The Ministry of Defence has provided an update on Project GRAYBURN, the initiative to replace the standard-issue L85A3 rifle used by British Armed Forces, in response to a recent parliamentary question.
Rebecca Paul, Conservative MP for Reigate, asked the Defence Secretary for an update on plans for a successor to the L85A3 rifle. Maria Eagle, Minister of State for Defence, responded: “The L85 rifle (‘SA80’) will be replaced over the coming decade through Project GRAYBURN.”
Eagle confirmed that the project is in the concept phase, during which the Ministry of Defence is working to identify and define the capability requirements for the new service rifle.
This phase involves detailed analysis to ensure the replacement rifle meets the evolving operational needs of the British Armed Forces.
While Project GRAYBURN has been in development for some time, this written question underscores growing interest in the timeline and specifics of the initiative as the L85A3 continues to age.
The L85A3, the latest upgrade of the SA80 series, has served as the British military’s standard-issue rifle for over three decades. Introduced in the 1980s, the rifle has undergone several modifications to address initial reliability and performance issues, with the A3 version featuring significant improvements in weight, durability, and compatibility with modern optics.
Despite these upgrades, the need for a modern replacement capable of meeting the demands of 21st-century combat has become increasingly apparent.
Project GRAYBURN aims to deliver a rifle suited to the ‘changing dynamics of modern warfare’. Although specific details about the successor rifle remain unclear, modularity, adaptability to advanced optics and accessories, and enhanced reliability are likely to be key factors.
The timeline for the project remains uncertain, but with the concept phase underway, further updates are anticipated as the MOD refines its requirements and begins exploring design and procurement options.
No doubt we will end up buying American.
So long as it lands in a better state than the SA80 who cares?
Because not all of us want to use American stuff.
Even if it is better? How very intelligent…
The gains by switching from l85 to anything American that will be affordable and squaddieproof are minimal.
It’s not black and white though is it there’s a range of qualities to judge and we produce some of the best sniper rifles in the World so we do have some capability in this sector. The problem is with US leadership now based on using whatever power and leverage is possible and possibly this may continue or even worsen post Trump then having our supply of basic necessities we can’t easily swap out then you don’t simply say ‘well if it’s best buy it’, that’s how the US got hooked on Russian rocket engines even for its military launches by the way, that’s worked out well thinking we were all mates back then, indeed nearly disastrous for them. Indeed someone had the sense to see that danger ten years ago and worked to reverse that just about in time now. Any rifle is better than no rifle at all and in all honesty there will be probably half a dozen possibilities that have little to no absolute advantage over the others so yeah probably is intelligent actually if one applies a modicum of lateral thinking. (Well said Dern by the way).
I’m assuming ‘better’ is quite an ambiguous criteria and even if you could define that metric sufficiently it may not be the only criteria required for procurement.
It kind of depends on what you define better as? The L85A1 was admittedly a bag of sh*t. After HK sorted out the issues and produced the A2, it became significantly better (line chalk and cheese). Even more so after replacing the SUSAT with ACOG. As the ACOG has a horizontal bar, making it easier to judge and track moving targets, plus allow for windage much easier.
Being a bullpup, the L85 can use a full length barrel of 518mm (20.4”). This compares favorably with the US Army’s M16, which uses a 20” (508mm) barrel. The new Knights Armament KS1 (L403A1), uses a 11.7” (297.18mm) length barrel. The M4 has a barrel 14.5” (368mm) long. However the overall length of the L85 is 785mm (30.9”). Whilst the L403A1 is 869mm (34.2”) long with the stock extended.
The advantage is that the L85 is accurate to 500-600m, whilst the L403A2 will be effective to 300m.
Having used L85, M4 and HK416 on Operations. The L85 especially with ACOG was significant more effective against the Taliban than the M4. As it had better reach and accuracy. Its main issue is ergonomics.
Yes you can actually shoot the L85 from the left shoulder, but it requires a special technique, so you don’t get a face full of brass. Whilst the M4 is naturally ambidextrous. The brass ejection is far enough in front of your face to miss.
For me it was the mag change that is far more intuitive on the M4 and M16 derivatives. As it’s in front of your trigger hand. Which means it’s much easier to replace a mag when prone. Also the arms don’t cross near to the body, where they could snag in webbing etc.
