There is a total inventory of 134,912 SA80 A2 variant rifles and 17,900 SA80 A3 variant rifles held by the British military.
The number came to light in response to a Parliamentary question.
Dave Doogan, Shadow SNP Spokesperson (Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Manufacturing), asked:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what the gross inventory of serviceable SA80 rifles of A2 and A3 variants is in his Department.”
Jeremy Quin, Minister for Defence Procurement, responded:
“For operational security reasons we do not break down numbers of serviceable weapons, however there is a total inventory of 134,912 SA80 A2 variants and 17,900 SA80 A3 variants held across defence.”
According to the British Army website, ‘SA80’ is the designation for a family of assault weapons.
“On its introduction, it proved so accurate that the Army marksmanship tests had to be redesigned.”
SA80 A2 comprises the Individual Weapon (IW) and the Light Support Weapon (LSW). These are the British Army’s standard combat weapons. Made by Heckler and Koch, they fire NATO standard 5.56 x 45mm ammunition.
“Both weapons have been modified in light of operational experience. A major mid-life update in 2002 resulted in the SA80A2 series – the most reliable weapons of their type in the world. This reliability is combined with accuracy, versatility and ergonomic design. It is considered a first-class weapon system and world leader in small arms.”
That will be a lot of hardware to replace if, as mooted over the last year or so, NATO goes for a new calibre rifle – 6.2/6.8 mm.
Rifle replacement isnt that big an issue or that expensive. To by a rifle as a private owner you are looking at several hundred pounds.
To buy one as a military buyer the cost is very very low per unit …usually less the 150 pounds …bulk buying has its advantages.
Additional costs in Armourers kit, rifle stowages for stores, spares, new ammo is where the cost will be . Also the embuggerance of learning another lot of parade ground drill!
I was reading somewhere that the costs of upgrading the SA80 were substantial, don’t quote me but figured of around £1000 per rifle! Not sure in the truth of it, but even if close that makes you wonder!!
The MOD should have throughly Listrned too the Lafs who carried out trials on the SA80 mk1 0•1 and their concerns about MAG drops, stoppages and other various defects before imposing them on the Tri services and then ignoring their concerns
Yes, it’s been a fairly traumatic evolutionary process and expensive one by all accounts.
I agree the A1 was shocking, we swapped to the L129A1 in Gan as an urgent requirement due to the times we were in the brown stuff because half the fire team were calling out issues. However, the mid-life upgrade from A1 to SA80A2 ACOG really sifted it out. The A2 is one of the best I have used and I’ve used a lot of different longs.
Thanks Ian b Hindsight is a fact that the MOD have a Degree in ,if only they had listened too the concerns raised instead of brushing them off as “Operator miss handling of equipment ” it would have saved not only taxpayers money but changes of Fatigue Pants
A2 is a good rifleI agree the sa80 got betrer after the first series of jams,I always preferred the LT (I had a lonely childhood)cede nullis fortune favours the brave
LT?
The total cost per Rifle to convert the A1 fleet to A2 and A2 to A3 is 3500 per Rifle making it one of the most expensive in service, this does not include the original purchase price of the A1.
Ouch! Unbelievable crass stupidity! Why oh why just not go for something else, would have saved shed loads I suspect.
Makes you wonder what those who control this stuff are actually thinking. Perhaps a list of names against projects might be a way ahead, to start naming and shaming them!! If it’s beyond their capabilities then get rid and give someone else a chance surely.
I think mostly due to the embarrassment of getting rid of 200k rifles less than 15 years old. Forgotten Weapons youtube channel has a great series on the evolution of the SA80 from a fairly sound design rooted in the AR series and experience of firefights in NI and enclosed spaces, through to messing up the design and choosing cheaper materials to save money, and in the end building the initial run at ROF Enfield which was severely run-down by that point, and all the staff knowing they’d be out of a job as soon as the contract was complete. Thatherite Britain at it’s best.
I think ROF Nottingham was also involved and did a better job but the fundamentals of some of the poor design e.g. mags and weak buttplates were still there.
Only in the UK, only Inthe UK!!! Absolutely beggers belief, especially when there are no consequences for failures.
The A2 upgrade was reported as £400 per rifle !
Yep, you have to pay a lot for German engineering (Heckler & Koch).
If the US Army NGSW program is a success, we’ll just jump on that. They will probably choose the Sig Sauer offer and that new round.
They’re only planning to roll it out to infantry and cavalry soldiers. I expect the British Army will do something similar. It won’t be phased in for use among non-combat arms for a very long time.
That’s interesting cheers. If selected and it’s a phased introduction as you suggest, will make the lobbies job that much more difficult having to supply
2 different main calibre rounds in large quantities.
I think sometimes it’s easier to bit the bullet so to speak and just procure the job lot as required.
It was raised in Parliament on the Jan 20th would the SA80 replacement be manufactured in the UK. Reply was” A decsion has not been taken on where the replacement would be manufactured as consideration of a replacement options has not been completed”
There arent any UK small arms manufacturers that produce pistols or assault rifles left are there?
Just Accuracy International which was set up in the 70’s to manufacture sports rifles and which make some of the best sniper rifles in the world.
In 2015 Australia’s small arms manufacturer’s Lithgow factory (now owned by Thales) was contracted to build 30,000 of the latest EF88 version of the Austeyr bull pup rifle with a follow-on order for an additional 8,500 EF88 rifles placed in 2020.
Some 67,000 Austeyr rifles were ordered when the weapon was first introduced into the ADF in 1985. How many of these remain in inventory is unclear.
Lithgow also produced subsequent upgraded versions including the F88A2 (with picatinny rails, upgraded optics and grenade launcher options) first fielded in Afghanistan, which still remain in service alongside the newer EF88 (exact numbers produced are hard to come by).
Compared to the SA80 the EF88 is slightly lighter, with a higher cyclic rate of fire and accurate out to 500 or 600 metres.
Lithgow has been producing small arms for the Australian Army since 1912 although its future post-Vietnam was not assured and Australia’s small arms manufacturing sovereign capability was lucky to survive.
In 2021 Thales Australia announced over $12million of investments in new infrastructure and advanced manufacturing capability at the company’s Lithgow and Mulwala facilities. They will integrate traditional precision manufacturing and digital technologies, including 3D printing, and automated electro-plating and metal treatment.
According to Thales the investment incorporates ‘a new purpose-built live firing test and evaluation capability to support systems integration, and the acceleration of research and technology development of digitised small-arms and weapon system platforms.’
Australian journalist Chris Masters has written a detailed account of the history of the introduction and evolution of the Steyr in Australian service including the ongoing in-service competition with the M4/M16. It has some fascinating insights into the perennial issues of providing the frontline with kit fit for purpose along with how the kit shaped up in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Its well worth a read if you have the time. I’ll post a link separately (links tend to get held up by moderation).
Links to Chris Masters article published by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) on the evolution of the Austeyr rifle.
https://www.aspi.org.au/report/sticking-our-guns-troubled-past-produces-superb-weapon#:~:text=As%20with%20earlier%20ASPI%20case,how%20Australia%20equips%20the%20ADF.
https://ad-aspi.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/2019-10/Sticking%20to%20our%20guns.pdf?VersionId=eTUaNAbpW9rBrzW0G2580lVpR8WHL37b
I didn’t think there were . It was raised by Stephen Kinnock so I expect it was to do with the use of UK steel etc being used in the construction
Are those statements true? Does the army truly believe the SA80 to be a “world leader”???
Or has April has come early this year?
Such a fantastic firearm, that’s why you see it used all over the world…
It is a good weapon, when it is working.
Trouble is the A1 was renowned as being difficult to keep working.
similar to the M16 in Vietnam …
Jungle is bad for corrosion and ejection trouble down to ammo not suitable for weapon
A1? That was 20-35 years ago – but Americans still don’t seem to know the A2 version dramatically improved the weapon.
