Australian International Arms M10 B1 Sport rifle

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have written the Hams. Let's be clear on a few things. They did not design or develop it. A gentleman by the name of Bruce Gentner did that around 1996. It was the result of changes to Oz law and a gun buy back when they outlawed certain rifles like the SKS and others. Gentner's name is not listed anywhere in the company literature. Perhaps he is not affliated with this project anymore. The Hams merely produced a rifle whose plans were delivered into their hands.

The distribution network is questionable outside of Canada. There have been problems in the US. 2 distributors - Tristar and Sabre Defence Ind. have pulled their support. Europe is spotty because of border problems. But that's not my concern.

One thing that you and anyone that owns this rifle should care about is liability. What happens in the event of an accident due to a manufacturing defect? What happens if your face is launched into the next shooting lane? I'm not being a smart ass. While you may not care, others do. You certainly would expect Remington to answer your questions. AIA is no different.
 
i found that enfield rifles are hard on lefty.

it's hard to push the bolt in and when it does, turning down the bolt handle has a great chance to injure my fingers.

is the bolt operation pretty much the same of these aussie rifles?
 
No different. But does not hurt me much.

Steve
To add some fuel to your crusade I'm watching with true interest: mine B1 is marked "imported by Sabre blah-blah-blah" on the right side of receiver ;)
 
Tristar has answered me. SDI has not. They likely won't because they have gov't contracts and do not wish to be partially or completely misquoted. Standard for this type of org.

The Sabre Defence ones were marked as such after Tristar dumped AIA. SDI was the second distributor that was lined up. For reasons that may never be clearly known, SDI dropped them as well. Likely for the same reasons as Tristar however - "Delivery issues and inability to work with the supplier. Long periods of no contact at all, and actually un-cooperative."

I do not hold out any positive expectation about a response from the Hamms. I do have friends there however and will eventually get the whole story.
 
HeadDamage said:
So does anyone else have a review of these rifle to offer?
Click to expand...

I did just read on Jouster that they have passed British proof...Steve confirmed that that is a very positive indication of strength, quality and safety.

<They are currently being imported into UK, so if they originate from a country that has no reciprocal proof arangement with us then they must pass UK proof. They do; and I know that UK proof is quite stringent. I've handled but not shot both the 7.62x39 carbine and the 308 rifle. They are both nice, sturdy feeling rifles. The No4 Mk4 was tested in Shooting Sports magazine quite recently and got a good write up. I will admit, however, that nothing was mentioned about product back up. have I just added to the controversy? >

(from Steve R.) No, you've helped. If they passed muster from the proof house then they proved to be strong.
 
Last edited:
I don't know. When some of Lever's SKS rifle had barrels start foreward, what did they do? What is Lever's waranty? Do they have one? Marstar's Norinco warranty is public, and very specific. Marstar's AIA waranty is also public, and very specific.
If a firearm were to catastrophically fail as a result of a manufacturing defect, and the firearm is made outside of the country is there any way that the manufacturer can be held liable? Can a foreign company with no presence or assets in this country be sued? It would seem that the importer/distributor is going to be on the hook.
As far as surplus firearms are concerned, I think that the shooter is basically on his own - make the decision to shoot the thing, you are responsible for the consequences.
If its a new, commercial firearm, whether a $150 SKS or $900 AIA, there is the expectation that the firearm is fit for use.
For what its worth, I suspect it is easier to make contact with Norinco than with AIA.
 
tiriaq said:
I don't know. When some of Lever's SKS rifle had barrels start foreward, what did they do? What is Lever's waranty? Do they have one? Marstar's Norinco warranty is public, and very specific. Marstar's AIA waranty is also public, and very specific.
If a firearm were to catastrophically fail as a result of a manufacturing defect, and the firearm is made outside of the country is there any way that the manufacturer can be held liable? Can a foreign company with no presence or assets in this country be sued? It would seem that the importer/distributor is going to be on the hook.
As far as surplus firearms are concerned, I think that the shooter is basically on his own - make the decision to shoot the thing, you are responsible for the consequences.
If its a new, commercial firearm, whether a $150 SKS or $900 AIA, there is the expectation that the firearm is fit for use.
For what its worth, I suspect it is easier to make contact with Norinco than with AIA.
Click to expand...

As long as you can speak Mandarin Chinese...:D
 
cantom said:
I did get a response to my email, but not from the company...someone said they'd pass my message on to the company.
Click to expand...

I did not. Perhaps they are angry about my un -review. Someone from the accounting firm responded to you? Could I have their name please?

I shall turn up the heat.
 
tiriaq said:
I don't know. When some of Lever's SKS rifle had barrels start foreward, what did they do? What is Lever's waranty? Do they have one? Marstar's Norinco warranty is public, and very specific. Marstar's AIA waranty is also public, and very specific.
If a firearm were to catastrophically fail as a result of a manufacturing defect, and the firearm is made outside of the country is there any way that the manufacturer can be held liable? Can a foreign company with no presence or assets in this country be sued? It would seem that the importer/distributor is going to be on the hook.
.
Click to expand...

The reason I asked is becuase Norinco doesn' tseem like a company that woudl relaly care if one of thier guns blw the face off some shooter in Canada, I doubt you woudl be able to sue them

So what is different with these guys?

It seems a large number of Cnaadian shooters have decided that the risk is acceptable with Norinco products, and maybe other comapanies that would be untouchable legally.

(On the opther hand, i dont' know if Norinco as a 1800 # that automaticaly doles out $$ to victims, either):p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom