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)

The so-called “AK-100 series” (or simply “Hundred Series”) weapons are the latest iterations of the venerable Kalashnikov system currently in mass production. The new generation of AK rifles includes the AK-101 through AK-105, and the AK-74M. The AK-74M, AK-101, and AK-103 are full length assault rifles, whilst the AK-102, AK-104, and AK-105 are short-barrelled variants. The AK-107, AK-108 , and AK-109 assault rifles are further developments of the AK-100 series, but are different enough to be considered separately. They feature a new gas system, designed by Yuriy Alexandrov, which differs from previous Kalashnikov designs. The AK-9, a purpose-built suppressed assault rifle chambered for the 9x39mm SP-5 and SP-6 rounds, is also a further development of the 100 series.

To be clear, there is no weapon designated the AK-100, although it is believed that the AK-74M was referred to by the designers as such, prior to being type-standardised by the military. There is also no weapon designated the AK-106. This is an occasional point of confusion, with some online discussion confusing the Arsenal SLR-106 with the non-existent AK-106.

After modernising the AK-74 as the AK-74M (Avtomat Kalashnikova obraztsa 1974 Modernizirovannyi; Kalashnikov Automatic Rifle Model 1974 Modernised) in 1991, the next few years saw Izhmash develop a range of variants of this weapon, designed primarily for export. It formed the Kalashnikov Joint Stock Company to market these rifles worldwide. The series was finalised over the course of 1994, and the AK-101 through AK-105 models were released. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the expected rise in foreign exports led to these firearms being built around three different cartridges:

• 5.45x39mm – Designed primarily for domestic use by Russian forces, this round is fired by the AK-74M and the AK-105.
• 7.62x39mm – This cartridge was included largely to appeal to Russia’s export partners, and has seen the most foreign purchases. The AK-103 and AK-104 are chambered for this round.
• 5.56x45mm – This NATO round was included for export purposes, and has seen limited sales. This cartridge is fired by the AK-101 and AK-102 rifles.

Gordon Rottman’s guide to the AK family notes “Izhmash reasoned that some users would rather replace their worn AKs with improved models at a lower cost than if they were to acquire weapons from Western, Chinese, or other arms merchants.”

Like their predecessors in the Kalashnikov lineage, the AK-100 series rifles are gas operated, rotating bolt select-fire weapons. They take their design cues and appearance from the AK-74M, featuring the same black synthetic (glass-reinforced polyamide) furniture and magazines, and a black phosphate finish on metal parts. They also feature the same solid plastic, side-folding buttstock. This appears similar to the fixed stock version, and folds to the left. The weapons also feature dovetail sight mounts on the left side of the receiver housing, designed to accept a wide range of optics. Another useful feature to note for identification purposes is the smooth top cover, which differs from the ribbed variety seen on some AK-74s, and AKMs.

The 100-series is generally regarded as being manufactured at a slightly higher standard than previous AKs and feature cold hammer forged barrels. Whilst the weapons are often referred to as a “unified complex” in Russian literature, the weapons are stand-alone in nature. Neither the barrels, nor the magazines of different calibres are interchangeable. It should also be noted that NATO STANAG magazines are not compatible with the AK-101. The AK-74M, -101, and -103 feature the extended muzzle brake seen on AK-74 rifles, and the AK-102, -104, and -105 feature a shorter, conical muzzle brake, as seen on the AKS-74U (“krinkov”). Sights on the full size rifles are optimistically graduated to 1,000m (3,281ft), whilst the shorter-barrelled rifles have sights marked to 500m (1,640ft).

The AK-101 and AK-103 rifles are also available in both semiautomatic only, and three-round burst variants. The semiautomatic variant is designated the AK-101-1 or AK-103-1, and three-round burst variant the AK-101-2 or AK-103-2. The -2 variants retain their fully-automatic fire capability. There is also a ‘-3’ variant of the AK-74M and AK-103 available, featuring an underbarrel accessory rail on the fore-end, and an ergonomic pistol grip. Both of these features can be seen on the new AK-12 assault rifle.

