Nightcrawler
Member
Right now, the L85A2, sometimes referred to as the SA80, is the standard service arm of the forces of the United Kingdom. The L85 is an indigenously designed 5.56mm bullpup assault rifle that Britain adopted in the 1980s, replacing the L1A1 (inch-pattern FAL) Self Loading Rifle.
The "A2" variant is the result of an extensive series of upgrades performed by Heckler & Koch Oberndorf of Germany. These upgrades were intended to address various reported inadequacies with the rifle, and subsequently the weapon is better-liked by the troops that carry it. According to Small Arms Review, about three hundred and eighty five thousand of these rifles were worked on by H&K.
It needs to be pointed out (in fact, it is the entire point of this post) that H&K did not manufacture new L85A2 rifles for the United Kingdom. If I recall correctly, the last L85 left the Enfield plant some twenty years ago. They're not making any new weapons, and from what I've read all of the manufacturing equipment and tooling was auctioned off years ago.
The Royal Small Arms Factory, owned then by British Aerospace, was closed in 1988. The long history of British firearms design and development has, it seems, entirely come to an end.
This leaves the United Kingdom in a poor position, as they can no longer manufacture new weapons for their forces. Indeed it probably makes parts resupply complicated, too. In the United States, dozens of sub-contractors make parts for the M16 series of rifles; that's one of the reason AR-15 clones are so widespread. But in the UK, there is no such industry.
Eventually, the individual weapons themselves will be worn out, and the Britain, for the first time ever, will likely have to purchase a foreign designed and manufactured weapon with which to arm its forces.
I don't think it'll be much longer before Britain starts looking for a replacement, if they're not already. Twenty years is a long time for an individual rifle to remain in military service, especially with no new replacements rolling off of the production line.
So the question is, then, which rifle will the British choose as their new service weapon? This is all purely speculation on my part, as I haven't been following this particularly closely, but if I had to guess I'd say they'll go with the German H&K G36, or some variant of it.
H&K weapons in general seem to be popular in British law enforcement and security circles, and H&K is certainly doing their very best to market the weapon for export. It's doing well in Europe, though it's been met with much less success here in the US. Despite the ravings of H&K fans on the Internet, the G36 is very uncommon in the US. A few law enforcement agencies, including the Capitol Police, use it, but it's more expensive and has less of a support structure than domestically manufactured AR-15 clones.
Anyway, I'm not a particular fan of the G36. While I'm sure it's a fine design, I think the integral dual optics setup is overcomplicated. The standard G36 comes with (IIRC) a 3.5x scope and a 1x red dot over it, so you have two sight apertures on top of each other. Another version has a 1.5x (huh?) optic and what is described as "rough pistol sights" on top of that for close in shooting. No proper back-up iron sights are provided.
There is, however, a Picatinny type rail that contains iron sights and replaces the optics housing. While most commonly seen on the 8" barreled G36C variant, it can I believe be installed on any version. This, in conjunction with a proper battle optic, would be the best choice. In any case the British may want to continue with their SUSAT scope; they've been issuing combat scopes as standard on their rifles for decades, long before Trijicon introduced the ACOG.
Personally, I think the 12" barreled G36K would be more useful for the kinds of wars we seem to fight now. While the 19" barreled standard version isn't so long as to be unwieldy, neither is the standard M16. In any case the folding buttstock should perhaps be shortened to accommodate the body armor that is now standard. The 19" version, with some kind of magnifying optic, would be a fine choice for longer-ranged shooting.
But that's just my opinion. At any rate, the G36 is hardly the only option. Another possibility is the Sig 550 series, manufactured in Switzerland. The 550 series is, at its heart, the epitome of refinement of the Kalashnikov design, and the result is a rifle that has a reputation for being both very accurate and very reliable. (In fact, SIGARMS USA says their American-produced Sig 556 rifle will shot 1MOA with good ammo.)
The Sig 550 would almost certainly be more expensive, though (that's not to say the G36 isn't expensive itself). Another possibility is the Fabrique Nationale FN2000 Bullpup.
The FN2000 would be in keeping with the British desire for a bullpup rifle, but would constitute a somewhat more refined package. That's not to say that I personally am overwhelmed by the FN2000; having examined an FS2000 in person, most of the internals are plastic and the manual of arms could use some refinement. However, a lot of thought went into the design and I think it's worth consideration. I, personally, would prefer a more stripped down variant with simple optic over the large, complex, and likely heavy computerized targeting unit (which, really, is only terribly useful with the air-bursting smart grenades they're working on).
Another possibility I can see is the Diemaco (now called Colt Canada, I believe; I don't know how closely they're affiliated with Colt Defense here in the US) C7/C8 series of rifles and carbines. These weapons are nothing more than Canadian-manufactured copies of the M16 family. However, going this route would allow for parts commonality and weapons familiarity with US forces, and since Diemaco supplies both Canada and Norway it seems they have the manufacturing capability to equip entire armies. Additionally, the British could simply choose the design and set the specifications, and have a variety of manufacturers fill the contracts (much like the US did for years; M16A1s were made by Colt, H&R, and General Motors). Also, I think the Canadian ELCAN scope would be a fine successor to the British SUSAT series.
There are plenty of other rifles on the international market. I can't see the British adopting anything from Russia or China, however, much less from smaller countries like Singapore. The Steyr AUG is one possibility, as is the FNC. I can't see the British adopting the French FAMAS, or any French weapon, on principal alone. I don't know if the French state arms factory offers the FAMAS for export in any case. Other nations' rifles, like the Beretta AR-70/90 and the Swedish Bofors AK5 aren't really players on the international market, so far as I know.
So that's the situation as I see it. Thoughts, ideas, opinions?
