L1A1 in the Twilight War

[Jason Weiser]

A question to our UK readers?
I know officially, the L1A1 was history by '94 (or so Wiki tells us), but what are the chances that late mobilizing TA battalions (or some TA battalions in general, especially the Saxon equipped units) might have still soldiered on with the L1A1, or had L1A1s issued throughout to replace lost L85s?

[Rainbow Six]

I would be surprised if there weren't significant numbers of SLR's kept in storage at least to the end of the 90's, so whilst I don't have any concrete evidence to support this, in my opinion chances of some units still having L1A1's in the Twilight War would be high. Maybe not so much in TA Infantry Battalions, which I would imagine might have fully switched to the L85 but certainly in non Infantry units, both TA and Regular, particularly those in the UK.

[CDAT]

As I am American I can not say about that specific rifle, but can say that when I joined the US Army in 1993 official the M9 had replaced the M1911 in 1985 and had been sent to all units, my first unit still had the M1911, weither by oversight, the unit draging its feet or what I can not say but it was almost ten years after every Army unit had the M9 before we got it. So I would say it is very possable for some to be left, even have a unit that had some in there arms room or what ever they call it.

The second thought that I had is that the L1A1 is the UK counterpart to the US M14, all M14's were pulled from general service but most were placed in storage and have been brought out for Afganistan. I could see the UK doing the same as they are at least (if not more) intelligent as the US Politicians.

[Raellus]

Considering the RL teething troubles of the early production L85s, especially given the v1.0 timeline, I can imagine that the SLR would have had quite a resurgence during WWIII.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Although this is what I saw in the Australian Army when they replaced our L1A1 SLRs with the F88 Austeyr, I could see a similar occurrence in the British Army.
Here, the F88 was accepted for service in 1988 with most of the early issue going to Regular Army Infantry regiments. Non-Infantry units and some Reserve units only started to receive the F88 in the early 1990s with widespread distribution being achieved by the mid-1990s.

In this case, the obsolete rifle took about 6 years to be completely replaced in service and keep in mind the Australian Army was small, around the 40,000 mark for total personnel (both Regular and Reserve).
The British Army appears to have taken about 8 years to effect their changeover because even though their priority would have been much higher due to NATO commitments, they had about 6-8 times the number of battalions that the Aussie Army had.

So with that said, even if the last batch of SLRs were phased out of British service in 1994, they would still be in the system for some time due to two reasons in particular: -
1. it takes some time to dispose of tens of thousands of items particularly when it comes to military weapons!
2. a decent stockpile would have been held as war reserves for several years
So if the Twilight War starts up in the mid-90s, I can image the SLR would be available to the British military in substantial numbers.

[pmulcahy11b]

As I am American I can not say about that specific rifle, but can say that when I joined the US Army in 1993 official the M9 had replaced the M1911 in 1985 and had been sent to all units, my first unit still had the M1911, weither by oversight, the unit draging its feet or what I can not say but it was almost ten years after every Army unit had the M9 before we got it. So I would say it is very possable for some to be left, even have a unit that had some in there arms room or what ever they call it.

We had a similar experience with weapons when I was in. The first unit, 2/7 INF, had M1911s and M16A2s. In Korea, we had M9s, but a mix of M16A2s and M16A1s with A2 handguards. Later, when I got to the 82nd, we had M1911s and M16A2s (later replaced with M4s).

What really surprised me was the lack of SINGCARS when I first got to the 82nd. I thought that (after SOCOM-types) the 82nd got the best stuff first.

[Ironside]

There were L1A1s kept in storage but there was a large fire in 1983 at the Central Ordnance Depot at Donnington in Shropshire, and the majority of the L1A1 spare parts were destroyed. :eek:

This seems to have speeded up the deployment of the SA80.

There was another fire there in 1988!

[rcaf_777]

I found out that Canada had it stock plié up till 2002

[dude_uk]

Yes and no. Its dependant on a lot of factors. Cutting it short,You would not see the SA80 being handled by units outside the UK. I would expect war production to mount up and for a brief period the vast amount of kit would be the last created, (So Challenger 2's instead of 1, Warrior instead of FV432 etc)

The initial order for the SA80 was for 300,000 rifles (Including LSW's). This was to be completed by 1991. (This is manufactured by, not issued to all units by 1991).However these were to be divided between all 3 services. So what needs to be factored in:

1) Is there a pre-war second round of manufacturing?

