AIA #4 clone proofing

[No4Mk1(T)]

No4Mk1(T)
I sent the email requesting the information late Sunday night CST and got the answer this AM. I expect it may take another few days to get permission if permission is granted. I am can share most of the contents but I would prefer to do so in it's entirety rather than in snippets.

Just so everyone knows I knew nothing of AIA until a week or so ago so I have no bias for or against their product.

Thank You for your efforts. As I said I look forward to seeing what they have to say.

[No4Mk1(T)]

My point in the Inherent Weakness thread was that criticisms of the Enfield originated with British and Canadian sources, not the un named "American Gunsmith" so often mentioned as a way of denigrating US interest in the rifles.

The manufacturers of the No.1 rifles, as well as noted British authorities on the rifle, gave their opinion that the bolt was Unscientific and weak, and the British National Rifle association has taken steps to warn of possible damage to converted No.4 rifles if cartridges using bullets weighing over 144 grains are used.

Theres no plot to defame the Enfields engineered by some nameless faceless phantom "American Gunsmith".
American manufactured .303 ammunition is loaded to very nearly the same ballistics as the MkVII cartridge, any decrease in chamber pressures while maintaining balistic efficiency is a welcome plus in any cartridge meant for any rifle.

And your point is now made as it was many times over in the Inherent Weakness thread. I will consider this your final epilog to that thread and leave it at that. You have your opinion and others have theirs. No more useful information can be disseminated at this point so I see no point in rehashing the issue. So for the last time lets consider the issue closed and move on.

[Patrick Chadwick]

My understanding (which may, of course, be erroneous) is that there is (was?) no compulsory proof by an independent proof house for rifles in the USA. But in Germany it is quite simply illegal to import and sell a rifle without having it proofed - unless it already bears a proof marks. So the AIA I referred to was, of course, proofed to CIP 308 Win. standards. And, judging as a shooter, not a collector, it is well made with a very good hardwood stock.

It is a pity that the manufacturers did not take the same care to make an accurate replica that, for instance, is taken by Pedersoli with its muzzle-loader and BPCR replicas. Quite simply, the examples I have (Mortimer flintlock, Gibbs percussion, Sharps Long Range) are so good that if you had an original that was better you would hardly dare expose such a valuable antique to everyday club shooting. So there is a market for first-class replicas, and the 3 types I have mentioned set high standards, the first two in particular being regular match winners in their disciplines. (For BPCRs there are a lot more affordable shootable rifles available).

From about 1880 onwards there are still enough good-shooting original service rifles available, although for a rifle such as the Springfield 03A3 you will hardly find one for sale here in Germany as just about every one that shoots well is in the hands of people who will keep them as long as they shoot (or live, for that matter).

Lee Enfields do not have the same rarity value, at least not as 303s. As I pointed out to my unfortunate friend, before, during, and after the event (I've stopped now, it's like kicking a man when he's down) for the round 1K he spent on the AIA + correct backsight + ammo + testing + abortive journey to competition + lost entry fee he could have got a Stirling conversion.

In short, as long as collectors (such as certain members of these forums) can afford to keep rackfuls of good service rifles in cabinets for the sheer fun of it, and until the day when an original service rifle costs 3 or 4 thousand dollars, euros or pounds, there will not be an adequate market to justify a replica that would satisfy the national shooting bodies. In particular, do not overlook the fact that the possessors of originals have an understandable interest in keeping replicas out of competition.

Feel free to disagree, but politely, please!

Patrick

[bearhunter]

PC, I agree with your assessment of the AIA situation. It is a darn good rifle that is just ahead of its time.
As for racks of rifles sitting in safes, just for the fun of it, I will agree to disagree. Granted there are a few collector/shooters that have a few dozen or more variants tucked away. The huge influx of Indian, Pakistani and Turkish surplus rifles, not to mention the as new in grease Longbranch rifles released by the Italian navy which were quickly bought up by European interests and had the bolts mated with their original rifles, are being dumped on the market anywhere from $150 to $500. Many of these rifles will still shoot very well with only minor cleanup.
The Irish contract No4 MkII rifles are a good example as well, thousands of them were dumped on the market several years ago for under $100 in the wrap. In Canada, before the insanity set in amongst the artsy fartsy crowd in parliament, there were brand new late model No4 MkI* rifles made from 1949 to 1953 being sold for under $90. They are all incredible shooters, especially if your eyes are still good enough or your glasses will allow you to use both sights properly.

These rifles, if new, some are wrapped some never were, command premium prices. From a recent gun show in Kamloops, BC Canada, I saw an Irish contract No4 MkII that was sold to a friend for $900, complete with bayonet and scabbard. The rifle will probably never smell fresh air.

The AIA rifles are fantastic rifles, beautiful, very accurate and chambered in a proven cartridge. I personally would have liked to see it offered in 303Brit as well. Some of our clubs in the area have no problem allowing it in milsurp shoots as there really isn't any advantage to the AIA, unless it just happens to be the prettiest girl at the dance.