The L85 does have another significant advantage over the M16 family. Which is it’s less susceptible to failures caused by dodgy ammo. The M16 uses direct gas impingement fed from a tap off from the barrel, where the gas is directed at the bolt carrier face by a tube. If the ammo you are using burns inefficiently leaving behind dirty deposits these build up and restrict the gas flow. Which then leads to the bolt carrier not traveling the full distance to clear the magazine feed leading to misfeeds and jams.
We had this issue in Afghan, where the Canadians I was with, their Colt (Demarco) C7/8 were jamming up from cr*p Romanian provided ammo. However, my team were issued with HK416s. Which uses the same method for recocking as the L85. Where the gas is tapped off the barrel to drive a piston back to recock the weapon. Yes, the Romanian ammo affected the HK. But like the L85, you can open up a wider port to allow more gas flow into the piston and thereby allow the weapon to function properly. Thus allowing you to continue when in contact. The piston is also a lot easier to clean than the gas tube.
The L85 came about due the number of troops expected to be carried in AFV/IFV. The previous L1A1 was 1,143mm (3ft 9.0”) in length and has a barrel length of 554.4mm (21.83”). Which meant getting through vehicle doors was a proper pain as it used to get caught all the time.
For the role the Royals need to do, which is ship boarding and raiding. The L403A1 is ideal as it’s nice a short. Which is needed for close combat. However, the regular infantry need a longer barreled version, as they need to reach out to at least 500 to 600m.
So you have to decide what context the L403A1 is better than the L85?
@DaveyB. The L403 is a 1 minute of angle rifle. It will easily reach out to 600m if it has a decent shooter behind it. Grouping is much tighter than on even a fully refurbished L85 and the 1-10x optic is amazing coming off the fixed 4x optic on the l85 (no longer an ACOG btw, it’s an Elcan).
The simple difference between the 403 and 85 is cost and squaddie proofing. If your willing to pay through the nose for a high end rifle then the 403 is a straight up better weapon system, at 50 or 500m than the l85.
Of course price is also part of what is “better”.
Even if it is better?
The only other options are Sig, FN or H&K
Honestly there’s unlikely to be a marked improvement over the l85. Since the A2 in the late 90s the issues have been solved, and really a 5.56 rifle, at the common squad level, is s 5.56 rifle.
Personally I think a rifle change will be to a new calibre; 6.8mm such as the US is starting to do.
Perhaps, but while the US does to a certain degree dictate caliber, it usually takes decades for everyone to follow them. It’s entirely likely that the MoD will get another 30 years of 5.56 life with a new round, waiting to see if the US really like 6.8 before changing.
This is essential. Issues in afgan demonstrated 5.56 isn’t suitable for longer distant combat and in the era of the drone distances between defensive lines will likely expand. Not to mention it has problems with modern plate carriers.
I assume however we will wait a while and let the US properly combat test their new rifle, which is likely a good move as the sa80 in its v3 configuration is fine, if not overly cutting edge.
Yes the real choice I think and in that regard availability of ammunition and what other forces are doing will play as important a role as minute technical superiority on paper. Uk source availability and production a similar factor. I don’t want any future foreign politician dictating what we can and can’t do be it the US or Switzerland. MAGA policymakers are already talking about forcing ‘allies’ to submit to US policy dictats by any means possible, we should be concerned.
I doubt we’ll go to 6.8mm, no other NATO country outside the US has shown any interest in it. It will probably be a HK416 variant, even the US marines have chosen a HK416 variant in 5.56 as their new rifle instead of 6.8mm. Changing calibres would just be too expensive and too much of a logistical headache. Maybe it could have some special purpose uses (lighter weight DMR?) but I doubt it would become standard issue.
Anything in the 6mm to 6.8mm is better than 5.56mm. The trouble with the new American Sig 6.8mm is that it is a magnum more powerful than 7.62, rather than a mid power cartridge that can replace 5.56mm.
Agree waste of time…they should spend time and money on CS, CCS and a cannon for the armoured infantry.
See my reply below. At some pont it’ll have to happen, but the reasons and pressures to do so will be different to what a lot of people think.
Joe, Why so negative? I think most serving soldiers like the L85A3, whilst recognising it is not perfect. Still, it is time to move on from a weapon, the original of which was fielded 40 years ago.
The origins of SA80 are actually far earlier
Julian, are you going to tell us all about the EM2?!
