The British Enfield L85 assault rifles

PALADIN85020 · #1 09-23-2022, 11:08 AM

The following is a draft of a coming article. As usual, comments are welcome.

John

The British Enfield L85 assault rifles

(click for larger view)

These guns were prominently displayed as the British military carried them during the funeral services for Queen Elizabeth II. Knowing that I’m a “gun guy,” a few friends asked exactly what those weird guns were. My wife remarked that what they were carrying under their arms looked like large books. I myself thought it was a strange way to carry a rifle – under the right arm upside down, with the barrel grasped by the left hand behind the soldiers’ backs. It seemed to me that was an obviously awkward way to march under arms. In fact, it is a special mark of respect for funerals and mourning called “Reverse Arms.”

Well, at any rate I explained to my friends that what they were carrying was the British L85 rifle. I told them that it was a bullpup rifle loosely based on the American AR-18 assault rifle. This usually drew blank or puzzled stares.

I then had to explain that a bullpup rifle was basically a normal rifle, but with the action pushed back near to the buttplate, making a much shorter rifle still having a normal-length barrel. As for the AR-18, it was developed in 1963 by Arthur Miller, George Sullivan and Chuck Dorchester for Armalite, utilizing an action originally designed by Eugene Stoner. Were it not for the U.S.’s substantial investment in the M16, the folding-stock AR-18 well could have become our standard military rifle. It’s one of the firearms I covered extensively in my book 101 Classic Firearms.

The British were very impressed by the AR-18s, having encountered them when some were used by the outlawed Irish Republican Army. A good number were even manufactured by Sterling in Great Britain. Because of their efficiency in the hands of the IRA they were nicknamed the “widowmakers.” The Brits’ Royal Ordnance group began work on a new rifle, but using a bullpup framework to achieve a more compact arm.

They selected the AR-18 action for it and experiments continued in the 1960s-1980 time frame. The resulting initial prototypes were dubbed SA-80s (short for Small Arms for the 1980s). The objective was to replace the 7.62mm L1 SLR (the British-made FN FAL) rifles and the Sterling submachine guns then in service.
Initially, the rifle was to utilize a British-developed small caliber design using a 4.85mm (.19 caliber) bullet that was essentially the U.S. 5.56mm cartridge necked down. When NATO adopted the 5.56mm round, the new rifle was re-designed to accommodate that cartridge.

This modified rifle was put into production in 1984 as the L85. These first rifles turned out to be disasters and were disliked immensely by the British troops. In general, the rifles were largely unreliable and were awkward to handle and maintain. Dust, dirt and this rifle did not go well together at all.

In 1997, after years of complaints, an upgrade program for existing rifles was put into effect in 2000-2002 and was completed by the German firearms firm of Heckler & Koch. H&K at that time was owned by the British Royal Ordnance company, although German investors bought it back in 2002. Of the approximately 320,000 original L85A1 rifles, about 200,000 were upgraded to L85A2 specifications. Initial official commentary was favorable, although British troops in the Afghanistan campaign of 2002 filed some unsatisfactory field reports. Most of the reported problems were traced to improper care and maintenance of the rifles, and now the overhauled L85A2 versions are performing convincingly well. They are recognized as very accurate, especially with the SUSAT telescopic sight which was designated as standard for this arm. The rifle illustrated here is one of the L85A2 versions and is equipped with a SUSAT.

The L85 is gas operated, magazine fed, and selective fire. The receiver is made from stamped sheet steel, reinforced with welded and riveted machined steel inner steel inserts. It utilizes a short stroke gas piston placed above the barrel. The gas piston has its own return spring. The gas system has a 3-position regulator for normal, adverse conditions, and “off” for launching rifle grenades.

