AIA #4 M10 Ejection

There are a couple of youtube videos of this rifle. I watched because I was curious about how reliable the ejection would be with the rimless 7.62 cases.
The Lee-Enfield design works fine with a rimmed case. I have never fired a 7.62 version so I wondered how well the LE bolt ejected the rimless case.
At 2:06 into the video with the camera behind the shooter you can see that the ejection is very positive out and away from the rifle with little effort.
Reminds me of a 700 Remington ejection.
The earlier video showed positive ejection but you could not just how far away the the rifle the cases were ejected.

AIA rifle being fired

Anyway I was digging around in Marstar's web site and found this picture of the AIA bolt head. It's ejector design answered my question about ejection with the 7.62 case.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...AM1B001L-1.jpg

I've found that the out of spec Lithgow action I've mentioned before, which I'm considering using for a sporter project, will eject rimless cases very nicely. This particular action has an odd extractor and doesn't handle the regular rimmed .303 cases well at all.
The No.1 isn't a good action for a cartridge like the 7.62 NATO but should be strong enough for the 7mm, in the lower pressure standard loadings though not the loads that puish the SAAMI max pressures for the 7mm, or similar less intense cartridges.
I checked the action with empty 7.62X39 and these also ejected nicely.

The No.1 action converted to .45 ACP works fine with that rimless pistol cartridge.

There are flat spring loaded ejector studs or tabs run through slots milled in the receiver wall that are used with a number of cartridge conversions of the No.1 and No.4 actions.
The No.5 was used as a test bed for the 7.92X33 and the .280 Enfield assault rifle cartridges and possibly a few others. If I remember correctly these test bed carbines had been altered for extraction and ejection, but the magazines were not altered to feed the shorter cartridges, test firing being as a single shot only.

Could I respectfully ask that this thread be moved to the NON-Milsurps General Discussion Forum as that is about the only appropriate place for more discussion about this commercial model rifle here at MILSURPS.COM

Thankyou,
Brad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Son

Could I respectfully ask that this thread be moved to the NON-Milsurps General Discussion Forum as that is about the only appropriate place for more discussion about this commercial model rifle here at MILSURPS.COM

Thankyou,
Brad.

---

I large part we agree that the M10 is not a Milsurp or an Enfield product, but as the only sucessful civilian bolt action based on an updated Lee Enfield design it has some interesting points.
Also previous postings about this rifle have served to warn those considering buying one for competition that it is unlikely to be accepted in service rifle category, so this may have saved a few prospective buyers from an expensive mistake.

I've always been more interested in the mechanics of antique rifle actions than their shooting qualities, one can always find a more modern rifle that will shoot as well or better.
Due to a long ago injury the short actions are of importance to me in particular, Mauser type bolt actions are awkward and sometimes painful to operate. Every bolt action rifle or shotgun I own has a rear locking short throw bolt action.

PS
Does anyone remember a short lived para military 5.56 bolt action, mid 90's I think, that used a rear locking action?
The rifle was designed more or less to serve as a Volks rifle type for civilian use in NATO countries. It used the M16 magazine and an action similar to the Enfield, though it had no other outward resemblence to the LE.
I don't think they sold many, the volks rifle idea being outdated.

Before posting about the AIA rifles here I asked and received premission from the moderator to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alfred

I large part we agree that the M10 is not a Milsurp or an Enfield product, but as the only sucessful civilian bolt action based on an updated Lee Enfield design it has some interesting points.
Also previous postings about this rifle have served to warn those considering buying one for competition that it is unlikely to be accepted in service rifle category, so this may have saved a few prospective buyers from an expensive mistake..

---

In the US the Springfield Armory M1-A is used in service rifle competition.
It is not an M-1. It is a much modified commercial clone of the M-14 yet it is permitted in military matches. It is possible that at buyer of the AIA rifle can have his rifle modified or perhaps AIA will modify one of their production models to meet the service rifle criteria. If that happens the M10 rifle would be competing along side #4s.

I have always been curious about the competitions fired with the #4 rifles. What inspection is required of the rifles for competition?
1. Trigger pull
2. Sights
3. Weight
4. Barrel
5. Caliber
Are #4s required to compete against civilian versions of the currrent service rifle such are the AR 15 types used in the US?

The M10 could easily be modified to meet most of the #4 requirements, especially the sighting requirements. What is to stop a competitor from modifying a #4 with a modern bench rest quality barrel and chamber?
On one of the other threads there was a #4 modified to use what looked like a Canjar trigger. Are there any restrictions on these modifications?

In UK at least, an AIA wouldn't be competing in the same category as a .303 rifle. HBSA and LERA, which together probably carry out the core of organised .303 competition, have series of categories in each military match something along the lines of:

Vintage (Long Lees or, for the real sportsmen, Martini-Enfields...)
Classic (SMLE or CLLEs with a charger bridge)
Veteran (No4/5)
Postwar (2A1s, Sterlings)
Scoped/Open/etc (including bipods, other calibres, etc)

AIAs are few at the moment, but they'd probably fall into the same class as other 7,62mm weapons in military configuration.

