I’m sure this has been discussed before, but what’s the point of the L98A2? When it was decided that the law on full bore automatic weapons didn’t apply to cadets, why didn’t they just adopt the L85A2?
Well, we did really.
I don’t think that the non-addition of a change lever really caused a great deal of cost or difficulty.
and if runour is to be believed the change lever can be fitted in minutes
anyway what Cadet benefit is there to fully automatic? not as if could be a marksman badge for using automatic fire, thus forcing the use of single shot firing which is…the L98A2
Notwithstanding any law that allows cadets to use automatic weapons, would you really want them to?
Murphy’s Law applied here would suggest that if there is a possibility the change lever could be put in the wrong position by a cadet, it will be - I’ve seen it ‘forgotten’ on DCCTs before.
Actually, I think the L98A2 is OK for cadet use and is a good training stepping-stone should a cadet progress into the military. The weapon is a bit complicated perhaps, but it’s a huge improvement over the politically-correct abomination that was the A1 version.
You’re missing my point…
The L98A2 is considered to be its own weapon. So it has its own designation, its own rifle lessons, its own WHT, etc, etc…
I hold a valid WHT for L85A2. If I required one for the L98A2, I would have to be fully trained and WHTed on the L98A2. Why? What’s the point for a weapon that you yourselves are saying is essentially the same?
It seems like a pointless creation of paperwork and admin, when a rifle already existed that could have been adopted, which would also have removed the need for people to spend ages making decisions about courses, WHTs etc.
And…if it was so important to have a cadet rifle without bursts, why no cadet LSW?
Carrying out the drills on the weapon properly prevents it being fired on ‘A’. If you fire it on ‘A’ without being ordered ‘Bursts, Rapid, FIRE’ then you haven’t been properly trained and shouldn’t hold a WHT.
[quote=“tango_lima” post=6273]You’re missing my point…
The L98A2 is considered to be its own weapon. So it has its own designation, its own rifle lessons, its own WHT, etc, etc…
I hold a valid WHT for L85A2. If I required one for the L98A2, I would have to be fully trained and WHTed on the L98A2. Why? What’s the point for a weapon that you yourselves are saying is essentially the same?
It seems like a pointless creation of paperwork and admin, when a rifle already existed that could have been adopted, which would also have removed the need for people to spend ages making decisions about courses, WHTs etc.
And…if it was so important to have a cadet rifle without bursts, why no cadet LSW?
Carrying out the drills on the weapon properly prevents it being fired on ‘A’. If you fire it on ‘A’ without being ordered ‘Bursts, Rapid, FIRE’ then you haven’t been properly trained and shouldn’t hold a WHT.[/quote]
Yep, sorry, looks like I am missing the point!!
I don’t know the politics behind who gets which weapon and why, so the absence of a cadet LSW is a reasonable argument. However, you’ve said yourself that the L98A2 is ‘its own weapon’ and needs its own training and WHTs, and that’s because the drills are different!
[quote=“cygnus maximus” post=6275]
I don’t know the politics behind who gets which weapon and why, so the absence of a cadet LSW is a reasonable argument. However, you’ve said yourself that the L98A2 is ‘its own weapon’ and needs its own training and WHTs, and that’s because the drills are different![/quote]
Hence the question…why have a different weapon with different drills to do the same job?
I’d understand if it was a totally alien rifle, but they’re both SA80s…the only difference is the absence of bursts fire. You can even fit a bayonet to the L98A2, which you couldn’t to the A1.
JLs have always used L85s and still do despite not being allowed to fire bursts.
I would argue the A2 would be the politically correct one as regardless of whether it has a change lever or not, it is still a prohibited weapon under the firearms act (hence why it can only be used by Cadets & SNCOs/CIs for target shooting on service premises - arms drill with a live weapon is only allowed under supervision of service personnel).
The A1 on the other hand did not have all the legal problems (same legal status as the No 8 ) and could be used & transported by all. Yes it was clunky, but it gave cadets & staff experience with a military-style full bore weapon that could be used regularly at short range.
I believe though that it was one of the more dangerous weapons for blank firing as cadets were the only ones allowed to exercise without a BFA fitted, something that the regular forces are forbidden from doing.
Going back to the main point, shooting & firearms can be quite politically charged subjects especially when young people are involved. There is no need for cadets to have a fully automatic weapon, and as it quite easy to restrict why take the extra risk. Automatic firing others no real training benefit and can encourage ill-discipline, something we spend a lot of time to reduce and eliminate and target shooting within the Organisation is argued to reduce.
