L9A1 Browing HP

[ferretfixer]

Andrew, I must say that my original post was to CORRECT your original statements as regarding the L9 Pistol,9mm. You will realise that if INCORRECT information concerning ANY vehicle /equipment is dissiminated. Then that had a VERY bad habit of being absorbed as 'The Truth'! This forum has MANY members who are well versed & indeed gifted with HUGE amounts of knowledge & expirience accorss the board. Fair enough if a statement is made of 'I heard', 'I think in MY own opinion', Etc. But statements without genuine expirience or evidential backup can leave you high & dry if your not carefull! I must also correct one further important statement you made for the record. As to your remark that 'Equipments eventually wear out' Etc, Etc. This is 'Sort of true'..In as much as in the pistol & other smallarms. COMPONANT parts wear out & are subsequently Replaced. Therfore keeping the Pistol or other Smallarm BACK in a Servicable condition. The ONLY componant that would condom a COMPLETE pistol or other Smallarm, is the MAIN Frame, or correctly termed, The Reciever. This is THE one & only HEAVILY accountable componant that would condem the weapon as Worn Out. (VERY rare for this to happen) When a Smallarm IS condemed as B.E.R is is broken for componant parts for spares & the frame is Destroyed. To that end, No Pistols/ smallarms would be in Service if they were 'Worn Out' as you state! I have already explained in previous posts how a weapon in service would never be in a state of disrepair, or Worn out due to the nature of the R.E.M.E Inspection Procedures laid out in Engineering Regulations.

[ferretfixer]

Theres alot of people out there who slate the L85 but I actually like it. The A2 version is an improvement over the A1 but to be honest, I never had a issue with it. I'd guess that most of the L85s never see heavy use (Especially in the RAF ;-) ) and from my point of view, its perfectly fine

 

Chris, the L85 is fine under 'Ideal conditions', especially on the Range! I dont know if you are old enough in Service to have had expirience with the L1A1 SLR? But this was a very reasonable weapon. like ANY smallarm in Service, it had limitations & drawbacks. But you got around these things as also eventually the L85A2 has apparantly done as well.

I was involved with the original trials pre-production variants of the L85 BEFORE it was adopted when I was at the School of Infantry at Warminster. MANY modifications & recomendations were made to this system BEFORE it came into Service properly. Even after that, there were 22 later Mods on the A1 version before it sort of settled down!

In my view, the L85 suffers a bit from the fragility problem. this is inevitable when you have a weapon that is mainly constructed from sheet metal stampings. If one gets caught in a 432 door that is blown shut in a wind, the result is the weapon is severely damaged. This couldnt happen with an SLR! However, it MUST be taken into consideration that the L85 weapon system was ORIGINALY designed to be CHEAP & with READILY exchangable componants to keep costs down. As is well known now, it hasnt turned out that way! However, a LOt of the componants are cheap to manufacture as they are plastic or metal stampings. Investment castings of a lot of the parts has given cheap & precise, accurate dimentions on a repeated scale. it does suffer from defects of design which you WILL be most familiar with! IE: Tearing out of the body locking cross pins Etc. Which is a pain to correct & if it happens more than 2 or 3 times the TMH is U/S! But in Troop / user handling. This is THE personal weapon they have trained on & become familiar with as it is THE currect in Service Smallarm in General issue. It would have been EXACTLY the same in Service if it had been an SLR, or a .303" No.4 Rifle Etc in thier heyday!

[Tony B]

So far its taken about One Hundred and seven years to get the Short Magazine Lee Enfeild right! :-D

And Feret Fixer is quite corect, when first introduced amongst other arguments was the 'extravegence' of a ten shot magazine, and repeating fire.

By the by, one of the pistols I learnt to shoot on was SS marked Browning. Apparently it was preffered to Walther P38

Edited December 29, 2010 by Tony B

[ferretfixer]

As an addendum to my last post with regards to the L85 Weapon system.

One of the 'Benifits' driven in the advertising blurb at the time. was the fact that because it was a smaller calibre weapon. The 'User' could carry twice the amount of ammo.

Forgetting to add, that it also had the addition of a Full Auto selector. Well, the user in the heat of battle is really going to want to switch to 'Rock N Roll' to put down as much firepower as he can. To discourage his opponant! Therby, actually WASTING ammo in a blizzard of fire. Instead of well defined & accurately selected targets, thus making his rounds count!

This was modified in the slr which was modified to semi-auto only for the above stated reasons. Full auto IS great fun in usage, but in a light rifle, is extremly wastefull of ammunition.

The first round may go where you want it, but muzzle climb & recoil WILL pull the barrel off it's originally intended target. ESTABILSHED FACT!

