. Q Where were the tests run?A The arctic tests were run in Alaska (US Army�s Cold Regions Test Centre in Fort Greely), the jungle tests in Brunei (Seria), the desert tests in Kuwait (Kazma) and the temperate tests in the UK (Warminster). Q What has been modified?A The list includes:
Q Do these minor changes really make that much of a difference?A Yes. For example, the firing pin, a known problem area, has not suffered a single problem during the trial programme � around 3 million rounds have been fired without one breakage. Q How much will the modification programme cost? A The modification programme is expected to be around £92 million. This includes the cost of spares, trials etc. The cost is within the overall cost envelope approved in June 2000 (£92.25 million). Q How long will it take for all of our Armed Services to receive A2s? A Based on the current estimate it will take four years and three months � from December 2001 to February 2006. Q Why is it taking so long? A This isn�t a particularly long time. The MOD is modifying around 200,000 weapons. These have to be withdrawn from service, modified and reissued. This all takes time. Ideally we would like to issue all of the armed forces with the modified weapons at the same time but this isn�t practical. Nor is it unusual for weapons to be gradually introduced into service. When the SA80 A1, for example, was originally introduced it was phased into service between 1986-93. Q How many A2�s are there? A We currently have 10,000 modified SA80's in stock. This will increase to 15,000 in December 2001. Q Can the modification programme be put into a higher gear? A Currently H&K are modifying 3,000 weapons a month. This is already planned to increase to 4,000 a month in May 2002. It is theoretically possible to increase these numbers still further . This would, however, increase the cost of the programme. Q Are there plans to increase the number of SA80's modified each month? A Currently no. The details of the UK�s participation in the current conflict are undecided. A decision will be made in light of any possible military involvement. Q Are there plans to issue A2�s to any troops who may be involved in combating international terrorism? A The SA80 A1 is a good weapon. The A2, however, is more reliable in extreme environments. It is the MOD�s intention to ensure that our troops have the best weapons available to them. If and when any troops are deployed they will be equipped with equipment appropriate to the task. The A2 is already available in considerable numbers, and if we need to bring forward the issue of the weapons we will do so. Q Why does the MOD have a stock of A2s? A It was always the MOD�s intention to shave an operational stockpile for just this sort of contingency. This is designed to give the MOD the option of issuing A2�s, if appropriate, to units ahead of the planned rollout programme. Q Why were A2�s not issued to troops involved in exercise Saif Sareea? A The troops involved in exercise Saif Sareea deployed at a time when the MOD was building up the operational stockpile. Issuing A2�s would have eaten into the stockpile. There are, moreover, no current plans to deploy any troops involved in exercise Saif Sareea at the end of the exercise. Q Will the phased introduction reduce the combat effectiveness of our Armed Forces? A The unmodified SA80 is a capable weapon system. So units who have not received the modified weapon will still remain effective. It is, however, fair to say that the modified SA80 system will increase the combat effectiveness of the units that are issued with them in extreme environments. Priority will be given to units in the JRRF and in operational theatres. In this way the troops who have the most urgent operational requirements will receive the weapons first. Q When will X unit receive the modified SA80? A The issue programme is still being drawn-up. The current plan, however, is for the Infantry Training Centre (ITC) Wales to be the first to receive supplies of the modified weapon (December 2001). The ITC conducts the key battle courses for junior and senior NCOs. The full rollout will commence in the New Year with 3 Commando Brigade (May 2002). We will, of course release further information in due course. Q Which units are the lowest priority? A The units with the lowest operational requirement. Q How will the modified weapons be issued? A The modified weapon will be issued to whole formations, such as 3 Commando Brigade, in one go. All of the units that make up the formation such as infantry, armour, artillery and signals will receive modified weapons. This will avoid any problems associated with having a mixed fleet of weapons e.g. fitting unmodified spares to the modified weapon. Q What would happen if modified and unmodified components were mixed? A Depending on the part the most serious effect would be to reduce the weapons reliability. At worst the weapon would fail to function. There are no known safety risks. Q How difficult is the