The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Apologies, the L85A2?

It was a general comment that people shouldn't take things personally.

John MH wrote:And, who hasn't?

Nobody is are they? It's the interweb FFS.

Yes it seems so and yes I agree.

John MH wrote:Apologies, the L85A2?

I have been an infantry soldier, but not in the British Army. So as I said, not shot a L85 or it's upgrade the L85A2. Hope that was clear enough.

However, as a taxpayer, I have issues with how a new rifle will be procured.


Here's how I see the L85/A2 story:

The British Government want to sell off the state-run weapons factory: RSAF (Royal Small Arms Factory) Enfield.
But RSAF has no orders on the books. It's not doing any business. No private companies are interested.

Conveniently, the British government decide Her Majesty's Armed Forces need a new rifle.

RSAF has an excellent design for a bullpup assault rifle.
This design has been around - in various versions - since the Enfield EM-2 of the late 1940's/early 50's.
Every time it looked like being adopted, the army chose a different calibre.
The EM-2 was .280 - but NATO decided to go with 7.62mm.
Then they updated the design (as the L64) in 4.85mm - but NATO decided to go with 5.56mm.

When the government expressed interest in a new rifle, the government contract cost of an M16 was around £200.
RSAF announced that they could supply their new rifle for £120, by constructing it from inexpensive stamped metal parts.
No other manufacturer could compete with that. RSAF got the contract.

Suddenly, with it's production lines busy and big orders on the books, RSAF is attractive to buyers.
It is bought by BAE. (Of course it is... as the British government's 'preferred provider', BAE pretty much gets whatever it wants in the UK.)

But BAE has zero interest in keeping RSAF going.
It announces that RSAF will complete the contract, then BAE will close the factory and sell off the land.
Meanwhile, there are problems with the rifles. The thing is - the original design was never meant to be manufactured from stamped metal parts. It was intended to be a fully-machined weapon. The components do not fit properly. They are too flimsy and easily broken.

Nobody at RSAF cares. They know that as soon as the last rifle rolls off the line, they're out of a job anyway. The rifles are bodged together as best as possible and shipped off for evaluation.
BAE collects the money for the SA80 contract. That's payday number one.

The British army conducts 'trials' on their new rifle - they call it the L85.
Good News, everyone - they announce the rifle performs superbly!

The L85 is issued.
BAE closes RSAF and sells off the assets. That's payday number two.
Then they develop the land, and sell it off. Payday number three.

Meanwhile, reports are coming in of problems with the rifle. Troops in the field are experiencing catastrophic failures and stoppages.
Foreign militaries who conduct trials on the SA80/L85 find very different results from the British Army tests. In fact, overseas trials are so bad that there is zero foreign interest in the gun.
In the UK, any force which has independent control over their own budget chooses to buy the C7/C8 rifle instead: that's the Canadian-built version of the M16.
That includes the SAS, SBS, Para Pathfinders, and (until they recently lost their independent purchasing ability) the Military Police and Royal Marines.
Basically anybody who gets a choice - chooses to AVOID the L85.

Eventually, problems with the rifle cannot be ignored any longer. The weapons are withdrawn from service, shipped off to Heckler & Koch in Germany, and heavily rebuilt.
At the time, Heckler & Koch was owned by: BAE.
That's payday number four from this deal.

The rebuilt weapons are reissued - with a name change - as the L85A2.
They undergo trials with the British military.
Good News, everyone! The new, new rifles perform superbly!

The cost of the original weapons - the withdrawal from service - and the rebuild program - mean that the final cost of each "£150 rifle" was actually around £1,000.

In all fairness, the rebuilt weapons have performed well.
They're (now) reliable, and are reported to have class-leading accuracy.

They still have some drawbacks. The L85A2 is notably heavier than it's competitors, does not offer ambidextrous controls, and because of it's ejection action, can only be fired from the right shoulder.
Which means, if you're in cover, you can't just lean your left eye & shoulder out to fire - you have to expose your entire chest & head.

Also - no matter how good you think the rifle is - it's a design dead-end.
The production line is closed, the machinery sold off.
The L85 will come to the end of it's useable life, and be replaced with something else.
There won't be an "A3".

So the A2 is ok then?

Apart from the fact that it can't be fired from the left shoulder which was never considered a military imperative, as most, if not all, rifles used by they average infantry solider would miss the target, when shot from the LHS from around cover by a RH solider.

Any way, there are not many left or right eye dominate, user friendly, optics that can quickly identify other than an reflex sight and they are only useful in CQB where the majority of shots fired are instinctive rather than aimed, the sight is actually rarely used in operations as the soldier's focus is on other things when in close contact. So as battle rifle that needs to be used from close quarters out to 600m the L85A2 and SUSAT/ELCAN isn't that bad is it?

Enough with the dick waving, back on topic please.