I'm saying this because there are still thousands of brand new No4 MkI variants still in storage in many countries and many will still be released to civilians by their governments for ages to come. I would dearly love to see the warehouses of vintage arms in ex Soviet countries. I think we've just scratched the surface there. Remember back in the seventies when the first Mosins were being offered for under $20? Most of them were fair+ at best and many were so bad that when our government had an amnesty, they were dumped by the thousands. I suspect, like the Mosins being offered now, that the best is still to come. Especially with Mausers and other Axis firearms. There is even a rumor going around that there are thousands of allied rifles and militaria still in storage of all types, many of which were lend lease. We can only hope I guess as a steady supply of these surplus firearms on the market will keep our sport and interests alive and well, and within the financial reach of most people.
Now it's up to us to keep up the interest of the younger generation and not put so many rules on them as to turn them off, rather than welcome them.

[Peter Laidler]

Bearhunter You talk of the arms stockpiles in the ex Soviet countries. My boss was invited my the Defence people in the Ukraine to see if there was anything the UK MoD would like before the stocks were disposed of by destruction (UN rules) or sale (under strict EU rules). He was awestruck at the sheer quantities of what looked like brand new weaponry. He did have many items brought over but he couldn't even start to explain the quantities of kit, from all over Europe. As for the US Lend Lease stuff still in the green transit boxes.......... In fact I sent a couple of the actual boxes, still marked with details of 'THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, ORDNANCE DEPOT, AUGUSTA, GEORGIA. that housed 10 Thompson guns, back to the USA.

He said to me that the world would never see quantities the like of this again. And this was just ONE former Soviet Country!

[bearhunter]

Thanks Peter. I've heard similar stories. Talked to another fellow that was present at a burning to get rid of the wood. It seems that they like to invite UN types to watch or maybe select a few pieces they may be interested in for posterity and to have evidence of compliance.

I'm not much of a fan of the UN by the way so the systematic destruction of the pristine firearms doesn't surprise me in the least. It's just to bad they released the klunkers first for civilian sales.

[Dimitri]

Do you own one? Have you fired or at least examined one?

Fact of the matter is the reason they are not importable to the US anymore is due to the State Department finding out they were made in a factory in Vietnam. And yet AIA still insists that the rifles are made in Australia. This is why I don't trust anything they claim anymore. Including the suitability of the "improved" receiver's ability to handle the 308Win.

Funny thing is I was dead set on buying one of their rifles till that little truth came out from the State Department.

No.4 Receivers on the other hand have been converted successfully for years and have a track record that can't be denied.

Dimitri

[Alan de Enfield]

Fact of the matter is the reason they are not importable to the US anymore is due to the State Department finding out they were made in a factory in Vietnam. And yet AIA still insists that the rifles are made in Australia. This is why I don't trust anything they claim anymore. Including the suitability of the "improved" receiver's ability to handle the 308Win.

Funny thing is I was dead set on buying one of their rifles till that little truth came out from the State Department.

No.4 Receivers on the other hand have been converted successfully for years and have a track record that can't be denied.

Dimitri

There is another possibility - maybe the State Department was given some incorrect information.
I did read on another forum (ages ago) that it was thought that the woodwork was made in Vietnam but the 'important' (metal) parts were made in Australia.
Certainly in the UK anything with 80%+ local content is classed as "Made in Britain" (Hence Honda, Toyota cars etc are classed as British manufacture)

There is some argument about how to measure the 80%, by value, by number of parts, by weight, but I would say that if the barrel and receiver is made in Australia then by any stretch of the imagination the 'majority' of the rifle is Australian.

Maybe some of our Aussie brethren can coment on "local content" ruling or know something re AIA ?

[tiriaq]

Last time I checked, the AIA website did not claim Australian manufacture. There was a comment about international sourcing.
Australian law specifies that for something to be marked "Made in Australia", 51% of the cost of production must be incurred in Australia. The AIA rifles are not marked "Made in Australia".
Some apparently used brand new mini-gun barrels left behind in Vietnam.
Personally, I think the countries where the various parts are made/assembled/finished is irrelevant, these days.
I have never heard of anyone having a significant problem with one of these rifles.

[Dimitri]

but I would say that if the barrel and receiver is made in Australia then by any stretch of the imagination the 'majority' of the rifle is Australian.

Except in the eyes of the United States the Receiver is the firearm.

That is the receiver, barrel and stock that have been linked to Vietnam so far. Per AIA statements and the State Departments assessment of the rifles after the first batch was imported to the US and further importation was banned.

Last time I checked, the AIA website did not claim Australian manufacture.

Its nice they joined the 20th/21st century and got a website now, and its nice to see that they have been doing damage control since the last time I gave them a passing interest. However Lawrance Ordnance in Australia for the longest time was the semi-official website for AIA, they had the only webpage available for the rifles listing the AIA rifles as "Made in Australia", then came the AIA ".ca" site that also originally listed "Made in Australia" plastered all over the website.

Both American and Canadian dealers were told that the rifles were made in Australia, now that AIA is doing damage control means little more then them trying to weasel their way out of what they originally claimed.

The AIA website still none the less cracks me up with this:

Domestic U.S.A.: To be announced shortly...

Right cause after the little incident with the first 2 US importers having a difficult time dealing with AIA once the rifles shipped, then the State Department banning imports of the rifles, someone is going to try to import them again to the US. The guys at AIA are really nuts.

As for rifles being marked "Made in Australia", the vast majority of countries require the city and state/country of the firearms manufacture to be marked on the rifle AIA's rifles are marked "Brisbane Australia" which is the equivalent in most countries as being marked "Made in Australia" per firearm laws.

Dimitri