Current British battle rifle

[armedcitizen]

Does anyone know what the main Brit battle rifle is these days? Better yet, does anyone have a pic of one? I'm curious because of this picture:



I'm seen this soldier ID'd as British several places and based on the helmet I would agree but the fact that he has an M16 throws me off. I thought they were pretty much using some bull pup design these days.

Any help would be appreciated.

 

[Slater]

I think that's an Israeli soldier.

The British use the L85A2 bullpup rifle, which has been the subject of much controversy.

 

[pauli]

that's a polite way of putting it.

 

[jonnyc]

Red boots, an Israeli Para.

 

[armoredman]

No camo - Israeli.

 

[Domino]

You can view information on the L85-A1 HERE

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I think about what we went through when the M16 was forced on us, and feel for the British -- although they have had the L85A2 long enough to have made something out of it by now.

 

[Trebor]

...although they have had the L85A2 long enough to have made something out of it by now.

Yeah, they've made something out of it alright. A money hole. They've put more money into repairing and rebuilding the rifles they bought then it cost to originally manufacture them. Like two or three times the cost. They could have re equipped with M-16's or G-36's for much cheaper, but that wasn't acceptable because of the "not built here" aspect of national pride.

The L85 boondogle makes the M-16 procurement look like a well managed program.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The L85 boondogle makes the M-16 procurement look like a well managed program.

You wouldn't think the British had anyone in MacNamara's class, would you?

 

[P95Carry]

Pity the good and trusty L1A1/FAL is still not in service - leaving aside changes in NATO ammo choice.

In Falklands I doubt many guys had much problem with their battle rifles.

The Bullpup was/has been an absurd choice.

 

[pauli]

it was my understanding that the royal marines did break out some fals for iraq.

 

[MillCreek]

Over the years, I have read where certain elements of various British land forces have used the M-16 from time to time. Most notably, elements of the Royal Marines, the SBS and SAS. I do not know if the M-16 is actually officially issued vs. used on a more ad-hoc basis or by individual units.

I have seen some photographs, put out by the UK Ministry of Defense, purporting to show Royal Marines of the 45 Commando on patrol in Afghanistan with the M-16.

 

[Lucky]

I think the SAS use the Diemaco C7, which is almost identical to the M16. And iirc Diemaco was bought out by Colt anyway.

 

[Iain]

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/SA80.htm

I'm sure you all know Tony, who is a member here.

 

[P95Carry]

Iain - excellent link and thanks. Much great info in that.

Not sure which Tony, as he have several - but good work anyways.

 

[swingset]

Like the AR, the SA-80 has received alot of bad press and some of its deserved, some not.

The H&K rework has been a good one, even if damn expensive. It's still not loved much by the troops but it's been performing well in the sandbox, and it's accuracy and short length are advantageous to that theater.

I'll tell ya this, if they sold a civy semi-85A2, I'd buy one.

 

[Ivy Mike]

fellas, forgive a stupid question, but wouldn't a 5.56mm FAL be an excellent alternative to what the Brits are using now?

Is a 5.56mm FAL now commonly known as an FNC?

 

[Raygun]

Not really. Other than the folding stock, about the only thing the FNC has in common with the FAL is that it's also made by FN.

The Imbel MD2 would more closely resemble that description, but even it uses and AR15-type, multi-lug rotating bolt to lock the action rather than the FAL's dropping block.

Anyway, I've read mixed reports about the SA80A2. The most serious negative report being that the new safety HK installed had somehow gotten stuck in the "off" position at a few very inappropriate times. I remember SOF having a pretty scathing report on the SA80A2 a couple years ago, but I don't know if I'd really consider that unbiased reporting. Beyond that, I haven't heard much.

For what they paid for the A2 rebuild, MOD might as well have gone with the G36. Who knows why they didn't? I'm not really sure "national pride" was part of it. The Brits use FN machine guns just like we do.

 

[Lo.Com.Denom]

In our school's cadet force, I had the misfortune to use the original unmodified SA80 family - mostly the "straight-pull" cadet rifle and the LSW. Apart from the miserable reliability, awful cross-bolt safety catch and the sheer weight of the thing, the worst part was the ballance.
All that weight baring down between your right hand and your shoulder really used to grind into the web of your hand. When on patrol, you had to keep the thing pulled in tight to your shoulder since the butt would constantly be slipping down towards hip level. Really awkward, in other words, but pretty much unavoidable in a bullpup rifle and wouldn't have been so bad if the things hadn't been so heavy.
Overall, I don't even have time to go into how bad the malfunctions were, though oddly, the cadet rifles seemed to have just as many stoppages despite not having any gas-parts! Rain in particular used to make the things curl up and die and it used to rain a lot .
Having said all that, a friend in the army told me last year that the new A2 is a good 'un (for reliability, anyway). I think that the only reason the armed forces didn't get rid of them years ago, was the vain hope that it would sort itself out with each minor modification.

 

[Hoploholic]

The SA-80 and M16/M4 are assault carbines. The only main battle rifle we have in service is the M14 and the L1A1 for the Brits.

 

[Jeff White]

No such thing as a main battle rifle

Main Battle Rifle is a term made up by some gunwriter. No Army in the world calls any rifle a main battle rifle.

The US Army currently uses M16 series and a few M14 rifles. It also uses M4 and M4A1 carbines. In the past the US Army used M1903 and M1 rifles and M1 and M2 carbines.

The term main battle rifle appears in no doctrinal literature. Unless you call mainstream gun rags doctrine .

Jeff

 

[El Tejon]

Jeff, no such thing? There is now! Thank you, Internet.

 

[Lo.Com.Denom]

Ironically, I was told in the cadet force that what we were using were definitely not rifles ! Noooo, they were weapons and if I called them rifles again, the instructor was going to hit me! No doubt a spade was also a "digging/entrenching device, Mk1"...

 

[Commissar Gribb]

Ironically, I was told in the cadet force that what we were using were definitely not rifles ! Noooo, they were weapons and if I called them rifles again, the instructor was going to hit me! No doubt a spade was also a "digging/entrenching device, Mk1"...

And hope beyond hope you dont accidently call it a "gun".

LMAO

 

[Tony Williams]

It's a pity that the British failed to get the 7x43 ammo approved instead of the 7.62x51, or they would have persevered with the EM-2 shown below.

I have handled this next to the SA80 and despite being smaller and lighter it feels much more solid, and better balanced.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: www.quarry.nildram.co.uk