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)

For the last few decades, the American 5.56x45mm and the Russian 5.45x39mm has dominated the small-caliber high-velocity (SCHV) rifle ammunition of the world. Surprisingly, in the mid-1990s, the Chinese military introduced a new indigenous 5.8x42mm SCHV assault rifle round of their own. Like the Russians, the advantages of SCHV assault rifle ammo observed in Vietnam War battle reports did not go unnoticed by the Chinese military. In March, 1971, the Chinese military logistic department commenced a small arms research meeting known as the “713 Conference” in Beijing to develop the design criteria for an indigenous SCHV assault rifle cartridge. The design criteria called for a cartridge of approximately 6mm caliber, 1,000 meters per second muzzle velocity with the goals of reducing recoil and ammo weight while improving accuracy and terminal ballistics over the Type 56/M43 7.62x39mm full-caliber intermediate round. The following “744 Conference” narrowed down the calibers under consideration to 5.8mm and 6mm caliber. The cartridge case was to be selected from seven designs with overall cartridge lengths ranging from 56mm to 59.5mm. However, the new small caliber cartridge development was mostly a “paper project” for the initial eight years. The actual initiation of the project didn’t begin until late 1978 after most of the Cultural Revolution turmoil had died down. By 1979, the 5.8mm caliber and the 42mm case were chosen as the final design for the new SCHV round. The project completed its development in 1987 and the new SCHV assault rifle cartridge was officially designated as the DBP87.

Shortly afterward, in 1988, Chinese small arms engineers started work on a long-range heavy load version of the 5.8mm cartridge to be used with the corresponding developments of a 5.8mm sniper rifle and 5.8mm lightweight General-Purpose Machine Gun (GPMG). The 5.8mm heavy load variant was created as a replacement for the obsolescent Type 53/Mosin-Nagant 7.62x54R rimmed full power cartridge. Development of the 5.8mm heavy load cartridge was completed in 1995.

The Chinese military has since developed a variety of small arms chambered for the new 5.8mm cartridge. The first was the QBZ87 assault rifle, an updated Type 81 chambered for the new 5.8mm round, was primarily used as the test bed for further 5.8mm ammo development. Next came the QBZ95 assault rifle family comprised of the QBZ95 assault rifle, QBB95 squad automatic rifle/light machine gun and the QBZ95B carbine. The QBZ95 (Qing, Bu-Qiang, Zi-Dong, 1995 Si or Infantry Rifle, Automatic, Model 1995) is a modern looking 7.1 pound (3.25kg) assault rifle in a “bullpup” configuration. The QBU88 sniper rifle, also a bullpup, became available in 1997. A lightweight belt-fed general-purpose machine gun known as the QJY88 was also developed. Both the sniper and the lightweight GPMG were specifically designed for the 5.8mm heavy load cartridge but were also backward compatible with standard 5.8mm rifle ammo. Recently another member of the 5.8mm weapon appeared as the QBZ03 assault rifle. Instead of the bullpup layout, the QBZ03 is in the “traditional” configuration with its magazine and action in front of the trigger and pistol grip like the American M16.

The 5.8mm standard rifle load has a 64 grain (4.15g) bullet with a full metal jacket made of steel and copper-washed coating. The 24.2mm long projectile has a very streamlined external shape with a sharp bullet ogive and a sizeable boat-tail. The 5.8mm bullet has a composite core that consists of a pin shaped hardened steel penetrator located near the base of the bullet, with lead as the filling material between the penetrator and the jacket as well as the tip cavity. The steel penetrator is 16mm in length, 4mm in diameter, and weighs 23 grains (1.5g).

The 5.8mm heavy load has a completely different bullet design than that of the standard rifle load. Its bullet features a slightly smaller hardened steel penetrator at the tip of the bullet. This allows the use of more lead to increase the bullet’s mass and the front penetrator acts as a ballistic tip to help in attaining a higher ballistic coefficient for the 5.8mm heavy load. The overall bullet length is a little longer with a marginally rounder bullet ogive and a deeper boat-tail to improve aerodynamics in the near-subsonic velocity range. The bullet weight is increased to 77 grains (5g).