Competitions which are pure target shooting (rather than military practices, eg maybe including rapid fire, etc) are usually further sub-divided into "service rifle A" (SRA) and "service rifle B" (SRB). The SRA is limited to rifles in pure military form (including sights and sling), whereas SRB rifles may have target sights and slings. Here an AIA No4 would probably fall into the "first generation" category, along with L39s/ Envoys/ etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ireload2

In the US the Springfield Armory M1-A is used in service rifle competition.
It is not an M-1. It is a much modified commercial clone of the M-14 yet it is permitted in military matches.

---

Any and all external differences of the M14 and M1A are the same ones such as the AR-15 platform today and due to the laws have been made match legal without these features, the lack of the Go-Fast assembly, and therefor the wood is made to cover the openings that would have been there. However if you really want you can buy a fake Go-Fast assembly if it makes you feel better. And you can buy directly from SAI flash hiders with a bayonet lug as well.

USGI M14 Rifle:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif

SAI M1A Rifle:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif

Dimitri

IIRC, the rifle to which Alfred is referring was a Parker Hale project. Synthetic stock with mag. well and catch assembly for AR magazine, rear locking action. Nothing came of it, and PH is gone.
The M1A is accepted for competition because M-14 rifles are simply not an option for most civilians.
In Canada, there are various vintage rifle matches. Often there is a category for original vintage rifles, and one for everything else. The AIA is not a vintage rifle.
Doubt that an AIA would be welcome in the vintage bolt action matches hosted by the CMP at Camp Perry. Are SA Inc. M-1s welcome in the CMP M-1 Garand vintage match? I assume one could be used in the across the course National Match program.
I expect that an AIA could be used in a formal "Service Conditions" match here. I know original Lee Enfields (know of a chap entering with a K98K) have been used. Most competitors use an issue C-7 rifle or AR based rifle, both with optical sights. Other modern non-issue semi autos could be used, so I assume an AIA would be acceptable. Anyone using a bolt action rifle is entering the matches with a real handicap. Simply not competitive with a semi auto. Bolt action rifles require separate events for the rapid fire stages. Rapid fire matches - standing to kneeling or prone, 10 shots in 30 seconds with a mandatory reload for semi autos. I believe 40 seconds for bolt rifles. A real problem for match organisers if there are too few bolt rifles for a relay. One snap match requires 2 shots per exposure, standing to kneeling at 200m. Any bolt rifle is a handicap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dimitri

Any and all external differences of the M14 and M1A are the same ones such as the AR-15 platform today and due to the laws have been made match legal without these features, the lack of the Go-Fast assembly, and therefor the wood is made to cover the openings that would have been there. However if you really want you can buy a fake Go-Fast assembly if it makes you feel better. And you can buy directly from SAI flash hiders with a bayonet lug as well.

USGI M14 Rifle:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif

SAI M1A Rifle:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif

Dimitri

---

The first M1A I fired had the USGI stock with cut out for the selector but as far as I know the receiver was a new civilian production without accomodation for the assembly.
BTW
A warning on defective flash hiders came out at that time. Seems some early production flash hiders had been manufactured from "Pipe Stock" the center section of the ingots.
Apparently when an ingot is poured only the outer slabs cut from the ingot are used for high strength forgings, the center has a screwed up crystaline structure due to unequal cooling and is put aside for less critical components.
The flash hiders made from the inner core metal were known to shatter for no apparent reason while in use. I'm not sure but I think TRW was the manufacturer. The defect had been caught early on, but a few bad flash hiders had gotten past the inspection process and ended up in spare parts stores, some ended up being sold to makers of M14 clones.
This warning along with several other product safety warnings of the time, such as slam firing of some Garand type actions) were given to me in booklet form by a local gunsmith. Unfortunately the cat had kittens in the box where this booklet was put away. I expect Springfield Armory still has these warnings on file.

Quote:

---

IIRC, the rifle to which Alfred is referring was a Parker Hale project. Synthetic stock with mag. well and catch assembly for AR magazine, rear locking action. Nothing came of it, and PH is gone.

---

That sounds like the rifle, but Parker Hale wasn't connected with it when I first read of it, perhaps the design was taken up for a time by another manufacturer.

On the subject of rear locking actions, my favorite civilian rifle is my early production Savage 23B in .25-20 caliber. This fine little rifle has features which offset the potential problems of rear locking actions, and is of course a fairly low intensity chambering.
The receiver is milled from the barrel itself, the single row mag opening and ovaled ejector openings are fairly small.
The bolt handle acts as one lug and the opposing, though further back, lug seats in a recess much like the LE lefthand lug. Both locking lugs are actually set much further to the rear than those of the LE rifles.

