The 300 Blackout cartridge was created in response to a 2009 U.S. Special Operation Command’s request. SOCOM units were steadily involved in CQB operations in Iraq and Afghanistan where compact firearms were at a premium. Short-barreled 5.56mm M4 carbines were not cutting it. Advanced Armament Corporation (AAC) was given certain parameters to satisfy by the military procurement request — primary on this list was a .30 caliber cartridge that would be as quiet as a suppressed 9mm Heckler & Koch MP5-SD submachine gun while offering increased lethality, all out of an AR-style platform with a 9-inch barrel, using AR15 magazines. On top of this, the cartridge was to offer more power than the 7.62×39 from said short barrel. Both supersonic and subsonic factory ammunition that would work dependably with or without a suppressor was another key specification that sets the 300 AAC Blackout (300 Blk) apart from other AR compatible cartridge attempts. AAC was successful after making tweaks to the then existing 300 Whisper round creating the January 2011 SAAMI approved 300 Blk. From the onset, the M4/M16 platform was the primary vehicle to launch 300 Blk rounds. Designers kept this in mind during load development so as to ensure mechanical reliability while requiring minimal changes in the weapon to chamber the 300 Blk   — basically just the barrel needed to be changed.

The 300 Blk’s raison d’être is as a CQB weapon typified by tight quarters and operational use indoors. Sounds like the ideal basis for a personal defense weapon. What distinguishes the 300 Blk is its ability to access standard, hard hitting supersonic rounds superior to 5.56mm while maintaining the trump card of subsonic ammunition if the end user desires. The 300 Blk cartridge has emerged as one of the most successful alternate AR chamberings. The ability to access either supersonic or subsonic factory ammunition offers great flexibility to the 300 Blk user; especially considering the special attention paid to its compatibility with the AR platform.

The 300 Blk chambering has grown beyond AR type weapons. Numerous manufacturers are offering bolt action and single shot rifles in 300 Blk. Anecdotal information compares 300 Blk 115-125 grain ammunition as offering superior ballistics over the 7.62x39mm AK and totally eclipses 5.56mm both in ballistics and terminal punch, as well. Our focus will be on subsonic use.

Tactically it is not hard to visualize what roles a suppressed 300 Blk stocked with subsonic rounds would fill. Anything from sentry removal, canine or two-legged, disabling lights and security cameras. CQB operations indoors also come to mind when communications between team members is a priority, especially during nighttime operations. If an enemy is not aware you are present, even when already being engaged you have a real tactical advantage. Subsonic rounds are downright spooky in their arrival when combined with use of a suppressor.

However, for most of us, we must see past operations equipped with night vision and zombie apocalypse scenarios in our thinking. Being able to maintain discretion is an important aspect to be considered in numerous situations. For example, how best to acquire food discretely and efficiently is too often pushed to the back of the bus in gun literature. A normal sounding rifle shot is sure to attract what could be unwanted attention. Personal defense where you must maintain situational awareness, i.e. hearing or being able to communicate with loved ones, also comes to mind. Here the terminal penetration of 300 Blk subsonic loads (similar to a 45 ACP pistol) compared to supersonic rifle loads through various mediums is not such a huge disadvantage.

Initial 300 Blk subsonic loads took advantage of the plethora of heavy .30 caliber bullets available for use; however, most were match-type bullets. The heavier .30 caliber bullets are comparatively long which created concerns for what twist rate best were best suited to stabilize the round, especially with short barrels that typify 300 Blk-chambered weapons. While 1:7-inch or faster (depending on barrel length) was found acceptable, terminal performance with the match rounds were lackluster resembling FMJ punch-through characteristics. How to get 300 Blk ammunition to expand AND penetrate with terminal effect became the next goal. Multiple manufacturers have responded to this challenge. We are going to focus on two of the larger ammunition producers to see what they came up with. Hornady and SIG SAUER each offer subsonic 300 Blk ammunition offering superior terminal performance while maximizing noise reduction when combined with suppressor.

Hornady’s Sub-X 300 Blk load consists of a 190-grain bullet designed specifically to perform at subsonic velocities. The Sub-X bullet combines a lead core surrounded by a grooved metal jacket and tipped with the company’s Flex Tip insert. A cannelure groove is present for a positive case crimp. Long grooves scored into the Sub-X metal jacket combined with flat base create conditions for reliable expansion. The Hornady-patented Flex Tip insert placed in front of hollow point cavity kicks expansion off when striking a target. The Flex Tip prevents material from clogging an exposed hollow point negatively effecting expansion. Hornady made sure the performance of the new load meets or exceeds the FBI’s terminal ballistic requirements. Additionally, a low flash signature makes the ammo ideal for both suppressed and unsuppressed firearms.

Let’s remember, subsonic 300 Blk loads resembles a pistol round’s ballistic performance. For comparison’s sake, a 230 grain 45 ACP generates 461 ft/lbs of energy. The Hornady 190-grain Sub-X makes 465 ft/lbs. All things being equal a high-SD bullet penetrates better than a low-SD bullet. (BC is a measurement of how well a bullet moves thru the air.) Superior ballistic coefficients (.437 for the 190 grain Sub-X versus .188 for a 45 ACP) and sectional densities (SD .286 versus .162) help the Hornady 190 grain Sub-X maintain energy and penetration characteristics further downrange than a typical pistol bullet. The SIG Sauer 205 grain Tipped Hunting benefits from these same qualities.

SIG’s relationship with our military forces is well known. Elite units often reach out directly to SIG for support. When subsonic bullet performance proved lacking SIG got the call. The SIG 205-grain Tipped Hunting ammunition was the result. Conversations with SIG, as well as an article from Tom Beckstrand provided insight into the SIG load. Remember our 300 Blk subsonic to handgun analogy? SIG turned to their proven V-Crown pistol bullet design as a starting point. A polymer tip was added to properly start expansion at sub-1000fps velocities. Something handguns often have to deal with.