2) Is there a wartime round of manufacturing?

Someone on this forum once said that the UK kept large quantities of Lee-Enfields greased up and in storage for a VERY long time. So keeping large quantities of L1A1's and L4's in storage would fit. I would expect them to be issued to hostilities only raised units designed for UK home defence.

I could see the UK doing the same as they are at least (if not more) intelligent as the US Politicians.

We sold our last aircraft carrier!

[.45cultist]

I know a handful of inch kits were imported here, but metric kits buried them. A gentleman I know who carried one in a former UK client had to settle for an IMBEL kit rifle. BTW, he misses the aluminum land rover too! "If we got stuck, everyone got out and picked it up and moved it onto better ground."

[Rainbow Six]

We sold our last aircraft carrier!

Technically we still have an aircraft carrier at the moment (Illustrious, although not for much longer) - it was the aircraft that could fly off her that we got shot of! :)

[mpipes]

I picked up a mismatched L1A1 parts set at some point in the 90s and had it built on a semi inch pattern receiver. Cool thing about it...the butt stock has two kill marks, small 'x', carved in it. A collector I know got a former British issue L1A1 imported from Canada in the late 80s that had seven.

[pmulcahy11b]

Technically we still have an aircraft carrier at the moment (Illustrious, although not for much longer) - it was the aircraft that could fly off her that we got shot of! :)

What do you plan to do with your F-35s? (Bin 'em, I say...)

[Targan]

What do you plan to do with your F-35s? (Bin 'em, I say...)

Ouch. Australia has committed rather a lot of money to the F-35 program. Will the end result be that bad?

[Rainbow Six]

What do you plan to do with your F-35s? (Bin 'em, I say...)

The F35's are slated for the two new Carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, which are currently being built and are scheduled to come into service towards the end of the decade (at the earliest), but there's a lot of speculation that Prince of Wales will go straight into storage / reserve rather than ever see service, potentially leaving the RN with the Queen Elizabeth as the only carrier in service.

Our only carrier currently in service is HMS Illustrious, which flew the Harrier until we got rid of all of our Harriers a couple of years ago, leaving us with an aircaft carrier but no aircraft that could be flown off her, so Illustrious is currently serving as a helicopter carrier while HMS Ocean is in refit and is due to be retired later this year when Ocean's refit is completed, leaving us with no aircraft carrier whatsoever until Queen Elizabeth comes into service.

[Rainbow Six]

Ouch. Australia has committed rather a lot of money to the F-35 program. Will the end result be that bad?

You've just reminded me that the latest edition of Air Forces Monthly has what seems to be quite a detailed article on the current Royal Australian Air Force. Must pick a copy up this week.

[.45cultist]

I just read a story saying the Queen Elizabeth is expected to launch in 2015. Could they be prioritizing her build? The story also said the sailors would have a smart phone app to find their way around, I went :confused:. Granted I'm only an former Air Force Transportation guy, but wouldn't it's crew become familiar with their ship?
Back on topic, I'm inspired to make a former Brit NPC with an L1A1 parts gun now. I've been thinking of a civilian party centering on a small gun club. This would have a mix of careers linked to a useful postwar skillset.

[Rainbow Six]

I just read a story saying the Queen Elizabeth is expected to launch in 2015. Could they be prioritizing her build?

I'm no expert but I think we're both right. The shell of the ship (ie something that wont sink if put in water) will be ready either later this year or next year at the latest. However there is still then several years of work to be done before it begins to resemble a completed ready for service warship. According to wiki timeline is likely to be something like this:

2009 - construction began

July 2014 - ship launched

July 2014 - May 2016 - internal construction completed, with crew ready to come aboard May 2016 (at which point they might need their smartphone app!)

Oct 2016 - sea trials begin

2018 - F35 operations begin

2020 - ship attains "operational military capability"

Construction on the Prince of Wales began in 2011 so logically she should be two years behind the Queen Elizabeth. There was an article in one newspaper that usually knows what it's talking about (not the Daily Mail) a while ago though that said the Navy were informally referring to Prince of Wales as HMS Portsmouth Pier because she would never leave dock.

