L96/PM Muzzle device

[Micheal Doyne]

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

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Roy W]

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.

[Micheal Doyne]

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?

[Roy W]

I am sure it is in The Green Meanie, I'll have to check

[David TS]

I am sure it is in The Green Meanie, I'll have to check

Pages 63, 92/3, 113 and 268; and I've probably missed some others!

[Micheal Doyne]

Pages 63, 92/3, 113 and 268; and I've probably missed some others!

cheers, I had thought these where more dealing with sf trials.

[David TS]

cheers, I had thought these where more dealing with sf trials.

Wasn't that what you were asking in your original post?

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

[Micheal Doyne]

Wasn't that what you were asking in your original post?

In part, I am particularly interested in why they didn’t incorporate it into the L96.

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.

[waco16]

The attached might be of interest to those who haven't got a copy of Steve's Book

[Peter Laidler]

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!