One thing that immediately attracts your attention with the SIG round is the bullet profile. While .30 caliber as it emerges from the case mouth, the SIG 205 grain tipped bullet has shoulder that’s similar to a cartridge case that steps its diameter down. Why not keep the .30 caliber diameter farther out the ogive? The answer lies with 5.56mm AR magazines. A .30 caliber bullet ogive that extends too far out from a case neck causes issues with a typical 5.56mm AR magazine. Heavy grain 300 Blk loads can come into contact with a magazine’s interior supporting ribs that run along the inside of a magazine. Magazine side ribs can push the bullet noses towards the centerline of the magazine instead of keeping them parallel along the sides of the magazine, especially long heavy grain subsonic bullets. This can cause the rounds to sit at an angle once loaded making it problematic for the feed lips to provide reliable feeding. Thus, SIG designed a subsonic load with terminal ballistic qualities that also provides peace of mind when feeding from a 30-round magazine when cycling full-auto.

Range Time

After all this bullet background, it’s time to fire some. A SIG MCX Rattler Canebrake was chosen for range time. The MCX Canebrake is a military grade weapon in the hands of our elite operators along with British and other allies that civilians can easily obtain thanks to its pistol brace eliminating the need for an ATF tax stamp– sans full auto capability. Like the 300 Blk, the MCX series was driven by a tier one DOD unit request that sought to increase accuracy, modularity and durability over the legacy of the AR15/M16 system. Furthermore, the light weight, compact weapon was intended to be operated suppressed from its conception. A SIG SRD762 suppressor was placed under the MCX Rattler Canebrake’s oversized SD handguard.

What sets the SIG Canebrake apart, even from its larger Virtus brethren, is the compact size made possible via the 5.5-inch barrel with 1:5 twist. The 29.25-inch, 6.5-pound Rattler Canebrake is chambered in 300 Blk; an obvious decision considering the intent to suppress. A free-floating oversized M-LOK handguard is paired with a Canebrake-specific MCX compact upper matched with a side-folding, pivoting arm brace. SIG created the MCX Canebrake as the ideal choice for operators needing maximum firepower in a quiet discrete package.

With magazines loaded with Hornady 190-grain Sub-X and SIG 205-grain Tipped Hunting rounds, the suppressed SIG MCX Canebrake was taken to the Echo Valley Training Center’s (EVTC) for sighting in before heading to the facility’s MOUT village and Hesco shoot house. The focus was making sure reliability was maintained. Engagement distances were kept within 100 yards – with most targets placed between 25 and 50 yards. Trajectory was surprisingly flat out to 50 yards. 100-yard bullet strikes were approximately 7-inches low with the 50-yard zero.

300BLK recoil impulse is similar to a 5.56mm when using standard supersonic loads. The SIG SRD762 suppressor not only serves reduces muzzle blast/signature, but also minimizes recoil impulse even further. Subsonic loads are even tamer. The Hornady or SIG Sauer subsonic loads had no issue cycling in the MCX Canebrake—a credit to SIG’s gas adjustable piston design. It never fails to impress when suppressed subsonic rounds sent downrange, especially in an aggressive manner. The rounds slapping steel, cardboard targets, berm or Hesco shoot house background could be heard distinctly over any blast at the firing point. Close range front windshield glass penetration was evaluated. The heavy 300 Blk slugs had no problem punching through. Hornady and SIG bullets were recovered from the berm. Though not a scientific as ballistic gelatin, which has results posted on the internet courtesy of Hornady and SIG, the recovered bullets exhibited the expected expansion while not losing jacket integrity thus ensuring deep penetration. Impressions of the subsonic 300 Blk fired from the suppressed SIG MCX exceeded expectations. Lack of recoil and muzzle blast allowed complete focus on the target during evaluation scenarios. It was like running and gunning with a .22 caliber rimfire weapon. It was almost surreal to handle a weapon like the SIG MCX without requiring hearing protection. What else can be said.

Firearms safeties may be best understood if they’re divided into two categories – manual safeties and automatic safeties. Manual safeties (sometimes called “active safeties”) typically require the shooter to manually operate a lever, switch, or button from an “off” position to an “on” position or vice versa. Comparatively, automatic safeties are internal safeties (sometimes called “passive safeties”) that operate without manual manipulation by the shooter.

There is another safety device category that is external to the gun itself – the external safety. This category includes bore locks, trigger locks and gun safes. In the late 1990s the ATF pressured handgun manufacturers to include integral locking mechanisms on handguns that could only be unlocked by inserting a special key into the gun at exactly the right place before the gun could be fired. That didn’t bode well with common sense and the gun owner community because it added yet another step to making a gun ready to fire in an emergency scenario. Fortunately, only a few manufacturers like Smith & Wesson capitulated to political and media pressure by adding integrally designed key locks to their handgun line. This entire safety device category is obviously intended for secure firearms storage and theft deterrence and does not apply to firearms for ready use or carry. For the purposes of this article, these will not be further discussed.

Manual Safety

The most common gun safety is the manual safety. It consists of a switch, button or lever that, when manually set to the “safe” position, prevents the firearm from firing. While seemingly straight forward, the design mechanics involved in manual safeties are as different as the firearms they serve. Of the many designs, most conform to some variation of two basic designs. The first employs a block or latch that prevents the trigger and/or firing mechanism from moving. The second type mechanically disconnects the trigger from the gun’s firing mechanism. There are exceptions to the rule. For example, in a conscious effort to keep the firearm in a higher state of readiness many “double-action” firearms (like revolvers and some pistols) do not have manual safeties. The thinking is the double-action, longer-harder trigger pull to cock and fire provides adequate safety. Whether that’s the case, it’s left to the shooter to determine. That’s why many carry their revolvers on an empty chamber or do not chamber a round in a double-action, semi-automatic pistol for fear of accidental discharge. Of course, carrying a gun for the purpose of self-defense without a chambered round is akin to carrying an empty canteen into the desert in case you find water. It’s illogical.

Grip Safety

There are grip safeties, as well. The classic Colt .45 M1911 design is a prime example of a semi-automatic handgun with a grip safety, while Springfield Armory’s XD pistol and the Uzi submachine gun are other notable examples with a grip safety. A grip safety is a lever or other grip-depressible device positioned on the grip of a firearm (usually the rear strap area) that can only be actuated as a natural consequence of gripping the firearm in the proper firing position. Grip safeties function much like a manual safety, but they are momentary, and only deactivate while the shooter maintains his squeezing hold on the pistol grip. Once the shooter releases his grip, the safety is immediately re-engaged.

