Printable View
Hi all,
firstly admins, my apologies feel free to move this, but as most the enfield lot seem to also be interested in the L96 I thought I could get away with posting here.
so to my question. The AI PM when not shipped to the MOD seems to have had the a swirly muzzle compensator / dash suppressor.
Did the MOD ever evaluate it and if so does any one know of details of why it wasn’t incorporated into the L96?
cheers
There are photos of the SAS using them, AFAIK the original orders for SBS & SAS had the swirly flash hider, because they were PM/S rifles, not L96A1.
I expect the requirement for th tender didn't specify any form of muzzle brake/flash hider so one wasn't fitted.
Not many rifles of the time had them. The M85 didn't either.
interesting, I hadn’t appreciated the SAS PMs had them. you wouldn’t happen to have or know the location for copies of those photos?
I am sure it is in The Green Meanie, I'll have to check
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy W
Pages 63, 92/3, 113 and 268; and I've probably missed some others! :madsmile:
The attached might be of interest to those who haven't got a copy of Steve's Book
The reason why that swirly-whirly muzzle attachment wasn't attached to the general issue L96's was because the scientists at Shrivenham including Lt Col Txxxxx said quite clearly that as a reverse swirl thing, so-said designed to break up the directional flow of the expelled gas/propellant and therefore break up the flash was based on fuzzy logic and achieved nothing. I never saw one on any L96's that I saw and I owned one that WAS a former '....special forces...' one. Sorry to semi-diisagree with others
I suspect that the police had the swirly curlly whirly attachment was because it looked good and while the Army had no need for such fripperies, being experts in such matters, they certainly did!
cheers Peter, interesting that your SF one didn’t have on either, was that one of the early pre trials PMs? leaving the police issue compensator out, do you know what happened to the original flash hider on the 84 trials rifles?
Mine was a very late L96, up close to the end of the 2000 purchased. To be honest, I don't know what happened to any of the trials rifles. The barrels will have been changed for sure because removal left the threads exposed. That said. I did see an ex threaded barrel with a smooth finish sleeve threaded on. But this meant that the foresight block couldn't be removed. So far as my memory of them goes.
I have/had the trials report for the L96's on microfische and have a funny feeling that I put a precis summary of them on the forum several years ago. Anyone out there......
MichaelQuote:
Originally Posted by Micheal Doyne
You are confusing L96A1 issued rifles, L96A1 Trials rifles and special purchase PM/S rifles.
The SBS and SAS have their own funding and a Special Projects Team. They ordered PM rifles before the L96 was ever designed, trialled or ordered. The exact numbers are in Steve's book, but numbered around the 20's for each unit from memory. The SAS ones specified an Ambidextrous safety as well.
These rifles are different to L96's because the L96 didn't exist at the time.
Once the trial had been completed and the contract issued, then none of the issued L96 rifles would have had the flash hider because it was never part of the Spec.
So the rifles that the SF may have had with swirly flash hiders were PM/S not L96's. Nor were they standard Military Issue.
I expect the early PM rifles were destroyed and replaced by the L96. I can't recall ever seeing an ambidextrous safety on any rifle in civvy hands.
Police Rifles have been seen with them, so it remained a commercial option.
Hi Roy,Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy W
No I am not confusing the L96 rifle and the other versions. I am well aware the L96 spec when finalised did not include the a muzzle device or suppressor. what I am interested in is why when the trials spec specified muzzle devices, a couple of muzzle devices where present on the version of the trials AIs and others where part of options AI offered at the time none made it through.
That's interesting,Quote:
Originally Posted by Micheal Doyne
Where is the Trials Specification that states that the requirement was for 'muzzle devices'? Presumably you have seen it? I wouldn't mind a copy.
I saw a photo of three of the L96's for the Trial, none of them had threaded muzzles, nor any form of device. How many rifles were produced for the trials?
Where are the photos of rifles involved in the trials with muzzle devices?
Thanks
I have seen some of the docs and photos of the rifles, but frustratingly neither are shareable. they are very early, with dual safety, but also the iron sights added for the trial. I have seen later trials rifles which are much more L96 like, so I assume the flashider requirement was dropped pdq. what I haven’t seen is anything about why the flash hiders where dropped so quickly from all trikes offerings. I understand examples of some or all the rifles are in the royal collection at leeds, but the relevant rifles are on photo catalogue that i can find.
It sounds like you are the only one who has seen these docs/photos, so you know more than others already I would suggest. Is there a reason you can't share them? They can't be restricted?Quote:
Originally Posted by Micheal Doyne
well that is an unexpected situation for me to be in, oh well. I’ll do some digging else where, and check what can and can’t be shared. cheers all.
If this helps, this is how my commercially retailed L96A1 marked PM rifle came with. I've posted it in detail in this thread: https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=76997
cheers, that is now the fourth PM muzzle device i’ve seen. i’ve got the police style swirly wherly, and ive seen two types of L1A1 ish ones
---------- Post added at 08:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:04 PM ----------
what period is your PM from? this looks close to an early AW style.
