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.

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.

[enfield303t]

The "import' markings were applied well before they were shipped across the pond, to "streamline" the "paperwork" and handling.

You may well find that LOTS of other importers / brands do the same, to similarly "streamline" things.

The only potential problem with the "B" series M-10s is that the mag spring is essentially the same as for a ten-round M-1A mag, thus putting excess "drag" on the cartridges during feeding. M-1As (and the "originals) rely on SPECTACULAR bolt travel speed to strip rounds from the mag. Compare the mag "pressure" with that of a ten-round No4 mag for the idea.

Even the "A" series (7.62 x 39) M-10s often require that the bolt be operated "smartly" to prevent "mis-feeds", (rounds "popping up") etc.

Thanks Bruce, I have always single loaded mine so never had the mentioned problem. I haven't had my B2 out in a couple years, will have to do that and refresh my knowledge on its accuracy. IIRC it was pretty decent with hand loads. I have over time come up with some very accurate loads for a Savage 10 &12 which worked in the b2.

I just went thru some old AIA correspondence and B2#232 was sent to John at Marstar and apparently would group 1/2 inch. Someone in Canada has that gun and it has dark teak furniture.

[Sentryduty]

I had read those three links a some time ago, and they did answer the question as to why it did not gain adoption as the new Ranger rifle, something a few of us wondered about while still in the system.

I would be very interested to see a side by side teardown of and AIA vs the closest comparable Lee Enfield, just to see what was changed and how.

If I might draw a parallel of the New Inland M1 Carbine based on the conclusions of the article: "was clearly designed for the civilian recreational shooting market and it is not a military product."

However I do not want to bash another member's purchase, especially since I have never even seen one in person, let alone fire one to draw my own assessments, but the articles by Steve Redgwell do raise some curious questions.

Personally I had hoped to purchase one and build up a modern psuedo No.4 Mk1 T without having to worry about installing a T mount and being able to work with 7.62 NATO, but the lack of availability has snuffed out that plan.

I would still be interested to see a range report for this rifle nonetheless.

[enfield303t]

I had read those three links a some time ago, and they did answer the question as to why it did not gain adoption as the new Ranger rifle, something a few of us wondered about while still in the system.

I would be very interested to see a side by side teardown of and AIA vs the closest comparable Lee Enfield, just to see what was changed and how.

If I might draw a parallel of the New Inland M1 Carbine based on the conclusions of the article: "was clearly designed for the civilian recreational shooting market and it is not a military product."

However I do not want to bash another member's purchase, especially since I have never even seen one in person, let alone fire one to draw my own assessments, but the articles by Steve Redgwell do raise some curious questions.

Personally I had hoped to purchase one and build up a modern psuedo No.4 Mk1 T without having to worry about installing a T mount and being able to work with 7.62 NATO, but the lack of availability has snuffed out that plan.

I would still be interested to see a range report for this rifle nonetheless.

Darren, if you ever visit we will take out the B2/No4 and let you draw your own conclusions.

Are AIA rifles perfect, no however I do believe they were capable of being very good with a few mods. As for not being a military rifle well it is very heavy which is a real pain however the reference to a chrome lined barrel you read of not being accurate is off base IMHO. Why does the military choose what they do.....let me give you a example of what I think is illogical thinking.

Yesterday I handled a T48 (FAL) which went up against the M14 (T44) for a US battle rifle. The M14 won and if you handle both you will have to shake your head why other than political that decision was made. The T48 is amazing, machining, fit, finish and overall a excellent gun, but that is just my opinion as possibly beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Don't get me wrong the M14 is a good rifle however the FAL is a better rifle. They only produced 3,200 T48 rifles and being a prohib. in Canada are very rare.

I could list countless decisions on purchases of military equipment that boggle the mind, most are political and make little sense if scrutinized.

I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with anything I buy, I bought it as I like them, they are not common and down the road hope to stumble on a B3. The world would be pretty boring if we all agreed on everything.

[Sentryduty]

Darren, if you ever visit we will take out the B2/No4 and let you draw your own conclusions.