And at its first issue to the lads if you were Left handed tough Luck !!!!!!!
Being left handed and served in the 8n gantry with both the a1 and the a2 I can assure u it wasn’t a problem shooting right handed and later in service once the red dot was put on top of the sight we learnt how to shoot left handed with it by simply using the red dot and movin your head back with for room clearing and snap shooting was more than fine
Trialed tha A1 in 88 being a matelot if its got moving parts we’re break it a couple of the lads we’re left handed and their right arm was only used for a half tilt salute they would pull the butt right into their sholder and accidentally get a hot spent cartridge in the left cheek, they would then extend their arm and too be honest would single shoot like a scene from Grand theft Auto Tim
In terms of accuracy and range for an assault rifle it is at least among the best.
The A1 was utter shite due to reliability issues (shocking for something that is supposed to be squaddie-proof), but the H&K overhaul fixed it up right good. The A3 is a nice enhancement to the A2.
The special forces of course are special and have their own choices. But their needs and demands on weapons are different. What fits the squaddies doesn’t fit their more refined skills.
Still heavy compared to modern alternatives though, I think I’ve shot most NATO rifles over the years. Unless the MoD is playing a very patient waiting game to see what the next ammo type is going to be, or its got some bizarre attachment to this rifle, some services have changed rifles twice in the same we’ve had this rifle.
Its always a tradeoff, the lighter the weapon the greater the recoil unless you divert gas pressure in which case you reduce the range and penetrative power of the projectile.
It is somewhat heavy but that does help with recoil and it’s compactness means that most of that weight is close into your body which is an advantage.
True.
Its not a “world leader” but the uprated versions are decent weapons, good enough to do the job. But its not the weapon we have to look at nowadays its the need for a better, possibly slightly heavier and more efficiant calibre thats the future question.
I think that’s fair, the uprated versions are decent weapons. But they came at a financial cost far in excess of other perfectly suitable firearms available at the time (which were also lighter to boot!).
There are plenty of other calibers out there that with better ballistics and ability to maintain energy at range than the 5.56, and it obviously makes sense to go with a new Nato standard, if one comes about.
Lets hope that this time, we get it right first time, and that the needs of the soldier are put above the requirements of political expediency, I live in hope, but I’m also a realist…
Agreed mate!
They get the job done but they’re still far heavier than the competition.
Personally though I don’t see them going until NATO switches cartridge or they are too worn out to be used, the money is better spent elsewhere.
Agreed mate.
100% it would be silly to even make a short-list until we know what Uncle Sam wants NATO to swap to.
We need to use a heavier round, the L129A1 we used in Herrick had the stopping power and the lightest touch from a round never saw someone hobble away, unlike the A2.
It’s the MoD publicity team at their best, I remember an american soldier say to me on deployment once ‘ hey that’s a cute gun ‘ .
I’m not sure Americans can talk when they have the absolute honkers that are M16s. Of course some of them like to showboat by whirling their big guns around (not so great in an enclosed space).
The SA80 is an M16. Having spent money and brains on the excellent by all accounts XL70 4.85 mm, brushed off by N.A.T.O.* and closed down, someone just put the M16 inside an Enfield frame and sat back in retirement. Many G.I.’s lost their lives due to well advertised chronic problems with the M16, but the Brits went even better by using very poor quality materials ‘to save on costs’. H&K did not ‘make’ the S.A. A3 but deftly replaced the firing pins that snapped and bolts that split and cured the failure to eject and plastic that dropped off.
The British 0.260/80 of 1949 is being re-invented ‘over there’ I see.
*In 1974 following the defeat in Vietnam the U.S. had warehouses full of 5.56 mm ammunition that they were never going to just dump. What was going through Enfield’s mind with the 4.85 mm is hard to say.
From the plastic viewpoint, one minor point of interest. The material the furniture is made of is NOT suitable for recycling, needless to say the cheapest supplier ignored that instruction and used quantities of old furniture for feed stock. The result was plastic so soft you could scrape it away with a finger nail, and it warped and crumbled.
Of course no one in the Purchasing system would accept their mistake, and they were still arguing a year later who was to blame.
DSG had terrible lack of quality control, indeed no Quality at all
Thank you Phil. Good to have first hand accounts. I could never have served. You could creep up on me in a tank.
Colt sued for copyright infringement on A2 fix lol
Thanks pete. I read something about a court case. What happened?
The SA80 series is derived from the AR-18 short-stroke gas piston system, not the AR-15 direct impingement system.
Thanks for the correction Tom.
Mate you know what some yanks are like….
I am tired of the debate about caliber. Fact is different calibers have different advantages.
Correct but in open and general warfare 5.56 has found to be wanting.
I think the biggest problems with the Yanks, was that they wanted to look tacticool ala operator style and using the stumpy M4s. The shorter barrel has a detrimental effect on the ballistics of the 5.56, i.e short range and dispersion of rounds around the aim point. Therefore, when being used in typical engagements, they quickly found that they were being outranged. The longer barrelled M16s wasn’t such an issue.
When living it up in Candybar, watching US personnel with their standard long barrel M16s hanging from a strap over a shoulder. Letting it drag on the ground and bang into furniture etc. I’d be amazed if they could actually hit their zero.
The Canadians with their C7s at least weren’t bothered with looking tacticool and treated them with better respect. Still would not have traded in my 416 for one though. They still have the same issues as AR15/M4s, in that after a prolonged firefight, they will start to misfeed and need forward assisting. After a quick clean they’d be ok, but when have you got the time to that in a contact? They definitely seemed to get worse depending on who supplied the ammo. When firing UK supplied 5.56 they had a heck of a thump from the recoil. When using the crap Romanian stuff, they would soon jam up after burning through 4 or 5 mags.
For those not in the know the Colt Canada C7/8 uses exactly the same gas impingent method for re-cocking the weapon, as an AR15 platform. The difference is that the gas port is a lot bigger as is the vent tube directed at the block. Which is why they have a much bigger recoil kick than a similar AR platform. The SF (L119) version has a still bigger gas port and vent tube and it definitely kicks.
Lol your point about the yanks and their long barrelled M16 on a shoulder strap banging about like a toilet door in the plague is spot on, the amount of pax who, especially Kandahar specials, who would zero once and then treat their weapon as a hindrance when ordering ice cream and be unable to hit said shit house door at 10 paces if needed 😂👍
From first hand experience, the 5.56 was awful, once we swapped platforms that used the 7.62, we were zipping away effectively at 800+. The L129A1 gave us the reach to put a more than decent amount of fire that kept them at a distance while we worked on our options. The SA80 A2 is half that range, even then it’s not kicking up enough at the other end to make the opposition think twice.
I have seen the US options and from my point of view, they have Han Solo’s blaster to our pop-gun.
Just my P.O.V from being in an FOB with a fly swat and a baseball bat at different times.
Pretty much sums it up 👍!
The Jamaicans use it I believe !
Blair sent SA80’s to Jamaica and Zimbabwe loosely described as foreign aid. What a loon, think they were trying to drum up sales abroad!
As someone who has used it for just under 20 years, the A1, A2 & A3, I can state it’s a bloody good weapon, now. It will outperform the average squaddie (sorry, near used another term we use for Army 😁.
It will become outdated once the US and others upgrade their platforms, we swapped to the L129A1, while 43 had the Colt C8 in 2015. Both of the latter are preferable in a more specialist way. However, having used the A2 vigorously on three deployments to a certain country to the north of Pakistan, I can attest to how good it is when you have a slog on for eight or so hours. It’s reliable, accurate works even when caked, takes a right bashing and still works.
Many a chap and medic got back because of it.
👍👍
Do you lads not think that it’s an inadequate number? I only ask because of some horrible scenario where a draft has to occur and the armed forces are grown significantly, there won’t be enough weapons in reserve and I’m not sure industry would be quick enough. Rifles are remarkably cheap relatively speaking.