The machined bolt carrier rides on two parallel steel guide rods, with the return spring above and between the guide rods. The rotating bolt has seven lugs that fit into a steel insert in the receiver. The charging handle is attached to the right side of the bolt carrier. Prior to the A2 upgrade, the handle caused some ejected cases to bounce back into the action, causing stoppages. In the A2 version, there were many internal parts that were re-designed. Also, the charging handle was re-configured to act as a case deflector and the bolt and its extractor claw were also modified to give more reliable extraction and ejection. The charging handle slot is covered by a spring-loaded dust cover similar to the one on the AR-18. A fire control lever on the left side selects either full automatic or semiautomatic fire. A crossbolt safety is provided above the trigger. The magazine release is on the left side. A manual bolt-hold-open switch is on the right side and a bolt release is on the left. The weight is 8.4 pounds empty, the length is 30.9 inches, and the barrel length is 20.4 inches.

All varieties of the L85 rifle are designed to use optical sights. The A2 version of the rifle is equipped with a Sight Unit Small Arms Trilux (SUSAT) scope on a quick-detachable mount above the receiver. It has 4X magnification and a tritium-powered illuminated reticle. Backup iron sights are mounted on the body of the scope. This optic is a very heavy design, making the total weight of the combination almost as heavy as the previous L1 SLR 7.62mm rifle. A lighter Trijicon Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight (ACOG) scope is sometimes used as an alternative. A newer option to replace the aging SUSATs is the Elcan SpecterOS 4X lightweight optical day sight. A black water-resistant cloth cover is provided to slip over any of these scopes for protection when not in use.

It appears that the L85 rifles are destined to be around for a while, although these bullpups have never been all that popular with the troops in the field. A hard-to-get-around problem is that bullpups are almost always awkward to handle and the balance is undeniably horrible. The L85 ejects only to the right, making it very annoying when lefties try to use it from the left shoulder and get fired cases thrown into their faces. The magazine latch is still quite exposed on the left side, and if the rifle is pressed against the body, the magazine can be inadvertently dumped. Some British Special Forces have preferred to use the Canadian version of our M16 (the C8 Diemaco), giving them a reliable and less awkward firearm. One wonders if the Brits shouldn’t have elected to use the original AR-18 rifles that were equipped with folding stocks. They were boringly dependable, relatively lightweight and the stock could be folded for better maneuverability in close quarters. They were easy to handle and not at all awkward. Perhaps hindsight is indeed perfect, but in their quest for the latest and greatest, the British Ordnance group gave their troops nothing but troubles for the first several years until the major kinks were worked out of their design. Unfortunately, the earlier rifles’ sad reputation stuck, causing many – right or wrong - to also doubt the current iterations.

In spite of the problems of the early guns, the modern L85A2 rifles seem to work acceptably well. Their unique design that has been established as standard in Great Britain makes them both interesting and classic. Examples are still few and far between here in the United States, making them almost unknown here regardless of decades of service with our most loyal ally overseas.

(c) 2022 JLM

MattLarmore · #2 09-23-2022, 11:24 AM

I think Bullpups are a cool design aesthetically, but those poor lefties!

LVSteve · #3 09-23-2022, 12:06 PM

I would take issue with the awkward handling and balance comments you are quoting. I wonder how much of it is not so much that the weapon is "awkward", but that it is "different".

While I haven't handled an L85 personally, some RAF friends of mine were trained on it in the early 90s and loved it, handling wise. They liked how the weight sat back on their shoulders, a revelation after the ridiculously nose heavy FAL, or SLR (Stupid Long Rifle) as it was often know in British service. My buddies said they could shoot accurately in the standing position, something that was not happening with the SLR unless you were 6' 2" and a gym rat. As a wimpy owner of a FAL and a bullpup FS2000, I can relate to that.

Sadly, one had malfunctions as the guns they were using were the early variants. Apparently the sheet metal cover had got dinged and it was enough to drag on the action and cause stoppages. But when they worked, they said the L85 was easy to shoot accurately. One of my friends had been in long enough that he initially trained with an Enfield No4. He ranked the rifles during his time like this:

Enfield: if you can see it, you can kill it.
SLR: Front heavy, inferior sights compared to the Enfield, most barn doors went unscathed.
L85: So easy to shoot with the SUSAT...when it didn't jam.

