It is a bit of a jump from air rifle to 5.56mm shooting though!
Very true - but looking at both the Scorpion & the No 8, the same could be said for both - single shot, bolt action rifles. If anything, the No 8 is harder to use than the L98 (especially as resting the L98 magazine is now “recommended”); the balance of the No 8 does not work for the smaller cadets, & the sights are dire!
Haven’t had any of ours struggle with the air rifle - 2 Region & one Wing marksman awards presented last night. 
The No.8 was probably fine for cadets when it was first used, as they were a bit older than those we take these days. It is a struggle for small cadets, so hopefully we will get something a bit more modern and lightweight!
[quote=“MikeJenvey” post=21312]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:
Hi Mike,
Other posts here highlight how heavy the No 8 is for small Cdts to use. The weight has borne the brunt of complaints for many years. However, in reality, the No 8 is lighter than most off the shelf .22 Target Rifles. But, I guess modern rifles are balanced correctly and if a rifle is being held correctly, with correct use of sling, weight is not so much of a problem.
I would like to go down the Anschutz 1903 path with my local Civvie club - we are currently “upgrading” our old Martinis with equally ancient Match 54s and 64s!
I hope that a suitable .22 rimfire rifle is selected to replace the No 8. However, I hope the decision makers will not make a rapid decision and put price before quality. In 2007, the New Zealand Cadet Forces made the decision to scrap their No 8s and in super quick time, placed an order for some Norinco JW-15a, which is a Chinese copy of the Brno ZKM-451. The rifles were fitted with a “Peep” sight - not conducive to high scores for target rifle shooting. Everyone was singing its praises and applauding the speedy decision to replace the No 8. I fired this rifle on visits to NZ Cadets in 2007 and again in 2009. By my 2011 visit, all rifles had been withdrawn due to several safety issues - problems with soft woodwork, poor metal quality, failing safety catches and so on. The rifle was in service for less than 4 years. They now have yet another rifle, but offhand, I cannot recall what they have elected to use now.
Paul
The Norinco JW-15A had two pretty serious issues… 1. Releasing the safety catch could in a fair few rifles cause them to fire. There was a stop placed on shooting in 2011 for about 6+ months while this issue was being fixed. 2. Their magazines were utter garbage and you usually ended up single feeding them anyway, the build quality on the rifles was simply not good enough and they were not “Cadet proof”.
Last year units had their norinco’s withdrawn to be made into DP rifles (don’t get me started on the idea of DP rifles here) and were issued with Marlin XT-22 rifles (again fitted with peep sights) which have a much better build quality.
On the note of the peep sights. Yes, they aren’t as conducive to target scores as micrometer sights., but scores improved in our shooting competitions EVERY YEAR after the introduction of the Norinco. Sight wise, they were at least better than those of the No. 8 and No. 9 which were well beyond their years. Also worth note is this: http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/central-leader/5513242/Shooters-incentive-for-next-target
As much as I hate the norinco JW-15… they were used in that competition.
What, cheap Chinese-made products aren’t up to scratch? Who’d have thought it?
Pay peanuts, get monkeys.
This is probably a one in a 50 year opportunity to choose a (very) good rifle. To me, some of the KSRs in the tender are archaic & will limit the options/manufacturers. Ditch the safety catch & the “basic & advanced” sights - go off the shelf with one of the known companies - even if it slightly limits the number of rifles that could be purchased. The added bonus would be that if a sqn/region/wg wanted to augment the rifles/sights/accessories, etc, it would be possible to do so.
I think everyone knew that at the time as well… the contract was handled in a less than prudent manner and it really backfired.
However, we do now have a pretty good, robust and reasonably accurate rifle.
Was the No8 purchased for the cadets, or a hand-me-down from the army when they stopped using them?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
History of No 8:
http://rifleman.org.uk/Enfield_Rifle_No.8.html
That link suggests that it was acquired for both military AND cadet use. However, as the SLR entered service in the mid-1950’s, that would have released lots of No 8 stock for cadet use.
All this chatter about a replacement for the N°8 is all fine and dandy, but as and when this happens we need something that is easy to use and robust, remember this will be used by cadets. There are features of the L98 that preclude cadets from shooting the thing.
There is however an elephant in the room. Unless there is a sea change in thought process among those in charge a change in rifle will effectively kill shooting in the ATC (and maybe other CF). I doubt all those currently qualified to train, test and conduct ranges, still be qualified as a new weapon comes in. Any change is going to mean “a pause” (to use the term adopted for an indefinite period for not doing gliding) and what will be the knock on effect of this? Not enough courses and some staff involved in shooting, saying no more?