[.45cultist]

The war rushes fitting the ship and the crew finds a few L1A1's in their locker! And the war renders the smartphones rather dumb..... best of both topics here.:D

[rcaf_777]

Here is what happened to the Canada's FN stockpile

http://forums.navy.ca/forums/index.php?topic=34042.20;wap2

Here is link for those of you who want to know more about Military Service Rifles used by Canada

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/weapons/rifles.htm

[.45cultist]

My response is a COC violation, at least part them up and export what isn't needed for DMR support. Too bad a Canadian citizen can't have one!:mad: The DMR idea will make it into my game though.

[pmulcahy11b]

My impression of the F-35 is that it is a limited aircraft with a limited mission -- primarily penetration of heavy radar and SEAD. (I actually think it would be better to use the F-35 as a Wild Weasel, something that has been discussed in various think tanks and publications like Jane's and Combat Aircraft magazine.) It has a limited ordnance load and not much ability to defend itself -- to me, it comes out looking more like a super-F117 than anything else. And it's way too much money than we have to spend right now -- not much bang for the buck.

Oh well -- at least it's not a Raptor...

[.45cultist]

It sounds like this shiny new tech contributes to the Twilight war premise, it rapidly becomes paperweights and scrap.

[James Langham2]

I'm back with a new user name - I will try and upload a newer version of my UK small arms guide that might be useful as soon as I can.

IRL many SLRs went to places like Sierra Leone (including some that inquiries into Bloody Sunday had been told were destroyed).

Unlike the USA we have not reissued the older rifles but bought a new rifle in 7.62 as a DMR.

[Targan]

Wait, why do you need a new username, James?

[James Langham2]

Wait, why do you need a new username, James?

Forgotten old password and no longer have access to my old e-mail account.

[kato13]

PM me with your old email address and I will update it to your new one.

edit
You can keep posting on the new account until we confirm you have access to the original one. I will merge both into your original account.

[Brother in Arms]

I used to work for the much derided century international arms/ century arms international. And while I didn't work there in the 80's (mid 2000's)
So hopefully I can give ya some history regarding them here in the US. But ill try to only cover the "L1A1 type" rifles.

But I began my gun studying and learning at that time. Throughout most of the 80 and early 90's all saw in the US for FN FAL type rifles were British L1A1's built on mostly metric (IMBEL and FMAP Argentine recievers, and some had Imbel but modified to accept INCH magazines!!)

Most I saw had the black Marynol (spelling?)Furniture though some had wood both British and Austrailian and most had black stoving on them but some were blued. Some later ones had crummy thumb hole stock on them for import purposes and had the flash hiders cut off and the barrels recrowned.

For the most part these early guns while mix masters (jokingly called MINCH for Metric and INCH) but where pretty solid rifles. Specifically because century didn't make or subcontract the receivers to US companies. Most of these guns used metric magazines but I saw some that used INCH. With the Inch cut guns you could sometimes use Metric mags in them also but they were wobbly.

Century eventually they started building guns with US receivers but the quality was really hit or miss, some decent and some totally don't function and or cannot reliably. Here is a decent thread of some of those makers

http://www.militaryfirearm.com/Forum/showthread.php?23055-Century-l1a1-fal-receiver-codes-and-information


As for other common wealth rifles. I have hardly never seen any Canadian C1 or C2 rifles. they are very rare in any form here in the U.S. hardly ever as parts kits. Which makes me think the Canuks have probably hung onto them in storage. I have seen some Aussie rifles, but far more as parts kits later on say in the early 2000's. Also I have seen some L2A1 LMGs built as semi auto rifles. And a few parts kits. I did aquire some of the 30 round canadian magazines which are excellent unlike the 30 round L4A1 magazines from the 7.62 NATO BREN these are unreliable in the L1A1 but look super "Ally" as you blokes put it.

Keep in mind these where all Semi-auto only rifles unless converted to full auto before 1986 by licensed manufacturers of machine guns. That being said I have seen several that had been converted to select fire by back woods bubba gun hack types.

