In the UK there are several “Cadet” forces. These comprise the Army Cadet Force, the (RAF) Air Training Corps, the (Royal Navy) Sea Cadet Corps and the (RN and Royal Marines-affiliated) Volunteer Cadet Corps, collectively known as the “Community Cadet Forces;” all forces are open to children from age 12. The Combined Cadet Force provides the same service but does so from an embedded position within select civilian schools. These all exist as a parallel or alternative to purely civilian youth organisations such as the Scout Association. None are actually part of the military, but they are sponsored by the Ministry of Defence and run along military lines (many staff and officers are also Reservists, and training is also provided by regular soldiers). These organisations exist as a personal development opportunity and to encourage young people to join the military when they are old enough (not everyone who joins the Cadets goes on to join the military). 

The Cadets’ Rifle 

For this reason, Cadet forces have traditionally made use of both .22 LR caliber training rifles, such as the Lee-Enfield No.8, and “full-bore” military rifles like the .303 No.4. These teenage civilians had been permitted to shoot the self-loading 7.62x51mm SLR (FN Herstal FAL), but a decision was made in the 1980s to adopt a manually operated 5.56x45mm rifle for Cadet use. It should be noted that the subsequent UK legal restrictions on self-loading, center-fire rifled firearms—introduced in 1988—are purely coincidental. Semiautomatic firearms were legal to own in the UK when this decision was made and when the L98A1 was conceived, produced and issued. Therefore, although Enfield had an eye on exports and civilian sales, the brunt of this effort could have been borne by the self-loading-only “Super Ensign” L85A1 variant. This was designed as a semiautomatic stablemate for the manually operated Ensign (L98A1), reworked from the L85A1 as per typical civilian-legal designs sold around the world, in order to prevent ready conversion to automatic fire. 

With a lack of a viable market, the technical issues with the SA80 A1 family in general and ongoing issues at the factory, only a few examples seem to have been produced, and unlike other “vaporware” British firearm designs of the period, no advertisements seem to have been produced either. However, persistent, unconfirmed rumors exist of a few examples that remain in the hands of UK shooters prior to the 1988 ban and even of examples remaining in the U.S. 

L98A1 Trials 

Trials were carried out to determine the new Cadet rifle and included a modified straight-pull German Heckler & Koch (HK) SL6 (the only non-British entrant), the Interarms EX2 (also straight-pull) and bolt-action offerings from BSA and Parker-Hale. A prototype bolt-action designed and built by British engineer John Cross (with an extremely short bolt “throw”) was also submitted. Perhaps inevitably, RSAF Enfield was selected to provide the new rifle, which was titled, “L98A1 Cadet General Purpose Rifle” (“GP” to distinguish it from the 

inert “DP” or “Drill Purpose” model). This was known in-house by Enfield as the “Ensign.” The straight-pull SA80 was built using L85A1 components but critically without any “gas parts.” This necessitated a large external operating rod assembly to provide the leverage necessary to extract a fired case without disturbing the shooter’s position and hold more than necessary (although, of course, a manually operated rifle does this nonetheless). 

This operating mechanism ran on a large external track screwed to the outside of the body (upper receiver) forward of the bolt carrier assembly. On the prototype example, a thick steel rod ran from the handle assembly back to the real bolt handle, which was tapped to receive the rear end of the rod. On production guns, the same rod was curved in and downward and inserted into the cocking handle aperture in the bolt carrier. The replacement bolt handle on the new assembly was made much larger and consisted of a polymer knob rotating on a central steel spindle. This in turn was attached to a short lever. When the handle is pulled back, the lever pivots against a welded-on stop on the receiver, providing leverage while the bolt is withdrawn and rotated to unlock. The unlocked bolt carrier group is then carried to the rear by the remainder of the rearward straight-pull stroke. 

Minimal Changes 

Other changes were minimal. With no need to conceal muzzle flash, attach a bayonet or fit a rifle grenade, the SA80 flash suppressor was eliminated, creating (arguably) a needless difference between the service rifle and the Cadet equivalent. The void inside the handguard left by the gas parts was filled by an oil bottle and mounting clips. The pistol grip is of a unique pattern, with crescent-shaped cut-outs at the bottom to allow easy removal of the pistol grip plug to access the storage compartment inside. The purpose of this is unclear, and it does not appear to have ever seen use. The same compartment exists on the standard L85/86/22 grip also, where it is a relic of the original XL60 series’ stowed, emergency backup, rear sight concept. In that case, too, the plug is not typically removed; although rumor has it that soldiers have used it as cigarette storage. It seems that some specific purpose was envisaged for the L98A1’s compartment—perhaps storage for the oil bottle that ultimately was placed under the upper handguard. 

Sighting Arrangement 

Although superficially identical to the backup iron sights of other SA80 weapons, the L98A1 again diverged from the family in its sighting arrangement. The front sight is a thinner blade and lacks the Tritium element of the L85A1. Rather than the simple two-position battle aperture sight of the standard carrying handle, the L98A1 version contains a rotating disc with apertures for 100m to 500m. It can be folded down to present a single 100m aperture. In actual use, however, and as units were made available, the weapon was often fitted with the standard 4x SUSAT optical sight. 

A sub-variant of the L98A1 was the SA80 Competition Rifle, essentially an LSW built as per the Cadet GP rifle without gas parts and with the crank handle. In this case the intent was to provide the post-ban UK shooting community with a compliant straight-pull SA80 and one with superior accuracy. A great deal of effort was made (see Steve Raw’s, The Last Enfield, pp.213–215) to combine the LSW with the Cadet rifle, which proved more difficult than it might appear. Despite this, the product never reached market, perhaps caught up in the chaos of the Enfield factory closure. It is thought that some parts made it into the hands of firearms dealers, but the only complete weapon observed “in the wild” was that used for a time by the Royal Ordnance Rifle Club. 

With the advent of the HK A2 program, a new Cadet rifle was produced from A2 upgraded parts with a new semiautomatic-only trigger mechanism (the change lever is still omitted). The pistol grip is standard L85/L86 and not the Cadet pattern. Either the standard L85 carry handle (with field sights) or the SUSAT sight is fitted. From 2009, the L98A1 was phased out 

of use in favor of the L98A2; although examples no doubt still exist in Cadet armouries. It should be noted that neither variant has ever seen use in the UK military. They are strictly weapons for the Cadet forces listed above. 

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 

L98A1 Cadet GP Rifle 

• Caliber 5.56x45mm 
• Overall length 758mm 
• Barrel length 519mm (20.4in) 
• Weight 4.18kg (9.2lb) (unloaded with SUSAT)
• Feed device 30-round detachable magazine

• • • 

Special thanks to the National Firearms Centre at the Royal Armouries, who graciously allowed us access to their world-class collection. Thanks are also due to Mike Sterry for his assistance with some of the finer technical details. 

This is Part 7 in a series of articles examining the developmental history of the United Kingdom’s SA80 family of firearms. Part 6 appeared in Small Arms Review, Vol. 23, No. 8. 

See armamentresearch.com for further original content. 

(This article is adapted from a chapter in Mr. Ferguson’s forthcoming book on British bullpup rifles, which will be published by Headstamp Publishing in 2019. HeadstampPublishing.com). 

From the inception of the (Section) Small Arms of the 1980s project in 1970, the intent behind British adoption of a bullpup rifle had been to replace as many section (squad) firearms as possible. This included the 7.62x51mm L1A1 self-loading rifle (SLR) and L4A4 (Bren) light machine gun (LMG), as well as the L2A3 Patchett-Sterling submachine gun (SMG) in 9x19mm. By 1970, all of these weapons were considered “legacy” designs, outdated in concept and each designed and manufactured 20 or more years previously. Although the SMG was not excessively powerful, heavy and expensive to build and maintain like the SLR and LMG, the advent of compact and lightweight small calibre, high velocity (SCHV) designs was casting doubt on its relevance. Even a conventionally laid-out 5.56x45mm automatic rifle could allow an armed force to retire its SMGs, with their limited range and terminal effect. A design in bullpup configuration was even more appealing to some, and the SA80 rifle was developed from the beginning as an “SMG killer.” Nonetheless, Enfield did investigate an ultra-compact carbine or submachine gun variant at least as early as 1984. 

1984 Prototype 

In 1984, the L85A1 rifle and L86A1 machine gun gained official approval, and our earliest evidence for an SA80 carbine emerges. This takes the form of an archival photograph dated November 1984 of an early attempt shown alongside a full-size IW and the Sterling SMG (see Steve Raw’s The Last Enfield, p. 216). This is a converted XL64E5 EWS “IW” (Individual Weapon—NATO nomenclature for a rifle or similar arm) in an ultra-short format. The weapon itself is still extant in the former MoD Pattern Room collection, allowing this author to examine it closely. The barrel is 242mm (9.5 inches) in length; the shortest barrel ever fitted to an SA80 variant. The barrel and gas block are adapted from surplus XL70E3 components, and so the weapon is chambered for 5.56x45mm. The portion of the barrel forward of the gas block had been turned down to a smaller diameter and left “in the white.” The gas block was reshaped to accept the new plug, and the upper surfaced bevelled for a low profile. 

The 1984 prototype lacks a muzzle device or any threading; although there is a groove cut at the six o’clock position near the crown that hints at a possible pinned-on muzzle device of some kind. The Body (upper receiver) is crudely cut away on top to expose the gas system, and to offer rudimentary reinforcement, short “flaps” of sheet steel have been folded down against the outside of the Body. In this configuration, the only way to fire the weapon with both hands would be to wrap the support hand around the firing hand as in a modern two-handed pistol shooting hold. The bolt carrier group is the original XL64E5 assembly with its tungsten recoil pellet and dorsal cut-out for use with the XL65E4 light support weapon’s (LSW) open-bolt automatic mode of fire (at this stage of development, the carrier groups were interchangeable). The bolt itself is also the original pattern, with deeply relieved “neck” to accommodate the huge extractor. Overall, this early effort was not well designed, and the operating rod appears to have bent during testing. 

