Project Grayburn is a litmus test for how the British Army balances combat effectiveness with sovereign industrial capability.
With over 170,000 rifles, optics, support equipment, and a 30-plus-year support horizon on the table, it is arguably the Army’s most strategically significant small-arms procurement since the SA80 entered service.
BDT UK, the British arm of Beretta Holding Group, is one of several contenders in the running, alongside Heckler & Koch, SIG Sauer, Knight’s Armament, and others. But its bid is distinctive. It offers not only two mature rifle platforms and a NATO-standard optics suite, but also a concrete, phased plan to stand up a full-spectrum manufacturing capability in the UK.
As part of that vision, BDT has proposed establishing what it calls a “Small Arms Hub” at its existing 405-hectare Skydock test facility in Lincolnshire. The site, already partially leased by BDT’s subsidiary Centanex, includes a 210-metre underground ballistic range originally built to test aircraft armaments during the Second World War.
Senior representatives from BDT, Sako and Steiner Optics, outlined the proposal at an event in North London on 17 July.
The company confirmed that an agreement is already in place with the landowner to allow for expansion should its bid be selected. A new production hall of over 2,500 square metres is planned and, if built, would support skilled employment in the local area. A BDT spokesperson indicated that if a formal agreement with the Ministry of Defence were secured by 2030, deliveries of the full requirement – estimated at around 170,000 rifles – would conclude by 2042.
BDT’s proposal to the MoD includes four tiers of UK content: 5%, 20%, 80%, and 100%. The 20% model would include domestic production of key receiver components and local assembly and testing. The 80% configuration would bring almost all manufacturing onshore, except for barrels. At 100%, full UK-based production would include cold-hammer-forged barrels.
Jack Cadman, Law Enforcement and Military Group Manager at BDT UK, told me and other journalists, “There’s a spectrum of what can be done. These aren’t discrete options — 5%, 20%, 80%, or 100% UK-made. What we’re saying is: here’s what that could look like tactically. At 5%, all the components are manufactured at home sites — Beretta in Italy, Sako in Finland, Steiner in Germany — but assembly, testing, and evaluation take place in the UK. That’s not our preference. Assembly factories are out of fashion — and rightly so.
But as a first step, given the timelines, it might be necessary. 20% means UK partners would make the upper and lower receiver and forend. At 80%, only the barrel is made overseas. Now the barrel is the key point — and I think UK budgets are coming around to this — producing the barrel in the UK is the critical component in a time of need. We’re in a fortunate position — we’re not a distributor or a partial assembler. Because of the companies Beretta has acquired, we can offer a complete system. We’ve had discussions about laser modules, bayonets, grenade launchers — we can provide all of them. But it comes down to money, timelines, and the demand signal from the UK. Project Grayburn is the crocodile closest to the canoe, but we’re also thinking ahead.”
The consortium laid out its case at a combined media briefing and live-fire demonstration, attended by UK Defence Journal. The event featured technical walk-throughs of both rifle systems, hands-on testing with Steiner optics, and an industrial strategy presentation that was as detailed as it was blunt. The message was consistent: the weapons are proven, the production model has been validated overseas, and the UK could build them here, if it moves now, said Cadman.
“We’ve broken it down into four phases. So essentially, contract is awarded on January 1st — let’s say 2027, that’s just an arbitrary figure I pulled from the sky. In that first year, we’re doing technology transfer and initial delivery — getting the factory site in the UK, doing the prerequisite work. That’s what we call complete knockdown, or CKD assembly — your 5% UK-made.
The weapon gets delivered to the UK completely apart, we put it together over here, and then we test and evaluate. The reason that’s important is because we are training people from scratch to build weapons in the UK — they need to go through the process. Phase three, months 24 to 72, is where the equipment setup happens — CAD machines, cold hammer forging — and by Month 72 we need a full UK domestic production.”
On localisation, Beretta’s model, and UK testing capacity, Cadman was very clear.
“From a localisation perspective, our history is essentially the blueprint for us. From a BDT UK perspective, it was the M9 contract in the US — that’s where Beretta USA built a factory and provided the service pistol to the US military for over two decades. More recently, we’ve had the Sako contracts. We’ve expanded the portfolio significantly — from precision rifles to going back to self-loading rifles for Finnish and Swedish defence. And then in Qatar, we did a joint venture with Barzan Holdings — that’s the Qatari Government’s procurement company.
