I even went to the MOD department who published the original tendering specification, & was told that “the experts know what they are doing.” Clearly not.
The concept of a cadet tgt rifle should not have gone down the “militarised” route for this type of design. It would have been entirely different if a .22" compatible “service rifle” option had been the preferred choice.
It wasn’t, we have been sold a pup.
It would seem that local provision might have to be a solution - let’s go & buy some Anschutz Youth rifles - oh, they do far more than the L144, immensely better quality, no issues with servicing or spare parts, ability to add on lots of extras - this should have been a primary choice to replace the No 8. Accept lesser numbers, you get what you pay for. Ah, no safety catch for SASC to come up with inappropriate NSPs for a single shot rifle…
I believe that it is linked to the “pending” decision / update from on high, so the relevant DDH has said stop… Hopefully it will be rescinded once those above provide the relevant “solution.”
When the first endex for the No 8 was announced, I made a bet to myself that it would be at least another 2 yrs in service… I might have to revise my bet to extend the date further…
Replaced by shiny new L144 