It is curious that Enfield should base this weapon upon the XL60 series, as by 1984, the current variant was the substantially redesigned (X)L80 version. Yet the evidence speaks for itself; not only is there no earlier evidence of work on a carbine, the gas block on this first prototype is that of an (X)L80 series weapon. The recycling of an older prototype suggests that this was not an attempt to “sell” the concept of a carbine to the UK military (in which case a more “current” variant would have been used). It was likely just an in-house project, perhaps anticipating a military requirement that had yet to be articulated. Whenever it was first explored, the deliberate shortening of an SA80 down to exactly the length of a Sterling with folded stock is telling. It suggests that the justification for such a weapon was that an SMG in the personal defence weapon role might be used with its stock folded. Not only might there not be time to deploy the stock (especially the ingenious but over-engineered Sterling stock) in an emergency, but users might actually still be in the confines of a vehicle or aircraft when they needed their weapon. The Sterling with its stock closed was substantially shorter than the L85A1, and the latter was much bulkier and heavier to boot. No feedback on this attempt survives today, and it would be another few years before the idea was tried again. 

1989 Prototype 

In 1989 a short run of unnamed carbines was built from L85A1 parts (as evidenced by the lack of the four attachment holes for the outrigger; at this time only LSW Bodies were so modified). These weapons were, superficially at least, remarkably similar to the current in-service design. They featured a barrel of similar length to the 1984 iteration; this time measuring 310mm (12.2 inches) including a flash suppressor. The new design was mechanically different, however. As might be expected, the gas system was shortened quite dramatically. This would have affected the functioning of the weapon. Gas pressure would have been increased, but the operating duration would be reduced, most likely resulting in “short-stroking.” Presumably to address this, the bolt carrier was lightened with a deep v-shaped groove on top. This appears to have induced further problems (perhaps excessive carrier velocity and therefore undesirable wear to the weapon). To address this, in turn, the return spring was augmented with a second internal (“nested”) spring. The Heckler & Koch (HK) solution to the problem of a “shorty” SA80 was far more elegant (see below). It should be noted that Raw (p. 221) incorrectly describes these mechanical changes as having been applied to the 1994 prototype (see below). Raw also speculates that these changes were made to increase the rate of fire, but this seems an unlikely and undesirable purpose in light of the pressure change/carrier velocity explanation. 

The installation of a standard L85A1 flash suppressor, and a sheet-metal “outrigger” below it to protect the firing hand, permitted a proper two-handed hold on the 1989 gun. To facilitate this, an LSW rear grip was permanently fitted as a vertical foregrip. These guns were serial numbered in the range “CA 00X,” and the Body was marked with the commercial “ENFIELD” trademark. No service designation is applied; these were never introduced into British (or any other) military service. However, they are not quite prototypes either, as they were advertised for sale by Royal Ordnance. A handful still exist, divided between the Royal Armouries and Shrivenham (Defence Academy of the UK) weapons’ collections. Raw (p. 219) suggests that a small quantity were sold to an unspecified Middle Eastern country but were destroyed in a warehouse fire and were therefore never issued. Clearly this product failed commercially, and it does not appear to have been seriously trialled by the British MoD. 

1994 Prototype 

After Enfield had closed and SA80 production had moved to Nottingham, Royal Ordnance plc experimented with yet another carbine-length SA80. This was again based on the L85A1 but featured a longer barrel and a complete LSW handguard, with just the birdcage portion of the long L85 flash suppressor protruding from the flat front of the handguard. To accommodate this arrangement, the gas block (with its integral front sight base) had to be machined off. With a perceived requirement for iron sights, a second gas block was installed further down the barrel with its gas plug hole left unfilled, and, as before, a carrying handle with its integral rear sight was installed. As per the 1989 prototype, no major changes were made to the mechanical components of the gun, other than a shortened operating rod, about 1 inch shorter than the full-length L85 equivalent. The intent here seems to have been to move the gas port only as far as necessary for proper function. The weapon’s longer 390mm (15.4 inches) barrel may also have been an attempt to maintain reliability while sacrificing a greater reduction in overall length. This variant also failed to enter military service or garner any export sales. 

L22A2 

In 2003, with the SA80 now the weapon system that it should have been in 1985, attention turned once again to the development of a carbine model. This time, the requirement seems to have originated from the military. As with the A2 rifle and LSW, the new L22A2 carbine received the benefit of HK’s long experience in firearms design and manufacture. The prototype seen here is a converted L85A2 and is marked as such. The bolt carrier group has not been changed, and, in fact, minimal engineering changes were made to the weapon. HK focused on the gas plug, both reducing its internal diameter to compensate for the increased gas pressure of the shorter gas system and lengthening it to increase duration (approximately 2.5mm extra travel). This at last successfully balanced the weapon’s time/pressure curve. The plug was also altered externally, with twin lugs to permit more convenient removal from the front of the gas block. The “excessive” and “off” positions were deleted, and the operating rod was of course shortened. 

The new front end is finished with a specifically designed, vented, aluminium heat-shield/ rail accessory system, with Picatinny rails at the 6 o’clock and 3 o’clock positions. The latter is often used to mount the Laser/Light Module (LLM) or a stand-alone mounted flashlight. In either case, an activation switch is sleeved onto the foregrip. No rail is provided on the left side, allowing space for an angled sling loop (the standard buttplate/rear loop remains in place, and the single-point sling appears to be favoured in service). A flat cover is hinged and clipped in place over the gas cylinder/operating rod. An HK vertical foregrip (a “downgrip” in British military parlance) is furnished as standard. This can be removed or relocated on its length of rail by unscrewing the adjustment cap at its base. 

Alternatively, for an even more compact package, the folding foregrip issued for use on the L129A1 Sharpshooter rifle may be fitted (and is apparently standard equipment on those L22A2 rifles issued to British Army Apache helicopter crews; see the image). This grip is adjustable into one of five angled positions. In either case, a substantial forward extension to the weapon’s rail system prevents installation too far forwards and significantly reduces the chance of injury to the support hand; although this will always remain a training issue for such a short barrelled weapon. Due to the very short sight radius, previous attempts to provide a backup iron sight system on the weapon itself were abandoned. Instead, the SUSAT or LDS optics both possess Emergency Backup Sights. A 20-round magazine is available to maintain the weapon’s compact silhouette as befits an AFV crew PDW, but of course the standard 30-round magazine of the rifle/LSW is interchangeable. Although the L22A2 is frequently supposed to be a conversion of the L86A1/A2 LSW, in fact, there is no evidence of this, and detailed inspection suggests that they are assembled from surplus L85A1 parts plus newly manufactured HK components. 

The L22 is issued as a standard personal weapon for AFV crews of the Royal Armoured Corps and is also to be found stowed in the cockpit of Army Air Corps WAH-64 (Apache AH Mk.1) attack helicopters as not just an aircrew survival weapon but a compact personal weapon, befitting of a corps of soldier aviators. For this application, a special holster is attached to the right side of each crewmember’s seat. It is also provided for use by Royal Navy and Royal Marines’ boarding parties. As to the effectiveness of the design, it is the nature of an emergency use weapon that it is less likely to see use in combat, since, if it does, something has gone badly wrong. As a result, we have no real feedback on the effectiveness of the weapon, but there appear to have been no complaints either. There is of course a loss in muzzle velocity, from the 930 m/s of the rifle down to 780. The state effective range for accurate rapid fire is 200m—100m less than the 300m of the rifle—but is of course dependent upon training, skill and circumstances. In doctrinal terms, it is regarded and treated as a rifle. 

L22A2 Carbine 

• Calibre 5.56x45mm 
• Overall length 571mm 
• Barrel length 327mm (11.2in) (285mm ex. flash suppressor) 
• Weight (unloaded with SUSAT)  3.52kg (7.76lb)
• Feed device 20- or 30-round detach-able magazine 

A Note on Nomenclature 

It is important to note that there remains a good deal of confusion over the official designation of the L22 Carbine. Some official documentation has given the name as “Carbine, 5.56mm, L22A2,” yet as of 2014 some contemporary official literature uses “L22A1.” Yet all of the actual weapons are marked “L22 A2 5.56×45.” Regardless of this discrepancy, the Enfield- and Nottingham-built prototypes were never designated, as they are sometimes assumed to have been, “L22A1.” The L22 is also occasionally (but nonetheless officially) referred to as “SA80K” and was at one time nicknamed “Stubby K.” 

• • • 

Special thanks to the National Firearms Centre at the Royal Armouries, who graciously allowed us access to their world-class collection. Thanks are also due to Mike Sterry for his assistance with some of the finer technical details. 

This is Part 6 in a series of articles examining the developmental history of the United Kingdom’s SA80 family of firearms. Part 5 appeared in Small Arms Review, Vol. 23, No. 7. See armamentresearch.com for further original content. 

(This article is adapted from a chapter in Mr. Ferguson’s forthcoming book on British bullpup rifles, which will be published by Headstamp Publishing in 2019. HeadstampPublishing.com) 

The final prototype series of the SA80 family actually overlapped with the service L85A1 and L86A1 variants and consisted of 10 variants; although the E1 is the only pre-production build standard. All others were created afterward (1987-1990) to address ongoing reliability issues (see below):

• XL85E1, E2, E3, E4 & E5 Individual Weapon (IW)
• XL86E1, E2, E3, E4 & E5 Light Support Weapon (LSW)

Throughout development “IW” and “LSW” were used interchangeably with “Rifle” and “MG.” This is not a case of confusion so much as a hierarchical nomenclature. One set of terms reflects a weapon’s role (specifically, its NATO standardized role), the other its class. In theory, weapons other than a machine gun may fill the light support weapon (LSW) role—an automatic grenade launcher, for example. Similarly, an individual weapon might not necessarily be a rifle—unrifled weapons firing fléchette projectiles were considered by several countries, for example.