We created a company called Findeq, providing rifles and pistols to the Qatari forces. The similarities to the UK are striking. We already have a production facility in St Neots — they produce distraction devices, not rifles, but that would be the basis for our domestic production facility. The bottleneck isn’t production — it’s testing and evaluation. That site has a 200-metre and 150-metre indoor range used during World War Two to test RAF ammunition. We’re in a very forward position there, and we’ve already made plans around how the facility would look.”
Attendees were invited to fire both rifles. As someone with no live-fire experience, as you can see clearly in the image above, I found the weapons remarkably easy to handle. Recoil was light, the controls intuitive, and hits were immediate. “There’s next to no recoil,” one instructor said as he handed over a magazine. “You’ll be hitting everything.”
The two offerings cover a broad operational spectrum. First, the Beretta NARP (New Assault Rifle Platform), chambered in 5.56×45mm NATO, is a piston-driven, AR-style rifle developed for the Italian Army. “Externally, it’s an AR-15,” said Marco, Beretta’s international sales lead. “But internally, everything is new. We use a short-stroke gas piston, no buffer tube, and it’s fully ambidextrous. That means folding or adjustable stocks, depending on the mission.”
Second, the Sako M23 family, based on the AK24 programme currently being delivered to Sweden and Finland. Sako representative Cameron described the platform as modular, suppressor-ready, and built for cold-weather reliability. “We’ve got multiple barrel lengths: 11.5-inch CQB, 14.5-inch general-purpose, 16-inch infantry, and a 7.62 designated marksman rifle,” he explained. “The Swedes are already getting these – we’re producing today.”
Steiner provided the optics: the M8Xi 1–8× low-power variable optic (LPVO) and the T1Xi red dot sight. “These are fielded with NATO units already,” said a representative from Steiner. “The M8Xi gives you a dual-focal plane setup – a mil-spec DMR reticle in the first plane, and a red dot CQB reticle in the second. You get both long-range precision and fast acquisition in one optic.”
Beretta Holding has a track record in export industrialisation. In Qatar, it entered a joint venture with Barzan Holdings (Bindig) to produce the ARX160 under license. In the US, Beretta built an entire plant in Maryland to deliver over 600,000 M9 pistols to the US military.
“In Qatar, we entered a joint venture with Barzan Holdings. We brought in machinery, trained a workforce, and delivered rifles from a greenfield site. It’s not a hypothetical we’ve done it before. Nobody is going to do this speculatively. But we have a site, we have a plan, and we’re ready to move the moment the green light is given.”
The Sako M23 has already been selected by Finland and Sweden as a joint-service rifle platform in 5.56 and 7.62. These NATO-standard calibres are available off the shelf, but Beretta and Sako say they are prepared to develop new variants should the MoD choose to shift to 6.8 mm or other emerging rounds.
The BDT offering goes beyond the rifles themselves. Steiner provides both day optics and electro-optics, with future upgrades likely to include laser aiming devices and digital sights via its U.S. sister company, EOTech.
The event ended with a sense of cautious momentum. The consortium is ready. The rifles are mature. The optics are fielded. The facility is identified. But investment depends on clarity from government.
“At the very heart of it, we want to deliver a new individual weapon system that meets the needs of soldiers — not just now, but into the future. We know we’ll probably face a calibre change at some point, and we’re preparing for that. We’ve already developed a 6.5 Grendel survival platform, and we’ve got 7.62 for the Sako weapon system. What we don’t want is another situation like Bowman — where private-sector technology moves faster than the contract and the UK ends up with something obsolete. So we’ve planned for that. We’re building an organic production activity that doesn’t rely solely on UK-funded contracts. We want to export.
We want to be able to feed the beast — self-sustain, and let the UK tap into that when needed. It’s not just final-phase manufacturing either — it’s supply chain resilience, going deeper than that. We’re already using UK suppliers for component parts and materials. We’ve learned from major platform programmes that struggled. We’re actively planning for how we upscale if we go to war tomorrow. That’s the kind of resilience we’re offering.”
BDT UK is offering Britain a way back into full-spectrum small-arms production. Whether that offer is taken up now, or passes into the realm of “what might have been”, may define the Army’s next 30 years of soldier systems and the fate of the UK’s place as a sovereign arms producer. If Project Grayburn is a litmus test, BDT UK has delivered its sample. What remains to be seen is whether the MoD recognises the opportunity, and the urgency, before it evaporates.
