Evening all, I was chatting to someone today who said that HK had manufactured a batch of new replacement receivers for the L85A2.
I would have thought that with the small size of the Army now, there would be an excess of stored L85A2's to bring up to current standard and issue without having to back engineer new receivers (with the associated expense) for worn out rifles.
If this is the case, it would seem to confirm the MOD intend to invest in and retain the L85A2 in service for a good while yet.
Information
Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.
It depends on what YOU call receivers. Is that the upper receiver that is maintained for normal replacement? Or do you mean the lower trigger mech housing that isn't made for normal maintenance purposes? I don't know the answer officially of course but it all makes sense to me. There were xxx,xxx rifles made for an army of 120,000 at the time PLUS the Navy and RAF since 1986, 30 years don't forget. There have been a few wars and general fair wear and tear since '86 taking the numbers down considerably. So to maintain the was reserve stock it seems sensible to keep stockpiles up. And if that means building more rifles then so be it.
I don't know what you have heard about the L85A2 rifle. While most of the slagging-off of the A1 was justified - within the bounds of sensibility, there are/have been little to complain about with the A2 rifle.
So, 320,000 ish A1's produced, (200,000 rebuilt to A2 spec, unless more have subsequently been contacted for?? ) and as you quite rightly say, taking 30 years of hard service into account, that must have reduced the count somewhat.
The guy did tell me that the new manufacture receivers are marked A3 to differentiate the production differences apparently. Not something I have heard of, but it seems plausible enough.
I suppose with a company like HK to support and manufacture replacement Receivers, TMH's, barrels etc the A2 could remain in service for many years yet ... I wonder if HK will embark on a modern day FTR program for the A2 at some point. After all, its been quite a while (and a few long wars) since the A2 was introduced.
No point replacing the rifle until a new NATO calibre has been selected, some point after 2025 would be my guess.
John, Peter beat me to it, but would say come 2025 we will be getting something different...... And possibly similar to what we should of got in the late 80's
I wonder if we will see a calibre shift by then, I suppose its up to the Americans to make that decision and we all follow along. There are some hugely promising new designs out there, including a few very interesting bull-pubs, the Desert Tech MDR for instance, with its easy change calibres seems to me to offer enormous development potential and would seem a natural fit for a military used to the bull pup concept.
All flight of fancy stuff I am sure, but I would love to see licence manufacture here in the UK too.
It's hard to say, everyone in and outside the industry wants to tout their pet caliber as the new "wonder drug" for service ammunition, however as retired player in the field so to speak, I have some observations.
1. Any standard infantry caliber must be easily fed by both box magazines and linked belts, the day the LMG regresses to 30 round box magazines is the day the gunner becomes ineffective.
2. Ballistic penetration, the proliferation of first rate trauma plate based armour has rendered most sub-.50 cal small-arms less, to completely ineffective regardless of contact distance. Has everyone seen the plated armour provided to the local armies in Iraq and Afghanistan? If that equipment is in their hands, it is readily available to the "bad guys" as well. It was sporadically seen in the field a decade ago, we will see more of it as conflict progresses. Ceramic based armour offers single and in my observation, sometimes multi-strike protection, and the stuff works even against the touted .30 caliber battle rifle rounds. Depending on placement, being shot can basically be an irritation, compared to the life ender it was in conflicts past.
This video is a good representation:
The world has seen a number of combat calibers since the end of WW2, and with the standardized use of of 5.56mm and 7.62 NATO for over 60 years, adoption of a new caliber would have to offer a vast performance improvement to bother to rework the entire system. Looking at the Warsaw countries, they did the same, 7.62x54R held for over 100 years, and 7.62x39mm replaced with 5.45x39mm after 30 years, military cartridge development has somewhat hit a plateau, and is largely good enough.
I liken the whole affair to suggesting that all military vehicles should not run on Diesel any longer (to simplify) but should all be switched run on corn based alcohols because it offers better cold starting characteristics. While the alcohol may offer better cold start, that alone is not enough benefit to launch a NATO wide shift in fuel use.
- Darren 1 PL West Nova Scotia Regiment 2000-2003
1 BN Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry 2003-2013
Wise words again from Sentryduty and Big Duke. But to be honest, the L85A2 was as good as anything else. I was there during the late UK trials and for the first of the 'new A2 rifles coming in. Very little to complain about. You can add stuff until the cows come home but under the skin it was good with little to say against it. I don't feel that I am permitted to say other things.
I've not heard of an A3 variant and I don't see why they would need to increment the model number because of new production. I suspect it's the bodies that are being new made but these have been in production for quite a while. When I worked in the armoury we probably changed 1 or 2 a month because of squashed sides or the locking pin hole was so elongated the ring fell out. I issued out about 370 over the last week and all were pretty tidy. 1 or 2 were looking a little tired but only cosmetically. The biggest problem we have tends to be misuse by the troops, kicking one across the floor to move it because your to lazy to pick it up is disrespectful. That individual will think twice before doing it again!!
Thanks for your insight into this Britplumber, I thought a change in model number seemed plausable, but perhaps slightly odd unless there were significant production differences. Interested to know who manufactures the new bodies, I assume it's HK??
PM
Originally Posted by mrclark303
