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

[Rwsgunsmithing]

Here probably are a few of them...

Interarms W/Redfield scope PR.7096: Centrefire bolt-action sniper rifle - Experimental Interarms - Royal Armouries collections
Edgcumbe Arms PR.7090: Centrefire bolt-action sniper rifle - Experimental Edgcumbe Arms - Royal Armouries collections
Interarms w/Tasco scope PR.7097: Centrefire bolt-action sniper rifle - Experimental Interarms - Royal Armouries collections
Accuracy International w/Tasco Scope PR.7084 Centrefire bolt-action sniper rifle - Experimental Interarms - Royal Armouries collections
Accuracy International w/ S&B Scope PR.7092 Centrefire bolt-action sniper rifle - Experimental Accuracy International (about 1985) - Royal Armouries collections

Too bad there are no images. I wonder what tasco scope was used?

[Gil Boyd]

Probably one of their 2.5-10X42 MIL SPEC scopes

[bravo2zero]

It was their 6x44 with 1 min of windage and elevation with external bdc with post and crosshairs like the 32 reticule

---------- Post added at 07:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:21 AM ----------

I know this as I had one of the Interarms trials rifles and posted up a post with pictures a few years ago

[Peter Laidler]

Here's a list of the FIRING TRIALS contenders with serial numbers.
Acc Intl: PM number CWC/PM-0010 and 0011. Tele: Tasco x6
BSA sniper number SR 0001. Tele: Pecar x4
Edgecumbe Arms sniper number 10001/MS. Tele: Weaver x6
Interarm Sniper, number A-92160 Tele: Redfield variable x3-10
P-H sniper/prot (prototype?) number 00101/F. Tele: Unknown make x6
Control sample. Service L42 taken straight from stores and examined for serviceability

Second trial. Only Interarm and AI were requested to put rifles forward for second trial. But following representations, PH also submitted a 2nd rifle. Rifles
Acc Intl PM 0014.
Interarm. Same rifle with shortened barrel. Poor Redfield replaced by TASCO

At the request of Gil, below.
First firing trials were between 19th April and 30th May 1983
The second trials were held between 3rd and 7th October '83 while the weather was cold
P-H. 00102 this time. Tele; TASCO 6x 40

There's the serial numbers to correct some of the misinformation.

There is a LOT of writing and I'll get it all down for posterity

[Gil Boyd]

Peter,
Could you put the dates down for the FIRING and the SECOND TRIAL dates please?

I have both M85 101F & 102F rifles down for trials in 7.62mm at Warminster and 103F also trialled in .308.
Albeit, there will be those who say they are the same, but I have had rifles that would fire .308 but not 7.62 and vise versa. Another thread one day to find out why. Bit like the Mosin Nagant firing .311 instead of the 7.62 x54R rounds, always mystified me, but thats an easy thing to do!!!

TASCO's were 6 x 44's

[Peter Laidler]

The trials of the L96 sniper rifle.
Condensed from the April to end of May ’83 trial report

The trials conducting Officers were Lt Col. M T Royal Irish and WO1 A.H, Small Arms School Corps.

The opening goes o to say that the existing L42 sniper rifle was brought into service following an urgent requirement to replace the old No4T in service in Aden in the mid 60’s. Now, the L42 and the L1A1 telescope were proving difficult to maintain in service. To eliminate the cost and time penalties involved in developing new systems, suitable off-the-shelf rifles would be procured from industry subject to the conditions laid down/set by the General Staff Requirement. Additionally, this was also in part due to the small numbers required, estimated to be 1,200 for a life procurement.

The location of the trial was to be in 3 areas.
RM Depot at Deal where there was a 600 yard sheltered gallery range
School of Infantry at Warminster where there was a 900 yard open range
SPTA for the tactical evaluation.
For security and privacy reasons only the units of the snipers used during the trials will be shown. They include
42 Commando RM
45 Commando RM
Commando Trg Centre
3 Bn Parachute Regt
22 SAS
Queens Own Highlanders.

The trial wpould be using, trialling and testing the following rifles
1) Accuracy International PM rifle serial number CWC/PM-0010 and 0011 with;
Telescope described as Tasco x6
2) BSA sniper rifle serial number SR-0001 with;
telescope identified only as Pecar x4
3) Edgecumbe Arms sniper rifle serial number 10001 with
Telescope identified as Weaver x6
4) Interarms sniper rifle serial number A-0 92160 with;
Telescope described as Redfield variable 3x 10
5) Parker Hale sniper prototype, serial number 00101F with
Telescope unknown but described as P-H x6.
L42A1 service rifle and CES examined for serviceability with;
Telescope, straight sighting L1A2

All the rifles had machined flats to take detachable optical sights. The Interarm only possessed dovetail pads. All had rudimentary iron sights graduated between 100 and 600 yards. The stocks were wood and/or wood laminate and painted in variations of DPM. Harris or Harris type bipods were fitted but the Interarm rifle was fitted with a substantial short LMG/Bren bipod fitted.

