Printable View
Finally picked up the AIA No4 today. Yes I know it isn't a true Lee Enfield however these are rather rare in Canada and will now reside in the safe with a B2 and a M10 7.62X39.
One question, it seems this rifle has the same diameter barrel as my B2, is that normal?
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ycluc2mk-1.jpg
Is that mag an M14 mag?
Nope, it is a AIA mag but will fit a M14, got a spare one as well. The B2 I bought had only one, guess somewhere along the line the spare was sold for $$$.00.Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
But they are a copy of an M14 mag though...was more what I was thinking. So replacements are around.
I'd buy one if they were available in 'the lower 48'.
Some of the AIA MK4's have a heavy barrel similar to the B2's.
The AIA magazine is more-or-less a shortened M-14 magazine; different in that there is no small square hole in the front wall of the AIA mag. I would imagine that this would mean that the AIA mag would not fit an M-14 or M1A. The square block on the back of the two magazines also looks to be slightly different; suspect that an M-14 mag would need some minor fettling to fit in an AIA. The extra magazine spring force in the 20 round magazine could also make operating the AIA bolt quite stiff.
That's what I was wondering...Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxwell Smart
Thanks for the barrel information as this is the only one I have seen. The previous owner bought this from John at Marstar who told him it had a heavier barrel than the others he had for sale. John was a dealer for AIA yet this rifle has the dreaded US import mark on it. I thought John had imported his directly from AIA but not this one for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxwell Smart
From what I have been told these mags fit a M14.
People have done the AIA to M14 magazine and vice-versa, however I am uncertain what precisely had to be done to make the interchange work. The AIA magazine did create some excitement upon release for the M14 crowd who were looking for a legal option to achieve normal capacity magazines for their Norinco M305/M14S.
In fact I noticed that the distributor had a number of "NIB" AIA rifles available at discount because they were lacking magazines, I suspect that someone perhaps sold off the originals from the boxed rifles expecting factory replacements that never arrived. "Spare" magazines were not an uncommon thing to harvest from a rifle for resale, another retailer (circa 2007) were selling the M14S with a 5 round short magazine. At that time, the rifles were shipping with 3 magazines normally, a 5 round, and 2x 5/20 round, the foam in the box even had the cut outs for them, but the 5/20 mags were retained by the retailer and offered at a rate of $40 each.
Back to the AIA rifles, I had a very keen interest in obtaining one but waited a bit too long, and by the time I allotted funds to acquiring one, the company had cease export to Canada.
It looks like that one is in great condition and a nice find.
And THAT'S been ongoing for years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentryduty
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.
A few observations:Quote:
Originally Posted by Son
The argument regarding whether the AIA rifles are "Lee Enfield" or not really doesn't understand that "Lee" refers to the action and (removeable) magazine system patents, while "Enfield" refers to the rifling pattern of the bore.
Therefore the rifles are plainly "Lee" but not "Enfield" at all. In fact, one could argue that none of the 7.62 "Lee Enfield" rifles are "Enfield" at all.
The only? problem with SR's "review" (what's posted is an edited version from what I recall at the time) is that he never actually had a gun....and possibly never even saw one.
His extreme concern regarding potential 3rd world warranty issues is puzzling to someone who regularly shoots 70-150 year old firearms sometimes manufactured in countries which no longer exist...
The SARP quote is interesting, but the history of the SARP programs are notoriously political and the recent small arms RQFs which I have read were plainly written by someone with no knowledge of small arms outside of video games.
I (personally) didn't buy an AIA because I have original 7.62 "Lee" and .303 "Lee Enfield" rifles and the AIA seemed to be a production firearm with "on-demand" availability.
Darren, if you ever visit we will take out the B2/No4 and let you draw your own conclusions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentryduty
Are AIA rifles perfect, no however I do believe they were capable of being very good with a few mods. As for not being a military rifle well it is very heavy which is a real pain however the reference to a chrome lined barrel you read of not being accurate is off base IMHO. Why does the military choose what they do.....let me give you a example of what I think is illogical thinking.