Some may find the comments on the SLR harsh, but two former RAF guys I've known who qualified Marksmen with the Enfield said that the standard issue SLR was an inaccurate waste of space. Makes me wonder about the 7.62 NATO ammo they were using, but I guess we will never know this far out.

ISCS Yoda · #4 09-23-2022, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Examples are still few and far between here in the United States, making them almost unknown here regardless of decades of service with our most loyal ally overseas.

As full auto rifles does ATF even allow their importation? Especially if they're made post-1986?

Mike, SC Hunter · #5 09-23-2022, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PALADIN85020

The following is a draft of a coming article. As usual, comments are welcome.

John

The British Enfield L85 assault rifles

(click for larger view)

These guns were prominently displayed as the British military carried them during the funeral services for Queen Elizabeth II. Knowing that I’m a “gun guy,” a few friends asked exactly what those weird guns were. My wife remarked that what they were carrying under their arms looked like large books. I myself thought it was a strange way to carry a rifle – under the right arm upside down, with the barrel grasped by the left hand behind the soldiers’ backs. It seemed to me that was an obviously awkward way to march under arms. In fact, it is a special mark of respect for funerals and mourning called “Reverse Arms.”

Well, at any rate I explained to my friends that what they were carrying was the British L85 rifle. I told them that it was a bullpup rifle loosely based on the American AR-18 assault rifle. This usually drew blank or puzzled stares.

I then had to explain that a bullpup rifle was basically a normal rifle, but with the action pushed back near to the buttplate, making a much shorter rifle still having a normal-length barrel. As for the AR-18, it was developed in 1963 by Arthur Miller, George Sullivan and Chuck Dorchester for Armalite, utilizing an action originally designed by Eugene Stoner. Were it not for the U.S.’s substantial investment in the M16, the folding-stock AR-18 well could have become our standard military rifle. It’s one of the firearms I covered extensively in my book 101 Classic Firearms.

The British were very impressed by the AR-18s, having encountered them when some were used by the outlawed Irish Republican Army. A good number were even manufactured by Sterling in Great Britain. Because of their efficiency in the hands of the IRA they were nicknamed the “widowmakers.” The Brits’ Royal Ordnance group began work on a new rifle, but using a bullpup framework to achieve a more compact arm.

They selected the AR-18 action for it and experiments continued in the 1960s-1980 time frame. The resulting initial prototypes were dubbed SA-80s (short for Small Arms for the 1980s). The objective was to replace the 7.62mm L1 SLR (the British-made FN FAL) rifles and the Sterling submachine guns then in service.
Initially, the rifle was to utilize a British-developed small caliber design using a 4.85mm (.19 caliber) bullet that was essentially the U.S. 5.56mm cartridge necked down. When NATO adopted the 5.56mm round, the new rifle was re-designed to accommodate that cartridge.

This modified rifle was put into production in 1984 as the L85. These first rifles turned out to be disasters and were disliked immensely by the British troops. In general, the rifles were largely unreliable and were awkward to handle and maintain. Dust, dirt and this rifle did not go well together at all.

In 1997, after years of complaints, an upgrade program for existing rifles was put into effect in 2000-2002 and was completed by the German firearms firm of Heckler & Koch. H&K at that time was owned by the British Royal Ordnance company, although German investors bought it back in 2002. Of the approximately 320,000 original L85A1 rifles, about 200,000 were upgraded to L85A2 specifications. Initial official commentary was favorable, although British troops in the Afghanistan campaign of 2002 filed some unsatisfactory field reports. Most of the reported problems were traced to improper care and maintenance of the rifles, and now the overhauled L85A2 versions are performing convincingly well. They are recognized as very accurate, especially with the SUSAT telescopic sight which was designated as standard for this arm. The rifle illustrated here is one of the L85A2 versions and is equipped with a SUSAT.

