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). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SPECIFICATIONS – XL85E1 IW

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

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

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

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

Tackling the Issues

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

Embracing Feedback

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

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

Design Changes

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

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

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

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

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

Common Traits

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

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

And Then There Were Three

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The A2 Rifle Enters Service

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

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

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

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

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

SA80 A3 Coming Soon

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

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

Technical Specifications L85A2 Rifle 

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

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

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

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

See armamentresearch.com for further original content.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Note on Nomenclature

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

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

Technical Specifications

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

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

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

See www.armamentresearch.com for further original content.

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

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

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

UBGL 

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

XL60 SERIES GRENADE LAUNCHER 

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

Rifle Grenade 

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

M203 

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

COLT M203 

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

ENCAW 

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

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

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

ROYAL ORDNANCE ENCAW (Enfield Grenade Launcher) 

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

HK79 

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

HK79A1 

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

HG40 

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

Hilton HG40 

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

AG SA80 

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

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

HK AG SA80 (L17A2 Grenade Launcher) 

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

• • • 

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

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

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

By Jonathan Ferguson, Photography by N.R. Jenzen-Jones

The XL60 series of experimental firearms was the first generation of what was initially known as the “485 Weapon System,” designed and produced at the Royal Small Arms Factory (RSAF) Enfield, located in North London, United Kingdom, by a team led by Sydney Hance. The term “485 Weapon System,” so-named for the weapon’s 4.85mm calibre, was later dropped in favour of “Enfield Weapon System” or EWS, which persisted until at least 1982 but was ultimately also side-lined. Instead, the name “Small Arms of the 1980s” or “SA80” was adopted and remains in use to this day. This term is used alongside the land service or “L” designations (e.g., L85A2). Interestingly, this name was in use from the very beginning by the British Ministry of Defence (MoD), sometimes with the prefix “Section” as in “infantry section” or squad. As per the preliminary study and MoD specification, the EWS/SA80 system comprised rifle and light machine gun variants, known by their period NATO euphemisms of “Individual Weapon” (IW) (today simply “Rifle, 5.56mm”) and “Light Support Weapon” (LSW) (a term still in use today, sometimes considered interchangeable or overlapping with “squad automatic weapon,” or SAW; automatic rifle; and light machine gun, or LMG). Several variants emerged during development which all received their own designations. This can get confusing, so these official designations are detailed here:

• XL64E5—the Individual Weapon (IW) standard rifle in a right-handed configuration;
• XL68E2—the rifle in its left-handed configuration;
• XL65E4—a “Light Support Weapon” aka “Machine Gun” variant (LSW/MG), right-handed;
• XL69E1—“Machine Gun” variant, left-handed.

The “00 series”

However, this is jumping the proverbial gun somewhat, as there are two earlier iterations of these prototypes that should be first discussed. In 1972, British Ministry of Defence followed on from the preliminary study covered in the previous article. By this time, it had been decided that the new weapon family would be a modern bullpup in a small calibre high velocity (SCHV) calibre. As covered previously, the gas system and working parts of the new weapon were very closely based upon an existing and straightforward design—the Armalite AR-18. This should have shortened and eased the development process, but this was not to be. The author’s strong impression from having read a great deal of material in the Pattern Room archive and extensively handled and stripped the weapon is that every effort was made to design an original, British weapon that would take the best features of contemporary weapons, just as Kalashnikov’s team had done in the Soviet Union (albeit with a great deal more success). These features include:

1. Ammunition of 4.85mm calibre. This was based upon the U.S. 5.56x45mm cartridge, with an elongated case containing a longer, slimmer bullet (of identical 55 grain weight) thought to exhibit better performance (it certainly demonstrated better penetration than the M193 at range) and reduced recoil.
2. Lightweight, “unorthodox” or “buttless” (i.e., bullpup) configuration, capable of conversion at the unit armourer level for left-handed users.
3. An optical sight equivalent or better to the existing Sight Unit, Infantry, Trilux as fitted on a designated marksman basis to the L1A1 SLR (FN Herstal FAL).
4. Provision for a night sight.
5. Area target capability (achieved through rifle grenades or underbarrel launchers).

Despite the pre-existence of the Steyr AUG and FAMAS bullpup self-loading rifles with their convertible left-/right-handed design (and claims in the gun press to the contrary), the SA80 family was never made “ambidextrous” and relied upon different variants to meet this user requirement. None of these could be converted without replacing the entire barrelled upper, nor could they be fired from the opposite shoulder without risk of injury, specifically the cocking handle striking the user in the face (to say nothing of hot brass cases). In the event the requirement was dropped and all soldiers taught to fire from the right shoulder; nonetheless, from the outset both rifle and machine gun were intended to be made available in left- and right-handed versions.

This first batch of developmental weapons were not “type classified,” but in terms of design lineage we will treat them as part of the XL60 series, which in turn is a phase of the EWS/SA80 project. The first 12 prototypes made were known as the “00 series,” despite the fact that 12 were made (001–0012). Eight of these were IW (rifles) and four were LSW (light support weapons). The first prototype ever made is marked “R No. 001” on the upper receiver (“body”) and “No. 001” on the lower (“trigger mechanism housing” or TMH), one of three examples in the Royal Armouries ex-Pattern Room collection. The “R” stands for “Rifle,” while the LSW bears an “L” prefix for “Light Support Weapon,” despite being interchangeably referred to at the time as a “Machine Gun.” One of the IWs was produced in 5.56x45mm in an early acknowledgement that 5.56 already existed as a rival, and the new design might require conversion at a later date (as the EM-2 had to 7.62x51mm). Contrary to a claim in Raw’s book, this was built in 5.56mm and was not later converted as part of the XL70 family.

The Sterling Conspiracy Revisited

We have previously debunked the claim that Enfield built their AR-18 bullpup conversion from parts stolen from the rival Sterling factory. Indeed, while Enfield might be argued to have borrowed rather heavily from the AR-18, they did not do so from Sterling, who had yet to begin production of the AR-18 when Enfield first designed the weapon. However, there is another related myth pertaining not to the converted AR-18 but to the actual Enfield prototypes in the “00” series. This appeared in The Observer newspaper at the height of the controversy over the in-service SA80 in 1992: “In 1976 Edmiston and his designer, Frank Waters, saw the prototype SA80 at the British Army Equipment Exhibition in Aldershot. It was a bullpup design, a squat rifle with a minimal butt, and its operation looked curiously familiar.”

“Frank was allowed to take it apart,” Edmiston told The Observer. “He found our bolt carrier, our magazine and parts out of our gun. These weren’t even copies. They had bought some of our guns and were using the parts to make the SA80 prototype.”

A former weapons designer with Royal Ordnance confirmed that claim. He added that the original prototypes, basically an amalgam of the Armalite AR-18 and the bullpup design of the old RO EM2, were good, promising guns, “but the design was fiddled with by committees in the MoD and Royal Ordnance.” The gun, he says, “has never been the same since.”

This is impossible. The prototype shown at the exhibition was the “00 series” gun; mechanically based on the AR-18 to be sure but containing no interchangeable parts. In fact, this may be a misquote on the part of the Observer journalist. In his own autobiographical book The Sterling Years, also published in 1992, Edmiston states that the Enfield director toured the factory in 1979, but only “some three or four years later” did Frank Waters inspect prototype SA80s. In this account Waters does not suggest that the parts were actually Sterling-made, simply that they were close in design, which is quite true. The similarity of the AR-18 and EWS/SA80 working parts and gas parts is interesting to be sure, but hardly unique in the history of small arms design (as noted in a previous article). Indeed, neither these parts nor any other feature of the Enfield were in breach of Sterling’s, nor Armalite’s, nor IP.