Eventually century couldn't easily get L1A1's anymore and started importing G1, R1A1,STG-58, but that really wasn't until the midish to latish 90's. They made a very small run of L1A1's when I was there in 2006 and I think it was the last of the inch parts. Though they where still making various Metric rifles till 2010 or so.

Hopefully that was useful to someone :)
Brother in Arms

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Just to add a few comments to what Brother in Arms had to say, for some clarity, here in Australia the L1A1 is the Self Loading Rifle (most commonly aka the SLR) and the L2A1 is the Automatic Rifle (less commonly aka the AR). I'm not sure if the other Commonwealth nations followed the same nomenclature.

The problem with the L4 Bren mags is the spring, it's not strong enough.
They were designed as top loaders so didn't need as much force to push the rounds down whereas the C2 and L2 30-rd mags were designed as bottom loaders and needed a more powerful spring to push the rounds up. We had orders specifically forbidding any mix & match of the mags from the two because while the L2 mag works well enough on the L4, the reverse doesn't "reliably" hold true.
Having said that, I never actually saw many proper L4 mags in use in Australia. Most of the L4 Brens I saw or used were issued with L2 mags

Also, in regards to converting the SLR to full auto, it's not that much of a problem if you "know where to look". The SLRs are built the same way as the FAL rifles, that is to say, they are capable of full-auto from the start because the trigger mechanism wasn't designed to prevent full-auto. This is the reason the "matchstick trick" worked :D
The indent for the full-auto setting is still built into the receiver even though the British decided to redesign the FAL as a semi-auto only rifle.

The SLR has a pin inserted at a specific place to prevent the trigger mechanism from engaging the full-auto setting and it uses a slightly longer trigger plunger than the AR. I don't know for certain if the SLR trigger plunger is the same length as the plunger used in the FAL (taking into account metric to inch conversions) but they might very well be about the same length.
I'd hazard a guess and say removing this pin is the most common way of backyard gunsmiths converting the SLR to full-auto.

(While the Aussie SAS certainly used this knowledge during the Vietnam War to convert some SLRs to select-fire, they also converted a number of the ARs by removing bipods and other extraneous features. These cut down ARs are often incorrectly attributed in books/magazines as SLRs modified in the field to allow full auto. An understandable enough mistake given the almost identical look of the two, the only certain way to identify the modified ARs from the modified SLRs is to check the rear sight)

[rcaf_777]

I have hardly never seen any Canadian C1 or C2 rifles. they are very rare in any form here in the U.S. hardly ever as parts kits. Which makes me think the Canuks have probably hung onto them in storage.

As stated above the Canadian C1 rifle, C2A1 LSW and the Navy's C1D rifle were retired from active service in 1984, and placed in storage till 2006 when he stockpile was destroyed. The same fate happen the C1 Submachine Gun Canada's version of the Sterling submachine gun.

As they were stored with no though of further use and the fact that they were classified illegal weapons under Canadian law, destruction was the only option, and Canada has also publicly stated that is dose sell guns on the open market.

I believe that if Australia had sold any of their L1A1 to civilians they would have handed in and destroyed after the Port Arthur massacre, in which 35 people were killed by a lone gunman with a AR-15 Carbine.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Gun laws in Australia were remarkably different from state to state.
Western Australia had some of the strictest with any "military-style" semi-auto rifle unable to be owned, sold or transferred, even something as innocuous as the (hideous looking IMHO) .22LR Armscor M16-22 was not allowed because it vaguely resembles the M16.
Ex-military firearms other than bolt-actions were not legal for ownership unless they were licensed as historical/curio items (even museums had to comply with this law) and even with that they had to be demilled. Later the laws were changed to include the prevention of private ownership of any high-powered semi-auto rifle and semi-auto shotguns.

However, in Queensland it was perfectly legal to own any semi-auto that you could find for sale in the USA e.g. the AR10, the AR15, civilian versions of the M14 and the HK G3 & HK33 and so on. And also the L1A1. Queensland as well as New South Wales, were also notorious for lax registration of firearms.
So for example, in Western Australia, the person who wanted one had to obtain a licence/registration for that specific firearm and then go through the qualification process all over again for any additional firearms they wanted, whereas in Queensland and New South Wales, you only had to obtain a Shooters Permit from the local police and this entitled you to purchase any firearm in the gun shop.
One of my father's ex-Army mates who lived in New South Wales owned approximately 30 different firearms or more before the gun buyback.