A2 to maintain? A It isn�t difficult to maintain. As with any mechanical system good cleaning and preventative maintenance are essential to ensure the best performance. Q How lethal is the A2? A Because of its accuracy the A2 is very lethal. The average user of an A2 has a higher probability of incapacitating their target than they would using a comparable service rifle, particularly at longer ranges. Q The A2 fires the 5.56mm round. Aren�t larger rounds better at penetrating body armour etc? A The 5.56mm round travels at a very high velocity. When it comes into contact with a target a great deal of force is directed in a small area and this gives it very good penetration characteristics. Q Will the A2 be able to be fired from the left shoulder? A No. They will continue to be fired from the right shoulder. Left-handed troops are, however, able to accurately fire the weapon from their right shoulder. Q The design goes back to 1945 so it isn�t surprising that the SA80 is unreliable? A No. The Royal Small Arms Factory Enfield produced the first bullpup prototype in 1945. The current SA80 bears only a superficial resemblance to the 1945 model. The technology, materials, optics, manufacturing processes etc have all moved on since 1945. Indeed, the gas operating system used in the modern automatic and semi-automatic rifles first appeared in 1905. So just because it is an old principle it doesn�t mean that it is flawed! Q Will the A2 be readmitted to the NATO nominated weapon list? A The SA80 is fully compatible with all of the 5.56mm rounds produced by other NATO countries. We fully expect the SA80 to be readmitted and the trials are currently ongoing. The results of the trials are expected by February 2002. Q Isn�t the modification programme an admission that the SA80 is seriously flawed? A No. Weapons are routinely modified during the course of their service life. The SLR, for example, was modified 54 times. Q How many weapons will be modified? A The MOD expects to modify around 200,000 weapons. Any unmodified weapons will, as far as possible, be cannibalised for spares. Q How many lives have been lost as a result of the SA80�s reliability problems? A None. Q How will the Armed Forces be able to tell the difference between a modified and unmodified weapon? A For five reasons:
Q Why wasn�t the SA80 reliable when it was introduced? A When the SA80 was accepted into service the stated battlefield mission, which determined the characteristics of the weapon, was for the rifle to fire 120 rounds over a 24 hour period. The LSW had to fire 800 rounds in 24 hours. Against these criteria the unmodified weapons are very reliable. Today the battlefield mission is for the IW to fire 150 rounds in 8 minutes 40 seconds. The LSW needs to fire 960 round in 36 minutes. It is, therefore, not surprising that the SA80 weapon system needs to be modified. Comparing the battlefield requirements set for the SA80 system in the late 1980s to the current one is similar to comparing the Vauxhall Astra of 1986 to the current model. The latest version is much more reliable. It is the same with the SA80. NB In the original trials any number of stoppages that could be cleared by the firer were not counted as failures. In the trials of the modified weapon more than one stoppage, including those that can be cleared by the firer, counts as a failure.
A battlefield mission was counted as a failure when there was more than one stoppage that the soldier could clear immediately on their own or there was a stoppage that required an armourer or a tool to clear. Q Why didn�t the MOD replace the SA80 weapon system with a new weapon system? A There are two reasons:
Q Why doesn�t the A2 use a plastic magazine? A The A2�s magazine housing, where the magazine fits into the body of the weapon, cannot be increased in size to accommodate the larger plastic magazine that would be required. The walls of a plastic magazine must be thicker than its metal equivalent to provide the same strength, making a plastic magazine bulkier. Plastic magazines also require horizontal reinforcing ridges around the walls to provide rigidity. These ridges and the additional bulk cause the magazines to jam in ammo pouches or pockets. A thin plastic magazine also flexes and this can cause further failures � the round is not correctly inserted into the feed mechanism. These problems make them inappropriate for use by the British Army. It has also been suggested that transparent plastic magazines would help soldiers know how many rounds they had in their weapon. This is true to a degree but where the magazine attaches to the rest of the weapon the magazine is obscured. Q Why wasn�t the weight of the A2 reduced? A The weight of the weapon contributes to its low recoil. This is a major factor in its accuracy. Moreover, the A2 isn�t that much heavier than most other rifles when the optical sight is removed from the weapon. The optical sight is only issued to troops involved in dismounted close combat e.g. infantry.