That’s the point the a3 is a perfectly OK riffle (as long as your not left handed). I suspect the winner will be the new knights weapons the marines choose and whilst its optics and inbuilt suppressor are nice improvements, I’m not sure it really is a significant enough upgrade to justify the cost.
Even if your left handed if you have a dominant right eye that’s not an issue, and the number of soldiers in the UK who have trained to shoot lefty before joining is minimal.
Also, no it shouldn’t be the Knights Armament KS-1 for reasons outlined elsewhere, but definitely NOT with the really expensive optical on it.
no british to buy since we butchered the firearm and defence industry
FN have purchased Manroy, who made the Army’s GPMG and .50 cal and rebranded it as FN UK.
They’re based on the Medway…and they made very good MG’s…
Brig, not a foregone conclusion. Plenty of SA manufacturers in Europe. We have bought or made under licence Belgian designs before.
5.56 mm just doesn’t cut the mustard any more. You’re all mentioning Afghanistan or Taliban and ranges seen in usage there. M4 is just as capable as L85A2 (L85A3 has no difference in range or accuracy to L85A2). Then the guys who are saying this are not taking the fundamental issue, the Army is getting smaller and those conflicts are not near-peer conflicts. When near-peer is used it means opposing forces will have same effective range and body armour. Because of this the MOD and the British Army MUST look at OVERMATCH with opposing forces. We’ve already lost overmatch by buying Boxer for the heavy armour brigades to get a replacement rifle that is again 5.56 doesn’t give our smaller Armoured Division any form of Overmatch (Normal Armour Divisions should be 3 Brigades 2 up 1 in reserve). Nevermind the Airborne or RM Brigade with 105 mm lightgun (Christ a 60 year old system with no range for deep fires). I agree the British Army should be smaller but when our troops are deployed they should have equipment that gives overmatch. They been able to do this with Chally 3 and RCH 155 and G-MLRS (As long as they have enough ammo). But the overall strategy is woeful which will get more squaddies killed in the long run.
Kudos for giving it its correct name. Most folk call it the SA80 regardless of the varient. The SA80 is the family of weapons which includes the L85 individual weapon.
Correct, SA80 was a suite of weapons, which consisted of the following;
L85A1
L86A1 LSW
L96A1
L94A1 Chain Gun
L10A1 51mm Mortar
Never heard of the L94, L96, or L10 being paer of the SA80 project.
AFAIK SA80 consists of
L85A1, A2, A3
L86A1, A2
L98A1, A2
L22A2
And
L402
If common sense can prevail with the MOD the three services procurement departments, then I feel the Standard-Issue Individual Weapon Requirement could be standardised to the Already In-Service Knights Armaments KS-1 Assault Rifle family of Weapons. If it is capable enough for Special Operations Forces Troops then it should be suitable for the rest of our Armed Forces Branches, in whatever variant configuration is selected.
too expensive for the whole military
Problem is, the KS1 is a 5.56mm rifle, and I think that because the US is going towards a 6.8mm rifle with the XM7, that’s the way NATO will likely end up going as well.
Nope. The KS-1 is not suitable for the army at large. Too expensive, not squaddie proof enough.
It’s a good rifle for a SOF operator who has several years military experience before even seeing it, and has plenty of range time, focus and coaching on their individual marksmanship.
For an 18 year old private fresh out of, or into, depot, it would be a terrible choice.
Lofty, there are no single-service procurement departments in DE&S. Only one team in MoD procure SA.
SF have very unique requirements and their equipment can be niche and very expensive. What they need is not what the rest of the forces needs.
In fairness Graham, SOF falls under CFA and has to procure through a different funding stream from SF. But the broader point is right.
Dern, thanks. I should have mentioned that.
Totally agree Lofty, I managed to have a play with the Knights KS1 recently, which almost reminded me of the well thought of SLR in relation to simplicity. It’s well balanced and robust unlike the early SA80 that I converted to all those years ago when first introduced – certainly missed the SLR 🤫
Bit confused why they just don’t roll the KS1 out to the rest of the armed forces as the standard assault rifle, but maybe I’m missing something.
Well I’ve explained it multiple times in the comments here.
It might well be. I can’t help thinking that equipping the marines and rangers with it is a trial, after the patchy start with the sa80a1, it seems sensible to phase it in.
Although I think it’s the wrong choice as the calibre needs changing, as having 1 soldier in each fire team with the sharpshooter to get around the problem isn’t a great solution.