Theyd just crack open the old Bren. L1A1 or import a load of AR15s from USA.
The USA has a massive manufacturing base for AR15 platforms after all. Dozens of manufacturers.
L4 and L1A1’s all ‘long’ gone from store, John’s question on expanding the Army at short notice is a moot point, as discussed on another thread.
Our war reserve of equipment has been sold off or gifted in the endless hollowing out of our armed forces.
We literally have nothing to do equip the tens of thousands of reservists who would be recalled to the Army…
As for the ‘ergonomic’ design L85, hilarious, it’s the car that Homer designed on the Simpsons, a right dogs dinner of a committee design….
That said it’s reliable and it does the job, I am concerned at the comparatively low rebuild rate of A3, the A2’s are really very well worn after decades of service, so the number available will continue to slide.
H&K are providing new receivers at a rate of 5000 at a time, there are being used to rebuild A2’s at base workshop level.
My own take on this is during 1985 when the first production lots of L85A1’s were being delivered to store and found to be badly wanting with huge numbers of faults, we should have pulled the plug.
The obvious choice (and the one the Army wanted in the first place) was a version of the Colt M16A2, with the three round burst swapped out for the simpler, select fire trigger group.
The M16 was matured and reliable by 85, it would have saved a lot of heartache and ‘huge’ expense down the line too…
John, I am pretty shocked if there is no kit and personal weapons held in store for Individual Reservists. Can that really be the case?
I’ve had no issues getting one
Nothing unfortunately, Army Reserve (old TA) catered for, but reserve list personnel wouldn’t.
There are tens of thousands on the reserve list, but literally nothing to equip them with.
Really not a great deal of point having a reserve requirement anymore….
I know the RM has enough for anyone up to the end of their ressie time. I suspect other units have nothing from my time with others ion courses who did the same tasks as me.
If it hits the fan, we will be pushed back to Dunkirk again, that’s if we have any ability to field more than 18k to the front line.
Where are all these old Brens or SLRs stored?!
Long gone Graham.
I know, but thought I would ask Mr Bell where he thought they were.
The SLRs were donated to sierra leon about 20 years ago.
Are you sure? I didn’t see any there when I was on loan service there in 2002-2003. They had LRs and Bedfords donated. All the troops had AK47s.
I know its not the best source of information but it is there on the L1A1 wikipedia page I do remember seeing a news clip of our boys training the locals up on them around the time it was kicking off down there and some of the older guys in my unit complaining that we had gotten rid of our war stocks of SLRs.
Thanks. I have seen the reference now:“In May 2000 London provided 10,000 self-loading rifles (SLRs)”.
Funny that I did not see any in 2002-2003 when I was in IMATT.
Some went to Sierra Leone gifted as aid, wonder if they were used against are own troops?
I went out there in 2002-3 as a British Army Loan Service officer.
Again, I say that I did not see any SLRs in hands of Sierra Leone troops or hear that any had been gifted.Those troops had an abundance of AK47s.
Government of Sierra Leone forces did not fight the British – where do you get that notion from?
British forces (and some other soldiers) deployed there after the civil war in a training and mentoring role – a 120 strong group called IMATT.
Rifles of a simple design could even be 3D printed on most part. If money was thrown at it and red tape cut we could churn them out.
After all simple ar15 are made at home in usa
What question do you think you’re trying to answer there? If it’s “quickly ‘churn out’ some simple guns in an emergency”, 3D printing is not your answer.
Metal sintered 3D is an extremely slow process and the number of machines able to do it to the required standards with the correct materials in the UK would be far too small for anything resembling ‘rapid mass production’.
The design would likely need to be tweaked according to the specific model of printer in order to maintain tolerance. And this method would simply not be applicable to many parts. Even the ones it *could* make would require extensive post-machining as the printed finish has an inherent roughness that would be inapplicable to any area requiring tight tolerances, mating with other components, reciprocating parts and so-on.
It is technically possible – a US company 3D printed an M1911 pattern handgun a few years ago. However while the gun was usable, it was still inferior in a number of ways to a conventionally manufactured alternative while no doubt taking considerably more time, energy and expense to make. And the issues with it would grow in magnitude if the same techniques were adapted to a rifle size and calibre weapon.
The technology has improved since, and Formula 1 teams now produce some components to that level of sophistication via additive manufacture, while the latest GE jet engines also use it for components that could not be made to the same design via any other method. However if you knew what the cost was, and how long it took, you’d know they wouldn’t be doing anything like ‘mass production’ in the context you speak of.
As for “homemade” AR-type weapons, again these aren’t typically made at home in their entirety. Lower receivers are relatively easy to produce in a well-equipped workshop, especially if, in the US way, they are bought as raw or part-finished forgings. However again that is not a rapid process in an ‘enthusiast’ environment, and pretty much anything else on a “DIY” gun – especially critical components like the barrel and bolt-carrier group, is likely to be bought-in.
As others have already said, it is difficult to see this need arising as there are other issues that would impinge more than availability of weapons. However if there *was* a specific need to generate a stock of arms quickly, it’s difficult to see this being an applicable avenue.
The other point is the U.K. gov still has all the guns they forced out of civilian ownership over last 20 years. Do some research I can tell u where there is a secure shipping container full of them at a local range.
Rifles on the whole are very simple. If you think BAE couldn’t have them churning out in a week your mad. I also fail to see a WW2 situation where we would suddenly need them. By the time new troops are trained a modern war will be long over. We are not in the 1940’s
You know, this has often been repeated throughout history, it’s turned out to be laughably wrong. WWI was supposed to be finished by Christmas 1914.
The US thought after WWII that having a big army and navy was obsolete because they’d entered the nuclear age, 3 years of harsh conventional fighting in Korea just a few years later proved that wrong.
The only modern wars that are over quickly are wars against significantly inferior forces (Falklands, Grenada, Iraq, etc), there is no evidence that a war with a peer or near peer force would be over quickly unless WMDs were used. More than likely they’d just degenerate into a stalemate after the initial big bangs and high casualties.
Your also wrong about 3D printing. There is a 9mm carbine which is three d printed with only one part bought in which is the firing pin. It has been made in several countries and shot for thousands of rounds. Things mace moved forward slot in ten years
Nothing simple about the AR Andy, it requires machining of solid aluminium stock to manufacture the reciver and TMH.
It can’t be 3d printed, but UK engineering companies could certainly turn their hand to making them, a number do already.
U can already 3D print or mass produce 80% of a guns parts.
However wher AR can be made at home in US with few parts kits there not exactly complex. I also know, I own one.
Going back to the first point Andy. There’s a world of difference between a simple 9mm blowback Firearm and a high pressure select fire Assault rifle.
There is very little modern scenario which will require a quick “draft” of numbers. Modern warfare isnt about mass, its more about skill sets, tech and the ability to project assets in a timely and efficient manner. Yes mass does have a quality of its own, but, even if we had to dramaticly increase number quickly, there isnt the equipment, infrastructre or training facilties to do so. Whats the use of getting another 20000 infantry (which in itself is no longer the “easy option” as being an Infantry soldier requires a high skill set and ability), but there isnt the other arms to support. The days of quick conscription is long gone mate, but, you have raised an important point that I believe we dont have a sufficient stock of war reserve to ensure we have both depth and the ability to replace damaged/lost assets and kit. Cheers.
However, as Daniele is want to point out, the Army in particular lacks supporting personnel to deliver and sustain what effects we have… I’d have thought it is quite dire at the moment.
My point exactly, even if we wanted to increase the numbers of teeth arms quickly, the Army could not provide enough CS and CSS to match. No longer is it about a few weeks training and over the top mate, as you know, its about having a blanced, capable and well trained force. The days of quick conscription are long gone. Cheers.
What about increasing the Gurkha numbers ,is that the quickest fix incase if we have to ?
