SA80
The SA80 is a British family of 5.56×45mm NATO service weapons used by the British Army. The L85 Rifle variant has been the standard issue service rifle of the British Armed Forces since 1987, replacing the L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle. The prototypes were created in 1976, with production of the A1 variant starting in 1985 and ending in 1994. The A2 variant came to be as the result of a significant upgrade in the early 2000s by Heckler & Koch and remains in service as of 2025. The A3 variant was first issued in 2018 with several new improvements.
The remainder of the SA80 family consists of the L86 Light Support Weapon, the short-barrelled L22 Carbine and the L98 Cadet rifle.
The SA80 was the last in a long line of British weapons to come from the Royal Small Arms Factory, the national arms development and production facility at Enfield Lock, before its weapons factory was closed down in 1988.
Development
Post-war intermediate weapon development
The idea dates back to the late 1940s, when an ambitious programme to develop a new cartridge and new class of rifle was launched in the United Kingdom based on combat experience drawn from World War II. Two 7mm prototypes were built in a bullpup configuration, designated the EM-1 and EM-2. The latter was brought into service briefly as "Rifle, Automatic, Calibre.280, Number 9". When NATO standardised on the 7.62mm rifle cartridge as the standard calibre for its service rifles, further development of these rifles was discontinued and the British Army adopted the 7.62 mm L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle semi-automatic rifle, a licence-built version of the Belgian FN FAL.1960s – 1970s: 4.85×49mm, XL64, XL65, XL68
In 1969, the Enfield factory began work on a brand new family of weapons, chambered in a newly designed British 4.85×49mm intermediate cartridge. While the experimental weapon family was very different from the EM-2 in internal design and construction methods, its bullpup configuration with an optical sight was a clear influence on the design of what was to become the SA80. The system was to be composed of two weapons: the XL64E5 rifle and a light support weapon known as the XL65E4 light machine gun.The sheet metal construction and the design of the bolt, bolt carrier, guide rods and the weapon's disassembly showed strong similarities to the Armalite AR-18 which was manufactured under licence from 1975 to 1983 by the Sterling Armaments Company of Dagenham, Essex, and which had been tested by the British Ministry of Defence in 1966 and 1969.
During the development of the SA80, a bullpup conversion was made of an AR-18 and a Stoner 63 at Enfield due to the fact they could be used with stocks folded/without stocks which allowed the bullpup conversion and were later chambered in the experimental 4.85x49mm round. A bullpup conversion of the AR-15 was previously considered but the buffer tube in stock prevented the idea from reaching fruition.
Technically, in the mid-1970s, the 4.85×49mm round was seen as superior to the then existing version of 5.56mm M193 round in use by the US and by other forces. This was the expressed view of trials team members whilst demonstrating the XL64E5 prototype at the British Army School of Infantry at Warminster. Development of small-arms munitions have a long and continuous life and it was estimated by the trials specialists from Enfield that this weapon would ultimately be superior in the 4.85mm configuration. For the 4.85mm round, both propellant and projectile were at the beginning of their respective development curves. Weight for weight, more rounds of ammunition could be carried by an individual soldier – a considerable advantage on the battlefield.
It was regarded as probable at the time that the argument for the 5.56mm standard within NATO had more to do with the economics involved. Over the lifetime of a small-arms weapon type, far more money is spent on the munitions than the weapons themselves. If the 5.56mm supporters had lost the argument in favour of a British 4.85mm round, the economic impact would have been very large, and political pressure undoubtedly played a part in the final decision. In 1976, the prototypes were ready to undergo trials.