Q Why use optical sights if they are so heavy? A To enhance the capability of the soldier in the field by making target easier to locate and engage. These are contributory factors to its accuracy. The SUSAT also greatly enhances the soldier�s ability to engage targets in low light (dawn, dusk and moonlight) and provides every user with a magnifying observation device. The SUSAT adds 0.8 Kg to the weapons overall weight. Q What grenade launching ability does the A2 have? A It fires a rifle grenade. This is slipped over the barrel of the IW and fired using an ordinary round of ammunition. The round strikes a bullet trap on the grenade and this provides the energy to launch the grenade. The MOD is content with the capability of the current rifle grenade. Q Is it true that the optical sights zero is destroyed when a rifle grenade is fired from the A2? A. No. The standard rifle grenade that is currently used will not affect the optical sight's accuracy. Q Will the Cadet Forces receive A2s? A No. There is no operational requirement. Q Why has it taken so long to modify the SA80? A It hasn�t taken that long. The SA80, in common with all weapon systems, has been subject to constant revisions throughout its life. The current programme is a major refurbishment programme that will extend the weapons in service life until 2020. The trials programme can�t be rushed through. It is important to properly test the weapon. The trials have, indeed, identified a number of minor issues that have been addressed. Q Will the A2 be upgraded again? A There are no large-scale modifications planned. A small number are expected to be modified in 2009 to include a rapid area effects weapon that is part of the FIST roll out plan.
Q Will the Future Integrated Soldier Technology (FIST) make the A2? A Not initially. The A2 is expected to remain in service until 2020 and will form part of the initial operating capability of the FIST programme Q Will the blank firing adapter (BFA) be modified? A The BFA is being modified slightly to ensure its reliability of function. Q Do the UK�s Special Forces use the SA80 weapon system? A I am sure you will understand that the MOD cannot divulge details of the weapons used by the SF as this would assist potential adversaries in countering or neutralising UKSF capabilities. Q Why did the Police recently buy the G36 and not the SA80 IW or LSW? A The SA80 IW and LSW are no longer in production. The last one to roll-off the production line did so over eight years ago. It was not, therefore, possible for the police to acquire either the unmodified or modified SA80. NB The MOD Police make extensive use of the SA80 IW to guard certain establishments. Q Is a belt fed machine gun better than the LSW?A A belt fed machine gun and a LSW have different capabilities. The current belt fed machine gun used by the Armed forces is the GPMG. Although this has a greater rate of fire than the LSW it is much heavier, less accurate and the ammunition is not compatible with the IW. The capabilities are, however, complimentary. So I thought it was time for some facts
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Found this on BritaininCanada.org The Army's standard rifle, the SA80, has had a bad press over the years. Now, though, its shortcomings have been addressed, and the first re-engineered weapons are entering service. Graham Thomas went to HQ Infantry in Warminster to discover how the ghosts of the old SA80 have been laid to rest. The rifle re-engineered A - Reshaped cocking handle to improve ejection B - New gas parts to improve cycling of weapon C - Heavier barrel on LSW to improve durability and heat dispersal D - Internal machining to clear feed and extraction paths E - All steel magazine to improve feed and durability F - Stronger recoil spring to improve cycling of weapon G - Modified hammer and internal components to improve system stability and durability H - New bolt assembly to improve extraction and rejection. More durable firing pin The man-shaped target is 300 metres away, and clearly visible through the optical sight. Switch to automatic, click off the safety catch, squeeze the trigger lightly, and the SA80 A2 (as the modified version of this weapon is called) releases a short burst, knocking cardboard man flat. Not bad for a civilian Focus reporter, firing a