Evening Dave.
The army already has. Several more Gurkha sub units, that is companies or squadrons, are forming in CS/CSS formations like the RS, RE, and RLC. Also, what was to be 3 RGR is now in one of the “Ranger Bns”
Window dressing compared to what is needed.
The army does not need more infantry units. What it does need is firepower, CS/CSS elements, and what infantry it does posses organized effectively and in full 3 company plus FS company sized formations, or even combined arms regiments.
Not 8 of the battalions effectively enlarged company sized!
Evening DM Yes the Ranger Bns is very much what you said and it is pretty blatant spin, maybe in this current time the chickens have come home to roost ,something has to be done.
The Gurkha lads have already been asked! Quite a few back in, on old contracts even after being paid full pension for early retirement! But much more of everything and everyone needed mate.
👍
They aren’t super humans. They come very rough around the edges and need at least a year’s training. Some really do need training in some basic life skills.
And then there’s if Nepal and her people would be willing to see a sudden surge in recruitment.
With the importance of remittances of ex and current Gurkhas to Nepal it wouldn’t be an issue.
Having spent some time in Nepal, the poverty is staggering, and young men joining the British Gurkhas is seen as a very attractive proposition….
I’m half Nepalese/Nepali. Not that that itself makes me knowledgeable about Gurkha recruitment, but it is an area of interest to me and I’ve known a few Gurkhas.
Yes, recruitment is oversubscribed. But there is good reason why many are rejected; they just don’t meet basic (tough, but still basic) requirements. Training the ones who do pass is a big task as it is.
So you can’t just suddenly increase recruitment from there.
And while the Nepali authorities are fine with the current recruitment, there’s no guarantee that they’d be happy with it significantly increasing. These are another countries’ citizens and their location communities need some young men to be around (being in the Gurkhas takes them away for, what, a good decade?)
And the Indian Army might also not be too pleased if we get too greedy with Gurkha recruits.
tl;dr: they are a human resource, so you can just simply order some more like you can weapons.
Mate Gurkha recruitment is always massivly oversubscribed in Nepal. Twice a year they have recruitment periods, and thousands of young lads, backed by their families come to try out. Only the best 200 or so are chosen. There is a very good programme on it on youtube. It shows the whole process, from statrt to finish, from Nepal to Catterick. Very good and shows how seriously both the recruitment teams, the recruits and the training teams take it. Cheers.
Hi Airborne.. I think the recruitment numbers have been quite a bit bigger the last few years. sometimes 300 or 400 strong at a time. Because of the Gurkha brigade being brought back to to around 4,000 personnel. Good to see the brigade back to those numbers.
The MOD and government also have stockpiled guns taken from the public at the end of 1990’s gun ban. The government has larger stockpiles than I realise. BAE could knock up a production line working with gun smiths very quickly
I suppose Airborne, in a dire emergency, the training system would be fully stretched trying to get the elements of the Army reserve who have signed up, but yet completed basic training.
Alongside that, selected people from the Reserve list would be recalled, probably with an enthasis on REME, Royal Engineers, Medical Corps and perhaps selected ex infantry that left the Army in the past couple of years.
The lack of equipment, support and facilities today, probably means the Army couldn’t quickly expand above 130,000 total.
I think we might well have the right number of CSS but not enough CS (especially arty) – but they are not distributed correctly amongst the BCTs, Special Ops Bde and SFA Brigade.
Good points Airborne. Conscription – I am sure many don’t know that the standard Combat Infantryman’s Course is 26 weeks, that for Paras and Foot Guards is 28 weeks and that for Ghurkas is 37 weeks. Then before all that there is about a year for Crapita to do the recruitment piece!
Truly scary if our Individual Reservists don’t have any kit or personal weapons in stores.
Correct mate and thats just to turn the lads out as crows, with no experience or specialist skills which Battalion needs. Modern warfare is all about skills, capbabilty and tech, which cannot be learnt in a short space of time. And obviously people with nads to get in their and fight (something many seem to forget nowadays, we still need to get up close and break things)….cheers ;0)
You sure about that? If things get kinetic against a peer adversary are you going to want replacements for casualties? This is just to MAINTAIN current troop levels, not necessarily increasing them.
You need mass to hold ground in conventional conflicts and to fight in larger scale insurgencies. Modern technology hasn’t negated that.
There is a reason why the US, Russia, and China still have large ground forces with a lot of infantry, especially if you include reserves. The US and Russia even have second land ‘armies’ called the USMC and VDV respectively (not that either force likes to imagine themselves as such, of course), both being larger than the entire British Army.
All three countries also maintain either conscription or the mechanism for conscription.
Aware of that after a full career in the job however let’s not pretend the UK even with NATO allies will be planning to hold any ground! We are unable to do so, as we lack the depth and mass as you say, and CONOPS for NATO has never been to hold ground, always been a “slowing” action even in the Cold War when we all had more assets. And China Russia still have the capability of conscription and reserves if needed, more due its aggressive foreign policy and fear of its own citizenry to ensure they remain in power. The US has always had a large reserve/national guard due to their own history and national identity in the way they developed as a country. And the USMC certainly aren’t a second land army, not sure where that name came from, as they are generally the go to troops for the US.
Did you say USMC is a “Land Army”? While they are not up to the standard of the UK’s bootnecks, they are the first use option for the US.
The US also has a very good National Guard system that can be called up at short notice. Not many nations have a reserve force that has the latest Fighters/Bombers and AFV/Tanks and 450,000 members.
That’s the question that occurred to me. Surely we ought to have enough weapons for every single fully enlisted serviceman and reserve at least – and I think this figure falls a little way short. I assume that there is a stock of original SA80 that was never updated? Also of course specialist arms such as GPMG and sniper rifle etc?
Also, cadet .22 weapons :~)
We have the Regular Army, the Army Reserve (was the Reserve Army and before that the TA) and Individual Reservists (who are ex-Regualrs who have a reserve liability for some years after reg service).
Unless I am mistaken we have the kit (uniform, boots, webbing, personal weapon, radios, vehicles, trailers etc), for the regulars and the Army Reserve but might not have even clothing and pers weapons for the IRs.
Probably all the original SA80 (L85A1) were modified into A2s.
Good point. I don’t think the UK has a significant firearms industry anymore. We have small business that make custom rifles, and of course AI, and even one company that makes AR upper and lowers that get exported to the states. But I can’t think of anyone that could scale up at pace to make firearms in quantity. No large scale barrel manufacturing capacity either, you don’t turn barrels on a lath, the machines required are specialist and few and far between.
We have Sassen engineering that make quality barrels in the UK mostly for the custom rifle market I think. Most rifles made in the UK use barrels made by Lothar Walther of Germany, or imports from the US, or Sassen.
There are other rifles in service as well, MP5 and variations on the US M4 Carbine.
Probably in small numbers and they may not be spare. Not a solution for equipping thousands of Individual Reservists or Conscripts – if a long General war was contemplated.
There is not enough of anything in reserve as you would need armoured vehicles, artillery, engineering vehicles, trucks, helicopters to support them but in the future I’m hoping that will change as we have some decent kit leaving service and a stockpile of challenger 2, warrior, AS90, CVRT, Apache AH1 and ammunition for these vehicles could provide a great wartime reserve pool. As a side note does anyone know where the lynx Ah9 ended up after being decommissioned.
You can assume the Regular Army and Reserve Army have their Peace Establishment of vehicles, artillery, crew-served weapons, helicopters etc. (except in the case of a Whole Fleet Management regime, where some will be stored away from unit lines). The increment of such equipment to make units up to War Establishment will be held in stores and depots. On top of that will be a War Maintenence Reserve (Attrition Reserve) to replace battle damaged equipment.
The big issue is whether there is any kit (including uniform, boots and webbing) for Individual Reservists or for any Concripts in the case of national mobilisation (an unlikely scenario of course).
