Talk:List of firearms used by British Armed Forces

Once again, much like in the now-vastly-improved Russian weapons page, feel free to contribute as much as you'd like. The format is all together, and I'll periodically update the page myself, as well. --Dirty Harold 19:09, 31 July 2012 (CDT)

I'll add some stuff. In the case of weapons that are used by the SAS/SBS/whatever I would just list them as UKSF as that is the umbrella that they all fall under, and they all use the same pool of specialist weapons. --commando552 18:23, 31 July 2012 (CDT)

Yeah, I thought about the UKSF thing too. Dirty Harold 19:40, 31 July 2012 (CDT)

Massive respect too whoever created this, I've been waiting for something like this for a while! I'll try and contribute as best as I can. @Commando552, something you might wanna add is the H&K MP5A3 and MP5KA1, as used by the SAS/SBS/Royal Marines/Paratroop Regiment. As for out of service, as far as I'm aware, the SAS WERE issued Walther PPKs as a backup, however, I am unsure as to whether this is still in use by them. I know an AR-15 CQB type rifle is in use by the Pathfinder Regiment, Royal Military Police and Army Security Guard Regiments. The MP5KA1 is also used by Infantry drivers and Pilots. Hope this helps. Fixer

Just added the SMGs. The problem is that there is not really any documentation about what the special forces use, it is more just what you can see them with in the rare photo or hear about through the grapevine. I believe the PPK is still on the books, although maybe not used, as there have been EFRs (Equipment Failure Reports) sent in for the PPK as recently as 2007, so someone was apparently using it then. As for the CQB AR-15, are you talking about the L119A1 which is a C8 SFW? If so I wasn't aware of the Pathfinders using this, I thought they used a C7 (for some reason i think 300 were bought but have no source for this, the number is just in my head) along with the Royal Marines Brigade Patrol Troop (as seen here). They may have switched to the L119A1 by now to standardise (this was originally only used by the SAS/SBS but has been spreading out throughout the services) but a few years ago they still has the C7s. Have also seem them using M16A1s with A2 handguard which I'm assuming migrated over from UKSF. Where did you get the thing about drivers and pilots having MP5KA1s, have never seen or heard anything about that. Also, what do you mean by "Army Security Guard Regiments"? --commando552 19:05, 31 July 2012 (CDT)

So we're not putting the LMT into this? Excalibur01 20:00, 31 July 2012 (CDT)

This page is very far from done (I'm off to bed now so if anyone else wants to try and help finish it of be my guest), but more importantly the L129A1 hasn't appeared in anything yet has it? if not then it shouldn't be on the site so shouldn't be here. --commando552 20:16, 31 July 2012 (CDT)

I think that if there is a gun used by the British, but doesn't have an Imfdb page, it should be listed here. This is a list of Guns used by the British Armed Forces, not a list of guns on Imfdb used by British Armed Forces. --SmithandWesson36 21:03, 31 July 2012 (CDT)

I was under the impression that these pages ARE a list of guns used by the British Army that appear on IMFDB as an aid to ID-ing and working out if something is anachronistic/inaccurate. --commando552 04:31, 1 August 2012 (CDT)

That's exactly what it is, a list of guns on IMFDb used by the British Armed Forces. We're a wiki about guns in media, not a general gun encyclopedia. These "firearms used by [insert organization name]" pages are already bleeding toward the latter as is, IMO. If one wants a complete list of all guns used by the Brits, Wikipedia has a template listing as such at the bottom of various pages [1]. Spartan198 15:44, 26 August 2012 (CDT)

@Commando552 Yeah mate, it's not unheard of for UKSF to use the Walther, as I believe it used as a backup. Yeah the L119A1 is what I meant - that sort of weaponry has been used by Pathfinders (to my knowledge) in Afghanistan on patrols, due too compact size (I believe). I cannot speak for the RM, but seeing as the Brigade Patrol Group are a recon regiment (like the Pathfinders) it would make sense, as they favor compact weaponry. As for pilots/drivers, I read somewhere that they had, however after re-reading the same article, they do not, it was just my error of skim reading over the words "pilots", " infantry drivers" and "MP5K". I do apologize for the confusion on the pilots part, but I do believe they carry a sidearm. In combat, Infantry drivers were known to be issued an MP5 of some sort. I assumed it was the A1 due to the fact it is easy to conceal and easy to draw (due to the sights), in case of contact. The Army Security Guards (Military Provost Guard Service) have been known too use a CQB AR-15 during in VIP close protection, too the best of my knowledge. As for the M16A1s with the A2 handguard, to the best of my knowledge, I cannot recall hearing or seeing any branch of the UK military using it in my time, but I may be wrong. However, I will double check the info and will get back too you. Apologizes for any confusion. Fixer