[recymech66]

But not really an issue with well disciplined professional soldiers such as the British Army. The rate of fire in a young relatively inexperienced soldier will be controlled in a fire fight by the section commander and/or his 2nd.

[ferretfixer]

But not really an issue with well disciplined professional soldiers such as the British Army. The rate of fire in a young relatively inexperienced soldier will be controlled in a fire fight by the section commander and/or his 2nd.

 

Agreed, But dont forget, a LOT goes out the window when the Sh*t begins to land all round you in a MAJOR Battlefield scenareo. Afgansitan is a little bit different. You poor buggers get sniped at a lot & have time to make quick decisions & CAN work to fire control orders.

But if you are under a heavy attack, often things change VERY quickly & it' is sometimes impossible to control what is going on. If the Sec commander & 2 I/C get hit under heavy fire.

Im sure you can imagine what it could be like. In the Falklands things changed VERY rapidly indeed! Training under 'Ideal Conditions' does indeed prepare Troops for action. But if you have been under fire & the world is comming apart all round you. Pressure is sometime enourmous & the 'Rules' can be forgotten instantly. It is a reaction to throw back as much as you can to 'Discourage' the enemy & lay down fire which makes you feel 'safer' at that moment in time. Anyone who says they werent scared under fire is either a liar, or got something wrong with them! Troops today have excellent equipment at thier disposal to ease the burden & ease communication between personell. This is excellent & is a great aid to chohesive fire & manouvre. I have evey admiration for our Armed Forces today. There remains a continous problem with most equipment though. Never enough at the right time when needed! Some things never change!

[ArtistsRifles]

As an addendum to my last post with regards to the L85 Weapon system.

One of the 'Benifits' driven in the advertising blurb at the time. was the fact that because it was a smaller calibre weapon. The 'User' could carry twice the amount of ammo.

Forgetting to add, that it also had the addition of a Full Auto selector. Well, the user in the heat of battle is really going to want to switch to 'Rock N Roll' to put down as much firepower as he can. To discourage his opponant! Therby, actually WASTING ammo in a blizzard of fire. Instead of well defined & accurately selected targets, thus making his rounds count!

This was modified in the slr which was modified to semi-auto only for the above stated reasons. Full auto IS great fun in usage, but in a light rifle, is extremly wastefull of ammunition.

The first round may go where you want it, but muzzle climb & recoil WILL pull the barrel off it's originally intended target. ESTABILSHED FACT!

 

So the rumour at the time - that we were foisted off with the 5.56mm round because a certain ally across the Atlantic had shed loads of the stuff to get rid off is not true then!!

 

(apologies for going off-topic!!)

[ferretfixer]

So the rumour at the time - that we were foisted off with the 5.56mm round because a certain ally across the Atlantic had shed loads of the stuff to get rid off is not true then!! :D

 

(apologies for going off-topic!!)

 

Not quite right Neil, But a modicum of truth from the days before we adopted the SLR. The talk at the time was that the US wanted to standardise on a common N.A.T.O Calibre for logistic standardisation. Then said at the time 7.62mm was the way to go (They had the M14) we agreed at that moment in time also. Then they adopted the M16! We went down the route of an optimum common calibre adoption as did the ivans. So we designed a new weapon system around the 4.85mm round. This was a failure in techinical terms (Too indepth to go into here) & the 5.56mm round was trialled. Balistically, this provided what we needed & was adopted. The arguments are many for & against this calibre. BUT, it is in service & we have to make the best of it!

[ArtistsRifles]

Not quite right Neil, But a modicum of truth from the days before we adopted the SLR. The talk at the time was that the US wanted to standardise on a common N.A.T.O Calibre for logistic standardisation. Then said at the time 7.62mm was the way to go (They had the M14) we agreed at that moment in time also. Then they adopted the M16! We went down the route of an optimum common calibre adoption as did the ivans. So we designed a new weapon system around the 4.85mm round. This was a failure in techinical terms (Too indepth to go into here) & the 5.56mm round was trialled. Balistically, this provided what we needed & was adopted. The arguments are many for & against this calibre. BUT, it is in service & we have to make the best of it!

 

Thanks for clarifying!!

Again - apologies for veering off-topic from the Browning HP.

 

Story I heard - just as I was leaving all those many years ago came up during the initial trials of the Sterling design of the "bullpup" design that eventually became the SA-80. One of the (many) complaints was the 5.56 round lacked both penetrating power and range compared to the 7.62 round currently in service.

The response on that one was two fold:

(1) The MoD believed that the day of the major battle was effectively over so that all future conflicts would be urban style counter-terrorism ala N.I.