Armalite was granted a detailed patent for the design of the AR-18 in a number of countries including the UK (GB1056056 (A)) and the U.S. (U.S.3318192 (A)), though only the 1967 UK patent is relevant here. In the UK, patent duration is 20 years; meaning that this one was still in force when the EWS/SA80s were being produced. Yet it is the specific nature of Armalite’s patent claims that make them irrelevant here. Because each claim describes their design in detail, a given weapon would have to be a near-identical copy to risk infringement. Enfield clearly knew this, since they made no attempt to hide their inspiration. Hance even patented the EWS design with direct reference to one of Sullivan’s patents; although for some reason he cited the 1964 patent for the AR-18’s folding stock design and not the actual 1967 patent covering the receiver architecture of the AR-18. This is very odd given that the Enfield (as a bullpup) had no buttstock. It is also noteworthy that Armalite did not attempt to patent the AR-18’s gas system, only a reciprocating bolt carrier with a rotating bolt, and only where this was installed in a receiver matching their precise architecture (to which, if anything, the Sterling LAR and SAR-80 are much closer).

Design Features

Controversies aside, the basic design of the 00 series guns goes a long way toward meeting the original requirements, being neat, compact and lightweight (especially without the hefty SU.S.AT). It balances well in the firing hand and is easily manipulated. Aside from the inevitable ergonomic issues presented by the bullpup configuration, it is an obviously early effort. The cross-bolt safety is located conveniently enough but is small and yet at the same time easily pressed inadvertently. The magazine catch is located on the wrong side of the weapon and rocks in the wrong direction for easy manipulation with the left (support) hand. The cross-bolt selector is easy to operate, but inconveniently located at the rear of the receiver.

Also, because “R” for “Repetition” (see Editor’s Note at end) is in the centre position, it is possible to accidentally place the selector on either the “A” (to the left, for Automatic) or “3” (to the right, for three-round burst) position. The small bolt handle lacks the AR-18’s upswept profile, making it harder to cock with the support hand than it might otherwise be (most likely to prevent the firer’s arm being struck during hip fire). The adjustable gas plug is marked “E,” “R” and “0.” E is for “Excessive” and “Zero” for launching rifle grenades. “R” is a mystery, as the provisional manual produced for this series does not clarify this detail. As this setting on later patterns is “N” for “Normal,” perhaps here “R” stands for “Regular.” The weapon is easily disassembled for cleaning with the removal of one captive pin and a sprung retaining band on the handguard. However, the hammer must be manually depressed with a tool in order to reinstall the bolt and carrier.

Overall, this early SA80 prototype typifies period small arms design and manufacturing principles, being of spot-welded, pressed (stamped) steel construction with synthetic furniture and featuring the optical sight and SCHV requirements already noted. The finish is black paint over phosphate, with bluing for the optical sight and mount. The magazine catch, handguard retainer and butt-plate are simply painted black. The grey polymer handguard and pistol grip are roughly machined from solid polymer (glass-reinforced Nylon 12 polyamide), the former having four widely spaced finger grooves and the latter being similar in shape and grip angle to the AR-18 original. The butt-plate is now a custom piece and is deeply grooved. There is no cheekpiece, and no dust cover is yet provided. As has been noted, the working parts are very close to those found in the AR-18 but despite claims to the contrary, have not been directly copied and differ in every detail. Unfortunately, this includes a very weak bolt head; a feature actually borrowed from the Stoner 63 bolt. The trigger mechanism too is substantially different to that found in the AR-18. As well as the long trigger bar required by the bullpup arrangement, every component of this assembly is of a different shape and arrangement. For example, in the AR-18 the disconnector is located at the rear of the mechanism and protrudes through the middle of a (slotted) pressed steel hammer in order to hold the latter back during cycling. In the EWS, the same component (the “sear interceptor” or interceptor sear) operates on a bent in the bottom of the cocked hammer, which is a differently shaped solid casting and is therefore positioned beneath it. Because it is adapted from the AR-15’s trigger mechanism but uses a different, shorter bolt carrier, the AR-18 uses a long, two-part auto sear assembly that is anchored to the selector axis pin. The EWS uses a simpler, more purpose-designed, single-piece lever (“safety sear”) pivoted on the trigger axis pin.

The barrel is of similar “pencil” profile to the AR-18 (and indeed contemporary AR-15/M16 rifles), but that weapon’s pronged flash suppressor was abandoned in favour of a pseudo-cone-shaped design reminiscent of the PKM device but featured three large ports in front of a second annular ring. The weapon is fitted with a prototype SU.S.AT sight (retrospectively designated XL9E1) serial number 001. Like the SUIT, the pointer inside drops down from above rather than sticking up from below. This is often thought to be a uniquely British design, but in fact it was somewhat common at the time. The standard Colt telescopic sight for the AR-15 has a similar inverted pointer, the theory being that a military user brings his weapon up from a low ready position and so would not wish to have his man-sized (300m distant) target obscured by his own sighting system. There is no provision for iron or backup iron sights.

Finally, a steel 20-round magazine is fitted, necessarily proprietary in design due to the greater overall length of the 4.85x49mm cartridge. The magazine is numbered (“5”) by hand and is painted with a white stripe down the right side, presumably both for recognition purposes during the design process. Again, it would have likely been easier to adopt the AR-18 or AR-15 magazine.

As one might expect, the Light Support Weapon is virtually identical but features a longer, heavier barrel with a bipod and a bulkier handguard design with ventral channels to accept the folded bipod legs. Interestingly, the only mechanical change was to add a reciprocating mass (a tungsten pellet) to the bolt carrier in order to reduce rate of fire and, especially, carrier bounce, which had caused significant problems. This feature later became standard on both the IW and LSW.

The “00 series” feasibility study resulted in a further set of rather vague parameters that might apply to any new small arm. The new weapon should be:

1. Lightweight;
2. Compact and easily handled; and
3. Simple to operate, aim, fire and teach.
4. It confirmed that the new weapon system should comprise:
5. An Individual Weapon (IW) (a small calibre rifle) to replace the rifle, L1A1 (SLR) and SMG, L2A3 (“Sterling”); and
6. A Light Support Weapon (LSW) (specifically a machine gun in the same calibre) to replace the L4A4 (Bren) and ground role L7A2 GPMG.
7. Both should be selective fire.

The “0 Series”

This gave the green light to another pre-production series known as the “0 series,” again based upon its serial numbering. These weapons were produced from 1975 to 1976 and represent the second evolutionary step toward the final SA80. The major improvements comprised:

1. Revised reinforced receiver architecture.
2. Rock in’ magazines with an L-shaped catch relocated to the left side, intended to be operated by the support hand thumb.
3. Three-round burst feature deleted.
4. Selector switch replaced with a rotary design marked “R” and “A,” similar to the SA80 design.
5. Trigger weight reduced from a ridiculous 24 pounds to 8-10 pounds.
6. Flash suppressor machined as an integral part of the barrel (to reduce costs) and fitted with an annular ring and spring for grenade launching.
7. Rear sling loop on top of the receiver.
8. Properly moulded and textured polymer furniture including a cheekpiece glued onto the upper receiver. A bipod mounting point is incorporated into the spring-clip handguard retainer.
9. A lengthened sight bracket was fitted to allow for proper eye relief.
10. Provision for emergency iron sights; a folding front and a removable rear (the former being kept folded when not in use and the latter stored in a new compartment in the grip).
11. A bolt hold-open device activated either automatically by the follower of the empty magazine or manually by a small catch (part of the hold-open bar itself) protruding from the bottom of the lower receiver. This is not a bolt release, however, so the cocking handle must be operated to close the bolt.

The bolt has been reinforced; it is now cut away to only 2/3 of its maximum diameter in order to accommodate the (still quite large) extractor.

The bolt carrier group was standardized for both IW and LSW with a new flat-sided design, including the anti-bounce feature. It also incorporates a guide lug on the rear lower left side. Along with the cam pin, this runs in a special channel welded onto the inside of the upper receiver. Amusingly, the rear of the carrier is now marked “R,” presumably for “rear” to avoid incorrect user insertion!