The Pathfinders and BPT were still using the C7 in Afghanistan, there are quite a few photos of it, but my guess is that they may have phased it out now that the L119A1 is becoming more widespread. The only reason they adopted the C7 in the first place is that at the time the L85 was incapable of taking an UGL, so they wanted a rifle they could mount an M203 on. I don't think the MPGS do use the L119A1 as they have no close protection role, that is the Royal Military Police who tend to use the short barrelled version of the L119A1. Now that you say that about the MP5 for drivers and pilots that clicks something in my brain, but I think they actually used the MP5A3 not the MP5K. However this is not the case anymore, with them either using the L22A2 or the L119A1. Also, here is a photo of a couple of BPT marines, note that the one on the right has an A2 handguard but no brass deflector. --commando552 04:31, 1 August 2012 (CDT)

Why is there a 'Flamethrower' section? To my knowledge, the British Army has-and will never use-flamethrowers. It's just not the done thing. Alasdair.

• They did use the No. 2 Portable Flamethrower during WW2 --Crackshot 07:28, 01 August 2012 (GMT)

Flamethrower in this context also refers to any rocket-based incendiary weapon (i.e. the US FLASH launcher). --Dirty Harold 07:44, 1 August 2012 (CDT)

This might only be my imagination but i thought the Accuracy International AW was named L96?

Almost. The L96A1 is the Accuracy International PM. The Arctic Warfare is the L118A1.The Wierd It 03:05, 1 August 2012 (CDT)

There is A LOT of confusion about the L96 designation, mainly because in some sources the Army gets it wrong. In some places they incorrectly call the L118A1 the L96A1, so they then work backwards to say that the original PM was just the L96, despite the fact that this isn't how British designations work, always having an A1 at the end. --commando552 04:11, 1 August 2012 (CDT)

L22A1/A2

The version of the L22 that is currently issued is actually referred to as the A2 variant, despite what the L85 page says. It has the "HK A2" markings on it, and MOD documents refer to it as the L22A2. I think part of the confusion is the fact that the receiver markings are A1 as they are built from scavenged L86A1 receivers. I think the L22 prototype is now retroactively refereed to as the L22A1, although it was not called this at the time. --commando552 03:40, 2 August 2012 (CDT)

I'm relatively sure it is issued as the L22A1 as they are still the first version adopted and have not been upgraded as they were adopted post h&k upgrades off the SA80 family. Blackguinepig (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2013 (EST)

That is logical from one perspective, but like I said above, that is what it is referred to as in MOD documents, and A2 is stamped on the weapon. You could argue that it is the second version of the weapon as it is a modified version of the earlier AFV variant, which has retroactively been referred to as the L22A1 in MOD documentation despite the fat that it never had this designation in service. --commando552 (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2013 (EST)

Miniguns

OK, I think I may have stuffed things a bit with the minigun entry, since searching http://www.defenceimagery.mod.uk for "minigun" shows both GAU-17s and M134s with DA flashhiders. The Wierd It 11:19, 3 August 2012 (CDT)

I wouldn't worry too much about it, there is a random mix of miniguns used by the RAF and RN. As far as I have seen, the majority have a 2 flange barrel clam with either a solid or slotted flash hider, whilst some have a 4 flange clamp with slotted flash hider (like the GAU-17/A). The two flange with the solid flash hider would be a Dillon, but don't know what the 2 flange with the slotted flash hider would be. Not sure, but i think this may be a Dillon as well, as I believe the early Dillon barrel clamps had the slots before they decided it was more effective without them. --commando552 18:37, 3 August 2012 (CDT)

This just in...