[quote=“Chief Tech” post=6278]
I believe though that it was one of the more dangerous weapons for blank firing as cadets were the only ones allowed to exercise without a BFA fitted, something that the regular forces are forbidden from doing.
Going back to the main point, shooting & firearms can be quite politically charged subjects especially when young people are involved. There is no need for cadets to have a fully automatic weapon, and as it quite easy to restrict why take the extra risk. Automatic firing others no real training benefit and can encourage ill-discipline, something we spend a lot of time to reduce and eliminate and target shooting within the Organisation is argued to reduce.[/quote]
It was impossible to fit a BFA to the A1 because it didn’t have the ‘bird cage’ barrel end of the L85. This was to prevent a bayonet being fitted.
The L86 is fully automatic and both A1 and A2 variants have been and are used by cadets, as is the L85A2 used on the JLs course.
I suspect that its requirement to be a tri-service rifle will be a factor and while it does seem somewhat unnecessary when on a range it may be that it was seen that removing the option altogether was better than having a cadet on a blank firing exercise slip it to auto (or have the lever knocked by kit or branches) and brapp off their entire allocation of 30 blanks in a few seconds 
It is just as likely that someone in the decision tree just said no, or that this was some sort of compromise. It is a shame that some kind of metal sleeve could not have been secured over the change lever to keep it on single-shot rather than removing the lever altogether.
[quote=“incubus” post=6280]I suspect that its requirement to be a tri-service rifle will be a factor and while it does seem somewhat unnecessary when on a range it may be that it was seen that removing the option altogether was better than having a cadet on a blank firing exercise slip it to auto (or have the lever knocked by kit or branches) and brapp off their entire allocation of 30 blanks in a few seconds
It is just as likely that someone in the decision tree just said no, or that this was some sort of compromise. It is a shame that some kind of metal sleeve could not have been secured over the change lever to keep it on single-shot rather than removing the lever altogether.[/quote]
I agree; it’s as though we’ve almost got a weapon on which skills can be easily transferred ‘up’ to the L85A2. As you said, it wouldn’t have been difficult to have a non-functioning change lever fitted and make the drills the same, with the added safety bits for cadets of course!
[quote=“tango_lima” post=6273]The L98A2 is considered to be its own weapon. So it has its own designation, its own rifle lessons, its own WHT, etc, etc…
I hold a valid WHT for L85A2. If I required one for the L98A2, I would have to be fully trained and WHTed on the L98A2. Why? What’s the point for a weapon that you yourselves are saying is essentially the same?
[/quote]
please excuse my ignorance, but does a valid L85 WHT also offer you a L86 WHT?
Ia sk as these are essentially the same rifle, save a few differences, based on your post it should be a WHT in one = WHT for all, yet the book indicates a different weapon system and thus a different PAM, drills and WHT
on the subject of having the same drills speaking to the SI on the weekend, he said that the L85 drills do not require a safety catch on the immediate action drills (rifle fires alright - rifle stops etc), it is far more important to return the weapon to a state of firing thus the SC is ignored.
this is one example where a drill is different between the two rifles and thus the lessons need to relect this
[quote=“incubus” post=6280]
It is just as likely that someone in the decision tree just said no, or that this was some sort of compromise. It is a shame that some kind of metal sleeve could not have been secured over the change lever to keep it on single-shot rather than removing the lever altogether.[/quote]
I can believe that. It just seems like a huge waste of time, effort and paper.
I thought A2s were made out of A1s, so it would be a case of adding a change lever? I suppose that could be a reason, if the engineering involved in adding a change lever is prohibitively complicated…but I don’t see why it would be…
I don’t buy the ‘cadets can’t be trusted with burst weapons’ argument, sorry. It may be valid (and I don’t think it is), but cadets use the L86 and JLs to use both L86 and L85.
[quote]
please excuse my ignorance, but does a valid L85 WHT also offer you a L86 WHT?
Ia sk as these are essentially the same rifle, save a few differences, based on your post it should be a WHT in one = WHT for all, yet the book indicates a different weapon system and thus a different PAM, drills and WHT
on the subject of having the same drills speaking to the SI on the weekend, he said that the L85 drills do not require a safety catch on the immediate action drills (rifle fires alright - rifle stops etc), it is far more important to return the weapon to a state of firing thus the SC is ignored.
this is one example where a drill is different between the two rifles and thus the lessons need to relect this [/quote]
Not sure I see what you’re getting at…the L86 is an LSW and the L85 is a rifle…but I’m honestly not sure whether you need a specific L86 WHT to fire it, since we don’t really bother with them any more…
Why do cadets need to apply the safety catch more than servicemen? Genuine question.
The L86 WHT is ever so slightly different.