Some examples of the 0 series were further modified. Their bolt carriers were relieved on both sides with large lightening cuts, and these were marked “FOR TRIALS ONLY.” They also bear a revised design drawing number to reflect this change—all of the experimental weapons in these series have components marked with drawing numbers to keep track of the different build standards and modifications. The “trials” in question must have been those carried out on the 0 series to inform the next iteration of the design (rather than the NATO trials). Finally, it appears that a hinged dust cover was also designed at this time but was not widely fitted (by means of spot welding) until the final iteration of the XL60 pattern (see below).

In addition to all of these changes, the 0 series LSW/MG also received a new cylindrical pattern of pinned-on flash suppressor (which Raw calls a “muzzle brake”) and optional 30-round magazines. A single example of an LSW with detachable barrel was produced, as well as an experimental under-barrel grenade launcher.

The Enfield Weapon System Unveiled

It was at this point, on June 14, 1976, that the new family of weapons was officially revealed to the public and dubbed “Enfield Weapon System” along with a series of official “XL” (for “eXperimental, Land service”) designations. Despite the use of 0 series weapons in promotional photographs, technically speaking, the XL numbers listed at the beginning of this article should apply only to the third and final iteration of the original design that emerged after this date. This series incorporated feedback from the 0 series and efforts at “value engineering” to make the design viable for mass production. These weapons were serial numbered with “B” prefixes for the IW and “J” for the LSW (although with proper XL designations, there is no longer a need to refer to them by their serial ranges). They featured:

1. A FAL or AK-style paddle magazine catch replaced the AR-18 style rocker switch/button, with matching changes to the magazine design.
2. A new lever-type safety catch on the left side (regardless of left- or right-handed variants).
3. Redesigned bolt carrier patterns specific to IW and LSW variants (see below).
4. Further revised polymer furniture with more texturing. The new handguard dispensed with the bipod attachment point, replacing it with a simple D-ring sling swivel and, for the first time, featured a proper sheet metal heat-shield.
5. A revised butt-plate with optional extended butt-plates to vary length of pull (this made the longer sight bracket redundant). The sling loop reverted to the bottom only.
6. 30-round magazines were now standard (but notably, not yet STANAG standard).

As before, the LSW variant differed primarily in its heavy barrel and bipod and was claimed to possess 80% parts commonality with the IW. However, the handguard, gas plug, safety sear (auto sear), change lever and, importantly, the bolt carrier were all of different patterns. Both BCGs featured a flat outer side, but the rifle pattern had a deep lightening scallop in the outer face, and the LSW version instead had a groove machined into its inner side (above the cam pin and guide lug, aside from a single exception where a rifle pattern BCG was originally fitted to an LSW but later installed in a rifle and re-serialized). This groove appears to simply give greater clearance for the bolt carrier and prevent it from rubbing against the internal cam pin rail, presumably to improve open bolt functioning. A new bipod was designed, this time with sliding adjustable legs, and the pinned LSW-specific flash suppressor was reverted to the previous pattern (as on the IW barrel).

The new XL64E5 and XL65E4 offered improved ergonomics thanks to the new pattern safety and magazine catches. The non-ambidextrous safety lever is actually easier to operate for left-handed shooters, who are able to use the index finger of the firing hand to sweep it up and down. Right-handed shooters need long thumbs or are obliged to break their strong-hand grip. As ARES writer Ian McCollum notes, however, the safety is rather large and easy to operate inadvertently, especially with left-handed guns/users. The change lever (selector switch) carried over from the 0 series design is adequate but, like many XL64/5 components, is a complex shape that would later be simplified.

Reliability Issues

It was this build standard that was used in the problematic NATO ammunition trials. These both revealed reliability issues with the weapon design in its prototype form and buried the idea of a British 4.85mm cartridge. The biggest issues were with the trigger mechanism, namely:

• Weapon firing auto when set to single shot; and
• Trigger not returning to the fully forward position when released.

These issues were blamed on ingress of dirt and other foreign material (although two other “runaway gun” issues were identified with 0 series guns that were unrelated to this cause). Examining a trigger mechanism housing today, it is easy to see why the very tight fit of parts might result in problems of this nature. The weapons also suffered feed problems, notably a failure to eject. There were also problems with poor welding and weak and out-of-spec components. The biggest early issue was with barrel wear; the 4.85mm EWS barrel provided a service life of only 3,000 rounds, compared to 20,000 for the AR-15. This seems to have been solved by (or at least by the time of) the shift to 5.56x45mm. None of this—with the possible exception of the excessive barrel wear—is surprising for a new design and could no doubt have been solved given sufficient available expertise, resources and time.

The final iteration of the XL60 family was in many respects a promising, compact and lightweight design that reflected the cutting edge thinking of the day. Enfield made a good choice in borrowing from ArmaLite’s AR-18, and they broke no laws and infringed no patents by doing so, just as many other manufacturers continue to make liberal use of the successful features of earlier rifles in their modern designs. These features were a sound basis for a modern combat rifle, and Enfield’s design could have been a successful bullpup derivative of that weapon. However, as we shall see, the path to the truly capable SA80A2 series was to be a long and difficult one.

[Editor’s Note: In the Second World War period it appears that “R” officially stood for “Rounds.” This potentially confusing term was replaced by the more specific “Repetition” from the EWS pamphlet onwards.]

••••••••••••••••••••••••

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

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)

By Jonathan Ferguson

A True Forgotten Weapon

The world’s first bullpup rifle emerged from the Victorian twilight. It predates the term “bullpup” itself, which first appeared in print in 1940, by several decades; it predates the current crop of military bullpup firearms by several more. Although named for industrialist James Baird Thorneycroft, the lion’s share of the actual design and development work would have fallen to Moubray Gore Farquhar, of Farquhar-Hill automatic rifle fame.

Thorneycroft’s involvement was probably limited to finance and promotion. This was a truly British effort, Thorneycroft being an Englishman living in Scotland, and Farquhar a native Scot who had relocated to Birmingham to pursue his career. Unlike Thorneycroft, Farquhar was a military man and had served as an officer in Thorneycroft’s brother’s Mounted Infantry unit in South Africa. This is an important, if poorly documented connection with the rifle at hand, because the Thorneycroft was fundamentally an arm intended for mounted soldiers and cavalry. Although ill-timed in terms of the military needs of the day, the basic concept that the Thornycroft embodied would eventually gain widespread acceptance and remains in use today.

The Rifle

The British combat experience in the Second Boer War led to a modernisation programme for the service Lee rifle. At the same time, a much more radical response was being developed. Whereas the Short Magazine Lee-Enfield (SMLE) was conceived as a universal short rifle, Farquhar and Thorneycroft intended their scratch-designed equivalent to be “… more suitable for use by mounted troops” (from the patent). Mounted Infantry were an important unit type for British colonial warfare, able to quickly get to where they were needed, dismount and fight as conventional riflemen. Even more so than regular troops, they had a need for a compact and lightweight yet long-ranged personal weapon. Although they did not typically fight from the saddle, handling the 1902 rifle strongly suggests that one-handed firing may have been a secondary purpose—or at least a happy fringe benefit—of the unusual layout and rearward point of balance. As with a modern bullpup, it is possible to roughly aim the weapon whilst it is braced against the shoulder with only one hand on the stock.

If the designers converted any existing rifles to prove their concept, none survive today. The 10 Thorneycroft rifles in the National Firearms Centre collection are all scratch-built. Several are marked with their designation (“Thorneycroft Pattern Rifle, Model 1902,” etc.). As military requirements demanded, all (bar one, the Model 1907) are chambered for the standard .303 service cartridge and are fitted with bayonet lugs. The example picture also has dial sights fitted; no doubt another attempt to please the British military establishment.

The original British patent, No. 14,622 (June 18, 1901, duplicated as U.S. patent 713254) describes the rifle much as we would a bullpup weapon today:

“As in the use of the improved rifle the distance from the shoulder to the trigger should remain as in ordinary rifles, the trigger is placed forward of the magazine, and connection between the trigger and the firing mechanism is made by providing a connecting rod or lever …”

This was followed by British patent Nos. 13073 (9.6.02), which covers improvements to the magazine and safety, and 26135 (1.12.04), detailing the revised bolt and plunger type bolt catch as used in the “Model 1906.”

