AIA No4 mk4 Lee Enfield?

There are opinions on both sides of "like" with the AIA rifles. When I examined one, I was disappointed that so few of the parts were be direct copies of No.4 parts. In more places than one, there were deviations from the strictest definition of "copy". Sole source parts means fewer repair opportunities. And then there was the opinion of the Canadian military's Life Cycle Material Manager (LCMM) for small arms dismissed the rifles too. ( http:// www.303british.com/id74.html )
 
maple_leaf_eh said:
There are opinions on both sides of "like" with the AIA rifles. When I examined one, I was disappointed that so few of the parts were be direct copies of No.4 parts. In more places than one, there were deviations from the strictest definition of "copy". Sole source parts means fewer repair opportunities. And then there was the opinion of the Canadian military's Life Cycle Material Manager (LCMM) for small arms dismissed the rifles too. ( http:// www.303british.com/id74.html )
Click to expand...

To be fair, that article says the rifle is unsuitable as a military piece. It points out that it is made for the sporting market. Military standards are significantly higher than the sporting world.
 
Gillen1 said:
They are not made anymore, so you will have to pay highly inflated EE prices if you really want one.
Click to expand...

They're still made but due to demand in Austrilia and the higher price they get there why export them.
 
Obsessed said:
At the time the article was written, the observation that it would fail was also simply the opinion of the material manager. The rifle wasn't tested. I seems like he/she made that assessment simply because some parts were made in Asia. That seems very short sighted. Norinco 305's are made in Asia; would one fail before a SA? Hard to say until it is actually tested.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between the first tentative batch of unproven rifles that are not a copy but a passing resemblance, and multiple batches of imports with a majority of interchangeable parts. DND has been the first buyer of lots of things (can anyone say F35?), but foregoing the AIA rifle for the Rangers probably wasn't unwise.
 
maple_leaf_eh said:
There are opinions on both sides of "like" with the AIA rifles. When I examined one, I was disappointed that so few of the parts were be direct copies of No.4 parts. In more places than one, there were deviations from the strictest definition of "copy". Sole source parts means fewer repair opportunities. And then there was the opinion of the Canadian military's Life Cycle Material Manager (LCMM) for small arms dismissed the rifles too. ( http:// www.303british.com/id74.html )
Click to expand...
Well that's too bad. If AIA had done a better job maybe their business would be doing better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom