National Townhalls

[Squirrel]

@Chief_Tech

Perhaps we should petition for the return of the L98A1 so we can have it classed as section 1 again

Please no.

[WestlandScout]

@Chief_Tech

Perhaps we should petition for the return of the L98A1 so we can have it classed as section 1 again.

Won’t happen. We’d be more likely to get the SMLE back!

[JustCallMeFlight]

@Chief_Tech

Perhaps we should petition for the return of the L98A1 so we can have it classed as section 1 again.

It would make more sense to petition for the L119, L129, or L403, on the grounds that the SA80 series of weapons discriminate against left handed and left eye dominant cadets.

[bob1]

@Chief_Tech

If you were referring to the initial WHT for the 144 that required an “ease springs” on a bolt action then it was god awful & dangerous & written by someone who has no understanding of bolt action rifles worked.

The more recent changes to remove use of safety catch and relevant commands for target rifle use was what I was referring to.

Agree the original L98 biased stuff was a poor show from the SASC but driven by the ACF mainly.

[Cadet04]

@SacraQuercus

We will have air rifle and L98 only.

And this applies to the ACF/CCF too?

[mike_gormley]

Sadly, I couldn’t attend tonight but there are huge knock on effects from just these points.

Locally, access to shooting becomes even more constrained for us as there is only one serviceable barrack range in the entire wing boundary to do anything beyond air rifle if .22 is gone. Geographically, we’re quite spread out across two large counties and it’s at one end of the wing.

We never got up and running with hubs so maybe not quite so impactful there as other wings but I was at least trying to get the ball rolling with taking weapons to where there are .22 ranges knocking about.

We lost our L81s years ago (no idea why) so zero impact there. I guess that’s ISCRM dead too.

Plus side, I can focus delivering one weapon course instead of juggling the logistics of multiple weapons.

DCCT is going to have to make up for the shortfall big time. Still need two service vehicles to take a single L98 along to these virtual shoots for WHT refreshers.

[pEp]

This is devastating. If they don’t keep up .22 in some form it will be a travesty. What was said about CLPWs? Or clays?

And is this a tri service thing or are we going down the route of no L81s but yet again the army and sea cadets will continue?

[pEp]

@mike_gormley

DCCT is going to have to make up for the shortfall big time. Still need two service vehicles to take a single L98 along to these virtual shoots for WHT refreshers.

No one joins to do DCCT. A glorified video game is not what we should be offering cadets.

[Chief_Tech]

@pEp

And is this a tri service thing or are we going down the route of no L81s but yet again the army and sea cadets will continue?

Debated in the post from the FOI release in January,

@bob1

It’s also just a working plan, nothing has been firmly decided one way or the other.

Well that was a lie - I assume the short notice on the town hall was to avoid the group that would have ripped the proposal apart.

[pEp]

I don’t think it’s a lie, but what I do think is that mostly in this organisation proposals are written to justify the ends they want to achieve and have already agreed, rather than an objective look at what is possible and presenting a range of options.

Let’s hope the new commandant goes back to the drawing board on this and realises the devasation it will have on target shooting.

[bob1]

@Chief_Tech

Well that was a lie - I assume the short notice on the town hall was to avoid the group that would have ripped the proposal apart.

I think the RC and TK last night said that it is based on a paper going to air command so is still a working plan.

[bob1]

@pEp

What was said about CLPWs? Or clays?

Nothing said about Clays at all, no questions asked either.

CLPW policy will be replaced with NSLPW policy with what appears to be very little change. New RAFAC policy has been written but has to go to a few places at air first.

[Virgil]

That was my thought, we are a strong shooting Contingent with staff who are TeamGB coaches.

It won’t go down well

E2A: Those who want to target shoot join my section, those who want to do more blank firing go Army section. With the other big ticket things we do being restricted or paused, it’s the one big pull I have left. Take it away and my section may wither… most do not join to do STEM, they do that all day in school.

[SacraQuercus]

It was mentioned on the town hall, to roll out more AR ranges and rifles. Costs and payments not confirmed

[pEp]

Given that it costs around £1200 for just the target, let alone the rifles, I wonder who will foot that bill.

[pEp]

@bob1

CLPW policy will be replaced with NSLPW policy with what appears to be very little change. New RAFAC policy has been written but has to go to a few places at air first.

This is great, but once we lose 144s we can’t train people and so CPLWs will be unusable…right?

[bob1]

Yeah, the SECR currently states they have to be pre-trained on service rifle. Something will need to be changed to accommodate it once L144/L81 has gone.

[Jimothy]

[Turbo]

“Ladies and gentleman, please give a big round of applause for your host of ‘What’s for the chop at the next town hall’….Tony Keeling!”

[papa_november]

Thank you. I wasn’t available to get on this Town Hall aka cancellation notification dial in…