Yesterday I handled a T48 (FAL) which went up against the M14 (T44) for a US battle rifle. The M14 won and if you handle both you will have to shake your head why other than political that decision was made. The T48 is amazing, machining, fit, finish and overall a excellent gun, but that is just my opinion as possibly beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Don't get me wrong the M14 is a good rifle however the FAL is a better rifle. They only produced 3,200 T48 rifles and being a prohib. in Canada are very rare.
I could list countless decisions on purchases of military equipment that boggle the mind, most are political and make little sense if scrutinized.
I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with anything I buy, I bought it as I like them, they are not common and down the road hope to stumble on a B3. The world would be pretty boring if we all agreed on everything.
Well; after reading Steve's articles, I think I made the right decision to steer clear. This business is fraught with nightmares and headaches that there isn't enough time to list and I surely didn't need another one!
I have to comment on the T48 vs M14 argument. Yes, there was politics involved in the U.S. adoption of the M14. However: being the owner, admirer and shooter of both types of weapon, I believe that the FAL design is much more soldier proof which is ALWAYS a good thing. Especially from the Armorer's standpoint. The FAL will never hold a candle to the accuracy of the M14 when properly tuned and fitted with a scope. That's why we, (U.S. Army), were still using them in M21 guise in the 1980's and they've been resurrected in large numbers since the global conflicts began in 2001. Not so much with the FAL design. They just aren't an optics friendly weapon with top cover scope mounting.
I will have to get down to your part of the country sometime, and maybe even bring along my video equipment for a bit of footage. It would be a good time.Quote:
Originally Posted by enfield303t
I was nearby in Kamloops 2 weekends ago with a couple of Mustangs, but that was for a lap of the rockies roadtrip, and there wasn't time for dawdling. The wives planned an overly ambitious road move, Edmonton, Calgary, Banff, Lake Louise, Revelstoke, Kamloops, Valemount, Jasper and return, plus sight seeing, 4 days. Maybe next go-round.
You are always welcome and my son and I would enjoy your visit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentryduty
Brian, to slag a rifle like was done without shooting one is a no no IMO so a review like that doesn't hold water with me. That is the point with me, I wouldn't write a bad review on car if I never drove it. Makes no sense but that's just my 2 cents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Dick
Seeing as real M14's are prohibs. up here I have never shot a original one which I would like to do. I remember my son telling me about a quote out of Vietnam regarding the M14 scoped... I can't remember the exact words but was something about the scope mount "allowing the enemy to escape on a regular basis"?
I hope you also visit the "barren north" someday, would enjoy taking you to the range to shoot the AIA's, they might surprise you.
.
I should clarify a bit. I don't really have an opinion on the quality, accuracy or function of the AIA since I've never even examined one other than in Ian's book. It's the problems dealing with the manufacturer/exporter I'm referring to and the report Steve put out references the same experiences I was hearing back then from others in the trade. One thing I have no respect for is a lack of communication with potential customers as well as long time customers. I go to great lengths to answer every call, email or written correspondence quickly here and expect the same from those I deal with.
I had six M21 sniper rifles in my care as a young Armorer in the PIR in the 1980's. It was before the dedicated U.S. Army sniper school was opened at Fort Benning so we had one at Fort Bragg as most Infantry bases did at the time. The sniper candidates did very well with the rifles equipped with the ARTII telescope and double point scope mount considering the age of the rifles and optics. I will agree that they could be problematic with holding zero if the scope was constantly being removed. I think the earlier single point mounts as used in Vietnam were much worse but have no experience with them. They were all made of aluminum too which also lent to the problem IMHO. The earlier ART1 scope was much better from what I've been told but I have no experience with them either. The steel M25 type scope mounts used these days along with a variety of top notch optics plus synthetic stocks are much better.