ACCURACY INTERNATIONAL: Iron and optical sight evaluation showed 4 pages of variables, but in short, they were all ‘…found wanting’.
The AI 2-notch(?) backsight was described diplomatically as ‘poor’ and the fixed foresight was not acceptable.
The Tasco sight met 90% of the optical spec required although the telescope mounting was poor.
The bolt was liable to AND DID open during the stalking phase.
The cocking piece fractured (fixed by AI rep on site)
Filed to extract (as above)
Suffered by light strikes (as above) but still 3 further failures
Twin sided safety was not required
The PM rifle offered a significant advance in accuracy over the L42A1

BSA: Well balanced, easy to operate, shooting results were fair but let down by the poor Pecar telescope with easily upset range and deflection adjustments. Front and rear iron sights were inefficient and difficult to read

INTERARM: Best telescope but the twin-ring munt was simply not positive enough.
BUT, telescope only read to 600 yards
Feed was problematical and the feed piece broke off the bolt. This was repaired successfully at Warminster
Fires when moving the safety catch to the ‘fire’ position. Only did this twice but this scenario was easy to ‘set-up’ to illustrate the point. However, when it did ‘fire’ the rifle would not discharge the bullet due to the diminished blow of the striker
It was a well designed and robust rifle, if it were matched with a telescope that met all of the GS requirements. It represents a significant advance in accuracy over the L42. The No4 type was simple. The two hole backsight was next to useless and did not even remotely equate to the ranges over 300 yards. The single stage trigger was disliked by all.

EDGECUMBE ARMS: Let down by the telescope and had to be fitted with a loically available Swarovsky x6 to complete the trials
Broken firing pin
Bolt comes free from the body too easily
Firing pin moves into the fired position on several occasions when the bolt is closed. The actual fault was not found but the rifle would not fire due to the diminished force of the blow. It is more disconcerting to the firer to shoot and find the action already ‘fired’
Sling swivel pulled from the butt
The mechanical problems did not enhance the other good results achieved on the trials. Additionally the recoil was noticeably greater that that of the L42 control sample.

PARKER-HALE. Noticeably developed from the commercial M82 sniper variations and the L81 Cadet Target Rifle. It was also considered that this example was as far as this action was capable of being developed

The foresight blade was part of the flash eliminator and therefore subject to great loading and fatigue
Telescope devoid of makers marks
Telescope not correctly calibrated. ½ minute click too spongy not positive.
A round fired when moving safety from safe to fire
Feeding left round in magazine problematical
Very weak ejection and leaves spent case in the action
A robust and manageable rifle capable of producing improved accuracy and consistency over the L42.

THE ACCESSORIES
Interarm LMG type bipod was the best but the legs were 75mm too long. During the trials a new one with the correct length legs was provided and well liked. None of the snipers fitted the bipods during the stalks but carried then to use if the circumstances warranted it
Butt spacers: Liked _ IF the rifle was to be used by only one sniper. If not, it was a double edged sword
Dust cover. P-H was the best
Flash Hiders. Plus, reduced muzzle flash. Minus, diffused muzzle flash can severely compromise a position. Loss or damage will impair accuracy, increases length, cannot be used with the boresight.

Other points raised by snipers. All 5 contenders produced measurable improvements over the L452A1. Malfunctins were low in all cases gived the rounds fired. However, there were no malfunctions with the L42 A1 ( authors/editors comments…. Need we say more)

Telescopic sights. Only AI had paid attention to the General Staff requirement (the GSR’s). Troubles with the indistinct range and deflection showed up clearly on the commercial offerings.

The initial questionnaire asked for first preferences. The first choice as a sniper rifle was the
1st, AI,
2nd, Interarms
3rd, P-H
As a marksmans rifle, the same result
For mechanical functioning
1st, BSA
2nd, Interarm
3rd, AI and P-H equal.
TOP marks overall went to BSA but this was only because all gave it top marks for the completeness and thought that went into the parts and accessories that made up the CES. Strange eh!

