The ACO still does shooting?! Who knew?!!
I have to ask having seen the tender requirements… why can it not accept a magazine?
GOM, no issue with shooting here. Switched on WgShO
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So it is a single shot - bolt action rifle. I’m sure there are some other requirements like the class of firearm it becomes if it could accept a magazine?
Nope - it only becomes Section 5 if it is self-loading.
Weapons subject to general prohibition 5.
(ab) any self-loading or pump-action rifled gun [color=#ff0000]other than one
which is chambered for .22 rim-fire cartridges;[/color]
exmpa
Oops, sorry - I was looking at a precis of the act which unhelpfully didn’t include that bit!
so going back to my previous point - now the section 5 thing is cleared up.
Of course a small bore target rifle that is single shot will have a direct training benefit for those cadets who progress onto the L81A2 and I would imagine that is why they want a wpn of that sort for the future.
Out of interest does anyone know the kind of wpns that are on the market commercially that might fit the bill?
2 weeks ago…
1 weekend
120 cadets (inc about a dozen ACF)
11,000 rounds fired
No.8
L81
L98 inc multi positional *
L86 inc burst fire *
- All approved by HQAC.
Organised by a squadon OC.
So yes, shooting does happen.
Perry, sounds like you met my WO and his WO wife 
Leeroy, isn’t the Anschutz a good replacement?
I’m not sure if the safety catch meets the criteria.
Might have done
Could someone please explain to me why the safety catch is an essential item in the tender?
exmpa
.
Because without a safety catch what would RCO scream at cadets for forgetting. Derr
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That’s a pretty weak argument, and surely there is no training benefit when you are sticking the L98 between the two platforms, training wise?
Maybe a better argument would be limiting moving parts so there is less to break, and magazines account for the vast majority in stoppages in firearms on a range. But even so, by making that requirement, they surely are vastly narrowing down the off the shelf products available to them to bespoke target rifles like an anschutz?
There is a separate thread for the replacement No 8, but I suspect that posts will be inter-mingled between here & there:
http://aircadetcentral.net/acc/the-mess/1434-no-8-rifle-replacement
Personally, I think that the inclusion of a safety catch requirement into the tender is a retrograde step. Probably the only reason that the No 8 had one was to mirror the full-bore No 4. The L98 is so different in layout & use; not having a safety catch on the replacement .22 would not hinder the transition to the L98.
I’m also very wary of the tender specification for sights that can be basic & advanced capabilities.
Both those requirements (safety catch & sights) will probably limit the off the shelf options = increased cost & probable design/usage limitations. This is a fantastic opportunity to move .22 shooting into the 21st Century, rather than maintain 1950’s mentality over “compatibility” with other weapons used by cadets.
I’ve messaged the Abbey Wood contact specified in the tender to see if I can get in touch with the source (no doubt Army!) for the KSRs.
And another thing - you can’t argue for compatibility between the No 8 (or replacement) & the L98 based on range commands given…
No 8 LOAD = insert round into chamber, close bolt & apply safety catch. That equates to a READY condition for the L98.
L98 LOAD = place magazine on rifle.
Have to watch out, or they might change the tender to incorporate a magazine!! B)
No doubt someone is desperate to keep the “Sights 25” command too… 
No mention in the tender for “adjustablility” for cheek piece or butt length. With younger/smaller cadets, this needs to be considered.
Just ask Anschutz for bulk pricing for 10,000 of their Model 1903 (complete with sights), or throw the traditionalists into a ditch & go for a (much cheaper than Anschutz) CZ! :evil:
I know it doesn’t meet the requirements of the tender, but it would make life a bit more interesting…
[quote=“talon” post=21315]http://www.sportsmanguncentre.co.uk/product/235241b1669f333759577672/Heckler+and+Koch+416+D145+-a-8-f-322+LR/
I know it doesn’t meet the requirements of the tender, but it would make life a bit more interesting…[/quote]
If the intention was to make the transition from .22 to 5.56 easier, then the H&K would probably do the job very well. If, on the other hand, the aim is to have a good quality rifle to allow beginners to learn/practice marksmanship principles & develop their shooting skills, then an existing .22 target rifle would do the job perfectly. The simpler the better - less servicing issues for parent units to faff about with!
Of course, you could argue that with all the associated issues relating to .22 usage, it could be advantageous to go 100% to the Scorpion air rifle? No transportation issues, minimal cost for ammo, only a one weekend RCO course, no lead ventilation fans needed on the range, etc, etc. However, I very much “value” the use of live .22 ammunition by cadets, it makes them realise the requirement of safety rules much more.