The L85 is gas operated, magazine fed, and selective fire. The receiver is made from stamped sheet steel, reinforced with welded and riveted machined steel inner steel inserts. It utilizes a short stroke gas piston placed above the barrel. The gas piston has its own return spring. The gas system has a 3-position regulator for normal, adverse conditions, and “off” for launching rifle grenades.

The machined bolt carrier rides on two parallel steel guide rods, with the return spring above and between the guide rods. The rotating bolt has seven lugs that fit into a steel insert in the receiver. The charging handle is attached to the right side of the bolt carrier. Prior to the A2 upgrade, the handle caused some ejected cases to bounce back into the action, causing stoppages. In the A2 version, there were many internal parts that were re-designed. Also, the charging handle was re-configured to act as a case deflector and the bolt and its extractor claw were also modified to give more reliable extraction and ejection. The charging handle slot is covered by a spring-loaded dust cover similar to the one on the AR-18. A fire control lever on the left side selects either full automatic or semiautomatic fire. A crossbolt safety is provided above the trigger. The magazine release is on the left side. A manual bolt-hold-open switch is on the right side and a bolt release is on the left. The weight is 8.4 pounds empty, the length is 30.9 inches, and the barrel length is 20.4 inches.

All varieties of the L85 rifle are designed to use optical sights. The A2 version of the rifle is equipped with a Sight Unit Small Arms Trilux (SUSAT) scope on a quick-detachable mount above the receiver. It has 4X magnification and a tritium-powered illuminated reticle. Backup iron sights are mounted on the body of the scope. This optic is a very heavy design, making the total weight of the combination almost as heavy as the previous L1 SLR 7.62mm rifle. A lighter Trijicon Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight (ACOG) scope is sometimes used as an alternative. A newer option to replace the aging SUSATs is the Elcan SpecterOS 4X lightweight optical day sight. A black lightweight water-resistant cloth cover is provided to slip over any of these scopes for protection when not in use.

It appears that the L85 rifles are destined to be around for a while, although these bullpups have never been all that popular with the troops in the field. A hard-to-get-around problem is that bullpups are almost always awkward to handle and the balance is undeniably horrible. The L85 ejects only to the right, making it very annoying when lefties try to use it from the left shoulder and get fired cases thrown into their faces. The magazine latch is still quite exposed on the left side, and if the rifle is pressed against the body, the magazine can be inadvertently dumped. Some British Special Forces have preferred to use the Canadian version of our M16 (the C8 Diemaco), giving them a reliable and less awkward firearm. One wonders if the Brits shouldn’t have elected to use the original AR-18 rifles that were equipped with folding stocks. They were boringly dependable, relatively lightweight and the stock could be folded for better maneuverability in close quarters. They were easy to handle and not at all awkward. Perhaps hindsight is indeed perfect, but in their quest for the latest and greatest, the British Ordnance group gave their troops nothing but troubles for the first several years until the major kinks were worked out of their design. Unfortunately, the earlier rifles’ sad reputation stuck, causing many – right or wrong - to also doubt the current iterations.

In spite of the problems of the early guns, the modern L85A2 rifles seem to work acceptably well. Their unique design that has been established as standard in Great Britain makes them both interesting and classic. Examples are still few and far between here in the United States, making them almost unknown here regardless of decades of service with our most loyal ally overseas.

(c) 2022 JLM

Please don't use the term assault rifle for it is not. It is an Army rifle. The term you used was coined by our opponents in in 1968......Otherwise great article.

bigwheelzip · #6 09-23-2022, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PALADIN85020

As usual, comments are welcome.

A hard-to-get-around problem is that bullpups are almost always awkward to handle and the balance is undeniably horrible.

Thanks for an interesting write-up of something we don't see much of here.

"Awkward" may just be what a person is familiar with. As a recent fangirl of the Tavor 7 bullpup, I feel it's balance and handling are quite good. Fully ambidextrous and single hand shootable.

Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk

PALADIN85020 · #7 09-23-2022, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike, SC Hunter

Please don't use the term assault rifle for it is not. It is an Army rifle. The term you used was coined by our opponents in in 1968......Otherwise great article.

The term "assault rifle" goes back to the Germans in 1944 with their STG-44. "Sturmgewehr" meant "storm rifle." The English version of that name was "Assault rifle." The German rifle used an intermediate cartridge and was capable of either full auto or semiauto fire. The terminology has been around properly for 78 years and I will not attempt to modify history.

It is still a proper and accurate term for similar guns today in spite of the gun-haters using those words for any rifle that's black and looks mean. I use that term properly, while they do not. Doesn't make me wrong - just them.

"Army rifle" can mean virtually any kind of rifle used by the military, including single shots, bolt actions, lever actions, etc. I would way prefer to be more precise and definitive on this. Thanks.

John

PALADIN85020 · #8 09-23-2022, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LVSteve

I would take issue with the awkward handling and balance comments you are quoting. I wonder how much of it is not so much that the weapon is "awkward", but that it is "different".

While I haven't handled an L85 personally, some RAF friends of mine were trained on it in the early 90s and loved it, handling wise. They liked how the weight sat back on their shoulders, a revelation after the ridiculously nose heavy FAL, or SLR (Stupid Long Rifle) as it was often know in British service. My buddies said they could shoot accurately in the standing position, something that was not happening with the SLR unless you were 6' 2" and a gym rat. As a wimpy owner of a FAL and a bullpup FS2000, I can relate to that.

Sadly, one had malfunctions as the guns they were using were the early variants. Apparently the sheet metal cover had got dinged and it was enough to drag on the action and cause stoppages. But when they worked, they said the L85 was easy to shoot accurately. One of my friends had been in long enough that he initially trained with an Enfield No4. He ranked the rifles during his time like this:

Enfield: if you can see it, you can kill it.
SLR: Front heavy, inferior sights compared to the Enfield, most barn doors went unscathed.
L85: So easy to shoot with the SUSAT...when it didn't jam.

Some may find the comments on the SLR harsh, but two former RAF guys I've known who qualified Marksmen with the Enfield said that the standard issue SLR was an inaccurate waste of space. Makes me wonder about the 7.62 NATO ammo they were using, but I guess we will never know this far out.

Steve, I guess we'll have to disagree. I own a FAL and consider it ergonomic, accurate, and instinctive to operate. I have handled and shot bullpups and find them ill-balanced and way less instinctive in handling and manual controls. I really pitied the British soldiers at Her Majesty's funeral as they twisted and groped to get their L85s positioned for Reverse Arms. I don't think I could walk a block in that manner. I can manipulate a FAL blindfolded. Read my description of the placement of the controls on an L85 - that arrangement is a nightmare and awkward; I do not envy left-handed English servicemen.

I grant that this issue is personal preference. I call'em as I see 'em, and so do you. May God bless.

John

Engine49guy · #9 09-23-2022, 04:34 PM

Very informative thread,
I remember first seeing the L85 and mostly wanting one because we couldn't have them.

I bought a Colt SP1 in 1980 and a Sterling made AR180 around 1984, the AR180 was an interesting rifle to compare but IMO needed way more development.
One day I saw a disassembled L85 and a light bulb went off...Hey the guts of that rifle are all AR180 !?! Makes sense since Sterling had the rights to produce the AR180.

I've seen a few videos on the L85 development and like the M16 it had a rocky start, of course there is no problem you can't overcome if you throw enough money at it...
I've always thought the Brits would have been better off if they just adopted the FN - FNC or heaven forbid the M16A2 since we spent so much time and money perfecting it by then....
IIRC the French had adopted their FAMAS and Australia had adopted the Steyr Aug about that time both being bizarre future looking bullpups.
Perhaps the Brits wanted to stay in Euro fashion with their own bullpup.
On a side note it is interesting our Canadian neighbors went with an M16A2 variant instead of the L85 although they wisely decided to keep the M16A1 rear site instead of the clunky complex adjustable target site specified by the Marine corps.

