LE No5 MK1 vs AIA M10 B1 Sport SMLE rifle
- Thread starter Airborn_69
- Start date
- Location
- West coast of Vancouver Island
- Location
- Pile of Bones, SK
Cantom did a damn fine job putting together that rifle. IIRC it was a bubba'd rifle which he mated to a chopped 7.62 barrel that he found. Bubba knows no limits, but reworking bubbas deeds can be interesting. The damage has already been done, so why not make it a little more tasteful? Hell, I liked it so much I bought it!
Now if you want to see a real abomination (not mine!):
Cantom did a damn fine job putting together that rifle. IIRC it was a bubba'd rifle which he mated to a chopped 7.62 barrel that he found. Bubba knows no limits, but reworking bubbas deeds can be interesting. The damage has already been done, so why not make it a little more tasteful? Hell, I liked it so much I bought it!
Thanks Vimy Ridge! That rifle did turn out very nicely and I actually really miss it.
BTW, that rifle had a really dark bore, the barrel was screwed, and that 7.62 CA barrel needed a home...
Looks exactly like I would do but shorten the barrel a little more, so it looks in proportion or maybe have a little longer forearm with a slightly shorter handgaurd (a la the No.5). Regardless of my personal tastes (which are suspect as I enjoy bourbon) it looks marvelous
The forend on this rifle was truly beautiful...really nice wood, really nice finish...couldn't bring myself to scrap it. So we fitted up a handguard to fit what was already there...think Envoy or L42A1 for the proportions...
BTW, you don't want to shorten up a 7.62 barrel too much..Peter Laidler recently stated that they lose a lot of accuracy shortened down, and he'd know.
Is this only a LE problem or a broader one? IIRC, shorter barrels can be more accurate as they are stiffer
He was talking about various 7.62 rifles they trialed in England including FN's...also when they originally converted the No 4's to 7.62, they didn't shoot particularly well, which was one of the reasons why they scrubbed the conversion program.
Afterwards, they apparently observed the club shooters using heavy, stiff barrels for target shooting with great results, and they followed that pattern in designing the L42A1 sniper rifle, which shoots very well. There was a barrel length below which the FN's couldn't hit anything apparently.
Last edited:
When I met Cantom for the 1st time ( sorry for his luck) he had that beauti of a rifle. Vimy's gonna have a blast !
Just a passing thought...
If .303brit ammo was designed to shoot from a 25" barrel , wouldn't there be more unburnt powder/cordite from the shorter No5 barrel that could cause the pill to wander somewhat ???
Just a passing thought...
If .303brit ammo was designed to shoot from a 25" barrel , wouldn't there be more unburnt powder/cordite from the shorter No5 barrel that could cause the pill to wander somewhat ???
I remember that, I showed you that rifle at Chatham GS...
Now if you want to see a real abomination (not mine!):
MY EYES, MY EYES!!!!!!
You should post a warning before letting Canadian Gunnutz look at an abomination like that.
HMMM ...
looks like something that needs a mate,
so they can breed up a gaggle of offspring Frankenfields.
Maybe I'll do up something similar.
NOT Kidding ...
about 40 years ago I put a pistol grip on one of my Enfields and I loved it.
PS: The wandering zero "myth" was traced to the "lightening" cutouts on the barrel, right by the breech.
PPS: I've had a few 7.62 NATO DCRA converted Lee Enfields. Irregardless of the fact that some of them had .308 magazines installed, these were really designed as SINGLE SHOTS. Most of them can be made to feed fairly well if you use the right magazines.The big problem with most of these is that they do NOT eject reliably. The LARGER .303 Bolt Face makes it difficult to get a good consistent grip on the smaller .308 cases. Unless you do the grooved bolt and spring loaded "poppet" ejector, they are rarely 100 % reliable on ejection.
The AIA design, with a bolt face sized precisely for the .308 cases, should be much better at extraction.
PPPS: The DCRA built rifles should have been built with recivers that had been magnafluxed. there are many converted .308 Enfields that were NOT built by the DCRA ... so your mileage may vary. The Enfield receivers, with their rear locking lugs, were "springy" when shooting 7.62 NATO BALL, which was actually a desireable "built in design feature" rather than a bug. When you were limited to ISSUE IVI 7.62 NATO Ball, which to put it charitably, may have varying weights of powder, the springy actions helped minimise vertical stringing with the inconsistent IVI ball. If you are shooting more consistent ammo, then better actions exist ... but for a long time, the Lee Enfields ruled the turf at DCRA 1000 yd service rifle shoots, which were limited to ISSUE BALL ammo.
PPPPS: Now if only AIA made the same design in a short barreled .45-70 ... then we would have SOMETHING!!!
[;{)
LAZ 1
looks like something that needs a mate,
so they can breed up a gaggle of offspring Frankenfields.
Maybe I'll do up something similar.
NOT Kidding ...
about 40 years ago I put a pistol grip on one of my Enfields and I loved it.
PS: The wandering zero "myth" was traced to the "lightening" cutouts on the barrel, right by the breech.
PPS: I've had a few 7.62 NATO DCRA converted Lee Enfields. Irregardless of the fact that some of them had .308 magazines installed, these were really designed as SINGLE SHOTS. Most of them can be made to feed fairly well if you use the right magazines.The big problem with most of these is that they do NOT eject reliably. The LARGER .303 Bolt Face makes it difficult to get a good consistent grip on the smaller .308 cases. Unless you do the grooved bolt and spring loaded "poppet" ejector, they are rarely 100 % reliable on ejection.
