Talk:L98A1 Cadet GP Rifle

Article Cleanup

This article is not only uncited and factually incorrect in parts, but is poorly written and does not conform to Wikipedia's manual of style and other firearm pages. From the looks of it, it seems to have been based on hearsay and rumour from cadets and is in need of a rewrite. I have added the appropriate tags to the main page. I will edit it in due course. Matt641 (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Made some improvements, such as removing cadets' anecdotal stories, but this article poorer than I thought. Flagged for extensive cleanup. Matt641 (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The passage on "replacement" included the statment

"It has since been confirmed that the L98A1 will be replaced by the L85A2 firing in semi-automatic only, with replacements starting from early 2008. The L85A2 had it's first main usage by Cadets at the Easter Cadet Leadership Course at Nesscliff Army Training Camp in Shrewsbury, Shropshire during a three day exericse where BFA's where attached and automatic fire was permitted occasionally.

anyone spot the issue? Blackshod (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that's exacly what I mean - it's just poor in places. As far as I was aware, LAND had not confirmed this ever continuing rumour. Matt641 (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the new rifle, it is indeed single shot only, but the change lever is WELDED in place into Repitition. Also, i was on THAT leadership course, the weapons used were L95's borrowed off the local infantry barracks (The 3rd Batallion, Mercian regiment, if anyones interested), they WERE NOT the new replacement weapons. Rowan 78.144.36.222 (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Older

I fire the L98A1 on a regular basis, and would be happy to answer any questions within my knowledge. haz (user talk) 15:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I, too am a cadet, which fires the L98A1 Cadet CP rifle regularly. It would be of interest to note that the Cadet GP rifle can, indeed, be fitted with a SUSAT and with a flash supressor, similar to the SA80.

I am not sure about the claim that old L85A1s have been "converted" to L98A1s. Firstly, the MoD are refusing to repair borken L98A1s; instead they harvest the parts for the SA80 IW and LSW (parts for the SA80 are either no longer being produced, or are few and far between).

Second, the L85A1s are in the process of being converted to the L85A2. L85A2s are not new rifles, simply conversions of old rifles. It does not make sense that the L85A1s are being converted to Cadet GP rifles, when there are units in various combat theatres around the world, which, still, do not have the L85A2.

ATM, there is a worry about which weapon will replace the L98A1 when the SA80 family becomes obsolete. It is possible that the Cadets will, possibly, continue to use the L98A1, maybe using old L85s for spare parts, or fixing the SA80s in "single shot" and using them as Cadet weapons. It would be intersting to hear people's views on how this problem will resolve. Yasmar arabbat 21:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I've seen some (older looking) L98's there were definitely conversions. Fire selector stampings still present, L98 stampings literally stamped over old L85 stampings, making either stamp nearly unreadable! SanjayMortimer (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

None of the L98's are conversions. They were built with the same basic parts (money saving), but some parts are OBVIOUSLY completely different and not converted, look at the fore sight mounting bracket, there's no hole for gas parts, neither is there one in the front of the breech block assembily. Since the former is intergral to the barrel, it's obviously a completely different rifle. The R/A staplings on the rear are the simply because it's cheaper to re-use the dyes for the L95 for as much of the construction as possible, Ditto the L95 stampings on the TMH. Also, there is no worry about replacing the L98 when the L95 goes out of service. Firstly, the replacement for the L98, is the L98 A2, with the change lever welded to Repeat (It's a new rifle, but effectively an L95A2), and the L95 isnt being replaced for many years, so it's not really a problem. What IS a problem is the fact that our firing rate will triple, and ammunition is harder than ever to get our hands on!. Rowan 78.144.36.222 (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Just been cleaning up

I've changed the "training" section so it would make more sense (read more as a training aid than an informative article) cheers aye.

I've just added a weapons info box to this article, but i don't have all the info neccesary. Does anyone know the Production period, weight, barrel length, or number built of the GP? Also, has anyone got any photos of it with the iron sights? It would be more appropriate, given that this is the configuration of the vast majority of the rifles. Finally, sources would be handy, but i can't find anything trustworthy online.

Also, the bit about the iron sight index being affected by using the carrying handle as a handle doesn't seem to be overly accurate - see discussion at Talk:SA80 -- Lordandmaker 00:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, the part about training doesn't fit with my experiences. I never trained with a DP rifle, and every excercise was a blank firing one - what else could we do? Point and shout 'bang'? That's true for all the Cadets i've come accross, from CCF and ACF. -- Lordandmaker 12:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Likewise. I've never heard of a DP GP either (though one of our No8s had had its butt replaced with one from a DP weapon at some point in its history). "Point and shout bang" exercises did and no doubt still do happen, usually either to conserve stocks of blank or because the DS can't be arsed with the more stringent requirements in force when cadets are issued with any kind of rounds.

