What is currently stopping that from happening anyway? We can do pretty much anything under a 3rd party company, except for flying and gliding, I thought?
It would be MUCH easier if the oversight / approval / trg of air rifle (& .22 shooting if applicable) could be moved from the current requirements to NSRA provisions.
1 Like
Perhaps worth a lobby to head of RAF sports. Now it is no longer provided by service sources perhaps it can be civilianised.
Isn’t the head of sports also AOC 22 group? Who won’t allow us to do the same thing for the same reasons with gliding and flying?
1 Like
Gliding & flying are provided by the RAF so in theory you would have mixing standard. Target shooting is no longer being provided so it can have a separation of processes.
Might be enough of a wiggle - also allows it to trickle over in case it’s every restored.
Head of sports has a different angle & different responsibilities so perhapsthey can lobby AOC 22 but they would have to show the due diligence of both roles - perhaps it might play out like this….
1 Like
As I said on another thread:
A can of worms has been opened. If MoD cease to support target shooting then the exemptions currently in place allowing staff and cadets access to S1 firearms are likely to be removed and the normal provisions of the Firearms Act will apply. This would place cadet forces in the same category as the Scout Association who currently operate under S11(4) Miniature Rifle Ranges. There is no equivalent section that would allow a similar route for Full Bore. The other issue for smallbore is that if the rifles are withdrawn, I cannot see MoD continuing to support and maintain the ranges.
To continue with smallbore shooting it would have to be “civilianised” and that too has challenges. With the L144 being withdrawn units would have 3 options available:
a. Form a Home Office Approved club. Difficult to satisfy all the criteria, but doable with effort.
b. Operate under S11(4), maybe easier than the HO Approval route but still requiring many of the same criteria to be met.
Both the of above would require grant of a Firearm Certificate (FAC)
You would also need somewhere to shoot and if MoD facilities are no longer available this would probably mean local rifle clubs.
c. Reach an agreement with a rifle club whereby all cadets who wish to shoot make an application to join the club. Which, if successful would allow them to access to club firearms and facilities. This is similar to an arrangement currently in place with a number of university rifle clubs.
The problem is that clubs these days don’t have that much spare range capacity and have to put their existing members’ interests first. Because of the insularity that RAFAC has built up, if you are even remotely considering approaching a club in a couple of years time, it might be a good move to start making contact sooner rather than later. In other words go along and see about joining, an approach from an existing member may be better received than a cold call.
exmpa
I disagree with this as
-
the firearms act just talks generally in terms of “cadet corps approved by the Secretary of State” to chamge this either the ATC cease to be an approved cadet corps (which can be done at stroke of a pen) or this section is removed by primary legislation which will be a ball lake so not happening.
-
cadet forces are still using section 5 so will still require the exceptions under the act.
-
in all likely hood cadet forces would revert to pre-2004 practice & be issued firearm certificates as if units were school shooting clubs (which are different to standard HO club approvals)
Maybe, maybe not. S5 is an outlier and it will remain as it always has, completely within the military remit. The issue is that MoD will no longer be providing S1 rifles or ammunition for either smallbore or fullbore target shooting. They will have to be sourced elsewhere and that process will need to be compliant with the Act.
This still leaves the question, if they acquire rifles where will they be able to use them? I just cannot see MoD continuing to mantain the current number of ranges. School ranges may still be available, but with the pressures that they are facing at the moment, this is by no means a given; e.g. Rugby School recently closed their range.
There are a lot of unknowns and many uncertainties.
exmpa
1 Like
The Firearms Act 1968 is not written in a way that would make this particularly necessary. The exemption for cadet corps applies to all sections in the act. There aren’t separate exceptions in section 1 and section 5. Why would they bother rewriting the law when they might want to re-introduce target shooting in a few years? To be honest, the section 5 bit is probably in the most danger, depending on what happens with Project Grayburn. Will cadets get a new cadet rifle? Will cadets just get the new service rifle? Will cadets just get no rifle at all?
Perhaps cadets will get a modified rifle that is a section 1 version of the section 5 rifle regulars end up getting making transport & storage a lot easier & cheaper.
I have a strange feeling of Deja vu……
There are plenty of .22 versions of the AR type designs out there. And I can’t see us going for anything else realistically, it will be some version of the alternative individual weapon.
So hopefully no need for modifications. Whether we’d then get a 5.56 and .22 version remains to be seen.
I really hope this doesn’t happen - the L98A1 was such a bad design.
It was but I kinda miss it & understand it now.
It being section 1 made things so much easier on transport & storage.
Yep awful for target shooting, awful for blank firing as it was the most dangerous blank former in the British army needing to be fired at 45 degrees & muzzle blockages on fieldcraft exercises pretty much a given but it I kinda miss it’s quirkiness & I think it has more personality/character than the A2.
Wouldn’t mind firing one again.
As you say, the new weapon system will be modular no doubt so the ability to drop a new receiver on and chamber it at .22 rimfire or 5.56 center would be lovely.
Pipedream though I suspect. I’d happily take a few thousand L85 A3 for us to use.
2 Likes
It’s highly unlikely the L85’s replacement will be 5.56 mm. The Americans have gone for 6.8 x 51 mm for better performance against body armour and, as with the last two calibres adopted by the US military, NATO is likely to follow.
Totally agree that a modular design with a small bore conversion kit (as we used to have for the L85A1) makes much more sense than a separate weapon system for indoor ranges.
I can’t see a .22 version being bought. They would only fulfil part of the requirement (the target shooting part) but we also need something sturdy enough to work for fieldcraft, and to use blank ammunition. The rifle would also probably be too different from the service rifle to be viable from a service and support point of view. If you were going to do that, it would be easier to keep the L98A2 in service instead. The advantage of the L98A2 as it stands is, in the event of WW3, the rifles can be taken in, have a little tinkering done and then be issued to troops.
There’s little appetite within the MOD to support a weapon system that requires different tooling to service rifles. Hell, they wouldn’t even let us keep the L86s.
My understanding - from conversations with the manufacturers - is there are issues with conversation kits. So for a rifle to be S1 it needs to be built as such.
That said AR pattern rifles are fairly cheap so procuring dedicated units for miniature range use shouldn’t be out of the question. Unless we gold plate it.
The L98 conversion kits were removed from service and there is an L Pattern rifle that is factory converted to .22. This was done by HK for the Biathlon team.
1 Like
Could we use those on sqns, (have to buy lots) as the L144 replacement?
Then some commonality between that and the L98.
Yes but still S5