1970s – 1980s: 5.56×45mm, XL70, XL73, XL78
After NATO's decision to standardise ammunition among its members, Enfield engineers re-chambered the rifles to the American 5.56×45mm NATO M193 cartridge. The newly redesigned 5.56mm version of the XL64E5 became known as the XL70E3. The left-handed XL68 was also re-chambered in 5.56×45mm as the XL78. The 5.56mm light support weapon variant, the XL73E3, developed from the XL65E4, was noted for the full-length receiver extension with the bipod under the muzzle now indicative of the type.1980s, 5.56×45mm, XL85, XL86
Further development out of the initial so-called "Phase A" pre-production series led to the XL85 and XL86. While the XL85E1 and XL86E1 were ultimately adopted as the L85 and L86 respectively, a number of additional test models were produced. The XL85E2 and XL86E2 were designed to an alternate build standard with 12 components different from E1 variants, including parts of the gas system, bolt, and magazine catch. Three series of variants were created for "Environmental User Trials". XL85E3 and XL86E3 variants were developed with 24 modified parts, most notably a plastic safety plunger. The E4's had 21 modified parts, no modification to the pistol grip, and an aluminium safety plunger, unlike the E3 variants. Lastly, the E5 variants had 9 modified parts in addition to those from the E3/E4 variants.SA80 development was complicated from the start. One complication was at least three project staffing changes at the Royal Small Arms Factory, which resulted in repetitive testing. One problem with the design of the gun itself was that the cases would be ejected at constantly varying angles as it heated up and the rate of fire changed, resulting in a large ejection port. The conversion from 4.85mm to 5.56mm also caused a complication, as the rate of fire dropped but the pressure and time curve of the rounds were different. The 4.85mm round was based on the 5.56mm case in anticipation of the need to convert calibres. The barrel was changed easily, but the gas ports were much larger. Pressure problems had less of an effect on the LSW due to its longer barrel.
Production
Accepted into service: 5.56×45mm, L85A1, L86A1, L98A1
After receiving feedback from users and incorporating the various design changes requested, including adapting the rifle for use with the heavier Belgian SS109 version of the 5.56×45mm round and improving reliability, the weapon system was accepted into service with the British Armed Forces in 1985 as the SA80. The SA80 family originally consisted of the L85A1 Rifle, the L86A1 Light Support Weapon, and L98A1 Cadet GP Rifle. The first weapons were issued in October 1985.The SA80 family was designed and produced by the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield Lock. In 1988, production of the rifle was transferred to the Nottingham Small Arms Facility owned by Royal Ordnance, the site was previously known as ROF Nottingham. It was envisaged that the family would replace the L1A1 SLR, the L2A3 submachine gun, the L4 Light Machine Gun, and the L7A2 General Purpose Machine Gun as used at section level. Regular infantry, Royal Marine units, and the RAF Regiment were to change over by 1987, remaining regular army units by 1990, remaining RAF units by 1991, Territorial Army units by 1991–1993, and the Royal Navy by 1993.
The introduction of the new rifle necessitated a change to the arms drill, since it was too short to rest the butt on the ground when at the "Stand at Ease" and "Stand Easy" positions. The "Slope Arms" was re-introduced to replace "Shoulder Arms", with frequent "Change Arms" orders required because of the weight of the weapon. The SA80 first appeared at the annual Trooping the Colour ceremony in June 1988.
In 1994, production was officially completed. More than 350,000 L85 rifles and L86 LSWs had been manufactured for the British Armed Forces, with the former variant accounting for 95% of the total run, with over 21,700 L98A1 rifles were produced for cadet use. The production line was broken up shortly afterwards, with the Nottingham facility closing in 2001. Upgrade programmes and requirements for spare and replacement parts have since been fulfilled by then British-owned Heckler & Koch, which later reopened the Nottingham site.
As responsibility for the funding and supply of the home defence regiments of the British Overseas Territories has been handed to the local governments of the territories, despite the regiments themselves coming under command of the national government and being loosely integrated with the British Army, the SA80 was not automatically supplied to these units. The Bermuda Regiment adopted the Ruger Mini-14 in 1983, although small stocks of the L85 were also acquired for the purpose of familiarisation training as many of its personnel attend courses or attachments in Britain. The Regiment later acquired an additional 400 L85A2 rifles in 2015 to replace the Mini-14 as the standard-issue rifle.
The Royal Gibraltar Regiment, which is more closely integrated with the British Army, adopted the SA80 from the outset. The Falkland Islands Defence Force adopted the Steyr AUG which served until 2019 when the Defence Force adopted the L85A2 as part of a wider effort to align its weapons, training and procedures with those of the British Armed Forces.
The L85 is in use with the Jamaica Defence Force. Various African and South American countries received SA80s as part of wider military aid packages.
