The response is long.
"Going off memory you felt that a rifle would be provided gratis for the purposes of a review, with an option to buy after completing the review...."
At no time did I ever say verbally or in print that I expected a rifle would be provided free to me to keep." Let me repeat that - "At no time did I ever say verbally or in print that I expected a rifle would be provided free to me to keep."
My journey started with Marstar wanting the review, then reneging. This started me trying to figure out what Marstar and AIA were all about. All the articles are still there. You wouldn't ask the questions had you read the articles. There are three. All three have been there since they were written. Welcome to the Internets - home of spin.
www. 303british.com/id2.html
The Mystery of Australian International Arms
Australian International Arms - Part 2
AIA Rifles: Cheaply Made
My 'beef' was laid out in the articles. At the time of the first article - 2006 - they had not been proofed. They had no spare parts. They had no "instructions to armourers" for repairs. Two US companies had problems with them and told AIA they no longer wanted to do business with them. I wondered why that was. AIA would not publish any information about their business or the products that they made, unlike every other firearms manufacturer in the world. So, I wanted answers.
I will share one email I had - please note the date - Apr 2009, where a member of another site posted two untruths that were the result my digging into the whole AIA story. His name has been removed for obvious reasons. This fellow is a moderator of another site and a member of the Lithgow rifle club. He is also a friend of Ian Skennerton.
---
Jan 28 09 2:19 AM
I'm the fellow from the 303british.com site. My apoligies for not seeing this sooner. The post is quite old. A couple of things need to be set straight.
You posted something about my unreview of the AIA No 4 rifle. You suggested that I had been threatened with legal action. You also stated that I had an axe to grind because I did not get a free rifle. I don't know where you got that info from, but neither is true. For the record, let me state:
I have never been threatened with a lawsuit, directly or indirectly. Your source is wrong.
I never expected a free rifle. I was asked to do a review of the rifle by the store. When I started asking questions about the origin of the rifle, someone - I suspect the owner - decided to reverse the offer. Whoever said that I expected anything for free was wrong. You were wrong too.
Apr 7 09 4:35 PM
###x :
Steve,
I spend little time here anymore ... sorry for the late response. My comments came from a source with direct contact with AIA rifles - this person is very close to the source of AIA indeed and also a respected member of our Enfield fraternity. When I was told what I was told I took it at face value - if it is wrong then I can only take you at your word also. What is interesting is that there is a good deal of he said/she said in all of this.
I have no dog in this fight but my personal opinion is that a non review of a rifle might as well have been no review at all ... why slander the rifle and the company at all if you have not handled the rifle? Any case ... I have no beef either way but merely shared what I was told by somebody I consider to be an impeccable source. I have heard good things from those who own the AIA rifles these days ... despite some early teething troubles.
Cheers, ###x
• Apr 7 09 10:32 PM
Hi. Sorry about the length of the reply, but it needs to be said.
Your source was not telling the truth, despite what he said to you.
In the three years since the article appeared on my page, only Ian Skennerton and a fellow from Lawrence Ordnance responded to my inquiries. The Hams did not. No one else from AIA bothered either. Ian was polite and tried to explain that neither of the Hams was computer literate, but something - anything - would have been preferrable to silence. Every rifle company on the planet has a mailing address and Internet site that people can use to get product information. Everyone that is, except AIA. It was only after Ian got involved that they got a webpage.
The reason I tried to contact the Hams or someone from AIA was because Marstar (the Canadian importer) asked me to do a review of the rifle. I did some preliminary work for the article - standard stuff for any assignment - including contact information, history of the rifle and company, AIA's location, what they make, number of employees, etc. I also asked Marstar for info they could provide. This was when things began to get strange.
For whatever reason, a few weeks after they asked me to do the article, Marstar changed their mind. I already had the government issued Firearms Registration Certificate in my possession. You can only get it if the seller supplies the government with the buyer's name, the firearms serial no. etc. The certificate is mailed out by the Mounties (RCMP). Marstar started the ball rolling, but, for whatever reason, put a stop to it. They never did explain why.
At that point, I decided to put up an information page about the rifle. I tried to find out AIA's mailing address and phone number. No luck with that at first. Ian said that they did not release that info because they were concerned about security. I asked, "Well then, what about Remington, Browning and every other firearms company? They all provide contact info."
I contacted the Australian government and got information about AIA. This was how I got their phone number, mailing address and incorporation date.
Next, I phoned and sent two letters to AIA in Brisbane. No one answered my call and no one responded to either of my letters.
At the same time, I contacted the two US companies that planned to market AIA rifles - Tristar and Sabre Defence Industries. Tristar had some harsh words to say, telling me about communication problems with AIA, a lack of parts and technical support. SDI did not answer at all. They did not actually import them however. They bowed out after the US import permit expired. They made no attempt to renew it according the the US State Dept (I asked).
I then contacted Lawrence Ordnance and also put up a notice at my site for any American or Oz shooters that owned these rifles. I wanted their impressions, praise, complaints or any other observations. Lawrence answered and I got dozens of emails from Oz, NZ, the US and Canada.
Lawrence had no issues with AIA other than parts. The emails from owners were lukewarm. There were a number of issues with the 7.62x39 rifles. Mostly feeding and magazine problems. Some people complained that parts were not available (these emails confirmed what Tristar said about a lack of parts). Warranty issues were a sore point as well. Several people said that they had returned their rifles to Tristar, but replacement pieces or the work itself wasn't properly done. The people that wrote these last emails were upset and I bore the brunt of their frustration.
