Viewpoint - British Army Contract for L96A1 Sniper Rifle (by Gil Boyd B.E.M)

[Peter Laidler]

There’s no doubt that Gils article is well researched and he’s certainly got a thing about the Parker Hale M-85 rifle. But it’s my view that, like the rose tinted view of the EM rifles that went before the L1A1 I’m sure that we ultimately made the right decision in accepting the well tried, well liked, reliable, easily maintained, rugged and tough L96A1 rifle. Albeit that it wasn’t without its troubled and dare I even mention it, fatal introduction. Does that seemingly glossy introduction need a bit of clarification………?

Right. But first, I have got to say that I am not, nor have I ever been a sniper but on two occasions, at the very start of my service and for 10 years or so at the end I was closely associated with them. And it’s also correct to tell you that while I own a couple of L96’s I was not involved in the replacement L42 trial in any way, shape or form. But it IS correct to tell you that one of my work colleagues, Lt Col X Xxxxx at the Land Warfare Centre at Warminster actually headed that trial and Major X Xxxxxx, was his 2i/c was my boss during another series of trials. (He also headed the Cadet SA80 trial that soundly rejected another of PH’s offerings). So on that basis, I know a bit about how the trials are a) run, b), formulated, c), resulted and d), written up. And incidentally, he gave me some of the microfisched trials reports.

There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that throughout the trials the PH rifle gave better accuracy. But given the deadly accuracy of the L96, the word ‘better’ must be subjective, as in ‘…how much more accurate need or can it be?’. What must be understood about the trials and is alluded to by Gil but missed by most is that a sniper isn’t a target shooter nor has he ever been. But more to the point, nor is a sniper rifle a target shooting rifle. They are chalk and cheese. Which target shooter do you know stalked and crawled his way across sometimes hostile terrain to get to and sit, holed up in a wet hide all night? Nope…….. there’s more to trials, even sniper rifle trials, than accuracy.

The UK Military were not new to PH rifles. They’d already had their fingers slightly burned when for reasons best known to……… well….., nobody really seems to know, when 2000 variants of the PH target rifle – of sorts – were accepted as the replacement L81A1 target rifle for the old .303” No4 still in use by Cadet Forces AND don’t forget, those regular and TA units with a strong competition shooting ethos. When all they wanted was a replacement for the old No4. Are you thinking what I’m thinking……? The L39 was the ideal. WO1 Keith Xxxxxxxn REME was open mouthed at the decision. The L81 was a good example of…….. No, a CLASSIC example - of cheap and cheerful. I wouldn’t mind betting that ‘commercial-in-confidence parts of the trials reports made mention of the fact that maintenance and reliability of these rifles were not good. In fact, to quote Sgt Rxxxx Sxxxx the senior REME Inspector for the Southern Area told me on the telephone not 20 minutes ago that it was the worst rifle to ever pass across his bench. Do you know what…….. I could go on but it’d be going off into what we call mission creep. Suffice it to say you can read elsewhere on the forum of its failings.

I wouldn’t mind betting also that during the trials a few telephone calls were made to Borden in Canada and Singleton/Maryibiong in Australia about the state of play regarding the maintenance regime of the PH sniper rifles there. It wasn’t good. The Small Arms School has attached to it an Australian Infantry Warrant Officer. On a day with the introductory sniper course (a sort of wheat from chaff prelim…..) the recent one said to me ‘…..the reason we had what we had(the M-85) was because there wasn’t an L96!’

With regards to maintenance, A-I were truly on the ball. They appreciated that (probably via Malcom Cooper, the Olympic shooter) that a sniper rifle, like his target rifle, was a one-man-dog and you don’t take it away from him and give him another as you could with, say the standard infantry rifle. No……, the WHOLE rifle was maintainable at unit Armourer level. And apart from a barrel change, it was. But even a barrel change could be done at a Field Workshop level! It gets better……… A-I promised that NO new gauges or equipment would be required to maintain the L96. The bore gauge was the old .297 as per the L42. So were the CHS gauges – initially…….! Following post acceptance events the LOW gauge was changed from 1.628 to 1.627! As for CHS changes. Well, it just doesn’t change! If you do need a change it is by changing an internal collar that incorporates the three bolt locking lugs. A sort of bolt head change in reverse! That means that the rifle body just doesn’t wear out! And another thing while we’re here……

These three monsterous locking lugs on the bolt engage in the three equally monsterous locking lugs in the internal, separate, accurately positioned locking collar. The recoil forces are projected rearwards of course, but the imparted LOAD is taken through the collar, radially through 360 degrees into the body structure. Jeeeees, no wonder it’s tough and accurate!

Sadly, some time after the acceptance of the L96 in favour of the P-H and several other – and some say hopeless – contenders, PH ceased trading. There were many reasons but one simple fact is that even an order for 1000 plus (number restricted) UK Military sniper rifles would not have been sufficient to save them. Indeed, it didn’t save A-I either as they sailed VERY close to the financial wall too and some commercially sensitive things must remain unsaid.

But wars are good for the arms business. But when they end and your business is specialized…….. But did we make the right choice? Yep....., I fired probably more than anyone(?), know the maintenance routine as well as anyone and own as many as anyone. Am I biased? Probably, but I think we made the right choice

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.