Whether the gunshop kept a strict register of firearms sold (and their serial numbers) varied from shop to shop. And if you knew the right people you could buy ex-military rifles from places like East Timor or Pakistan - I've personally seen a Pakistani made G3 in private (and obviously, illegal) ownership in Western Australia in the 1990s that was bought in Queensland and smuggled into Western Australia. The laws in Western Australia were so restrictive (some would say anal) that groups lobbied for nearly a decade to allow paintball to be played as a sport in this state and even then there were still restrictions on private ownership of paintball guns (the government decided that they needed to be registered as firearms).

A number of rifles purchased legally in Queensland ended up being traded to locals in Papua New Guinea for marijuana. The guns were passed on to resistance groups in West Papua who were fighting against the Indonesian invasion of West Papua. This trade of guns from Australia for drugs from Papua New Guinea went on for several years and was only effectively ended with the federal government's 1996 gun buyback scheme where the federal government basically dictated what the future of gun ownership in Australia would be.

There was almost a 100% compliance with the handing in of registered but now restricted firearms. However, in Queensland and New South Wales there were many, many firearms that were never registered when they were legally purchased and the vast majority of these were not handed in.
So in some cases, you can still find semi-auto rifles for illegal sale in this country but you'll pay a premium for them and obtaining the ammunition can be a little problematic. A person who qualifies for the restricted licence category can legally purchase semi-autos such as the AR15 or L1A1 but the prices in those gunshops who stock them are almost as bad as the illegal prices e.g. the last price I saw for an AR15 was Au$5800 (around US$4900)

And a last few words on the Port Arthur massacre. The water here is very murky and further illustrates the lax laws that were in place in some states of this country.
Martin Bryant didn't shoot all 35 of the murder victims, some were stabbed and some were bludgeoned.
A live radio report after the massacre (that I personally heard on the day) quoted a security guard at the scene as saying that if security guards in Tasmania were allowed to carry guns, he could have stopped Bryant after the first few shootings - this was later removed from all broadcast lists and never played again.
The anti-gun fanatics and the government like to overlook all of that - it didn't fit with their agenda (you can see where my sympathies are, even without me stating that I have been a legal owner of registered firearms in Western Australia for over 20 years).

Bryant purchased his AR10 through a newspaper add but is thought to have bought his AR15 from a gunshop in Tasmania but he did not have a firearms license. He did however, have a sizeable inheritance of over US$400,000 and it's rumoured by some speculators (although there's no proof) that he offered a lot of money for the guns he bought.
The gunshop had bought the AR15 from the police of Victoria. The Victorian police had obtained the AR15 from either a gun amnesty or a confiscation and sold it along with hundreds of other firearms (obtained in the same manner) to gunshops in Tasmania to raise funds for the police service.

[Brother in Arms]

Wow maybe you should start an OT restriction of firearms ownership thread? Reading all that almost made me throw up. So sad to see what they did to the citizens in the UK,AU,NZ

[Targan]

Reading all that almost made me throw up. So sad to see what they did to the citizens in the UK,AU,NZ

Yeah. Aussies and Kiwis used to be able to shoot BEFORE they joined the military. Very few can now, unless it's the triggers on their Xbox controllers.

[.45cultist]

History generally has British and other peoples needing those skills and weapons at some point, ante bellum both world wars at a glance.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Wow maybe you should start an OT restriction of firearms ownership thread? Reading all that almost made me throw up. So sad to see what they did to the citizens in the UK,AU,NZ

An interesting observation (although what it actually means in regards to those societies, who knows...) is that the larger the population, the more restrictive firearms ownership has become.
New Zealand firearms laws aren't as restricted as those in Australia while Australian firearms laws aren't as bad as the positively draconian laws put in place in the UK.

New Zealand
In New Zealand, the policy seems to be more about checking the fitness of the applicant to own firearms rather than to control types of firearm. So for example, you can still legally own AR15 type semi-auto rifles and can buy 30-rd mags for them as long as you can prove that you are mentally, emotionally and physically fit to qualify for a licence.
(I seriously considered immigrating to NZ but the job prospects weren't good at the time.)