The 5.8mm cartridge has a 42mm long case with a 1 degree taper in the body from its 10.5mm diameter base. The bottle-neck shoulder and the neck are both 4mm long. The tapered case design also helps both ammo feeding and extraction. However, the straight wall case design of the 5.56mm has better accuracy. Steel is used as the primary material for the 5.8mm case likely because of the cost. The steel case is less expensive and lighter than the brass case of the 5.56mm but it requires extra corrosion protection in the form of a brownish color lacquer coating, which causes many other problems in itself. A harder and more brittle metal, steel tends to form a less than perfect seal in the chamber and more easily develops case ruptures that could lead to weapon malfunction. To ensure high extraction reliability, the 5.8mm case has a thick rim and a good size extractor groove.

The 5.8mm cartridge uses a silvery dual-base propellant in small dish shaped pellets. The propellant load is approximately 28 grains (1.8g), which is more than the 5.56mm’s 26 grains (1.7g) and the 5.45mm’s 25 grains (1.6g). Due to cost cutting measures, the 5.8mm’s propellant is of the corrosive powder variety. In contrast, NATO and other western nations have not used corrosive propellant since the end of World War II. The 5.8mm’s corrosive powder is not particularly hot either. It only generates a 41,500 psi (284 MPa) chamber pressure which is marginally higher than that of the old single-base propellant used by the vintage 7.62x39mm and much lower than the 5.56mm M855/SS109’s 55,000 psi (380 MPa). A non-reloadable Berdan primer is used to prime the 5.8mm cartridge’s propellant.

Chinese ammo designers claim the 5.8mm cartridge outperforms both the 5.56mm and 5.45mm in ballistics and penetration. The 5.8mm has more muzzle velocity and energy, a flatter trajectory with better velocity and energy retention down range.

The 5.8mm and the 5.56mm have similar ballistic performances out to 400 meter range. After 400 meters the 5.8mm with its superior ballistic coefficient moves ahead. The 5.45mm cartridge and the 5.56mm fired from the short barrel of the M4 carbine are simply no match for 5.8mm’s ballistics. The 5.8mm heavy load and the Mk262 5.56mm cartridge have roughly the same ballistic coefficient but the 5.8mm heavy load’s higher muzzle velocity gives it a higher velocity across the board. Both of these heavier bullets lose their velocity much slower than their lighter assault rifle counterparts.

The author had the opportunity to shoot the QBZ95 with the 5.8mm standard load, achieving an average 3 MOA (minute of angle) grouping at 100 meters. With a shooter more comfortable with the bullpup layout and a proper zero, a 2.5 MOA or better accuracy should be achievable with the same 5.8mm ammo and rifle combination. From my experience in the Marine Corps, the M855/SS109 5.56mm round has an average 2 MOA or better accuracy when fired from the M16A2. The newer M16A4 with its heavier and higher quality barrel should be even more accurate. The AK-74 and 7N6 5.45mm pairing can do 2.5-3 MOA up to 300 meters but the accuracy deteriorates rapidly once past 300 meters. The 5.8mm heavy load fired from the QBU88 sniper rifle is claimed to be capable of 1.2 MOA grouping at 100 meters. In actual service, the QBU88’s accuracy is around 1.5-1.6 MOA with non-match-grade regular 5.8mm heavy load ammo. In comparison, the United States Marine Corps’ (USMC) new M16A4 SAM-R (Squad Advanced Marksman Rifle) can easily achieve sub-MOA accuracy when using the Mk262 5.56mm ammo. As a whole, the 5.8mm’s accuracy is a substantial improvement over the older 7.62x39mm cartridge. Furthermore, it beats out the 1970’s era 5.45mm and approaches the accuracy of the 5.56mm and M16A2/A4 combination.

Information on the 5.8mm ballistic test was published in the August, 2003 issue of Small Arms, a Chinese language gun enthusiast magazine from mainland China. Additional test data was available from American small arms writer David M. Fortier’s research. The results of hard and soft target tests are shown in the charts.

The first three tests demonstrated the 5.8mm indeed out-penetrates both the 5.56mm and the 5.45mm as Chinese engineers stated. However, the test was manipulated to make the 5.8mm look good. A long-barrel QBB95 squad automatic rifle was used instead of the QBZ95 assault rifle for the test. The 5.8mm rounds fired from the QBB95 have a 164 feet per second (50m/s) muzzle velocity advantage over the 5.56mm fired from the Fabrique Nationale FNC assault rifle. Nevertheless, the 5.8mm’s 100% penetration rate of the 10mm steel plate at 300 meters is very impressive.

