Has anybody else got an interest in the M85 Parker Hale sniper rifle that should have won the Army contract as opposed to the L96??
Be good to hear from you
Gil;)
Printable View
Has anybody else got an interest in the M85 Parker Hale sniper rifle that should have won the Army contract as opposed to the L96??
Be good to hear from you
Gil;)
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff033-1.jpg
It's not a bad rifle. But "unfinished". For one, it's very particular about the magzines. Many need tweaking of the feed lips so that the bolt will engage the cartridge whilst feeding. Mag release is too easily actuated as well.
At least they fixed the trigger assembly!
Nice multi coloured McMillan stock there, what scope are you using?
It's a 10x Leupold in a 1" PH mount. Would like to round up a 26mm unit one day, along with a more appropriate scope.
They are about and often up for sale here in the UK.
I load my rifle round at a time, so don't use the mag for what it was intended, however, on occasions I have let other people fill and fire, they have had feeder issues caused by the lip of the short mag.
I tend to rest my springs when not in use and lightly oil them when ever I can, which seems to overcome that problem.
Are you using 7.62x51's?
Gil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gil9713
Not much. Mostly ammo I load myself. It likes 150gr Nosler Ballistic Tips and Sierra MKs. IMR 4064 powder.
Roger that, interesting:thup:
Mmmmmmmm! Should have won the Army contract over the AI L96?? I'm not to sure about that. The L96 shoots like a demon and is the only rifle I have ever taken out of its cover and shot a V bull at 1000 yds first round cold. This thread alone has already criticised the M85 build quality. However it is a beautiful looking gun and has its place in British sniper rifle history, I fully intend getting one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gil9713
Chosenman,
After a great deal of research on the L96 and the M85 and speaking directly to those craftsman who worked on both rifles with blood sweat and tears, I found that it basically came down to which rifle caused the least dramas to change bits in the field or in an armourers hands, and the M85, although deemed a better rifle, lost out marginally.....sadly due to that one fact.
A real shame, as it closed one of the most respected historic manufacturers in the UK overnight Parker Hale.
Incidently both rifles produced unbelievable cold start first round results.
Again IMO it was a hairs width decision between them both.
I would be interested to hear from any ex Military SAC users like Peter Laidler who I would value his views on the M85 also. But I believe that to be a true statement.
One rifle I certainly won't be shifting in the near future.......I love it
Gil
Hi Gil,
Yep I have heard from several sources that the MOD decision rested on the engineering and design features of both finalist rifles. The M85's conventional build was essentially its downfall as it required the full back up of REME armourers to keep it front line, just the same as the L42. It would appear AI listened to the brief and built something innovative and more importantly required very little skilled attention. Virtually all parts that hung off the chassis could be attended to by the rifleman, barrel change, trigger unit, battle sights, side panels could all be removed, reattached and swapped mostly with three allen keys and only a 1 MOA depreciation over 10,000 rounds was guaranteed.
I think the MOD made the right call. They selected a weapon that was innovative, completely British and it delivered exactly what it said on the tin, furthermore its ascendants still do!