Integrated Trigger Safeties

Like grip safeties, trigger safeties are de-activated as a natural consequence of properly holding and pulling the trigger but are otherwise engaged, providing a margin of safety. First used in the 1897 Iver Johnson Second Model Safety Hammerless revolver, there are two independent parts that comprise a trigger safety – a trigger and a small blade-like spring-tensioned lever protruding forward from inside the trigger’s lower half. This lever, when fully depressed by a trigger finger on each trigger pull, disengages a trigger locking mechanism that allows the main trigger body to move rearward. The lever does not disengage the trigger lock without intentional depression.

Squeeze-Cocker

During the mid-1970s, Heckler & Koch debuted a unique squeeze-cocker safety in their Model P-7 pistol line. Without a doubt, this was a revolutionary pistol safety concept because the pistol was only cocked and ready to fire when a full, grip-length lever located on the front edge of the pistol grip was fully depressed by the shooter. When the shooter released his grip, the P-7 was immediately decocked. The design prevented the single-action trigger alone from cocking the firearm and so, the P-7 would not fire unless the grip was fully squeezed rearward to its stopping point. There were several other ways the P-7 could be fired. The trigger could be pulled first and then when the grip was subsequently squeezed, cocking the gun, the gun would fire. It could also be fired if the grip was squeezed  and the trigger was pulled simultaneously. The key to all the P-7’s firing alternatives was fully squeezing the grip cocking lever. The P-7 enjoyed limited popularity among U.S. hand gunners because a quickdraw and fire sequence was impossible. P-7 production stopped in the late 1990s because of a dwindling market. Nonetheless, the concept was out of the box thinking that could have been further refined for application on other types of firearms.

Decocker

Traditionally, semi-automatic single action/double-action (SA/DA) pistols are designed to be carried with the hammer down on a chambered round, with or without a manual safety engaged. With the hammer down, the pistol is uncocked, and it is considered safe. In this state, pulling the double-action trigger both cocks and fires the firearm. On the other hand, the double action trigger pull is both longer and heavier (measured in pounds) than the single action trigger pull which simply releases an already cocked hammer.

Therefore, discharging the firearm, or manually cycling the slide to chamber the first round will both load a round into the firing chamber and cock the hammer in the single-action mode.  This makes it necessary to un-cock the hammer to return the pistol to its safe state. On hammer-fired pistols, this is accomplished by holding the hammer spur with the thumb while carefully pulling the trigger, then slowly lowering the hammer down onto the firing pin. This procedure has the inherent risk of accidental discharge, especially if one’s thumb slips off the hammer during the process of uncocking. It takes practice.

Comparatively, striker-fired pistols, do not have a hammer. This means the only way to return the trigger to its longer double action pull is by means of a decocker mechanism that is purposely designed into the gun. The decocker mechanism safely releases the striker’s spring tension without allowing the firing pin to travel.

Some hammer-fired pistols also employ a decocker which consists of a physical firing pin block that physically prevents the hammer from contacting the firing pin as it falls. The actual process of decocking is done by rotating the decocking lever to the decocked position. The decocking lever is usually ambidextrous and located on the rear of the frame or slide for thumb manipulation. A decocker eliminates the need to pull the trigger and control the fall of the hammer.  While using a decocker seems straight forward, they are not foolproof. Always keep your gun muzzle pointed in a safe direction while decocking.

Remarkably, the decocker is not new to firearms. The earliest use of a single action decocker can be traced back to 1932 where it debuted on the Polish-built Radom Vis wz. 35. The Radom pistol was based on John Browning’s M1911 design, and its design purpose was to provide horse-mounted cavalry soldiers a pistol that could be safely decocked and holstered using one hand. The Radom decocker led to a more advanced, yet simpler, two-way decock-safety combination consisting of a manual safety switch and decocking. This single lever both engaged the safety and decocked the pistol. In 1938, SIG Sauer followed with its cocking/decocking lever in the Sauer 38H and has continued to feature decocking levers in its line of pistols to this day. Walther incorporated the decocking feature into its famous “PP” models and Beretta later used it on the Beretta 92 (M9) models.  

Not to be outdone, Heckler & Koch equipped their line of pistols with a unique “three-way” decocking safety system which decocked the pistol by pushing down on the safety lever from the “Fire” setting or engaged the safety (even on a cocked firearm) by pushing the lever upwards. In 2007 Ruger debuted the “decock-only” variants of its P-series pistols and has offered the decocking safety on these pistols ever since. As should be apparent, the decocking-safety, in its many forms, has become commonplace because it works reliably.

Drop Safety / Firing Pin Block

The oldest form of drop safety is the safety notch (many times referred to as “half-cock.”) It was used on most black powder 19^th Century-era rifles and pistols and transitioned to rifles and single-action revolvers manufactured before the invention of the hammer block. Numerous reproduction models of bygone era rifles and pistols are still equipped with a safety notch. The safety notch is nothing more than a relief cut made in the tumbler at the base of the hammer that allows the trigger sear to catch and hold the hammer a short distance away from the cap / cartridge primer. The safety notch is engaged by partially cocking the hammer a short distance from the firing pin or primer. Once the safety notch is engaged, the hammer is locked to any forward motion without first manually cocking the hammer before pulling the trigger. The safety notch, when engaged, acts as a primary safety by effectively preventing the hammer from any forward travel towards the firing pin should the weapon be dropped. More importantly, in scenarios where dropping a weapon jarred the trigger sear loose (the trigger releases the hammer from the drop shock of inertia), it provides a margin of safety by “catching” a falling hammer when the trigger has not been pulled.

There is a downside to the safety notch. Safety notch-style safeties are subject to wear and breakage which often results in unintentional discharges. Secondly, while not a complicated process, placing the hammer into the half-cock position is an active feature that the shooter must consciously engage. That process requires a certain amount of operator familiarity and manual dexterity to prevent accidental discharges. 

To make it appear they were in control of the situation, Congress stepped in following a rash of political assassinations in the 1960’s timeframe. Drop test requirements for imported guns were introduced along with the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968. The new law’s stated purpose was to provide a basis for import denial of cheaply built firearms that could inadvertently fire if they were dropped or roughly handled. Most firearm designs prior to 1968 had the uncocked firing pin being held idle by the firing pin spring above a chambered round. This meant the inertia from a vertical drop that was in line with the firing pin would drive the firing pin forward onto the primer of a chambered cartridge, causing the gun to fire. It also meant that the anti-gun community now had a raison d’etre they could use to regulate gun imports, while it further provided a liability premise for lawsuits. Unfriendly gun states like California immediately jumped on this bandwagon by requiring all new guns imported into California to have some form of positive drop safety built into them.