There, that’s all for today. Another long section will follow in the next few days

[Gil Boyd]

Great piece of history recorded there Peter on the site.
So did Lt Col T make the overall decision on the L96, as the BSA came obviously top on the questionaires?
No mention of "first cold shot" and its performance or does that feature later?
Even during the trials the L42A1 performed very well against these formidable companies, just goes to show it was always made to last!!

[Peter Laidler]

Ah, yes...... There's a LOT more top come Gil but in short, the fact that the BSA came top of the first part of the course questionnaire was due to the fact that every sniper on the trial gave the BSA CES 10/10! And by default, this huge bump-up this put it top overall!!!!! Bad questionnaire I'd say. The trials team deducted the cleaning kits as 'superficial' on the basis that whatever was adopted would just get what was already available! I thought that you'd smile at how the old but venerable L42 performed. Later you'll read of the shortcomings of the civvy scopes and total lack of understanding of the important GSR's.

None of them liked bipods which I find strange. But I've never stalked with one and you can imagine how a bipod is on a low crawl. It's bad enough with a Bren/L7

[Peter Laidler]

Where were we…..? Ah, yes….. Stay awake at the back of the class. Now for the conclusions of the last part of the 3 rifle trial

The AI and Interarm were the best contenders but as neither the rifles nor the CES were entirely satisfactory as yet, the Trials Unit recommended further work to improve their offerings for later trials. Other manufacturers were also offered the chance to submit their rifles but it was feklt that these might not reack the required standard in the time allowed.

For all, the telescopic sight mounts MUST be improved and in addition, must accept the soon to be encountered IWS night sight WITHOUT the need for a special adaptor. And where relevant, to remove the flash eliminator.

Specifically, AI must redesign the stock, the foresight assembly, the rear sight, the right hand safety, the length of the bolt handle and improve the one-piece scope mounting. In addition, the zero index mark on the telescope must be improved. Those mechanical malfunctions should be properly rectified in order that they cannot recur. The CES must include the best possible items available. The cleaning kit will be that available from Ordnance stores.

Interarm MUST improve the rear sight. The telescope mount must be of one-piece construction on a dovetail rail and must be made lower on the rifle. The telescope must incorporate more clearly defined range and deflection marks with more positive stops. Improved fitting of the rubber butt plate and incorporate a distinct two-stage trigger. Steps must be taken to vastly improve the malfunction rate. Like the AI, the CES MUST be of the best available.

There was to be a second trial for those who were able to re-submit their rifles between the 3rd and 7th October 1983. However, only AI andf Interarm were requested to reapply but P-H were invited to reapply following discussions, the fact that variations of their sniper rifles were already in service use (elsewhere -, Canada and Australia?) and that a commercial variation was already in Cadet Service. This plus the fact that the rifle had proven accuracy kept the door slightly open for them!

This time, 6 snipers were selected as the participants including 3 Marines from the previous trial who had expressed a first preference to the AI and Interarm rifles.

This time the rifles were
AI serial nunre PM-0014
Interarm, serial number 106135
P-H serial number 00102-F

This new trial would not duplicate material applicable to the old trial that was irrelevant in the new acceptance trial.

These are the modifications carried out on the new contenders
AI: Depth of the butt reduced resulting in a marked weight reduction
New foresight assembly, adjustable for height and deflection with a simple allen key
Rear sight redesigned to give an aperture sight and adjustable to ranges between 2 and 600 yards. Additionally, it was recessed into the scope rail when not in use.
Safety, left side only
Bolt handle length reduced and made in one piece with the bolt
Sight rail much improved. Now one piece and retained with 2x knurled captive knobs
Bipod a much improved LMG type.

Trials comments. The Tasco 6x 40 scope was good. The new bracket was good. The iron sight aperture was too large and the foresight presented a shadow in the FoV of the optical field. The new hard plastic type furniture requires some rectification. The bipod needs some attention. The degree of cant is insufficient but could this can be overcome with the adjustable bipod legs.

Now, the problems……… The bolt was very stiff and on a couple of occasions needed 2 hands to lift and pull back.
Two light strikes
Hard extraction on 18 occasions
Ejection generally acceptable but 8 instances where the spent case was left in the action
Mechanical reliability such as extraction and ejection remain unsatisfactory

Interarm. The rearsight was a totally new design
The Tasco replaced the Redfield
The single stage trigger was replaced by a new two-stage trigger
The barrel was shortened so as to be compatible with 7.62mm NATO ammunition
The two piece telescope mounting rings have been ‘bridged’
Butt plate replaced with a stronger and more robust item

Trials comments. The Tasco telescopic sight was good.
The bracket has been replaced (no, the two rings had been ‘bridged) but remained two rings when a single bracket had been a GSR requirement and requested.
Dovetail mount on the body did not fail but the trials team felt that it could be easil compromised.
The twin-leaf 300 – 600 yard aperture backsight was not conducive to good accuracy
The furniture was generally liked and comfortable
The length and weight were commented on. It was the longest and now the heaviest!

