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)

Fantastic site, great job, hoping i can add where i can. As far as minigun goes, 657 Sqn AAC doesn't carry them, and never has done. --Ryanjamesh (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2015 (EDT)Ryanjamesh

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)

.280 is just imperial measurements talk for 7mm-diameter rounds. Even the commission that designed the 6.8mm SPC admitted that 7mm had the best terminal performance (in the range between 6.5mm and 7mm). It may be that such lethality could trump accuracy in applications like suppressive fire (after all, you duck from suppressive fire because you're afraid you'll be lethally hit). I'm also interested in seeing just how much more performance the proposed 7x46mm cartridge would have over the 6.8mm SPC--sometimes 3 millimeters of case length can make a real difference, as is the case between the .40 S&W round and the 10mm Auto round. --Mazryonh (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2013 (EST)

L96A1 still in use?

I was looking on the Accuracy International site and went on the gallery where there are several image supposedly from Herrick 13 which was 2010-201 that shows soldiers still using the L96A1. I'm fairly sure this time frame is correct as I see 16AA insignia MTP kit with the newest Osprey plate carrier. This would suggest that it was still being used within the last couple of years, does anyone know if it is still knocking around today? I would assume it probably is, as when the L115s came in and were issued to the Infantry sniper platoons I guess the L96A1s and L118A1s filtered down and were snapped up by others. There was a period where it was intended that the .308 rifles were going to be issued within Infantry sections as a sort of DMR before the L129A1 was procured. --commando552 (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2013 (EST)

I saw them being used on the first series of our war and that was around 2008 and it was being used as the l129a1 is and l115's were being used as designated sniper weapon. But by now I had assumed they are gone however they are l96a1's being used, I would have assumed tehy would have had access to l129a1's. It does raise the question as to whether l96a1 should be moved to in service? Blackguineapig (talk)

Except in 2008 the UOR that lead to the L129A1 hadn't even been written yet. The L129 was selected in 2009 and not issued until mid-late 2010. The Wierd It (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2013 (EST)

I didnt say that. I said I saw l96's being used in 2008 in the same role that l129a1's are now and I was surprised as now l129's are issued so could be used in place of the l96's in the photos on the AI website (taken on Herrick 13). Blackguineapig (talk)

It's a simple matter of supply vs. demand. There are 440 L129A1s, not all of which are in country and not all of those are issued to marksmen on infantry patrols; spotters in sniper teams carry them sometimes. Ergo it's likely that the L96s are being kept on issue to keep up with requirements. The Wierd It (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2013 (EST)

Mp7

Should the MP7 be on here? This was adopted by MOD police as a replacement for SA80 & MP5. I know this says "british armed forces" but MOD surely counts? --Forrest1985 (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2015 (EST)Forrest1985

Not really, the MDP is a civilian police that just has a different jurisdiction and role.--commando552 (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2015 (EST)

There's rumblings about the SA80 series of weapons being replaced in the foreseeable future. Now that the MP7 is finally starting to gain some traction (they just recently assigned it to motorcycle-using and K-9 officers of the LAPD, strange as that concept might be), I can see the MP7 replacing the L22A1, since those share largely the same roles. Compared to the L22A2, the MP7 can be holstered, is lighter, and isn't as hearing-unfriendly when used. --Mazryonh (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2015 (EST)

Are there any specific "rumblings" that you are referring to, or is this just the same "rumblings" that have been going on for a couple of decades? The last I remember hearing about anyone pushing for a premature replacement was a couple of years ago the Royal Marines were supposedly unhappy with the rifle and were pushing not only for a replacement but for a new caliber. The article was complete unattributed bollocks though from an unnamed "insider" who spouted rubbish about the 5.56x45mm ballistics being inadequate from the 20.4" barrel of an L85A2, but somehow the problem would be solved if he was given a nice shiny new C8 SFW with a 16" barrel.

As for when the replacement will happen, the plan has always been (and still is to the best of my knowledge) that a replacement will be introduced some time in the 2020s. As there has been not much progress on this to date I assume it will be mid to late 2020s at this point as a new service rifle will take a few years of shopping around, developing, testing, and troop trials before it is actually issued. The only thing I have heard is that there has been talk about the idea of a new lightweight version of the SA80 weapons making an A3 variant, either as an interim weapon or actual replacement.