Australia
In Australia, the policy is a rather more emotional response to firearms such that any and all semi-auto rifles (of any calibre) are restricted including .22LR rifles such as the Ruger 10/22 and the general public cannot own semi-auto or pump-action shotguns. Handguns are restricted to calibres of .380 or 9mm or less and magazines for pistols are restricted to 10-rds or less. It is possible to get calibres up to .45 inch (notice that it's based on size of the calibre and not power) if you are a member of an approved category of competition pistol shooting.

I say emotional response because of a number of things but mostly they are as follows: -
The pistol calibre restrictions based on size rather than power is a real quick and easy (and totally arbitrary to the point of mindless) way to control handguns. It takes no consideration of such things as the .44 Magnum round is more powerful than the .45 Long Colt round.
After a police commissioner was murdered in New South Wales with a 10/22 rifle by a criminal gang sometime in the 1990s, there was concerted effort by the police of that state to prevent further sales of semi-auto .22LR rifles to the general public because the rifle was apparently legally owned by one of the gang members.
The restrictions on shotguns make no sense to any intelligent being that displays even a minor amount of rational thought. A civilian cannot licence any semi-auto or pump-action shotgun but there are no restrictions on licencing a bolt-action or lever-action shotgun. The sad reality of this, is that pump-actions were included because they were "felt" to be more threatening, more damaging and just generally more "violent" than other types of shotgun.

When the federal government gathered together it's panel of advisors for gun control, the "experts"** gave them such "truths" as the following: -
(I'm paraphrasing here because I no longer have my copy of the Green Paper, the document outlining the government's response to gun control);
1. Semi-auto rifles are to be restricted because a bullet fired from a semi-auto is more dangerous than a bullet fired from a bolt-action. I know what they were trying to express (that a semi-auto can fire more often than a bolt-action) but if they couldn't express the idea properly I am left to think that they actually had no idea of what they were talking about.
2. Pump-action shotguns need to be restricted because they are more aggressive than a "genuine" sporting shooter needs, everybody's seen how dangerous they are in movies and they are obviously not something a hunter or sporting shooter needs... yes my jaw hit the floor after reading that claim.

** I simply cannot put into text how much disdain I feel towards those people, the panel seemed to be made up mostly of people who were terrified of guns and of anyone who owned a gun. It was by no means a balanced panel and the feelings of many gun owners at the time was that gun control was done for political purposes rather than any true concerns for public safety. Some of us still harbour lingering feelings that it was a political stunt.

United Kingdom
When the 2012 Olympic pistol shooting teams couldn't legally train in their own country... As I understand it, any self-loading or pump-action rifle with a calibre above .22LR and the vast majority of handguns are prohibited from civilian ownership.

[.45cultist]

I've heard a lot of those banned weapons were "lost" or "stolen". I'd imagine that these would surface again.

[Targan]

I've heard a lot of those banned weapons were "lost" or "stolen". I'd imagine that these would surface again.

That's what happened here in many, many cases.

[.45cultist]

Savage of Savage arms worked cattle ranches in Australia, the government there has forgotten the proud frontier spirit and heritage of it's citizens. I remember it for my game world, along with Canada's and the United States' when I plan communities.

[Brother in Arms]

SSC

The L1A1 is called the SLR by British Troopies. Not sure if they call the L2A1 the AR though, they were mostly issued L4A1 BREN (7.62NATO conversions)
Pretty sure canuks called them C1 and C2 (they issued a lot more C2's than the British ever did L2, in fact I believe the Brits sold most of there L2's off to other nations.)

You are absolutely correct about L4 BREN magazines. I have used C2 mags and they are great, I have seen many pics of british soldiers using L4 Magazines in there SLR but never using the L2 Magazine in them. I have seen pics of Rhodesian troops using standard 20 round mags in there L4 BREN's.

Real SLR are easy to convert, you can swap out the selector lever, or grind off the stub that stops it from rotating. (often done on FAL as well) or the Match stick or fishing line trick. But civilians rifles (for the most part exception being the Belgian FAL semi autos') don't have auto sears...the military rifles all do, so they can be easily converted using parts swap or field expedients.