Additional to the above points is that the army has shrunk over the years since a particuclar equipment was bought. We bought 408 CR2s, yet declare 227 – so in theory the balance are in storage (probably not all will be in the best condition!). The army has reduced in size over the years, so there should be surpluses of Warriors, AS90 etc – unless they were sold off or scrapped without publicity.
However, it would be a very optimistic person who assumed that all surplus kit was kept and is maintained in pristine condition in storage.
I recall the recent uproar regarding the new challenger strength level being inadequate for replacements in the event of war. I suppose it’s fine as you all are saying there won’t be anyone to operate them either.
Replacements for crews that are in the army as there are lots of replacement crews in the reserves. Furthermore the biggest uproar probably was about the lack of regiments operating the MBTs
It would be harder to manufacture more tanks, artillery pieces etc. if ‘the balloon went up’.
Hopefully the .300 winchester mag. Aka blackout round will be selected. It packs a punch and is accurate out to 500+ metres.
Shot some blackout whilst in the states pre covid. Very impressed.
Packs a punch but its a big round, 7.62 x 67mm, its heavy and long. The 300 win mag has a belted case, it uses the same head as .375 holland and holland magnum, so probably not suitable for full auto military firearms.
Its not the same as 300 blackout which is effectively a necked up 5.56 taking a .30 caliber bullet.
The next round is almost certainly a 6.8mm round and the weapon system is down to a choice of 2 models I believe. The sig sauer and GD NsW offerings.
I think sig will win out as its a simpler design and the squad weapon seems far better than the GD one.
I believe the decision is due shortly for the US
quick update. the NSW optics contract was awarded yesterday and is a game changer.
the UK really does need to follow suit and place an order whilst we can benefit from economies of scale.
Yeah I’ll bet you don’t reveal how many are serviceable. The answer would embarrass you…
Yes that’s the worrying I would say. After all it’s only a security risk if the numbers of weapons is lower than needed.
If the entire reserve had to be called up it would be like an episode of dad’s army, kitchen knifes taped to broom handles for weapons.
“ergonomic design” ?
Glad someone else got the joke and not just me…!
“Anybody can use 1 as long as your right handed”
I know there’s zero chance i’d ever see it but i’d love to see comparative data on levels of accuracy at different ranges achieved by different armies using their standard rifles. The average Brit, German or American Infantry soldier using their standard issue weapons would give something to compare.
SA80. A1 absolute s***te. A2 & A3 decent BUT all of them were designed to be more ergonomic and lighter than the SLR. SA80s are heavier than the SLR (excluding ammo) and come to that a 303 Lee Enfield – how did that happen?
The successor will not be British as we no longer have a small arms factory. Likely a HK or Colt derivative built under licence.
SLR….damn what a weapon, actualy found a couple of old SLR mags in my attic a couple of years ago (empty obviously lol)….Even the mags were well built and solid!
The SLR looked the part and was the part 🙂. I wonder if the above includes L86 LSW numbers? There must be plenty in a shed somewhere. The WORSE SA80 was the Cadet issued L95A1 because the heath robinson cocking handle disintegrated almost instantaneously.
https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.cd72ae03fce0c0ef3c778cf26d70b255?rik=zdIZ%2buEI3jztdw&riu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.rifleman.org.uk%2fImages%2fEnfield_Cadet_RHS.gif&ehk=iDLx7Y38mQ3TEr5AjFOqzKFHMWQHRrr3Z4ry7Yq2wwo%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0
Junk.
The L1A1 was an excellent rifle, reliable and accurate enough for government work….
Developed from the equally excellent Fal and improved with major redesign input from Canada and some Australian and UK suggestions….
The L86A2 is no longer on issue I believe, it was used as a designated Marksman rifle for a while, but I believe they have all been withdrawn now, can anyone confirm that?
In the United States British Commonwealth SLRs & Lee Enfield 303 bolt action rifles are hot favourites with collectors. I doubt SA80s will be though. The L86’s have been replaced in infantry sections by Sharpshooter rifles & a Gimpy so there must be plenty spare somewhere.
Hi Rob, the L85 is a very rare rifle outside of the UK, only sold in very small numbers to foreign users and released from service in even smaller numbers.
International Arms control measures effectively prohibit it’s civilian sale now, even as a deactivated paper weight.
In the US, the vast majority of L1A1’s available are parts kit builds, based on new build receivers. The reason behind is the L1 is classed as a machine gun, due the presence of the Automatic (safety in UK terms) sear.
Interesting re the L86A2, I have a feeling the majority have been ‘reduced to produce’, or converted to short crew carbines, or perhaps semi automatic Cadet L98A2’s.
I should imagine it’s far easier to fit a rifle length barrel to an L86A2 and convert it to semi automatic, than modify a straight pull L98A1 to semi automatic.
Interested to know what the L98A2 is converted from, if anyone knows?
Just to add, I believe HK are permanently converting some with .22lr conversion kits for training too, I would imagine the L86 is the diner rifle here too.
The L86A2 LSW and the L110A2 LMG where removed from service in 2018.
Cheers mate…
I never had one disintegrate and I’ve seen plenty be mortar’d as they’d rarely feed after I got even slightly excited, which back then I figured was a safety feature (oh to be young, and naive, again.)
They had to be to be in the victory parade….
I was a big SLR fan too, having been a Lee Enfield No.4 Mk1 fan from my ACF time. SMG was OK for those who it was issued to eg. signallers, RMP etc.
SMG, the stopping power of a small childs football kicked in your face….lol….no, seriously it made you realise what the blokes using the sten gun in WW2 must have thought! The star wars special….
I can assure you Graham as my personal weapon was an SMG it would have been dumped PDQ for an SLR if the ballon had of gone up for BAOR😀
I take your point if you wanted to pick off the enemy at 200-300m range but the SMG had its place elsewhere for close-in protection.
Now you could manufacture the non valuation bits out of carbon fibre, quite cheaply, to get the weight down.
Carbon fibre is very squaddie resistant, used correctly and can be field repaired.
From memory I think it the P90 is mostly made from resin, with the barrel, block, return spring, and parts of the trigger sear assembly being the only metal parts. You could if you put your mind to it, do a similar job with the L85, which would knock quick a chunk of the weight off. But I think the A3 version will be last.
I think A3 is the end of the road too.
Just the point was that moulded carbon parts are no longer as crazy expensive as they were and would get the weight right down.
I agree. The HK 416 I had in Afghan and polymer foregrip/cover and adjustable stock. The receiver was all metal. But even so it weighed substantially less than the equivalent L85 A2.
As a weapon system, it did everything asked of it. But significantly as it used a piston operated action, it was ammunition insensitive.
Before I left the mob, I had a company manufacture some parts for a trial. These were 3D printed and one of the materials used was the carbon infused nylon along with a high strength Ultem for comparison. The UItem did well, but the carbon stuff was really good. Shame it took over 16 hours to produce per piece!
The reality is that 3D printing is fine for prototype and testing.
If you are going to make 10’sk units then you are going to use moulds.
That is a shockingly low number. You would think they would have more in war stocks, should the worse occur. Maybe not the version 3, but atleast old version 1s
If you went looking most would be V1’s – with bits robbed.
I’d be amazed if the complete serviceable items number anything over 60k units.
There will be a load on RN & RFA that are all complete as well as guardroom armoury.
But once you get away from the ‘ready to use daily’ % serviceable will drop like a stone.
That isn’t to say that you couldn’t quickly fix that with a good supply of parts. The trouble with pinched budgets is that SOROB is the order of the penny pinching day as it is the easy option.
Yeah that is what surprised me also. It means realistically the TA couldn’t deploy. Do we have any gun factories that could churn out them if needed?
There are no gun factories left in the UK I’m afraid. That was the whole point of the SA80, to keep the Enfield factory running, which clearly went well..