As for WHTs on the L85/L98, its not the cadet that has different drills, but the weapon. I think there is some logic in it, in that the drills for the '85 are part safety, part getting the weapon back into service as quickly as possible (i.e. the IA drills).
Whereas with the L98 the drills are primarly for basic LFMT rangwork, so there is an extra “safety” element built in. Remember that a cadet can fire the L98 at 14… would you expect them to be as mature and technically minded as someone 4/5 years older going through infanty training?
in terms of the argument against Cadet having access to the burst function
although there are Cadets who do, namely junior leaders, these are of a different mind set to the newbie Cadet.
Junior Leaders for a start requires Cadets to be 16+, and thus the same age and the minimum recruit to the regulars, as such have a level of maturity that is different to a 14 yr old who has fire 50 rounds from a No8. JL is also a course set out to be demanding, not for everyone/“creme de la creme” of the fieldcraft interested Cadets these Cadets are more likely to be more “savvy” than others around weapons
the same argument could be used with the gliders, UK law recently changed allowing 14 yr olds to fly solo, yet ACO policy hasnt changed, still requiring 16+ before GS.
i’m not saying there is a age limit on auto firing and you must be 16+ but it is in reflection/reaction to the level of maturity.
with regard to your sc question, i don’t know the answer as i didnt write the PAM - my guess is it is far better for a Cadet to be waving their rifle around dealing with a stoppage with the SC on than otherwise and in regard to returning the weapon to a firing state…Cadets do not experience any advancing enemy firing back at them of concern, they have the time to be “better safe than sorry”
The L86A2 Lessons are contained within PAM 5C… So if you’re current on it and an SAAI then train your cadets with it.
I did the CTT Conversion in August last year and have heard they’re running similiar courses this year! Get yourself on one!
Air Cadets aren’t banned from firing L86A2 and can even fire on burst (on the right type of range)!
Now I need to practice what I preach as getting hold of them around my way has been a pain!
Consider your cadet joins at 14 and has never been hands on a rifle before, would want to give them the option of fully automatic fire, how many cadets do not tap forward, checking the change lever is the same, why over complicate.
Cadets can now have the L98A2 as their first experience of shooting in the corps, the Number 8 is NOT a pre-req. The continuation for cadets onto the L86 should and needs to be happening to allow for the interest to be maintained.
And JL is 17, not 16 as previously stated.
[quote=“tango_lima” post=6284]I thought A2s were made out of A1s
I don’t buy the ‘cadets can’t be trusted with burst weapons’ argument
Why do cadets need to apply the safety catch more than servicemen? Genuine question.[/quote]
L85A2s were brand new weapons, not remanufactured A1s. The same applies to the L98A2.
You can guarantee that a cadet will ‘have a go’ at getting away with firing on automatic. As I said earlier, I’ve seen them ‘forget’ the change lever on the DCCT and have even had them say, ‘oh, it slipped into that position by mistake’.
I suspect that the safety catch issue is to focus attention on safety rather than combat efficiency. There is after all, no need for a cadet to ‘get back in’ quickly.
[quote=“cygnus maximus” post=6292][quote=“tango_lima” post=6284]I thought A2s were made out of A1s
I don’t buy the ‘cadets can’t be trusted with burst weapons’ argument
Why do cadets need to apply the safety catch more than servicemen? Genuine question.[/quote]
L85A2s were brand new weapons, not remanufactured A1s. The same applies to the L98A2.
You can guarantee that a cadet will ‘have a go’ at getting away with firing on automatic. As I said earlier, I’ve seen them ‘forget’ the change lever on the DCCT and have even had them say, ‘oh, it slipped into that position by mistake’.
I suspect that the safety catch issue is to focus attention on safety rather than combat efficiency. There is after all, no need for a cadet to ‘get back in’ quickly.[/quote]
No they weren’t. L85A2s are upgraded L85A1s…although it’s getting a bit ‘Trigger’s Broom’ now…
And I’m sorry, I don’t buy the ‘maturity’ argument. I work with blokes on the Auggie Rock side who you would barely trust to tie their own shoelaces (and I’ve met Regulars just as bad and worse)…
If you can’t trust your cadets not to have the discipline not to brass up the range (or yourself to control them), they shouldn’t be on the range full stop, regardless of weapon.
All that aside, it isn’t a relevant argument. We’ve already determined cadets (all cadets) can be trained on weapons with bursts fire, so why duplicate rifles in the form of the L98A2? Cadets used to use service rifles in the form of the Lee Enfield and the L1A1 (they even used to get Brens…).
The questions is: ‘Is there a NEED for cadets to fire bursts?’
Personally, I don’t think so.