weapon that has become rather notorious in recent years. But this is the re-engineered version, and Major Andrew Macdonald of the Infantry Training and Development Unit at Warminster considers the new A2 to be the best personal weapon system in the world. He says that it has shown 98.5 per cent reliability in a series of tough trials. The SA80 story started in 1973 when it was selected to replace the old 7.62mm self-loading rifle. The prototype was 4.85mm calibre, but production was delayed when NATO decided to switch to 5.56mm ammunition. That was in 1979, and a further seven years passed before the new, remarkably compact rifle began to replace the old SLRs. By the Gulf War all infantry units had it. Then, problems. In 1997 the SA80 was dropped from NATO's list of approved weapons because it was having difficulty firing NATO approved ammunition reliably. "That was what sparked the MOD to look closely at the weapon," says Andrew Macdonald. But he says it was a little unfair to blame manufacturers and designers for the faults. "A lot of the reliability issues go back to moving the goal posts. The requirement in 1973 was that the weapon had to fire 120 rounds in 24 hours." Originally the SA80 was to be used in Europe against a Soviet attack, with heavy support from armoured divisions and air power. "Now we expect our infantry to generate far more of their own firepower," says the major. Moved goalposts or not, heavier use in environments far more hostile than Western Europe was a reality, and in 1998 Heckler and Koch were tasked to come up with a modified version that could cope. This became the SA80 A2. Tests for 21st century "We had to set tests for the 21st century," says Major Macdonald. The performance target for the longer-barrelled Light Support Weapon (LSW) was 960 rounds in 36 minutes without a stoppage. "There are very few automatic weapons around that can meet that battlefield mission. The modified LSW did." The test for the Individual Weapon (IW), with its shorter barrel, was 150 rounds in eight minutes and 40 seconds without a stoppage. The IW met the challenge. In 1998 Heckler and Koch were given a contract to produce 200 modified weapons, and these were delivered at the beginning of 1999. A series of trials in the harsh environments of Alaska, Kuwait and Brunei, as well as the UK, compared the modified weapons with the standard SA80. "We saw ten times the reliability of the unmodified weapons," says the Major. Then, in June 2000, MOD gave the approval for production of up to 200,000 modified weapons. By January 2001 the first production modified SA80 A2 weapons were delivered to the Infantry training Development Unit at Warminster for trials. "We were expecting the production standard A2 to perform a little worse because the prototypes had been hand-built by H & K," says Andrew Macdonald. But the opposite was true. "We saw considerable improvement again." 40 per cent of the stoppages had been attributed to the magazine which was built partly of plastic. A new all-metal magazine has taken care of that problem, while the gas plug and gas cylinder have been replaced along with the hammer. A stronger recoil spring was added to push rounds into the chamber harder and faster. A new bolt assembly, extractor and ejector were added to get rounds in and out more efficiently, while a new cocking handle deflects the round away from the gun. The LSW has had all these improvements plus a new heavier barrel so it can fire at much higher rates. In short, the new SA80 A2 is a far more robust weapon. By the end of the year all trials will be completed and the first SA80 A2 will be delivered to the Infantry Battle School. By August 2002, 40,000 modified weapons should be with units. Full delivery should be completed by 2006. But back to the Focus trial: after firing 500 rounds in less than an hour without a stoppage, and hitting the targets most of the time, this reporter is ready to believe the modified SA80 A2 is simply the best. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The SA80Perhaps no other small arm has been as vilified as the SA80 (Small Arm for the 80s), the standard issue rifle (and machinegun) to the British armed forces. Given that British shooters also get vilified on a fairly regular basis I could think of no better choice for our inaugural review!
