AIA No4 Mk4

[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.

[muffett.2008]

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.

[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.

[Sentryduty]

The nearest Lee Enfield equivalent would be the No 4 Mk2. There are not many parts in common.

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.

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 ----------

As the designer, I NEVER intended to produce a "clone" / remake of a No4 as such, let alone some sort of L-42 "clone".

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.

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.

[enfield303t]

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.....

The No4 I bought is one of 6 with the heavy barrel Marstar rec'd.

[Sentryduty]

Good enough for me, considering a chrome lined barrel isn't accurate

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.

[Bruce_in_Oz]

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.

[enfield303t]

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.

[Brian Dick]

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.

[Bruce_in_Oz]

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.