Design flaws
Soon after being adopted for service, problems began to surface during troop trials held between 1986 and 1987. Components were found to be insufficiently robust, the LSW's bipod lock often failed to hold the bipod legs in closed position, the plastic furniture was melted by insect repellent, metal parts were quick to rust in jungle environments, and the weapon's mechanism was highly susceptible to dusty and arctic environments.These problems were not helped by the production process. The SA80 series was produced from metal stampings. While RSAF Enfield had previous experience in manufacturing stamped-metal firearms, this was only in relation to weapons such as the Sten submachine gun that had relatively loose tolerances. The tighter tolerances required by the SA80 soon led to production delays and high wastage levels. There were also issues with regard to working practices and employee attitudes at the Enfield site, which were exacerbated by its closure in 1988 and resulting redundancies. One worker was recorded as saying that "Having been shafted by BAE and our own management, we thought why the hell should we care if worked or not. All we wanted to do was see the last of the bloody things and leave."
While production at the Nottingham facility was supposed to result in better-quality weapons owing to the use of newer manufacturing methods, few of the staff working there had any experience of firearms manufacture. Only 15 to 20 components were produced in-house, compared to the Enfield site's total of 230, with the rest being outsourced to subcontractors. Since the plant kept low stocks of pre-produced components, significant delays were incurred if subcontracted components were late in arriving at the Nottingham site or did not meet required tolerances.
When the L85A1 and L86A1 were first sent into major combat during the Gulf War, individual performance was far from adequate. The L85A1 proved unreliable in semi-automatic mode, and slightly better in fully automatic mode, while the opposite was true of the L86A1. Specific complaints included: the poor quality plastic furniture fell apart and the gun was damaged easily; the magazine release catch was easily knocked accidentally and dropped the magazine; the catch on the top cover over the gas mechanism was too weak and constantly popped open, so it had to be taped down; only 26–28 rounds could be loaded in a magazine because the springs were weak, something that was also mentioned in training manuals, at least with regard to earlier Colt-produced magazines, and it had to be kept very clean and the lips checked for dents.
The magazine was made from aluminium and would deform if grasped too tightly. During firing, this could choke the flow of rounds and result in a jam; the LSW had a small magazine capacity for its role and overheated after 120–150 rounds fired in bursts; the weapons were difficult to strip and reassemble, with the gas plug easily jamming in place and requiring an armorer to remove; the firing pin was too narrow and would snap; the back of the trigger surface was flat which with snow or dirt accumulating behind it would prevent the trigger from pulling back all the way and firing the gun; and ergonomic issues related to the safety catch, cocking lever, and the location and stiffness of the fire selector switch.
During Operation Palliser and other intervention operations in Sierra Leone, it was discovered that the version of the safety plunger used for production weapons was made from cheap injection-moulded plastic that swelled when wet, potentially rendering weapons inoperative if they had been left on 'safe'. The SA80 initially gained a poor reputation amongst British soldiers as being unreliable and fragile, a fact picked up by the UK media, entertainment industry, and members of the House of Lords. Special Air Service sergeant Chris Ryan regarded the SA80s as being "poor-quality, unreliable weapons at the best of times, prone to stoppages, and it seemed pretty tough to have to rely on them".
Immediately after the Gulf War, the Ministry of Defence commissioned the LANDSET Report, into the effectiveness of the L85A1 and L86A1. This report criticised the acceptance of the weapon into service. Neither weapon had managed to pass the sand trials and both frequently jammed. The mechanism of both weapons needed to be well-lubricated as the weapon became prone to seizure if fired "dry", yet in a sandy environment the lubricated weapon became unreliable due to the lubricant attracting sand into the moving parts. The LANDSET report identified in excess of 50 faults, most notably the magazine release catch, which could easily be caught on clothing and accidentally release the magazine; the plastic safety plunger which became brittle in cold climates; and firing pins that were not up to repeated use, and prone to fracture if used in automatic fire mode.
The report concluded that "It is, however, quite clear that infantrymen did not have CONFIDENCE in their personal weapon. Most expected a stoppage in the first magazine fired. Some platoon commanders considered that casualties would have occurred due to weapon stoppages if the enemy had put up any resistance in the trench and bunker clearing operations. Even discounting the familiarisation period of desert conditions, when some may have still been using the incorrect lubrication drill, stoppages continued to occur."
The report was leaked to the press, at which point the Ministry of Defence claimed that it was fake; while it was later admitted that the report was a genuine document, the MOD continued to downplay its significance, and only seven of the 50 faults identified were addressed by subsequent modifications, meaning that complaints over reliability in service continued. The MOD finally began to take the SA80 family's issues seriously in 1992, but procuring entirely new weapons was considered too expensive.