The gun manufacturers responded by engineering passive drop safeties into their new firearms. The best way to picture these passive safety designs is to visualize the firing pin being cut in its middle and physically separated by a wedge-like block called a “firing pin block” that is held in place by a small spring that is attached to the trigger mechanism. As the trigger is pulled, the wedge is withdrawn from the firing pin halves and the firing pin is made whole again so the gun can fire. As the trigger pull is relaxed, the wedge again lifts to physically block the firing pin mechanism. Therefore, drop safeties provide a physical obstacle to the operation of the firing mechanism. This block is only removed when the trigger is pulled so that the firearm cannot discharge if dropped.

While government-required drop safeties seem reasonable, there is a downside and that’s firing reliability. There are some drop safety designs that will only allow the gun to fire if it’s being held straight and level. That means your gun may not reliably fire if you’re engaging a target that requires the firearm be held in a vertical orientation (think aiming down from a rooftop, up a  stairwell, etc.) or while shooting upside down, laying on your back (think extreme situations, not Hollywood). So, for those who bet their lives on gun reliability, drop safeties are not necessarily desirable. 

Hammer Block

Like a firing pin block, a hammer block consists of a block built into the action that physically prevents the hammer from contacting the firing pin when down (at rest) in the uncocked position. Much like the firing pin block, the hammer block is withdrawn as the trigger is pulled.

Transfer Bar

Transfer bars are used in some exposed hammer-fired revolver and rifle designs. In most designs the transfer bar rotates out-of-line with the hammer’s travel, making it physically impossible for the hammer to contact the firing pin. When the trigger is pulled, the transfer bar rotates into alignment with the firing pin. The hammer falls, striking the transfer bar at its firing point, which transfers the hammer strike to a firing pin-like spur that strikes the cartridge primer and fires the gun. Like the firing pin block, the transfer bar provides a similar level of drop safety.

Bolt Interlocks and Trigger Disconnects

Some form of bolt interlocks and/or trigger disconnects are used on most all modern repeating action firearms to include bolt, pump and lever-action shotguns and rifles. A bolt interlock works by disengaging (or blocking) the trigger when the bolt is not in full battery (fully closed and fully locked). The trigger disconnect prevents the gun from firing until the bolt is fully locked and thus prevents out-of-battery “slam fire” malfunctions. These mostly result from worn out trigger catch mechanisms that allow the hammer to follow the bolt or bolt carrier group forward as it closes. That’s why modern self-loading firearms require a separate trigger reset and pull to fire each successive cartridge. Even though interlocks and trigger disconnects help prevent misfires when the firearm is not in full battery, they are not considered safeties because they can easily fail from excessive wear, rust, or accumulated dirt. Keep your weapon clean, lubricated and inspect for wear every time you clean it.

Magazine Disconnects

The Browning Hi-Power pistol was one of the first production handguns equipped with a magazine disconnect. In 2006, California passed legislation requiring magazine disconnects on all new handgun designs sold in the state beginning January 1, 2007 which resulted in their widespread proliferation. A magazine disconnect prevents the gun from firing if the magazine is withdrawn or not fully locked into place even if there is a round in the chamber. It works by means of a mechanism that engages an internal safety like a firing-pin block or trigger disconnect when the magazine is not locked in place.

Like any automatic safety, there are magazine disconnect pros and cons. Yes, the gun cannot fire without a properly installed magazine, and an accidental discharge can be prevented with the magazine removed. However, the disconnect mechanism, itself, adds tension to the trigger mechanism components and that often makes the trigger pull unpredictable or heavy. A real safety concern, especially on older guns, is that spring fatigue and/or rust can lead to magazine disconnect failure. When it does, it will most likely happen when the gun is in the “fire” mode without giving the shooter any indication of its failure; a circumstance that can be lethal.

An additional safety argument against a magazine disconnect is that the user may eject his magazine when unloading his pistol, then reinsert an empty magazine into the magazine well to dry fire the gun for storage. Even though the magazine is empty, once it’s inserted, the disconnect firing system becomes reactivated. That means if a live round was inadvertently left in the chamber, the gun will fire. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute (SAAMI) stated that an “obvious concern with magazine disconnect features is that determining whether the gun is safe becomes linked to the presence of the magazine as opposed to actually checking the gun, opening the action, and making sure it is unloaded.” For the reasons stated above, many shooters deactivate their gun’s magazine disconnect feature and rely instead on sound firearm handling safety protocols. 

While not a safety, per se’, the loaded chamber indicator is found on many modern semi-automatic handguns. Its purpose is to provide the shooter a visual cue that a round is chambered. Depending on the manufacturer and model of the pistol, it may come in the form of a small protruding button or bar that pops up somewhere behind the slide’s ejector port to indicate the presence of a chambered round. Other designs consist of a small cut away section along the top or side edge of the bolt face that allows the shooter to see the brass cartridge rim of a chambered cartridge. Regardless, one should never bet their life on a loaded chamber indicator. There is no better way to positively confirm that a round is chambered (or not) and that is to do a simple “press check”. This is accomplished by partially pulling the slide back and visually sighting the rear of the chamber for the presence of a cartridge, and then easing the slide forward into battery.

Why Can’t the Firearms Industry Agree on the Use of a Common Safety Mecanism?

The answer is simple. Safeties are as varied as the gun models themselves. Different operating systems and trigger mechanisms require different safeties. What works for one design may not work for another. Most of all, we must not confuse what is theoretically possible with what is practically feasible. Trust and belief are different. Trust is based upon past performance. Belief is divine. Trusting a firearm safety’s reliability and believing safeties work both require physical verification. The bottom line: Never trust or believe any safety is 100% safe. Treat all firearms as though they’re loaded and ready to fire.

