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

When the L85 came along it was a godsend after lugging the dead weight of an SLR around, even better when the a2 came along and it worked as advertised

I am surprised you noticed any difference. One reason for moving to 5.56 mm was the rifle could be made lighter. The designers of the SA/80 managed to make it around the same weight as the 7.62 rifle it replaced.

SLR / L1A1 Weight: 4.96 kg (8.8-10.2 lb)

SA80 L85A2 assault rifle 4.98 kg (11.0 lb) (L85A2

This thread is still very funny, so many opinions.

Laurie wrote:

Also forgetting the G2, which was the original Armalite AR10, something to do with a deal with the Netherlands and getting cheap DAF trucks killed deal I believe. [sixshot6]

Ah .. I wondered what the G2 was. At the same rough 1980s period that you could buy really good FALs here for £250-450 somebody (likely the same west country G1 vendor as it was really big in semi-auto military rifles) would sell you a surplus Artillerie Inrichtingen AR10 for the same money as the cheapest FALs. Just before the SLR rifle ban came in, so some time over the winter of 1988/89, I saw a guy shooting one at Strensall and went and had a rubberneck and natter. Very impressive, mint condition. He offered me the chance to have a few shots and I turned him down - kicked myself ever since. I presume they were ex Portuguese forces as they were only ever bought by Portugal and Sudan. We'd only got them here as they fell foul of the US BAFT&E rules on anything actually designed to fire full-auto being a 'machinegun' even if the example has always been semi-auto so they couldn't be legally imported or easily anyway into the USA.

Well 2 must come become 3 and after 1. I know a guy who owned an slr due to it being left-hand friendly. Said he tried an AR10 but it sent too much brass in his direction. We all have something we regret and Portugal seems the most common source of them. Seems they became surplus to requirements after the Carnation Revolution and the gave up their African Colonies. I know the ATF rules, 1968 US gun control act. Strangely no old surplus M1 carbines ever fall under that rule if they get brought in (and the M2 was just a M1 carbine with some parts altered to make it full auto if needed).

Well oomans, we have been into battle with the L85 A2 and it was the best option then available. The only thing that came close were Czech Z58s. US Marines were offering to swap two M4s for one A2 ! [meles meles]

That may have been due to the average US grunt hearing through the soldier's rumourmill that the M4 wouldn't stop your average Taliban at anything much in excess of 100 metres. The SS109 / M855 62gn Nato semi-penetrator bullet needs ~2,600 fps terminal velocity to produce the tumbling and explosive break-up that creates its wounding capability / lethality. Below 2,600 it makes a .22 diameter neat hole and unless one is lucky enough to hit a major bone, vital organ, brain, or artery the other guy keeps on coming or shooting.

With the 5.56's lethality / velocity relationship well understood, one really wonders as to why the US Army replaced the 20-inch barrel M16A2 with a 14.5-inch barrel carbine and the resulting considerable loss of MV. Depending on who comments on this, the M4 / M4A1's lethal range is quoted as 90-150 metres. For US Special-Ops forces who were using M4 variants with barrels in the 10-12 inch length range, M855 MVs dropped to 2,600 fps so these SMGs lost effectivenes at any range longer than across a room or street. Hence the M292 round using the Sierra 77gn MatchKing - more frangible and giving break-up at down to ~2,200 fps - then later the 6.8mm Rem SPC.

There is an exact historical parallel to this. The original .303 heavy round-nose FMJ bullet at low velocity (by today's standards) shot fast and flat compared to the big-bore heavy slow lead job from the .45 Martini-Henry and penetrated double the number of standard pine boards at some set distance apart. Come deployment in the North West Frontier District, the MLE proved disastrous as Pathans took hits (some as many as three) but kept on coming at British units. Worse, the Pathans who weren't stupid knew that a solid hit by a Martini bullet was either fatal or disabling, so when faced by a choice of charging Indian troops armed with .45 M-Hs or Brits with .303 MLEs invariably went for the latter. After a near mutiny, the experiments with expanding bullets and their production at Dum Dum were set in train. I bet the going rate for one Martini-Henry would have been two or more Lees too back then if NCOs and officers hadn't been on the ball - but does that say the Martini Henry was a better 'battle rifle' than the Lee-Metford?

meles meles wrote:oomans: The L85 as designed was a great bit of kit. Machined from solid steel, of a good quality, accurate and reliable. The Treasury baulked at the cost and passed it to the ROF (then owned by BAE) with instructions to 'value engineer' it. Forgings and machined parts were replaced by pressed metal stampings, spot welding and plastic. The cost reduction was enormous, in the short term at least. For the next decade or two it fell apart and even greater sums of money were spent on getting it to be reliable again. Eventually, it was built almost to pattern and reincarnated as the A2 version.

