By Fire and Steel - The History of the British Infantry Weapon: Ep 9 - The SA80 

It’s funny to realise that the British Army seem to be the only army that replaces its standard rifle with a HEAVIER rifle each time, the L85 fully kitted out was heavier than the L1A1 fully kitted out and the L1A1 was heavier than the Lee Enfield No4 that it replaced, maybe one day the MOD will twig to the fact that soldiers might prefer a lighter weapon not a heavier one.

We used to say that the quickest way to field strip an SA80 was to fire it on full auto, Then pick up all the pieces from the floor. Worst service rifle in the history of the British army.

Seldom has such a disastrous gun been so fascinating. The UK needs to adopt the M4 and be done with it.

In the army it was not known as the SA80 it was called the Civil Servant, "because it never worked and couldn't be fired!"

Robbie Williams and David Beckham talking about British service rifles

That bayonet was a completely wank bit of kit. It wouldn’t stay on the rifle, but rather than improve the spring they change the training manual,so you had to take a few seconds out of your charge into the enemy, to check you still had the thing on the end of your rifle. The blades would often snap and the lug on the sheath for wire cutter would just break off. That was 30 years ago and it still makes me very cross.

It has to be said that the British first trialed a bullpup design in the 1950s, using an intermediate cartridge. It was pretty OK too by all accounts, however the Americans insisted on the continued use of the 7.62 round and so it had to be scrapped. Then they later decided that the 5.62 should eventually be used and the rest, as they say, is history. A similar thing is happening now with the smooth bore tank gun, although with a little more merit, to be be fair. The shape of the foregrip very reminiscent of that limited production piece in the foreground, except being made from wood.

The 7.62x51 wasn’t replaced because it has more range! Funny thing, it can hit targets at 200-300m as well! 🤦‍♂️ The reason it was replaced is all other NATO countries were changing to 5.56mm, the round weighs less, is smaller and therefore the magazine is smaller and soldiers can clearly carry more ammo, that’s it! Weirdly, due to getting rid of a weapon system and a round that can reach out to 600+, the Army gulped, as unlike you stated, most engagements are 500+! The LSW was there for that, but had been phased out, so they shat it and then UOR’d in The Sharpshooter/ sniper support weapon and reintroduced GPMGs at section level. Also, the SA80 at section level is effective out to 800m, the range you said the Army wasn’t concerned about! The A2 version that HK overhauled wasn’t made to “have a tighter fit” at all! The parts were/ are/ look exactly the same, they are however strengthened, the recoil spring is stronger, giving the bolt carrier and the bolt a stronger return whilst cycling, preventing the silly stoppages that occurred with the A1. That was the reason the cocking handle was designed to deflect the empty cases, as the return was so quick, the old cocking handle was reported to push the cases back into the ejection opening, not back into the chamber! Why on earth do you have iron sights on the carbine? there is no foresight! Why have a blank magazine on the A1 with no BFA? Which have no mag on the LSW? Why no LDS on the A3 and have the wrong mag on it as well? Book smart, but get it right for f*** sake and have some pride and attention to detail eh, or some soldier or veteran might call you out on social media 😉

Not a mention of the EM Series of Rifles first trialled in the 1950’s. Having fired one of those weapons I can categorically state that it was simple & robust although the smaller round would have been found wanting. A fuller R&D program may have given us a truly advanced weapon ahead of its time. Enfield … not Royal Ordnance or any MoD contractor created the “SA 80” by taking parts of the original Armalite design … this was intended as a cheap, easy to produce export rifle suitable for Forces such as those in smaller Commonwealth Nations. Somehow, somewhere down the line, somebody, in the Defence Procurement Process managed to get the Enfield product into the defence trials cycle. That individual made themselves a very comfortable future upon retirement as Enfield were swallowed up by BaE. Thus the MoD was saddled with an inferior rifle that was never designed or envisaged to become a general issue service battle rifle. The rest … for those of us that used it through its various iterations from the SA 80 through to the A3 variant - is a painful history. These two clowns are knobheads.

One small point, Adam says that the rifle was late into service as SA80 stands for Small Arms 1980 but I believe that in publications I seen at the time it meant Small Arms for the 80's. Funny that at its introduction we were discouraged from calling it the SA80 and had instead to call it the Rifle 556. Now it seems that SA80 is acceptable again. Even though it is an accurate, reliable weapon now it is still (butt) heavy and clunky in my opinion - although I may be biased as I have never been keen on bullpups.

