Lost and stolen Weapons and ammunition

[NutLoose]

Surprised they seem to think that some may have been taken specifically for criminal reasons, ie stolen to order?. I take it the Army cadet ones will be .22 versions?

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/criminality-warning-after-mod-guns-and-ammo-lost-or-stolen/ar-BBYr58H

[Hawk98]

In my 5 years as an air cadet, we only ever used the 5.56 L98A2, which is essentially an L85A2 but semi-automatic only. Having said that, the rifles were always kept behind the razor wire at the local TA barracks. Never came across a .22 variant.

Hawk

[PPRuNeUser0211]

In my 5 years as an air cadet, we only ever used the 5.56 L98A2, which is essentially an L85A2 but semi-automatic only. Having said that, the rifles were always kept behind the razor wire at the local TA barracks. Never came across a .22 variant.

Hawk
I believe (out of that kind of thing for a while) that they brought in a kit that converted a standard L85 to a 22, to replace the 98 straight pulls - something about being able to use the same rifle on indoor ranges and not having to keep the old Number 8 22's going. Might be wrong though!

[NutLoose]

Ahh, just read up on it, there is a .22 variant allowing its use on .22 ranges where full size ranges are unavailable. More here, thanks for your input, you learn something new everyday.

https://atc.fandom.com/wiki/L98A2_Cadet_GP_Rifle

[Harley Quinn]

Campaigners have warned that almost a dozen guns and more than 1000 bullets lost or stolen from Ministry of Defence bases could be used to commit crime.

That's the first paragraph of the article. The highlighted word then seems to get forgotten (lost?) by the intrepid reporter who only reports 'stolen' from there on in.

[Tashengurt]

I know that when my lad started air cadets recently he was told there was no shooting because the ACF had had some guns stolen.

[TBM-Legend]

My ATC days in Australia we used the Lee Enfield .303 recalibered to .22 using a thing called a "Morris Tube". Get your weapon handling and a good consistent grouping on the 25 yard range and then off the the big guns [.303] on the 100yrd range. Big time for a 14 year old...

[AnglianAV8R]

When I were a lad (1970s), we had .22 conversions of the SLR.

My grandson has just joined ATC and the squadron is no longer using the tunnel range for the .22. We were told that all the rifles have been taken away to secure armouries, due to some being stolen from an ACF unit premises. I fear they will never get them back, as the risk averse folks up top have been looking for the excuse to stop shooting. Stand by for some sterile compootah alternative. The squadron has also lost their No4 DP rifles as they don't meet current EU de-activation standards, so they have lost another enjoyable activity. Pfft.

[Doobry Firkin]

The weapons stolen form the ACF were the Drill Use version that had been decommissioned - badly.
You could still use them for weapon training which to be honest was their main use. After they'd been stolen it was found that they could be recommissioned fairly easily so they were all pulled back into the central Armouries for safe keeping.
Now any training on L98s usually has to be carried out where there's a main Armoury as that's the only place you can get your hands on a rifle.
We used to be able to get the rifles for training and keep them in a Sqn Armoury so we could get the kids through the Weapon Handling Test ready to shoot.
Some regions are looking at a hub and spoke solution with some upgraded Armouries at certain locations but as usual that relies on someone being available to give you access to the local armoury and the Cadet Sqn.

[NutLoose]

When I went through Swinditz for drill and passing out we had old Lee Enfields that had been cobbled together to resemble the SLR.

[ExAscoteer2]

There seems to be a certain amount of not quite correct information here.

Firstly, the reasoning behind 'hub armouries' for cadet Section 1 Firearms is down to the fact that armouries are now required to be alarmed IAW JSP440, and the fact that there isn’t enough money (certainly within the RAFAC budget) to alarm more than about 6 armouries per Wing.

The fact that weapons were recalled to Parent Unit Armouries is down to 2 factors, both directly caused by ACF cock-ups: Last year the ACF lost 3x L103A2 Cadet Drill Purpose Rifles in Edinburgh, stolen by an ex-cadet for sale on the Black Market (obviously the ACF Unit involved were not correctly storing these in an arms chest such as a Benweld. The L103A2 is quintessentially a L98A2 Cadet General Purpose Rifle, but with a solid barrel and no full length firing pin (indeed the firing pin aperture on the forward face of the bolt is welded up) – the L98A2 is basically the cadet version of the L85A2 Individual Weapon but lacking the ‘change lever’ such that it is single-shot, self-loading (i.e. no automatic option for obvious reasons!).