(2) Our allies across the big pond had a huge surplus of the 5.56 round that we could have free if the MoD agreed to standardize on that calibre. Free being ever the magic word to the MoD Procurement mob.

 

Interestingly - I have in the rather copious amounts of email here a report from a friend out in the SandPit that the Talibans AK's out-range and out-punch the 5.56 rounds we are using. I'll try and find it.

[ferretfixer]

Story I heard - just as I was leaving all those many years ago came up during the initial trials of the Sterling design of the "bullpup" design that eventually became the SA-80. One of the (many) complaints was the 5.56 round lacked both penetrating power and range compared to the 7.62 round currently in service.

The response on that one was two fold:

(1) The MoD believed that the day of the major battle was effectively over so that all future conflicts would be urban style counter-terrorism ala N.I.

(2) Our allies across the big pond had a huge surplus of the 5.56 round that we could have free if the MoD agreed to standardize on that calibre. Free being ever the magic word to the MoD Procurement mob.

 

Interestingly - I have in the rather copious amounts of email here a report from a friend out in the SandPit that the Talibans AK's out-range and out-punch the 5.56 rounds we are using. I'll try and find it.

 

Neil, Sterling never actually had a 'Bullpup' designed weapon. However, it WAS the internals from the Sterling AR180 in 5.56mm that was slightly modified & used in the SA80 Weap/System. It had also been decided that 'Warfare' in the future. Would rarely involve engaging targets over 300 Mtrs in a 'Normal' Battle secenario. (How they came up with this decision was probably utilising the MKI Crystal Ball!) To that end, the L85 series was designed & produced. As regards to the AK outranging the SA80. It is probable IF, they were using the earlier 7.62 x 49mm Round. (Heavier head than 5.56mm) The later Ak's have a SIMILAR smaller Round to the SA80 but a smaller diameter head. These are designed to tumble upon impact thus causing more horrendous wounds. But balistically, less mass, less kenetic 'Thump' upon impact on an intended target!

[Chris Hall]

The current AK round is 5.45mm, similar to our 5.56

 

I think the Americans giving us free ammo is a bit of a myth. We had AR15s and may have been given ammo with those but I believe the American standard 5.56 round is not permitted tobe used in the L85, so their ammo would be no good.

[Tony B]

The British SS109 and American M 193 5.56 x45 ammunition are interchanagble. In that they wil go bang sucsfully from the weapon, but have diffrent ballistic congfigarations that affects performence. Can't remeber (now I need to!) which round has the slower twist.

[Richard Farrant]

Can't remeber (now I need to!) which round has the slower twist.

 

Surely the twist is governed by the barrel rifling...............not the round?

[recymech66]

The current AK round is 5.45mm, similar to our 5.56

 

I think the Americans giving us free ammo is a bit of a myth. We had AR15s and may have been given ammo with those but I believe the American standard 5.56 round is not permitted tobe used in the L85, so their ammo would be no good.

 

I'm no Armourer or expert (other than pulling the trigger and enjoying the bang) but isn't the US 5.56 a slightly different size? as in length of round so will have diferent characteristics. Just something I over heard our Armourers talking about.

[ferretfixer]

I'm no Armourer or expert (other than pulling the trigger and enjoying the bang) but isn't the US 5.56 a slightly different size? as in length of round so will have diferent characteristics. Just something I over heard our Armourers talking about.

 

The head on The US variant is a different weight. therby affecting some performance.

We started out in 4.85mm on the L85 weapon system. I was at the school of Infantry in Warminster when the system was inistially trialled. The 'diffiulcities' on this calibre were many & varied, & also the weapons themselves. MANY mods were requested & then retrialled. One of the main reasons the calibre of 4.85mm was dropped was because of the rate of twist in the rifling. & the fact that the round was quite 'Hot' in speed terms. it was wearing out the rifling after only quite a few hundereds of rounds! Then U.S,5.56mm was suggested as a 'perfected' & in service round. It worked, but also there were ensuing problems. We developed our own heads for this calibre for optimum peformance & so it is in service today. The thoery of utilising any similar N.A.T.O in the SA80 is sound. And indeed in an emergency situation COULD be done. However, the British Radway Green round is the ONLY ammo allowed to be used in it in British Service usage. There are STRICT guidelines laid down in regualtions as to the use of all equipment & wepaon systems that are Rigerously applied. And always have been. BUT, as I have mentione previously. In a Theoretical Battlefield secenaro, If found to be in a situation of great emergency. What have you got to lose? You WILL do all you can to survive & get out ot that situation as dictated by that particular circumstance. The will to live is VERY strong when under a life threatening pressure Gentlemen, Believe me!!!

[Tony B]

Surely the twist is governed by the barrel rifling...............not the round?