All hundred series rifles are designated with the suffix N2, when equipped with the 1PN58 night sight, and N3 when equipped with the 1PN51 (i.e. AK-74MN2, AK-103N3, etc.). As with other Kalashnikov developments, the 100 series rifles remain compatible with most existing accessories, including the PBS series suppressors, various muzzle brakes, a range of box and drum magazines of varying construction and capacity, scope mounts, and a wide range of collimating, telescopic, night vision, and thermal optics.

The AK-74M is the standard service rifle of the Russian Federation, replacing the AK-74 and AKS-74 in the procurement system almost immediately after its adoption in 1991. The -74M has also been adopted by several former republics of the Soviet Union, including Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, and Kazakhstan. Azerbaijan has licensed the design from Izhmash, and is now producing a modified AK-74M – known as the “Khazri Assault Rifle” – locally. The AK-74M is also in use with the Cypriot National Guard (Ethnikí Frourá).

The AK-103 has seen the most export success, with a number of countries producing, or aiming to produce, the rifle under license. India was one of the earliest purchasers, with a factory established over the course of 2008/09. Ethiopia’s state-run arsenal, the Gafat Armament Engineering Complex, produces a copy of the AK-103 known as the ET-97/1 Assault Gun. A version with a side-folding metal skeleton stock is also produced. According to some sources, the Iranian Takavaran (naval commandos) have also used AK-103s.

Venezuela has established a plant to manufacture the AK-103 under license – an endeavour which will be conducted by the comically-named Compania Anonima Venezolana de Industrias Militares (Anonymous Venezuelan Company of Military Industries). Production is understood to have begun on a limited scale, although the author has yet to see a photo of a Venezuelan-manufactured AK-103.

The AK-103 has also seen some limited adoption, primarily by various Spetsnaz GRU (Russian Army) and Spetsnaz MVD/OSNAZ (Ministry of the Interior) units. It has also been reported in use with the FSIN (Federalnaya Sluzhba Ispolneniya Nakazanii; Federal Penitentiary Service). Finally, the AK-103 (specifically, the AK-103-2) has been sighted numerous times in Libya, presumably as part of an arms deal with Russia. It has also been reported that Libya had an agreement with Russia to produce the -103 under license; however there is no indication of how far along this deal had progressed. The author has written several articles on the AK-103-2 in Libya, most of which can be found at his blog, www.securityscholar.com.au.

The AK-102 has seen limited use with the Royal Malaysian Navy’s PASKAL (Pasukan Khas Laut; Naval Special Forces) unit. The AK-104 and AK-105 are both in use with certain Russian military and law enforcement units. There were rumours that the AK-105 would replace the AKS-74U, but it appears to have supplemented it instead. The AK-105 is in use with the Azerbaijani State Border Service (DSX; Dövl?t S?rh?d Xidm?it) Rapid Action Group (CHQ; Cevik Herekat Qrupu), who have even fitted a number of -105s to Israeli-made CornerShot weapons systems. The AK-104 is also in use with certain Yemeni Army units.

China’s state-owned military company, Norinco, has produced a near-copy of the AK-101 as the AK 2000, which features a side-folding stock similar to that seen on the Type 56-2. The AK 2000 has been exported to Indonesia, and is in use by police and paramilitary forces there, including BRIMOB (Brigade Mobil; Mobile Brigade). 100 series rifles have also been reported in the inventories of Private Security Companies (PSCs) in Iraq and Afghanistan, in the hands of insurgents in Chechnya and Ingushetia, and in Colombia. There is a good likelihood they are present in several other conflict zones as well.

The newest development of the Kalashnikov rifle was revealed in a number of high-profile visits by Russian politicians to Izhmash, over the course of 2011 and early 2012. The AK-12 – formerly referred to as the AK-200 – will go into production sometime this year. Several of the new design features have been disclosed, chief amongst them the reduced weight of the rifle (approximately 3.3kg, according to most reports), a newly developed 6o-round casket magazine, and what designers have referred to as “one-armed man” operation – the ability to operate all aspects of the new rifle with one hand, and ambidextrously. The new rifle is also outfitted with an adjustable buttstock, a number of accessory mounting rails, a three-round burst function as standard, and is to be made available in a range of calibres. Three were initially announced – 5.45x39mm, 5.56x45mm, and 7.62x39mm – with Izhmash keeping the last calibre secret. Suggestions from observers included 6.5x39mm Grendel and 7.62x51mm NATO; the latter has now been confirmed. The gas and piston systems will remain the same as the current 100 series, and will not feature the so-called ‘balanced recoil system’ of the AK-107 and AK-108. The AK-12 will be offered in a range of sizes, configurations, and calibres – many for export.