Yeah that’s what I thought. So if we had to mobilise the whole miltiary in a crysis we could not.
Manroy, now owned by FN, or the contractor Mueller.
Steve, The TA is now called the Army Reserve – they will all have a Personal Weapon. What would they use when they went on exercise or deployed alongside Regs on operations? You do realise that the Army Reserve has deployed significant numbers on recent ops? When I was in Afghan 2/3 of the FP Coy was TA.
The editorial piece says ‘134,912 SA80 A2 variants and 17,900 SA80 A3’ which is 152,812 in total.
At full strength, we have a regular army of 82,000 plus 30,000 Reserve Army, so they need 112,000 rifles – then there are maybe 5,000 RMs in a very full 3 Cdo Bde. That leaves a few for the RN and RAF – and quite a few left over.
Don’t RMs use a version of the Colt Canada C7/8 now?
At the moment only for SF and shipborne roles but eventually everyone. Don’t know if it’s true but I read somewhere that it’s not as accurate at +200m as the SA80A2. Happy to be corrected.
C8’s are still good for 300m, I would prefer having an A2/3 instead of the Colt. Don’t get me wrong, it’s great for urban and confined spaces. Get it out to Gan where you need the reach, it’s not as useful.
42, 43, 47 & CHF all use C8’s and some L129A1, L131A1’s.
40 has some L85A2, L85A3, L22A2, L119A1 & L119A2
The rest use the, L119A1, L119A2 A2, A3 and (L22A2) on a 100% single use per Troop basis.
From memory.
Thanks for that. Baffled by the nomenclature as not Army or RM but got there eventually.👍
Surely all A1s were converted to A2s some 20 years ago.
Surely all the A1s were coverted to A2s.
British Army. FFBNW SA80 2/3
All A1,s where converted to A2’s in the early 2000’s
Steve, you do know that we have got a tiny army now – heading to 73,000 regs and 30,000 Reserve army. At 152,000 weapons here mentioned in the article should be enough for the army’s Individual Reservists, the RM and the small number that the RAF and RN need.
Granted there might not be enough if we had to conscript people for WW3.
I doubt we have any A1s, they would all have been converted to A2s some 20 years ago
Very few A1’s survive, mostly in official collections. I would be surprised if more than 1000 still existed in total.
How depressing reading those in the know’s comments. We really have fallen off the cliff in military eqiupment sense since the 1980s. Perverse how nobody ever gets the rap for our incompetence. Almost make me think we’d be better off buying a load of AK’s or Norinco AR copies!
Maybe the lesson is if we need a new rifle, get some other country to make it as we can’t trust our own MOD/politicians/technical experts & have lost the capacity. Shame on our leaders of the last 50 years.
Nail hit squarely on the head there Frank. In the unlikely event that the army could accurately specify its requirements and then stick to the specification. And that the MOD were to be reformed to the point that it could effectively negotiate and manage a supplier contract. And that politicians would give greater emphasis to military requirements rather than domestic political concerns. We would still not be able to manufacture a good rifle in any numbers because we have lost the technical expertise and manufacturing capacity to do so…
I think its the same with tanks and self propelled arty. Because we’ve not managed to design and build any that have had any success on the export market since the 70’s (despite our best efforts to sell) we have lost the technical ability and manufacturing base to do so.
Look at the Leopard, its success on the export market has meant Germany can maintain its ability to design and produce successive vehicle and ammunition upgrades. A capability that sadly we no longer posses.
Hi Steve,
The most usual domestic politicial concern is that the equipment is built in the UK, which is in line with the rest of your exellent post. Of course, there is the ‘balance the books with no taxes brigade’…
I have have often pointed out that to rebuild an industrial capability takes far longer than rebuilding the military capability it is required to support. Why? Well it takes at least 15 years to train an engineer from scratch. That includes at least 5 to 8 years working experience learning how to use all the stuff you learnt in class.
In may case it was:
4 years apprenticeship – with college;
3 years HND – with two six month work experience;
2 years Masters degree.
By the end of that ‘basic’ training I was a pretty competent junior engineer. However, you also need senior engineers and engineering directors. They require experience and we all know experience takes time, lots of time if you want reliable, cost effective and plentiful kit (manufacturing tech is pretty amazing and complicated as well 🙂 ).
Sadly, the Army’s inability to define and stick to its’ requirements has mullered their UK industrial support base. This is a serious weakness in any conflict let alone a fight for national survival, which up until recently was, not unreasonably, considered a remote possibility. Not anymore.
With China building up its global projection capabilities and a resurgent Russia cozying up to them there is a real risk that NATO will face a very serious threat in the not too distant future. Chinese ships are already transitting to Russian bases in the Baltic and Artic for exercises, why send a few regiments to West of the Ural Mountians to train with the Russians?
The time to really get worried would be if and when some of those force stayed on rather than going home after an exercise…
We need to rebuild our defence posture from the ground up, and I think numbers will matter.
Cheers CR
What’s the problem Frank. Do you think 152,000 SA80s is insufficient? Why?
New rifle is another story – SA80 will be replaced sometime from 2025. I hear we have shut down all volume small arms factories, so, yes, it will be made overseas. We should have kept the ROFs in Government ownership.
The OSD for the L85 is now 2030.
Thanks Bell. I could not put my finger on the precise OSD. MoD should soon be scoping the replacement out. I wonder if it will be bullpup again? Bound to be foreign made as we can’t make small arms in volume these days. I think we needed a Land Industrial Strategy a few decades ago.
If we get into a serious war we’ll need far more. IMHO a nation the population, wealth, commitments & interests as ours should have a far larger army(Navy & Air force too), plus we need to have the basic resources to hand to surge numbers in a crisis. I don’t believe the line that just a few hi-tech highly trained combat troops are all we need.
As a permanent member of the UN security council our military rot has gone too far.
Those 152,000 SA80s are enough to equip the entire Regular and Reserve Amy, all the Royal Marines and those few in the RAF and RN who are rifle-equipped – plus many left over for Individual Reservists. If all those guys went to war, it would be the most serious of all wars.
Are you talking about conscription in the event of WW3? Shortage of rifles would be just one of very many problems.
You are right to deride the Dominic Cummings school of military thought ie that just a few SF, drones and cyber gadgets are all that will be required for every single military operation in future.
Dust off the EM-2 plans. Easy. The correct calibre after all.
AA
Very revolutionary design, way ahead of its time. Not Churchill’s finest hour when he sided with the US for a NATO standardisation WRT to calibre – 7.62mm. That didn’t last long before the US thought that 5.56mm was the way ahead. Now we seem to be turning full circle back to the 1950’s. Perhaps the boffins back then we’re right all along!
I was wondering how long it would take to bring up EM2, nothing to see here everyone, move along please…..
Ian macullum of forgotten weapons.com he’s on YouTube as well had a good talk about the British sa80, em2 etc. He’s fired aswell. I think his comments were mostly positive of the a2 version and he’s used nearly every rifle u can think of.
The MOD are probably already talking of rechambering the sa80 if a new nato size round is adopted😂
As a non shooter I always thought the bull pup was a good idea as it gives a longer barrel in the same amount of space as an m16 etc. Have I got this wrong?
The SLR was too long for use in helicopters, AFVs and the narrow alleys of Northern Ireland – hence its successor was a short bullpup weapon. Bullpup was a great solution, but the L85A1 was flawed in many areas. I used the A2 in Afghan – it was reliable and accurate but still had flaws.
So if you could get a lighter better made bull pup it should be better than an ar-15 type weapon. The Israelis have went with a new bull pup to replace the Ar-15. They originally took the m-16 to replace the galil I think.
I didn’t really get the rangers battalions wanting a AR-15 type weapon. I suppose it depends on the roles and other weapons available to the squad etc.