It’s pretty compelling, and the ability to manufacture with a 100% UK supply chain will be vital in the event that we need to expand rapidly our land forces (Which should be a key planning line for anyone serious about defence).
Difficult to see how this compares to, for example, the SIG or HK offer (which I assume is a variant of the 416)
Should the article end
What remains to be seen is whether the TREASURY and MoD recognises the opportunity, and the urgency, before it evaporates.
Sad state of affairs when the UK cant even design and produce its own rifles. That said, this will be a good test of the LIS – is it just more spin or is it actually a meaningful doctrine?
I am no specialist in small arms, so am not qualified to comment on whether this rifle is adequate to its role. I am sure there are many here that can! Note the word adequate rather than ‘gold plated’. The weapon needs to be adequate for its role nothing more.
In retrospect NATO should have adopted .280″ after the war rather then giving in to US parochialism which has lead to at least three calibres all of course based on US commercial rounds 7.62mm (overpowered) 5.56mm (Underpowered?) 6.8mm (overpowered? jamming/reliability issues?) Sounds like adoption of .280″ Intermediate round after WW2 would have saved NATO £ $ Billions in adopting 7.62 scrapping it for 5.56 and now being told 5.56 has insuffienct kinetic energy/range for the role. Particularly against modern body armour.
Appears the British Army are being led by the nose by the US to adopt 6.8 even given the obvious problems it has encountered.
Expert knowledge and opinions welcome!
I think you’re right. :thumbup:
5.56 isn’t in any way under powered. The main issue is that when you don’t have a full barrel length, the muzzle velocity isn’t sufficient to have the stopping power for which it was envisaged. So the move to an M4 style carbine was actually the issue – hence for all it’s short comings (which are actually ergonomic) the L85 actually has a very good stopping power and range-accuracy compare to an M4.
Of note, in the last 10 years, France, Germany and the USMC have chosen to remain with 5.56 (and all adopted versions of the HK 416). I think we’re a very long way from the death of 5.56.
The US Army is also a way of deciding to fully adopt the M7. From what I’ve seen and read, it’s not well suited to CQB and the ammunition weight is posing an issue for them – it may just need a change to TTPs and training from what they’ve been used to with 5.56 (ie very rapid fire to suppress the enemy). It’s notably different watching US infantry rate of fire compare to British Infantry firing at rapid rate.
NCO’s I am in contact with assure me that the latest SA80 is a a highly accurate ’good’ rifle – Apparently partly due to its bullpup design & barrel length. Whilst I understand it does have some negative features – handed etc. I guess replacement is due because of wear & tear? Existing stock worn out?
L85A3 is a decent rifle, especially if it’s what you learn on first and don’t have to “unlearn” the more common AR style controls. Some things aren’t terribly ergonomic (the selector switch for example is very awkward, but realistically is also not something you use very often), but most of the ergonomic issues come from people not used to using it. The righty only thing is an issue, but it’s not true that you can’t fire it from the off shoulder, it’s just awkward and if you get it wrong you get a face full of charging handle.
I used it for a couple years before moving on to other systems, and while there are other systems that are better now (lighter, more accurate, ambidexterous) nothing is so much of a game changer that I’d refuse a L85A3 if it was handed to me.
The rifles themselves are getting old, the A3’s have a lot of reworked parts on them, there’s no original A1 parts in them. But the upper recievers on the A3’s, came into service in the early 2010’s, and I believe the lowers are original A2 lowers, they are a little bit beat up, and you can sometimes feel them rattle where they are worn out. I think the A3’s probably have until the 2030’s in service life, and can probably cascade into support roles as Grayburn rifles come in for frontline troops well into that decade, but will need replacing at some point just from age.
Evening Dern, slight correction, as we’ve discussed before, the TMH is the only original A1 part, either RO Enfield or Nottingham manufactured.
The A3 receivers are ( I believe) still being delivered by HK, all the other parts are A2 and being delivered by HK as needed, bolt groups, piston assemblies etc, so, build some new TMH’s ( re- engraved with the master number) and its the proverbial triggered broom!
Whatever is selected through Grayburn, it must be 100% manufactured in the UK, thats for sure, abandoning small arms production in the UK was a massive mistake, that should now be rectified.