As a result of the Police investigation into this incident, it was decided that the L103A2 is a Section 5 Firearm that has not been correctly deactivated IAW extant legislation, having no Proof House stamp (despite the fact that the weapons were never ‘deactivated’ but constructed as Drill Purpose by Heckler and Koch). This meant that, at the beginning of Mar, we ran around like one-armed paper hangers collecting the L103s and taking them back to Parent Units (and this had to be done IAW Section 5 Firearm rules, ie Driver and escort for the weapon carrying vehicle, plus an escort vehicle). That was a fun day, NOT!

The result of this is that L98A2 training is now problematic in that it has to be done at a Parent Unit – realistically this means that W/E courses are now virtually impossible, with courses having to be run during the school holidays.

Subsequent to the return of the L103s, in March 2019 the ACF lost a couple of .22” rifles in Liverpool (presumably L144A1 Cadet Small Bore Target Rifles – the replacement for the No8 Rifle that went out of service at end Sep last year). So, yet again they weren’t storing them correctly. At the time AOC 22Gp (as DDH), based upon a RAFP Sy Risk Assessment, had given permission to store Section 1 Firearms (both L144A1s as well as non-Service Issued Sqn owned weapons) in unalarmed armouries subject to those armouries becoming alarmed by end Sep 2019. This permission was immediately cancelled and we all ran around again collecting in .22” rifles and delivering to parent Units.

Alarmed armouries are now coming on line, but it will take some time before cadet Small Bore shooting is back up and running. I have no idea why No. 4 Drill Purpose weapons might have been returned to Parent Units other than over zealous WExOs, because these weapons do conform to extant deactivation regulations.

Turning to the .22” conversion of the L98, the kit was known as the L41A1 and was nothing whatsoever to do with the L98A1 ‘straight pull’ Cadet General Purpose Rifle, since it was introduced in 1988 to convert the L85A1 IW for use on 25m Indoor Ranges so as to assist in LFMT (in much the same way that the No8 .22” conversion of the No4 .303” was introduced in the 1950s) This was a relatively simple conversion kit, given that the SA80 family of weapons are chambered in 5.56mm NATO which is (effectively) a .223” bore, and .22”LR is also .223”-.2255”. However, following the introduction into service of the DCCT ranges (Dismounted Close Combat Trainer), in 2003 it was decided that .22” shooting for the Regular and Reserve Forces was of questionable value, so it was removed from the Army’s Operational Shooting Policy. Subsequent to this, and with the introduction of the L98A2 to the cadet forces in 2009/10, it was decided that a .22” conversion would be useful so the L41A1 kits were brought up to L41A2 std. However only the ACF purchased them (RAFAC certainly didn’t). There have been safety concerns about the incorrect fitting of firing pin springs so all L41A2 kits were recalled as of May 2019. Apparently, there are plans afoot to produce a variant of the L98 chambered in .22”LR.

I am unaware of there ever being a .22” conversion of the L1A1 SLR – indeed for that to work you would have to re-barrel the rifle which wouldn’t make any economic sense!

[pasta]

I remember firing some .22 SLR conversions on an indoor range in West Berlin, in the mid '80s. It might have been me, but they didn't seem particularly accurate...

[phil9560]

I remember firing some .22 SLR conversions on an indoor range in West Berlin, in the mid '80s. It might have been me, but they didn't seem particularly accurate...


And very frequent stoppages.

[AnglianAV8R]

And very frequent stoppages.
A fine tradition that was steadfastly maintained with the L98A1

[SPIT]

We used to use 7.62 SLR's with .22 conversion kit's on indoor ranges so I can's see why no kit for 5.56 Cadet versions.

[Jump Complete]

I was in the Air Cadets between 89 to 93. We used bolt action 22s on our own tunnel range. We had decommissioned 303 Lee-Enfields for dry rifle training. I fired an L98 once on Annual Camp (possibly RAF Witton in 92) and remember it had rather more kick than the little 22s!
They told us the Lee-Enfields had to be decommissioned as 22s were one thing, but heavy bore weapons like the .303’s getting stolen would have been quite serious!

[ExAscoteer2]

They told us the Lee-Enfields had to be decommissioned as 22s were one thing, but heavy bore weapons like the .303’s getting stolen would have been quite serious!