Great overview lads. I've always thought the L22 deserved a bit of iteration as well, that short length but decent enough barrel length should have been a great special purpose gun for commando types.

not a lot of R&D went into making the SA80 L81-1. They pinched the bolt and recoil mechanism from the AR-18. They dropped the good system in the original project.

Just a trivial thought, do the latest variants also serve for parade use or are there the earlier version used instead?

its a bit of a shame they missed one of the family out of this but the L98A1 GP would have been a side note

The long barrel LSW was a very good weapon when used as it should be.

XL65 on the left, has appeared to the general public on TV twice - once in a report on the Malayan operation, and once in the "Professionals" TV series.

The A1 was atrocious, the A2 was better, but still very very very far away from what our allies were issued...a great "Range Plinker" but woeful in combat...still suffered way too many stoppages and the constant cleaning made the tolerances of the working parts and parts that needed to fit snug get loose, resulting in "Dead Mans Rattle"...after 1 tour of Iraq and 3 of Afghan all I wanted was the R4 rifle that I carried in the South African Army years before...the SA80 is nothing more than an example of why we shouldn`t let well to do businessmen and the upper class gentry have anything to do with contracts regarding what a soldier should be issued...an absolute garbage rod of a rifle!

Your A3 feels lighter because it lacks a 0.5kg scope.

Did the sling colours changes as well over time? As when I was in the army they were olive green. I've just go a sa80, sling now and it a darker green to the slings that I remember seeing when I was in the army back in the late 80s , early 90s..?

Does anyone know the actual designation name of the prototype trialed in the 1970's in 4.85mm at 3:10 to 3:40 ?

The Austrians and the French managed to make their bullpup type 5.56 rifles ambidextrous to be fired right- or left-handed and thereby respecting and acknowledging the about 10% of shooters whose dominant eye (and hand / arm) happen to be the left one - the Brits didn't and don't. That's very disappointing and arrogant. I've used both the French FAMAS and the Austrian AUG and like them both. The conservative SA 80 (only saved by Heckler % Koch after its initial poor performance) not so much. I respect my left master eye and my left, experienced trigger finger too much. By the way, your L1.A1 SLR was a formidable battle rifle. I've used a couple of them too extensively. (Ex Norwegian Infantry)

...Know mention that certain units now, are going over to m4s 🤔🤷?... "In September 2023, the British Armed Forces selected the KS-1 rifle under Project Hunter to replace the L85A2-A3 and L119A1-A2 rifles used by the British Army Special Operations Brigade and elements of the Royal Marines including strike companies and the Surveillance and Reconnaissance Squadron".

A cosmetic facelift does not a good weapon make. The A2 I took to Afghan jammed after the 3rd round when zeroing it on the range days before I deployed. ZERO confidence. Awful. M4 or AK platform all the way.....

Whose the bloke whose dressed as if he’s going to a works doo at all bar one and holds a rifle like Noel Gallagher holds his guitar.

little bit of muzzling going on there. I'm a bit surprised.

Hated it from the get go, As heavy as an SLR but far less effective or as reliable, not as handy as an SMG. The L85A1 was supposed to be a full bullpup system, SHORTER and LIGHTER using an intermediate cartridge. It was dreadful and delicate.

Sure sure Right right Yeah yeah Man's losing the will to live right there

What's the title music from/called?

After my time, i would have been horrified to swap out the LMG for the L86......no. just no.

What I don't understand about the sa80 is the British have been making good rifles since they were invented. How come they made a pile of crap like the ss80?

SA is a Insult to All Whom Carried The SLR I Know what My Choice would be..

4.85 was trialed in the 50s. Not 70s.

❤😂always. Show. Weapon. Safe. Every. Time . SET THE. STANDARD FOR 🤫🇬🇧🌏🇬🇧🤫

the SAR-87 was better.

the worst battle rifle the british army ever gave us, all i wanted was to throw the thing in the bin and get my SLR BACK

I can't watch this any more. The man on the left keeps making smacking noises with his mouth like he's chewing a toffee. Very off-putting.

Just the worst looking rifle ever seen in mass production....i would hate to have to soldier with that tupperware rifle....

A load of pressed steel and plastic crap.

SA80 utter crap.

Speak the truth not when. I,m ur 🇬🇧boss. Vickers. Bae. Or. Lose ur wages 😊