Wit its optic it’s a 10,000£ rifle. No, jts not a trial. It’s a high end rifle made to narrow tolerances that are not necessary for line infantry. You’re paying for way more capability than your average soldier can get use out of it.
It’s also isn’t very squaddie proof.
What’s not squaddie-proof about it?
Relatively finicky cleaning regime, easily damaged. Attacking it with a can of coke or scotch brite, as squads are known to do, will have consequences to the finish and therefore preformance. Think of it like a supercar, gives you great preformance but you’ve got to be careful with it in return, in part becsuse, bring expensive if you break it it’ll cost a forune to repair. A standard issue 416, or m4 is more like a hot hatch. Rag it around. Take it on rally cross and even if you out it in a ditch it doesn’t matter because it’ll not cost much to fix.
It will have to meet the Pink and Fluffy asperiations of the modern World and those dear Liberials who dont wish to have anyone harmed. Not forgetting we only need a couple dozen anyway. Thank goodness the Royal Marines went and got some real working kit so they at least can do their job.
I’m assuming that the main reason this is needed is because the US is adopting the XM7 – a 6.8mm rifle.
This would mean that all of NATO has to eventually change to 6.8mm weapons, of which at the moment there is only the XM7 (I might be wrong). So it’s either the XM7 or a rifle that doesn’t exist yet.
I’m not saying that as a point in favour of the XM7. Personally I think we should go in with the likes of Germany, Poland et al and develop a new European rifle. Would spread the cost and would remove any reliance on the US.
Steve, The main reason we need to consider L85A3 replacement is because the underlying design (L85A1) is over 40 years old. Nothing at all to do with the Americans. We don’t slavishly copy US procurement decisions – we replace kit according to our own factors.
All of NATO does not have to change to 6.8mm. That is not even an officially endorsed NATO calibre yet, as I understand.
We have a history of buying British/European SA, rather than US SA with few exceptions. I agree that we need to collaborate as we no longer produce SA in volume.
Just because it’s 40 years old, isn’t the reason. It’s been upgraded significantly since then.
I suspect it’s more about the issues accounted in afgan around being out ranged and concerns about ability penetrate modern plater carriers.
L85 wasn’t outranged at all in Afghan. In fact, as a result of Afghan, they reduced the range on the ACMT required by Combat Infantry. SSR (L129) was brought in to replace LSW as the marksman Rifle. It was the extra accuracy of the heavier round at range plus a 6x Optic, and the LSW being absolutely nowhere to go development wise.
Also, all of the L85A3s are upgraded A2s. And the A2s were built out of A1s. The internals were changed, but the barrels, TMH and Upper receivers are mostly original… So at their heart, many L85s are literally 40 years old.
In fairness A3 upper recievers are new, and some of the A2s have A3 uppers as well (the upgraded recievers started getting rolled out across the army).
Some rifles will have had barrels replaced as they’ve gotten worn out etc, too, so it’s a really mixed bag, you can find some weapons in armouries that have almost been completely replaced, and some that are still largely original A1/A2 parts.
I’m not an expert, nor ex-forces, but I find it unlikely that 6.8 mm x 51 will be the new NATO standard small arms weapon calibre. I know it’s supposed to be a common calibre for both individual weapon and squad automatic weapon, but it’s the same length as 7.62 NATO and not a whole lot lighter. The purpose of switching to 5.56 NATO was to allow the average squaddie to carry more ammo and other equipment, and this doesn’t do that.
What the US Army have adopted in the XM-7 is a rather heavy, long rifle in order to manage the recoil of the round- although a lot of the weight is in the fancy optic too. It’s essentially some kind of mash up between a select-fire designated marksman’s rifle with a slightly lower power scope, and an accurised ’70s-era European battle rifle. That may be fine for the Rangers, Marine Raiders, Airborne (currently, I believe the only “regular” unit assigned these), and suchlike- but the average infantryman probably won’t get the best out of it. Not even well-trained ones like the US or British Army.
I don’t think it’ll be widely adopted; I think 5.56 mm NATO will stick around until someone manages to make something that’s a real step forward viable at scale, like plastic cased and/or telescoped small arms ammunition. There were a couple of entrants in the trials that chose the Sig 6.8, so it may not be all that far away.