In 2018, the author mailed in his paperwork (a separate packet than the one used for rifles) and was given a randomly generated number in the low 3,000s. CMP called those numbers sequentially, and the buyer was given a choice of Service or Field Grade based on availability at the time. The author was contacted around middle of March 2019 and purchased a Service Grade pistol. It was delivered inside a large protective case marked with “CMP” on the outside and included a certificate of authenticity. The pistol is in excellent shape with little finish wear on the frame rails and no gas cutting of the breech face. 

Frame 

The frame was manufactured by Remington Rand (RR) in 1945, and most of the frame parts seem consistent. In front of the serial number, “NO.” instead of “Nº”is consistent with a late war RR. Proof mark “P” is behind the magazine release. “FJA” represents the inspection initials for Frank J. Atwood and is found on RR and Ithaca guns. The main spring housing has seven ribs which mark it as a late-war Ithaca part, while an RR part has eight ribs. Smooth contouring of the thumb safety matches another identifying point for RR. The trigger is a rounded, stamped and parkerized affair. The type 3 magazine release features a slot screw head. As expected, the slide stop and safety are serrated and not checkered. 

Grips with reinforcement rings were manufactured by Keyes as denoted by the star with a “K;” however, only the right stock has a part number denoting Korean War-era replacement. It is possible that the left is an original part with the right replaced when damaged. On the right of the frame, in front of the slide stop, one can find “A 8 80” under “M1911 A1 U.S. ARMY.” That marking is not parallel to the original serial number and seems deeper. This author can only guess this was the date for the rebuild; although “A” does not denote any familiar arsenal. 

Slide and Barrel 

Both slide and barrel are post-WWII GI replacement items. The left side of slide has drawing number “7790314” in large font, and the right side has “53397” which is the Cage Code for NUMAX ELECTRONICS INC in New York City. Since this is a post-war product, it is fully heat treated. Author has yet to learn the significance of “M” marked atop the slide, between ejection port and rear sight. When viewed from the top, the machining in front of the leaf is radiused and is the type used by Colt and US&S which was eventually adopted by all contractors; the original RR pattern had straight cuts. The front sight measures 0.08-inch wide, but the top was slightly peened, perhaps from rough handling. 

The barrel has a caliber and drawing number visible through the ejection port. At the bottom near the barrel link, one can find “73677” for DUROYD MFG CO INC on the right, and “M” “P” marked on the left. Rifling, crown and lugs are in excellent condition with minimal wear. The recoil spring guide is the late type with rounded legs, while the plug paradoxically was not punched to retain the spring. That makes the plug either an early production run example or a commercial one sourced outside government supply. The barrel bushing is unmarked. When in battery, the pistol rattles little with the barrel-to-bushing fit not excessively tight or loose. 

Shooting and Final Thoughts 

No malfunctions were experienced during a short range trip. The safety engaged and disengaged with authority and assurance. The trigger measured about 5.5 pounds. and featured a notable amount of creep. The trigger face fell at the middle phalanges, whereas the wider-gripped Beretta M9 fell at the joint between middle and distal phalanges. This author is very happy to add a genuine piece of Americana to his collection and looks forward to retelling its rich history to future generations. 

In the new millennium, the young Russian state needed a main sidearm—something modern, hearty and comparable in size and function to NATO pistols. Paramount to the modern Russian fighting pistol, codenamed “Grach,” within the Russian Army trail program, was the newly adopted 9x21mm armor piercing SP-10 ammunition. This new “wonder round” was developed by the famous Central Research and Development Institute of Precision Machine Building, known by its Russian acronym TsNIITochMash, to be used in their “snub-nosed viper” pistol, the Gyurza, aka the SR-1. Pyotr Serdyukov, lead designer of the pistol, resolved to develop a submachine gun to accommodate the new round. 

Ammo 

The 9x21mm SP-10 special cartridge uses a 103-grain projectile and has a muzzle velocity of 1245 feet per second from the SR-1 pistol. Per Russian naming standards from the Main Missile and Artillery Directorate, it is recognized by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation as the 7N29, “7N” noting ammunition. Another 9x21mm cartridge, the SP-11, is designated as 7N28 and uses a full-metal jacket ball round. This makes it ideal for use on unprotected personnel and as a training round due to its lower cost and reduced ricochet. The SP-11 has a 121-grain projectile and a muzzle velocity of 1279 feet per second from an SR-1 pistol. The Russians also provide the SP-12, a 9x21mm jacketed hollow-point cartridge when expanding ammunition is needed. To date, the SP-10 armor piercing round is the most commonly fielded round from the SP family. 

Purpose 

The FSB (Federal Security Service) was the first organization to vocalize interest in a potential submachine gun chambered for the potent SP-10 cartridge. They communicated their desire to Serdyukov in the mid-1990s to create such a special purpose weapon. The result was the SR-2 (Spetsialnaya Razrabotka–Special Development), named Veresk, after the Eurasian flower, heather. In the early 2000s, the SR-2 entered service in the hands of FSB Spetsnaz and other special units such as OMON (Special Purpose Mobile Unit) of Russian law enforcement and SOBR (Special Rapid Response Unit) under the Russian National Guard. In practice, the SR-2 provides good armor penetration characteristics up to 40 meters and an effective range of 150–200 meters, with significant stopping power. The Veresk is exceptionally compact for its class, lightweight and concealable. As such, it is a favorite of special unit entry shield men, who may use the weapon with one hand, without sacrificing stopping power and ergonomics. 

Differing from most submachine guns, the Veresk is gas-operated with a rotating bolt, using a striker-fired floating hammer. This allows the receiver to be even more compact. An ergonomic fire control layout allows for a right-handed shooter to operate the safety with his index finger on the right side of the weapon and the selector switch with his thumb on the left. An ambidextrous magazine release is placed behind the trigger group, and a folding charging handle protrudes on the right side from the ejection port. A vertical foregrip is located just below the muzzle behind the removable hand stop. The hand stop may be removed to accommodate attaching a suppressor. 

TsNIITochMash designed the KP-SR-2 collimator sight specifically for the SR-2M to mount on top of the weapon, while simultaneously accommodating the top folding stock without interference. This feature required a stock redesign SR-2 to the SR-2M to allow this feature. To unfold the stock, the buttplate is pulled rearward, unlocking from the front sight. To fold the stock, a button on the bottom of the receiver is depressed and the stock can be folded over the top of the receiver. A special additional stock may be used to clear helmet face shields and is attached using a bracket securing to the original stock’s release button. Engaging this button will allow the face-shield stock to be completely removed from the weapon. 