Military Trials

The Thorneycroft was never formally trialled as a serious candidate to replace the service Lee. By the time it came to the attention of the Small Arms Committee, development of the Short Magazine Lee-Enfield (SMLE) was well advanced. However, it was subject to several informal trials between 1902 and 1903, conducted by NCOs of the School of Musketry at the Hythe in Kent, England. The new weapon went head-to-head with the SMLE in realistic combat-style tests including falling and moving targets at 200 yards. The Commandant at Hythe commented that the rifle was “light and handles well” and was impressed by the bullpup concept, but otherwise impressions were not very favourable throughout the trials. Excessive recoil, a defective charger design, consistent failures to extract, failures to eject, double-feeds and misfires plagued the design. It was found to be slower to load and fire than the SMLE and was for the most part less accurate. One test compared the two rifles in terms of the number of accurate shots fired in one minute under the same range conditions (so no, not the mythical “mad minute”). The SMLE managed an average of 24.5 rounds fired with one stoppage—the only one experienced in all three trials—whereas the Thorneycroft achieved only 15.5 rounds, with four stoppages and a lower accuracy score to boot. This may be a function of the heavy and inconsistent trigger pull which came in for specific criticism. This latter point, of course, will not surprise detractors of today’s bullpup weapons.

The Model 1906

In October 1903, Thorneycroft requested feedback on the failed trial, which was declined. He was also denied a supply of SMLE barrels to build improved rifles. Undeterred, he submitted a final attempt in 1905 which was politely but firmly dismissed with a single sentence: “The Committee inspected the rifle and ask that Mr. Farquhar be thanked for exhibiting it.”

Thorneycroft and Farquhar should probably have taken the hint at this point. Instead they kept at it, and the less radical Model 1906 illustrated here (museum no. PR.10280) was the result. Together with the final Model 1907, it represents the more-or-less fully developed form of the weapon. It is less of a bullpup than the original Model 1902 “inclined bolt” version, which was intended to bring the sights up to eye level, instead featuring a trigger located substantially further to the rear in order to approximate the length of pull of a Lee-Enfield. However, like the earlier design it lacks a conventional stock wrist or semi-pistol grip. Instead, only the front lower portion of the stock is shaped for the firing hand, leaving no accommodation for the thumb; an arrangement not unlike a U.S. California-legal rifle stock. This made for substantial felt recoil and muzzle rise, something that had been picked up in military trials of the Model 1902: “The recoil is greater than that of the Shortened Enfield Modified Rifle. The blow given by the cheek-piece to the cheek-bone at short distances, and to the jaw-bone at long ranges is very severe.”

Many of the original unique features were dropped for the Model 1906 in favour of more conventional Mauser-like equivalents, including a large straight bolt handle, front bolt lugs and a cock-on-open (although not on rotation) bolt. The rifle is hammer-fired rather than striker-fired, the hammer being located directly behind the magazine and acting on the rear of the firing pin by means of a corresponding slot cut on the underside of the bolt. There is a roller on the upper edge of the hammer to act as a bearing for the bolt, presumably in an effort to smooth cycling.

Importantly for actual practical military service, a safety lever was provided on top of the weapon, acting forwards for fire, backwards for safe. This does not act internally, but instead engages with a steel pin on the underside of the bolt handle, such that when the latter is in the vertical position, a slot on the safety lever engages with the pin and prevents the bolt from being rotated into the fully locked position. This has the effect of making the trigger safe and also locks the bolt in a convenient storage position for carriage in a cavalry-style “boot” (scabbard). To make ready, the safety is pushed forward and the bolt turned down, engaging trigger and sear and fully chambering the cartridge. The ejector is of plunger type and is, on 100-year-old surviving examples at any rate, very weak. One notable feature given modern complaints over “rimlock” or “rim-jam” issues with rimmed .303 cartridges is the Thorneycroft’s magazine, designed with a follower acting on an angle that places each rim positively one in front of the other. This was made possible by the space available at the rear of the stock (normally the trigger mechanism would have to engage with the bolt and so would be in the way). However, this may have been an unintended consequence, since the front lower portion of the stock had to be cut at an angle in order to give the shooter something to grasp, creating a raked magazine design by default. Testing with drill rounds shows that rimlock is indeed impossible to induce with this system (although this example is incorrectly headspaced and will not chamber a drill round).

As for sights, various different patterns were fitted to this series of rifles, including an unknown pattern of optical sight on the Model 1902 that is now lost. In contrast to the design philosophy of the SMLE, the tangent aperture type, as found on this model, seems to have been preferred. The rear aperture is drilled into a large rectangular vertical flat plate that is adjustable for elevation. Overall, it is fair to say that the 1906 design had been watered down in an attempt to meet market expectations. This met with limited success. The Cavalry Journal of 1906 (Vol. 1, pp. 224-225) remarked that it was “ … strong and handy … lighter, better balanced, and has a longer bayonet reach.” It praised the inclusion of front locking lugs and, completely counter to the official trials, claimed that the Thorneycroft could be “loaded more rapidly.” By 1907 it was clear that the British government had no interest in any Thorneycroft design, no matter how compromised. No other potential user seems to have expressed an interest, although intriguingly, the last known Thorneycroft rifle, dated 1907, is chambered in 7x57mm Mauser.

Legacy

The Thorneycroft was a failure; a true “forgotten weapon.” But it is interesting that the original rationale for the invention of the bullpup is also the reason that we still have the current generation of bullpup rifles on sale and in service today. These too were created to arm mobile infantry; this time operating from Cold War vintage armoured vehicles and helicopters rather than horses. Despite its failure, the Thorneycroft still has a legacy. Bullpup rifles may be out of fashion in some quarters, but they remain in military, police and sporting use worldwide. Whereas the debate over their merits relative to the conventional layout continues, modern proponents would no doubt agree with the Commandant of the School of Musketry, who remarked in 1903 that “ … the principle of curtailing the length of the rifle whilst securing the full length of barrel has much to recommend it.”

Small Arms Technology in the Face of Opposition

Genesis

Better known than either the Korsak E.M.1 or the Thorpe E.M.1 bullpup firearms covered so far in this series, is the so-called “Janson E.M.2.” It is often incorrectly supposed to be a direct ancestor of Britain’s present-day L85, but in fact, only the concept was retained in the SA80. Stefan Kenneth Janson was the Anglicised adopted name of Captain Kazimierz-Stefan Januszewski, who in 1949 was head of a team of immigrant firearms designers based at Cheshunt, under the aegis of the “C.E.A.D.” or “Chief Engineer & Superintendent of Armaments Design;” in turn part of the Armament Design Establishment (ADE), which had been relocated from RSAF Enfield during the war.

It should be noted that Janson’s E.M.2 was the second weapon to bear the designation. The first, developed c1945-1947, was an inertia-locked blowback design with fluted chamber credited to a Lieutenant Jeziorański (whose name was habitually misspelled in official British documents). Work on this original E.M.2 was ordered stopped in 1947, save for a trial to be carried out with a weapon converted to chamber the U.S. T65 cartridge; unfortunately, nothing is known about this weapon. It seems to have been at this point that the weapon was retrospectively dubbed “E.M.2 Jesieranski.” (There is some disagreement on whether “E.M.” stood for “Experimental Model” or “Enfield Model.”) The Jeziorański E.M.2 bore two ADE codenames during development: first “Mamba” and latterly (c.1951) “Yellow Acorn.”

Around the same time as this, the Korsak E.M.1 was selected as the starting point for the development of a potential new service rifle. Januszewski, who had worked under Korsak on the E.M.1, was selected to take the helm on this new project. Assisting was Sydney Hance, who would go on to design the original incarnation of the SA80. Leading the Armaments Design Establishment was Colonel Noel Kent-Lemon of the Royal Artillery, who would later shepherd into service the L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle.