Well the XM7 is arguably European, in that while it is made in the USA by Sig Sauer Inc, it’s in the sister company of the Swiss Sig Sauer AG (both owned by Lüke & Ortmeier Holding Gruppe).
That said, a European production line would be preferable.
The XM-7 is an American designed and manufactured weapon by Sig Sauer USA. Any foreign purchase requires US approval under the Arms Control Export Act.
Export for sales isn’t really an issue, we could get that easily enough. I would guess we could even get them built domestically if we put in big enough order. However the bullets are pricey and I suspect that will turn the MOD off the options.
The bullets are only pricey if you go for the silly multi metal US ammo. You can go for the same 6.8 cartridge in standard brass if you lower the pressure & still get something better than 5.56 with less recoil & weight than 7.62 NATO. I believe several manufacturers have prototype rifles already in test with brass only cartridge cases.
There are already issues with XM-7…its apparently not all roses in the trials.
Plus the 6.8mm hybrid cartridge is proprietary…ie. if you want to make it you either need a sole source contract with SIG or you hvae to licence the technology and pay them a royalty per round…
That will not fly with the rest of NATO…let alone the UK.
I find it unlikely that 6.8 mm x 51 will be the new NATO standard small arms weapon calibre- even if SIG let everyone make it. I know it’s supposed to be a common calibre for both individual weapon and squad automatic weapon, but it’s the same length as 7.62 NATO and not a whole lot lighter. The purpose of switching to 5.56 NATO was to allow the average squaddie to carry more ammo and other equipment, and this doesn’t do that.
What the US Army have adopted in the XM-7 is a rather heavy, long rifle in order to manage the recoil of the round- although a lot of the weight is in the fancy optic too. It’s essentially some kind of mash up between a select-fire designated marksman’s rifle with a slightly lower power scope, and an accurised ’70s-era European battle rifle. That may be fine for the Rangers, Marine Raiders, Airborne (currently, I believe the only “regular” unit assigned these), and suchlike- but the average infantryman probably won’t get the best out of it. Not even well-trained ones like the US or British Army.
I don’t think it’ll be widely adopted; I think 5.56 mm NATO will stick around until someone manages to make something that’s a real step forward viable at scale, like plastic cased and/or telescoped small arms ammunition. There were a couple of entrants in the trials that chose the Sig 6.8, so it may not be all that far away.
Personally, I’m OK with going with a European system- I believe that the Czech company Bren have been providing and essentially battle-proving their assault rifles in Ukraine. If we move away from bullpups and don’t feel the absolute need for an AR platform then I’d probably go there, and it’d be nice to have ‘Brens’ back in the British Army!
The SIG 6.8x51mm round has a bi-metallic case body, the SS head to take the unprecedented pressures of 80,000 psi created and with an attached brass body, it costs approx. 4+ times that of the 60,000 psi all brass cased 7.62 NATO round plus new production plant required. Reports from US troops when fired in the XM250 LMG instances of the bi-metallic body separating with the brass part left stuck in the chamber.
The US with the M4 infantryman usually carries a load of 210 rounds of 5.56 whereas the with the SIG 6.8x51mm load drops to only 140 rounds as 10 kg is the maximum amount of ammo that the average soldier can comfortably carry.
The Russians went in the opposite direction when they transitioned from the AK-47 with the intermediate 7.62×39 round to the AK-74 with the lighter intermediate 5.45x 39 round which ups the number magazines and ammo from the AK-47 7.62×39 of 330 rounds to 540 rounds for the AK-74 5.45×39.
I suspect we’ll probably end up with the HK416 or a variant there of, since a number of NATO countries are adopting it as a standard service rifle. Not a bad choice, but there are others out there. An AR platform rifle most likely, doubt it will end up with mass KS1 adoption due to the cost.
Problem is the HK416 fires the 5.56x45mm round which is increasingly ineffective against body armour. That’s why the Americans are going for the 6.8×51mm fired by the XM7 to replace the M4.
How about it’s bigger brother, the HK417?
That fires 7.62x51mm; far more wallop!
Why procure that when we already have a 7.62 rifle at section level?
I forgot about the L29A1.
Maybe we should just buy 200,000 of those, then?
Because the sharpshooter was a patch job to get around a limitation of the sa80a2. It meant giving up a sa80 in the section which limits combat effectiveness at closer range. Additionally doesn’t solve the issue of the sa80 not being able to defeat modern personal body armour.
