Probably have kittens? It would wreck a lot of the CCRS competitions (& as I’ve just mentioned, CISAM, etc).
More importantly, it would take out those cadets who started shooting target rifle & moved on to bigger / better target rifle during the time at university & beyond. They are key to onward retention in the sport. Some will carry out shooting in RAFAC as an instructor.
Anyone know Gola? An excellent example - he now shoots Fullbore TR for Wales.
The L402A1 rifle is the variant of the SA80 series which is chambered to fire 0.22in LR rounds. It is used in Military Patrol ski races, and replaced the L85A2 rifle fitted with the H&K .22in conversion kit. I read that the latter rifle is no longer used for initial marksmanship practices in recruit training: they now use the DCCT for this.
This would be a good rifle for cadets to use before they fire the L98A2, but of course enough rifles would have to be manufactured to equip cadet forces in addition to those used for Winter military training (the Military Patrol race - the original Biathlon event dating from the 1928 Winter Olympics at St Moritz - is classed as military training by the UK Armed Forces, rather than sports or AT).
Smallbore target rifle shooting taken seriously involves using a shooting jacket, sling and shooting scope. It is a hard sport to master due to the physical strength and mental concentration needed to get a competitive score on the target diagrams.
Like many of us, I started shooting using the excellent No8 and BSA Martini rifles - well made and extremely accurate. We used to shoot practice and competitions on an indoor 25m range in No2 dress: no ear defenders, jackets or slings, let alone scopes. If one scored over 90 one was doing well without such aids, but it wouldn’t wash in a higher level of competition.
I’ve heard bad reports about the quality and accuracy of the L144 rifle, so if it is indeed is a heap of junk compared to the rifle it replaced, then the cadet forces are well rid of it. It’s a waste of time using a bad rifle for either target shooting or even vermin control: inaccurate rifles don’t allow humane killing of the animals one needs to cull or control.
A better (and cooler-looking: face it, Bullpup rifles are ugly) smallbore semi-automatic rifle for the cadet forces would be Smith & Wesson’s .22in AR15, which uses a 30 round magazine. This rifle can be legally owned by UK Firearm Certificate holders.
It could be used with the 25m Fig11 representative targets for both marksmanship training and competitive military shooting. The UK’s Armed Forces have adopted the AR15 - style L403 rifle for certain units, and this weapon may well become standard issue in the future, when the SA80 needs to be replaced.
In our day we fired the No4 Lee-Enfield as our first full-bore rifle: great for classic WWII weapon buffs, but long obsolete as a standard service rifle. By adopting the S&W AR, the cadet forces can be ahead of the game in the marksmanship training of potential service people.
The AR15/M16 series rifles have been used by the British forces continually since the Indonesian Confrontation of 1962-66, far longer than the SA80 has been in service, or even in development.
Indeed, an RAF Regt liaison team recommended that the USAF Security Police adopt it in South Vietnam in 1965, along with light armoured vehicles, in order to defend their airbases against VC attacks. The US Army subsequently adopted it for jungle operations in that theatre of war, and the rest is American firearms history. 
These proposals are bonk and they all know it. It’s nothing to do with quality or “modernising”, it’s because the people making these decisions don’t give a monkeys about the cadet experience cause they’ll be retired by the time they occur.
We MUST have small bore available to us, we MUST have fullbore target rifles and we MUST not allow this to happen if we want shooting to remain a functioning and successful offer for cadets. It will be yet another failure of leadership and another activity lost to Tony’s inept and ineffectual leadership if this goes ahead.
With respect to this document it’s the proposed vision to those who sign it off rather that the top down decision makers.
I would really like to know who was the one who created the power point and submitted it as the future plan for shooting to CAC & AOC 22grp - they are the one who needs their head a wobble.
What happens is that you have organisational director rubber stamping what an alleged SME has proposed rather than actually what is needed & then blame that they were only following the advice they were given (cf Post Office Horizon Software)
It doesn’t matter where it came from, what matters is that someone, somewhere needs to stand up to it and say no.