Description

Januszewski’s design retained the receiver arrangement of Korsak’s gun, inspired by the FG42 (1st model), with its push-button disassembly latch, rotate-to-remove butt-plate/return spring/guide rod assembly and push-pin grip frame. The magazine shares the built-in sliding charger guide of the Thorpe E.M.1 and a similar rocker-type magazine catch arrangement. Later variants included a welded-on shroud/guard to prevent accidental activation. This is located on the left side of the receiver, most likely to prevent a soldier’s own equipment from fouling the catch. It is not clear from the provisional manual which hand was used to remove and fit the magazine, but in any case, the shroud does not prevent access by the support hand thumb if the weapon is loaded as per modern practice. This modification would certainly have been required for military issue, given the exposed location and weak spring of the magazine catch.

The rest of the weapon was substantially redesigned. It was significantly lightened, partly by virtue of a permanently fixed “pencil”-profile rifle barrel, rather than the heavy barrel of the Korsak. This was now chambered for the new .280 Enfield intermediate cartridge. The gas system reverted to long-stroke operation, still with a typical rotary adjustable gas plug having Normal (“N”), Excess (“E”) and (in later variants) Shutoff (“S”) positions. Roller-locking was also abandoned, but there was no return to the twin front rotating lugs of the FG-42. Instead the Korsak’s rollers were replaced by a pair of laterally-acting, wedge-shaped lugs, close to those used in the German G41 and G43 rifles. These are forced into recesses in the receiver by means of the firing pin assembly, which is driven between the lugs when the weapon is in battery. When the lugs are not engaged, they prevent the firing pin from being released prematurely. There is no bolt carrier but rather a very complex bolt assembly (“breech block”) with the outer forward portion acting as the bolt face, with the two lugs positioned just behind it. Cocking is achieved by the round lug on the piston assembly, which fits into a hole in the bolt (breech block), and when the piston is pulled back (either by hand or in recoil) the firing pin/striker is withdrawn, allowing it to be caught by the spring-loaded sear on the bottom of the bolt. Cocking the weapon is difficult, in large part due to the physical effort required to draw back the striker. Designs that use the bolt carrier to override a pivoting hammer simply afford more mechanical advantage than those that require the user to pull back a striker spring via a mechanical linkage—in this case, the piston itself.

The entire trigger group was redesigned. The trigger mechanism was much simpler than Thorpe’s E.M.1 and even Korsak’s ingenious “slide” trigger linkage. However, it did resort to a form of the now-standard linkage bar approach, referred to as the “tripping lever.” Although this is rather shorter and more rigid than is typically found in modern bullpups, the trigger pull remains indistinct and measures at a staggering 15 pounds on a trigger tester gauge. It is one of the worst triggers that the author has ever experienced, second only to the 20-pound pull of a “Brown Bess” musket! Other examples have been tested with lower pull weights, with the average likely sitting around 11 pounds. The safety catch is borrowed from the M1 Garand, being easily reached and operated by the trigger finger with some potential for accidental operation of the trigger due to the location of the safety lever inside the trigger guard. It also actuates a “safety bar” at the rear of the trigger group, which intrudes upward into the bolt and prevents the sear from being operated.

The fire selector (“change stud”) is a cross-bolt type similar to that of the German StG 44, with the right-hand position (which shows the marking “R” for “Rounds” or “Repetition”) being semi-automatic and the left (“A”) for automatic fire. The selector has a slot cut in the top that on semi-automatic mode is positioned under the center portion of the trigger bar (“tripping lever”). This does several things to the trigger bar/tripping lever. First, it pushes the large projection at the rear of the bar upwards and into a corresponding curved recess in the head of the bolt. This means that the bolt must now override the tripping lever (which it does as soon as it begins to move backward after firing). Second, it permits the bar to pivot about the axis of the selector “stud” and drop down into the slot in the selector. Finally, the bar is now free to reciprocate a short distance (there is a short track cut into the center of the tripping lever where the selector passes through). This angling and sliding of the trigger bar activates the disconnector (“sear lever”) by elevating it such that the bolt can override it and push it down. The tripping lever bears upon the disconnector (sear lever), which sits adjacent to it inside the trigger mechanism housing. This in turn pulls the sear lever downwards and out of engagement with the sear (which is housed within the bolt in this design). The weapon will now not fire again until the trigger is released, which permits the tripping lever and therefore the sear lever (disconnector) to pop back up again and reconnect the trigger with the sear lever.

Adoption

Although the weapon was developed in parallel with the Thorpe E.M.1, it was agreed with the Americans that the latter would be dropped from comparative trials in order to speed up the selection process. The E.M.2 was also clearly the more mature and user-friendly of the two. Trials at home and abroad convinced British authorities that this was the No.4 rifle replacement that they needed, and a unilateral decision was taken to adopt the weapon. This was despite the E.M.2 and indeed the other rifles having effectively failed U.S. trials on the basis of insufficient lethality.

These trials also concluded that the U.S. T25 Lightweight Rifle and the developmental T65 7.6 2mm (.30 caliber) round submitted for testing were “not suitable for Army Field Forces use because of its excessive recoil, blast, flash and smoke,” and nonetheless concluded that “of the basic types submitted for the test, the British .280 round is preferred.” This position was effectively overturned by the U.S. Board of Ordnance, which refused to accept any cartridge less powerful than the .30-06 in service with the M1 Garand. If anything, the U.S. at this stage favored the Belgian FN Herstal design that would become the FAL, but at the same time was obviously not yet convinced by the .280 cartridge; facts not lost on E.M.2’s detractors.

It is worth noting that Britain had not been wholly obstinate in its adherence to the .280. Compromises between the two calibers were offered by the UK, Canada and Belgium for NATO trials as early as 1950. These consisted of the “7mm Compromise” (7 x 51mm, in two different bullet weights), “7mm Optimum” (7 x 43mm, again with two different bullets), “7mm Second Optimum” (7 x 49.15mm) and “7mm High Velocity” (7 x 49.5mm). These pleased neither side, however. One might reasonably predict—as British E.M.2 detractors did—that the U.S. would come to adopt the FN rifle and the 7.62mm cartridge. Nonetheless, the E.M.2 was officially adopted in 1951 as Rifle, No.9 Mk I (note that the “other No.9” rifle, a .22 training weapon, is actually Rifle, N9; apparently the only “Naval Service Designation” ever applied to a small arm).

The latter variant (there had been several) of the .280 Enfield cartridge was adopted alongside it as “Cartridge, 7mm S.A.A. Ball, Mk.1Z.” According to Anthony Williams, this definitive version of the 7 x 43mm cartridge fired a 9.0 g bullet at 777 m/s (140 grains at 2,550 fps). The broader politics surrounding the adoption and cancellation of the E.M.2 are well detailed in the PhD thesis of Dr. Matthew Ford (chapters 4-6) and in his recent book Weapon of Choice.

E.M.2’s initial supporters included the Armament Design Establishment whose future depended upon a home-grown design and the Director of Infantry, for whom it seemed to fit the bill as a tactically flexible individual weapon. In particular, Infantry wanted a lightweight yet controllable automatic rifle in order to shift the fire base of the infantry section (squad) away from dependence upon the Bren LMG. Some later observers have argued that these institutions, along with the Director General of Artillery/Director of Artillery (Small Arms), worked together to try to ensure that the E.M.2 would be adopted regardless of external factors. In fact, as external circumstances changed, support for E.M.2 fell away. In the end, the No.9 rifle was to become the shortest-lived British service arm in history.

Decline

The E.M.2 was never to enter mass production. Famously, it was sunk by none other than Winston Churchill, whose Conservative party won the General Election in 1951. The E.M.2 had been something of a pet project for the outgoing Labour government, and Churchill was skeptical. After the U.S. announced in January 1952 that they would not adopt the .280 caliber, Churchill revealed a joint U.S.-UK decision made during talks in Washington that month. Both nations would hold off on adopting a new rifle and would reconsider their options. The actual exchange upon which all of the rumour and speculation about backroom deals with the U.S. is based follows below:

“Mr. Wyatt—Asked the Minister of Defence whether he will make a statement, consequent upon his conversations in the United States of America, on the future of the .280 rifle.”