Despite the loss of a dedicated left-handed variant, at this point left-handed users of the IW were still to be catered with an armor-er-level conversion kit. Details on this are lacking, but presumably this would have taken the form of a “bare-bones” barrelled upper into which the donor weapon’s working and gas parts were transferred (the bolt would have to be replaced, however).

The new wedge-shaped receiver introduced on the XL70 series was carried over to the XL80 series, but the whole unit was redesigned in detail, re-toleranced, and the method of welding was changed. The rear sling loop was once again deleted. Two important external changes were also made. The extended magazine well added to the XL70 series was very much an afterthought, and neither the best nor the cheapest way to achieve the intended functional design. With the XL80 series, a new magazine housing insert was designed. Tabs were added to the redesigned TMH in order to support it and provide a surface to spot weld it in place (in lieu of the previous seam weld). The stop-lips remained an integral part of the TMH, however. The re-engineering of the XL70 into the XL80 added still further to the weight of the rifle (another 30g). The weapon was not going to meet the 3.2kg target originally set, and with optical sight it weighed only 83g less than the 7.62 x 51mm SLR (FN Herstal FAL) that it replaced (without an optical sight). Although a lot of this excess weight was thanks to the value engineering done on the design and the arguably over-engineered SUSAT sight, a fair amount lay in the barrel profile (carried over from the XL70). This appears thin from the outside, but tapers up drastically under the handguards, becoming very thick and heavy near the chamber. Fortunately, this is near the point of balance, and so for handling purposes the weapon does not feel its weight.

The other major change in this series was the “outrigger” support added to the LSW forend. This was added in order to mitigate a long-running issue with the type; that of split groups on target. The first shot would impact in one place and the remainder of the group several inches away. This seems to have been caused initially by the tapered barrel profile; the second and subsequent shots of a burst being subject to the flex induced by the previous shot. It was likely made worse by positioning of the bipod in earlier designs: clamped around the barrel forward of the handguard, limiting movement of the thicker rear portion and exaggerating the “whip” of the muzzle. The out-rigger solution effectively clamped the end of the barrel in place, producing a stiffer barrel without increasing its weight (although the outrigger itself added weight to the weapon). This was a quick and dirty fix compared to a fuller redesign that would allow for a fully free-floated barrel. For the same reason, the weapon also received a new vertical grip towards the rear of the weapon and was fitted with a folding wire butt-strap (the angle of the latter being altered due to trials feedback). Nonetheless, whereas the IW was accepted for service in January 1984, the LSW was deferred until later that year. As an aside, despite the split group issue, the LSW eventually went on to acquire a reputation for accuracy in semi-automatic mode and has even been used in an expedient designed marksman’s rifle (DMR) role. The LSW handguard was now fully developed, matching the IW design in most aspects but retaining the truncated hand-stop shape prototyped on the XL73E2. Both the rifle and MG also received new flash suppressors of a cylindrical, slotted bird-cage design, although these were not interchangeable.

At this point in the history of the SA80, politics and recrimination began to overtake actual firearms history. Much has been made of the drive to sell off the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield for profit, a narrative in particular of Steve Raw’s The Last Enfield. This is an oversimplification. What actually happened was that the publicly owned factory was combined into a new private sector company along with the Royal Ordnance Factories (ROF), a number of which still existed despite post-Second World War closures. This was incorporated as Royal Ordnance plc (public limited company) and was founded with the intention of floating it on the stock market. The UK government of the day was committed to a policy of privatising public organizations. This may therefore be seen as primarily an ideologically and politically motivated move, rather than simply selling off the proverbial family silver. The goal was to preserve the UK’s organic small arms and ordnance manufacturing capability by forging it into a viable private company; Mrs. Thatcher’s government took the view that such bodies could not survive without substantial government subsidies, as we have seen at play in other countries with legacy national arsenals. Unfortunately, despite an injection of public money and the sale of ROF Leeds, the company could not be made into an attractive investment, and flotation plans were abandoned. Royal Ordnance was put up for sale after all, giving rise to the somewhat plausible, but nonetheless unlikely, conspiracy theory that this had been the secret plan all along. Thus, in 1987, British Aerospace (now BAE Systems) purchased the company for £188.5 million and, only a year later, had begun to sell off assets that were deemed unprofitable. Enfield was one of these.

Regardless of the details, morale at the factory was low. Enfield workers felt their livelihoods threatened as UK industry in general suffered job losses. The government’s privatization agenda suggested to many that even if jobs did persist in the firearms manufacturing sector, these would not be at Enfield. Many were not in a position to move to follow new jobs, and there would not be enough positions to go around even if they could. Like their rivals Sterling, RSAF Enfield were by this time a one-trick pony. Even if SA80 were a success, the UK’s limited civilian market, few products to market for export and shrinking armed forces mean that difficult times were all but certain.

The closure of Enfield spelled the end of an era for British firearms manufacturing. Worse was to come for both the industry and for the SA80. Although the intent of this series is not to apportion blame for the SA80’s early troubles, and the subject is a complex and opaque piece of firearms history, the critical factors boil down to Enfield (and the UK government more broadly) biting off more than it could chew. The days of expert firearms design and unlimited resources were long gone, whereas manufacturing technology had moved on and left the old factory behind. It lacked modern manufacturing expertise, and the famous quality control of the past had clearly lapsed. It even lacked firearms design experience. The original designer, Sydney Hance, was apparently the only member of the original Enfield team with previous experience of designing firearms, and he retired in 1976. The finalized XL64E5 depicted in Hance’s U.S. design patent #251,979 of May 29, 1979, shows that he was involved right up until this major redesign. According to Raw, he believed that his design was sound at that stage and had gone awry after his retirement from the factory. This is by no means certain given the fundamental issues that all of the SA80 build standards suffered, but the oversight of an experienced firearms designer and less enthusiastic cost-cutting measures might just have seen the Hance EWS through to a more successful outcome than the SA80A1. Matters were made much worse by a set in-service date and an insistence upon cost saving, as well as formal acceptance of the weapon system before it was ready for actual use.

In fact, issues with the SA80 did not stop with its formal acceptance and type classification as L85A1 IW and L86A1 LSW. Mechanical issues, and modifications to address these, were ongoing. The first steps were taken with the E2-E5 series mentioned above, a continuation of the XL80 series produced for environmental trials. None of these translated directly into improved service variants as the XL/E1 series had. Instead they acted as test beds for a raft of experimental tweaks to the working parts, gas parts and other areas. For example, the alloy used to manufacture the bolt was changed, different-sized gas port and gas plug apertures were tried, and a double-nested return spring was trialled.

In the case of the XL86E3, the only external changes visible are the experimental white nylon safety catch and “Ejection Opening Cover” (dust cover). On some guns, a large paddle-shaped cocking handle/case deflector was also fitted. Most of these changes were not embodied in the production weapons. The serial number shows that this XL86E3 was manufactured in 1987, two years after the L86A1 had already been introduced into service. However, it has not been fitted with the first pattern magazine catch shroud, introduced during that same year to prevent accidental pressing of the catch and loss of the magazine (a common issue in service). This gun has also been fitted with the second pattern of trigger, fitted to production guns from 1985. This was made heavier to prevent inadvertent firing when dropped on the muzzle. Conversely, the XL85E1 shown has the first pattern, pressed sheet metal trigger. This change had not been trialled on E2-E5 guns, but feedback from those trials resulted in the third pattern snow clearance trigger still in use today. Note also the “ENFIELD®” commercial maker’s mark on the TMH, not found on service weapons (in contrast to the first two “Enfield” rifles, the Pattern 1853 muzzle-loader and the Lee-Enfield magazine rifle).

The many subsequent trials and “mods” incorporated into the SA80A1, while not reflected in distinct experimental variants, are detailed in Steve Raw’s book. However, it is worth noting here that not all of the A1 series issues were inherent to the guns. When they were introduced, the proprietary Radway Green magazines (identifiable by their plastic baseplates marked “RG”) contributed a new weak point in the system. The XL70 and XL80 series were tested and trialed with USGI Colt magazines, but the new British-designed magazine exacerbated the weapon’s problems.

SPECIFICATIONS – XL85E1 IW

• Caliber: 5.56x45mm
• Overall length: 780mm
• Barrel length: 541mm (with flash suppressor)
• Weight (unloaded): 4.42kg (9.74lbs)
• Feed device: 30-round detachable magazine

The next instalment in our series on the SA80 will examine the L85A1 and L85A2 and cover the Heckler & Koch A2 upgrade program.

Special thanks to the National Firearms Centre at the Royal Armouries, who graciously allowed us access to their world-class collection.
This is Part 4 in a series of articles examining the developmental history of the United Kingdom’s SA80 family of firearms. Part 3 appeared in Small Arms Review, Vol. 23, No. 5.
See armamentresearch.com for further original content.
(This article is adapted from a chapter in Mr. Ferguson’s forthcoming book on British bullpup rifles, which will be published by Headstamp Publishing in 2019. HeadstampPublishing.com)

As other installments in this series show, there were already significant issues with the first few iterations of the new prototype “Small Arms of the 1980s” (SA80) family of weapons. From an initial concept in 1971, these had seen 8 years of development by the time they emerged from NATO ammunition trials in 1979. At this time, the initial emphasis on building these weapons in a new British caliber, the 4.85x49mm cartridge, shifted, and the 5.56x45mm chambering came to be accepted. The internal project name became “Enfield Weapon System,” rather than the earlier “485 Weapon System,” in a tacit recognition that 4.85mm was effectively dead. The caliber was not the only casualty, however, as the weapon itself was about to be radically redesigned. RSAF Enfield lacked experience in the design and especially the manufacture of contemporary firearms, and the definitive XL64E5 IW (rifle) and XL65E4 LSW (LMG) had shown serious problems with functioning and excessive barrel wear. They had been expected to achieve a mean rounds between failure (MRBF) rate of 2500 MRBF for the IW and 8000 for the LSW. The early figure after the NATO trial was exceptionally low, at just 97—indicating weapons unfit for military service.