Yes, but one round is ballstically designed for a 1 in 12 twist and if I remeber correcrtly the other about 1 in 16.

[ferretfixer]

[QUOTE=Tony B;241108]Yes, but one round is ballstically designed for a 1 in 12 twist and if I remeber correcrtly the other about 1 in 16.

 

Correct Tony, & that is why they are NOT interchangable (Except in a 'take your own chance on it, in a Battlefield scenareo) the usage of a US Round in the SA system would damage the internal walls of the barrel & VERY quickly wear it out! On a hair splitting term: Yes it would fire & opperate. But NO, it is not permitted & would damage the barrel.

[Mk3iain]

[QUOTE=Tony B;241108]Yes, but one round is ballstically designed for a 1 in 12 twist and if I remeber correcrtly the other about 1 in 16.

 

Correct Tony, & that is why they are NOT interchangable (Except in a 'take your own chance on it, in a Battlefield scenareo) the usage of a US Round in the SA system would damage the internal walls of the barrel & VERY quickly wear it out! On a hair splitting term: Yes it would fire & opperate. But NO, it is not permitted & would damage the barrel.

 

So much for "NATO standard", what was the point! it is interesting to see the private initiatives from manufacturers to produce larger calibers ie 6mm and 6.8mm to meet shortfalls found with 5.56mm.

 

I watch too much TV!

[Tony B]

Haven't H&K (Now part of BAE) designied a complete new round at about 4.45? Actually the thread is becoming a bit chicken and eggy. You start with the ammunition, then build a tool to fire it. Wasn't 9 mm originaly a 7.63 bottle neck round , with the neck opened up?

[ferretfixer]

Defo Chicken & Egg situation! H&K also desgned a 'Caseless Round' as well. But it was not a sucess due to fouling 'Difficulties' involved. There is a LOT going on in research involving varied calibres presently. What will energe, is anyones guess! Im not sure about your comment on the 9mm Origins though. The 7.63mm Round is a little 'Hotter' in original form. I cannot state for definate about it evolving from this calibre & being 'opened up'. I doubt that this was the case though. The powder contents are different & the heads obviously weigh differently as well.

[rob8066]

Hi Just to let you know the Sig P226 is only issued to certain front line troops.

 

This is only due to the Browning's jamming in the heat of Afghan.

 

Rear troops i.e. logistics, drivers, nurses are still being issued the Browning Hi Powers.

 

Can't see any L9A1's coming on the deac markets as the government(s) don't want us to have them.

 

Any one got a pic of the correct cleaning rod & cleaning kit for the L9A1?

 

Cheers. Rob

[DWB]

Rob

Heres a couple of cleaning rods used for the L9

The top one is a British manufactured type marked Stubbs England

the bottom is a Canadian Inglis type originally for the Pistol No2 Mk1* just marked with an M or could be a W depends which way its read

the British one is Blued and the Canadian one is phosphated (parkerised)

Dont think there was a dedicated cleaning kit issued for the L9 only the rod the Inglis originally came issued with a standard type Oil bottle.

 

Dan

Edited January 21, 2011 by DWB

[DWB]

Pistol No2 Mk1*

and correct type magazines which can and was also used with the L9 and vice versa

 

Dan

Edited January 21, 2011 by DWB

[ferretfixer]

The CORRECT magazine for an L9 has a Black NYLON follower & the baseplate is retained by a small plate with an indentation pressed in on the end of the internal mag spring. ALSO has a N.A.T.O. stock number on it. The CORRECT magazine for an Inglis No.2 MKI* has an ALLIMINIUM follower, & the mag base plate has two slits machined in it & the edge rolled over to act as a 'Spring' retainer. NO Stock number, but the inistials JI on stand for John Inglis.

The Magazines WERE technically interchagable, & in an emergency WOULD be. BUT, the points lsited above are the CORRECT pattern issue. The reason the nylon was introduced was a logical improvement. Cheaper to produce, & more importantly. The slide passing over the top of an alliuminium one would cause unessacary wear to the front edge of the slide which was the feeding point for ammo. This was eliminated with the introduction of nylon as a softer material. No wear to slide, & cheaper to replace a worn nylon follower with a groove eventually worn in it! (I KNOW, it's Train spotter stuff, but better to get the CORRECT definition than pass on Misinformation. Which tends to then get accepted as the truth with time!) We ALL know about cases of that!......:-X

[ferret]

Here are some pics of my Umarex Browning Hi Power.

 

This is a blank firing model. It is the 8mm version and is considered one of the best copies ever made.

 

If anybody is interested it is for sale. It comes with 58 pattern holster and belt, 45 rnds blank ammo spare mag and original box. £200+pp or I will be at Stoneleigh.

 

Chris