They were decommissioned owing to the lack of readily available .303" ammunition.

They were replaced by the L81A1 Cadet Full Bore Target Rifle (adopted around 1981 and updated to current A2 status in around 1994), a shortened barreled variant of the Parker-Hale Model 82 sniper rifle chambered in 7.62 NATO.

[flyingorthopod]

There seems to be a certain amount of not quite correct information here.

Firstly, the reasoning behind 'hub armouries' for cadet Section 1 Firearms is down to the fact that armouries are now required to be alarmed IAW JSP440, and the fact that there isn’t enough money (certainly within the RAFAC budget) to alarm more than about 6 armouries per Wing.

The fact that weapons were recalled to Parent Unit Armouries is down to 2 factors, both directly caused by ACF cock-ups: Last year the ACF lost 3x L103A2 Cadet Drill Purpose Rifles in Edinburgh, stolen by an ex-cadet for sale on the Black Market (obviously the ACF Unit involved were not correctly storing these in an arms chest such as a Benweld. The L103A2 is quintessentially a L98A2 Cadet General Purpose Rifle, but with a solid barrel and no full length firing pin (indeed the firing pin aperture on the forward face of the bolt is welded up) – the L98A2 is basically the cadet version of the L85A2 Individual Weapon but lacking the ‘change lever’ such that it is single-shot, self-loading (i.e. no automatic option for obvious reasons!).

As a result of the Police investigation into this incident, it was decided that the L103A2 is a Section 5 Firearm that has not been correctly deactivated IAW extant legislation, having no Proof House stamp (despite the fact that the weapons were never ‘deactivated’ but constructed as Drill Purpose by Heckler and Koch). This meant that, at the beginning of Mar, we ran around like one-armed paper hangers collecting the L103s and taking them back to Parent Units (and this had to be done IAW Section 5 Firearm rules, ie Driver and escort for the weapon carrying vehicle, plus an escort vehicle). That was a fun day, NOT!

The result of this is that L98A2 training is now problematic in that it has to be done at a Parent Unit – realistically this means that W/E courses are now virtually impossible, with courses having to be run during the school holidays.

Subsequent to the return of the L103s, in March 2019 the ACF lost a couple of .22” rifles in Liverpool (presumably L144A1 Cadet Small Bore Target Rifles – the replacement for the No8 Rifle that went out of service at end Sep last year). So, yet again they weren’t storing them correctly. At the time AOC 22Gp (as DDH), based upon a RAFP Sy Risk Assessment, had given permission to store Section 1 Firearms (both L144A1s as well as non-Service Issued Sqn owned weapons) in unalarmed armouries subject to those armouries becoming alarmed by end Sep 2019. This permission was immediately cancelled and we all ran around again collecting in .22” rifles and delivering to parent Units.

Alarmed armouries are now coming on line, but it will take some time before cadet Small Bore shooting is back up and running. I have no idea why No. 4 Drill Purpose weapons might have been returned to Parent Units other than over zealous WExOs, because these weapons do conform to extant deactivation regulations.

Turning to the .22” conversion of the L98, the kit was known as the L41A1 and was nothing whatsoever to do with the L98A1 ‘straight pull’ Cadet General Purpose Rifle, since it was introduced in 1988 to convert the L85A1 IW for use on 25m Indoor Ranges so as to assist in LFMT (in much the same way that the No8 .22” conversion of the No4 .303” was introduced in the 1950s) This was a relatively simple conversion kit, given that the SA80 family of weapons are chambered in 5.56mm NATO which is (effectively) a .223” bore, and .22”LR is also .223”-.2255”. However, following the introduction into service of the DCCT ranges (Dismounted Close Combat Trainer), in 2003 it was decided that .22” shooting for the Regular and Reserve Forces was of questionable value, so it was removed from the Army’s Operational Shooting Policy. Subsequent to this, and with the introduction of the L98A2 to the cadet forces in 2009/10, it was decided that a .22” conversion would be useful so the L41A1 kits were brought up to L41A2 std. However only the ACF purchased them (RAFAC certainly didn’t). There have been safety concerns about the incorrect fitting of firing pin springs so all L41A2 kits were recalled as of May 2019. Apparently, there are plans afoot to produce a variant of the L98 chambered in .22”LR.

I am unaware of there ever being a .22” conversion of the L1A1 SLR – indeed for that to work you would have to re-barrel the rifle which wouldn’t make any economic sense!

