AIA No4 Mk4

[Lee Enfield]

Ive just done the same for another group, so as background for the rifles and a bit of reading to help work out for yourselves what happened to AIA, here are three links to Stephen Regwell's site. He actively followed them for a few years trying at first to do a test and review for them but... well, read the timeline in the first link and you will see what happened....

The Mystery of Australian International Arms

Australian International Arms - Part 2

AIA Rifles: Cheaply Made

A few observations:

The argument regarding whether the AIA rifles are "Lee Enfield" or not really doesn't understand that "Lee" refers to the action and (removeable) magazine system patents, while "Enfield" refers to the rifling pattern of the bore.

Therefore the rifles are plainly "Lee" but not "Enfield" at all. In fact, one could argue that none of the 7.62 "Lee Enfield" rifles are "Enfield" at all.


The only? problem with SR's "review" (what's posted is an edited version from what I recall at the time) is that he never actually had a gun....and possibly never even saw one.

His extreme concern regarding potential 3rd world warranty issues is puzzling to someone who regularly shoots 70-150 year old firearms sometimes manufactured in countries which no longer exist...

The SARP quote is interesting, but the history of the SARP programs are notoriously political and the recent small arms RQFs which I have read were plainly written by someone with no knowledge of small arms outside of video games.


I (personally) didn't buy an AIA because I have original 7.62 "Lee" and .303 "Lee Enfield" rifles and the AIA seemed to be a production firearm with "on-demand" availability.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.
.

[Brian Dick]

I should clarify a bit. I don't really have an opinion on the quality, accuracy or function of the AIA since I've never even examined one other than in Ian's book. It's the problems dealing with the manufacturer/exporter I'm referring to and the report Steve put out references the same experiences I was hearing back then from others in the trade. One thing I have no respect for is a lack of communication with potential customers as well as long time customers. I go to great lengths to answer every call, email or written correspondence quickly here and expect the same from those I deal with.

I had six M21 sniper rifles in my care as a young Armorer in the PIR in the 1980's. It was before the dedicated U.S. Army sniper school was opened at Fort Benning so we had one at Fort Bragg as most Infantry bases did at the time. The sniper candidates did very well with the rifles equipped with the ARTII telescope and double point scope mount considering the age of the rifles and optics. I will agree that they could be problematic with holding zero if the scope was constantly being removed. I think the earlier single point mounts as used in Vietnam were much worse but have no experience with them. They were all made of aluminum too which also lent to the problem IMHO. The earlier ART1 scope was much better from what I've been told but I have no experience with them either. The steel M25 type scope mounts used these days along with a variety of top notch optics plus synthetic stocks are much better.

---------- Post added at 03:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:56 PM ----------

A visit to BC is definitely on my list!

[browningautorifle]

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"?

Without draggin' this thread too far, the single point mounts are the problem. That's why the threaded charge guide was installed and the problem evaporated. Then they shot along side the bolt guns(mostly) and were fine. Removing your optic will always cause problems. As for the optic being at fault, a good tradesman never blames his tool. He get's at and sorts out the issue. I'd blame the weapon too if I couldn't hit sh*t...

By the way, the real M14s are as gorgeous to shoot as an FN ever was for us. I've had all of them...

When you guys get to Victoria, I'm available and have room...

[Son]

A few observations:

The argument regarding whether the AIA rifles are "Lee Enfield" or not really doesn't understand that "Lee" refers to the action and (removeable) magazine system patents, while "Enfield" refers to the rifling pattern of the bore.

Therefore the rifles are plainly "Lee" but not "Enfield" at all. In fact, one could argue that none of the 7.62 "Lee Enfield" rifles are "Enfield" at all.

.

One point, when the engineers at Enfield did the redesign and came up with the No4, it was considered a big enough departure from James Paris Lee's design that the "Lee" was dropped from the rifle designation... just the same as you said about the 7.62 versions perhaps should not be "Enfield" named either.... So, the AIA rifles had no right to any part of the pedigree in their name, ....and THAT (along with the poor all around performance by the company) was my biggest complaint against them. (or are all rear locking actions now Lee Enfields like all front locking actions are Mausers?)

Their intent was for their products to take over service rifle shooting in Australia, but was very quickly cut down by the rule makers. The rifles were not deemed a faithful reproduction in any way shape or form.
I really didn't give a toss about too much else in Mr Regwell's writings, (even though he gave them every chance....) so any thought of discrediting his work is going to fall on deaf ears here... the outcome of AIA's little foray was they dismally failed in all respects and should be remembered that way.

just my 2c....

[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.