The gun featured in this review is a late production L98A1, better known as the Cadet General Purpose Rifle, which is essentially a straight-pull bolt-action version of the SA80. This one has been fitted with a flash hider and SUSAT (Sight Unit Small Arms Trilux), however the standard L98A1 is fitted with iron sights and has no flash hider. The SUSAT is the standard sight fitted on SA80s issued to infantry units in the Army. The L98A1 is one of three versions of the SA80 adopted by the British Army, for use by Army Cadet Forces. To avoid needless red tape the gun was designed specifically to be a Section 1 firearm, although rumour has it that cadets may be issued soon with the standard L85A1 Individual Weapon, as the MoD is awash with them due to scaling down of the armed forces. For the purposes of a shooting test, there isn't much difference between the L85A1 and the gun pictured here, the main difference between the two guns is that the L98A1 lacks a gas system, however, about 90% of the components between the two guns are identical. The remaining version of the SA80 adopted by the British Army is the L86A1 Light Support Weapon (LSW), essentially a version of the rifle with a longer barrel and bipod fitted on an outrigger, as well as a rear grip. There is another version of the SA80 not adopted by the Army, which is basically the LSW with the Cadet rifle's straight-pull system. This gun has been sold on the commercial market for target shooters, mainly in Canada, although several have found their way back into this country. One thing I would like to point out before going any further is that a lot of the criticism of the SA80 that you will read has been written by people who have never even touched an SA80, let alone fired one. There are genuine flaws with the SA80, but many of them have been exaggerated or are confined to early production guns (e.g. the one about being able to squeeze in the sides of the receiver and stop the bolt moving). To cut a long story short, the SA80 is not as awful as some people make it out to be, though it does have shortcomings. I'll cover what I did like and didn't like as I go through this review. First, I did like the cocking system on the L98A1.
This is by far the fastest straight-pull rifle I have ever used, far quicker than the slew of straight-pull AR-15s, Mini-14s etc. that have appeared since the 1989 ban on semi-autos. Rapid aimed fire with this rifle is only slightly slower than a semi-auto, although obviously you can do "spray and pray" much faster with a semi-auto. The only really major flaw as you can see from the photo is that the cocking handle bar partially obscures the ejection port when you pull back the cocking handle, however, this appeared to be the cause of only one malfunction during testing. Operation is very simple, simply pull back the handle all the way and release, the springs are still in there so the bolt goes forward automatically. I did find that if you ride the handle forward the sear sometimes failed to re-engage, so don't ride the handle! The SA80 has a reputation for accuracy, this is due largely to the heavy barrel that is nearly free-floating on the L98A1 (but for the fore-end screw), plus the SUSAT x4 optical sight, a higher magnification than any other military rifle I am aware of. I did find the SA80 to be accurate, although not as accurate as I had hoped due largely to the trigger pull, which is rough. This is due to the long trigger bar, which is endemic to bullpup rifles.
The above pictures show how long the trigger bar is. Having said that, the SA80 has a better trigger pull than any other bullpup rifle I have tried, including the Steyr AUG and the FA MAS. If it weren't for the stiff trigger pull, I feel my accuracy testing would have turned in some really superb groups. Endlessly in a ten-shot group I would get five or six shots into two inches or less with several flyers, opening the groups up to about four inches (at 100m, using ammo loaded with Sierra Matchking 69gr HPBTs). The other problem with extracting accuracy from the SA80 is the shape of the trigger.
The trigger has been redesigned twice, and my personal view is that the second trigger design was superior to the third one shown. The current trigger is too wide and places your finger too high to gain proper trigger control. From the picture you can also see the push button cross-bolt safety just at the top of the picture. This has been made considerably stiffer to operate compared to early SA80s, to prevent being accidentally knocked into the "on" position (the problem the Australian Army is currently having with their AUGs). Another redesign is the magazine catch.
Early magazine releases were prone to being depressed accidentally when rubbing up against a soldier's clothing or webbing, causing the magazine to drop out accidentally. Royal Ordnance solved this by putting in a much stronger spring and recessing the front of the magazine button, as shown in the picture. It works, but I have to say I preferred the older catch for target shooting, it was much easier to operate. Another redesign is the fore-end.
The plastic cover on top had a habit of popping open on its own, this rifle still has the old fore-end, but current issue SA80s have a new cover opening which is extremely difficult to open, even when you want to! On the L98A1 there is seldom any need to do so as there is no gas system, thus there is no need to open the cover. One thing that needs changing is the design of the magazine floorplate.