A .22 chambered L98 would be great for lightweight sport rifle if they fit a decent barrel.

[Yellow Sun]

A .22 chambered L98 would be great for lightweight sport rifle if they fit a decent barrel.
No thank you, I’ll stick with my Rimfire Magic 10/22.

Once again the idiocy of procuring a S5 firearm for cadet use is part of problem. If it was felt necessary to use a service look-a-like then it should have been a L98 in .22 in the first place.

YS

[GeeRam]

They were decommissioned owing to the lack of readily available .303" ammunition.


I thought that's why the MOD ordered all that lovely HXP 303 ammo from the Greeks back in the early 80's for Cadet use? There was still enough of it to sell surplus after they decided to stop using the No.4's, so was that really the reason? The UK NRA got a lot of it. I've got one box left, its very hard to find now, although most of it ended up in the USA.

[AnglianAV8R]

The L103A2 is quintessentially a L98A2 Cadet General Purpose Rifle, but with a solid barrel and no full length firing pin (indeed the firing pin aperture on the forward face of the bolt is welded up).

As a result of the Police investigation into this incident, it was decided that the L103A2 is a Section 5 Firearm that has not been correctly deactivated IAW extant legislation, having no Proof House stamp (despite the fact that the weapons were never ‘deactivated’ but constructed as Drill Purpose by Heckler and Koch). This meant that, at the beginning of Mar, we ran around like one-armed paper hangers collecting the L103s and taking them back to Parent Units (and this had to be done IAW Section 5 Firearm rules, ie Driver and escort for the weapon carrying vehicle, plus an escort vehicle). That was a fun day, NOT!



If by "solid barrel" you mean that it was a solid lump of metal with the outward appearance of a barrel sans bore, I despair at the suggestion it is a S.5 firearm. I would argue that as it was never functional from the point of manufacture, then is is a 'Realistic Imitation Firearm' of which there is a clear definition in statute. The real argument would revolve around the practicality of boring the barrel and it being capable of firing projectiles..... The answer is really very simple, just make the barrel out of a white metal casting. Job done.

[WB627]

I have a recollection of seeing a .22 L1A1 SLR but I'm not sure when on where.

I think it may have been at the end of one of our CCF field days when the RAF Section returned to school after running around the woods doing escape and evasion exercises all day. The Army had sent the infantry to school to do training with the Army cadets and when we got back there were very large bangs coming from our 22 rifle range. On investigation we found the Army using 80mm Carl Gustave anti tank rocket launchers in there ……. with the sub caliber training device fitted of course. Used a 7.62 size round with a rounded hollow copper cap, which produced a very big bang similar I was told, to the effect of the real thing. I was very lucky and despite my blue uniform they let me have a go :) I still have the plywood tank target that I even manged to hit, one of my treasured possessions!

I think the .22 L1A1 was there as well, I remember being told that it had a specially lightened breech block for the automatic reload to work with the .22 ammo, but that they still got a lot of stoppages with it.

[topgas]

The L1A1 conversion kit (L12A1) is described at
L12A1 Conversion Kit British .22 Rimfire FAL (http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=1995)

[NRU74]

Is a possible solution, so that the cadets get at least a bit of shooting, for one of the instructors to get a Firearms Certificate ( restricted to authorised ranges only) for someone else’s locally owned .22 ?
For instance I’ve got a CZ452 .22 and I’m more than prepared to loan it to the local ATC or whatever on an occasional basis. It’s got a fairly large scope and a sound moderator but would at least give the kids the opportunity of firing live ammo.
I suppose I could go and supervise myself but suspect I’d have to do the Disclosure and Barring Service thing first.

[GeeRam]

I am unaware of there ever being a .22” conversion of the L1A1 SLR – indeed for that to work you would have to re-barrel the rifle which wouldn’t make any economic sense!

They used a sleeve insert to the original barrel IIRC.

A firm in the USA remanufactured a run of the .22 conversion kits for the SLR a few years ago, was a rumour early in 2019 that they were going to do another run of them, but not seen whether that happened or not. There's at least one of their kits working very well in a UK straight-pull spec SLR that I know of.

[ExAscoteer2]

Once again the idiocy of procuring a S5 firearm for cadet use is part of problem. If it was felt necessary to use a service look-a-like then it should have been a L98 in .22 in the first place.
YS

I disagree fundamentally. Your statement shows that you have no understanding of how cadet shooting is run to mandated SASC regulations across the cadet forces.