Tackling the Issues

The issues which resulted in this poor performance could no doubt have been resolved; these were, after all, prototype designs that had yet to pass through Ordnance Board, “user” and troop trials. The coincidence of the NATO ammunition trials was unfortunate timing in that it interrupted development, but at the same time it was an opportunity to spot serious issues early on and rectify them before formal British trials began. The design was promising enough, and the need for a new British rifle and machine gun urgent enough, that it was decided to move ahead with the next developmental iteration. Unfortunately, before any individual issues with the original design could be tackled, the cost of production was deemed to be too high and a second round of “value engineering” (VE) was demanded. This was supposed to be a refining of an already proven and functional design to make it more economical to produce. The first VE study had changed minor details like the shape of controls or individual contours of the receiver. Yet only 4 years after the original weapon system had been launched, the findings of this new study resulted in a substantial and visually obvious redesign; practically a new gun (the subject of this piece). This “reset button” approach only compounded the factory’s existing difficulties, with the original targeted in-service date (ISD) of 1983 just a few years away.

Embracing Feedback

Embodying the value engineering feedback, another short run of prototypes was produced; this time just three rifles with serials prefixed “PR” for “Production Rifle.” The new design was much bulkier and more wedge-shaped compared to the svelte XL60 (superficially it is very close to the final SA80 design). As a result, weight increased; unfortunately, due to the VE focus on cost-saving, quality did not. In fact, with limited experience of pressing and weld-ing, and morale increasingly an issue, quality control was variable from this point until the closure of the Enfield factory in 1988.

Nonetheless, the design itself had issues beyond this. The new pressings were thin and easily distorted, despite the new rifle weigh-ing a full kilogram more than the XL64E5. The new trigger mechanism housing (TMH) was also found to be insufficiently strong to support a loaded magazine. The TMH mag-azine well was a short, lipped design just a few millimeters tall. The trigger mechanism was also substantially redesigned, and the safety reverted to a cross-bolt type in an effort to minimize inadvertent operation by left-handed users. This allegedly became critical much later on when the final L85A1 was in service, as the polymer catch—chosen on cost-saving grounds—swelled with envi-ronmental changes and became difficult to operate. The SUSAT, still in prototype stage, was given a new mount, operated by a single throw lever. For now, these guns carried over the existing mechanical design of the XL60 series, with the exception of a new bolt design incorporating double ejectors and a more conventional (longer and narrower) AR-style extractor, no doubt both attempts to improve the weapon’s reliability. More changes were to come in the definitive XL70 series, however.

Design Changes

The most obvious change in this next, much longer production run of prototypes was the incorporation of a longer, separate external magazine well assembly. This was seam-welded onto the bottom of the existing TMH. A thick and heavy piece of sheet metal was introduced to contain the trigger group as a drop-in assembly. This had a vertically ribbed reinforcement at its front which served as a guide for the rear aspect of an inserted magazine (i.e., it formed the back of the magazine well). A sheet metal hammer stop was welded to this new trigger group assembly. The bolt carrier was of yet another new pattern, being substantially wider and sporting simplified lightening cuts on both sides. Apparently bolt bounce had been addressed in some way, because the inertia pellet was eliminated; its channel being enlarged and bored clear through in order to accommodate the new guide rod. Contrary to claims in Steve Raw’s The Last Enfield, the dual ejectors on the “PR” bolt were deleted and never seen again.

The slender twin guide rods and springs taken from the AR-18 were replaced by a stronger (and therefore heavier) triple rod design. This replaced the twin springs with a single spring fitted to the larger central rod, leaving the two outer rods to function simply as bolt carrier guides. This allowed the internal guide channel in the body (upper receiver) to be reduced to a simple ledge—serving only to keep the cam pin in the down and unlocked position until the bolt was in battery—and the corresponding guide peg on the bolt carrier to be eliminated, simplifying the design. The cocking handle was slightly altered into what would become the standard A1 pattern. In an example of detailed value engineering, the machined orienting/locating lug on the handle was replaced with a simple roll-pin (a simple and effective arrangement that persisted into service).

The gas system components were slightly redesigned to reduce the complexity of machining operations. The spigot formerly machined into the gas cylinder was eliminated, as was the hollowed nose of the operating rod. Instead, the gas cylinder was hollowed at both ends to accept the piston/gas plug at the front and the rod to the rear. This raises another interesting divergence from the AR-18. The XL60 had already simplified the ArmaLite four-piece gas system to three components, without a connecting link (still to be found in other derivatives, including the German Heckler & Koch G36 design). This link was deemed superfluous, having apparently been included simply to ease disassembly. The XL70 took the design another step further from the original, employing a simple tubular gas cylinder. Finally, the design also returned to a rear sling loop mounted on the rear of the body. The flash-hider was now standardized on both variants but altered to use radial lines of circular ports (three in each row) rather than slots.

A wholly new set of dark green polymer furniture was designed, of essentially the same pattern as would eventually enter service. The handguard was fully developed with a polymer cover over the sheet metal upper guard and a metal heat-shield liner in the lower. The buttplate was now polymer, with a steel sling loop inserted. The plate wrapped around the toe of the butt as per the A1, but here it was of hard polymer rather than rubber. The pistol grip shape changed slightly, retaining a storage compartment. A new cheekpiece was, as before, simply glued directly onto the receiver. The new bolt release catch and the action dust cover were in matching green polymer (and are as per the A1 in design), but strangely the hold-open catch is black.

The SUSAT was also redesigned by this time and had received the designation XL9E1. This version eliminated the auxiliary grenade sight bracket from the body casting, no doubt to reduce the weight of this hefty optic design. Another new mount, operated by means of two wing bolts and a spring catch, was carried through onto the in-service rifle.

Common Traits

As before, the LSW shared much in common with the IW aside from its heavy barrel and bipod. It retained open-bolt operation but, in another attempt to simplify things, the engineering team did away with the Stoner 63-style main and auxiliary sears, and the gun now operated in open-bolt fashion regardless of semi-au-tomatic or automatic mode. This slam-fire, fixed firing pin design required that a safe position be added to the change lever (fire selector) to prevent accidental discharge if dropped with the bolt carrier locked to the rear ready to fire (regardless of the trigger safety). There being no closed-bolt mode of operation, the safety (auto) sear was deleted from the trigger group. This decision ran counter to the idea of maximum commonality of parts, since this version therefore required a unique carrier design not interchangeable with the rifle variant. The hold-open catch was also flipped around.

Early examples in the XL70 series, like the XL73E2 LSW (pictured), feature a set of black polymer furniture, including an XL60 pistol grip, an unusual cheekpiece that conforms to the shape of the receiver (rather than being smooth) and a buttplate of a unique oval pattern not found on either the XL60 series or the later XL80. Early IW handguards were as per the XL70E3 shown here, but in black. The equivalent XL73E2 handguard is roughly the same shape as the service version, being shorter and with a hand-stop moulded in at the front. It also has a heat shield; however, the prototype form shown here is roughly made and lacks the thin finger-stop of the rifle equivalent. The bipod is non-adjustable and, as currently installed, no longer unfolds. These early guns look and feel more like prototypes than those in the green furniture. Inside, parts of the trigger mechanism look hand-finished, and the trigger pull on this open-bolt-only gun is abysmal.

And Then There Were Three

At this stage, the requirement for a left-handed LSW was dropped, reducing the number of variants in the family to three. The three PR weapons (all IWs) were chambered in 4.85x49mm, but the decision had already been made to move to 5.56x45mm, and the first of the true XL70 guns were fitted with 1/12 twist barrels and chambered for US M193 ammunition. Nonetheless, the need to move to 1/7 to suit the SS109 cartridge was already anticipated. Whereas the PR guns had been left without “XL” designations, these new weapons were named as follows:

XL70E3—Individual Weapon
XL78E1—Individual Weapon (left-handed) XL73E2—Light Support Weapon
NB, in terms of nomenclature, “rifle” and

“machine gun” persisted in use alongside “IW” and “LSW.” The term “PW” (personal weapon) was also used, in place of IW.

Trials of the XL70 series began in earnest the following year (1981), in an effort to keep the project on schedule. Enfield had suspected in 1972 that it might take until 1984 for full-rate production to be achieved, yet in 1975 they agreed to an ISD of 1983. In an effort to meet this, it is alleged that corners were cut and standards kept artificially low during the trials process. In particular, it is claimed that chicanery played a part in the weapons being seen to meet the required MRBF. Certainly, the new design had inherited some existing issues, along with all-new problems (such as failure to lock open on an empty magazine). The XL60 series had suffered from excessive barrel wear due to a combination of poor metallurgy and a lack of chrome lining (incidentally, this marked the first time that the German firm of Heckler & Koch would be consulted, more than 20 years before the A2 programme). However, metallurgy and inadequate heat-treating continued to plague the weapon, with cracked bolt carriers and even a split barrel revealing serious defects in the manufacturing processes. These catastrophic issues were resolved following Phase A of the User Trials but were a worrying sign at this advanced stage. Prior problems with feed, ejection and trigger reset that had been experienced with the XL60 series remained evident, as did the LSW-specific problem of split groups. This was specific to automatic fire with the LSW, wherein the weapon would produce two discrete groups—the first shot exhibiting a distinctly different point of impact than the remaining shots in a string. This would be the subject of significant work in future iterations of the LSW (stay tuned for more on this issue—Ed.).