“The Prime Minister—As was indicated in the Communiqué which was issued after my talks in Washington on 9th January, neither we nor the United States consider it wise to take the important step of changing our rifles at the present time, and we shall both continue to rely upon rifles and ammunition which are now in stock or are being produced. Both countries will produce new rifles and ammunition on an experimental scale only, and this will apply to the production of the.280 rifle in the United Kingdom. Every effort will be made to produce a standard rifle and ammunition for all N.A.T.O. countries.”

“Mr. Wyatt—Does that mean that Her Majesty’s Government have now abandoned the hope of persuading the Americans that our rifle is better than theirs?”

“The Prime Minister—I see no prospect of carrying out that process of conversion.”

—House of Commons Debate
February 20, 1952, Vol 496 c234 234

.280 was clearly dead, and the E.M.2, despite continuing experimental work, was in serious trouble. It was clear that Churchill was going to go all-in on a common NATO rifle in a common NATO caliber, and that the Americans were unlikely to change their minds on E.M.2, even given a caliber change. Despite the politics involved, the move was arguably not a political one. As his later clarification (in which he also backs E.M.2 as a possible special-issue weapon for Paratroopers) shows, Churchill was convinced of the need for NATO standardization of both ammunition and small arms. This was partly to ease logistical supply in the field, but also in order to be able to better exploit the American industrial base that had allowed the Allies to win the Second World War. If Britain found itself short of rifles with a NATO/U.S.S.R. conflict looming, it would be able to place an order for more rather than rely on its own very limited production capability.

Standardization of small arms between the western powers was not a new idea. The standing British intent during the Second World War had been for Britain to adopt the .30-06 cartridge and the M1 Garand rifle; until it became apparent that the U.S. was determined to replace them. As British advocates and close-run comparative trials had failed to convince the U.S. or Canada of the superiority of either the .280 cartridge or the E.M.2 rifle, Churchill felt that British effort should concentrate upon convincing both countries to adopt the FN FAL alongside the nascent 7.62mm NATO cartridge. In fact, it appears that he took his decision under the illusion that this was practically a foregone conclusion, and, for a time, it looked as though he might have been right. Canada adopted the FAL in 1953, which only added momentum to the British drive toward the type. Of course, it soon became apparent that the U.S. was going to ditch the T48 FN FAL just as it had the E.M.2, and instead go it alone with a rechambered and modernized M1 Garand (T44, the future M14).

Although it was his primary motivation, Churchill’s standardization argument does not reflect his full view on the controversy. Whereas he claimed that he regarded the two designs as “neck and neck,” at one point even stating that he thought the .280 rifle “the best,” he was clearly not personally convinced by the E.M.2. In fact, Churchill was chief among a number of detractors in positions of influence that helped kill the weapon off even after it was successfully converted to 7.62 x 51mm. He was opposed to the very idea of a weapon designed around controllable automatic fire and was convinced that soldiers would waste precious ammunition if given the opportunity to do so. This appears to have naturally led him (and others who thought as he did) to view the more traditionally designed FAL in a full-power chambering—and especially a version modified for semi-automatic fire only—in a more favorable light. He further believed that “… the F.N. is a better weapon both with the bayonet and with the butt and is capable of giving confidence to a soldier in a mêlée.”

There had been engineering difficulties with converting E.M.2 to the new T65 cartridge, with the result that the three initial prototypes had had to be withdrawn from U.S. trials in 1952. By the time that small quantities of functional 7.62 x 51mm E.M.2 rifles had been produced, the type was already out of the running. Five thousand FAL rifles (X8E1) had already been ordered in December 1953 for troop trials and had acquitted themselves well. For its part, the E.M.2 had lost some of its favorable handling characteristics in the conversion to 7.62mm, losing any edge in performance (other than its shorter overall length) that it may have had over the FAL.

The Legend

Today, despite a very positive British military experience with the L1A1 SLR rifle, the E.M.2 enjoys a near-mythical “what might have been” reputation among small arms enthusiasts (especially British ones). This was cemented almost as soon as the rifle had failed and only grew with the distance of time. George Wigg MP reflected the views of many in Britain when he told Parliament that it was “… the finest rifle in the world” in 1963. In reality, the .280 Enfield cartridge failed to make its case as a substitute for existing full-power offerings. The weapon itself was also outperformed in trials by the FN, if only marginally. E.M.2 did come out on top in the U.S. sand and mud tests, for example, as this U.S. trials report shows (pp. 21-22).

There was a reasonable chance that the U.S. might adopt the FAL, and indeed Canada, Belgium and other countries did, making it a NATO standard rifle, if not the NATO standard that Churchill had sought. Januszewski’s is a complex and expensive design by comparison with the FAL, with its many different curved surfaces and recesses, each requiring separate or even multiple machining operations. Dugelby alleges that the bolt carrier assembly alone cost £50 to produce; well over £1,000 in today’s money, although it must be remembered that this was for a pre-production, practically hand-built weapon. Significant cost savings would no doubt have been made in a final redesign for mass-production, aside from the sheer economy of scale. For example, the wooden furniture and walnut veneer was slated to be replaced with a polymer fore-end and fiberglass cheekpiece, respectively. Yet as cheaply as the E.M.2 might have been made in the long run, it could not be made (or maintained) as cheaply as the FAL. Even the ADE admitted that the E.M.2 was costlier to produce, although it claimed that this was by design, since the weapon had been intended to serve (if required) as a “sniper rifle” (hence the complex bolt with its twin front locking lugs and, presumably, the machined receiver). One estimate placed projected production at six FAL rifles for every five E.M.2 models. Britain simply could not afford as many of the latter. Keeping the E.M.2 would have been just as political a decision as ditching it; taking a risk on an unproven and expensive home-grown design (even in 7.62 NATO) in order to prop up the UK small arms industry. It seems unlikely that such a “boutique” gun would have found success on the export market, and production would in any case have struggled to meet even domestic needs.

In any case, it is all too easy to criticize in hindsight those who made the “safe” call in the interests of international cooperation and a future where NATO, and especially the United States, would set military priorities and trends for decades to come. The FAL was not only cheaper, but faster and less risky to produce. With the Cold War burgeoning and with a substantial British post-WWII economic deficit, it made a lot of sense to license the FAL, especially if the gamble on NATO standardization had paid off. Churchill was not a lone voice of opposition to this mould-breaking futuristic weapon. There were inevitable complaints that a bullpup rifle could not be used for parade square drills. The weapon was light and compact certainly, but ergonomics were by no means stellar (and the trigger really is terrible). Recent developments in so-called “general-purpose calibers” indicate that the vaunted .280 cartridge was probably not the “ideal caliber” that it is often still claimed to be. Even one of its most vocal advocates (Wigg) had to admit in a political rearguard action fought in the House of Commons in 1954 that E.M.2 looked “… more like the weapon associated with Chicago gangsters than a military weapon ….” In the subsequent vote, fellow E.M.2 advocate Woodrow Wyatt MP failed (albeit by only 34 votes) to gain support for his motion “that this House deplores the decision of Her Majesty’s Government to adopt the Belgian F.N. rifle for use by the British Army in place of the new British E.M.2 rifle.”

On the other hand, the E.M.2 was undoubtedly a design ahead of its time; a lightweight, straight-line design, bullpup, select-fire assault rifle fitted with an optical sight as standard and chambered for a true intermediate caliber cartridge. If we do allow the luxury of hindsight, time and experience have shown that Churchill and others placed excessive emphasis on strict standardization and interoperability, as even those nations adopting the FAL settled on different build standards. Today, NATO countries maintain their own logistical chains for the most part, and even common cartridge types are not necessarily interchangeable in the many different small arms in use across the organization.