The stock is a simple wire, swooping down to clear a helmet face shield, and a simple rubber butt pad covers the back. The Veresk is fed from a 20- or 30-round, double-stack, double-feed magazine, that inserts into the pistol grip/ magazine well. At 900 rounds per second, the weapon is surprisingly controllable based on its size and weight. 

After years of use, Special Force operators have noted some needed improvements to the design. Specifically, the folding charging handle and the folding vertical foregrip present some issues. The folding charging handle may be accidentally bumped closed. In the folded position, this adds an inconvenient step to reloading the weapon, especially under pressure as the weapon does not have a last round hold-open or a bolt release. One operator recalled striking a combatant in the face with the weapon and breaking off the foregrip as it was deployed in the down position. However, this move may have been outside the weapon’s design parameters but was nonetheless a need that arose in a life or death situation. 

An Upgrade 

The SR-2 was later upgraded to the SR-2M, swapping the screwed-in vertical grip to a folding vertical grip. The removable hand stop was added just rearward of the muzzle. The stock was redesigned to be folded and extended with a reflex sight in place. Coming to a total weight of 3.6 pounds, the SR-2M is a light submachine gun package providing sufficient fire and stopping power. The original SR-2 can still be found in units using older weapons or, as one Special Forces instructor said, those units with reduced budgets. The latest SR-2MP includes additional M1913 accessory rails on the left and right side of the handguard and on the top of the receiver in the place of sights. The SR-2MP remains available for export to partner nations and has shown its ability to modernize alongside contemporary force multipliers. 

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)

What are they talking about? Some sort of French filly? No , about a submachine gun , invented in France patented and prototyped in the USA, codenamed Charlotte.

Many of us in the gun world have a dream that some invention of ours will become the weapon that the U.S. or some major nation adapts or which becomes a commercial success. We all know the names of famous inventors who succeeded at this in the past- Colt, Maxim, Gatling, Thompson, Johnson, Browning and others. We also know that it can still be done from the careers of Gene Stoner, Bill Ruger, Reed Knight and other contemporaries. Well, every one of them would tell you, “It’s not easy!” The Charlotte story is an instructive and interesting tale about a good gun invention, well financed, which is still only battering at the gates of success after 12 long years. This story is not over and it won’t stop any of us from trying but it is a sobering tale of many disappointing close calls. It tells us once again that timing and who you know are everything.

In 1985 a very skilled gunmaker in Paris, Fredrick Tessier, despaired of making significant money by means of the high priced but very time and labor intensive hand-made shotguns that he was justly famous for. He decided to follow the advice once given the American inventor, Hiram Maxim, that the way to make money was to “invent some way for the Europeans to kill each other faster.” In other words invent a machine gun. Tessier quite deliberately and thoughtfully set out to design a submachine gun which would be particularly easy to manufacture and which could even be produced in a simple, low tech shop such as his in Paris. He developed a subgun that at first glance looks like the Beretta model 12.

Tessier built a prototype in France and then talked to his father who was a French Army officer, about patenting it there. His father informed him that if he tried to patent any weapon of interest to the French military, the government would immediately take control of the invention. This was prophetic as far as Charlotte was concerned but not just about the French government.

On the basis of his father’s advice, Fredrick Tessier submitted a patent on the Charlotte design now known as the T-2 on May 24, 1985 and assigned the patent to a company his family had done business with for many years, Shepherd Industries. He was granted U.S. patent 4649800 on March 17, 1987.

The connection with Shepherd Industries is that its owner, Frank Parisette, is a fine wood importer and the Tessier family has been well known in the high grade gun trade as a source for fine French walnut for over a hundred years. Pictures of the French prototype show an absolutely gorgeous walnut pistol grip and fore end, perfectly checkered.

The key claim of the Tessier patent is for a “self contained blow-back type firing unit insertable in a gunbody as a discrete subassembly and including a barrel and bolt with a compression spring acting between them.”

This “subassembly” is held in the “gun body” (receiver) by a nut threaded on the front end of the barrel. The barrel has protuberances which cut through the wall of the barrel surrounding bolt and guide it. The lower of these protuberances is the feed ramp and the upper is just designed to be a guide. These both keep the bolt from twisting as it goes back and forth in and out of battery.

The parts are beautifully made out of solid billets. The amount of stainless steel removed to make this bolt by boring and milling would certainly make a corporate bean counter weep uncontrollably. The design utilizes very few parts, beautifully engineered and expensively manufactured. It is very much like pre WW II Brno designs. Substantial economies could easily be made in manufacturing parts in more pieces and welding or brazing them together into units.

The Shepherd Industries T-2 brochures claim that it is the firing unit’s design that keeps the T-2 from climbing in full auto mode. A test by Colt Firearms confirmed the little climb claim (read on) but as to whether this is the unit or good ergonomics was not clear to the authors until we test fired the T-2.. In any case what Tessier did was take a barrel surrounding bolt ( also known as a telescoping bolt) very much like the Beretta model 12 and put the main operating spring around the barrel to push the bolt forward thus making the unit self contained. The similarity with the model 12 bolt ends there because the Beretta bolt has the spring behind it in the receiver pushing on the rear end of the bolt.

Now before all you RKIs start jumping up and down shouting that this is a bad idea because the heat will effect the temper in the spring and citing the Soviet DP being improved to the DPM and the 1918 BAR being improved to the model D with the main operating springs being moved away from the barrel heat, let us point out a few things.

First this a large diameter spring. Second it only touches the barrel at the breech end and finally that this is a 9mm subgun and not a squad light machine gun firing rifle cartridges. Okay, okay, it is near the barrel, surrounded by the bolt and it is hot in there. However spring technology is probably a lot better than it was. All we can say is that the U.S prototype has been fired 20k plus rounds with the same spring and is still going strong.

Another design point important to Tessier is that there is a shotgun like fore-end which he, as a serious bird shooter, believes leads to instinctive pointing and target acquistion. This is not mentioned in the patent but the other shotgun-like attribute of the center of gravity being ahead of the trigger is. Let us put in here a brief accolade for the CZ 23 which we believe is one of the greatest subgun designs ever. The model 23 is mainly remembered as the gun which had the barrel surrounding bolt and the hand finds hand magazine well years before the UZI.