Sharpshooter is meant to be a great weapon for when range is needed, but i don’t think it’s the sole long term solution to the problem.
L129 replaced the LSW, it didn’t take a rifle out of the section. … also not sure how you think it limits firpower at close range. It’s not like 7.62 stops working under 100m, and, frankly, with the signature reduction system in place an L403 isn’t much shorter than a L129 (and you can short stock both).
The main issue is the same that ALL 7.62 rifles face: you don’t carry as much ammunition.
I honestly think they may be best to leave this alone for now..there are so many things the army needs to fix…fiddling around with a new 5.56 rifle that adds at best very very marginal benefits is the last thing they need to do. Also there is a lot of work around new 6.8×51mm Rounds so it may be best to let others splash the cash and see which way NATO as a whole rolls.
The only issue I would say, separate from the whole “we need a better rifle” is that the L85s are physically getting old, and that while a lot of the rifles are a bit “ship of theseus” we will eventually either need new build L85s or a replacement rifle, and when that time comes getting a replacement will probably be cheaper than creating a bespoke L85 production line again.
Agreed, it’s an age thing rather than any need to keep up with new rifle calibres.
There are some decent options out there, and given that we have an effectively non-existent small arms industry, I’d be happy going MOTS and not spending loads trying to develop something without the required expertise and experience.
My requirements as a former infantry guy with 3 combat tours:
1. Does it go bang every time I pull the trigger?
2. Is it accurate out beyond 350m?
3. Is it short enough to be good in and out of vehicles and in congested built up environment?
4. Can I fire it easily from either shoulder?
5. Can I mount optics and LLMs without any add ons?
6. Does it have a bayonet option?
After that I want to know how much it weighs, how easy it is to clean, and how fast I can operate it in basic drills. One of the biggest issues with the L85 was you had to move the Rifle and you hand had to move a lot for mag changes, stoppage drills etc compared to other weapons I used. If you ever watch new guys on the ranges you’d see how slow it is to do basic drills.
We all got very good and very quick at drills, but if you had a more ergonomic layout it would be better.
As a “convert” from SLR to L85 in the earliest days I fully agree!
Not sure why this has missed the pages. But Ukraine has been delivered its first Boxer RCH155. It and the following 5 vehicles will be staying in Germany to conduct training. Whilst the first in-service vehicle is expected to be delivered later this year. Ukraine has so far ordered 54 vehicles.
Will it be a game changer? Firing on the move has never been done by a SPG before. Im expecting its baptism of fire is going to be real eye opener.
Yes, saw it on The Warzone.
Not just RCH155s, but Boxer command vehicles (1 per battery) with non-penetrating unmanned turrets mounting a 30 mm autocannon. It piqued my interest somewhat!
I found it interesting also the level of automation on those- the article is well worth following up if you can. The commander essentially just taps in the target grid coordinates from outside of the turret (no-one in that turret), and the gun does the rest.
Tis is really the sort of kit we should be manufacturing here, even if, as with SLR, it is under licence. There is no pressing need to order anything yet. The original SA 80 was in production for 10 years,@350,000 units, and this will be quite a long contract. That should give plenty of time for UK industry to prepare.
Just buy C7/8 and have done with it.
Let’s us not do an Indian for Pete’s sake.
Thank god I never really had to get to grips with the SA80. As an ex techy my weapon should have been the Sterling smg, being a lefty I had the SLR, being really good with a bolt action I had one of those as well. The SLR was a good rifle if set up correctly if you managed as I did to get mine fitted with SUIT Trilux sights and smooth out the return action. Spent many hours in the armoury with S/SGT REME sorting that out.
Anyway suggestion, the next combat rifle should be for both left and right handed persons. Reasons, in times of emergancy you go to default, if your left handed you need a few seconds to pick the rifle up think whoops right hand, change the rifle over to right handed operation then get comfortable then fire. By the time you have done all of that some idiot on the other side is taking pot shots. Next reason, eye sight I know that my left eye is stronger than my right as I am left handed it is to be expected. What you will find is that hand eye co-ordination is what it says with the dominante eye being on the same side as the dominante hand. I did ask an eye doc about the hand eye thing and he agreed that it was the case in early life but in latter life the stronger eye becomes weaker due to over use. Final reason, with 10% of the population being left handed if this statistic is carried through to the Army that means that 10% of the folks that serve are left handed. This also means that 10% of the troops in a fire fight are not operating at optimal capacity which then translates to over 7,000 not hitting the target as well as they could be or are getting injured because instinct takes over. There are a few advantgies with being left handed like shooting around right handed corners you don’t stick out as much. I also noticed that using a right handed bolt action was for a left handed person a smoother operation as the left hand comes away from the trigger, goes over the butt hand has a smooth open close on the bolt. Being right handed the action looks to me to be a bit more clunky. It was the same with the SLR it was much more smooth to put safety on/safety off as I would only need to move my left thumb. I did get into trouble a few times on the ranges as the range master thought I would leave the safety off as he did not see the hand movement of the left hand coming away from the rifle and going down to the safety and back up again.
