It might have been hijacked but I liked the ride:thup:
Printable View
It might have been hijacked but I liked the ride:thup:
No issue on things being posted on other guns, all interesting and informative..
If the good Lord's willing and the creek don't rise I will post another new to me on Friday. Have doubts it will be as interesting as the AIA as it won't have a chrome lined barrel.:lol:
I thought I had seen one somewhere...
Attachment 74359
Someone stole the flash hider! :madsmile:
I wonder if that is the M-21 that used to belong to one of the RAR battalions in Brisbane.
The one I saw was definitely complete.
Enlarging the pic, I think the card says 3 RAR snipers were trained on the rifle by the U.S. in country.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz
For what it's worth, I always thought the secrecy surrounding AIA was really odd, even here in Australia. They had a product that lots and lots of people wanted (.308 Lee-Enfield!), the few rifles I've seen about have been excellent quality (I know someone with a 7.62x39 AIA rifle and it shoots really well) - the major issue was the price; they were really expensive. The fact the company had pretty much no profile was also really surprising; they didn't seem especially interested in promoting themselves or telling anybody who they were or what they were doing - I didn't see any feature articles on them in shooting magazines, for example.
Personally, I was always really surprised they didn't make an SMLE Mk III* in .308. Pretty much everyone I know with an interest in guns said "I don't want a weird sporterised 7.62x39mm rifle, but an SMLE which I can get ammo for easily would be awesome." I know SMLEs are incredibly fiddly and difficult to make but I'm also sure the design could have been simplified somehow; I vaguely recall AIA saying they were "looking into it" before they went off the radar. And yes, I know the Ishapore 2A1 exists but they were only imported into Australia in very small numbers and the few rifles I've seen are slightly more rough around the edges than would seem optimal.
Articles were few and far between, but they did exist. I've only seen three or four about the AIA rifles in Australian magazines.
They did do an advertising mail-out at one stage, which was a long time before product seemed to be available. I've still got a copy of it somewhere.
They could not make the No1 receiver. They could not make the No4 receiver. They started with a solid block and did as little machining to it as they had to (so it could be done in SE Asian sweat shops, by unskilled labour) to make it work and then called it a new upgraded stronger design.
The expense was not in R&D or quality in manufacturing, or advertising or product support or company expansion.... :confused:
There is a bit more to it than that.
Firstly, they were NOT made in a "sweat-shop".
I had to do a lot of tap-dancing to try to convince both the management and makers of the various bits, NOT to cut corners.
How many "modern" rifles retain helical locking surfaces? And cut them with traditional shaving tools? If I were to do it all again, EDM and a whole raft of newer techniques would be called into play.
The receiver has a LOT more steel in the side rails because it was ALWAYS envisaged that there would be a 7.62 NATO version and, tentatively, even "hotter" numbers (7.62 "derivatives", like .22-250 and .243Win) built on the action.
Remember that the entire project was precipitated by Jackboot Johnny's intemperate action.
My initial concept was essentially a bolt-action SKS: short, relatievly light, intermediate cartridge. Folks had been "modifying' Lee Enfields to run with 7.62 x 39 for years. I just figured that a "new" build with a bit more modern "fruit' might be the go.
One of the variants was to be chambered for 6mm PPC, but I never got that one past the keeper, ditto the 5.56 / .223 job. I still have some of the prototype adapter parts for those around here somewhere.
The adapter concept was what I considered to be the key. There was supposed to be ONE receiver that would accept a range of "plug-in" adapters which were magazine / cartridge specific. This was NOT en entirely novel idea. It has since appeared on several other interesting bits of kit.
Nor was the use of the Savage-style "Brewer" barrel nut / headspacing feature terribly original. The idea was to work around the huge amount of "hand" work that went into making the original Lee Enfields.
The use of Teak as furniture came about because one of the parties to this caper had a link to a Vietnamese facility that specialised in furniture and ornaments made from that timber, and which, usefully enough, had their own plantation and drying kiln which produced straight-grained, if rather heavy, material. That plant, being in the serious furniture biz, also had the ability to make nice clones of the brass buttplate assembly. The first several hundred sets of woodwork were made ENTIRELY by hand whilst machinery was being procured. They also knocked out sets of teak SMLE furniture, complete with all of the integral metalwork.
Eventually I parted ways for a number of reasons and never actually got to own one of the beasties.