I have seen the Civilian rifles without auto sears converted (milled to accept them) and full auto ejector blocks installed.

I have seen both SLR and AR conversions used in VN and they are amazingly hardcore!!!!
Take the bipod off the AR and mount the XM148 grenade launchers.
The ANZAC troops where tough!

Brother in Arms

[Brother in Arms]

Saw an older Century Arms International re-made L1A1 at a gunshop.

It was built from a British SLR parts kit with wood furniture and "popsicle stick grip" that had been painted sort of a poop brown color. The barrel was chopped off just behind the flash hider and had been recrowned. Part of the spline for it was left on the barrel (so if you wanted to re cut it and reattach it you could but it would take some work but the barrel overall with would shorter so that might not be so bad)

It had a commercial type-3 Metric receiver that only read CAI St. ALbans VT (so its an older gun they are now in Georgia VT) it had a new metric magazine but could not accept INCH magazines. The metal appeared to have been zinc phosphated a light gray color. Overall rifle had a decent appearance and It handled nicely. It had folding charging handle of a standard SLR. If it where Mine I would have chopped the barrel down even shorted and made it into a carbine because it had a rather light feel to it.

So there is a real life example of a gun made in the early to mid 1990's. by CAI

Brother in Arms

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Heya BiA
Yeah I knew the British Squaddies called the L1A1 the SLR, I don't think the Brits ever issued the L2 to their army although I'm hoping some of the British forum members can confirm/deny that.
As for the L4 Bren, I think it was mostly the Royal Marine Commandos that used it (because it was capable of operating in extremely low temperatures) and again I'm hoping that the British members here can confirm/deny if if was ever used by the British Army as an infantry weapon (and not just as vehicle armament).

I've seen pics of South Africans using R1 (their home built version of the FAL) 20-rd mags in their 7.62mm Brens somewhere but I can't recall the source. However having a quick search of net gave the following page from 2008 which shows a South African Bren with a 20-rd FAL mag plus another with a 30-rd Rhodesian FAL mag
http://weaponsonline.proboards.com/thread/993

I believe the Canadian C2 uses a completely different rear sight to the L2, a "dial" style whereas the L2 uses a leaf rearsight. And something else about L4 Brens in Aussie service, I vaguely recall that we were advised to only load the L4 mags to 28-rds whereas the L2 mag was okay with being loaded to 30-rds.
I haven't had any experience with civilian semi-auto FAL types so your personal knowledge is both interesting and welcome :)

[Rainbow Six]

To the best of my knowledge the L2 was never issued to branch of the British armed forces (the only exception I could think of who might have used it on an "unoffical" basis would be the SAS)

Re: the Bren, whilst I can't confirm 100%, but I believe it was used by the Army in a Light Machine Gun role prior to the introduction of the SA80 family - there are several references online of Bren guns being issued to units that took part in Operation Granby (the 1991 Gulf War).

[Brother in Arms]

Pretty sure the L4 BREN was the standard Light Machine gun for the British Army the General Purpose Machine gun being the GPMG (MAG-58)

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I'm given to believe that once they adopted the MAG58 as the L7 GPMG the British Army no longer kept the L4 Bren in frontline use and it was issued to support services. Infantry units all used the L7 but some armoured vehicles did have Brens for self-defence/anti-air protection.

I also read reports of L4 Brens being used in Op Granby but the wording was that they were re-issued i.e. pulled from whatever storage they were in or grabbed from service & support units and issued to the Infantry only for the duration of the Operation.

[Rainbow Six]

Sorry, rereading my answer to the question about Brens I could have probably been a little more precise...I was giving a relatively short answer to the original question, which was whether the modern era Bren had been ever been used by the British Army as an infantry weapon, the answer to which, i think, is yes, it has, e,g, in the Gulf.

However as far as I know the Bren was not a standard issue weapon - I believe you are correct that it was replaced by the GPMG and only retained for some roles, most motably as a vehicle mounted weapon (for example on the AT105 Saxon). But some have definitely emerged from storage at different points in time, most notably the Faklands and Op Granby. (When it comes to Granby, the British Army had to strip a number of cupboards bare to fully equip the 1st Armoured Division for service in the Gulf, so the reissuance of older kit was probably part of this process). So I agree with SSC.