In recent years, reliance upon intermediate cartridges and emphasis upon bullpup designs have also been challenged; although this has occurred well beyond the likely service life of E.M.2. In any case, Januszewski, Kent-Lemon, Hance and the rest of the ADE team deserve credit for pushing the small arms technology envelope as far as it would go in the face of robust opposition and very nearly succeeding. Today’s near-universal military adoption of intermediate-caliber, selective-fire rifles with optical sights (many of which embody either straight-line design, bullpup layout or both) shows that the concept was sound, even if the execution and political support was lacking.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Special thanks to the National Firearms Centre at the Royal Armouries, who graciously allowed ARES access to their world-class collection for research and photography, and to the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom at Shrivenham, for allowing us to handle and fire an E.M.2 rifle. Thanks are also due to Neil Grant.

This is Part 3 in a series of posts examining the developmental history of the United Kingdom’s E.M.1 and E.M.2-designated firearms. Part 1, “British Korsak E.M.1 Light Machine Gun,” appeared in Small Arms Review, Vol. 22, No. 9, and Part 2, “The British Thorpe E.M.1 Automatic Rifle” appeared in Small Arms Review, Vol. 23, No. 1.

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)

Above: The Thorpe E.M.1 automatic rifle in profile (left-hand side). (N.R. JENZEN-JONES/ARES)

Introduction

When the Second World War broke out in 1939, the standard British service rifle was still the rifle, Short, Magazine, Lee-Enfield (SMLE), by that time known simply as “Rifle, No.1.” A successor had already been adopted and put into mass-production but this, the No.4 rifle, was simply a re-engineered SMLE; still chambered for the outdated rimmed .303 cartridge and still a manually operated firearm. Surprisingly, self-loading rifles had been trialled soon after the turn of the century, culminating in the adoption (but not the issue) of the Rifle, Self-Loading, Pattern 1918. This weapon was intended for use by aircrew; a relic of the early war in the air. However, in 1940, a new future rifle specification was issued by the British War Office, specifying a weapon of SMLE (i.e., relatively short for the period) with overall length, a 22- to 24-inch barrel, a maximum weight of 10 pounds, semi-automatic-only operation by means of either gas or recoil, a bayonet similar to the No.4 pattern and—perhaps most interestingly—a calibre of 7.92mm.

By contrast, post-war Britain was determined to replace its full-power service rifle, submachine gun and light machine gun with one universal weapon or family of weapons in an intermediate calibre and capable of automatic fire. This was partially realised with the introduction of the Enfield Weapon System/SA80 in 1985. However, the ambition originated with the Small Arms Calibre Panel of 1945, which decided upon a new “ideal calibre” cartridge of the following specifications:

Calibre—.27 in
Bullet weight—130 grains
Bullet length—1.03 inches
Charge weight—19.1 grains
“Round length”—1.5 to 1.8 ratio

This new round would become the .280 Enfield, which was eventually (albeit briefly) adopted as the “7mm Mk.1Z.” The next step, logically enough, was to agree to a new War Office specification (which became WOPS No.9, issued in September 1947) for a new universal “Infantry Personal Weapon,” intended for use out to 600m, as opposed to the 1000m of prior doctrine. At this time, three new weapons were already under development, all of which were developed further, to a greater or lesser extent, as a result of the new specification. The real intention here seems to have been to combine the best features of existing cutting-edge designs into one new weapon. The two most promising were Korsak’s 7.92x57mm light machine gun and an automatic rifle developed by a team led by Stanley Thorpe, at that time chambered for the intermediate 7.92x33mm cartridge. The new requirement specified a light weight of between 7 and 8 pounds, a short overall length and rifle-grade accuracy with a closed, front-locking bolt and long barrel and automatic fire capability. This was further refined, following an ADE meeting of May 27, 1947, to require a bullpup configuration and gas operation.

As per this latest thinking, Thorpe’s E.M.1 was given a drastic redesign into a bullpup weapon chambered for .280 calibre; although no details or images of the original, conventionally configured prototype survive. This redesign might explain the incredibly complicated trigger mechanism—of which, more later. One early prototype included an FG 42-style integral bipod that was soon dropped in favour of a detachable version. Only one prototype survives, which resides in the Royal Armouries collection. Its trigger group is missing, but aside from a straight magazine released using a long magazine release lever, it is very close to the final design.

Nomenclature

Confusingly, both the Korsac and Thorpe designs received the designation “E.M.1” (for “Experimental Model 1”). This might have made sense given their differing roles; there would be a British E.M.1 rifle and E.M.1 light machine gun, just as there was an M1 Rifle and an M1 Carbine in U.S. service. However, this does not seem to have been how the system of nomenclature worked in practice, since there were in fact two weapons designated “E.M.2”, as well as two designated “E.M.3” and one designated “E.M.4!” Rather, it seems that E.M. designations were “rebooted” in 1948, superseding existing ones and creating the following two series, which we have numbered for clarity:

Series 1 (to May 1947)

• Korsak E.M.1 (gas-operated, rotating bolt, 7.92x57mm)
• Jezioranski E.M.2 (blowback, inertia-locked, 7.92x33mm)
• Metcalf E.M.3 (gas-operated, roller-locked, 7.92x33mm)*
• *NB the Series 1 E.M.3 became the Thorpe E.M.1 in Series 2.

Series 2 (1948 onwards)

• Thorpe E.M.1 (gas-operated, roller-locked, .280 Enfield)
• Janson E.M.2 (gas-operated, flapper-locked, .280 Enfield)
• Hall E.M.3 (gas-operated, dropping block, .303 Rimless)*

*This appears to be an error of some sort, as the Hall self-loading (semi-automatic-only) rifle had never progressed beyond the mock-up stage and had, in fact, been discontinued in 1947. This second E.M.3 can thus be ignored for practical purposes.

Regardless, the key thing to remember is that Korsak’s series 1 E.M.1 LMG shares a design lineage with Janson’s later series 2 E.M.2 rifle, whereas the Thorpe E.M.1 rifle was of a totally different design. The Thorpe shares a design lineage with the earlier Metcalf E.M.3, as noted above.

Both the Thorpe E.M.2 and Korsak E.M.1 (and later Janson E.M.2) did share German inspiration, however. Korsak’s LMG had been closely based upon the FG 42 automatic rifle, and Thorpe’s rifle also took cues from the FG 42’s pinned trigger group and the pistol grip shape of the second model. The gas system and working parts were based upon the German Second World War Gerät 06, however. One variant, the roller-delayed blowback Gerät 06H (H for “half-locked”), is often touted as a putative “StG 45” that would have replaced the long-stroke, gas-operated StG 44. This elegant and lightweight design evolved into the extremely successful CETME, G3 and MP5 family of small arms. However, with delayed blowback as-yet unproven in a full-power long arm, Thorpe chose to revert to a mechanism wherein the rollers positively locked the bolt closed—just as a tilting or rotating bolt would—relying upon a gas piston to unlock the bolt. Instead of the short-stroke gas piston of the Gerät 06H, however, he opted for a long-stroke gas piston.

Description

Sources disagree on when the first Thorpe prototypes were completed and proofed; either June 1948 (Edwards, 2014) or December 1949 (Dugelby, 1980, 41). Nomenclature was further complicated by the use of a codename: “COBRA.” Unlike the rival E.M.2, the Thorpe E.M.1 made use of the latest manufacturing techniques to produce square-section pressed and welded steel body with reinforcing ribs. Its receiver should therefore have been cheaper and quicker to produce had it reached the mass production stage. Unfortunately, other assemblies were not so well designed for modern industry.

