Haven’t heard anything much about the trials (other than probably not good enough quality?).
Anyone had any updates on this?
There was a preferred model chosen from the user trials, but all of the rifles have issues when tested against the system requirements.
Tender assessment panel sits next week.
Ta. Hopefully, if there were issues, then the tender will be refused. Worth waiting for better.
Off the shelf could be the way ahead!
Are the system requirements overly complex for the sake of being complex?
I have to admit whenever we do or want to do something and you get MoD “experts” and people from the CF involved who like to think they are “experts”, there is a sense of a sinking heart as you can see both parties putting up arguments and counter arguments and going round in ever decreasing circles. When you bear in mind the replacement for the N°8 has been doing the rounds for 20 years at least, and the collective intelligencia and numerous “experts” in all those years haven’t been able to find something, as amusing. All the while various bods in the CF have in lieu of a replacement have found ways of extending the N°8’s life, as to not to do so, would be a huge problem, it is quite laughable. The “problem” of spares etc hasn’t gone away in all those years, but still we keep using them.
It’s not like there is any sort of technological advances to the basic process, ie you still pull the trigger which initiates a mechanical process which results in a small metal projection hits the round initiating a chemical process which results in a bit of metal being projected from a tube of suitable length. Excepting a few enhancements the last stage has been how it has happened for quite a few centuries. The fact the ‘system requirements’ are causing problems is to my mind a piffling excuse by people looking to preserve / create jobs.
We have just got to hope and pray they get something that a 12 year old can use easily as I know some 13 year olds who found and find the N°8 awkward and we won’t mention the L98.
This is an off-the-shelf buy?
Thanks again; any clues as to the manufacturer &/or model?
Looking back at the tender requirements, especially the safety catch, basic/advanced sights & engineering support requirements, to me, the selection process may have been a waste of time - unless of course we get a COTS Anschutz or Walther junior rifle! 
The Anschutz costs £800, sight set £200; £1000 per item before bulk discount.
A COTs option from a manufacturer of that magnitude (& historical quality) will provide the best possible tgt rifle option - but to the detriment of the “militarised” specifications. The engineering “support” would have been without question for example.
The original £6m budget would seem to be in question - ah, maybe we can only afford £1.5m at the moment - so I hope that the Cadet Forces don’t get lumbered with a cheap, basic rifle. This didn’t work in New Zealand a few years ago; Norinco was chosen for their No 8 replacement & they lasted 3-4 years being scrapped! 
Buy good quality, even if it means a lesser number of rifles.
1 Like
Rumour control suggest a “colonial” rifle. Any more news?
I heard a rumour that they were looking at one of the Savage models, that came from a person who was recently at ATF
If so, hope that it is a better quality that their “expensive” singe shot .22 - they wouldn’t have gone for a magazine version, would they - only $475 retail. Actually, the magazine version is $4 cheaper…
http://soldiersystems.net/2016/03/06/iwa-new-british-cadet-rifke-from-savage/
ACF and CCF have received notification that this is the replacement Rifle. No news from the ACO yet.
Looks like the work experience boy wrote that article though!
My Baby Pilot Officer was told the same thing at his OIC at the start of the year. Apparently it’s going to be called the No9 as “Savage” isn’t deemed to be appropriate for a cadet rifle.
They can call it whatever they want, but if it is manufactured by Savage Arms it is still a Savage Arms rifle.
I suspect we will only ever see it referred to as the No9 in official documents while all the HQ’s put their fingers in their ears and go “La La La”
Given that there is already at least one “No. 9” rifle, wouldn’t giving it an L-number be more appropriate?
Since when has what’s appropriate and sensible influenced the MOD?!
Rumour is it shall be called the No8A2 
I wonder if they are going to do a proper roll out program??
Each wing gets 5/6 trains the RCOs and WIs before there all issued on mass, then we carry out a phased swap over to keep shooting ongoing… Sorry I thought I was at work planning something I forgot we have all the ivory towers to navigate
On the basis that it would seem to be a single shot rifle (with safety catch?), surely it could be the same WHT as for the No 8? The “Sights 25” would still be relevant - just don’t try to fold them up!
Sorry, silly me, SASC have to provide their input…
Has anyone actually read the wording on that page???
erm…REALLY???
They aren’t buying enough for a complete change over due to the cost. My understanding is that they will be phased in as required when the No8’s go U/S, now is this going to be whole wings, individual squadrons or 1 for 1 who knows!