If we’re going to break out the antiques perhaps we should bring back the swift training rifle.
Throw in a scatt system & that you can only get the blue badge with no live fire & the paperwork & expense will drop massively, allowing training with live ammo far more efficient rather than dealing with learner mistakes.
Nothing that a carefully positioned beret (watch out for the cap badge) couldn’t sort out.
Used to shoot in “hairy mary” battle dress uniform, using a ground sheet - find spacing for elbows, make indents in the ground with heels of ammo boots, stay in the aim for all of a shoot - easy peasy!
I had my own .303, beautiful yellow beech woodwork - when TR standards changed to 7.62 / 308, I gave it away to my old sqn - travelled from St Mawgan on a motorcycle, rifle wrapped in a sheet strapped to the side of the bike - across on the car ferry to the Isle of Wight. 
Yes, only ATC marksman and RAF marksman badges.
Don’t think anyone has answered this question yet…
I don’t accept that it is a reversion to how it used to be (you could never progress to the equivalent of RAF Marksman on an air rifle) but I do think the names are terrible. The old names distinguished between a mere trained shot and various levels of marksmen: which appears to be gone.
The term ‘Short, Magazine Lee-Enfield’ (SMLE) only applies to the Mk III rifle - the one used in WWI and WWII. Later it was designated the No1 Mk III rifle when the No4 rifle entered service in WWII. The latter rifle was the final development of the SMLE Mk V and No1 Mk VI pre-WWII trials rifles. The latter two rifles are ‘missing links’ in the development of the Lee-Enfield from the SMLE to the No4.
Most of the ATC and RAF No4 rifles I used - DP and live firing versions - were either made at the Long Branch factory in Canada or in the USA as part of the Lend-lease programme. The latter have ‘US PROPERTY’ stamped on the receiver.
The emblem of the RAF Regiment, formed on 1st Feb 1942 as a Corps within the Royal Air Force features two crossed No4 rifles within the Astral Crown. The various crossed rifle marksman and regular service SAAI badges used by the British regular and cadet forces seem to me to feature the late 19th Century Lee-Metford or long Lee-Enfield rifle: one can make out the cleaning rod mounted under the muzzle embroidered on them.
The No8 rifle ex-cadets of a certain age fondly remember was designed as a completely new .22in training rifle, rather than a conversion of existing 0.303in Lee-Enfield rifles in service in the late 1940s, which was what had been done previously (Nos 2, 7 and 9 .22in rifles).
Some cadet units had permission to parade on Remembrance Day with their DP No4 rifles: I remember our local Sea Cadet Corps (around 50 strong) being fully armed with them in the early 1980s. After I left my ATC Sqn, the escort for the squadron standard and colour were authorised to carry rifles on that parade. We had only twelve DP rifles, anyway.
The attached photo shows the book any Lee bolt action rifle geek should own: I bought it for 20 quid back in the 1980s, and like a lot of limited print books about classic firearms now sells for three figures online or in a bookshop. 
Dependent on where the rifle was made determined how the bolt was removed from the rifle. The Canadian ones IIRC you pushed the bolt forward and the head was rotated, whereas the British made one you released a catch to release the bolt head prior to removal.
This is correct.
The Canadian way IMO was superior.
somehow I can’t see RAF (/MOD) Armourers accepting they are now looking after Air Rifles too.
it would be a waste of resource and although I welcome the suggestion AR could(should) be provided by the RAF, in doing some commits them to other responsibilities.
Given some armourers attitudes to 0.22 I have experienced over the years, I doubt they’ll be taking us any more seriously having a “responsibility”* to AR
*if the MOD are supplying the kit, they’re going to want the kit competently looked after/serviced and as there isn’t someone who has “nationwide” coverage to contract that responsibility out to, the best option would be using the existing MOD Armourer network.
perhaps because their not just in it for the badges?
It was probably one of the factors why the No8 was withdrawn, lack of armourer knowledge for headspacing, etc.
Similar story for the L81 (a few yrs ago, the annual servicing contract was forgotten which cause huge headaches!) - they are getting long in the tooth - & the cost of a commercial replacement will be very expensive. I reckon that with a new .308 barrel at about £1000-£1200 (fitted & proofed), basic stock at say £500-£800, action at £500-£800, & sights at around £500 (at least), you wouldn’t get much change from £3K per rifle even if buying in bulk.
exactly. They all went to “Donnington” if i remember - which “worked” when Wings had 8-12 each.
That would make it 36 x 12 = 432 rifles. call it 500 total to take into account Region/SATT numbers too and being a nice number to set a contract to.
(this would be on “average” 10 rifles a week to service - or two a day.)
There is no chance even if 40% of Squadrons have ARs and lets say have 4 rifles each a national contract would work - that would be
40% of ~ 1000 Squadrons = ~400 Squadrons
each with 4x AR = 1600 AR to service annually
30 a week or 6 a day.
Now you could argue AR are easier to deal with than the L81A2 so although the work rate looks higher being an easier task it is similair.
But given this servicing used to remove the L81A2’s availability from (our) Wing for 3 months at a time due to the delay in the process, of the RAF sending them on, getting serviced and returning to our parent station, no one would accept that they would be without their Air Rifles for 25% of the year to complete a basic service the local gunshop could complete for less than £50 each
The ACF ones are serviced by the manufacturer (BSA, as they only use the Scorpion afaik)
Wasn’t the argument for PTS that cadets needed shiny badges to get them to do anything?
this is a fair point.
there was/is a desire for Cadets get a feeling of achievement sooner as pre-PTS a number of the badges on offer required significant investment in time (Radio, Shooting, flying etc) and often gained at the twilight of their time as a Cadet.
but if a Cadet is interested in full bore shooting, their interest in full bore shooting, regardless of if it gets them a badge.
When I looked after shooting training in the Wing (pre-PTS) we were always oversubscribed for training places so confident that for those who want to shoot more than a pea-shooter they will do so without the lure of a badge
Ok, slightly different tact then: don’t those cadets who achieved gold standard quite early in their cadet career with AR and progress to full-bore shooting deserve recognition?
Let’s be honest though. Who’s going to enforce the rule?
They’ll pause shooting until they rewrite policy!
absolutely - i am not disagreeing with that, but that was never your original point…
Sent this to our Wg Shooting O & asked for a follow up. Since then, I’m aware of other cadets with the same issue.
I think there might be an error with Cadet Portal dragging over the relevant qualifications for the changes to shooting badges.
One of our cadets had previously attained marksman which now shows in her qualifications as “bronze.” However, on her Cadet Portal (brassard information), no shooting badge is shown.