---------- Post added at 08:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:05 PM ----------
my police swirly wherly is 89
Just follow mylink to find out as well as to notice you yourself have posted in that thread too ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Micheal Doyne
It does seem ironic that you are restricted from posting the photos wherreas I freely posted the whole trial report transcribed from poor qualirty microfische film.
cheersQuote:
Originally Posted by Promo
---------- Post added at 09:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:18 PM ----------
the photos are private photos that aren’t mine, as and the the document is one I have read but don’t have a copy off. if either where in my possession/mine i’d post them here directly. Is that report up on here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
---------- Post added at 09:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:22 PM ----------
having re read it I can remember it now , i had 100% missed how interesting that muzzle device was at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Promo
Hi Peter,Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
that is one of the document I would love to read, could you point me in the direction of it?
thanks
ah i’ve found it
in case it is of interest, CWC/PM 011 was one of the AIs in the original Mod trial according to PL’s summary of the trial finding, and CWC/PM 011 had a flash hider. I have not yet discovered why it didn’t make it to the L96 spec, but i am working on it.
Could you point me in the direction of it, please?Quote:
Originally Posted by Micheal Doyne
Quote:
Originally Posted by waco16
https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=47085&page=10
This whole thread is pretty interesting. PL’s posts have a summary of the trials results.
cheers, I had thought these where more dealing with sf trials.Quote:
Originally Posted by David TS
Wasn't that what you were asking in your original post?Quote:
Originally Posted by Micheal Doyne
Quote:
Originally Posted by Micheal Doyne
In part, I am particularly interested in why they didn’t incorporate it into the L96.Quote:
Originally Posted by David TS
I have got as SF evaluated it with flash hiders, and bought some 48 ish (actual number in Steve’s book) pre L96s.
A general service request dated October 82 to gunmakers for a replacement to the L42 was issued and it required rifles to have a flash hider and provision for a suppressor, amongst other things.
The trials report from that request dated April 84 confirms the rifles submitted by AI, BSA, Edgecumbe, and Parker Hale in Jan 83 all had flash hiders and could have suppressors fitted: all be it, as a REME 2nd/3rd line task (i’m not sure how involved a 2nd/3rd line REME task could be?) .
CWC/PM 011 with its flash hider was one of the AIs in this trial , it is in the royal collection, it includes other early features not carried through such as an adjustable cheek riser, and ambidextrous safety catches (the source of some issues). CWC/PM 010 and CWC/PM 014 where also in the trial, CWC/PM 010 was retired due to broken bolt handle.
what I haven’t yet found is documents covering why no flash hider or suppressor requirement was carried forward to the eventual L96 spec.
AI themselves don’t know why the L96 spec didn’t include f/h or provision for suppressor. The MOD didn’t include them in the final spec.
I imagine when (maybe if) found it will turn out to be a pretty boring answer, but for some reason it intrigues me.
Fearing that this flash eliminator muzzle brake curly swirly thinggy might go on and on and on, might I just comment with my bleedin' obvious hat on? On your third day of music lessons at secondary school, when you're getting into harmonics in some depth, you learn that anything the upsets the natural harmonic rhythm is not good. Like hanging a handkerchief on a triangle. ( So anything hanging onto your long free floating barrel is not good - or certainly not conducive to accuracy in a rifle. However, we do dampen the natural harmonics especially when another shot will be fired immediately afterwards. So if it ain't needed, then don't fit it. Fitting a bayonet is a good example
\'
As for flash hiders of sorts. There wasn't one on a No4T, nor the L42 - so why bother on an L96? All are one quick random shot rifles, fired from hides. Concealment, the trait of snipers, ensured that unless someone was actually looking AT the hide at the exact moment the shot was fired, the snipers always remain hidden.
Just my thoughts, based on nothing more than gut feeling and experience'
That thingy on the front of the barrel helps for many things, it also causes the flow of air/gases to increase, disturbing other things. Larger calibres gain more by such thingies I believe, but then the shots are from much farther away. Sniping and concealment can't be separated, as Peter motivates.
I am not trying to suggest the L96 was wrong to exclude it, what I am interesting in is looking for any documented reason for the L96 not including it when the trials rifles had been requested to include it and standard AI rifles included it. Other items removed from the spec post trials seem to have had relatively obvouse reasons e.g. the due safety catches.
According to the book, there were two trials. Perhaps it disappeared from the requirement between the first and second trial.
Am I correct in thinking that muzzle attachments, by diverting gases sideways, can cause a cloud of dust to rise and reveal the sniper's position?
I have read that snipers sometimes shoot over a tarpaulin to prevent a cloud of dust rising in front of the muzzle - is that correct? If so, I imagine the sideways blast is hard to control.
There is of course nothing new under the sun, and Boer artillerists fired over anmal hides or tarpaulins during the South African War, for exactly the same reason. The photo shows Lt Heirnrich Grothaus of the Transvaal Staatsartillerie firing a 75mm Krupp QF gun over a tarpaulin from a concealed position outside Ladysmith.
Attachment 129295
Yep! I am not very popular with some when I am firing a rifle with a muzzle brake on the range, particularly if I am sharing a firing point with someone else! I do warn them first, and try and get on one end so I only potentially annoy someone on one side only.
It's worse in the summer as you put up a cloud of debris too, if the grass is dry.
quit correct. There are pretty of arguments from cost, efficacy, concealment, even aesthetics, or plane mistake, but I just wish I knew the actual reason it was dropped. Oh well i’ll see what docs I can dig up in the new year.