NCO’s I am in contact with assure me that the latest SA80 is a a highly accurate ’good’ rifle – Apparently partly due to its bullpup design & barrel length. Whilst I understand it does have some negative features – handed etc. I guess replacement is due because of wear & tear? Existing stock worn out?
Bullpup rifles have better range for their size because they fit a longer barrel into a shorter overall weapon by placing the action behind the trigger. This increases muzzle velocity and accuracy without increasing the weapon’s length. However, the trade-off is reduced ergonomics and slower handling compared to conventional rifles. In close-quarters combat (CQB), these drawbacks become more pronounced — awkward reloads, poor weight balance, and limited shoulder-switching make bullpups less suited to dynamic movement and room-clearing, where AR-15-style rifles excel.
When discussing accuracy, it’s important to note that rifles like the M16, M4, and SA80 all fire the NATO-standard 5.56×45mm round. Their ballistic performance depends on barrel length. The M16A4 and the SA80 both have 20-inch barrels, allowing them to make full use of the 5.56mm round’s velocity and effective range. However, the SA80 is significantly shorter overall due to its bullpup layout, while the M16 retains more conventional ergonomics and easier handling.
The M4, in contrast, is a carbine-length version of the M16 with a 14.5-inch barrel, sacrificing range and velocity for improved maneuverability. This is why, during the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, you would see U.S. Army medics and support troops carrying newer M4 carbines, while frontline U.S. Marines continued using the older M16— a deliberate choice to retain better effective range.
Please can ENATO trial & adopt, 6mm ARC or 6.5mm Grendel or 6.5mm LICC. Any of those is better than 5.56mm .Great if the rifles can be built in the UK & keep the factory busy after that with pistols, SMG, LMG.
On the cartridge question we should go with whatever is NATO standard, essentially the benefits of standardisation are constant and ever present, the benefits of armour penetration only happen if you hit a piece of intact armour.
Designing a Rifle is not easy, and unless you are willing to invest a *LOT* into building that capability you’ll struggle. Case in point, the SA80A1 series, whose problems where in no small part down to the UK not having made a rifle in a very long time and having lost the skills needed to take an okay design and translate it into a good rifle. It’s not something that is easy to reacquire. (Also worth noting that NATO had 7.62 as a standard infantry cartridge for most of it’s history, the move to 5.56 wasn’t completed until the 90’s. So it wasn’t just a short blip).
As for adequate for role, I’m sure it is. Berreta has a good history of making firearms and has been supplying the Italian Army for a while now, and it’s an AR-15/18 variant. They tend to have their kinks ironed out by now. The questions I have is, how will it stand up to your disgruntled squaddie chucking it at the end of a long day, how much will the unit cost be. It’s easy to make an amazing highly tuned marksman rifle these days, if you charge an arm and a leg for it, and if it’s machined to really fine tolerances that might not stand up to a beating.
Its interesting Dern, having studied the L85 programme in some considerable depth over the years and made several visits to the L85 wall at Warminster, its an abject study of nor to build a sevice rifle!
One of the key problems is the rifle was designed by committee, by engineering staff drafted into the project, from outside the firearms industry, the result was a predicable dogs dinner.
For example, the earlier trial X series rifles utilised an L1A1 type safety by the pistol grip, that worked well.
As the desig developed into pre production standard, it actually got much worse from a operators perspective and reliability had massively decreased.
When this shifted into production in 1985, it had got worse again, having been subject to a final set of cost cutting measures!
Its a sad story….
Should be a strategic necessity if we are on “war footing”. We need the ability to mass produce millions should the need arise, with distributed production sites should the main factory be targeted.
Voluntary firearms courses that citizens could sign up for to build war resilience. The more men and women who have weapon skills the safer we would be.
You would like to think the Army, MoD, HMG, Treasury would have a minimum acceptable industrial strategy plan that ALL bidders would have to meet i.e. barrel forging, upper/lower receivers, sighting systems etc.
Sadly a lifetimes involvement with aforementioned bodies would only reinforce the fact there will be no strategy and jobs for the boys and the old boy network will triumph. At the expense of UK sovereign capability and balance of payments as normal.
Has to be the 100% option for whatever new rifle we adopt. Any price premium more than offset by increased tax revenue – not something the big brains at the Treasury seem to understand, unfortunately.