The CZ 23 solved this spring-bolt problem by putting the spring on the outside of the barrel surrounding bolt. While it still pushes the bolt from behind, about half of the spring length is on the bolt itself. With a little engineering the whole spring could be. The Ruger standard .22 pistol bolt comes to mind as a direction to take. A very neat and compact solution indeed.

In any case the main attraction of the T-2 design is that this self contained firing unit hung from the barrel nut does not have to touch the walls of the receiver at all. And therefore the receiver could be made of anything such as plastic, carbon fiber, aluminum, titanium- i.e. anything. There is no need for there to be friction between the bolt and the receiver and there can be plenty of clearance for dirt . Shepherd Industries has plans for prototypes using alternative materials for the receiver. The current T-2s, while elegant, are all steel tool room prototypes. The magazine is a shortened and slightly modified 40 round Beretta. The shortening is necessary for clearance for the folding stock to swing underneath.

While Shepherd Industries owner, Frank Parisette was waiting for the patent to be issued he showed a prototype to some old Army buddies at Fort Meade. They were favorably impressed and that may have had caused the following consequences.

All of a sudden progress on the patent slowed to a crawl and upon inquiry, Parisette was told that the U.S. Department of Defense has put a hold on it. It took the threat of a law suit and $100k to get the patent out of DOD’s clutches.

Other strange things happened during this period as well. For instance, Colt Firearms approached Shepherd Industries and said that they had heard about the design and wanted to test the prototype. Now this made Frank Parisette wonder who had told them about the design and how did they get enough knowledge about the design to decide that it was of interest to them. Colt did test the prototype later and there was some interest on their part in buying the design. However remember what we said about timing- well Colt was in serious financial difficulties at that time leading up to one of their several bankruptcies and nothing came of their interest. A letter from a Colt Vice President, Arthur Holben, dated Dec 23, 1985 states, “Unfortunately, it being impossible for Colt Firearms to commit the resources necessary to further develop, tool and manufacture Mr. Tessier’s concepts at this time or in the near future etc.”- in other words -”goodbye” This was just one of the unfortunate timings for the T-2. On the plus side however the letter also says that, “the firing demonstration on Nov. 13 confirmed your claim of greatly reduced climb in automatic fire mode. We were impressed.”

Once the patent was issued Shepherd Industries gave the T-2 to the US Army for testing twice at Fort Meade, once at Picatinney Arsenal, once to the Secret Service and once to the FBI. While each of these organizations have verbally complimented the gun not one has given S.I. a written evaluation. Is this a who you know problem?

The Picatinny Arsenal test was for the purpose of finding a new gun to rack up in armored vehicles. This test which was in 1996 compared the Colt M4 carbine, the H&K MP5 and the T-2. The main interest according to Frank Parisette was the ability to get the chosen weapon out of the hatches and into action ASAP. The T-2 was rated best at this although it is clear to us that the MP5 in the test was handicapped by being the SD (silenced) version which is longer and bulkier than a plain MP5. The presence of the SD makes it sound as if the test was rather ad hoc.

While S.I. got very little documentation from all of this testing it did get the attention from insiders in the firearms game. S.I. was and still is interested in selling the design rather than continuing to try to get a large enough contract to support subcontracting mass production themselves. Beretta, for one, was very interested in the idea of purchasing the design.

One would think that having a very similar gun in the Model 12 would make the T-2 of little interest to Beretta. However the Beretta engineers had recognized that the Tessier design could be modified to produce a much shorter weapon than the model 12. Beretta therefore offered to buy the design for the sole purpose of producing as short a version as possible. A contract was drawn up to be signed in 1987. The jinxed timing that has plagued the whole project reappeared right on schedule. Model 92 slides on the new U.S Army M9 pistols started cracking. This put $21 million contract Beretta had in jeopardy and the very controversial adoption of a foreign weapon was back in the news. Beretta was completely distracted by this crisis and the last thing hey wanted to do was start something new. The contract was never signed and the negotiations were never resumed.

The contract makes very interesting reading. Beretta was willing to pay $200,000 for the right to produce the short version they envisioned and the pages which cover their right to sell it through the DOD make it clear that they had a market in mind.

Next to show interest was SIG. They had been attracted by the possibilities the T-2 design offers for quick caliber changes. They were interested in developing a 40 S&W version and more particularly one for the 357 SIG with a titanium bullet which they had developed for the Saudi Arabian government. Naturally to keep Charlotte’s luck consistent, during the negotiations the SIG official whose idea this was, G. Broadbeck, retired.

To test the claim that the T-2’s tendency to climb is unusually low, we fired it in conjunction with both a MP5 and an UZI. All three guns were loaded with the same hot GECO subgun ammo. We fired them one immediately after the other in various combinations. To our surprise it was true that the T-2 seemed to recoil less than both the MP5 and the UZI.

While the cyclic rate of fire for the T-2 was clearly less than either of the other guns, we do not think that this was the reason for the reduced climb and recoil. Rather we think the reason is that the T-2 bolt never recoiled to the point of metal to metal contact. With the hot ammo in the UZI we could feel the bolt hit the plastic buffer and thus the back of the receiver and the MP5 had the hard straight back recoil of a locked gun. If correct this is more proof that the fully sprung internals of the last Stoner designs are the path to follow for lowering recoil.

Take Down of the Tessier T-2

As usual make sure the gun is not loaded. Then remove the magazine. This is key step in the take down of the T-2 because the ejector is a separate piece which is held up in its functioning position by the magazine. By removing the magazine one allows the ejector to turn forward and fall into the mag well thus getting it out of the way for the bolt and barrel assembly removal.