My Maverick Bolt Action 12 gauge is also rear locking and is an excellent shooter for this under rated type of low cost repeating shotgun.

I'd have liked to see the LE type actions reproduced in sporting rifle calibers, perhaps slightly scaled down to best suit the popular rimmed .30-30 and rounds based on that case type such as the 7X30 Waters or .225 Winchester.
Sporters that harked back to the fine old BSA sporters would probably sell very well. And an easily removable butt stock would allow them to be carried in a nice short fitted gun case, as was popular with shooters when rail transportation first became common.
A locking collar type quick change barrel would further aid in making such a travel case very compact, and a spare .410 gauge barrel would make it a true multi purpose sporter. Spare barrels in various combinations would allow the same rifle to be used for many types of game , large or small, or for varmint shooting. Spare magazines suited for different cartridge types would make feeding no problem.A spare fore end profiled for target shooting is another possible accessory.
A spare bolt set up for rimfire use and a barrel liner for the .410 barrel would further enable small game hunting or informal target shooting or plinking.
I've read that just such a .410 to .22 conversion was available in India at one time.

With the AIA rifle development perhaps something along these lines will come about one day.

It is not unusual for spoiled Lee Enfield rifles to be used for various projects. They are readily available and very inexpensive.
The fine old British sporting Lees are graceful, attractive rifles. Replicating one would be a challenge. Incidentally, it is possible to retrofit a tang safety, without great difficulty.
Switch barrels are a definite option, although once a barrel is fitted, a Savage type locking collar isn't much of an advantage. A fitted barrel can be installed without gauges, a barrel with a collar requires a gauge every time - and the headspace might change slightly every time, depending on the "feel" as the collar is torqued into place. The suggestion of a .22 insert barrel for a .410 is very interesting.
The disadvantages of rear locking, as well as undesirability of cock on closing have been overblown.
The AIA rifles are interesting. It took a lot of effort to get them into production. Not an easy thing to do. AIA does seem to be a bit of an odd outfit. Whether the rifles will ever be widely distributed is anyone's guess. I personally have no problem with outsourcing, as long as QC is maintained. What I find amusing is the evasiveness of the maker and distributor.
Springfield, Inc. started out the easy way with their early M1A production. Commercial receiver, everything else USGI surplus. Scratch manufacturing a M1A receiver is enough of a challenge, without having to make everything else. As the supply of original parts dried up, the operation had to start making more and more of the bits. There have been growing pains and QC issues. Current production M1As have receivers cast in Montreal, Canada, by the way. How many parts Springfield, Inc. currently makes in-house, and how many they outsource, I do not know.
Years ago I was involved in a small firearm manufacturing business, and I do have an idea of the sort of challenge it can be to get anything into production.
PH did have a rear locking .223 sized action in limited production, maybe the AR mag'd utility rifle was another company's project. I thought at the time it had potential. Still do.

Incidentally, how deep is the boltface counterbore on an AIA rifle?

Interesting question.
I don't know if AIA used the same bolt diameter but if they did you can scale it compared to a #4 bolt. It looks like it is between .045" and .050" if they designed it in inches.

Quote:

---

PH did have a rear locking .223 sized action in limited production, maybe the AR mag'd utility rifle was another company's project. I thought at the time it had potential. Still do.

---

The odd looking Cadet rifle shown here
The latest in firearms technology from Parker-Hale Limited
Is definitely not the rifle I spoke of.

The rifle I saw photos of years ago was a more conventional BA lay out with very simple synthetic stock. Pretty much a bare bones woods rifle designed for cheap production while maintaining strength enough for the 5.56mm NATO chambering.
Something low cost that could be stored wherever the owner might figure a easy to reach rifle might come in handy. Around here we call them out house rifles. Farmers and others who might be out in the field away from the house like to have a rifle stashed in a tool shed or out house in case a trouble maker showed up between them and the house.

That's something else again, haven't seen that rifle before, although maybe the action is the PH one I'm thinking of.
The other rifle with the AR magazine used a one piece synthetic stock, rather conventional looking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiriaq

Incidentally, how deep is the boltface counterbore on an AIA rifle?

---

It is fairly deep, the counterbore on my AIA boltface is .140"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiriaq

The disadvantages of rear locking, as well as undesirability of cock on closing have been overblown.

---

I can see some sense in the criticism of rear locking actions, but can someone explain to me just exactly why cock-on-closing is such a bad thing?

Is it just because it is different to Mauser type actions?

I can remember seeing "Speedlock" conversions available, IIRC these were to convert P14 and M17 to cock on opening. Supposedly to reduce the lock time - struck me as absolute hogwash, surely lock time is a function of striker spring energy and friction - just where in the cycle the mainspring is cocked should be irrelevant.