Hope that helps...

[dude_uk]

According to my copy of "The Modern British Army, Terry gander 1988". The L4A4 was not issued to frontline units, but issued to support units (Engineers, Signals, etc). Probably as a section (Squad) LMG.

The GPMG remained the section MG up until the introduction of the lSW. However it seems they still used it as a section weapon in the first Gulf war and the Paras and Marines refused to stop using them as section weapons.

[.45cultist]

Even if civilians can't have the L1A1's, destroying them or M14's, M1911's, etc. seems like a criminal waste of taxes. :mad: Can't they be sold, loaned or given as aid. If they must be deactivated, part them out and sell the parts.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Even if civilians can't have the L1A1's, destroying them or M14's, M1911's, etc. seems like a criminal waste of taxes. :mad: Can't they be sold, loaned or given as aid. If they must be deactivated, part them out and sell the parts.

Just to increase the sadness factor...
In some cases in Australia, such rifles were dismantled and all the steel parts melted down for scrap, any wood parts were simply burnt. Some other cases involved cutting all the steel parts into small pieces and dumping the results into the ocean.

[CDAT]

Even if civilians can't have the L1A1's, destroying them or M14's, M1911's, etc. seems like a criminal waste of taxes. :mad: Can't they be sold, loaned or given as aid. If they must be deactivated, part them out and sell the parts.

Not sure of L1A1 and other non-US weapons. But US weapons (in the US) they for the most part can not sell any weapon or part of said weapon if it is or can be full auto. (like the M14) They also stopped selling pistols not sure if because they sold them all or if new political head. There is the CMP (Civilian Marksmanship Program) that sell old us weapons they have sold so many that for the most part they only have M1 grands left to sell.

[James Langham]

According to my copy of "The Modern British Army, Terry gander 1988". The L4A4 was not issued to frontline units, but issued to support units (Engineers, Signals, etc). Probably as a section (Squad) LMG.

The GPMG remained the section MG up until the introduction of the lSW. However it seems they still used it as a section weapon in the first Gulf war and the Paras and Marines refused to stop using them as section weapons.

Worthh noting that for many years the L4 was preferred to the L7 by the Royal Marines for arctic warfare as the mag was more reliable than a belt in the snow.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Worthh noting that for many years the L4 was preferred to the L7 by the Royal Marines for arctic warfare as the mag was more reliable than a belt in the snow.

Interesting! I had read that the RMC preferred the Bren over the Jimpy for artic warfare but the general explanation was that the Bren was better able to cope with artic conditions. However if it's because magazine fed was more reliable than belt-fed then the reason is more that magazine-fed won't drag all the snow/ice/other crap into the feed mechanism rather than the Bren itself was better able to cope with the freezing conditions compared to the Jimpy.

The impression given by the book I read was that the Bren was able to cope with the conditions better than the L7 - that's quite a different situation to the preference for mag over belt!

P.S. For those unfamiliar with British military slang: the MAG58 was produced under licence in the UK as the L7 General Purpose MachineGun AKA GPMG. When said as a word GPMG sounds like "jimpy".

[James Langham2]

I do have a slight advantage here, I was trained on the Been, my mate wrote the Osprey book on it and I have trained the author Dan Abnett how to use it... :-)

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I do have a slight advantage here, I was trained on the Been, my mate wrote the Osprey book on it and I have trained the author Dan Abnett how to use it... :-)
Nice! :D

That's what I love about this forum, there is such an incredible range of experience & knowledge among the members here that there's always something new to learn :)

[James Langham]

There is a lovely bit of trivia on the Bren - it ejects downwards meaning when it was used in open topped recce vehicles in WW2 it regularly sent hot brass down the back of the driver's shirt!

Other nice bits of trivia include the fact that if the barrel locking nut wasn't engaged you could end up running down the range carrying just the barrel (less of an issue with the L4 series that was only issued with one barrel).

A belt feed version was submitted in the trials that resulted in the GPMG being adopted.

There was a special 100 round AA mag that was a drum BUT this blocked the sights as it was intended for AA use only.