As User and Ordnance Board trials continued in parallel, the weapon was able to reach the target 2500 MRBF figure despite these problems. If this seems low by today’s standards, it is important to note that at this period, U.S. military rifles might only be expected to reach 500 rounds more (i.e., 3000 MRBF) than the SA80 IW target for the equivalent failure category. It is essential to point out that, in the British trials, the only categories of failure included were those that involved a malfunction requiring user replacement of parts. Other commonly tested failure modes, namely malfunctions that could be solved with more intensive user intervention (but not parts replacement) and those remedied by immediate action alone (sometimes referred to as “mean rounds between stoppages,” or MRBS) were—according to Steve Raw—ignored. On the other hand, the contemporary U.S. military demanded an MRBS figure of 500, whereas the XL70 SA80 achieved only 95 MRBS. In other words, the weapon on average would malfunction after only three full magazines. Even if the weapon achieved its set MRBF target, an MRBS rate such as this could not possibly be acceptable in service. This worrying situation led to yet another build standard and yet another designation, which we will deal with in the next installment of this series.

Special thanks to the National Firearms Centre at the Royal Armouries, who graciously allowed us access to their world-class collection.
This is Part 3 in a series of articles examining the developmental history of the United Kingdom’s SA80 family of firearms. Part 2 appeared without designation in Small Arms Review, Vol. 23, No. 3.
See armamentresearch.com for further original content.
(This article is adapted from a chapter in Mr. Ferguson’s forthcoming book on British bullpup rifles, which will be published by Headstamp Publishing in 2019. HeadstampPublishing.com)

As our previous instalments have covered, the SA80 family endured a very troubled development cycle, and many of these challenges continued well into its actual service life. Only a handful of small changes were made to the XL80 series before they were accepted as the L85A1 Rifle and L86A1 Machine Gun (aside from tiny dimensional changes in the final set of drawings). The cocking handle was simplified to eliminate the bevelled inner edge; the guide rail inside the body (upper receiver) was altered from an L-shape to an oblique-angled profile, presumably to strengthen it; the retainer that kept the ejection opening cover (dust-cover) closed was now a plate spot-welded onto the outside of the receiver, rather than being pressed from the inside of the receiver wall (which then had a plate welded in behind it over the resulting hole!); and the composition of the polymer furniture was altered lightening it from a darker forest green to a brighter colour. This plastic appears to be cheaper and more flimsy, and after complaints of breakage, it would be replaced in service with a more durable alternative.

In this form, the new rifle (formerly “Individual Weapon”) and machine gun (aka Light Support Weapon or LSW) were approved for service in 1984. This was a year later than the most recent target date that had been set and came with the acknowledgement that the weapons had issues still to be addressed. Unfortunately, rec-tifying the substantial challenges ultimately took more than 15 years, and these were only definitively solved by a far-reaching upgrade programme that would ultimately be dubbed “SA80 A2.”

In 1995, the German firearms manufacturer Heckler & Koch (HK), then owned by British Aerospace, was engaged to analyse and provide options for upgrades that would definitively solve many of the A1 series’ issues. In 2001, the SA80 A2 build standard was finalised, and troop trials began that year. General issue followed in 2002. The only obvious external change was the composite plastic and metal comma-shaped cocking handle/case deflector; the wedge-shaped, snow-clearing trigger seen on A2 weapons was actually one of many universal modifications made to the A1 series. Inside, the story was very different; almost every major component was replaced. Nonetheless, no features were extensively redesigned. The changes made were subtle and involved improved materials, precise manufacturing methods and superior quality control. Steve Raw’s The Last Enfield and an online article by regular ARES contributor Anthony Williams cover them in detail, but we will reprise them here:

• Cocking handle enlarged and reprofiled to serve as a case deflector;
• Bolt remanufactured, polished and relieved to reduce friction;
• Extractor claw enlarged;
• Extractor pin remanufactured;
• Ejector remanufactured to include a spring guide;
• Ejector retaining pin remanufactured from solid stock;
• Cam stud remanufactured to slightly greater length;
• Hold open device carrier and button extended for more positive engagement;
• Bolt carrier remanufactured and polished;
• Firing pin remanufactured and reprofiled to prevent tip breakage;
• Gas cylinder remanufactured;
• Gas plug remanufactured and reinforced to prevent damage;
• Hammer stop in TMH reinforced;
• Hammer weight increased;
• Barrel remanufactured in higher grade steel;
• Barrel extension (part of the body assembly and not the barrel) relieved (1.5 locking splines cut away) to ease extraction;
• Ejection opening slightly enlarged;
• Piston, recoil, ejector, extractor, extractor insert, hammer and safety sear springs all remanufactured;
• New steel magazine based upon HK G41 design;
• Polymer handguard redesigned with larger vents and a new upper with large plastic hinges in lieu of the plastic-covered sheet metal upper. NB that this was introduced as a spare part only, existing A1 handguards being retained with their old markings machined away; and
• “HK A2” markings on all upgraded components, most obviously on the rear upper of the body.

The body (upper receiver) is marked “HK A2” but, unlike other parts marked in this way, is otherwise unmodified (and is in fact a re-used component taken from A1 series weapons). Presumably the marking applies to the modified barrel/barrel extension which is normally an integral part of the body assembly. The recently introduced “A3” body has been improved in several ways, but it should be noted that this does not in itself denote a change in designation of the weapon (in other words, rifles may be fitted with this A3-marked assembly, but remain L85A2 models).

Again, as this list shows, a great deal was changed, but only in detail. Essentially, the weapon was simply rebuilt to the standard that it should have been manufactured to in the first place. It is worth noting that despite complaints about the number of vents in the receiver and handguard and the large, open ejection port, these supposed “problem” features were not addressed in the A2. The number and size of vents remained the same, and the ejection opening was actually slightly enlarged. Whereas the A1, with its marginal reliability, was susceptible to ingress of dirt and foreign matter, the A2 seems to take it in its stride, provided that the fairly detailed cleaning instructions are followed.

The A2 Rifle Enters Service

This was the extent of the changes introduced in 2001 for troop trials of the new SA80 A2, preceding the full-scale issue the following year. Improvements made since 2002 have all been either Urgent Operational Requirements (UOR) resulting from service overseas or part of the Future Integrated Soldier Technology (FIST) programme. These cumulative changes have yet to warrant a change from A2 to “A3” designation (see below) but are nonetheless significant. They include the introduction of 4x ACOG and ELCAN Specter OS 4x “Lightweight Day Sight” (LDS), with their respective Pica-tinny mount adaptors; improved laser light modules (LLM) Marks 2 and 3; Daniel Defense railed fore-end with Grip Pod vertical grip/bipod accessory; Magpul E-Mag polymer mag-azines; and the SureFire flash suppressor. All of these accessories except the muzzle device are still in service and, as with other contemporary service rifles, different configurations are seen in use with different units depending upon role and context. The A2 rifle described here is representative of a front-line weapon c.2008. Due to the “trickle-down” phenomenon of military logistics, weapons may still be found in this configuration in Reserve armouries, albeit without the flash-suppressor. The latter appears to be incompatible with the issue Blank Firing Adaptor; although it was designed to accept the SA80 bayonet. This bayonet, a cast-steel socket bayonet of utility knife pattern, remains unchanged from original issue with the A1 rifle in 1985; although its wire-cutting scabbard was modified later. Although we have not covered the bayonet or other accessories in this series, use of the bayonet as a weapon of last resort is still emphasised in British infantry doctrine.

In early 2004, the rifle (no longer referred to as the IW) and LSW were joined by the L22A2 carbine, a role-specific variant that we will cover in the next instalment of this series. The new SA80 A2 family therefore comprised:

● L85A2 Rifle;
● L86A2 MG (LSW);
● L22A2 Carbine (aka SA80K); and
● L98A2 Cadet Rifle.

The A1 family saw few export sales, and most of these comprised part of overseas military assistance packages. Only Bolivia and Jamaica appear to have made direct purchases. Despite the success of the SA80 A2 series, there have been no further export sales. This is likely in part due to the weapon’s tarnished reputation, and the availability of other product-improved and proven bullpup designs such as the Austrian Steyr AUG and Israeli IWI Tavor. However, a major factor is the SA80 family’s commercial “orphan” status. As a product, it belongs to HK (the “Enfield” name having long since been dropped), who has several other products in its line-up that it would rather market and that the customer would probably rather purchase (most notably, perhaps, the successful HK416 self-loading rifle). The clincher is that no full production line exists to manufacture complete weapons for sale even if there were a market.

Regardless, after 15 years of combat use in Iraq and Afghanistan, the L85A2 rifle is still going strong. Complaints are few and since a widely publicised incident in 2002, even the press controversy has petered out. Without getting into the politics of said incident, it appears to have been down to a cleaning issue that has, one way or another, been addressed and has not since reappeared. Today, regardless of the ongoing debate over the broader merits of the bullpup configuration, the only real complaint to be made is that the weapon remains excessively heavy. Yet this is a complaint rarely heard from users, unless they have spent time carrying an alternative weapon such as the L119A1 or A2 Diemaco (now Colt Canada) carbine. The rearward point of balance seems to go some way toward mitigating the felt weight. The L86A2 LSW remains an anomaly and is rarely seen in service outside of domestic training exercises, although a feasibility study was conducted in 2015 to look at potential upgrades to this weapon and assess its suitability to supplement the L129A1 Sharpshooter rifle as a weapon for sniper pair “no.2s.” Anecdotally, however, its reputation as a 5.56mm “sharpshooter” substitute has been exaggerated. The L22A2 appears to fill its particular niche satisfactorily, providing 5.56 capability with an 11-inch barrel in a PDW form factor for vehicle, aircraft and boarding party personnel.