Then there is the small requirement for cadets being re-trained and tested.
What sort of overlap will there be between N°8 and whatever replaces it?
How long before they have the manuals written and courses in place?
Will they be running extra courses to keep staff qualified, ensuring cadets are not prevented from shooting?
These are questions that need to be asked of the shooting hierarchy in the cadet forces now, because the general view of many in the day to day shooting fraternity is that they failed to represent the actual needs of cadets and staff when the Army took control of shooting. IMO because they were scared to and didn’t want to rock any boats, which has allowed them to create a mountain out of a mole hill and develop empires. I would like to be wrong, but as a squadron commander it is me and my ilk who have to manage disappointment and frustration of staff and cadets alike, and I can see this being another activity that will necessitate this. Oh well there is always bag-packing.
Heresy, heresy!! You want a WHT & manuals for when a new shooting platform is introduced…? 
Just look at the example of the Scorpion…
The tender timescale says 60 months for recourse to the options - it’s not clear if that is from saying “yes” to receipt of rifles or the overall package including spares, repairs, etc.
Oh for the good old days when a sgt cadet would instruct/coach on the No 8 & perhaps a FS cadet would watch you using a .303". The safety drill for nearly everything was open the bolt = rifle safe.
Arguably there will not be any need for new training, etc - if it uses the same action as the No 8 then a WHT might even carry over.
After all, cadets can fire sqn-owned .22 target rifles on a No 8 WHT IIRC.
[quote=“MattB” post=21346]Arguably there will not be any need for new training, etc - if it uses the same action as the No 8 then a WHT might even carry over.
After all, cadets can fire sqn-owned .22 target rifles on a No 8 WHT IIRC.[/quote]
Matt you beat me to it.
i have fired Martini and Anschutz with a valid No8 rifle, and know many Squadron who do the same…
typically the No8 is a more “complex” system than the two above if only because of its safety catch or cumbersome size/length.
Hopeful “same as” & actual practicality could be 2 different things…
Anyway, just spoke to lady in Abbey Wood about my enquiry for the tender. They will reply this week
All this discussion is fine, however…
[pulls pin…]
If the tender has already been submitted it’s a bit late to be questioning the details. At this stage people questioning the details will only hold up proceedings and slow down the process of getting a replacement.
Whatever we get it must be better than the No8! I know of Wings where several of theirs have been made U/S and has had a dramatic impact on SB shooting.
Lets voice our concerns up the CoC, and let those that are paid to do this do it!
If you want to have something to worry about have you considered who will service these weapons? They will not be service weapons, therefore not serviced by armouries, so could be serviced on the same basis as L81’s ie lost for a few months at a time…
[runs for cover]
That’s very optimistic but the concerns above highlight how this may not be the case.
Mind you, I have access to working No8s - the biggest obstacle to rimfire shooting hire is the availability of (the ridiculous amount of) staff with (the ridiculous amount of) qualifications.
What defines a service weapon? They are just rifles and I’m sure armouries could service them if they were brought into their responsibility and provided with the requisite parts and training.
Of course actually getting a service armourer to service the things is another matter entirely, so they could well have a contract as the L81s do whereby servicing is done by a third party. How that is achieved will be a major factor.
Option 3 could be to use a local firearms dealer, as we do with our NSWs…
Did the introduction of the L98A2 cause a pause in shooting? Didn’t around here. Staff were converted from A1 to A2 in advance of the general roll out of the rifles. Cadets qualified were converted when the rifles hit the streets and then we just carried on as normal.
I think the introduction of a better balanced, more modern rifle (as long as its robust and easy to use) should have happened 10 years ago. I wait to see what rifle we get and how many. But I’m excited about modernising our offer for small bore shooting!
[quote=“finkbat” post=21350]
If you want to have something to worry about have you considered who will service these weapons? They will not be service weapons, therefore not serviced by armouries, so could be serviced on the same basis as L81’s ie lost for a few months at a time…
[runs for cover][/quote]
Once they are selected, tested & procured, they will be service weapons. Armouries service No.8s now, so there is no reason they wouldn’t service the replacement. All the 6-monthly service involves is pretty much a headspace gauge, trigger pull test and bore inspection - why should the new rifles be any different?
Indeed, if the MOD are tendering for it then surely it would be a service weapon?