The L85 as designed was always intended to be built upon a stamped receiver albeit I concede there might of been more forged sub components. There was also certainly a 'value engineering' exercise when the weapon was productionised but it certainly wasn't a great piece of kit beforehand. Enfield made a number of mistakes in executing the design being more used to machined receivers and wood rather than stamping and plastics. The 4.85x49mm XL64 and XL65 prototypes (forerunner of the L85) had over 700 incidents of poor reliability logged in trials. There were numerous mechanical failures, failures to feed, failures to extract, failed spot welds and trigger seer problems. These problems continued into the reworked XL70 prototype that was developed when the SS109 round won NATO standardisation trials.


Enfield XL64

Which then leads me onto the most sordid aspect in the story of the SA80's development. The Sterling Armament Co. Ltd at Dagenham had as already has been observed been building the AR-18 under licence which the SA80 is derived from. Stan Carroll, then the Director of Small Arms at RSAF Enfield asked to visit the Sterling factory to see the production techniques that went into making the AR-18. The general manager of Sterling David Howroyd and James Edmiston the owner agreed as they thought there was a good chance at getting subcontractor work.

Here is a quote from an old Observer article if what happened next:

"In 1976 Edmiston and his designer, Frank Waters, saw the prototype SA80 at the British Army Equipment Exhibition in Aldershot. It was a bullpup design, a squat rifle with a minimal butt, and its operation looked curiously familiar.
'Frank was allowed to take it apart,' Edmiston told The Observer. 'He found our bolt carrier, our magazine, and parts out of our gun. These weren't even copies. They had bought some of our guns and were using the parts to make the SA80 prototype.'
A former weapons designer with Royal Ordnance confirmed that claim. He added that the original prototypes, basically an amalgam of the Armalite AR18 and the bullpup design of the old RO EM2 were good, promising guns . . . 'but the design was fiddled with by committees in the MoD and Royal Ordnance.' The gun, he says, has never been the same since."

"Not once did Enfield ever ask Sterling for information on the AR18 . . . I know of at least one component that they 'copied' incorrectly which could well have made a difference to reliability."

The first proof of concept prototype that proceeded the XL64 didn't just canibalise components out of the Sterling Built AR-18 but was actually a commercially purchased Sterling AR-18 reconfigured into a bullpup, the picture below speeks a thousand words IMHO:



Sterling were so irritated they mocked up a joke mock up bullpup version of their AR-18 make their point of how they had been robbed.

The irony is if Enfield had brought Sterling in on the project as a sub contractor they could probably of avoided many of the issues the SA80 suffered. Instead Sterling went Bankrupt with the government compulsory purchasing the factory with the singular aim of shutting it down.

ordnance wrote:

When the L85 came along it was a godsend after lugging the dead weight of an SLR around, even better when the a2 came along and it worked as advertised

I am surprised you noticed any difference. One reason for moving to 5.56 mm was the rifle could be made lighter. The designers of the SA/80 managed to make it around the same weight as the 7.62 rifle it replaced.

SLR / L1A1 Weight: 4.96 kg (8.8-10.2 lb)

SA80 L85A2 assault rifle 4.98 kg (11.0 lb) (L85A2

Really???? I would have bet my house on the l85 being at least a couple of pounds lighter. There again I suppose being a bullpup the weight is centralised through the pistol grip whereas all the weight is forward of the grip on the SLR.

Well oomans, we have been into battle with the L85 A2 and it was the best option then available.

Why was it the best option. ? I would see the disadvantages as , questionable reliability, poor balance , terrible ergonomics, not able to be shot left handed, poor trigger, heavier than the competition. What are its good points. ?

Laurie wrote:

Well oomans, we have been into battle with the L85 A2 and it was the best option then available. The only thing that came close were Czech Z58s. US Marines were offering to swap two M4s for one A2 ! [meles meles]

That may have been due to the average US grunt hearing through the soldier's rumourmill that the M4 wouldn't stop your average Taliban at anything much in excess of 100 metres. The SS109 / M855 62gn Nato semi-penetrator bullet needs ~2,600 fps terminal velocity to produce the tumbling and explosive break-up that creates its wounding capability / lethality. Below 2,600 it makes a .22 diameter neat hole and unless one is lucky enough to hit a major bone, vital organ, brain, or artery the other guy keeps on coming or shooting.

