The L84A1, A2 and A3 Assault rifle - "The Last Enfield"

In 1980 the Canadian arms company Diemaco (part of the Héroux-Devtek Inc group based in Quebec, Canada) in a then very contentious move purchased the Royal Small Arms Factory (RSAF) in Enfield Lock, London.

Part of the sales pitch had been the on going development of the XL series of bullpup rifles that were due to replace the L1A1 SLR rifle in British service

However, it became apparent fairly quickly to the Diemaco engineers and managers that the development of this rifle had hit some issues with the design and the problems with workforce retention at the Enfield site had not helped the project.

Nor had the very public legal case by Sterling arms who had accused the government of basically stealing their AR180 design for the internals of the rifle without purchasing a licence (they somewhat contentiously lost the case but it did much to hurt the project).

Having initially intended to build the XL bullpup rifle Diemaco instead suggested that the MOD abandon the design and instead jump in with their project for a quality M16 Clone - based on the US M16A1E1.
XL85.jpg

The final Enfield XL design when abandoned


Despite initial resistance from MOD elements wedded to the design and some nationalist dick waving in the gutter press this suggestion was eventually adopted and the decision to adopt a version of the C7A1 was agreed in mid 1982

The L84A1 differed from the Canadian weapon in that it mounted a modernised version of the SUIT sight called the SUSAT a x4 sight or the KITE night vision sight

The First L84A1s were produced in 1984 and over the next 18 months were trailed by 'Four-Two' Commando and the 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards before being rolled out across the rest of the army starting with 3rd Commando Brigade, the Guards Brigade and the Parachute Regiment

Initial production was carried out at the Enfield lock site but a new 'Small Arms Facility' with modern tooling on the South Shop site of the Royal Ordnance Factory (ROF) Nottingham was built specifically to produce the majority of the weapons.

The 32,000 odd L84A1s made at the site before its closure were known as 'The last Enfields' with the last example made now on display at the Royal Armoury's Museum Collection at Leeds

While initially well received a number of issues were identified, particularly with the initial choice of 'cheap' STANAG type magazines built by Radwell Green, some internal components, such as the choice of safety catch that was unreliable in hot and jungle like conditions in that while selected on SAFE it could become stuck rendering the weapon unusable (leading to unsafe practices being used as a result).

The safety's were replaced with a better made safety but a suitable magazine eluded the weapon until the L84A2 was developed in the early noughties and HK made magazines were purchased to replace the entire stock of Radway Green magazines in the late 90s. While heavier the HK mags largely eliminated the major cause of magazine related malfunctions.

The SUSAT while providing a x4 sight across the Infantry and vastly improving accuracy was found to also perform badly in hot and damp conditions and in the decade following the 1991 Gulf war efforts were made to improve and then replace the now dated sight

The result was that the C79 ELCAN sight as used by the Canadian military on their C7s was purchased and gradually replaced the SUSAT site across the estate

Initially there was no plans to make a copy of the C8A1 carbine version of the gun but several thousand were bought for various purposes

During the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan the length of the L84A1 was brought into question and while there had been plans to modernise the 'estate' to the same standards as the C7A2 it was instead decided to modify them to the C8A2 standard

As part of this change with over 150,000 rifles rebuilt with the shorter 14.5" barrels, ELCAN x4 sight with the Shield CQB reflex sight. Over 1 million MAGPUL 'EMAG' magazines were purchased as these were deemed as reliable as the heavy HK magazines but half the weight.

Every L84A2 weapon was supplied with an HK 320 40mm grenade launcher - with each weapon equipped with its own stock and capable of being used mounted to the rifle or used separately (for example for crowd control scenarios) but in practice only one or 2 soldiers in each section would be equipped the rest of the weapons retained in the armoury

In the last ten years a number of the L84A2s were further modified to A3 'SF' standard with even shorter 11.6" barrel and this version has been very well received and it is planned to modify a large number of the existing estate of A2s to this standard over the

(Imagine a nice picture of a L119A2 SFW aka 'L84A3' gun right here that isn't the wrong size or format unlike every attempt I made to actually upload one this afternoon!)

L84A3

The L84A2 and A3 weapons are expected to serve on into the late 2020s before being replaced.
 
Did not the SAS spec out a Diemaco rifle just for themselves? It was different than what the C7 and C8 were. I do love your premise though. The Americans, M16 lovers, rave about the Diemacos so they can not be that bad.
 

Deleted member 94680

Did not the SAS spec out a Diemaco rifle just for themselves? It was different than what the C7 and C8 were.
The British SF L119 is the C8SFW.
I do love your premise though. The Americans, M16 lovers, rave about the Diemacos so they can not be that bad.
They’re lighter than L85s, I know that much. But then again, practically every 5.56 assault rifle is.
 
The British SF L119 is the C8SFW.

They’re lighter than L85s, I know that much. But then again, practically every 5.56 assault rifle is.
Yes correct - the SFW with sight and grip pod and a mag is about 3.5 kilos. L85A1 is about 5 kilos (although that does come with a 20" barrel)

Well it'd be better than the SA80, but then being worse would take a fair degree of effort and dedication.
I was not exactly leaping out of Helicopters or crawling through the mud with one but it always went bang when I used it on the range and the latest ones do appear to be better

But yes - they could have done a lot better - perhaps not spending nearly 20 years fixing it - hell hiring Sterling and just licence building the AR 180 would have been an improvement over the A1

Did not the SAS spec out a Diemaco rifle just for themselves? It was different than what the C7 and C8 were. I do love your premise though. The Americans, M16 lovers, rave about the Diemacos so they can not be that bad.

I keep reading that the Royal Marines are going to ditch the L85a2 and go completely L119A2 SFW
 
The bullpup’s predecessor became due for replacement as they were simply being worn out as well as updating to the new NATO ammunition. By now this is affecting their replacement too. The Enfield site was too valuable land not to sell and Sterling could have made AR180s for MoD in a new site in a development area with existing support funding then the OP matters would not arise.
 
Well it'd be better than the SA80, but then being worse would take a fair degree of effort and dedication.

The L85 is significantly more reliable than the M4 or the M16 and one of the most accurate mass issue weapons in current service. There's not a massive amount wrong with it, even in the A1 version (which could have been improved but was never quite as bad as it was made out to be).
 
The L85 is significantly more reliable than the M4 or the M16 and one of the most accurate mass issue weapons in current service. There's not a massive amount wrong with it, even in the A1 version (which could have been improved but was never quite as bad as it was made out to be).
Having fired it, the L85A1 that is (along with the M16A1, the AUG and others) I'd disagree utterly with your claim. It was a shoddy, poorly manufactured piece of junk with a vast range of flaws and faults; magazines, magazine release, sights (iron and SUIT/SUSAT), bayonet, safety plunger, furniture and many, many more.
 
Having fired it, the L85A1 that is (along with the M16A1, the AUG and others) I'd disagree utterly with your claim. It was a shoddy, poorly manufactured piece of junk with a vast range of flaws and faults; magazines, magazine release, sights (iron and SUIT/SUSAT), bayonet, safety plunger, furniture and many, many more.
The early A1s were certainly as you say 'junk' but a lot of the issues were addressed and the later Nottingham ROF made ones were a lot better and of course the estate was upgraded throughout the life time of the A1

So not all A1s are equal

Remember that M16s gained a horrible reputation when they were first issued in the 60s

But lets not turn this into an L85A1 bashing thread - let bask instead in the glory of the L84A1 series of quality M16 clones that they instead had in a parallel universe
 
Top