---------- Post added at 03:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:56 PM ----------
A visit to BC is definitely on my list!
Without draggin' this thread too far, the single point mounts are the problem. That's why the threaded charge guide was installed and the problem evaporated. Then they shot along side the bolt guns(mostly) and were fine. Removing your optic will always cause problems. As for the optic being at fault, a good tradesman never blames his tool. He get's at and sorts out the issue. I'd blame the weapon too if I couldn't hit sh*t...Quote:
Originally Posted by enfield303t
By the way, the real M14s are as gorgeous to shoot as an FN ever was for us. I've had all of them...
When you guys get to Victoria, I'm available and have room...
One point, when the engineers at Enfield did the redesign and came up with the No4, it was considered a big enough departure from James Paris Lee's design that the "Lee" was dropped from the rifle designation... just the same as you said about the 7.62 versions perhaps should not be "Enfield" named either.... So, the AIA rifles had no right to any part of the pedigree in their name, ....and THAT (along with the poor all around performance by the company) was my biggest complaint against them. (or are all rear locking actions now Lee Enfields like all front locking actions are Mausers?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Enfield
Their intent was for their products to take over service rifle shooting in Australia, but was very quickly cut down by the rule makers. The rifles were not deemed a faithful reproduction in any way shape or form.
I really didn't give a toss about too much else in Mr Regwell's writings, (even though he gave them every chance....) so any thought of discrediting his work is going to fall on deaf ears here... the outcome of AIA's little foray was they dismally failed in all respects and should be remembered that way.
just my 2c....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentryduty
The nearest Lee Enfield equivalent would be the No 4 Mk2. There are not many parts in common.
The AIA action has the hung trigger system of the No 4 Mk2, but is a much "beefier" action.
It uses the Brewer collar sytem for breeching up the barrel. Safety lever is Long Branch style. Bolthead has collar around rim of case head, and plunger ejector.
Not all AIA's will take the Singer style backsight, mainly due to the shape of the rear of the "charger bridge" (no charger loading is possible, bridge acts as rear scope mount point.) Also due to shape of the LHS receiver wall mounting of PH5C sights is impossible. The front sight is a round post - AK style?.
7.62x51 AIA's are set up to use modified M-14 style magazines, and so the magazine well is radically different to the 303 one.
Attached are a couple of pictures showing comparison between AIA M10B2 and No 4 Mk2 actions.
Son:
The original intent of the "AIA" project was to produce a "bolt-action SKS" after the sky fell in in 96/97, here in Oz. Hence, the first versions were in 7.62 x 39 and were conceived as "field rifles".
As the designer, I NEVER intended to produce a "clone" / remake of a No4 as such, let alone some sort of L-42 "clone". My failed attempts to introduce a 5.56 x 45 variant were part of my reason for parting ways with the "financial muscle".
I grew up shooting Lee Enfields both in competition and in the field and continue to do so today, nearly half a century later. I shoot a "worked-over" No4 in Service Rifle matches and a Lithgow-built .25-303 "sporter" in the field; slick and incredibly accurate, with the right bullet and load. Field-sourced venison: YUM!
Oddly enough, I never actually owned an AIA rifle.
Gotta say, I gave them a bit of a belt when the odd one appeared on my range.
Kinda reckoned they were all right, a bit heavy, but hey, for someone that hangs on to a fullbore target rifle most of the time, the weight wasn't really a problem.
Accuracy was bloody good on military type targets.
Thank you for the bit of older history, Bruce. I wasn't aware of the earlier efforts, but then, any development of a bolt action SKS wouldn't have drawn my attention anyway. Horsley park had marketed their SMLE " Pest Destructor" conversion in 7.62 x 39 a few years before that because of the scarcity of .303 surplus and the abundance of the short Russian ammo. Not long after container loads of SKS and SKK rifles became available and the Pest Destructor faded into the distance. I assume the plan was to provide a bolt gun to use all of the ammo left in circulation after the semi autos were outlawed. I recal the few sporting rifles in the caliber sold very quickly when they were advertised, so there was definitely a market there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz
This whole story could have been very different if AIA had taken off in the early days.
