The Firearms Forum banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Hi!

Here is a rifle which was manufactured by Interarms, UK.


This rifle is said to be a trial prototype of training rifle for cadet of Royal Military Academy.
(Actually, British Army adopted the L98A1 Rifle which is a training-purpose variant of L85A1.)

On the left side of receiver of this rifle, there is a marking of manufacturer's address “INTERARMS UK LTD, MANCHESTER, ENGLAND”.


There is also a marking of the model name “RIFLE MOD EX CAL 5.56” on the receiver.


Serial No. is marked as 0004.

Its overall design looks like AR-15 rifles.

Stock is retractable design like XM177 and M4 Carbine.




Pistol grip looks like that of L1A1 rifle.


Magazine capacity seems to be 10 rounds.


The magazine itself is made of Colt's 20-round magazine of M16 assault rifle.

There seems to be no gas-cylinder nor gas-tube like AR-15 rifles.
So, I think it is not automatic but manual operated.

I am wondering whether this rifle was really made for the trial of cadet rifle…

Does anyone have information about this rifle??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,086 Posts
Hi!

Here is a rifle which was manufactured by Interarms, UK.


This rifle is said to be a trial prototype of training rifle for cadet of Royal Military Academy.
(Actually, British Army adopted the L98A1 Rifle which is a training-purpose variant of L85A1.)

On the left side of receiver of this rifle, there is a marking of maker's address “INTERARMS UK LTD, MANCHESTER, ENGLAND”.


There is also a marking of the model name “RIFLE MOD EX CAL 5.56” on the receiver.


Serial No. is marked as 0004.

Its overall design looks like AR-15 rifles.

Stock is retractable design like XM177 and M4 Carbine.




Pistol grip looks like that of L1A1 rifle.


Magazine capacity seems to be 10 rounds.


The magazine itself is made of Colt's 20-round magazine of M16 assault rifle.

There seems to be no gas-cylinder nor gas-tube like AR-15 rifles.
So, I think it is not automatic but manual operated.

I am wondering whether this rifle was really made for the trial of cadet rifle…

Does anyone have information about this rifle??
I don't have any solid info on it, but that upper receiver looks a lot like a modified version of a Sterling or Sten design. Its an interesting piece for sure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I don't have any solid info on it, but that upper receiver looks a lot like a modified version of a Sterling or Sten design. Its an interesting piece for sure.
Thank you for your cooperation! As you say, the upper receiver looks like a modified version of Sterling or Sten design. Surprisingly, some sand-cut grooves can also be seen like L1A1 or Sterling on the surface of the bolt carrier!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,561 Posts
I've never seen anything like that before, very interesting rifle!
 
  • Like
Reactions: jim brady

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,874 Posts
Magazine capacity seems to be 10 rounds.
Does anyone have information about this rifle??
Never seen this before, and I have no information, but that is one ugly rifle. Way out of proportion, stubby wooden stock, and nothing about it signifies fine craftsmanship.

I hate to be down on the Brits, but seriously, they need to go back to the drawing board.

I can accept the fact that it is manually operated, considering that it is for training boys, but why so ugly?

Oh, well, nobody is going to steal one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,487 Posts
What an odd (unique) rifle!. I've never seen anything like it. It seems to be a cross-breed of an Armalite, a Sten and an FN. With the chamber pressures of the 5.56mm it couldn't possibly be a blow-back operated action. It is certainly a different breed-of-cat. Good luck getting information on this one - I've never heard of (much less seen one) these rifles. I like it. Nice post.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,086 Posts
Never seen this before, and I have no information, but that is one ugly rifle. Way out of proportion, stubby wooden stock, and nothing about it signifies fine craftsmanship.

I hate to be down on the Brits, but seriously, they need to go back to the drawing board.

I can accept the fact that it is manually operated, considering that it is for training boys, but why so ugly?

Oh, well, nobody is going to steal one.
He did say it was a prototype. Typically prototypes are not as pretty as the final design, which this evidently did not make it to being one. Either way, ugly or not, you cannot deny that it is interesting.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top