Catwrangler · #10 09-23-2022, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarmore

I think Bullpups are a cool design aesthetically, but those poor lefties!

As a southpaw the Bullpup offers No appeal. Having hot brass ejected into your ear offers No fascination for me.

bigwheelzip · #11 09-23-2022, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catwrangler

As a southpaw the Bullpup offers No appeal. Having hot brass ejected into your ear offers No fascination for me.

The Tavor 7 design makes swapping sides for ejecting and charging handle a toolless affair, requiring just a few minutes. Mag release and safety are ambi.

Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk

PALADIN85020 · #12 09-23-2022, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigwheelzip

The Tavor 7 design makes swapping sides for ejecting and charging handle a toolless affair, requiring just a few minutes. Mag release and safety are ambi.

The Steyr AUG has a similar arrangement and can accommodate the lefties.

Unfortunately, the L85 has always been a right-handed design - the official position of the British military on this is "Learn to shoot right-handed. That will take care of the problem." Awkward.

John

erikpolcrack · #13 09-24-2022, 10:27 AM

How is even a right-handed infantryman supposed to survive under fire while clearing or covering around a right-turn street corner or hallway with a rifle that cannot be fired left-handed?

LVSteve · #14 09-24-2022, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by erikpolcrack

How is even a right-handed infantryman supposed to survive under fire while clearing or covering around a right-turn street corner or hallway with a rifle that cannot be fired left-handed?

I suspect you can fire the L85 leftie if you don't mind the odd round hitting your right arm. I would surmise that the ejection pattern is about the 2 o'clock position. Watch a number of the Forgotten Weapons videos of bullpups. I don't recall one that ejected backwards. Is it comfortable to shoot leftie? Probably not, so the British Army declared it a right-only gun and left it at that.

smoothshooter · #15 09-24-2022, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LVSteve

I would take issue with the awkward handling and balance comments you are quoting. I wonder how much of it is not so much that the weapon is "awkward", but that it is "different".

While I haven't handled an L85 personally, some RAF friends of mine were trained on it in the early 90s and loved it, handling wise. They liked how the weight sat back on their shoulders, a revelation after the ridiculously nose heavy FAL, or SLR (Stupid Long Rifle) as it was often know in British service. My buddies said they could shoot accurately in the standing position, something that was not happening with the SLR unless you were 6' 2" and a gym rat. As a wimpy owner of a FAL and a bullpup FS2000, I can relate to that.

Sadly, one had malfunctions as the guns they were using were the early variants. Apparently the sheet metal cover had got dinged and it was enough to drag on the action and cause stoppages. But when they worked, they said the L85 was easy to shoot accurately. One of my friends had been in long enough that he initially trained with an Enfield No4. He ranked the rifles during his time like this:

Enfield: if you can see it, you can kill it.
SLR: Front heavy, inferior sights compared to the Enfield, most barn doors went unscathed.
L85: So easy to shoot with the SUSAT...when it didn't jam.

Some may find the comments on the SLR harsh, but two former RAF guys I've known who qualified Marksmen with the Enfield said that the standard issue SLR was an inaccurate waste of space. Makes me wonder about the 7.62 NATO ammo they were using, but I guess we will never know this far out.

“ Marksman “ is usually the lowest rating in shooting qualification.

smoothshooter · #16 09-24-2022, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarmore

I think Bullpups are a cool design aesthetically, but those poor lefties!

That type of gun has all the balance and esthetics of a bumper jack.
Doesn’t matter a lot anyway; the British military is rapidly becoming irrelevant because of underfunding and political correctness indoctrination.
The same goals some of our leaders and bureaucrats have for ours.

No one does pomp and ceremony better than the Brits.
Too bad their ability to do what armies are really meant to do has has all but disappeared, except for some of their special operations units.