Maxwell, thank you for the photos, there are a lot of things made plain with those. I didn't actually expect to see a side by side posted at all, much less, so quickly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxwell Smart
I can see where things are bigger, some others a tad bit simpler, to reduce machining I would imagine, it all makes a lot of sense.
---------- Post added at 08:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:43 AM ----------
So perhaps I am better to understand the chicken and the egg of this rifle, this rifle was born of a specific need for a bolt-action design that chambered 7.62x39. Where Lee Enfield rifles are common in AUS, it served as design "inspiration" for this new rifle, in a similar fashion how the military Mauser action inspired the modern Remington M700 series.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz
Is that somewhat correct?
If so, all of the design decisions make perfect sense, and the faults laid upon the rifle are principally based around manufacture quality not so much as the design aspect.
Never thought the original post would generate so much feed back. Good it has and maybe some day I will be allowed to post the prototype pictures I have and that will be as interesting. I had coffee with a buddy last night, this thread and AIA accuracy came up, I am positive I could hit a standard clay pigeon at 300 yards on a pretty regular basis. Good enough for me, considering a chrome lined barrel isn't accurate.....:lol:
The No4 I bought is one of 6 with the heavy barrel Marstar rec'd.
The majority of of my shooting in life have been down chrome lined pipes, and I always choose a chrome lined barrel when available, durability means more to me than benchrest class accuracy. It's not as though a chrome lined barrel takes a lazer beam rifle and degrades it to a slingshot.Quote:
Originally Posted by enfield303t
Whilst the "National Match" M-14s were specifically fitted with "un-chromed" barrels of extremely fine tolerance, the (X)M-21 snipers were, apparently, mostly built on TRW rifles with TRW CHROME lined barrels. The un-chromed tubes were supposed to deliver tighter groups at "polite" venues like Camp Perry.
However, on the "two-way rifle range", especially in soggy, tropical places, chrome-lining was (and still is), a "good thing".
A major part of the trick for a "good" chromed barrel is to have the rifling formed without sharp internal or external corners, so that the chrome deposits on the steel as evenly as possible, AND provides no "lumpy bits" to be torn off by the first bullet and thus compromise the coating. H&Ks take the "no sharp edges" idea to extremes, but the rifling form is ideal for plating.
I once had a TRW specimen that got the AMTU treatment and wore a nice bit of Redfield glass. It retained its early-60's chrome-lined barrel and shot VERY well with Oz F4 ball ammo, and astoundingly well with a couple of different 150gn "hunting" bulleted handloads.
I have always found the statement somewhat baffling as I had never heard it before from any gun reviewer!
"DO NOT BE FOOLED BY ADS DEPICTING RIFLES WITH CHROME LINED BARRELS AS BEING "COMPETITION, TARGET GRADE, TUNED" OR ANY OTHER DESCRIPTION.
COMPETITIVE SHOOTERS DO NOT USE CHROME LINED BARRELS - PERIOD.
THEY ARE NOT ACCURATE."
The post by Bruce sure debunks that statement and I admit my AIA's are not the most accurate guns I own however they do shoot pretty well considering my tired old eyes and body. Done properly there is no reason a chrome lined barrel wouldn't be accurate, I have shot some H&K guns which were great for accuracy.
Next trip out I am going to take my B2 out to refresh my memory on its accuracy and the No4 when I find a good piece of glass to put on it. Between my son and I we have some very good scopes but no way are we going to remove one to put on the No4.
Another point was made that "AIA had more than enough opportunity to give the writer a gun to evaluate", well IIRC from correspondence from AIA they weren't interested in providing that person a gun for free! If you want to test a gun and can't get one for free then buy one or don't write about it.
