Just curious. What does the U.S. import marking say? Since there were hardly any imported to the USA, I have to wonder if they were so marked in Australia, were never imported to the USA but subsequently went to Marstar in Canada instead?
Printable View
Just curious. What does the U.S. import marking say? Since there were hardly any imported to the USA, I have to wonder if they were so marked in Australia, were never imported to the USA but subsequently went to Marstar in Canada instead?
Brian, "Imported by Sabre Defence Industries LLC". The marking is identical to the AIA markings so bet you are right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Dick
I heard they, (AiA and Sabre Defense), had some sort of falling out many years ago. I was actually approached by AIA to do imports but I passed because there were BATFE questions about the origins of some parts being made in Vietnam. Now that relations are normalized with Vietnam, they might be importable but are no longer available from Australia as far as i know. Does AiA still exist?
No idea but I'd be all over one of I saw it available in the lower 48
I have the personal email address of the head honcho and have not had any of my emails answered in a couple of years. I will say he was always very good to deal with and hope we reconnect someday. He also sent me photos of prototypes they were working on and I had to agree to non disclosure so can't post the pictures. The guns are HEAVY being teak and would be great in a situation where you never had to move positions often. This one will become a safe queen and it has been used by a guy my friend loaned it to years ago. Apparently this one is a good shooter and came with the stock pre-drilled for the cheek piece. As I mentioned John from Marstar told my friend this one was a odd ball compared to the others he received (heavier barrel, butt drilled).Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Dick
IIRC the stocks came from Vietnam. I don't think AIA still exists, hope I am wrong.
Someone who IIRC is a member on this site really slagged the guns but admitted he never shot one...go figure. My B2 is a great shooter with hand loads and occasionally gets a range day. The 7.62X39 is very accurate if you factor in the crap surplus ammo I feed it. I bought a couple thousand copper wash "39" as it isn't lacquer coated so they won't stick in the chamber.
The "import' markings were applied well before they were shipped across the pond, to "streamline" the "paperwork" and handling.
You may well find that LOTS of other importers / brands do the same, to similarly "streamline" things.
The only potential problem with the "B" series M-10s is that the mag spring is essentially the same as for a ten-round M-1A mag, thus putting excess "drag" on the cartridges during feeding. M-1As (and the "originals) rely on SPECTACULAR bolt travel speed to strip rounds from the mag. Compare the mag "pressure" with that of a ten-round No4 mag for the idea.
Even the "A" series (7.62 x 39) M-10s often require that the bolt be operated "smartly" to prevent "mis-feeds", (rounds "popping up") etc.
Ive just done the same for another group, so as background for the rifles and a bit of reading to help work out for yourselves what happened to AIA, here are three links to Stephen Regwell's site. He actively followed them for a few years trying at first to do a test and review for them but... well, read the timeline in the first link and you will see what happened....:confused:
The Mystery of Australian International Arms
Australian International Arms - Part 2
AIA Rifles: Cheaply Made
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son
Those three are very interesting reading.
I had read those three links a some time ago, and they did answer the question as to why it did not gain adoption as the new Ranger rifle, something a few of us wondered about while still in the system.
I would be very interested to see a side by side teardown of and AIA vs the closest comparable Lee Enfield, just to see what was changed and how.
If I might draw a parallel of the New Inland M1 Carbine based on the conclusions of the article: "was clearly designed for the civilian recreational shooting market and it is not a military product."
However I do not want to bash another member's purchase, especially since I have never even seen one in person, let alone fire one to draw my own assessments, but the articles by Steve Redgwell do raise some curious questions.
Personally I had hoped to purchase one and build up a modern psuedo No.4 Mk1 T without having to worry about installing a T mount and being able to work with 7.62 NATO, but the lack of availability has snuffed out that plan.
I would still be interested to see a range report for this rifle nonetheless.
Thanks Bruce, I have always single loaded mine so never had the mentioned problem. I haven't had my B2 out in a couple years, will have to do that and refresh my knowledge on its accuracy. IIRC it was pretty decent with hand loads. I have over time come up with some very accurate loads for a Savage 10 &12 which worked in the b2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz
I just went thru some old AIA correspondence and B2#232 was sent to John at Marstar and apparently would group 1/2 inch. Someone in Canada has that gun and it has dark teak furniture.