An Izhmash spokesman claims: “It is safe to assume that the new Kalashnikov‘s characteristics are on a par with those of assault rifles currently used by NATO troops.” This optimism sounds similar to statements from around the time of the 100 series release. Regardless of how well the new rifles perform, last year’s decision by Russia’s Ministry of Defence to hold off purchasing any new Kalashnikov models until 2014 at the earliest – owing to a surplus of around 17 million AK-74 rifles already in storage – could put a dent in any potential success story.

Technical Details

AK-74M
Calibre: 5.45x39mm
Overall length: 943mm (37.1”)
Length w/ stock folded: 705mm (27.8”)
Barrel length: 415mm (16.3”)
Weight w/ empty magazine: 3.6kg (7.9lbs)
Weight w/ loaded magazine: 3.9kg (8.6lbs)
Magazine capacity: 30
Muzzle velocity: 900m/s (2,953ft/s)
Cyclic rate: 650 rpm

AK-101
Calibre: 5.56x45mm
Overall length: 943mm (37.1”)
Length w/ stock folded: 705mm (27.8”)
Barrel length: 415mm (16.3”)
Weight w/ empty magazine: 3.6kg (7.9lbs)
Weight w/ loaded magazine: 4.0kg (8.8lbs)
Magazine capacity: 30
Muzzle velocity: 910m/s (2,986ft/s)
Cyclic rate: 600 rpm

AK-103
Calibre: 7.62x39mm
Overall length: 943mm (37.1”)
Length w/ stock folded: 705mm (27.8”)
Barrel length: 415mm (16.3”)
Weight w/ empty magazine: 3.6kg (7.9lbs)
Weight w/ loaded magazine: 4.1kg (9.0lbs)
Magazine capacity: 30
Muzzle velocity: 715m/s (2,346ft/s)
Cyclic rate: 600 rpm

AK-102
Calibre: 5.56x45mm
Overall length: 824mm (32.4”)
Length w/ stock folded: 586mm (23.1”)
Barrel length: 314mm (12.4”)
Weight w/ empty magazine: 3.2kg (7.0lbs)
Weight w/ loaded magazine: 3.6kg (7.9lbs)
Magazine capacity: 30
Muzzle velocity: 850m/s (2,789ft/s)
Cyclic rate: 600 rpm

AK-104
Calibre: 7.62x39mm
Overall length: 824mm (32.4”)
Length w/ stock folded: 586mm (23.1”)
Barrel length: 314mm (12.4”)
Weight w/ empty magazine: 3.2kg (7.0lbs)
Weight w/ loaded magazine: 3.7kg (8.2lbs)
Magazine capacity: 30
Muzzle velocity: 670m/s (2,198ft/s)
Cyclic rate: 600 rpm

AK-105
Calibre: 5.45x39mm
Overall length: 824mm (32.4”)
Length w/ stock folded: 586mm (23.1”)
Barrel length: 314mm (12.4”)
Weight w/ empty magazine: 3.2kg (7.0lbs)
Weight w/ loaded magazine: 3.5kg (7.7lbs)
Magazine capacity: 30
Muzzle velocity: 840m/s (2,756ft/s)
Cyclic rate: 600 rpm

(I wish to thank Deniz Temiz for his assistance with confirming Azerbaijani CornerShot usage.)

(Editor’s note: We are pleased to add Mr. Nic Jenzen-Jones as a contributing writer to Chipotle Publishing, LLC. Mr. Jenzen-Jones is an Australian-based consultant, analyst, and writer. He is a co-editor at Security Scholar (securityscholar.com.au) and can also be found on Twitter (@RogueAdventurer.)