I will have to get down to your part of the country sometime, and maybe even bring along my video equipment for a bit of footage. It would be a good time.

I was nearby in Kamloops 2 weekends ago with a couple of Mustangs, but that was for a lap of the rockies roadtrip, and there wasn't time for dawdling. The wives planned an overly ambitious road move, Edmonton, Calgary, Banff, Lake Louise, Revelstoke, Kamloops, Valemount, Jasper and return, plus sight seeing, 4 days. Maybe next go-round.

[enfield303t]

I will have to get down to your part of the country sometime, and maybe even bring along my video equipment for a bit of footage. It would be a good time.

I was nearby in Kamloops 2 weekends ago with a couple of Mustangs, but that was for a lap of the rockies roadtrip, and there wasn't time for dawdling. The wives planned an overly ambitious road move, Edmonton, Calgary, Banff, Lake Louise, Revelstoke, Kamloops, Valemount, Jasper and return, plus sight seeing, 4 days. Maybe next go-round.

You are always welcome and my son and I would enjoy your visit.

[Maxwell Smart]

I would be very interested to see a side by side teardown of and AIA vs the closest comparable Lee Enfield, just to see what was changed and how.

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

The AIA action has the hung trigger system of the No 4 Mk2, but is a much "beefier" action.
It uses the Brewer collar sytem for breeching up the barrel. Safety lever is Long Branch style. Bolthead has collar around rim of case head, and plunger ejector.

Not all AIA's will take the Singer style backsight, mainly due to the shape of the rear of the "charger bridge" (no charger loading is possible, bridge acts as rear scope mount point.) Also due to shape of the LHS receiver wall mounting of PH5C sights is impossible. The front sight is a round post - AK style?.

7.62x51 AIA's are set up to use modified M-14 style magazines, and so the magazine well is radically different to the 303 one.

Attached are a couple of pictures showing comparison between AIA M10B2 and No 4 Mk2 actions.

[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.

[Brian Dick]

Well; after reading Steve's articles, I think I made the right decision to steer clear. This business is fraught with nightmares and headaches that there isn't enough time to list and I surely didn't need another one!

I have to comment on the T48 vs M14 argument. Yes, there was politics involved in the U.S. adoption of the M14. However: being the owner, admirer and shooter of both types of weapon, I believe that the FAL design is much more soldier proof which is ALWAYS a good thing. Especially from the Armorer's standpoint. The FAL will never hold a candle to the accuracy of the M14 when properly tuned and fitted with a scope. That's why we, (U.S. Army), were still using them in M21 guise in the 1980's and they've been resurrected in large numbers since the global conflicts began in 2001. Not so much with the FAL design. They just aren't an optics friendly weapon with top cover scope mounting.

[enfield303t]

Well; after reading Steve's articles, I think I made the right decision to steer clear. This business is fraught with nightmares and headaches that there isn't enough time to list and I surely didn't need another one!

I have to comment on the T48 vs M14 argument. Yes, there was politics involved in the U.S. adoption of the M14. However: being the owner, admirer and shooter of both types of weapon, I believe that the FAL design is much more soldier proof which is ALWAYS a good thing. Especially from the Armorer's standpoint. The FAL will never hold a candle to the accuracy of the M14 when properly tuned and fitted with a scope. That's why we, (U.S. Army), were still using them in M21 guise in the 1980's and they've been resurrected in large numbers since the global conflicts began in 2001. Not so much with the FAL design. They just aren't an optics friendly weapon with top cover scope mounting.

Brian, to slag a rifle like was done without shooting one is a no no IMO so a review like that doesn't hold water with me. That is the point with me, I wouldn't write a bad review on car if I never drove it. Makes no sense but that's just my 2 cents.

Seeing as real M14's are prohibs. up here I have never shot a original one which I would like to do. I remember my son telling me about a quote out of Vietnam regarding the M14 scoped... I can't remember the exact words but was something about the scope mount "allowing the enemy to escape on a regular basis"?

I hope you also visit the "barren north" someday, would enjoy taking you to the range to shoot the AIA's, they might surprise you.
.