I'm currently scrambling to find verifiable sources for all this but apparently the Glock 17 Generation 4 with an added manual safety has been adopted to formally replace the L9A1. At the moment the only source I have is this one, which is of questionable veracity until I see anything official. Thoughts? The Wierd It 06:43, 26 August 2012 (CDT)

I think this is the gun in question (this is a 3rd gen but shows the safety), was put forward a few years ago but wasn't adopted and the MOD continued to buy SIGs. However I think this is now a monetary issue, with the MOD wanting a larger number of soldiers to be carrying a pistol and the Glock being probably less than half the price of a SIG. I would prefer them to keep the SIG as I prefer the trigger and the general feel of a SIG, but I can understand them going with the Glock 17 with this manual safety as it has pretty much the same position as the safety on the SA80 guns, and is also probably more idiot proof than a SA/DA gun with a decocker, which is a plus when you are looking for a gun which will be more widely issued. --commando552 08:38, 26 August 2012 (CDT)

Although looking back through the thread I think the Glock submitted for the trails in question didn't have the extra safety, which would bring the cost down a bit more. Plus the SIG was only a UOR anyway.The Wierd It 08:44, 26 August 2012 (CDT)

The BBC article I read implied that it did not have a manual safety. --Funkychinaman (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2013 (EST)

It doesn't; it's just a vanilla GEN4. The Wierd It (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2013 (EST)

OK, it's apparently official now; there's an item on the Defence Imagery database's News section about it. The Wierd It (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2013 (EST)

Anyone know what the new holster is, I don't recognise it (apparently it is Italian but that is all I could find). It looks really bulky, so I'm assuming there must be something special about it otherwise it is a very odd design. My random guess is that that is actually a button at the top of the holster which you press to rotate it or something. I personally would have preferred the Army officially adopted the P226, but am glad they are getting something as I have heard the current UOR P226s have been used to death (particularly the magazines, as because it was an UOR they ended up with OTS mags rather than milspec so they are pretty much all buggered at this point).

My first thought was Blackhawk since it looks pretty SERPA-ish. But it's not.The Wierd It (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2013 (EST)

OK, if this source is to be believed it is a Blackhawk holster. The Wierd It (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2013 (EST)

Finally found the bastard, I went to Viking Arms list of suppliers and eventually found it on the Radar site. Never heard of them, but it is Italian so it fits the bill. It is their LEP holster which means "Lock-on Ejection Port", meaning that the pistol is retained by a piece that engages with the ejection port on the slide. It seems like an awful lot of bulk to add along the top of the pistol just to have it not lock on the trigger guard in my opinion. My guess is that this is for durability reasons, as with the Glock trigger guard being polymer it would probably be more susceptible from wear from repeated holstering and drawing. --commando552 (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2013 (EST)

Clarification

Just to clarify, does the British military use the standard AW50 rifle, or the AW50F? I was just curious, and I couldn't find good information. Dirty Harold 09:15, 26 August 2012 (CDT)

It is the AW50F. Have changed the "Used by" from UKSF to all branches, as it is used by all branches in an EOD capacity (such as Royal Navy clearance divers), along with UKSF for long range sniping. Although only officially adopted in 2008, it had been used for a while by UKSF. There is a part of a biographical book called Sniper One written by Sgt. Dan Mills about hios time in Iraq in 2004 where his sniper unit is supported by a "Royal Marine" (although he is clearly actually special forces) sniper who in pictures in the book is using an AW50F.--commando552 08:56, 26 August 2012 (CDT)

Also, here is a nice shot of A Royal Marine aerial sniper using one in an anti-piracy role with an EOTech sight showing that it is an AW50F. --commando552 09:01, 26 August 2012 (CDT)

Thanks. --Dirty Harold 07:22, 27 August 2012 (CDT)

L129A1

Don't forget the new "Sharpshooter" L129A1 sniper rifle that got put into active duty last year. Temp89 12:51, 26 August 2012 (CDT)

We did have it in here, but since neither it nor the LM7 has appeared in anything fictional it got taken down again. The Wierd It 13:18, 26 August 2012 (CDT)

If you were going to make these pages so that they included every gun used rather than just the guns that appear in media, we would have to be adding hundreds of new pages for essentially no reason. Also, there are a large number of guns that have been used by certain militaries that it is near impossible to get a good picture of, as they have never been use by anyone but the miitary in question. For example, there was a custom made version of the P226 known as the P226K that was made in the 90s that had a full length grip with a shortened slide which was designated as the L106A1, but I dare you to find a picture of it to put it on here. --commando552 16:48, 26 August 2012 (CDT)

Also please don't link to world.guns, Max doesn't screen his ads for malicious java and the site is a digital plague pit. Evil Tim 17:10, 26 August 2012 (CDT)

As if his bad grammar and words constantly bleeding together aren't bad enough? Spartan198 04:37, 27 August 2012 (CDT)

Well, he is Russian. Jeddostotle7 09:11, 27 August 2012 (CDT)

Da.