Sorry BamBam this is going to be a long reply and some of this was discussed a few pages back but there some things you have right and some you don't. If you don't mind:

The British Government want to sell off the state-run weapons factory: RSAF (Royal Small Arms Factory) Enfield.
But RSAF has no orders on the books. It's not doing any business. No private companies are interested.

Pretty much correct.

Conveniently, the British government decide Her Majesty's Armed Forces need a new rifle.

Nothing convenient about it, the SLR was outmoded vs a newer generation of smaller lighter rifles. Also they were rapidly wearing out making safety and increasing issue. The rifle had to be replaced at some point.

RSAF has an excellent design for a bullpup assault rifle.
This design has been around - in various versions - since the Enfield EM-2 of the late 1940's/early 50's.
Every time it looked like being adopted, the army chose a different calibre.
The EM-2 was .280 - but NATO decided to go with 7.62mm.
Then they updated the design (as the L64) in 4.85mm - but NATO decided to go with 5.56mm.

RSAF had designs, one was the EM-2 which was also dated in a production sense and built to a unique calibre. The XL64 is not a reworking of the EM-2 they share nothing in a design or operating sense. The EM-2 is a long stroke piston design with a locking system derived from the Walter GEW41 built on a forged and machined receiver. The XL64 is a short stroke piston design with a locking system that is derived from the AR-10 using radial locking lugs and built upon a stamped receiver. The XL-64 is basically a bullpup ArmaLite AR-18 and the early prototypes even used AR-18 components taken from Sterling built rifles.

When the government expressed interest in a new rifle, the government contract cost of an M16 was around £200.
RSAF announced that they could supply their new rifle for £120, by constructing it from inexpensive stamped metal parts.
No other manufacturer could compete with that. RSAF got the contract.

Seems logical enough to me albeit I wonder of the M16 cost included ancillaries or not. Bidding the an AR-18 based bullpup in theory would bring down unit price due to the core design being developed for cheap production into the 3rd world market.

But BAE has zero interest in keeping RSAF going.
It announces that RSAF will complete the contract, then BAE will close the factory and sell off the land.

Agreed

Meanwhile, there are problems with the rifles. The thing is - the original design was never meant to be manufactured from stamped metal parts. It was intended to be a fully-machined weapon. The components do not fit properly. They are too flimsy and easily broken.

No the original design was the ArmaLite AR-18 a design developed to be made from stamped parts. The XL64/65/70 were always intended to be made upon stamped receivers and never fully machined. RSAF Enfield did poorly execute the development of the XL/64/65/70 considering they had limited experience with stampings and polymers. The XL64/65/70 had numerous faults even before the SA80 came into being and British Aerospace ROF started a value engineering exercise .

Nobody at RSAF cares. They know that as soon as the last rifle rolls off the line, they're out of a job anyway. The rifles are bodged together as best as possible and shipped off for evaluation.
BAE collects the money for the SA80 contract. That's payday number one.

Agreed and the same goes for the ROF built examples in Nottingham for the second batch.

The British army conducts 'trials' on their new rifle - they call it the L85.
Good News, everyone - they announce the rifle performs superbly!

Agreed

The L85 is issued.
BAE closes RSAF and sells off the assets. That's payday number two.
Then they develop the land, and sell it off. Payday number three.

Production is moved to ROF Nottingham where a value engineering exercise is executed. The MOD starts to see problems and various fix programs are started.

Skipping some bits for brevity

Eventually, problems with the rifle cannot be ignored any longer. The weapons are withdrawn from service, shipped off to Heckler & Koch in Germany, and heavily rebuilt.
At the time, Heckler & Koch was owned by: BAE.
That's payday number four from this deal.

The work on making the A2 variant was done in Barrow after moving out of ROF Nottingham which is now a business park.

The rebuilt weapons are reissued - with a name change - as the L85A2.
They undergo trials with the British military.
Good News, everyone! The new, new rifles perform superbly!

The cost of the original weapons - the withdrawal from service - and the rebuild program - mean that the final cost of each "£150 rifle" was actually around £1,000.

In all fairness, the rebuilt weapons have performed well.
They're (now) reliable, and are reported to have class-leading accuracy.

They still have some drawbacks. The L85A2 is notably heavier than it's competitors, does not offer ambidextrous controls, and because of it's ejection action, can only be fired from the right shoulder.
Which means, if you're in cover, you can't just lean your left eye & shoulder out to fire - you have to expose your entire chest & head.

Also - no matter how good you think the rifle is - it's a design dead-end.
The production line is closed, the machinery sold off.
The L85 will come to the end of it's useable life, and be replaced with something else.
There won't be an "A3".

Agreed

Glad to see you've some of those quote right, lots of incorrect information, that is believed as gospel, out there.

Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

The L85A2 is now a exceptionally reliable and accurate service rifle, the L85A1 was not.

John MH wrote:Glad to see you've some of those quote right, lots of incorrect information, that is believed as gospel, out there.

Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

The L85A2 is now a exceptionally reliable and accurate service rifle, the L85A1 was not.

I don't believe you, this is the internet.
;-)