Those diagrams feel a bit overly complicated to me. My ideal for a consolidated shooting syllabus, which saves money/prevents waste would be:
Air Rifle (Scorpion) for exposure to shooting. Then progress concurrently with both:
|-- Service Rifle (L98) for 25m/Gallery/ETR/DCCT/FT/D&C
|-- Target Rifle (L81) for competition shooting
One AR system that’s pushed as the primary, but still allowing other ARs to continue where they’ve been previously funded and sqns are prepared to manage it. Trying to support 2 versions (mag, s/s) of scorpion and s200s locally has been a pain to keep on top of consistent training for cadets across sqns and multiple WHTs.
AR stays at sqn offering flexibility. SR&TR remain logically at sector & above, where the wpns/ranges are co-located where possible. Even if we could place S5 wpns at sqns, they still can’t shoot them there (unless they’re based on MoD site) so spreading the wing wpns around doesn’t help practically other than maintaining the odd WHT.
L144 offers so little extra when the other three weapons above are also available. Use up remaining resources e.g. .22 ammo before binning them off first though. Don’t reinvest L144/.22 savings in another wpn, or new virtual systems as it’ll be another project to pour away scarce funding. I’d leave AR funding to committees as is too.
Shooting is already great without additional changes needed, so long as you can get trained staff and cadets, with serviceable weapons and ammo on a serviceable range! None of what I’ve said above requires reskilling, or new investment until the current weapons are falling apart. Like most things in RAFAC, we try to do so much to offer a wide variety, but actually I could get behind having fewer options that we just did a lot more of.
It’s not a proposed vision, it’s a solution to a challenge based on resources.
Believe me, the CS that made that presentation would rather we had everything we wanted in the shooting world but our budgets just won’t allow that.
It’s also just a working plan, nothing has been firmly decided one way or the other.
Why don’t the higher paid help ask the masses or take advice?
When the spec for the ghastly L144 appeared, I went to the MOD sponsor & asked why / how all the silliness had come about (safety catch, drop test, etc - oh, the drop test that o don’t think was ever passed?). Seemed to point back to SASC?
The opportunity was there to really progress to a proper target rifle, but no, the military aspects seemed to be paramount. Make it a special build = add to the complication. An OTS option should have been taken, even for something more expensive such as Anschutz - longevity for spares, maintenance, reliability, etc. Now looks as if the L144 might be scrapped (good news - but only if a suitable replacement is approved).
I didn’t actually see such a strong reason for scrapping the No 8 rifles. I think that with some more “understanding” & attention to correct gauging standards, there could have been a way forward. I also tried to get approval for the rifles to be sold to private FAC holders = put the revenue towards the replacement. Nope, counted as weapons of war, not a chance. 
I’ll accept them scrapping the L144 as by all accounts it’s pants, but for the love of god let us self fund things. If we can afford LPWs, weapons, armouries and alarms why on earth should we not be allowed them?
I would doubt anyone would be bothered to seek other opinions. Whatever is presented will be the vision accepted, there seems to be no appetite for challenge or pushback. Do whatever the cheapest thing is is clearly the object here.
If there were an appetite for it, we could do lots of things like grant fund, sponsor, propose increases in subs, sqns self fund parts of it over and above what the organisation can afford. Even have a method of charging something towards the cost of what we do now like a fee for ammunition, a usage fee for rifles to be reinvested in to servicing costs.
No one either a) cares enough to be creative or b) has the skill to properly assess and manage a proposal.
If they truly cared, truly wanted shooting to be a healthy, long term option for us they would consult, make several suggestions and not accept poor quality, under thought out plans. Mediocre is now the best anyone can seemingly hope for from our headquarters at all levels, and even that is a pie in the sky deam.
Are these changes happening across all cadet forces, i.e. losing the L81 and L144?
Good question, because of course CCF(RAF) weapons are supplied by the Army, so we could end up with CCF(RAF) continuing L144 shooting…
Ah, but we are one and the same. So either ATC are allowed to piggyback because it’s not dropped policy, or CCF(RAF) are given another reason to fold and go all in with the Army.
RAFAC binning off ISCRM if the other services continue would be a bold move…
It’ll sort of be like we have the opposite of USPs.
Well we have the Demand and No Leadership “School” offering diplomas in Tactlessness, Fecklessness, and Mismanagement.
Spine not necessary for entry.
I see they have rebranded for the 20th time in 4 years.
I don’t actually know what its current real name is.
It’ll always be Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firear- oh. Maybe it needs a new “F”, considering the thread topic.
This is not true, as of april the mod 1 requirement is the ACMT (100m live fire)