I am also not worried about any of my AIA's failing or blowing up in my face, I am beyond anal on reloading and have always checked for over pressure signs or case failure. Head space seems to be tight and chambers as smooth as my other .308's.
I reckon I'm not that good of a shot then because I've been using chrome and non chrome barrels for years with no noticeable difference. It's true that NM M14 rifles didn't have them but to be honest, I don't think chrome lined M14 barrels were even produced until late in the rifle's career. I know they came into play as a product improvement with the M16/M16A1 and it's variants because of problems encountered in Vietnam which were propellant related as well as caused by tropic humidity and poor maintenance.
I can't remember exactly but I think the M21's I had in my care in the early-mid 1980's were all SA manufacture. Being a "gun guy" I would have taken notice of a stray TRW or H&R. They were just converted NM M14's and none had chrome lined barrels. There may have been purpose built TRW M21 rifles with chrome bores but we never saw them.
From:
SA-SIP-7790476, Rifle, U. S., 7.62-MM, M14, National Match
"213.2 Barrel 7791362 is used for the National Match M14 rifle, differing from that of the standard M14 rifle in that the critical dimensions are more closely held and the bore and chamber are not chrome plated.
213.2.1 Bore diameter shall be .300 + .001. Groove diameter shall be .3075 + .0010"., blah, blah, ....the maximum allowable deviation from that centerline shall not exceed 0deg2min23sec throughout the length of the bore.
Thus, the N.M. barrels were a special run, not just "unplated" standard tubes.
Standard barrel Drawing No is: 7790190, (two sheets)
Somewhere here I should have the full ordnance drawings for that standard barrel. Will take a bit more excavation.
That makes perfect sense too, the whole rifle was special thus the attention to marking it so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz
They are marked NM on the top of the barrel between the gas cylinder and the flash hider. They were also made on contract by SACO in Maine and CAL, at Long Branch.
Sights are marked too?
After some more excavation:
All initial production XM21s were, apparently “converted” from NM M14s, thus were fitted with the tight-spec, un-plated barrels.
The things you find out when you dig into the books!
So, was my old, vintage TRW with its early-60s, chrome-lined barrel, an aberration, accuracy wise?
Seriously doubt your TRW was an aberration, bet there is at least one person who would disagree with me, not that I care!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz
I think I missed a sentence in my previous:
The TRW I had was one of the ex-Israeli "standard M14" jobs that arrived here in the late 1980s.
It shot OK after a good clean (including some fine sand of unknown origin), but I figured it could do better.
So, I followed the instructions for the AMTU mods with only a few variations such as unitising the gas cylinder / end-cap via TIG rather than the fiddly original method, and using stainless steel Devcon for the action bedding.
In a similar vein, I reworked a Norinco 305 about about the same time, giving it a somewhat more "radical" treatment, starting with replacing the woeful, ("spikey" chrome lining from one end of the bore to the other!), original barrel with a 1:10" stainless heavy job, about 25" long.
This in turn, necessitated serious mods to the gas cylinder, i.e., turning it on a mandrel to a basic cylinder exterior and machining up a block that was a "close" fit on the appropriately-turned barrel. Low-temp silver-solder the modded cylinder into the block and then taper-pin (3) that to the barrel. The handguard-retaining cap was then drilled and TIG-ed to the back of this new gas cylinder assembly instead of the rigmarole of softening, drilling, tapping, etc.. The cap also had its "hook" removed, for reasons explained below.
I also machined up and fitted a MUCH longer op-rod guide. This was Loctited and pinned to the barrel with nested roll pins. This block was threaded to take a pull-down screw that came up through the long sling-mounting rail fitted under the fore-end.
