[quote=“SnowPaw, post:16, topic:2990, full:true”]
the L114a1 is being delivered to regions and wings[/quote]
The what?
New small bore rifle to replace the no8, I believe
It makes me rather concerned that this could be said.
That is the L144A1. The L114A1 is a grenade. I was getting worried.
1 Like
My apologies, I misread (or rather, assumed that’s what was being talked about)
L144A1/L114A1 Do’s/Don’ts looks like i was having a bad night that day!
Apologies all round i say
I’m currently trained on the l98 and have been for the past year and a bit - I’ve been to a number of shoots, including a camp where there is lots of shooting.
I am not trained on the no8 and have never fired the no8 or air rifle. I hadn’t passed a weapon handling test before I underwent my l98 training
The only requirement I needed to train on it was that I was 14
That’s because you qualified before the new rules came in.
The current requirements are as written in post #3
But those requirements for squadrons without anyone qualified etc and relying totally on piggy-backing other people are a real problem. Even squadrons with the pre-required staff struggle, unless they have unfettered access to a range, weapons and ammo. As a cadet we used the range on the TA unit the hut was on and shot at least every 6 weeks, more often if you attended regularly.
Go back not so many years it was 22 and 303 and later 762 and apart from a cursory run through and no other requirements. We have got people making up rules for the sake of making them up.
Can I suggest squadrons in that situation approach their local CCF? Most* CCFs will have their own ranges and smallbore weapons, and an armoury full of L98A2; plus qualified, usually ex-regular, staff.
If CCFs are unhelpful then ask your WExO to speak to the area TEST officer, because there is a strong push from above for ATC/CCF cooperation and the latter might be in a position to remind schools of this. It’s a two-way process - no doubt they would welcome help in other areas.
*Not all, and no CEP schools
4 Likes
Yes, I think that someone has misunderstood “progressive” as “sequential”.
Whilst “we” (SASC?) still consider single shot rifles as “weapons of war” & able to be issued to all & sundry for flighting purposes, hence the need for linked safe trg, WHTs, etc, nothing will change. Equally, the bizarre mixture of drills / NSPs across the range of such rifles will not change either, let alone revert to NSRA / NRA safety protocols.