The next generation squad weapons America is looking at in the 6.8mm is meant to be getting picked this year. I think textron is out which leaves the bull pup general dynamics gun and the normal dig saucer gun. Which is picked will be interesting
The replacement of the Galil with American designed weapons is at least in part due to the easy and ‘cost-effective’ availability of all manner of kit from the USA.
Also 😀 at “Dig Saucer”. Guessing this was your phone’s best guess at SIG Sauer?
Haha cheeky phone always thinking it knows best.
Aussies love their Steyr Aug, whereas NZ ditched theirs. I think Australia were heavily involved in their upgrades and believe they were carried out at home (Aussie soil). So I think national pride can take a part alongside doctrine, trials etc.
If the new Rangers are supposed to be copying the US Green Beret format. They would want an AR15 type rifle because part of their role is to teach foreign combatives how to fight. So most likely these combatives would also be using an AR type rifle or an AK variant which we would never adopt.
Also unit pride is important. SF like to look good 🙂
Bullup has lots of advantages. But today with so many attachments etc, the ergonomics of the AR platform are the most widely favoured. The SA80 is also quite heavy but it is fairly accurate.
UKSF have some complaints about the C8. The old M16 had a fixed stock, where as the M4 has a smaller barrel and a multi position stock.
Some complaints of the SA80 are you have to fire right handed due to the ejection port. Also if doing CQB magazine changes aren’t as smooth, the Israelis found that hands find hands with the UZI.So with the M4 it’s conveniently just in front of your trigger hand.
Seems like good points from both weapons. In today’s services it probably better to look at what weapons the squad deploys with and then decide what’s better for the standard weapon.
It would be great to see what ideas British innovation could come up with for a new rifle.
With optics and tech only getting better I think range is important but not at the cost of ease of use close combat etc.
Self correcting bullets in the future. Everyone hits the target. Terrifying.
After years of using them including many competitions, and on deployments, the L85 is accurate, compact but heavy compared to modern similar rifles, also the bullpup prevents certain types of shooting practices and not the lack of ambidextrous controls are a pain too.
Any comments on the Ares Shrike anyone? Takes mag or belt without any reconfiguration needed, has a quick change barrel with different length options and appears to be a fair bit lighter than other weapons.
Apologies for OT.
Sky News now report Russia has stated it will not conduct exercises SW of Ireland after the Irish government complained.
Move elsewhere, cancelled, or false?
Daniele,
Still over the main set of cables which link Europe and the US via the internet and with such a show of force of ships in the area, they would have no problems covering for something under the water.
Absolutely.
These might fit the bill? They have an excellent reputation for producing the best handguns.
“2Sig Sauer Delivers Final Next-Generation Squad Weapon Prototypes to Army
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/02/03/sig-sauer-delivers-final-next-generation-squad-weapon-prototypes-army.html
Sig Sauer is a brand name used by two sister companies based in Germany and the USA.
The company, originally based in Germany, was founded in 1976 from a partnership between two other arms companies – Schweizerische Industrie Gesellschaft (SIG) and J.P. Sauer & Sohn of Germany. … The US arm employs around 1,200 people.”
The A2 got the job done. There is a lot of hate for some reason towards the SA80 from people outside of the UK. You see blogs in the US kick off that its the worst rifle ever! Perhaps for the A1, but for some reason no one knocks the Famas?? France has since switched to the HK416 now.
Looking at countries like Israeli which have many built up areas the have the Tavor but moved relatively quickly to update to the smaller X95. They still retain a healthy stock of M4’s and have developed their own version called the ARAD which looks decent.
German SF have the 416, but Haenel MK won the recent competition for the big army. Politics had meant the need for a new rifle (Perceived G36 failings), but also politics re-intervened when HK sighted copyright problems.
As we know the M16 had problems in Vietnam, so the AR type rifles we know today have had multiple iterations and improvements. I don’t see Nato adopting a new standard calibre soon. The new rifles we see being tested are mainly for SOCOM. But lessons from Afghanistan saw the need for the L129A1 and showed the value of snipers on modern battlefield. Some of the most revolutionary aspects of the US trials will be the optics which go with it.
Yes, Britain needs to stock more munitions. The debacle about the Harpoon replacement and lack of missiles for the RN is just one example of Britain being bereft in how it treats defence. I personally think we should increase funding for the military to 4% of GDP.
I think the MOD will squeeze what they can out of the SA80 platform before its final out of service date. By then our troops might be issued with more than one rifle, depending on mission etc.
Though a quality individual weapon is great for morale.Britain has many areas we need to upgrade first. The Royal Artillery for one. Like if we kept the Sentinel airframes, which showed their worth in Afghanistan they could be helping Ukraine now.
Why does the SNP want to know? Calculating how many they wish to claim in the event of independence?
My experience with rifles is limited to Cadet Parade ground drill with .303.’s, firing pins removed although I have owned and used side arms so this topic is for you experts. However the legendary AK 47 must still teach us some lessons about manufacturing military rifles. On both sides combatants here in Southern Africa and indeed worldwide, agree that the AK47 is almost bulletproof(!) and remains a formidable weapon.
Sad as with many other industries to see the UK losing the ability to produce hardware locally, especially vital strategic weaponry let alone Vincent Black Shadows and Norton Commandos!!
😂
PS and not forgetting of course that BSA produced small arms, air rifles and big Motorbikes all under one roof!!
Shame we did not have a spare A400M to “liberate” some of those “new in wrapper” M16/M4 the Americans left in Afghanistan.
The recent SHOT show in Vegas, had a firm making AR clones. Nothing new there, but it showed off a quad stack 53 round magazine.
Good to see Sky News putting things into perspective today.
“But it is worth considering – when the British prime minister chooses unilaterally to make a political statement about what the UK can do to help deter Russia – how decades of hollowing out Britain’s defences by successive governments, botched equipment procurement programmes and significant cuts mean that the ability for the UK to project power for a sustained period, while still significant, is limited.
The numbers spell this out pretty starkly.
The full-time strained strength of the Armed Forces in April 2010 was around 177,800 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Royal Marines.
The number now stands at around137,100 – a drop of some 40,000 personnel – and falling, though there has been a greater emphasis on building up reserve forces.”
https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-latest-live-news-uk-sue-gray-report-parties-partygate-12514080
This has turned into a fascinating discussion. I’ve had the privilege of examining and handling rare firearms over the years, including the EM2.
It was certainly an interesting design and one wonders why it wasn’t at least used as the starting point for the 1970’s bullpup development work that ended up in the L85.
As is well known, for the second time in 20 years, the government gave the green light to steal and re-use Sterling’s designs and in doing so, copied and pasted the AR18’s inherent flaws into the heart of the L85.
For those that don’t know, the government stole the Sterling SMG design, lock stock and barrel and manufactured them at Fazakerley! They lost that particular court case, one of the outcomes being that all export L2A3’s were Sterling manufactured.
The government has done this over and over, the Enfield revolver being another legal bun fight with Webley in the 1930’s.
Re the EM2, there is probably some benefits to to front locking as opposed to the EM2’s flap locking in terms of accuracy, but I’m not convinced enough to make a difference in a service Firearm, ie, plenty accurate enough for government work!
Had I been in charge of Enfield in the early 1970’s, I would have seriously reviewed the EM2 and used it as the basis of the new design. It had a few flaws and development work to finish, but within its base design, a capable service rifle was waiting to emerge.
The only two hopes I have for the current concerns around Ukraine are, one, it comes to nothing and two, we find the money to upgrade our armed forces, including home defence with the kit that they actually require and in the numbers.
We can raise £39 billion through a National Insurance Tax Hike at short notice, how about an extra £25 billion for defence over the next five years?
Absolutely, there’s certainly never been a stronger case for ring fencing the defence budget at 3% GDP.
That’s both economically sustainable and sensible. That and stopping the endless political interference from throwing away the procurement budget on bespoke pet projects…
At least our next service rifle ( probably a Colt Canada product) will be a proven off the shelf design and not a dogs dinner waste of money.