The reason the L98A2 was procurred was that H&K refused to continue to support the L98A1 (which was apparently a waste of space anyway - I've never seen one so can't comment).

There is no problem with cadets using a Section 5 Firearm if correcty supervised by Current, Competent, and Qualified RCOs/ECOs (IAW Army Code 71855-C Cadet Training - Ranges), and having been taught and tested by Current, Competent, and Qualified SAAIs (IAW Army Code 71807-C The L98A2 Cadet GP Rifle (5.56mm) and Associated Equipment).

In RAFAC there are further limitations applied via ACP18 Vols 1 - 3 (itself written by an SASC Officer), whch lays down things like the Progressive Shooting syllabi foe the various cadet WS.

[ExAscoteer2]

The real argument would revolve around the practicality of boring the barrel and it being capable of firing projectiles.

That is I believe, the problem, coupled with the fact that the working parts (bolt carrier assembly) can be cycled.

[ExAscoteer2]

Is a possible solution, so that the cadets get at least a bit of shooting, for one of the instructors to get a Firearms Certificate ( restricted to authorised ranges only) for someone else’s locally owned .22 ?


You'd run into all sorts problems with regulation at Higher Formation level (HQAC and avove), let alone conformity to the RAFAC Progressive Shooting Syllabus, as well as the requirement for producing an Initial Weapons Training Syllabus / Weapons Handling Test (which are a mandated requirement for cadet shooting).

Currently, within RAFAC we have the L144A1 coming on-stream replacing the old No8 rifles. This has been problematic in that the rifle is particularly unserviceable and breaks easily. It's basically an American 'plinking' rifle fitted with target Rifle sights and was, in my view, bought down to a budget as the cheapest contender for the No8 replacement.

There are also the LPWs (Locally Purchased Weapons ie Sqn owned weapons). There is a provision within the Firearms Act 1968, as amended 1997, that allows cadet units to own Section 1 Firearms and Shotguns (subject to the relevent storage regulations) without a FAC, as long as they are recorded on a form known as an ACF20 (copies of which are held by the Sqn, Wg HQ, HQAC, and the local CivPol Firearms unit). The ACF20 acts in lieu of a FAC and allows units to hold weapons and purchase ammunition.

The next blockage is that you are not allowed to fire Service Issued ammunition through LPWs, despite the fact that it's the same Eley Club that you can buy from your local gunsmith!

In terms of .22" shooting, historically it was only Sqns with a (serviceable) range (or access to) that shot. Many sqns didn't shoot .22" outside of Annual Camps (and that's become more problematic with with things like the requirement for a Range Recce, before a RSD (Range Safety Document - ie the paperwork for the planned shoot) is produced.

In my Wg (of 30 Sqns) I have 8 Sqns with .22" ranges (whether indoor or tube), and 3 Sqns with access to a range. Accordingly I wrote a basing plan around this in summer 2017, only to be told by RFCA that I would get a mere 6 armouries alarmed. This in itself is not an insurmountable problem, but it is an Admin burden in ensuring that .22" shooting (when it comes back on line) is spread fairly and eqitably across the Sqns in the Wg. Effectively this will mean W/E shoots as opposed to Parade Night shoots (the latter can be covered off using the air rifles).

[tucumseh]

All very sad. I recall the days when the local army cadets would roll up at our open shoots with their No.8s, and walk away with the prizes. (A few shillings to have the trophies engraved). I shall never forget one young lad, name of MacDonald and 14, who'd never shot at an outdoor range, never mind 100m. Two sighters, adjust, and shot 98 on an Olympic target. All this, on top of the Air Cadet glider fiasco. Someone needs to get a grip. What next? Sea Cadets with no canoes?

[Above The Clouds]

Here (http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=1995) is the L1A1 conversion kit

There is a very similar .22 calibre conversion for the M4, M16 rifles, they keep the original barrel as it is .223 calibre but change the slide to accept the rimfire cartridge and mags have an insert to accept the .22 rimfire round.

[tmmorris]

The L1A1 conversion kit has been withdrawn.

ATC units wanting to conduct L98A2 training are welcome to contact their local CCF unit who can probably help. Unfortunately internal politics sometimes prevent this.