Additionally, even though this is for a different sub-forum, the British Hi-Power pistols have to be getting up there in age as well. Is there any thought as to a potential replacement?
The "A2" variant is the result of an extensive series of upgrades performed by Heckler & Koch Oberndorf of Germany. These upgrades were intended to address various reported inadequacies with the rifle, and subsequently the weapon is better-liked by the troops that carry it. According to Small Arms Review, about three hundred and eighty five thousand of these rifles were worked on by H&K.
It needs to be pointed out (in fact, it is the entire point of this post) that H&K did not manufacture new L85A2 rifles for the United Kingdom. If I recall correctly, the last L85 left the Enfield plant some twenty years ago. They're not making any new weapons, and from what I've read all of the manufacturing equipment and tooling was auctioned off years ago.
The Royal Small Arms Factory, owned then by British Aerospace, was closed in 1988. The long history of British firearms design and development has, it seems, entirely come to an end.
This leaves the United Kingdom in a poor position, as they can no longer manufacture new weapons for their forces. Indeed it probably makes parts resupply complicated, too. In the United States, dozens of sub-contractors make parts for the M16 series of rifles; that's one of the reason AR-15 clones are so widespread. But in the UK, there is no such industry.
Eventually, the individual weapons themselves will be worn out, and the Britain, for the first time ever, will likely have to purchase a foreign designed and manufactured weapon with which to arm its forces.
I don't think it'll be much longer before Britain starts looking for a replacement, if they're not already. Twenty years is a long time for an individual rifle to remain in military service, especially with no new replacements rolling off of the production line.
So the question is, then, which rifle will the British choose as their new service weapon? This is all purely speculation on my part, as I haven't been following this particularly closely, but if I had to guess I'd say they'll go with the German H&K G36, or some variant of it.
H&K weapons in general seem to be popular in British law enforcement and security circles, and H&K is certainly doing their very best to market the weapon for export. It's doing well in Europe, though it's been met with much less success here in the US. Despite the ravings of H&K fans on the Internet, the G36 is very uncommon in the US. A few law enforcement agencies, including the Capitol Police, use it, but it's more expensive and has less of a support structure than domestically manufactured AR-15 clones.
Anyway, I'm not a particular fan of the G36. While I'm sure it's a fine design, I think the integral dual optics setup is overcomplicated. The standard G36 comes with (IIRC) a 3.5x scope and a 1x red dot over it, so you have two sight apertures on top of each other. Another version has a 1.5x (huh?) optic and what is described as "rough pistol sights" on top of that for close in shooting. No proper back-up iron sights are provided.
There is, however, a Picatinny type rail that contains iron sights and replaces the optics housing. While most commonly seen on the 8" barreled G36C variant, it can I believe be installed on any version. This, in conjunction with a proper battle optic, would be the best choice. In any case the British may want to continue with their SUSAT scope; they've been issuing combat scopes as standard on their rifles for decades, long before Trijicon introduced the ACOG.
Personally, I think the 12" barreled G36K would be more useful for the kinds of wars we seem to fight now. While the 19" barreled standard version isn't so long as to be unwieldy, neither is the standard M16. In any case the folding buttstock should perhaps be shortened to accommodate the body armor that is now standard. The 19" version, with some kind of magnifying optic, would be a fine choice for longer-ranged shooting.
But that's just my opinion. At any rate, the G36 is hardly the only option. Another possibility is the Sig 550 series, manufactured in Switzerland. The 550 series is, at its heart, the epitome of refinement of the Kalashnikov design, and the result is a rifle that has a reputation for being both very accurate and very reliable. (In fact, SIGARMS USA says their American-produced Sig 556 rifle will shot 1MOA with good ammo.)
The Sig 550 would almost certainly be more expensive, though (that's not to say the G36 isn't expensive itself). Another possibility is the Fabrique Nationale FN2000 Bullpup.
The FN2000 would be in keeping with the British desire for a bullpup rifle, but would constitute a somewhat more refined package. That's not to say that I personally am overwhelmed by the FN2000; having examined an FS2000 in person, most of the internals are plastic and the manual of arms could use some refinement. However, a lot of thought went into the design and I think it's worth consideration. I, personally, would prefer a more stripped down variant with simple optic over the large, complex, and likely heavy computerized targeting unit (which, really, is only terribly useful with the air-bursting smart grenades they're working on).
Another possibility I can see is the Diemaco (now called Colt Canada, I believe; I don't know how closely they're affiliated with Colt Defense here in the US) C7/C8 series of rifles and carbines. These weapons are nothing more than Canadian-manufactured copies of the M16 family. However, going this route would allow for parts commonality and weapons familiarity with US forces, and since Diemaco supplies both Canada and Norway it seems they have the manufacturing capability to equip entire armies. Additionally, the British could simply choose the design and set the specifications, and have a variety of manufacturers fill the contracts (much like the US did for years; M16A1s were made by Colt, H&R, and General Motors). Also, I think the Canadian ELCAN scope would be a fine successor to the British SUSAT series.
There are plenty of other rifles on the international market. I can't see the British adopting anything from Russia or China, however, much less from smaller countries like Singapore. The Steyr AUG is one possibility, as is the FNC. I can't see the British adopting the French FAMAS, or any French weapon, on principal alone. I don't know if the French state arms factory offers the FAMAS for export in any case. Other nations' rifles, like the Beretta AR-70/90 and the Swedish Bofors AK5 aren't really players on the international market, so far as I know.
So that's the situation as I see it. Thoughts, ideas, opinions?
Additionally, even though this is for a different sub-forum, the British Hi-Power pistols have to be getting up there in age as well. Is there any thought as to a potential replacement?
Last edited:
