L144A1 ... comments based on my own experience .. not the internet predictions of others!

So the MOD has replaced the No 8 with a new rifle designated…L144A1
This was based on this requirement"

"Rfles. Number 8 Rifle Repalcement (N8RR), the UK MOD has a requirement to replace the current in-service Number 8 Rifle due to obsolescence.

  1. The rifle must meet but are not limited to the following Key System Requirements (KSRs):
  2. The system shall be able to fire the following current, in-service .22in Long Rifle (.22LR) rimfire cartridges: ‘Round .22 inch ball’ L5A2 (ADAC – 10501-02) and ‘Round .22 inch ball Tenex Ultimate’ L9A1 (ADAC – 10502-02)
  3. The system shall not be able to accept a magazine of any type.
  4. The system shall be based around a manually fed, bolt action rifle that is designed to be fired from the right shoulder.
  5. The system shall have a manual safety catch that is separate from the bolt and trigger action.
  6. The system shall be suitable for firing from the following positions: Prone
  7. The system shall have a discrete, civilian appearance.
  8. The weapon system shall have a modular iron sight sub-system that offers ‘Basic’ and ‘Advanced’ capability.
  9. The system’s peak instantaneous (C weighted) noise level at the firer’s ear shall not exceed 135dBC during firing.
  10. The system shall not be adversely affected when dropped from height in accordance with DEFSTAN 07-85, Part 4, Issue 1, Para 8.14, Para 10.4 (Drop Test).
  11. The system shall pass a DOSG Design Safety Assessment.

It is expected the MoD will purchase 10,000 replacement weapons at a cost of approximately £6m

Well i was trained, handled and shot the “replacement 144A1” yesterday.

The key question is where has the freaking common sense and accountability gone?

We are lumbering the ATC systems, staff and volunteers with a piece of equipment that frankly not fit for purpose and wont last. That will distract, embarrass, irritate and break.

Shake my head… so much knowledge exists, so much goodwill … yet the nameless faceless “powers that be” can impose total crap.

Yet we must shut up or when we dare raise an opinion… well its not hows it is done or whatever crap excuse.
I shake my head!


The most interesting thing in this article is that Tenex appears to be available through the system, is it?

The new rifle does appear to be a bit rubbish but it’s what we have now and we’ll just have to soldier on. Make sure you submit EFRs when something goes wrong.

I was speaking with ACF staff last February about this .They already had seen the new weapon and in the case of the Det Commander I was chatting with his opinion was it wouldnt last and was “a piece of rubbish”.He especially thought the sights were fragile and would break easily when exposed to use.

Right from the outset, I went direct to the Procurement department to try get the “source” to change the specification. The insistence of a safety catch negated many OTS options - of much better quality / durability. Not surprisingly, the “experts” knew best…

…or, as we will find out, did not. The cadet organisation would have been hugely better off accepting a lesser number of rifles, but from a supplier that had an existing reputation & ability to be available long-term for provision of support / spares. Anschutz springs to mind - their “Junior” rifle would have been perfect for cadet purposes. Bet there could have been a huge discount for such product placement.

1 Like