SA80 A3 Coming Soon

It appears highly likely that a new A3 variant will soon appear in service. A standardised suite of upgrades were created for the “SA80 Equipped to Fight Improvement Programme,” aka SA80 EFI. Based upon open-source photographs of a prototype, these appear to consist of a new HK-de-signed negative-space accessory fore-end with continuous Picatinny/NATO rail extension, a cut-away gas block (to accommodate the new rail system) and a modified change lever (selector switch) to prevent over-ro-tation. The existing desert colour scheme found on front-line rifles is carried over as standard, along with the LDS optic and presumably the newly manufactured “A3” body and the LLM Mk.3 (or perhaps a further upgrade to this unit). The lighter LDS optic and E-Mags will reduce the weight of the weapon as carried. The longer sight rail extension will add a small amount of weight, but the cut-down steel gas block will likely compensate for this.

Finally, the prototype has been shown fitted with a new HK underbarrel grenade launcher (UGL) that can be fitted to the 6 o’clock rail of the fore-end rather than requiring the removal of the handguard as in the current SA80GL configuration. In a tender for refurbishment of an initial 5,000 units to this specification, this programme is referred to as “SA80 A3.” Coupled with the existence of the “HKA3”-marked body, this suggests that we will indeed see the next official iteration of the SA80 family and not simply another piecemeal set of improvements. Given that the only component not to have been newly manufactured since production ceased in 1994 is the TMH (lower receiver), SA80 seems likely to remain in service years beyond its current 2025 out-of-service date.

Technical Specifications L85A2 Rifle 

• Calibre: 5.56 x 45mm 
• Overall length: 773mm 
• Barrel length: 518mm (ex. flash suppressor) 
• Weight: 4.41kg (9.72lbs) (unloaded with SUSAT) 
• Feed device: 30-round detachable magazine 

The next article in our series on the SA80 will examine the SA80 carbines.

Special thanks to the National Firearms Centre at the Royal Armouries, which graciously allowed us access to their world-class collection, and to the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom at Shrivenham for allowing us to handle and fire SA80 rifles. Thanks are also due to Neil Grant.

This is Part 5 in a series of articles examining the developmental history of the United Kingdom’s SA80 family of firearms. Part 4 appeared in Small Arms Review, Vol. 23, No. 6.

See armamentresearch.com for further original content.

(This article is adapted from a chapter in Mr. Ferguson’s forthcoming book on British bullpup rifles, which will be published by Headstamp Publishing in 2019. HeadstampPublishing.com)

George Fosbery is best remembered for his Webley-Fosbery “Automatic” (self-cocking) revolver and his “Paradox” shotgun rifling system. He arguably also deserves credit for one of the most significant firearms design elements in history; the multi-lugged rotating bolt with integral claw extractor and plunger ejector. This is usually credited to Eugene Stoner as part of his revolutionary design for the ArmaLite AR-10 (1956), which of course evolved into the ubiquitous and important AR-15 pattern, but in actuality, Stoner borrowed from Melvin Johnson’s 1941 rifle bolt. This bolt and barrel extension solution allows for a consistent and accurate lock-up and a lightweight receiver, since the extension and bolt bear the pressure of firing and no additional locking surfaces or over-building are required. The vast majority of modern self-loading rifles utilize either this system or the AK twin-lugged bolt and trunnion approach.

Clearly in 1891, when Fosbery first patented this design, he was not anticipating today’s trends in rifle design, but it is intriguing that he arrived at the same solution to the problem of locking mechanisms as Johnson (1939) and Stoner (1956). Even more interestingly, whereas Johnson machined an ejector groove in his bolt (for a receiver-mounted ejector), Fosbery’s bolt has the later Stoner-type plunger ejector built into it. The designs are so similar that it is tempting to imagine the involvement of a DeLorean somewhere in the design process!

As an important caveat, it is quite possible that Stoner or Johnson never saw Fosbery’s patent or his gun. The two designs are not in fact identical, the Fosbery having six radial lugs, Johnson and Stoner opting for (effectively) seven. Fosbery also placed the extractor within a lug, rather than omitting that lug as modern Stoner bolts tend to. The lugs themselves also differ in profile, although there is a reason for this and another interesting historical ‘echo’ to note. In recent years, Knight’s Armament Corporation developed a radiused bolt lug profile similar to that seen in the original Fosbery bolt. This was done to meet a specific user requirement, whereas in the Fosbery it was likely done due to the inherent weakness of square lugs, given the metallurgy of the day. Fractured lugs are still a failure point today, albeit in extremis.

The gun itself is not well documented, and the present author has not been able to locate the relevant patent, which published references state was ‘No. 11,339’. Nor is it known when this example was constructed. Ian McCollum’s working theory is that it was built as a rifle and modified several times to serve as a testbed for different ideas. The trigger guard/magazine housing has been altered, and notably, the barrel has been replaced by a 1909-dated Winchester 16 bore shotgun barrel. What profile the original barrel might have had is not known, but the bolt and barrel extension are certainly scaled for a large cartridge. Clearly a magazine of some sort was originally fitted, but it is not clear how this would have functioned. The trigger mechanism intrudes into the space that would surely be required for a cartridge to feed.

In any case, the design came to nothing commercially and only two examples survive today. Pump-action shotguns did not catch on in the UK, and Fosbery’s bolt was never married to any of the several early self-loading designs then in existence. Indeed, this may not even have been practical at the time even if it had been thought of. Nor is there any evidence of military trials, which is not surprising if Fosbery thought of his bolt as a feature best applied to shotguns. The present-day reality is that such low pressure ammunition does not require such a stout and sophisticated mechanism. A simple tilting bolt acting in a locking shoulder is sufficient for most pump-operated designs.

Technical Specifications

Calibre: 16 bore
Overall length: 1273 mm (50.1”)
Barrel length: 773 mm (30.4″)
Weight (with empty magazine): 3.41 kg (7.5 lbs)
Feed device: Unknown

This article first appeared in Small Arms Review V22N9 (November 2018)

This experimental British light machine gun or automatic rifle was developed from 1945–1947 under the auspices of the British Armament Design Establishment (ADE), based at the former Royal Small Arms Factory Enfield in North London. It was therefore the first true Enfield bullpup firearm but is poorly understood today. This is not helped by the baffling duplication of “EM,” or “Experimental Model,” designations by ADE (see “A Note on Nomenclature,” below). This leads to confusion with the later E.M.1 assault rifle. The original E.M.1 was designed by Roman Korsak (frequently rendered “Korsac”) alongside a 7.92 x 33mm assault rifle designed by Jeziora?ski (often misspelled as “Jesieranski” or “Jeziorenski,” including in official documents of the period)—the first British weapon to be designated E.M.2 and not to be confused with the more famous Janson E.M.2.

Korsak was a Polish refugee—one of a number of Belgian, Czech and Polish weapons designers, including Jeziora?ski and Janson; the latter’s birth name being Januszewski—who had come to Britain to escape the Nazi regime. There had been a lack of small arms and light weapon expertise in the country prior to the war, and these immigrants helped to fill that gap. Korsak was one of those who chose to stay on in the UK after the end of the war and became head (CEAD or Chief Engineer & Superintendent of Armaments Design) of a design team based at Cheshunt in Hertfordshire. Janson would later succeed him in this role, and Janson’s rifle would come to the forefront of British small arms design.

As we might expect from a support weapon theoretically intended to replace the Bren gun, the Korsac features a relatively heavy barrel and a bipod, but unusually is in ‘bullpup’ configuration. Conceptually and mechanically the weapon is based upon the German FG-42 automatic rifle, an advanced development of the American Lewis gun designed for paratroopers and credited to Louis Stange of Rheinmetall-Borsig. The Fallschirmjägergewehr 42 was already quasi-bullpup in arrangement, albeit with a side-mounted magazine well. The FG-42 also provided the E.M.1 with its ‘piston extension’ (operating rod) and rotating bolt carrier group with two-lugged bolt at its head. As a result, it shares the FG-42’s closed bolt/open bolt operation modes for semi and automatic fire respectively. This includes the curious behaviour of the striker, which is cocked by the first ¾ inch or so of cocking handle travel before the bolt itself is unlocked and withdrawn by the remainder of travel. Inside, the striker slides rearward within the bolt, which stays in the closed and locked position. The protrusion on the bottom of the striker slides in a ventral slot on the bolt carrier, but in this mode, not far enough back to cam the bolt open and then pull it to the rear.

The sear is acting on the rearmost of two bents on a unique component known as the ‘slide’. This functions essentially as a forward extension of the bolt carrier. In the FG-42, the semiautomatic and automatic bents are machined into the underside of the bolt carrier group. In the Korsak E.M.1, the trigger mechanism sits further forward, and the slide compensates for that extra distance by acting as a forward extension to the bolt carrier group. This unique solution to the perennial problem of poor triggers in bullpup firearms obviates the need for a long trigger linkage bar or rod as in traditional bullpups, and is much simpler than the trigger mechanism of the Thorpe E.M.1. In the accompanying photos, the slide has been left inside the body, but its front portion is visible, protruding from under the gas block. This slide features two bents, which interface with twin parallel sears in the trigger mechanism housing (see below). These are manipulated by rotating the selector switch, which raises and lowers them in and out of engagement with the slide.