Enfield EM-2

Should the EM-2 be moved to out of service rifles as it was accepted as a an issue rifle (albeit briefly) in 1951 as the No 9 Rifle? Blackguineapig (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2013 (EST)

I would think that because it was never officially adopted (coupled with the fact that its chambering, the .280 British round, was roundly dismissed by the US forces, even though now many there are backpedalling by using the 6.8x43mm SPC round, which is dimensionally quite similar), renders it firmly to the "Experimental" category. --Mazryonh (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2013 (EST)

No that's what im saying it was adopted for less than a year as the 'No 9 Rifle' Blackguineapig (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2013 (EST)

I wouldn't say it was actually adopted though. All that happened was that the government declared that it was going to be the next weapon and that it would be designated as the No.9 Mk.1. However before mass production even began, let alone it actually being issued, the whole NATO standardisation fracas came about and a change of government saw it being shelved in favour of the FN FAL (this was also originally in .280 British, but it was more easily converted to 7.62x51mm). Basically it was given a designation and that is it. Besides, I don't think a rifle that less than a 100 of which were built can be called anything other than experimental. --commando552 (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2013 (EST)

Point taken, the numbers thing killed my idea for me. It was all a bit of a waste really especially considering that after deciding 7.62 wasn't ideal for an individual weapon and the problems some have had with 5.56, now .280 (or a calibre similar) seems like it would have been a much better choice from the start. Blackguineapig (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2013 (EST)

You can pretty much boil it all down to blaming America. They said the .280 was underpowered, whilst Britain, Canada and Belgium said the 7.62x51mm would be uncontrollable in full auto (based on the fact that the US eventually switched to the even smaller 5.56x45mm it is pretty obvious who was right). When Winston Churchill returned to power he felt that NATO standardisation on a round, even if it was the wrong round, was vital, so we went for the 7.62x51mm. It was a real shame, as the EM-2 was a great gun. I have actually gotten a look at one of the EM-2s that was converted to 7.62x51mm, and the quality on it was excellent. It isn't that obvious in pictures, but there is even a wood veneer over the top of the rear of the receiver for your cheek. I can imagine it was much more expensive to make than the FAL though (this may have had something to do with it) as the receiver was totally milled from a single piece of steel and had a complicated internal shape (although the actual stripping and assembly was very simple). With the intermediate round, bullpup layout and integrated optical sight it was very much ahead of its time. --commando552 (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2013 (EST)

I knew about Churchill's feelings on standardisation and if im honest I think the benefit of commonality outweighed poor choice of round, from an infantry soldiers IW stand point (ive found its a lot more fun to hump 5.56 than 7.62 and I hardly get to touch 7.62 with cadets). I've heard that it was very well made and I was lead to believe that they would have cost around 3x as much as the SLR mostly due to the fact so much milling was required, it was however meant to be very reliable and well made as you said. Blackguineapig (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2013 (EST)

Churchill must have been smoking the wrong cigars that day. Given that Canada was enthusiastic about the .280 British (which dimensions are actually 7x43mm), "Mother England" could very well have turned it into the "British Commonwealth standard" instead and let the increased terminal effectiveness/range (relative to 5.56mm NATO, and not dependent on fragmentation as is the case for that cartridge's military versions) and increased controllability/portability (over 7.62mm NATO) speak for themselves in actual engagements and military campaigns (they could have started with the Northern Ireland campaign). It's a damn shame that this round has not been given a second chance (otherwise we might be using EM-3s, 4s or 5s by now). A few are even recommending we go to 7x46mm for a universal rifle/carbine cartridge. --Mazryonh (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2013 (EST)

Generally everyone (except the US thought) that .280 British was the way to go for NATO, I think eventually it will be seen that an intermediate cartridge is required but im sceptical it will be .280 Blackguineapig (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2013 (EST)