One thing I recommend for anyone playing with the early Norincos is to sweat a "filler" into the RHS rail where the "auto actuator" bar locates and cut a "Garand-style" notch much further back to enable fitting and removal of the op rod. Without the actuator (or a filler) in place, the tiny tag on the bottom of the rod will get chopped up in very short order. M-1As had a "Garand-style" rail set up from new.
Other mod was fitting a "block", with clearance for the bolt, under the extreme rear of the receiver and tapping it to accommodate a high-tensile fixing screw that came up through a plate set into the stock and covered by the rear of the trigger-guard. Thus, the "metalwork" was actually pulled into the stock by two serious screws between the seats in the stock, instead of being retained by the "hooks" in the trigger-guard. The point of this was to enable removal of the trigger mechanism and cleaning/lubricating without disturbing the bedding as per the "standard" assembly method.
(None of this involved terribly original ideas; Rock Island had done similar stuff years before).
Relieved the interior of the stock and lined it with Carbon-fibre matting in "hi-spec" epoxy to make it as stiff as a board. Remember this was the cheesy Chinese "packing crate" woodwork, not a nice piece of walnut. Deleted the M-14-style butt-plate / shoulder hook assembly and fitted a fat and "soft" Pachmayer butt-pad to reduce slipping on clothing.Machined off the rear-sight ears and low-temp silver-soldered a "custom" bridge on top of the receiver and set it up with a 3-9 Leupold.
Result?
Pretty much on par with the AMTU-spec, "tweaked" TRW with its ancient barrel and Redfield optics; 6" at 500yds if I could do my part. HEAVY!
"Light" rifles WILL shoot if set up correctly; the boys and girls at Ultra-Light arms demonstrated that emphatically years ago. It's the first round from a cold barrel that counts, EVERY TIME.
Ah! Fading memories of VERY good times.
Some more AIA photos.
Two photos comparing three boltheads, left is AIA M10A in 7.62x39, centre is No 4 with 7.62 extractor, right is M10B2 7.62 x 51
Left hand side of M10B2 7.62x51 action, showing thicker side wall areas and lack of ejector screw hole - precludes mounting of PH5C type sights. Long Branch style safety lever. Scope mounting rail mounts on top of receiver ring and charger bridge. Mk2 type tie bolt at rear of stock. 10 round M-14 type magazine.
The AIA rifles use the Mk1* style bolt release method.
Like Bruce in Oz, I too once had a TRW M-14 which shot very well. Very sadly, it ended its days under the hydraulic press thanks to JWH.
Jim, The sights are marked NM, (front has a narrower blade and the rear 1/2 minute clicks for windage. The flash hider was also reamed among all the other mods to the gas cylinder and wood to bring the weapon to NM specification.
Bruce, TRW M14's were as good or better than any. Gotta love 'em.
I forgot about the flash hider. They were done so the bullets had more room...leaving.
Yep, it's for shooting in rain. I was very lucky to have the late Hook Boutin tune and restock/bed my M1A/M21 clone. He was instrumental in the actual development and improvement of the M14NM and M21 back in the early 1970's. The man was simply awesome and he did the job for me when he was 89 years old, (I think), in 2013. When we rode over to his place, he had the rifle apart and completely inspected so fast it made my head spin! He praised some of the work and parts that were in the rifle and others just the opposite. The first thing he did was take the gas plug over to his drill press and drill a hole in the middle of it. I'd never heard of that and he told me that it eliminated shots from stringing at 600+ yards! To be a student of his and work with him in his shop would have been simply as good as it gets. Anyhow, the thread has been hijacked from Australia to the Georgia/Alabama border. I reckon I'd better shut up!
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.