On Automatic, the right-hand sear is pushed up by the selector to engage with the front edge of the slide, holding the slide, bolt carrier, and striker to the rear (that is, fully behind the slide) to effect automatic fire. Set to ‘Rounds’ (or ‘Repetition’), the right-hand sear is dropped down out of engagement, and the left-hand sear is able to run within the machined track in the underside of the slide. It can now catch the front bent on the slide, holding only the slide and striker to the rear ready for semi-automatic fire.

When the rifle is assembled, the front edge of the slide acts as the automatic bent, placing the slide and attached bolt carrier almost fully to the rear (there is some over-travel to allow easy cocking) in open bolt condition. This assembly is then ready to be released by the right hand sear in the trigger mechanism (see below), after which it is pushed forward by the compressed recoil spring, closes, locks, and releases the striker for the first shot of automatic fire. In semi-automatic mode, the machined bent at the rear of the slide hangs up on the left hand sear. The bolt itself is fully in battery and locked, but the slide and striker are free to travel the short distance required to fire the first semi-automatic shot. This Weaponsman.com post on the FG-42 shows how this works in the context of the simpler direct engagement of the sear with the bents on the bolt carrier. The other significant point of divergence from the FG-42 is in the use of a tappet style short-stroke gas piston to set the working parts in motion. This is surprising given the other similarities with FG-42, and there is no surviving indication of the thought process here. Clearly, the Soviet lineage of self-loading rifles was thought to be superior in this regard.

The adjustable gas regulator features two settings for normal and adverse operation, and can be switched to the latter setting by depressing the detent with the nose of a cartridge and rotating clockwise (from the shooter’s point of view). Returning to the many gifts bestowed by the FG-42, we find a set of folding iron sights with a rotating cylinder for elevation adjustment of the rear aperture. Finally, in common with the FG-42 but also other British designs of the period, Korsak’s weapon was chambered for the full-power German 7.92 x 57 mm cartridge. The magazine associated with the gun appears to be a modified, rather than scratch-built, example from the Czech ZB-26, the British Bren magazine – itself derived from the ZB-26 – being too steeply curved for the cartridge. The lug/rocker catch system of the ZB/Bren family, also common to the FG-42, was also used. Finally, the (not quickly) detachable barrel with its simple cone-shaped flash suppressor is also derived from the ZB/Bren. The change lever (selector) operates as per FG-42 with its pull-to-engage, pivot to operate lever, but separates fire selection from safety catch. The former is marked ‘A’ and ‘R’ for ‘Automatic’ and ‘Repetition’* (see note at end – Ed.), the latter ‘F’ and ‘S’ for ‘Fire’ and ‘Safe’.

There is a hold-open device (HOD) behind the magazine catch, which is designed to hold the action open on an empty magazine, and then to automatically close the bolt when the empty magazine is detached. This is in contrast to later British designs, where the bolt remains held open until the magazine catch itself is operated to release the bolt. Interestingly, this does not function when manually operated, as the bolt carrier is not able to travel far enough to the rear to be retained. It is likely that this feature only worked when the weapon was actually fired, giving the bolt carrier sufficient velocity to compress the rubber buffer inside the butt-plate far enough for the bolt to engage the HOD. In addition, the magazine currently fitted to the gun in the National Firearms Centre collection, whilst it has been professionally modified to fit the gun, does not operate the HOD. Specifically, the standard ZB26 magazine follower features a groove that allows the nose of the HOD to slip into it and prevent the HOD from sticking up far enough to catch the front of the bolt. This suggests that, as Ian notes in the video above, the magazine may not be truly original to the gun as it was first constructed. In theory, the bolt could be manually held open by pressing upward on the tail of the hold open device, but this is fiddly to achieve in practice.

The Korsak pictured is one of only two surviving examples and the only one fully finished. As such it is not possible to test fire it, but fortunately some period information was recorded and other tentative conclusions can be drawn from the weapon itself. The cyclic rate was unsurprisingly quite slow at 450 – 500 rounds per minute, affording some chance of controlling the weapon if used in the assault rather than off the bipod. The recorded muzzle velocity is 2450 fps, which might seem low but is typical for 7.92 x 57 mm out of a barrel of the Korsac’s length (24”, similar to the Kar98K rifle). Effective range was given as 900 yards (823 m), which seems reasonable given the intended role.

The finished weapon is heavy for a rifle at 5.11 kg (11.51 lbs), but reasonable for an LMG of the period. The compact design was forward-thinking and, despite present-day objections to bullpup designs, the official test report (see Dugelby, p.19-21) praises its ‘ease of balance and manipulation’. However, it was noted that the design ‘…was for right-handed shooters only’, a departure from the Bren; unlike their rifle-armed colleagues, left-handed Bren gunners were permitted to operate the weapon naturally. By contrast with the Janson E.M.2, the cocking handle is on the left side where the majority of shooters can best operate it with the support hand. There is little hint of wartime austerity in the manufacturing methods used, with receivers of machined steel and the handguard and pistol grip of carved wood. The example illustrated is finished to a high standard.

The bullpup arrangement shaved another few inches off the overall length of the FG-42, but in the process the helpful buffered stock of that design was lost, replaced by a thick hard rubber buffer block at the rear of the return spring (located in the buttplate assembly). As well as this red rubber block in line with the operating rod, there is a second buffer block located in the butt-plate directly behind the tail of the bolt carrier. This seems likely to have negatively impacted felt recoil and controllability. There are other ergonomic negatives to consider. The pistol grip is chunky and excessively vertical in grip angle. The bipod legs are fiddly to deploy, with rather weak sprung catches that need to be manually depressed to lock the legs into the deployed position. The outer sleeve over the rear sight cylinder makes it far harder to grasp and rotate than the FG-42 original. None of these points appear in the short official assessment, but a couple of mechanical flaws were identified. The report notes that ‘…the striking energy on single shot is insufficient due to friction of the slide in the body’. Indeed, the weakness of the striker spring is evident in the NFC example. The short-stroke piston was also found to deform in operation, and it was recommended that it be enlarged and fashioned from ‘high yield point’, rather than case-hardened, steel. Both of these would seem to have been easy fixes if development had continued.

Work on the Korsac E.M.1 ceased in May 1947, but much of the design carried forward into a new bullpup assault rifle designed to fire a new ‘ideal’ calibre cartridge. This emerged later that same year, and would become known as the Janson E.M.2. Confusingly, the Thorpe E.M.1 bullpup rifle was not designed until the following year. This was proposed not as an LMG but as an alternative to the E.M.2, and consequently was a very different weapon despite superficial similarities. In fact, the Korsak E.M.1 and Janson E.M.2 have much more in common, the latter being essentially a rifle derivative of the former.

A Note on Nomenclature

This weapon’s designation is commonly rendered ‘EM-1’, and this is what will be found in the vast majority of the secondary literature. ‘EM1’ is also occasionally encountered. However, the manuals use ‘E. M. I’ and ‘E. M. 2’ for this series of weapons. We have standardised on ‘E.M.1’, with an Arabic numeral and the spaces removed.

*In the Second World War period it appears that ‘R’ officially stood for ‘Rounds’. This potentially confusing term was replaced by the more specific ‘Repetition’ some time during the development of the Enfield Weapon System.

Technical Specifications

Calibre: 7.92 x 57 mm
Overall length: 110.4 mm (43.5”)
Barrel length: 52 mm (20.5”)
Weight (unloaded): 5.58 kg (12 lbs 5 oz)
Feed device: 18-round detachable box magazine

Special thanks to the National Firearms Centre at the Royal Armouries, who graciously allowed ARES access to their world-class collection for research and photography.

This is Part 1 in a series of posts examining the developmental history of the United Kingdom’s E.M.1 and E.M.2 designated firearms. In the next issue of SAR…

See www.armamentresearch.com for further original content.

An “area effect” weapon was a requirement from the outset of the SA80 program and appeared in wooden mock-up form in the “1970 Preliminary Study” (published 1971). General Staff Requirement (GSR) 3518, issued in 1974, notes that the individual weapon was required to “… be able to accept an area target capability for muzzle or tube-launched grenades.” GSR 3518 goes on to note that “[t]he area target capability may be provided by tube-launched or muzzle-launched grenades but will have recoil forces no greater than 80 joules.” 

Interestingly, the only existing grenade launcher assessed in early studies was the Colt XM148, but it appears that no attempt was made to adapt this system for the SA80 prototypes. However, a quite detailed design and mock-up were produced for an Enfield-designed, under-barrel grenade launcher (UBGL). In a forward-thinking move, this was designed to pivot out to one side with the press of a lever, permitting the use of cartridges with a greater overall length. The mock-up included a rifled barrel, and its mechanism was fabricated from metal, with a support arm running in a track to guide and retain the breech end of the tube as it pivoted outward. 

Given equal weight in the study was the alternative or supplement of the traditional muzzle-launched rifle grenade, which was already in limited anti-tank service with the L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle (FN FAL). The ENERGA high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rifle grenade, produced by MECAR of Belgium, was formally issued to British forces in 1952 as the “Anti-Tank Grenade, No. 94 (ENERGA).” Early in the SA80 program, a wooden rifle grenade was made that could be slotted into the muzzle of the various mock-up rifles. Unfortunately, this mock-up rifle grenade appears to be no longer extant in the former Pattern Room collection. These two solutions, UBGL and rifle grenade, would be investigated in parallel for a number of years. 