Problems. The trigger could not be reset after taking up the first pressure
The floppy trigger was a bit disconcerting to the snipers
4x misfeeds during slow operation of the bolt – a method of loading preferred by snipers
Non ejection on 9 occasions
Two of the magazines used on the trial allowed rounds to jump out!

Parked Hale
New iron sights redesigned to the old Lee Enfield type and the foresight to the current GPMG spec, which incidentally, P-H were making as sub contractors together with he robust GPMG type flash eliminator
The new Tasco 6x 44 replaced the unknown make preciously fitted
A new stainless steel chemically blackened barrel was fitted
A new LMG type bipod was fitted with a ‘bayonet’ type fitting, mounted onto a spigot at the front of the fore-end

Trials comments. The new Tasco telescope was good and improved the weapons overall performance
The telescope fitting was now a roll-on/roll-off type, retained by two large diameter knurled thumbscrews
The iron sights were the best to date and easily zeroed with the aid of an allen key. The rear sight calibrations were accurately matched to the actual ranges
The bipod was an improvement from the previous commercial Harris type but the narrow feet were prone to dig into soft wet ground during firing.
The furniture was well shaped and comfortable

Problems: The ejector failed on the first day after firing 6 rounds (replaced by P-H rep and did not reoccur)
6 instances of non ejection, mostly during slow/deliberate bolt manipulation. All contenders were told to pay attention to this slow and deliberate method of operation utilised and taught to snipers
Bipod continually became loose or detached due to the softness of the material used to locate the bipod head to the rifle
VERY accurate with consistently high results.

The ancillaries. Overall, the ancillaries were good but provision should be made in the chest for other items that may be identified (doesn’t say how the manufacturers were meant to know!) The flash hider not required….. BUT provision should be made by threading the muzzle with a screw cap to protect the threads

Night Vision fitting should be incorporated on a continuous dovetail rail incorporating recoil stop holes. OR an additional night vision rail permanently fitted

Conclusions
No rifle consistently showed itself to be any more or less accurate than the others and all generally conformed to the GSR’s
The A! was outwardly robust with the Tasco 6x 44 but was too bulky which affects the handling. There were high incidents of mechanical defects and problems with the replacement bolts
At present, the rifle is unacceptable as a replacement for the L42A1
Interarm. Excellent shooting rifle and results with the Tasco 6x 44 telescope. The extra length and weight of the rifle did not produce the improvements that were said of it.. The telescope mounting was not the best of those trialed. The iron sights require improvement. Further development is required before the rifle could be considered as a replacement for the L42A1 rifle
The P-H. Well balanced and of a conventional design with a high degree of accuracy and consistent mechanical reliability. This was the unanimous verdict of the team compared with the other contenders. Only minor modifications are required to render it fit for acceptance as a replacement for the L42A1

Recomendations by Lt Col. MT
It is recommended that the P-H sniper rifle is accepted as a replacement for the L42A1 sniper rifle subject to the following
a) Redesign of the telescopic sight bracket to provide a true one-piece mount
b) Enlarge the bipod show area
c) Improve the bipod spigot assembly to eliminate instances of it detaching itself
d) Eliminate the flash eliminator but retail the threaded muzzle thread to permit the fitting of a suppressor at a later date.

So there it is. It was to have been the P-H.

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.

And guess what……. The UK MoD hold the IPR’s on the AI L96A1

[Gil Boyd]

Peter,
Great summary on all contenders, and the last paragraph, was exactly how I saw it when I wrote my piece on L96A1 v PH M85 and why the PH lost, after talking and knowing many of the PH engineers.

Personally, and knowing the "powers that be", I bet it was decided in the Officers Mess over a few bottles of Red IMHO. Yes the L96 is a fine weapon, as are the others, but it was down to what the practitioners wanted, the lads who were going into battle wanted, and this perhaps was one of the very few times they had a decent say in the process.
Having said all that, their wishes weren't granted and the M85 lost out, killing off the last historic Birmingham Arms manufacturer in one fell swoop.

The lads tried their hardest to rectify all that was asked of them, and it did eventually break their hearts to have lost.................but alas, that is Polictics, which has no place in the Military!!

..........and to hold the IPR's on the L96A1, what were they thinking at AI??