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

[Peter Laidler]

It doesn't end there Gil. There were future troubles that plagued the L96's early life with, among other things, structural problems. That'll come next.

But I have a feeling in my bones, a sort of off the cuff hearsay that Canada and Australia had already had some tacit input. QMSI Hxxxxx (SASC), who'd been to Canada and Australia had agreed that the M series P-H models were at the end of the line - as were P-H

[Gil Boyd]

Looking forward to that, and have to agree. The contract going to AI certainly put the nail in the coffin and dug the hole, and placed the great old company up for sale!!
The L96 I know had a "turbulent" life at the start, ask the lads who had to fire it!!!

[Lee Enfield]

It doesn't end there Gil. There were future troubles that plagued the L96's early life with, among other things, structural problems. That'll come next.

But I have a feeling in my bones, a sort of off the cuff hearsay that Canada and Australia had already had some tacit input. QMSI Hxxxxx (SASC), who'd been to Canada and Australia had agreed that the M series P-H models were at the end of the line - as were P-H

Canada adopted the m86/87 as the c3a1 to replace the 1200tx/m82/c3 in about 1988...well after the adoption of the AI L96

Of course some of that was because they cheated by "upgrading" the c3 by replacing merely the action and the scope.

Part of the "upgrade" was to reuse the originam c3 bolt, barrel and stock...unless they were worn out of course.

Why they wouldn't have "upgraded" to the m85 action i'm not sure...

[Gil Boyd]

It was purely cost I understand. That action was designed to last the test of time and I still think it will, well past my lifetime before it needs to change anyway!

[sd4f]

So what went wrong. Officially it is said and was said several times during the trial that the P-H rifle system had reached the limit of development in what is mechanically feasible with traditional gun making methods and technology. AI uses CNC production facilities and technology which bodes well for ease of future maintenance.

I'm curious about that part, it just doesn't really make sense insofar as, is it really the production facility that won over the AI, because design wise, there's nothing special between the two that would preclude them from either 'traditional gun making methods' or CNC production.

[Gil Boyd]

If you speak to both Dave's who own AI, they were amazed, that from a garden shed they won the contract, and thereafter had to stream line their development and production by using the best newest technology available as Peter alludes.
Sadly at one stage some metal providers came up with goods which caused unecessary issues, but I'll leave that to those who know the full story.
The M85 will go on as long as we are all alive, it was built to last for a very long time.

[Roy W]

Does anyone know who the Dartford Engineering contractor was who actually built the L96A1?

[Lee Enfield]

I'm curious about that part, it just doesn't really make sense insofar as, is it really the production facility that won over the AI, because design wise, there's nothing special between the two that would preclude them from either 'traditional gun making methods' or CNC production.

Nothing to do with the production facility - the difference was 1 single new part:
From what I've read here, and everything I know about the AI, and other guns, the reason AI won was the locking collar that the bolt locks into which controls head spacing.

Basically by controlling 3 dimensions, you guarantee consistent repeatable headspacing.

By keeping the collar a consistent known value, and controlling the chamber and bolt geometry you guarantee as nearly as possible interchangeable parts.

ie, any AI barrel & bolt are interchangeable with any other.

pull an AI 308 barrel out of any existing rifle, or new off the shelf and once the torque value is the same, the headspace "Should be" exact.

basically they created a situation, where (as nearly as possible) the receiver is just another replaceable part. The AI AT and the AI AXMC have taken this to ne next logical step by formalizing the process.

Think of an AR15 barrel extension where the barrel extension is simply sandwiched between the receiver and the barrel.
ie. no short chambering, action truing, bolt lapping ect. necessary.

[Peter Laidler]

I'm not sure that I would agree with that L-E, thread 108 above. There were in fact TWO locking rings available in much the same way that there were 4 bolt heads available for the L42. While this was a novel idea, it made adjusting the CHS a barrel removal job too! As for the interchangeability of the bolt and body, well, they were interchangeable......., but only in so far as they are also 'interchangeable' on the L42, L1A1 rifle, the Bren etc etc. They would change but would not necessarily be correct afterwards. That's the reason why the L96 bolt and hood were numbered.

I think that you must be reading a different EMER to me.

Roy, thread 107 above. I'm pretty-well sure/certain that AI actually assembled the rifles that we had. It took some considerable time to satisfy the x,xxx order so it wasn't a rush job that had to be outsourced

[Roy W]

Roy, thread 107 above. I'm pretty-well sure/certain that AI actually assembled the rifles that we had. It took some considerable time to satisfy the x,xxx order so it wasn't a rush job that had to be outsourced

Pete, Dave Walls says himself that the manufacture was outsourced to an MOD chosen engineering firm in Dartford and that he spent most of his time there overseeing the manufacture.

I don't think his shed was up to it at the time, and their first premises probably didn't come along for some time