Tessier’s design has cleverly reduced the number of parts to a minimum but he felt that making the ejector a separate movable part was still sensible as it allows easy replacement by driving out the single pivot pin. Not a bad idea really as we have all seen riveted or welded ejectors which have been repaired by pounding, bending, welding, brazing etc. Not by a simple automatically aligned replacement part as in the T-2. Next the knurled nut on the front of the receiver which is holding the barrel-bolt “separate firing unit” suspended in the receiver tube is turned off. Incidentally this nut will be the rear bushing of the silencer version when S.I gets around to that. The latch on the left side of the rear receiver cap is pressed in and turned counter clockwise a quarter turn which will allow the cap to be pulled off to the rear. Holding both the trigger and grip safety down gets the sear out of the way and a yank back on the operating handle which is not attached to the bolt but is captured in a slot in the receiver, will bring the whole self contained firing unit out of the gun. The front of the firing unit is then turned a third of a turn counter clockwise and pressed down to free the spring. This will allow the barrel to be loose enough to be taken out of the feed port on the bottom of the bolt. This completes field stripping. The mag housing , trigger and grip safety housings are welded to the receiver on this prototype. There is a hex key on the back of the receiver cap for removing the pistol grip which exposes the internal parts for depot level repair.

Assembly with a bolt, barrel and magazine for other calibers such as 40 S&W or 357 SIG will adapt the T-2 to fire those cartridges. S.I. has barrels and bolts made up for these but suitable mags are still in the works. In the case of the .357 Sig there is a heavier spring as well. How the .357 SIG is suited to a blowback mechanism is not clear to us yet. We have been told by others who have tried it that the cases come out blown straight sided and look like 40s on the ground. So where does the T-2 stand today. Well, the 12 year struggle to sell the design or get a marketable customer has not daunted Shepherd Industries’ Frank Parisette. He has plans for new prototypes which will incorporate many new design features and manufacturing simplifications. He believes that this will cause a major manufacturer to beat a path to his door any day now.

T-2 Description

Weight 5.6 lbs.
Cyclic rate 550
Barrel Length 9.0 inches
Length folded 16 inches
Length with stock Extended 26 inches

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)

Head Space is the distance from the rear of the cartridge to the face of the bolt when the cartridge is fully seated in the chamber and the bolt is in the locked position.

Check the firearm to ensure it is not loaded. No live ammo or empty casings are needed to set the head space or timing.

With the bolt face is the surface on the bolt that has the firing pin hole in it, not the very front surface of the bolt. The rail lugs are the very front surface and normally make contact with the barrel face when the gun is firing.

The .125 thick portion of the head space, all recoiling parts must go fully forward without being forced. The tension from the recoil spring should be sufficient. In this position, the barrel extension is in contact and flush with the face of the trunion (no gap). You will not be able to see the adjustment notches on the barrel. They will be completely inside the trunion.

If the gun will not completely close to this position, the head space is already too tight. The notches on the barrel will be visible at this point. You must unscrew the barrel one or two notches at a time with the blade of a screw driver, combination tool, or a cartridge point, until the barrel extension closes fully against the trunion face.

Using the Gauge

Pull the charging handle approximately 3/4” to the rear from the closed position. Insert the .125 end of the head space gauge between the bolt face and the barrel face. Turn the barrel in, one click at a time, until the gauge is tight between them. Back the barrel off one click. If the barrel is between clicks, back off to the nearest click, then one whole click. (Head space is set)

When these adjustments are completed with good, serviceable parts and a proper chamber depth in the barrel, the head space will be correct.

One or two clicks in or out may be required for a better performance with used and worn parts or for the use of substandard non-GI ammo.

Common Problems of Head Space Set too Tight

1) The gun operates sluggishly or erratic because the parts are binding.
2) Extraction trouble may occur because of improper locking and unlocking.
3) If the adjustment is very tight and the barrel notches can be seen, the bolt handle will not go fully forward and the firing pin will not drop when the trigger is pulled.

Common Problems of Head Space too Loose

1) A ruptured cartridge
2) Split cases (with good ammo). Bad ammo may have split cases before you fire it.
3) The bolt can be moved slightly from the front to the rear independently of the barrel and the barrel extension.

If problems from a too tight or too loose head space are present after setting per these instructions, turn the barrel one click at a time but not more than two clicks total in either direction from the original setting. If there is no improvement in performance, there is some other mechanical problem with the gun, or there is a problem with the ammo being used.

The only exception to this is the .308 conversion (with an original Israeli .308 barrel). The chamber depth in these barrels is .010 more shallow than a GI type barrel. It would be safe to turn the Israeli .308 barrel two more clicks out beyond these recommended adjustments if the gun shows signs of a too tight head space problem.

All the head space adjustments are done with a charged bolt and cocked firing pin. Do not pull the trigger and drop the firing pin on the head space gauge. It may break your firing pin!

Timing Adjustments

Charge the gun to cock the firing pin and let the bolt drop fully forward. The firing pin should be cocked and inside the bolt face. If the firing pin can be seen sticking out of the bolt face before the trigger is pulled, do not attempt to fire the gun with live ammo. The timing is way too fast. An entire belt of ammo can be fired without the trigger ever being pulled.

With the gun charged and the firing pin cocked, pull the charging handle back just far enough to put the .120 thick portion of the timing gauge between the barrel extension and the trunion. Let go of the charging handle. The gauge is held in position from the recoil spring pressure. Pull the trigger to see if the gun will fire. It should not fire. This is the ‘no fire” portion of the gauge. If the gun does fire, the timing is too fast and will need adjustment.

If the gun does not fire, then pull the charging handle back far enough to remove the gauge and let the barrel extension close so the .030 portion of the gauge is between the trunion and the barrel extension. Pull the trigger. The gun should fire at this setting. This is the ‘fire’ portion of the gauge. If the gun does not fire, your timing is too slow and will need adjustment.

Adjust Timing as Follows

The trigger bar must be removed from the gun for adjustments to be made. The dovetail end of the trigger bare that engages the sear in the rear of the bolt must be bent upward or downward to speed up or slow down the timing. Do not try to bend too much in either direction at one time; small mounts are best. It may take a few tries. This aera of the trigger is thin and semi-soft. It is made that way jut for this type of adjustment.

If the timing of the gun is too fast and needs an adjustment, the dovetail end on the trigger bar will need to be bent upward. In order to know what is upward, you need to look at the trigger bar as if it is in the trigger assembly.

Bending this end downward will correct a slow timing problem and get the trigger bar to trip the bolt sear that much sooner, thus speeding up the timing.

Changing parts or a combination of parts on any gun can adversely affect your timing and head space adjustments. Always re-check these adjustments when the parts are changed in the gun.

At one point, Ohio Ordnance Works, Inc., made the gauge shown in this article. If you’re looking for one, hit them up and maybe they have one kicking around