UBGL 

The fairly elaborate mock-up UBGL design was built into a fully functional weapon and fitted to a single example of the XL64E5 rifle, probably in early 1976. As in the mock-up, the barrel was rifled. No grenade sight appears to have been fitted; if it was, no evidence of it exists today. Similarly, no replacement upper handguard was produced, leaving the gas parts exposed. This XL60 series grenade launcher features an unconventional and not wholly practical trigger mechanism, which surprisingly enough is also present on the mock-up in functional form (that is, it cocks and dry fires). This is located on top of the UBGL, placing it between the barrel of the grenade launcher and the gas block of the host rifle. The front portion is grasped between thumb and forefinger and pulled back against spring tension to cock the weapon. In much the same way as the cocking handle of an open-bolt machine gun, it must be manually returned to the forward position. At this point, the cocking slide may be left in the rear position, covering the trigger lever and acting as a safety. In the firing prototype, an additional safety shroud with grasping grooves has been fitted behind the cocking slide. This slides backward to place the weapon in a more positive safe condition. A short lever on the right side acts as the trigger, requiring the firer to either reach over the weapon with the left hand or to abandon the pistol grip with the right in order to reach forward and fire the weapon. 

XL60 SERIES GRENADE LAUNCHER 

• Caliber: 40x46SRmm 
• Overall length: 770mm 
• Barrel length: 534mm (21in) 
• Weight: 3.98kg (8.8lb) (all-up weight on gun with no sights fitted) 
• Feed device: Single-shot 

Rifle Grenade 

There is no information on any trials that this weapon may have taken part in, and it was not carried forward as the SA80 platform continued to develop. Meanwhile, work continued on the potential rifle grenade. This was initially intended to be launched with a specialist Ballistite-loaded cartridge as the previous No. 94 grenade had been on the L1A1 SLR. This concept was eventually dropped, and a bullet-trap-type rifle grenade was sought. The profile of the flash eliminator (flash suppressor) was designed with an annular grenade-launching flange a short distance behind the slotted “birdcage” of the muzzle device, which, as of the “0 series” guns, was provided with a groove and circular spring to properly retain a 22mm diameter rifle grenade. Sights for the rifle grenade were conceived as auxiliary additions to the improved version of the Sight Unit Infantry Trilux (SUIT), soon named the Sight Unit Small Arms Trilux (SUSAT). Two experimental solutions were attempted, one pivoting aperture sight graduated from 25m to 125m, and another plastic clip-on design with a simple open combat-style sight. The body of the SUSAT was at first machined with an integral dovetail bracket on the side for a more elaborate grenade launching sight, but this feature was not pursued and was eliminated from the design as the SA80 family matured. 

M203 

In the mid-1980s, as SA80 neared its in-service date, the UBGL concept resurfaced. By this time the U.S. AAI M203 (largely produced by Colt) was well-established as an industry standard, and one example was adapted to the bullpup shape of the L85A1. More effort was made this time, with a standard L85 handguard cut away underneath to permit attachment of both launcher and handguard. However, the front mounting point was still a clamshell, bolted-on arrangement as per the first (side-opening) UBGL, making quick detachment impossible. The overall length of the full-size M203 (at that time the only variant available) resulted in the barrel of the grenade launcher protruding a couple of centimeters beyond the flash suppressor of the rifle. The surviving combination weapon pictured here is lacking any sighting arrangement. 

COLT M203 

• Caliber: 40x46SRmm 
• Overall length: 380mm 
• Barrel length: 305mm (12in) 
• Weight: 1.36kg (3lb) 
• Feed device: Single-shot 

ENCAW 

A home-grown offering came in 1988 from Royal Ordnance plc, which threw out its own original side-opening design in favor of what it called the Enfield Close Assault Weapon (ENCAW), allegedly designed in only 20 weeks (see Steve Raw’s, The Last Enfield, p. 244). Royal Ordnance offered the weapon for sale simply as the “Enfield Grenade Launcher,” and a sales pamphlet gives the range as 350m and the weight as 1.8kg, while emphasizing the weapon’s “automatic opening and ejection” and “positive safety mechanism.” 

The ENCAW was certainly a novel design, the grenade launcher barrel being sleeved over the rifle’s barrel and encased in an enlarged LSW-style handguard, with the release catch at the rear, just above the trigger guard. At the far end, a substantial barrel-support bracket held the GL muzzle to the grenade launching ring on the host rifle’s flash suppressor. This arrangement was enabled by the unique rotating loading mechanism whereby the launch tube pivoted around the rifle barrel to expose the breech. Like a side-opening design, this theoretically allowed the use of grenade cartridges with a greater overall length than would be compatible with a slide-forward breech design. However, due to the compact design, the barrel’s length was dictated by that of the rifle barrel above, resulting in a barrel which would not be compatible with many longer projectiles. The prototype SUSAT on the weapon was furnished with a folding leaf sight after the fashion of the existing U.S. M79 standalone launcher. In this prototype form the launcher was bolted in place around the barrel and onto the front of the body (upper receiver). 

Neither of these designs was apparently satisfactory. Ultimately, the weapon entered service without a UBGL and relied upon the old-fashioned rifle grenade launched from the flash suppressor with a live round. An optical sight, designed to clip over the front part of the SUSAT was issued under the designation L15A1. 

ROYAL ORDNANCE ENCAW (Enfield Grenade Launcher) 

• Caliber: 40x46SRmm 
• Overall length: Approx. 340mm 
• Barrel length: 175mm (6.9in) 
• Weight: 1.8kg (4lb) 
• Feed device: Single-shot 

HK79 

At least two other grenade launcher designs were trialled with the SA80 in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The first is a variant of the German Heckler & Koch (HK) HK79, which was also seen during testing with the L85A2 during the Future Integrated Soldier Technology (FIST) program of the early 2000s. A contemporary of the M203, the HK79 has seen limited export success. The variant seen in SA80 trials replaces the host weapon’s handguard, as it does on HK’s G3 and HK33 series of rifles, placing minimal strain on the barrel of the rifle. The HK79 is manually cocked after loading, and the weapon is fired using the support hand (for right-handed users) via a trigger on the left-hand side of the handguard replacement unit. The HK79 uses yet another different loading mechanism from those types examined previously; a drop-breech design results in the barrel pivoting downwards from the point at which it meets the supporting bracket, allowing for longer munitions to be used. 

HK79A1 

• Caliber: 40x46SRmm 
• Overall length: 357mm 
• Barrel length: 297mm (11.7in) 
• Weight: 1.67kg (3.7lb) 
• Feed device: Single-shot 

HG40 

The second was the HG40, produced by the Hilton Gun Company, a small, now-defunct British firm based in Derbyshire. A two-piece bracket arrangement clamps over the barrel behind the grenade launching ring on the host rifle’s flash suppressor. Much like the HK79, the HG40 employs a drop-breech system. The trigger mechanism for the grenade launcher sits almost directly below that of the host weapon. Little else is known about the weapon. The 1991 edition of Jane’s Infantry Weapons gives the statistics below and indicates that the HG40 was undergoing UK military trials at the time of publication. 

Hilton HG40 

• Caliber: 40x46SRmm 
• Overall length: 388mm 
• Barrel length: 310mm (12.2in) 
• Weight: 1.5kg (3.3lb) 
• Feed device: Single-shot 

AG SA80 

In 1995, a decade after the SA80 entered service, Heckler & Koch offered British forces a variant of their AG36 UGL known as AG SA80. This design has proved to be a popular replacement for the legacy weapons of several nations, including the United States, where it is known as the M320. The AG SA80 was adopted and received the designation L17A2, the parallel A1 variant being an accessory for the L119A1 (Diemaco C8 SFW). The weapon is aluminum in construction with a polymer mount that replaces the host rifle’s handguard. This mount includes a hinged top cover to access the weapon’s gas parts. This includes an integral folding tangent sight mounted on the left side and graduated from 50m to 350m. A Picatinny rail strip opposite allows the mounting of the laser/ light module (LLM). These also feature a polymer bracket to accommodate the activation switch. The barrel has six grooves with a 1:1200 twist. The AG SA80 features a double-action trigger; the other models are single-action or cock-on close. Comparable with most other 40x46SRmm weapons, the L17A2 has an effective range of some 400m and develops a muzzle velocity of 76m/s. The example pictured in this article is a developmental iteration of the L17A2 marked simply “SA80 GL.” It is installed on an L85A1 rifle, which is not a configuration that ever saw service. 

However, the L17A2 was not actually issued until the A2 program had been completed in 2002, at which point it became the L123 (the current service variant being designated the L123A3). The folding ramp quadrant sight may be removed and replaced with an elevating bracket mount for either the EOTech reflex sight or the RAAM UGL-FCS electro-optical fire control system. Needless to say, this package of rifle, GL and two optical sights is significantly heavier than the base rifle with optic. A more conventional form of the AG36 appeared in 2016 on the prototype L85A3. That weapon’s new rail system enables the much more compact launcher to be fitted directly to the 6 o’clock rail. Given that the new top rail is integral to the new handguard, it seems very likely that this new launcher will replace the L17A2/L123 series in service (the alternative being to continue using legacy rail adaptors for UBGL-equipped rifles). 

HK AG SA80 (L17A2 Grenade Launcher) 

• Caliber: 40x46SRmm 
• Overall length: 348mm 
• Barrel length: 279mm (11in) 
• Weight: 1.5 kg (3.3lb) 
• Muzzle velocity: Approx. 76 m/s 
• Feed device: Single-shot 

• • • 

Special thanks to the National Firearms Centre at the Royal Armouries, who graciously allowed us access to their world-class collection and other videos and photos. 

This article is adapted from a chapter in Mr. Ferguson’s forthcoming book on British bullpup rifles, which will be published by Headstamp Publishing in 2019, headstamppublishing.com 

This is the eighth and final installment in a series of articles examining the developmental history of the United Kingdom’s SA80 family of firearms. These articles ran in Small Arms Review between issues Vol. 23, No. 1 and Vol. 23, No. 10.