That was sort of my point - you'd think the shooting/hunting/outdoor mags would have been all over an Australian arms-maker producing a .308 Lee-Enfield again, but no-one really seemed to know much about AIA or the guns and AIA didn't seem to be doing much to change that. There's always interest in Australian gunmakers; look at the coverage Lithgow are getting with their Crossover rifles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxwell Smart
I've always thought it's a shame Australia's arms indstury post-war can't seem to get itself sorted out. Take the Model 1887 lever-action shotgun debacle; pretty much even as the ink was drying on the 1997 arms law changes ADI were supposed to be working on a prototype Model 1887 shotgun with full production expected shortly afterwards. I know they made some of the prototypes - I've seen at least one in a museum - but despite having the demonstrated means to do it, the demand, and the potential for huge amounts of effectively free money, it all just fell over with no-one really sure exactly what happened. It wasn't until 10 years later when IAC/Norinco shotguns started appearing on the market here - and were selling out pretty much as quickly as they could be imported.
The "ADI" 1887 was the project we (Australian International Arms) started after our coup in recovering a swag of ex-mil shotguns from Viet Nam was terminally derailed by the gun-grabbers.
It quickly became obvious that the authors of the oppressive new laws had never considered the possibility of a lever-action shotgun.
Thus, because it was NOT a pump or auto, and it only had one barrel, it was by their own daffynition, legally in the same class as air-rifles and bolt-action .22RF rifles.
Those of us who actually had some real-world experience knew better (not terribly difficult, I know).
It was obvious that the "straight" 1887 was a bit "flimsy" for modern 12ga loads, so, a 1901 (10 ga) was acquired and reverse engineered, then, a whole lot of work went into adjusting the dimensions of internal components, as well as the barrel, to work with 2 3/4" 12ga shells. This had the two-piece lever and the dual extractors of the 1901.
The original drawings, made right here in sunny Brisbane, then went to Lithgow.
There, a "tool-room prototype" was machined up and blued, then fitted with furniture from the Viet source.
Test-firing on the "back forty" range at Lithgow was a hoot, and very successful.
All systems go!
Then, someone at the factory decided that their newly developed facility for investment casting could play a big part in this job.
That's when things started to go wrong.
The other rolling disaster was the fact that the factory had not "blued" a gun since about 1965, being more into grit-blasting and phosphating military goodies. Furthermore, Tri-Zact belts are not the ideal way to retain edges on a shape like the '87 receiver. "Mass finishing" was the new trick. Think of a case-polishing bowl four to eight feet in diameter and filled with components and little abrasive ceramic chips. They work wonderfully, but it takes a bit of "suck it and see" to select the right shape and grade of "chip" and the appropriate time and intensity of the vibration.
We also pointed them at things like the Du Lite bluing system, but time and money were running out.
Prototypes were shown on the stand of the potential importer at the next SHOT Show, but within 6 months, the tiny handful of accepted guns were sent to Tri-Star and there they stayed.
Interestingly, in a conversation with yet another Oz ex-pat who worked in "the biz" in Malaysia, of all places, the matter came up. His suggestion was the 1897, but that was pointless in Oz. A couple of years after that conversation, and in what was by now an unsurprising development, 1897s AND "1887s" started appearing from the mysterious East.
The first of these 1997's appeared to have been accurately reverse-engineered from a flogged-out early model; "loose as a goose" was one description I heard from US contacts. However, they seem to have amortised their investment in the first few thousand and actually took note of the "market feedback". Later samples are reported as being somewhat better. Some of the oriental '87s appeared here, but too few to make much of a splash outside a small number of "Cowboy Action" shooters.
Just for giggles, I did propose, and started work on a "trench gun" version of the '87, complete with 7 round mag tube, heat shield and bayonet standard on a 20 inch barrel; Wild Bunch, eat your heart out. That was (probably rightly) consigned to oblivion with the rest of the project. Would have looked outrageous with a Yataghan bayonet affixed.
Subsequent efforts to make sundry screws, pins, springs, strikers, etc. for things like the little Cadet Martinis have even been a struggle to get done "right".
Someone else had a similar idea about a month ago:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz
Looks a bit odd, but I guess. I'd have done without the poly choke, but I doubt you'd want to cut it off. Look good though...got the blade for it?
The owner does.