FInal food for thought, I do not think that I would have been the captain of the shooting team if I was forced to shoot right handed.
SO get it sorted, it should be possible to have a rifle that can be used by both left and right nhanded troops, even if it is a extra clip on butt.
See above. The juice is not worth the squeeze. L85 is a perfectly serviceable rifle for now.
As for your rant about lefties, I have never seen a leftie (and yes im one, and yes I’m one of the few who learnt to shoot before joining the army) “accidentally” pick up a l85 and try to fire it from the wrong shoulder, or have any other sort of whoopsy. That kind of thing is drilled out. There are minor things that can be said about ergonomics, but again, juice not worth the squeeze (oh and you can fire a L85 from the offhand shoulder, especially with an llm or using the cqb sight on the lds. Susat less so but those are rare in service now).
Of all the things the army needs, the extremely marginal gain that replacing L85 would bring is so low on the priority list. The money needs to go into artillery, air defence, armour, cSS and ISR. Those are necessities, this is a luxury.
OT but still Land Forces. According to today’s ‘i’ newspaper front page, discussion circulates about UK possibly being asked to provide peacekeeping force in a post-war Ukraine of 5,000 to 10,000, together with other European nations such as France.
Article says our army is too small. I have been saying that we can no longer roule a Brigade Group ever since we dropped to 73,000 Regulars, without recourse to significant numbers of AR and/or RM to bolster Reg Army numbers.
Chickens home to roost. But you just know Healey, Lammy and Starmer will jump at the chance to grandstand just a tad more at how important the UK is and how we are at the forefront of the drive to help Ukraine.
Which is fine, but NOT while cutting the military to even more farcical levels.
That idea comes from Trump. He’s mouthed off getting us to enact his shitty peace plan for him.
I say fuck him. If he wants to stab Ukraine in the back he can front his own troops for it.
Rifles? A subject close to my heart. Modern plates are shrugging off 5.56. Hence a sensible US decision to up the anti. Also the range issue. Remember the one about the two old Afghanis who pinned a US Marine platoon down for hours armed with SMLE 4s? Until an Apache blew them up. Infantry need “reach”, 5.56 does not have it, they also need lethality. I am all for giving our infantry the best. I think a larger calibre makes sense. As for source of said piece? Plenty of good European makers without slavishly buying American. Of course by the time it happens, if ever, after the MoD chew the cud for a decade, and if Rachel from accounts is still around? I will be dead. Be nice to see H&K and CZ involved though. Infantry deserve the best. ( Historical bias admitted )
My opinion is a 5.56×45,mm variant of the Sig Sauer MCX Is the most likely candidate.
Sig have made noises about going into business with Portsmouth’s Accuracy International. Obviously building owner own issued weapons has got to be better than importing.
The horses in the race were H&K416, adopted by France, Germany & Norway as well as the US Marine Corps. But they have never shown interested in manufacturing anywhere other than Germany, although they do have interests here in the UK.
The Canadian C8 also until recently in service with us as the L119 has a new iteration, but I don’t think they could make them anywhere but Canada, as they are a licensed variant of the Colt M4. Trump’s noises recently have overshadowed relationships & having someone potentially with their foot hovering over the supply hose will be a problem.
Sig Sauer have won the contract with the Yanks for the new M7 6.8mm battle rifle. They make their new service pistol. They clearly have the eye on being THE biggest NATO supplier. I believe they will try very hard to win the Grayburn recommendation.
As usual NATO has been stiffed by the US. What should have happened was a NATO agreement on a new standard round that everyone could buy into. Instead the US has done their own thing yet again with the 6.8 mm. That leaves everyone else with a huge problem – which I’m sure is no accident, any more than it was on previous occasions.