Agreed, we need to stop wasting monies that we clearly do not have in abundance and minimise the risk by purchasing proven products that work.
As the USA will shortly conclude testing of their future infantry weapon and we work closely with them, it makes sense to me to purchase something they will use and has already been tested with no cost to ourselves!
The SA80 was supposed to be shorter, more compact and LIGHTER than the SLR L1A1 it replaced. The 5.56 mm intermediary round was chosen for multiple reasons ( mainly American) and the whole thing was a farce. the SA80 was not lighter in any notable scale, and the 5.56 utterly unsuitable for the conflicts than followed.
The original sin with 5.56 goes back to Armalite offering the US Army the .222 Remington Magnum (5.56×47). This was rejected. The US Airforce wanted a light rifle to replace the M1 carbine. So a shorter 5.56×45 round went into the M16. McNamara wanted cross service savings so forced the Army into 5.56×45 M16. Had the US adopted 5.56×47 with a 70 grain bullet, instead of 5.56×45 with an unstable 55 grain bullet, we may not have had 50+ years of debate.
The old 5.56 will shortly give way to a new intermediate caliber, something with better long range ballistics…
I was shooting a variety of calibers in tracer last year, an interesting exercise, 7.62 NATO heading downrange, not unduly bothered by the crosswinds in the Welsh Mountains, .30-06 even better, reaching out accurately enough to 800 yards…
Then you get 5.56, what a laugh, 250 yards out, it picks up the choppy crosswind and starts a Red arrows type air display before veering wildly off course. ….
Honestly, watching that tiny tracer dancing about in a bloody useless, utterly in-effective fashion shows why the caliber has to go …
The A2 and refubished A3 will soldier on with the Army until the new caliber is locked down and finalised.
Whichever of the 3 new 6.8mm the Americans adopt, I think it is a 7.62×51 replacement. Likely to be too powerful to be a 5.56 replacement. So one of the 6mm to 6.5mm seems likely for the lighter weapons. Maybe.
I remember the A1 variant, a pile of s**t, amazing to see the weapon held in such high regard now a days.
The difference between the A1 and A2/A3 version is like chalk and cheese. Totally agree that the A1 was unreliable and a total liability. The A2 by comparison was like a different rifle. It worked, which was a good start!
Finally living up to its potential, it was always a good idea just badly executed much the same as M16 and almost any other service rifle that first came in to production. However for the top brass to spend 15 years blaming troops for its faults was ridiculous. Anyone that had fired the weapon for more than a few minutes could tell you it’s issues. Same top brass who sent guys to Iraq and Afghanistan in land rovers.
That’s not many of the latest version of the SA80. Makes one think that the replacement for it will only be for about 18,000 units. The YouTube channel Forgotten Weapons has some excellent videos on the SA80, the EM2, and many, many others, which are worth checking out if you’re interested in firearms development and history.
Sure the First Musket was a pain in the arse over a crossbow. does it kill people if pointed at them, TICK job done crack on?
All Army Procurement needs to be taken away from them, cannot order a stapler without them wanting it to shoot backward
would this include cadet rifle SA80 variants? I know they are only single shot only not that bad of a thing mind, But if there is a mass call up of reservists in a future conflict it would be better than nothing.
It is considered a first-class weapon system and world leader in small arms.”
So much of a world leader that hardly any other country uses it or copies its design? The only people impressed with it are Brits who have never used anything else since the A2 upgrade made it a somewhat decent weapon. UKSF don’t use it and the Royal Marines are all switching to C8s.
It should’ve been replaced by an AR platform like the C8 years ago. Bullpups are a fad, the drawbacks outweigh the benefits, especially since the need for long barrels in rifles has become redundant through advances in machining etc. The French and Kiwis have switched to AR platforms (HK416 and MARS-L respectively)
totally agree with you comment, when we do decide to replace the L85 (2030) it will be on an AR platform, because apart from the few niche Bullpups on the market,everything is based on an AR platform, now what ever manufacturer you look at be it H&K,FN, SIG SAUR,Beretta,CZ, LMT,Colt and all the other smaller American manufactures they are all AR based, to sell into the US civilian market I also will bet it is still in 5.56 mm, all this talk of going over to 6.8 mm, because the Americans are looking at replacing some of there M4’s with a another rifle, remember this is only a limited purchase for a number of teeth arms, the rest of the US forces are still going to be M4 armed for a considerable number of years, look at all the other nations who have just purchased new weapon systems, all still in 5.56 x 45 so they are not going to change rifle anytime soon & what are you going to do with the billions of 5.56 rounds held in stock.
The A2 is a big upgrade, you could tell when you needed to use it that the reliability went through the roof.
Presumably, with Royal Marines switching to the C8 and the Special Operations Brigade looking at new rifles. it means L85 numbers are less of an issue.
Not mentioned is the number of A1’s still around. I’m sure I saw pictures of what looked like A1s as part of Royal Navy small arms stock on board the carriers.
No A1,s are in service, all converted to A2’s between 2000 & 2003, the only A1,s are in the Royal Armouries collection & various other museums.
“On its introduction, it proved so accurate that the Army marksmanship tests had to be redesigned.”
This kills me every time I hear it! The SA80 is flawed. Not just in its weight and ergonomics, but in how it can used effectively in a Close Quarters environment. To this day I remember an discussion I had at Warminster in 2010 with a SASC WO1 who was extremely frustrated and visibly angry with comments I made about the SA80 during an expo showing off some new ‘additions’ of kit for soldiers. This included a device to aid the UGL man. It weighed nearly a kilo and was attached to the front of the weapon. 😩
Yes it may have been more accurate and a ‘lovely’ range gun, but even with all the mods, it’s still 100% fundamentally flawed, and to not be able to effectively fire it (from cover) in the left shoulder is an absolute travesty. They’ll clearly be those who swear by it, but I can guarantee that if there was a choice the SA80 would have the same reception that it got from all those other countries (and UKSF) that clearly didn’t decide to take it on.
I think, hope, that now the Ranger regiment (& Commando force) is actively seeking a new weapon it will be more in line with US thinking (new calibre…?) and will ultimately be a precursor to what the army will adopt in the future.
Reliability is clearly a big issue especially when we look back to how s**t the SA80A1 was, but it’s not the whole story. The test was carried out over 1000s of rounds, and the SA80A2 scored highly. But a few less rounds in the way of stoppages etc compared with other guns, is not the be all end all. If a gun had say 10 stoppages in for example 10000 rounds compared to another rifle that had 20 but was better in every other day to day use and was ergonomically much better, that would not sway it for me, and I know from experience it didn’t sway it for many other of my colleagues either.
Unfortunately The wrong people had the most say, and with more pressing procurement issues, the SA80 was upgraded rather than ditched for a more suitable weapon. It’s an old one but I personally think it sums up the whole debacle very well. ‘You just can’t, polish a turd!
I remember the first time with the SA80. I was in the Recce platoon of 6RRF (TA) and we borrowed 8 SA80 rifles from our regular 3Bn for the 1990 Cambrian Patrol competition. We were given 1 lesson on the rifle sling then onto the ranges for an afternoon with coaching.
We did the competition a month later. Up till the final morning we were in the leading bunch coming into the shoot. We knocked every target down and won by a mile, Gold medal. Not sure if we would have won with the SLR but it was a help.
Couldn’t believe how accurate the rifle was compared to the SLR. They had to reduce the size of the targets on the ETRs. As far as reliability went I thought it was more reliable than the SLR but most of ours were pretty clapped out by then.
During my time in the Australian reserves I used the Styer with the times 2 donut sight. It was no where near as good as the SA80 and stoppages happened more regularly. But this had a lot to do with the terrain in the North West of Australia, extremely dusty. I had a look at the new sight on the styer’s, times 4 I think and without the donut and was impressed.