[Yellow Sun]

Is a possible solution, so that the cadets get at least a bit of shooting, for one of the instructors to get a Firearms Certificate ( restricted to authorised ranges only) for someone else’s locally owned .22 ?
For instance I’ve got a CZ452 .22 and I’m more than prepared to loan it to the local ATC or whatever on an occasional basis. It’s got a fairly large scope and a sound moderator but would at least give the kids the opportunity of firing live ammo.
I suppose I could go and supervise myself but suspect I’d have to do the Disclosure and Barring Service thing first.

I’m sorry NRU74 but you need to sit down and have a long chat with someone who has a sound working knowledge of the Firearms Act, Whilst your proposal is made with the best of intentions it has so many flaws in it that it would be difficult to know where to start. In addition, the cadet forces have become so burdened with regulation relating to shooting that it’s amazing that anything is ever accomplished.

Another potential problem that is on the horizon is the amendment or withdrawal of S11(4) of the Firearms Act, the part relating to Miniature Rifle Ranges. This has in the past enabled cadet units to acquire non-service smallbore firearms and ammunition without the need for a Firearm Certificate. If it is withdrawn and nothing replaces it, then it could cause significant problems as cadet units would have to be made exempt of the requirements for Home Office Approval in order to qualify for a no cost FAC (at present). The can of worms all this could open is rather large.

YS

[ExAscoteer2]

The L1A1 conversion kit has been withdrawn.
ATC units wanting to conduct L98A2 training are welcome to contact their local CCF unit who can probably help. Unfortunately internal politics sometimes prevent this.

You mean L41A1/A2. L1A1 was the FN FAL derived Self loading Rifle that was replaced in service between 1987 - 1991.

What we are doing in my Wg is to share training with local ACF Units via their Coy HQs (an ACF Coy is about the size of an average ATC Sqn!) and (generally) have 'proper' armouries (as opposed to Benwelds).

Having said that, as a SAAI, I have taught ATC, ACF, RM cadets, CCF, as well as Welbeck students.

While problematic, L98A2 training is not insurmountable, but it is now an increased Admin burden.

[NutLoose]

I am surprised how much I have learnt about the SLR I used for so many years since this thread started, from the reasoning for the grooves in the side of the working parts to prevent dirt fouling the mechanism, through the differences and also why the 7.62 round was foisted on us by the US when we had a more suitable round originally envisaged for it.

[weemonkey]

Nutty.

For all things FAL

https://www.youtube.com/user/ForgottenWeapons/search?query=FAL

Oh you may like this one too EM-2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcYj2SpUHvE

Great channel, but you can spend days in here!!!

Oh just for fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU_sOb7Fkdo

[NutLoose]

This was the film I watched, fascinating.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jexf8A462jM

[weemonkey]

"It's my train set and what I say goes"

Yeah watched that couple of weeks ago too, very interesting how the US Army "manipulated" their way to an inferior 5.56 cartridge [same with EM-2 0.208]..

[ExAscoteer2]

All very sad. I recall the days when the local army cadets would roll up at our open shoots with their No.8s, and walk away with the prizes.

Actually you'd be surprised. Shooting is alive and well within RAFAC, it's just more difficult than it was.

For eg, at the last 3 CISSAMs (Cadet Inter Service Skill At Arms Meetings - ie a W/E of Service Rifle Competition, usually at Pirbright) the ATC has won all bar one of the prizes.

Similarly at the last 3 ISCRMs (Inter services Cadet Rifle meetings - ie a 3 day Target Rifle Competition at Bisley), the ATC has by far the most cadets within the Cadet 100 (top 100 scorers).

[Whenurhappy]

At my daughter's school the CCF Air component folded last year - no flying/gliding or shooting and lack of committed staff. The Army section does well and it's the school's vehicle to having a top shooting team.

Oh, and the No 8 .22 target rifle was specifically built as a cadet target rifle. Although they had the Lee Enfield bolt action, the rifle was not a conversion.

[GeeRam]

Oh, and the No 8 .22 target rifle was specifically built as a cadet target rifle. Although they had the Lee Enfield bolt action, the rifle was not a conversion.

Yep, and there were two types of No.8 action as well, one based on the No.4 action, and the other similar to the No.5 action.
The fore end design of the No.8 also ended up being the basis for that used later on the 7.62 L39, L42, Envoy and Enforcers.