I asked a friend drop by with his 7.62x51mm rifle, in order to take a look at it. I had the thing apart, but did not fire it. It felt solid, but $900 CDN is too much to pay for a common calibre with a chrome lined bore and a so-so trigger. In Canada, they are marketed as a match rifle, but they shouldn't be. Chrome lined bores are not used on "match" rifles.
After a year and a bit of writing letters, making phone calls and emailing, I discovered that the Hams couldn't really be serious about thier rifle. Information was unavailable. You may have noticed that on many of the US boards. No one - myself included - was willing to lay out $800 to $900 on a mystery rifle.
In 2007, Ian Skennerton and I were emailing back and forth in an attempt to "put the wheels back on the cart". He had made a website for them and sent an advanced copy of his magazine to me that had an AIA story in it. Sadly, their website isn't maintained. The dealers area - the US or UK importers particularly - promised dealers "coming soon". They haven't come yet. As one emailer a few weeks ago remarked, "They've been 'coming soon' since 2007". Not very confidence inspiring.
While shooters may have been saying nice things about these rifles Down Under, not much good talk was heard in North America. You cannot sell an unknown rifle for that amount of money without answering some basic questions. These were questions that potential buyers were asking (and continue to ask via email). Where is it made? Who makes it? Can I get more information? Where do I take it for warranty work? Who makes parts like scope mounts for it? What about the guys that had all those problems with it when they bought them from Tristar?
If you detected any maligned subtext in my write up, it was no doubt because of the frustration at getting any help or information about the rifle and the manufacturer. I first started looking for information in 2006.
AIA is obviously a small company. The Hams have no marketing or PR skills. They have limited sales skills as well. For a few years, they have been trying to get back to the US. They have not been successful. There is no doubt in my mind that industry insiders have said some unkind things about AIA. No one wants to take a chance importing and selling an unknown and unproven rifle. They don't want the headaches.
Will that change? Perhaps, but not until the front office of AIA fixes their company problems.
That has been my experience. I did not slander anyone or anything. No threats of a lawsuit ever happened. I actually would have been happy had someone contacted me representing the Hams! It would have proven that they were still in there swinging.
WRT being pouty faced over not getting a free rifle, no one gets a free rifle. They must be returned after the review is done. That's just silly talk. Big name writers like John Barsness or Craig Boddington do not get them, why would I? The best you can hope for is a reduced price should you wish to purchase it.
You can pass on my email address or website to whoever told you that stuff. I'll be glad to chat.
steve@303british.com
www.303british.com
Apr 7 09 11:24 PM
:
G'day again Steve,
I want to thank you for your candor - you have explained yourself clearly and based on the tone of your reply I can tell that you are being totally honest. A bit about who I am may help.
I am a member of the Lithgow Small Arms Rifle club ( the original factory range since the late 1800's ) and shoot 1000 yard Fullbore target rifle comp there - I am also the moderator of the Enfield forum at ###x. I know Ian personally and I also know Simon Lawrance personally and have talked with both of these gents about the AIA rifles. I'll be perfectly honest with you ... I have heard luke warm reviews from respected target shooters in OZ also but I have also heard some happy reports too. One top marksman in Sydney told me that the barrel was so bad on his AIA that he had to change it completely ( for a NON AIA barrel ) before he could get any kind of decent groups!
Now ... as I said, I have no dog in this fight at all. Like you, I believe the price of the AIA rifles is way too high. In Australia they retail between $1200-$1500 which is silly when you could buy an original Enfield for less ... and most people want the AIA due to the Enfield factor, not the AIA factor. The interesting thing is that when I asked Ian personally what he thought of AIA he told me he loved his own AIA rifle and that some other fellow was shooting some game on the fly etc etc etc ... the bottom line was that his report was glowing. When I talked to Simon L about the AIA rifles he also had only good things to say about them but if I'm to be honest I am not convinced by either of these fellows ( as much as I like and respect them ) ... I feel that there is a fair deal of salesmanship going on but I cannot figure out why AIA has such a hold on both Ian and Simon L. Ian even dedicated a couple of pages in the final edition of the Lee Enfield Story to the AIA rifles as a sales pitch. It really did come across as advertising .... what can I say? AIA had a 3 page article in the Australian Shooter magazine late in 2008 which was nice but as you say the website seems basically dead.
As you might tell from the above I have my doubts which is why I won't buy one myself ... my comments regard the law suit etc came directly from a mixture of info from both Simon L and Ian Skennerton; I'm sorry if that might come as a surprise but since you have been honest with me I feel obliged to reciprocate. I would hope you can keep that confidence between us since I do not wish to be the cause of any ill feeling. Why Ian and Simon would suggest such things if they are not true can only be explained by some sense of loyalty to AIA ... I still can't figure out what the draw is for these guys with AIA ... they clearly have all decided to back one another, so.
Up until your response to me I was not quite sure what to believe but I do not doubt your account of the situation ( I have an A1 bull detector )... and knowing the rifles myself and the general murkiness that surrounds them I have to admit that the whole endeavor is a bit odd. Once again, I haven't bought one for this very reason. I'll be happy to go back and amend my post given the information you have provided.
Thanks for the civil exchange.