I think that technically the cock on closing is superior for a battle rifle.
Rear locking has it's place if properly designed. The Swiss 96 is a good example.
Just way too long to be use with modern pressures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiriaq

Are SA Inc. M-1s welcome in the CMP M-1 Garand vintage match? I assume one could be used in the across the course National Match program.

---

CMP matches want a unmodified as issued rifle on the outside. I do not see why a SAI M1 wouldn't be allowed based on that requirement as they allow M1A rifles (and the Chinese M14S/M305 rifles to compete as "M14" rifles as long as externally they are the same as the originals (more or less selector system omitted of course).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiriaq

I expect that an AIA could be used in a formal "Service Conditions" match here.

---

In theory per the DCRA anything is legal for matches, as its currently "Any rifle, any sight" in the regulations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiriaq

How many parts Springfield, Inc. currently makes in-house, and how many they outsource, I do not know.

---

SAI per my knowledge right now produces very little in their own plant. They finish machine the receivers and forged bolts, the barrels are made by a US maker otherwise most of the bits and pieces are made in Taiwan then finished assembled in their plant. There is a catalog online if you look hard enough for it for one of the Taiwanese arsenals that still have the ability to produce T57/M14 parts.

Edit: If anyone wants the link to the catalog let me know, I'll gladly supply it.

Dimitri

The CMP National Match program wants issue appearing rifles, which can be worked over internally, including match grade barrels, bedding, etc. I was referring to the CMP M-1 vintage match, which had 1300 entrants last year. I suspect that this match is for original rifles.
The plunger ejector and counterbored boltface used by AIA are a good way of dealing with a rimless cartridges. The Australian .223 and 7.62x39 conversions uses boltheads altered in a similar fashion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiriaq

The CMP National Match program wants issue appearing rifles, which can be worked over internally, including match grade barrels, bedding, etc. I was referring to the CMP M-1 vintage match, which had 1300 entrants last year. I suspect that this match is for original rifles.
The plunger ejector and counterbored boltface used by AIA are a good way of dealing with a rimless cartridges. The Australian .223 and 7.62x39 conversions uses boltheads altered in a similar fashion.

---

I'm a bit leery of the bolt heads altered by adding a ring silver soldered or brazed to the original bolt face, If a case head blew the ring would be another source of sharpnel.

Empty 7.62X39 cases eject well from my Lithgow action.

If a replacement bolt head specifically designed for the rimless cases were available it would probably sell fairly well.
There are a few machinist that provide aftermarket CNC machined accesories for SKS actions, perhaps one of these small companies would be interested in manufacturing replacement boltheads of various types.
If so some otherwise nearly unusable bolt bodies that have badly worn threads but are numbered to their receiver could be returned to good shooting condition by a new manufacture bolt head threaded a hair oversized for the purpose.

I have used a carbide tool to create a bolthead counterbored for .223. Held the bolthead in a collet, c'bore was very concentric.
I would not be surprised if there were not a market for #3, #4, even #5 sized boltheads. Just increased .005" per step.
Something to consider if converting a Lee Enfield to a rimlless round.... There is a built in gap between the barrel face and standard boltface. If the boltface is counterbored, that gap should be eliminated. You don't want any more brass hanging out in the breeze than necessary. When I was experimenting with the .223 conversion, I fitted a ratty, salvaged Sako barrel, machined it to bring it back to the bolthead. Functionned well enough as a single shot, just never picked up a really good .223 barrel to experimant further.

Article on converting a No4 to .223 calibre

http://www.surplusrifle.com/shooting/no4223/index.asp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiriaq

I have used a carbide tool to create a bolthead counterbored for .223. Held the bolthead in a collet, c'bore was very concentric.

---

I'd given that some thought. The bolt heads seem to have enough meat to them to allow a shallow counterbore.

A short list of sporting cartridges I considered for a No.1 conversion.

1. .22 Savage Hi Power (shortage of proper .228 diameter barrel blanks and difficulty finding bullets)
2. 6.5X57R ( that would be a great cartridge for local game from Deer down to Turkey and smaller game with reduced loads.
3. 7X57R for much the same reasons, both are porportioned nicely for the LE actions.

4. cartridges based on the .30-30 Winchester, the .30-30 due to wide availability and inherent accuracy, the .32 Winchester Special due to it being very well suited to handloading with a wide variety of propellants including Black Powder (finding a suitable barrel blank with 1 in 16 twist won't be easy, the 7X30 Waters a very versatile chambering, 25-35 Winchester could be given just enough power with handloads for the light White Tail Deer and be used with light loads or .25 ACP in an adapter for small game.

For now I'm leaning more towards a .410 repeater, a DP mag modified to feed the shotshell, with a .22 WMR liner and spare bolt for rabbit or squirrel.