Realistically, the penetration performance difference between the 5.56mm and the 5.8mm is much closer. Contrary to the rigged Chinese ballistic test, unbiased tests done by the USMC and US Army’s Aberdeen Proving Ground show the 5.56mm M855/SS109 fired from the M16A2 rifle with the longer 20-inch (508mm) barrel has no problem penetrating the 3.5mm A3 steel test plate at 700 meters. Even so, the 5.8mm is still a better AP round than the 5.56mm. The 5.8mm bullet’s construction resembles the APHC (Armor-Piercing Hard Core) projectile design more common to dedicated AP ammo. The 5.8mm penetrates better because it was designed like AP ammo to begin with. The only known AP performance data of the 5.8mm heavy load is that it penetrates 15mm of mild steel at 85 meters and 1.3mm of hardened steel at 1,000 meters. The 5.8mm heavy load is said to out-penetrate the old 7.62x54R at any range. Many official and unofficial Chinese sources frequently mention how important the 5.8mm’s AP performance is. One possible explanation for the Chinese obsession with AP performance is that the 5.8mm’s AP ammo-like core was specially designed for use against opponents that are wearing heavy body armor – like the US forces.

Like most AP ammo, the test showed the 5.8mm bullet left a rather unimpressive wound cavity in the ballistic soap block. The 5.8mm’s wound cavity is one-third smaller than that of the 5.56mm’s and close to one-half smaller than the 5.45mm’s cavity. The thick steel jacket and the absence of a cannelure on the 5.8mm bullet prevent any fragmentation. The more balanced weight distribution of the solid lead tip with the steel core in the back also prevents the 5.8mm bullet from tumbling early and erratically. Nevertheless, Chinese sources claim the 5.8mm has 60 percent increase in lethality over the old 7.62x39mm it replaces.

How will the 5.8mm perform in combat? According to China’s Xinhua news agency, the 5.8mm round scored its first combat kill recently in Haiti during a firefight between Chinese United Nations peacekeepers and the local rebels. The performance of the 5.8mm in urban combat operation will likely be a mixed bag. On one hand, its superb penetration will be suitable for punching through tactical obstacles like brick wall, metal doors, automobile bodies, and masonry debris. On the other hand, the 5.8mm’s unimpressive terminal ballistics may require multiple hits to neutralize an opponent. The 5.8mm will fair better in open environments like desert and mountainous terrain with its longer effective range.

The 5.8mm heavy load may look good as an extended range small caliber rifle round, but as the replacement for the full-caliber high power 7.62x54R it is a miserable failure. It is just physically impossible for the SCHV round to produce anything close to the same amount of hitting power and bullet energy as the larger 7.62mm caliber. This is probably the main reason why the Chinese military didn’t want the 5.8mm general-purpose machine gun. The claim of the 5.8mm heavy load out-penetrating the 7.62mm is true but misleading. The higher penetration comes solely from the 5.8mm’s hardened steel penetrator that the all-lead core 7.62mm lacks.

I would like to acknowledge Capt. Stephen Miles, USA, Zhang Yuxing, David M. Fortier, Anthony G. Williams, Stanly Crist and Jon Cohen for their generous help.

DBP87 Specifications

Caliber: 5.8x42mm
Overall Length: 58mm
Total Weight: 192.5 grains (12.5 grams)
Cartridge Case Length: 42mm
Cartridge Case Taper: 1 degree
Cartridge Case Base Diameter: 10.5mm
Cartridge Case Material: Steel with Lacquer Coating
Propellant: Dual-based corrosive powder t type
Propellant Weight: 28 grains (1.8 grams)
Primer: Berdan Type
Projectile Type: FMJ-BT, Composite Core
Projectile Diameter: Approximately 6mm
Projectile Length: 24.2mm
Projectile Weight: Standard Rifle Load – 64 grains (4.15 grams), Heavy Load – 77 grains (5 grams)
Penetrator Material: Hardened Steel
Penetrator Length: 16mm
Penetrator Diameter: 4mm
Penetrator Weight: 23 grains (1.5 grams)
Muzzle Velocity: Assault Rifle – 3,050 fps (930m/s),
Squad Automatic Rifle – 3,181 fps (970m/s),
Carbine – 2,581 fps (790m/s),
Sniper Rifle and GPMG – 2,936 fps (895/s)
Status: In service with all branches of People’s Liberation Army of China, People’s Armed Police of China (Paramilitary), and the Chinese Police Forces.