Either way, in my opinion there is pretty much zero chance that the MP7 would ever be adopted by regular forces. Firstly, it is a less capable weapon than the L22A2 in terms of range, penetration and energy. The holstering thing is a bit of a non issue, as if you are on the ground then your weapon should be in your hands (if not it is hanging on a single point sling inches from them) and if you are a crewman/pilot then it is in a rack designed to hold it that already works so getting a smaller weapon achieves nothing. The hearing thing might be a slight plus, but not really for regular troops as you will be near other more potent weapon systems so you will need hearing protection anyway. The most important reason however is the different ammo. Introducing a completely new caliber for only a small number of non-infantry troops who do not really need it would be a logistical nightmare. You do not want everybody in a platoon to have 5.56x45mm and 7.62x51mm, except your dog handler who you need to separately kit out with 4.6x30mm. For special forces use (or police use for that matter) a lot of this doesn't apply, but there is a reason that you do not tend to see them used by regular military forces. --commando552 (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2015 (EST)

I believe the "rumblings" would be things like the "Modular Assault Rifle" tender that the MoD issued in 2012 that was intended to procure a new rifle for limited introduction last year. The Wierd It (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2015 (EST)

Knowing the way the government usually does things, in the late 2020s the government will start talking about the new rifle while simultaneously ordering a complete set of new SA80-pattern rifles, scrap all of them without replacing them with anything at all, give two billion to a company which never delivers anything, and then get hoodwinked into buying 500,000 Kar 98s while The Sun says our boys now have the best rifle in the world and the ghost of Jeremy Clarkson drives a car around while someone tries to shoot him with it. Evil Tim (talk) 06:31, 3 March 2015 (EST)

Thought you would say that but NCIS made the cut over on the US page. This should at least be in the experimental/trials portion--Forrest1985 (talk) 12:41, 11 February 2015 (EST) In addition there were photos of tornado pilots with MP7's strapped to their legs in afghan. Desperately trying to remember where i saw the pics! --Forrest1985 (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2015 (EST)

If it is the same photo I have seen then I believe that it was a staged promotional image for the company "Radway Green" who make a lot (possibly all) of the ammunition for the British military and police including 4.6x30mm. I would have though having a PDW strapped to your leg would be massively impractical for a fast jet pilot as you wouldn't fit in your seat properly, it would interfere with your harness, it could make the G-suit not function properly, it would be flapping around during aggressive manoeuvring, the securing straps would cover your thigh pockets, it would either tear off or tear your leg off during ejection, and the holster would most likely block the controls on the side console. As some RAF squadrons switched to Walther PPs due to the Browning being too large/heavy for certain aircraft cockpits, having an MP7 strapped on would be even worse. Lastly, as far as I know Tornado aircrew now use Glocks, which I believe they were issued shortly before they were issued to the Army. --commando552 (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2015 (EST)

NCIS is an investigative/police agency under the Department of the Navy, thus technically making it a part of the US Armed Forces, it is not a civilian police force. Finally, unless there's some concrete source or reference in regards to this, I fail to see the validity of its inclusion. "Rumblings" don't count as far as I'm concerned. I've seen some weapon listings on the US Armed Forces page disallowed for similar reasons. My two cents (or, perhaps, pence) here. StanTheMan (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2015 (EST)

Thanks stan --Forrest1985 (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2015 (EST)

Beaumont–Adams revolver

Beaumont–Adams revolver, in service with the British 1862 – 1880. Dudester32 (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2015 (EDT)

That hasn't appeared in any media yet. Hi, My Name Is GameZone (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2015 (EDT)

None at all? Christ! You'd think at least a few movies could have featured the gun! They made 250K+ copies of the B-A revolver.. Dudester32 (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2015 (EDT)

you got your wish Hi, My Name Is GameZone (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2015 (EDT)

L129A1 model?

Does anybody know what precise models the L129A1 are? There are two different models in use with slightly different profiles where the handguard joins the receiver. I think the current type (here) is what LMT currently list as the LM308SS (I think this is basically a tricked out accurised LM308MWS), but the original type (here) is different. Is this just an earlier version of the LM308SS or is it a different model? --commando552 (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2015 (EDT)

I'm not sure I can see the difference aside from an LEI marking on the magwell and the selector markings being coloured in on the in-service weapon. The Wierd It (talk) 02:48, 20 July 2015 (EDT)

No it is actually an LM308MWS is just that the newest one you see is the US Commercial version rather then the British military variant.

The LM308MWS standard US commercial model differs slightly from the UK issued L129A1 in the following aspects:

• 1) the barrel is a 16" fully chrome-lined, cryogenically treated, polygonal rifled 1:10 right-hand twist chrome-moly machinegun grade steel. It is crowned with LMT's special crown design, designed for maximum accuracy with ordinary ball ammunition.
• 2) the muzzle device is a standard M16A2 type flash suppressor instead of the SureFire suppressor mount.
• 3) the sights are the LMT detachable fixed sights instead of the Knight's Armament folding battle sights.
• 4) the supplied furniture is black instead of the coyote brown supplied to the UK MoD.