[BEagle]

Back in the '60s, my school CCF only had an Army section. We had a few ancient Mauser rifles, about half a dozen old SMLEs, dozens of Lee-Enfield No4 rifles, a jungle carbine, half a dozen DP Bren Guns and a few Sten Guns. Plus a couple of revolvers modified to fire only .22 blanks, some 2" mortars and 3.5" rocket launchers and some .22s for range firing. All were originally housed in a pre-fab building, but later rules meant that they were moved into a purpose-built armoury in which live and blank rounds were also stored.

On Field Days we would be bussed to the Quantocks with our .303s, although we also took the DP Brens plus old-style football rattles which the second man on the Bren would whirl furiously to simulate firing sounds. The .303s also went with us to Summer Camps on Exmoor - no-one thought twice about teenagers toting rifles around the hills back then.

The Stens also had some blank-firing barrels - these were basically a barrel with an internal tapered constriction which would allow gas pressure from a blank to chamber the next blank round, simulating the real weapon - but of course a Sten with a blank barrel couldn't be used to fire real 9mm rounds.

One of the blank barrels had developed a crack, so one of our number took it to a local gunsmith for repair. When it was ready, I went with my colleague to collect it. Little did I know it, but in his briefcase he also had the rest of the weapon. So there we were in the local gunsmiths, in school uniform - and my chum pulled out the Sten to check that the barrel fitted OK. It did, so off we went back to school with a Sten gun in a briefcase! No-one else in the gunsmiths thought anything about this, but I've always wondered what the local rozzers would have said if they'd known. Back to school, down to the bottom fields with some blank 9mm ammo to test the thing. It worked briefly 'da-da-da-clunk', but the barrel had broken again and that was that!

But it wasn't the most hazardous item we had at school. That was actually a 1955-era Switchboard Magneto Mk 10 portable telephone exchange, which had replaced the WW2 'Universal Caller 10 lines' exchange, which was like something out of Blackadder and weighed over 30lb. The reason the SM10 was so dangerous was that it had a lot of luminous painted labels over the line sockets, which meant that it was more radioactive than anything kept securely in the Physics Lab.

These days things sound a lot safer, but perhaps more boring?

[SnowFella]

Nutty.
For all things FAL
Oh you may like this one too EM-2
Great channel, but you can spend days in here!!!

Oh just for fun.

Got to love Ian "gun Jesus"! Follow it on a weekly basis and there's always lots of interesting information passed on.

[tucumseh]

Actually you'd be surprised.

Thank you. Yes, pleasantly surprised. Well done and long may it continue.

[tmmorris]

You mean L41A1/A2.

correct, sorry - typo

[Fourteenbore]

I’m sorry NRU74 but you need to sit down and have a long chat with someone who has a sound working knowledge of the Firearms Act, Whilst your proposal is made with the best of intentions it has so many flaws in it that it would be difficult to know where to start. In addition, the cadet forces have become so burdened with regulation relating to shooting that it’s amazing that anything is ever accomplished.

Another potential problem that is on the horizon is the amendment or withdrawal of S11(4) of the Firearms Act, the part relating to Miniature Rifle Ranges. This has in the past enabled cadet units to acquire non-service smallbore firearms and ammunition without the need for a Firearm Certificate. If it is withdrawn and nothing replaces it, then it could cause significant problems as cadet units would have to be made exempt of the requirements for Home Office Approval in order to qualify for a no cost FAC (at present). The can of worms all this could open is rather large.

YS

Jumping in with trepidation. On the Deacts, there is an EU directive which exceeds our requirements and makes the exercise rather pointless. I am deacting a front loading revolver, and apart from milling a slot in the barrel and welding in a hardened steel rod, the walls between the chambers have to be milled out, connection of trigger and hammer ground off and both welded to frame. Cylinder also has to be welded to frame, no moving parts left.. The mess all this welding makes means you would be better off making a mould of the whole thing and casting a solid repro in spelter or Mazac.
I hear coming down the line is another directive banning the use of lead ammo on environmental grounds. No, not just shotgun, everything. Ranges are going to try claiming that the butts stop all shot, and it is reclaimed and recycled. What air gunners will do I can't imagine. It will end my shooting as I use 19th century pieces, and their barrels will not take anything other than lead, rifling on long guns dependent on powder blast expanding bullet into lands. I presume the military will get away with using jacketed ammo.
Few thousand jobs lost around the Country, but must be worth it, eh?