The magazine uses a push-button design to allow for easy removal of the floorplate, however, it has a tendency to slide off on its own! A more secure method of fixture is needed. In testing I found a wide variety of magazines intended for the M16 would work with the SA80, including Colt's, Adventure Line, Kay's and so on. The Ram-Line and Thermold magazines would not work because they have ridges on the side that prevent them from fitting into the deeper magazine well of the SA80. I didn't have any malfunctions during testing that could be attributed to the magazine. In examining the SA80 in detail, one is struck by the "Meccano" set style of manufacture, the bolt carrier for example looks like it was machined by a Mongolian desert tribesman using a pocket file, but despite the looks it does work properly. The one exception is the barrel, which can't have been made by Royal Ordnance, the quality is too good. Rumour has it these were sourced from H&K in Oberndorf, which is mildly amusing because H&K has recently won an £80 million contract to refurbish 200,000 SA80s (out of about 380,000), including replacement of the barrel! The SA80 also has a rather good sight on it, the SUSAT.
This one has the newer scope mount, with a drum on the left that can be used to raise the SUSAT for longer range shooting. I've only tried it at 100m so I can't comment on whether it works or not. One thing I will say is that whomever designed the elevation adjustment is a total idiot, you can see the nut just under the front of the scope. The only way I could adjust it was using a set of needle-nose pliers! (There is a tool specifically for this purpose - nice if you have one, I don't). The SUSAT does have a tritium element in it that illuminates the sight post in weak light, unfortunately it was dead on this one. The SUSAT can be adjusted fore and aft on the scope rail, however I found I had to put it all the way forward. Even then it has a tendency to whack your forehead during recoil, however it doesn't hurt because of the thick rubber cup. The x4 magnification makes shooting at targets 100m easy though. If you don't want a SUSAT there are always the iron sights.
I didn't think these sights were as bad as I've heard, the main problem is the very short sight radius. However, it does have an adjustable aperture size that is a novelty on a rifle like this (only H&K and SIG have something similar, and it's more bulky). Elevation must be accomplished on the front sight, which is a pain. The last picture is a picture of the ejection port cover.
This has a reputation for breaking off, although it seems reasonably sturdy to me. I didn't have any problems with it. My main complaint about the SA80 is the weight of the piece (although it looks plastic there is a lot of steel in this gun), and the balance. It weighs in at about five kilos, which is heavier than the old L1A1 SLR! That aside, the weight is to the rear, which makes muzzle control more difficult, despite the heavy barrel. From prone the way around this is to rest the magazine on the ground. One thing I will say is that this is the easiest rifle to clean I have ever come across. It uses rotary locking, so virtually no dirt ingresses the action of the gun, and the bore is chrome-lined, so a bit of bore solvent and a few wipes through and it's done!
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heckler & Koch Heckler & Koch (UK) manufactures small arms. In January 1991 Royal Ordnance bought Heckler & Koch of Germany. In December 1999 BAE Systems signed a letter of intent to sell Heckler & Koch to Colt of the US. The SA80 Rifle The Royal Ordnance developed the SA80 rifle for the Armed Forces. In 1983 problems with the SA80 were first reported to the Ministry of Defence. In 1986 the Ministry of Defence placed a £384m order for SA80s. The rifles were produced at the Royal Ordnance factory in Nottingham. In April 1987 the government sold Royal Ordnance to British Aerospace for £180m. Following British Aerospace's acquisition of Heckler & Koch that company took over responsibility for the SA80. In February 2000 it was reported that all of the Armed Forces's 300,000 SA80s were going to be recalled for modification. It was reported that 382,000 SA80s had been built in total. In June 2000 the Ministry of Defence announced a six-year, £80m programme to modify the Army's 200,000 SA80s. In August 2000 it was reported that the bulk of SA80 modifications would be carried out at a factory in Oberndorf, Germany. It was expected that Royal Ordnance would close Britain’s last remaining small arms factory in Nottingham. In October 2001 it was reported that SA80 A2 would be used by British troops if they fought in Afghanistan.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Full Coverage