With the 5.56's lethality / velocity relationship well understood, one really wonders as to why the US Army replaced the 20-inch barrel M16A2 with a 14.5-inch barrel carbine and the resulting considerable loss of MV. Depending on who comments on this, the M4 / M4A1's lethal range is quoted as 90-150 metres. For US Special-Ops forces who were using M4 variants with barrels in the 10-12 inch length range, M855 MVs dropped to 2,600 fps so these SMGs lost effectivenes at any range longer than across a room or street. Hence the M292 round using the Sierra 77gn MatchKing - more frangible and giving break-up at down to ~2,200 fps - then later the 6.8mm Rem SPC.

There is an exact historical parallel to this. The original .303 heavy round-nose FMJ bullet at low velocity (by today's standards) shot fast and flat compared to the big-bore heavy slow lead job from the .45 Martini-Henry and penetrated double the number of standard pine boards at some set distance apart. Come deployment in the North West Frontier District, the MLE proved disastrous as Pathans took hits (some as many as three) but kept on coming at British units. Worse, the Pathans who weren't stupid knew that a solid hit by a Martini bullet was either fatal or disabling, so when faced by a choice of charging Indian troops armed with .45 M-Hs or Brits with .303 MLEs invariably went for the latter. After a near mutiny, the experiments with expanding bullets and their production at Dum Dum were set in train. I bet the going rate for one Martini-Henry would have been two or more Lees too back then if NCOs and officers hadn't been on the ball - but does that say the Martini Henry was a better 'battle rifle' than the Lee-Metford?

Well, we're party at this point because of the Geneva convention's ban on expanding ammo in war (though given no declaration of war has been issued in forever for anything I'd argue the validity of the convention today with mostly non-uniformed enemies). It boils down to not having a perfect round for anything as nothing of the sort exists with that Status Quo in place.

Well, we're party at this point because of the Geneva convention's ban on expanding ammo in war (though given no declaration of war has been issued in forever for anything I'd argue the validity of the convention today with mostly non-uniformed enemies). It boils down to not having a perfect round for anything as nothing of the sort exists with that Status Quo in place. [Sixshot6]

Ah, but there is more than one way to skin a cat! It took nearly 20 years feom the original 303's introduction, but the 174gn MkVII .303 bullet of 1910-1957 is a really vicious killer. Base heavy, longish fragile thin-jacket nose, large empty space in the nose with a lightweight wood fibre filler packed in. Specifically designed to tumble quickly on striking animal (ie human) tissue and chew a large hole in the recipient. Who says the Brits were 'good guys' in that era? It met the letter of the Hague Convention but got around the spirit. Not that we were alone - the German 8mm Spitzgeschoss at a higher velocity than the Brit bullet did the same thing, only likely more so. It was only people like the Swedes who were unlikely to fire shots in anger who stuck with long tough round-nose bullets and even they changed to lighter Spitzers in the '30s.

It's all nonsense anyway. As military firearms student and historian Ian V. Hogg once asked, what was the sense or morality of a little non expanding jacketed bullet when all nations were simultaneously developing large calibre artillery pieces whose shells were packed with ever larger amounts of increasingly energetic explosives and which produced a hail or supersonic whirling metal shards any single one of which can do the most terrible damage to the human body? The Hague Protocols were only initiated and voted through by continental European nations jealous of the extent of GB's overseas colonies and thought it clever to make like difficult for Der Englander ven das Zulu angriff machen (pardon for the atrocious German).

As for the 5.56, yes well what can you say apart from when US Army policymakers say 'Jump!', the rest of Nato moans, groans, argues but eventually responds 'How high?'. As Meles Meles points out, the British War Office 'Ideal Calibre Panel' and various other British Army bodies asked the right questions over 1947-50, got the right answers, and came up with the closest compromise to the 'right answer' we'll likely ever see.

Howver, with the US military currently upgrading existing M4s to M4A1 status and placing large orders for new examples - a third of a million plus weapons in total - the chances of Nato adopting any other cartridge in the foreseeable future is nil, so any German, French, or British infantry rifle replacement is going to be 5.56mm come what may. The M4 / M16 'platform' is so restrictive that the largest altenatives it can accept are 6.5 Grendel / 6.8mm SPC size, much smaller and thinner than the old 280/30 British.

I don't really see how you can say the M4/AR platform is that restrictive... In fact, I seem to remember a company making a replacement upper receiver for the M4 platform that could accept the. 50 Beowolf calibre and there is cefinitely a conversion kit for an AR thatballows you to shoot 7.62x39.