[Geriaviator]

the cadet forces have become so burdened with regulation
So true for all youth organisations. Long ago I took along some aviation bits and pieces to illustrate chats to casual gatherings; they can't have been that bad as the youngsters sometimes wouldn't let me away until 11pm, to the extent that my dear wife thought I was conducting other activities (I wish ...)

A decade ago when I was still fit enough to do so :hmm: I offered a repeat performance only to encounter such an obstacle course of risk assessments, police inquiries etc that I didn't bother, and that was before mention of my WW2 sectioned ASI and altimeter with the dreaded luminous paint.

[AnglianAV8R]

A decade ago when I was still fit enough to do so :hmm: I offered a repeat performance only to encounter such an obstacle course of risk assessments, police inquiries etc that I didn't bother,

Being a former 'Peeler' I was not impressed when that system was introduced, as I suspected that it would become the fail safe method of character checking. The danger is that we come to trust such mechanisms alone and even allow a 'clean' result to override a gut feeling judgement. My view was that it only proves you've not been caught, nothing more.

[lightbluefootprint]

So true for all youth organisations. Long ago I took along some aviation bits and pieces to illustrate chats to casual gatherings; they can't have been that bad as the youngsters sometimes wouldn't let me away until 11pm, to the extent that my dear wife thought I was conducting other activities (I wish ...)

A decade ago when I was still fit enough to do so :hmm: I offered a repeat performance only to encounter such an obstacle course of risk assessments, police inquiries etc that I didn't bother, and that was before mention of my WW2 sectioned ASI and altimeter with the dreaded luminous paint.
The attitude of some RAFAC staff in reaction to apparent guidance is often laughable. Had you offered to come along to my Sqn (back in the day admittedly) there would have been no CRB/DBS requirement as you wouldn't have been given unescorted access to the youngsters. A commonsense approach using Bader's "...guidance of wise men....obedience of fools" is what is missing from the ACO in particular.

That said - and getting back towards the topic - I remember a good few years ago a nearby ATC Sqn having its .22 rifles stolen. Armourers arrived to carry out the routine six monthly inspection and servicing, but needed to take the weapons away for some remedial work. The Sqn staff were somewhat taken aback when the real armourers from the PU turned up shortly afterwards....... To be fair, we weren't 100% certain we wouldn't have fallen for the same con.

[NutLoose]

That said - and getting back towards the topic - I remember a good few years ago a nearby ATC Sqn having its .22 rifles stolen. Armourers arrived to carry out the routine six monthly inspection and servicing, but needed to take the weapons away for some remedial work. The Sqn staff were somewhat taken aback when the real armourers from the PU turned up shortly afterwards....... To be fair, we weren't 100% certain we wouldn't have fallen for the same con.

Similar but an exercise happened at Odiham if I remember correctly. Landrover with pongoes turns up at gate one evening, officer says taking his chaps out for end of exercise pint so can we secure their weapons in the armoury, duty armourer called out and opens up shop, that's when they revealed they were not real pongoes, but a security check, Landy had tax disc in window etc

[UK Armourer]

The L98A1 was a complete dog... the reworked L98A2 is better but the whole design is flawed... so much so that if you look at the history of the L85/86 (SA80) family you will see that it was based on the 'concept' of the XL65 and XL70 series of bullpup prototype rifles. But the actual SA80 series had it's bolt and gas system 'copied' from a commercial Sterling Armaments licensed built ArmaLite AR18/180 rifle.

A lot of the failures to feed with the rifle were down to the stupidity of the design team at RSAF Enfield to 'copy' the bolt cam angles correctly, that and the fact that NONE of the design team had any experience of firearms design at all... some of them had never shot a firearm either!

Have a look at our website and YouTube channel for some interesting and cool smallarms history....

www.armourersbench.com

Cheers,

Vic

[NutLoose]

What a fascinating site.

[Phil_R]

(and this had to be done IAW Section 5 Firearm rules, ie Driver and escort for the weapon carrying vehicle, plus an escort vehicle)

Is that a requirement from the legislation, or some internal RAF rule? I ask because armourers for the film and TV industries quite commonly travel around with section 5 firearms (with special permission to work with them, of course) and as far as I know have no such requirement.

[ExAscoteer2]

I'm unsure wheter it is a RAF or Joint Services rule - I'm guessing the latter.

[superplum]

I'm unsure wheter it is a RAF or Joint Services rule - I'm guessing the latter.

ISTR JSP 440 Security Manual.
:8