First equipment failure: adjusting the butt, the whole mechanism came out of the rifle (should I think have been glued in place?)
Reported up the CoC but has anyone had similar?
I have a VERY tall cadet (6’8") who was pulling it out to the max at the time…
I’ll let you know when I every actually see one!
Yes - I arrived at camp in the summer and there were 6 available weapons - the local SATT ran a course and had the exact same issue laving me with 5 to train the full camp 
Known Issue 
Thanks. Tempted to get out the hot glue gun… but it will need reporting.
Why? Is your glue gunning that bad???
Shouldn’t they be repaired / replaced under warranty? Thinks, maybe there isn’t one!!!
Are you trained & WHT’d on afore-mentioned glue gun?? 
You don’t get a warranty when you meet a bloke and a couple his mates in a lorry at 0300 in an old warehouse and briefcase of used folding.
To mis-quote from a TV advert - “Should have gone to Anschutz…”
They did… Anschutz withdrew as they couldn’t supply the volume.
As I said on other threads, the higher cost per better rifle should have been accepted with an associated lesser number. In a few year’s time, it will be very clear that failing to select superior quality & longevity for servicing / spares/ ancillary equipment, etc, will prove very costly…
I don’t disagree. But they withdrew before they even got to the S3 testing and user trials stage; not much you can do when they aren’t even in the game against the other suppliers.
True - but they probably saw the writing on the wall, & the focus on “military” style, plus safety catch, etc. Why should they lower their quality to meet a flawed tender spec?
So is the consenus on the 144 act in haste, repent at leisure … either keep buying more as they break OR in a few years give it up as a bad job and buy something that’s better suited to the task. In the meantime we lose more shooting as the weapons go u/s.
This appears from comments here and elsewhere, you can see a link it to the move from Chippy to Bulldog. Chippy proper old war horse, but not really viable in the long term for the RAF, so moved to the Bulldog, which lasted 4/5 years as our AEF aircraft.
Wouldn’t it good if people in charge looked back at what’s happened before so as to not make the same mistakes?
Sure is, as far as I’m concerned. The tender did not seem to take into account any forward thinking about the requirement & from my enquiries, there was a point-blank refusal to even give the contact details of the sponsor(s) = zero chance of influencing any (flawed) tender / testing / design inputs.
The practical design of the L144 did not seem to take into account the proposed NSPs (dry fire so that the firing pin impacts on the side of the breech - doh!) or other rifle characteristics (if it’s raining, carry the rifle with a closed bolt) = sub-optimal to say the least. Likewise, the insistence on archaic design (safety catch - not used on L81, the “higher” level tgt rifle).
The tender / testing / procurement / design / future longevity = all suspect. Apart from that, it’s great…
The major issie is that the Army ran the tender despite it being a secondary type of shooting for them.
The Army and the ACF think L98 Or L98 with .22 conversion as the base level Rifle, Target Shooting comes a very distant second. We think small bore and target as our primary form of shooting as such we have different expectations and desires. This is the reason we have ridiculous L98 style drills for Air Rifle and .22 when we should have L81 style drills.
We have missed out, on what could arguably stated as the opportunity of a lifetime, to move cadet .22 shooting into the 21st Century, with a modern, reliable rifle that was made by an internationally renowned specialist tgt shooting company.
Instead, we have been sold a much lower quality product, that certainly will not last & may well generate the need for a replacement in say 10 years time or so (or less). What a waste. The No8 could probably have been re-engineered (new build) & enhanced for less!
Just as importantly, there should have been the push from on high to move such cadet rifles from “wpns of war” status to basic tgt rifles, with utilisation of simpler (NRA / NSRA) safety drills. Now that the Army / SASC have got their paws on the L144, the chances of that happening are very, very slim.
I agree 100% with everything you have said. The logic that says we have 3 bolt action weapons and 1 self loading so let’s buikd all of our drills around self loading is just outrageous.
Buy cheap = Buy twice
In 10 years time either .22 will be dead or we will be going through this all over again.
This seems to bed a common problem with the new rifle however we are being informed by the armouries that there are no replacement weapons available. This puts us in a dilemma as when we report minor none safety issues to them and they decide to withdraw the weapon from Sqn we are left without a replacement. The issue then becomes do we report minor none safety issues?. Whilst the new rifle is nice and accurate it certainly isn’t robust. I wonder how long it will be before they are withdrawn due to serviceability issues and we are left without weapons. Bearing in mind that this is the tri services cadet rifle, it doesn’t bode well for the future. In my humble opinion Savage Arms certainly got the best out of this contract.
Not to mention who in CoC has shares and or a vested interest.