@The Wierd It, if you look at the area where the handguard meets the receiver you will see that it has been machined to a different profile on the two versions. On the newer guns there is kind of a curved step over the whole hight of the handgaurd, as opposed to on the older ones where the top part was flush with the receiver and there was just a step on the middle rail. It might just be that they are both called LM308s and the latter is just a change in the design, but was curious if anyone knew if there was a distinction between the two, something like an A1 or A2 like distinction.

@Choi117, I do not think it is just that the newest version is the commercial version as opposed to the former being a military version, as the original was a commercial OTS weapon when it was introduced so obviously that receiver would have been the current commercial LM308 receiver. Also, stop adding an entry for the L129A1. If you want to say that it is an LM308MWS or an LM308SS, neither of these have appeared in any media, only the LM8MWS. As a general rule, if you are having to upload an imaged especially to get a gun a listing on one of these pages then it doesn't deserve to be here. I expect that at some point the L129A1 will appear in something, but at this point it hasn't so shouldn't be listed here. --commando552 (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2015 (EDT)

The only designation change I know of is that the RAF seems to refer to the "Sniper Support Weapon" configuration (with the Schmidt & Bender scope taken off the old L96s rather than the ACOG) as the L29A1, rather than the L129A1. The Wierd It (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2015 (EDT)

Wherever they did that I am pretty sure that is just a typo, they do the same thing on their website when talking about the standard L129A1 sharpshooter configuration with the 6x ACOG. They are all over the place on the SSW page, first referring to the SSW as the L129A1 in the title, then going on to state that it is an improved version of the L29A1 sharpshooter, but then the next sentence calls the standard sharpshooter the L129A1. I believe that the sniper support weapon is properly referred to as just the "L129A1 SSW" or some such, however it was only in this role as a UOR and it has been found to be unsatisfactory by the Small Arms School Corps, so instead they are formalising a new set of requirements before launching a proper competition. I think this is also linked to the fact that in the sharpshooter role in practical terms its effective range has been nothing like it was supposed to be, with the upgraded DMR configuration of the L86A2 performing at least on par if not better. --commando552 (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2015 (EDT)

To not cause an edit war, just because the L129A1 hasn't appeared in media yet doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in this page. Several weapons that haven't appeared in something either (such as the Diemaco C8 CQB, StG 45(M) and XL65E4) are actually included in the pages listing the firearms in service by country. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2015 (EDT)

Firstly, the argument that if something was done wrong before that somehow gives you permission to do it wrong again doesn't really hold water. Secondly, all of those weapons you mentioned are different to the case of the L129A1 on this page. The XL65E4 has appeared, it is in Fallout 2 with the bipod removed, although it seems that currently it is listed as a XL64E5 but the barrel length suggests it is closer to the LSW variant.

Although the final Stg 45(M) has not appeared in anything, both of the prototype versions of the Stg 45(M) have, hence why there is a page for it (also, just to point out that nobody actually knows 100% what a final Stg 45(M) really looks like as none were finished and any examples were cobbled together post war from various parts). Depending on who you believe the 06H itself might actually be the same as the Stg 45M anyway, and if not it only has slight differences (the picture of the final Stg 45(M) was made by one of the designers after the war during the development of the CEAM Model 50 so might differ from the wartime design, but again, nobody really knows).

Granted, the C8 CQB is not currently listed on any pages, however the purpose of uploading that image was to prove the something wasn't a C8 CQB and had the wrong ID, as opposed to uploading an image purely for one of these usage pages which are, at best, just trivia. Either way, all of these images you mentioned already existed on the database for one reason or another for other reasons, what we do not want is people uploading images especially for these pages when they have not appeared in media or have no other reason to be on here. If we did that, then there would be literally hundreds of more more weapons listed on each of these pages, taking up server space and making these usage pages even more bloated than they already are. --commando552 (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2015 (EDT)

Makes sense. Something that was in my mind is that since we currently have an image for it, we could easily put it on the page; otherwise, it might have to be deleted. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2015 (EDT)

HK417 & L129A1

Is the HK417 actually in use by the British Military or is it being confused with the L129A1? I've looked at several sites and many photos and I haven't seen any HK417s, even when I've searched "British Army HK417", all the photos I see have British soldiers with L129A1s. Mr. Wolf (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2015 (EST)