Interestingly, specific mention was made in its provisional manual of its in-line design, intended to manage recoil. This was of course one of the much-touted features of the later Stoner/ArmaLite AR-10 and AR-15 series of rifles. The weapon also included an StG 44-inspired sprung “ejection opening cover” (dust cover) which, together with a well-sealed architecture, would have limited internal contamination in the field. Less prescient was the incorporation of a mechanism to automatically drop the bolt and chamber a round upon the insertion of a loaded magazine. As on the E.M.2, the magazine catch doubles as a bolt release catch. Pushing it forward releases the magazine as one would expect, but pushing it to the rear activates the bolt hold-open catch and releases the bolt. Unlike modern hold-open devices, the E.M.1 locks open when empty whether or not a magazine is fitted. This means that the user must manually close the bolt as well as “ease springs” (i.e., dry fire) whenever the weapon is cleared. Also shared with E.M.2 is the built-in charger guide in the rear of the magazine body. This slides upward to receive a charger clip of cartridges for rapid loading.

There is a combined safety catch and “change lever” (selector switch) conveniently positioned for use by the right thumb. Much of the rear portion of the body and grip frame assembly are, in British fashion, clad with a walnut veneer. Sling loops are provided on the bipod lug and on the bottom of the butt-plate assembly. Notably, provision is also made for an optional bipod, although this is hardly of quick-detach design, requiring the removal of the front handguard/heat-shield assembly to access the circular bipod lug. The cyclic rate of fire is a controllable 600rpm, although this was probably a beneficial feature given the .280 Enfield cartridge produces somewhat more felt recoil than smaller intermediate cartridges such as 5.56x45mm.

Along with the E.M.2, this weapon was one of the first to offer an optical sight as standard, specifically the Universal Optical Sight or “UOS” with a simple sheet steel protective cover. The UOS was adjustable for elevation and windage and featured an inverted pointer with graduations for 300-900 yards—despite the original requirement for 600 yards maximum. Finally, as befits a 1950s military rifle, the Thorpe rifle was fitted for both bayonet and an optional rifle grenade projector, attached by means of the same twin lugs on the barrel near the muzzle. The socket bayonet was of a combat/utility knife pattern sensibly shared with the E.M.2. The grenade launcher attachment had a built-in flip-up leaf sight graduated to the terrifyingly short ranges of 50, 75 and 100 yards. Official reports were positive, praising the ability to perform all functions without removing the weapon from the shoulder as well as the weapon’s accuracy, balance and low recoil. The trigger, whilst unconventional in form, is of typical military style, with a single stage, some take-up and a pull just shy of 7 pounds. Due to the unusual trigger mechanism, it is free of the typical bullpup linkage rod foibles.

With the benefit of hindsight, however, there are some obvious flaws. The UOS sight has a tiny field of view, is non-magnifying and is not adjustable without a tool. Worse, there are no integral iron sights or indeed any emergency backup sights on the weapon. This is a heavy weapon and feels every ounce of its more than 10 pounds (when fitted with an empty magazine), although the rebalancing effect of the bullpup design compensates somewhat for this. The 8-pound E.M.2 clearly had the advantage in this respect. It is also extremely difficult to cock due to the need to overcome the resistance caused by the interface of piston, cocking plate and upper sear. Once the upper sear is out of its corresponding bent on the piston, the working parts move with ease. The weapon might have benefitted from a lever-type cocking handle offering some mechanical advantage as on the CETME/G3 series.

Operating System

Where the gun really falls down, however, is in its mechanical complexity. The bolt carrier group is unnecessarily complicated, with an additional assembly known as the “piston extension.” In most firearms, the striker or hammer is cocked by the bolt carrier as it travels to the rear. Because of the extremely compact in-line design of the EM-1, the bolt carrier group equivalent is located adjacent to the gas piston rather than directly below or above it as in most gas-operated designs. This means that the piston extension is also offset to one side, requiring a unique circular “cocking plate” with its own captive spring to translate the backward movement of the piston into a rotary cocking motion for the so-called “hammer” plunger (see below). This plate is actuated by a machined surface on the gas piston. If this seems confusing, that is because it is! However, the provisional manual for the type helps a great deal.

Trigger Mechanism

The trigger mechanism within the grip frame consists of a hinged (not sliding as its appearance might suggest) trigger assembly containing a sheet metal primary trigger, solid “upper trigger” and a disconnector pawl. This is acted upon by the rotating selector, which also activates an elaborate out-of-battery safety housed at the rear of the trigger group. There are no sears contained with the trigger group; instead, it engages with an extremely convoluted internal fire control group housed in the body of the rifle. This group houses the two safety/auto and primary (known as “upper” and “lower”) sears as well as a plunger (confusingly called the “hammer”) into which corresponding bents are cut. This plunger reciprocates in the housing under tension from its own spring, in effect operating like a backward-acting striker. Instead of directly impacting the primer—it is afterall travelling in the opposite direction!—it strikes the top of a lever in yet another assembly, which in turn pivots to thrust the firing pin forwards.

This Heath Robinson-esque arrangement was designed simply to connect the bullpup trigger to the working parts some distance behind it. Korsak’s LMG had used a long “slide” to allow its more conventional sears to interface with the working parts. Modern bullpups invariably make use of a long linkage bar, resulting in an inferior trigger pull. It is not clear whether Thorpe had anticipated the trigger bar solution and was actively seeking to avoid it, or whether the design team had simply not realised the potential of the simpler bar idea.

Fire selection is more conventional. On automatic, the trigger pawl provides support for the “upper trigger,” which in turn presses upward on the lower sear, allowing the working parts to continue cycling until the trigger is released or ammunition is expended. With the selector set to semi-automatic, its lower portion (inside the housing) pushes against the lower part of the trigger pawl as the trigger pushes the latter to the rear. This rotates the upper part out from under the upper trigger. This disconnects the trigger and requires the shooter to manually reset it for the next shot. The third selector position is a traditional applied safety that rotates the same lower portion of the selector forward to physically bar the trigger from moving to the rear. The mechanism incorporates two additional mechanical safeties. To prevent malfunction and out-of-battery discharge, the safety sear is lifted by another machined surface on the piston to release the “hammer” plunger onto the lower sear only when the bolt is fully forward. Finally, a pair of vertically acting appendages or “safety levers” are (on “safe”) cammed up into the underside of the fire control unit, blocking both the hammer and the piston itself. On semi-automatic or automatic, they are withdrawn from engagement. They are not connected to the trigger itself and do not impinge upon its action.

End of the Road

As NATO trials approached in the early 1950s, the decision was taken to withdraw the Thorpe E.M.1 on the basis that Janson’s E.M.2 rifle was in a more advanced state of development. A comparison by the author suggests that the Thorpe was simply the more flawed of the two. Both designs featured a substantial number of complex machined components, but the trigger mechanism of the E.M.1 added an additional level of difficulty in terms of manufacture and maintenance. Likewise, the more advanced pressed steel construction, whilst it might pay dividends in ultimate manufacturing cost, was an unknown quantity in 1950 and required new tooling and expertise to perfect for mass production. Russia was at this time struggling with the “Type 1” stamped metal AK; Enfield faced similar challenges with its SA80 project as late as the 1980s. The E.M.1 was also 2 pounds heavier than the lighter and generally more svelte E.M.2. Finally, aside from the obvious extravagance of wood veneer, the weapon featured two separate handguards. The front handguard, together with its own metal armature, could have been left off the rifle entirely were it not for the recommended grenade launching and bayonet fighting stances illustrated in the manual. The sheer quantity of wood on the weapon (the front handguard was even named the “fore-end”) seems designed to fend off inevitable criticism from those used to the walnut and steel of traditional infantry rifles of more conventional designs. Whatever the specific relative merits of the two rifles, the Thorpe E.M.1 was discontinued in early 1950, shortly after the provisional manual was printed. This allowed all efforts to be focused upon the more promising Janson E.M.2.

•••

(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)

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

This is Part 2 in a series of posts examining the developmental history of the United Kingdom’s E.M.1 and E.M.2 designated firearms. Part 1, “British Korsak E.M.1 Light Machine Gun,” appeared in Small Arms Review, Vol. 22, No. 9.

See armamentresearch.com for further original content.