The AIA design, with a bolt face sized precisely for the .308 cases, should be much better at extraction.
PPPS: The DCRA built rifles should have been built with recivers that had been magnafluxed. there are many converted .308 Enfields that were NOT built by the DCRA ... so your mileage may vary. The Enfield receivers, with their rear locking lugs, were "springy" when shooting 7.62 NATO BALL, which was actually a desireable "built in design feature" rather than a bug. When you were limited to ISSUE IVI 7.62 NATO Ball, which to put it charitably, may have varying weights of powder, the springy actions helped minimise vertical stringing with the inconsistent IVI ball. If you are shooting more consistent ammo, then better actions exist ... but for a long time, the Lee Enfields ruled the turf at DCRA 1000 yd service rifle shoots, which were limited to ISSUE BALL ammo.
PPPPS: Now if only AIA made the same design in a short barreled .45-70 ... then we would have SOMETHING!!!
[;{)
LAZ 1
ACE Stocks has a prototype folder for the Lee enfield listed on their web page.
Folding stock .45-70 AIA ...
now that is TOTALLY cool, man!!
[;{)
www.riflestocks.com/Projects.htm
Folding stock .45-70 AIA ...
now that is TOTALLY cool, man!!
[;{)
www.riflestocks.com/Projects.htm
AIA is listed as a manufacturer and wholesaler of firearms. Previously they were known as Australian Collector Arms, apparently founded in 1993.
It seems they are an importer of rifle parts into Australia. So, there is the company and importer. The parts are outsourced primarily around the Pacific Rim. Earlier rifles had pieces imported from England and the US among others.
Like WW2 British and WW1 peddled scheme Lee-Enfields, components are sourced from a number of countries. Some parts come from South East Asia, just as some parts originated from England and the United States.
Good hardwood at a reasonable price is not easy to find. AIA has used plantation Teak from New Guinea, Brazil, West Africa and Laos.
Skennerton makes a good analogy in his book.
" Consider that a product made in a free trade zone in Mexico can be marked "made in the USA". An unfinished action body can be imported into North America with only one of two cuts not done, yet is can still be marked "Made in the USA" after the final machining is done. "
So these parts could have come from any where really and we'll never know. The parts can be labelled by the maker to the tune of what ever the destination company likes.
My research can not verify that any parts were manufactured in Vietnam. Having said that, I am not well versed in detailed investigation methods. Just what I can find and read. (S.Redg, I. Skenn).
I'll bet you that Remington, TC, FN USA, etc.. imports some parts from Asia too. Regardless I don't think anyone should be calling foul. If you're bothered by the possibility don'y buy one. I for my own reasons refuse to purchase any Chinese manufactured firearms. Thats my personal decision but in the end I'm probably buying firearms that still have Chinese made parts in them.
I find this global market stuff extremely disorientating
It seems they are an importer of rifle parts into Australia. So, there is the company and importer. The parts are outsourced primarily around the Pacific Rim. Earlier rifles had pieces imported from England and the US among others.
Like WW2 British and WW1 peddled scheme Lee-Enfields, components are sourced from a number of countries. Some parts come from South East Asia, just as some parts originated from England and the United States.
Good hardwood at a reasonable price is not easy to find. AIA has used plantation Teak from New Guinea, Brazil, West Africa and Laos.
Skennerton makes a good analogy in his book.
" Consider that a product made in a free trade zone in Mexico can be marked "made in the USA". An unfinished action body can be imported into North America with only one of two cuts not done, yet is can still be marked "Made in the USA" after the final machining is done. "
So these parts could have come from any where really and we'll never know. The parts can be labelled by the maker to the tune of what ever the destination company likes.
My research can not verify that any parts were manufactured in Vietnam. Having said that, I am not well versed in detailed investigation methods. Just what I can find and read. (S.Redg, I. Skenn).
I'll bet you that Remington, TC, FN USA, etc.. imports some parts from Asia too. Regardless I don't think anyone should be calling foul. If you're bothered by the possibility don'y buy one. I for my own reasons refuse to purchase any Chinese manufactured firearms. Thats my personal decision but in the end I'm probably buying firearms that still have Chinese made parts in them.
I find this global market stuff extremely disorientating
Last edited:
Bottom line is, they make a very good, very strong, very beautiful rifle in a modern calibre.
Name any manufacturer anywhere that doesn't import some or all of their parts from somewhere else?
BTW, Marstar know's what's what about AIA.
Name any manufacturer anywhere that doesn't import some or all of their parts from somewhere else?
BTW, Marstar know's what's what about AIA.
- Location
- Vancouver Island BC
I don't know if you have enough experience with the jungle carbine to know that the "wandering zero" is a myth.
The many No5's I have had over the years displayed good accuracy.The zero myth was expedited so the Brits could catch up to the rest of the world who were equipping their armies with self loader rifles.
I think you'll find this very interesting. A post from a few days ago from the oldest serving armourer in the British Army, Peter Laidler.
http://www.jouster.com/cgi-bin/lee-enfield/lee-enfield.pl?read=64995
