AIA #4 clone proofing

[ireload2]

I don't know if the AIA new production clones are considered for discussion here. I requested information from them regarding the proofing of their rifles.
Specifically I asked if they proofed them to US SAAMI .308 Winchester standards. They answered with a long somewhat detailed discussion of their design and proofing process. I will post it here if a moderator approves.
If this is not the right place let know where to post it.

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.

[No4Mk1(T)]

The AIA rifles are legitimate Enfield Rifles in my mind and will become very collectable in their own right in time. Discussion centering around these rifles is perfectly acceptable in this forum. Feel free to post your information as long as you have the senders permission and the material is not copyrighted.
I do however need to point out that the continued 7.62mm Enfield bashing is becoming tedious. The forum mood regarding this issue has changed as evidenced by posts in some of your recent threads.
For example:

There cannot be many more ways left to imply that the LE is "Inherently Weak"

Oiled cartridges
Weak action
"Expolding bolt heads"
7,62 rounds destroying the action
Cracking around the bridge

Its getting monotonous !

And:

Under different circumstances, I´d have taken this question seriously.

I have noticed a decline in Enfield help wanted and general interest posts since the Inherent Weakness thread began. I would like to see us get past this good verses bad 7.62 Enfield discussion and get back to what the forum is intended for: Forum for discussion by serious collectors of Lee Enfield arms, accessories, ammunition, and accoutrements.

[ireload2]

I thought that the right to chose not to participate is one of our rights. No one makes anyone read my posts. Perhaps some here do not understand they do not have the right to approve of everything that others post. I find the post that you quoted objectionable because it makes certain assumptions based on presumed motives that are in error. Perhaps those with thin skins should learn some tolerance for other's interests.

[No4Mk1(T)]

OK I agree with your post for the most part. Though I feel the quoted posts were only them expressing their right to free speech I am sorry you find them objectionable.
Now to get back on topic: Do you have the permission from the sender of the information you wish to post and is it copyrighted? I’m quit interested to know what they had to say.

[Patrick Chadwick]

Dear No4Mk1(T)
I have noted your opinion that "The AIA rifles are legitimate Enfield Rifles in my mind". Unfortunately I must post a warning in this regard. It definitely applies here in Germany, so I can only warn shooters in other countries who are thinking of purchasing one of these rifles with the intention of participating in servce rifle competitions to get WRITTEN approval from their national shooting organization that the rifle is acceptable for competition BEFORE purchase.

The story behind this warning:
A friend who is not only in the same club but also in the same service rifle shooting group as myself wanted to have an Enfield, but in .308, not .303.
He inquired of a representative of the national body that organizes the service rifle competition if the AIA would be acceptable. He got a VERBAL OK and went out and purchased the rifle. As the rifle came equipped with the simple flip-up non-adjustable battle sight, he also spent a not inconsiderable sum on obtaining the correct Mk 1 screw-adjustable milled backsight for the No. 4.

When, after the usual period of adjustment, ammo tuning etc, he arrived at his first competition, the rifle was flatly rejected by the scrutineers. When he protested that Herr X had pronounced the rifle to be OK he was told "then Herr X was wrong - did he give you his approval in writing". In the meantime he has received a list of a round dozen objections to the rifle, starting off with the screw-in foresight pin instead of a blade. He now has an extremely low-mileage AIA for sale and is, understandably, not a little displeased with the national organization.

That is the full miserable story. So (sorry for shouting) I say again, get WRITTEN approval from your national shooting organization that the rifle is acceptable for service rifle competitions BEFORE purchase.

Patrick

[No4Mk1(T)]

That’s exhalant advice Patrick Chadwick. When I made my comment I was referring strictly to the fact that the new Australian rifles are derivatives of the original Lee Enfield design and will be of interest to Enfield collectors.
Thanks for taking the time to bring this to our attention.

[Alfred]

I do however need to point out that the continued 7.62mm Enfield bashing is becoming tedious. The forum mood regarding this issue has changed as evidenced by posts in some of your recent threads.
For example:

Quote:
There cannot be many more ways left to imply that the LE is "Inherently Weak"

Oiled cartridges
Weak action
"Expolding bolt heads"
7,62 rounds destroying the action
Cracking around the bridge

Its getting monotonous !

And:


Quote:
Under different circumstances, I´d have taken this question seriously.

I have noticed a decline in Enfield help wanted and general interest posts since the Inherent Weakness thread began.

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.
SAAMI specs are based on the pressure of the MkVII load as measured in CUP, 45,400 according to sources dating to within years of its adoption. I found the figures in the Journal of the Franklin Institute quoting a US Ordnance officer. This translates to the 49,000 PSI Max of the SAAMI requirements for the .303.

As for the AIA rifles, I had my doubts of their being suitable for service rifle competition from the begining.
Also one should always remember that a Verbal Agreement is not worth the paper its (not) printed on.

Whether the AIA rifles are proof tested for the SAAMI maximum pressure of the .308 is important to those who are considering buying one, because if they are not they probably won't be available in the US without some sort of Waiver.

[ireload2]

OK I agree with your post for the most part. Though I feel the quoted posts were only them expressing their right to free speech I am sorry you find them objectionable.
Now to get back on topic: Do you have the permission from the sender of the information you wish to post and is it copyrighted? I’m quit interested to know what they had to say.

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.

[Dimitri]

I trust AIA rifles less then I trust a non-proofed to 308Win level No4 that was converted by bubba in his garage.

But that is just me.

Dimitri

[Stevo]

I trust AIA rifles less then I trust a non-proofed to 308Win level No4 that was converted by bubba in his garage.

But that is just me.

Dimitri

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