LVSteve · #17 09-24-2022, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothshooter

“ Marksman “ is usually the lowest rating in shooting qualification.

I'm working from long memories, and the RAF rating system may be different to what we have here.

Sub sailor · #18 09-25-2022, 05:59 PM

When I saw a few bits of the Queen’s funeral, I wondered what type of rifles the military personnel were carrying…I couldn’t figure it out. Thanks for your description of the gun! That is the very thing that I wanted to know!

ppeeks · #19 09-25-2022, 07:19 PM

I've read that so many changes were made by H&K that there are not a lot of L85A2 components that are interchangeable with L85A1 parts. It was basically a constrained muzzle-to-buttplate redesign. Imagine a new service rifle so poorly executed that even after H&K redesigned it and produced a very good rifle in the L85A2, servicemen still complain about it because it looks like the L85A1.

LVSteve · #20 09-25-2022, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ppeeks

I've read that so many changes were made by H&K that there are not a lot of L85A2 components that are interchangeable with L85A1 parts. It was basically a constrained muzzle-to-buttplate redesign. Imagine a new service rifle so poorly executed that even after H&K redesigned it and produced a very good rifle in the L85A2, servicemen still complain about it because it looks like the L85A1.

Sorta like the company that was around a while back, "Jags that Run" (JTR). They used to put Chevy 5.7 V8s or GM Series II 3.8 V6 motors in XJs in the late 90s. No doubt the owners still got sneers for owning an unreliable car with a hand grenade for a motor.

BLACKHAWKNJ · #21 09-25-2022, 08:50 PM

I wonder if they adopted the L85 because it was their first native design in over a century. The Martini-Henry was largely adopted from the Peabody-an American design, the Lee-Metford and Lee-Enfield were designed by James Parris Lee, UK born but spent most of his years in the US, the SLR was based on the FAL designed by Dieudonne Saive-a Belgian. Military weaponry has its fads and fashions, right now bull pups are "in".

LVSteve · #22 09-25-2022, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BLACKHAWKNJ

I wonder if they adopted the L85 because it was their first native design in over a century. The Martini-Henry was largely adopted from the Peabody-an American design, the Lee-Metford and Lee-Enfield were designed by James Parris Lee, UK born but spent most of his years in the US, the SLR was based on the FAL designed by Dieudonne Saive-a Belgian. Military weaponry has its fads and fashions, right now bull pups are "in".

Bullpups are in because you can get a proper length barrel in a package small enough to be carried easily in the back of an APC. A longer gun of conventional design means that either the soldier leans it across the guy next to him, or you build a bigger APC, making the APC more of a target. Plan B involves a conventional rifle with a barrel that may be less than ideal for ballistics. I think we've been there already.

smoothshooter · #23 09-25-2022, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LVSteve

Bullpups are in because you can get a proper length barrel in a package small enough to be carried easily in the back of an APC. A longer gun of conventional design means that either the soldier leans it across the guy next to him, or you build a bigger APC, making the APC more of a target. Plan B involves a conventional rifle with a barrel that may be less than ideal for ballistics. I think we've been there already.

I don’t think the crowded space inside of a fully loaded APC is something that shorter rifles helps with much. The oversized backpacks are the real space eaters.
If it was that big of a problem, armies would use smaller soldiers like the Russians did in WWII and later for their T34 tank crews.

wood714 · #24 09-25-2022, 11:17 PM

Never warmed up to the bullpups.

Shot a friends 12 gauge bullpup pump, and it didn't do anything for me.

PALADIN85020 · #25 09-26-2022, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wood714

Never warmed up to the bullpups.

Shot a friends 12 gauge bullpup pump, and it didn't do anything for me.

I confess to owning only one bullpup, this High Standard Model 10B. a 12-gauge kicker from 1973. While it can be fired one-handed from the crook of an arm, be prepared to go to the hospital after firing it. I'm not much of fan, and acquired it only for its historical oddity.

John

(click for larger picture)