AIA No4 Mk4

[Son]

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....

The Mystery of Australian International Arms

Australian International Arms - Part 2

AIA Rifles: Cheaply Made

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.

[browningautorifle]

read the timeline

Those three are very interesting reading.

[Lee Enfield]

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....

The Mystery of Australian International Arms

Australian International Arms - Part 2

AIA Rifles: Cheaply Made

A few observations:

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.

[Son]

A few observations:

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.

.

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?)

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....

[Bruce_in_Oz]

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.

[Son]

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.

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.

This whole story could have been very different if AIA had taken off in the early days.