You’d better have done us proud George—and landed a tighter grouping than Forces News!
On a serious note—how many NDs are we talking about?
What MOD need to do is invite George to all the Trials, let him have a go and see which he prefers or gets his highest score with. It’s a win win, George gets to learn to shoot and have “Fun” and MOD know it’s been proof tested by a Newbie.
I know sod all about guns but surely they must be reaching a point where they’re almost perfect?
They’ve been in production for a century and constantly upgraded and still do the same basic job with a few extra bells and whistles.
Is it possible that huge leaps are still achieveable?
Is it just upgrades for scopes and stuff?
I hope they don’t go for perfect and spend more than necessary.
Isn’t “good enough” acceptable for an IW to kill someone?
And what’s wrong with the SA80? Age?
Like Bob says above, it’s all about ergonomics. That’s why whatever we choose, it’s going to be an AR-style rifle rather than a bullpup — faster, more intuitive reloads, better balance, greater modularity, and easier handling overall.
The AR-15 design is incredibly mature, with a huge ecosystem of proven options. Like you said — we just need one at a reasonable price, which ‘should’ be simple.
Age. It’s age. The A3’s have a lot of rebuild in them, but the upper receivers where a single part replacement on the A2’s over a decade ago (yes H&K designed a new receiver, stamped it A3, and then sold them to the army to be fitted to A2’s, so if you look at a lot of A2 rifles they have “A3” stamped on the receiver). There servicable, they’re not broken, but you can tell they’re a bit rattly and getting on even with the rebuild. I suspect if you fast forward to 2035 when I’d guess the last A3’s will finally filter out of the most REMFy units, they’ll really be showing their age.
Ergonomics are often cited, but IMO that’s a target shooters complaint (or in some extreme circumstances an airsoft shooters complaint). The fact is most squaddies don’t get slick enough at reloading for the rifle to be the real difference (a lot of the flicking the magazine stuff to the side you see is great range stuff, but not something you’d really be doing as you want to keep your magazine. Instead a reload is done a bit more deliberately in cover or while on the move, and I’d argue that the change from the old PLCE ammo pouches to velcro ones probably sped up reloads way more than any rifle change ever will).
Basically mate, the A3 is triggers broom, only tbe TMH ( lower receiver) is original to the A1.
That said, its been in service for 340 years this year ( initial A1 deliveries in 1985) and its time to move on.
The AR platform lends itself to very easy barrel swaps, (unit armourer level) and is therefore capable of being reconfigured for 11.5″ barrel to 20″ for different tasks with ease.
It can therefore easily be rechambered in any of the 5.56mm derived calibers, or for that matter, any calibre that will fit the magazine well.
It will be an AR type, thats for sure..
40 years even!!!
If we change calibre, we face the problems of ammunition supply and operating two calibres for a lengthy period. If we stick to 5.56 mm, a new rifle can be phased in over time whilst keeping replaced SA 80s in reserve.
No idea how good the Beretta rifle is, but the idea of recovering a sovereign capability is very attractive.
Beretta seem to have very firmly looked to capitalise on the prevailing winds of sovereign capability! Certainly putting a good marker in the sand for the others to be chasing. My only concern is, once production is wrapped up with the 170k guns, what will happen to that manufacturing facility…
As far as potential calibre change, I really don’t see anyone adopting the 6.8 x 51 mm Sig that the US Army are trialling. It’s essentially the same size as 7.62 NATO, although apparently lighter. The performance is clearly for better range and armour penetration, but I’m not seeing either of those things playing a part in any future fight with Russia. Engagement ranges in eastern Europe are the same as they were in WW2, as sight lines haven’t changed; the Russian army is certainly not issuing body armour to hardly anyone- even fewer get stuff with real ballistic plates. A new calibre/cartridge is likely, I just don’t think it’s that.
As far as the Beretta offerings go, I’m not an expert- although I like to shoot. In my view, with our partnerships in the far north, etc. the Sako option seems a winner. But everyone does seem to like the AR ergonomics (including myself, to be fair, having fired some examples), and that many people can’t be wrong…!
Feels like its the wrong time for this. There is a lot of concern around the 5.56mm and it would appear another option is needed, but there appears to be a lot of negativity towards the new US rifle especially around the lower number of rounds carried. We could do with letting the US iron the matter out first, see if they stick or twist.