A lot of this article is bullshit in my experience - a common ocurrence in the Cadets where most people are isolated in little groups with widely-varying training and the turnover is huge as people grow up and move on. Misconceptions and individuals' pet theories quickly become passed around as fact. Of course I realise that I'm susceptible to this too, but as someone who instructed on this weapon every Tuesday for two years, shot with it (full-bore) every Wednesday for three, read the manuals avidly (sad git that I am) and wrote a training guide for future instructors, and subsequently was trained on the IW at Sandhurst during a GYC I hope I'll be believed when I assure you I'm not pulling *everything* I say out of my arse. I never like to base my argument on my credentials, but as Lordandmaker says there's little in the way of public documentation on this subject (a reference to the Beige Book wouldn't hurt, but as it's Restricted it can't be used as a proper source).

That little essay out of the way, I'm going to go and add my tuppence to the article. PeteVerdon 21:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, fair point on the 'point and shout bang' excercises. I remeber using 'log mortars' and 'log laws' when there weren't enough rifles to go round...

I remember seeing, fairly recently, a book on British rifles in an army surplus shop. I'll see if it's still there, and if we can reference it, presuming i can remember *which* shop it was in. Lordandmaker 03:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Test

I've just mentioned the skill at arms test. In my contingent this was always carried out by a regular NCO from the Cadet Training Team, but does anyone know whether this was actually required? It would make a certain amount of sense (I can think of more than one CCF officer who would have happily passed everyone however incompetent they were) but I can't remember reading anywhere that it was. PeteVerdon 22:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain the NCO from the CTT was needed, purely on the basis that my SAA test was postponed at CCF because the one we'd 'booked' had been double booked.

That said, i don't recall there being anyone special doing it when i went to the ACF, though, given that i'd already passed it with the CCF, there would be little cause for me to notice. I know a couple of people who went far enough in the ATC to have ended up organising SAA tests, so i'll check with them when i see them.Lordandmaker 03:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

In our CCF, the Officers are allowed to do the SAA Tests. We have been told that an annual test is manditory, is that correct? If so, this has not been enforced very well...

I've never heard of an annual test for cadets. The regular army (and presumably the TA) have the Annual Personal Weapon Test which somebody may be getting confused with. The APWT is more about actual shooting than drills, though I'm sure anyone who couldn't unload their weapon safely would be picked up. PeteVerdon 22:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Our CCF has a summer camp in Germany this year! As we can't take the Cadet GPs out of the country, we are borrowing some SA80s!!! I wonder if we'll need to pass a shooting safety test beforehand, or simply be tested on stripping and assemblying (as that is the only part which differs)?

Has anyone else been on a similar camp?

Yasmar arabbat 16:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

My CCF did a couple of camps in Germany after I'd left; like you they used IWs instead of GPs. As far as I know they didn't all do the IW/LSW test, though I'm pretty sure that by the book they should have done. Stripping the gas parts will be new to you if you haven't been trained on the LSW yet; there's one tricky bit (getting the gas rod through the hole above the breech) and one potentially-serious bit (putting the gas plug in with the detent pin pointing downwards so that it clicks into the gas channel in the block and can't be removed). Other than that, you also have to remember to use the correct hand on the cocking handle and holding open device; the by-the-book stoppage drills vary a bit too, but not enough that you won't be able to sort things out. Oh, and the "forward assist", but that's usually unnecessary anyway. PeteVerdon 16:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, i don't recall doing an annual test, or even a threat of one. Though there were rifle handling tests/modules in each of, or at least most of, the star levels.

It is a LEGAL REQUIREMENT for EVERY cadet to have taken a test on any weapon they intend to fire, within the last 6 months, this is not a point that can be waived, or ignored. It's in a book reffered to as the "little red book", from which all safety instructions for the cadets are taken. Failure to do this will land any officer in charge in an incredible amount of troble 78.144.36.222 (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The OC at my local cadet unit makes EVERYONE on a range day take part in a WHT at the start of the day. This ensures everyone is "current" with the weapons being used, irrespective of when they last performed the test. Cadets are also tested during their early training, but I do not recall them ever being tested again apart from on camps, field days and range days. And yes, they are supposed to be refreshed every six months (so all of our cadets are technically out of practice by the end of their first year!). Paddyohale (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

the L98A1

I am a cadet NCO and have been a cadet for quite a while now I have fired the L98A1 many times both in tranning and field craft and have found it an Okay weapon to fire. for inexperianced cadets the weapon jams quite often however this is usually the cadets fault, the GP is a good weapon in the sense of jams it does not jam if you clean and take care of it and if you do get a jam it is usually quite easy to clear. However I have found that most of the problems with the L98A1 are to do with the extended cocking handle assmbley and magazine release catch. I have found that these parts are normal the cause of much trouble. The cocking handle can get very stiff infact I have seen adults have trouble cocking an L98A1 before, I have also seen someone rip a cocking handle off their weapon because it was so stiff, this was by acciddent. The magazine cactch also over time losses it's "springgness" and will not click when you incert a magazine.

There has been so talk through the cadet force recently of the LSW being removed form cadet service due to the goverment not liking cadets with full automatic weapons? There is at the momet a rule of 1 LSW per company in a battalion. I have never fired the LSW and have only seen about 10 in my whole cadet life and I have only seen 1 being fired ever.

Losing the LSWs would be a shame. They're incredibly easy to shoot (much more so than a GP) - it feels almost like you're just putting the pointer on the target and poking a hole in it. Obviously having automatic is nice, though I've never been in a position to let off big bursts - if you're doing target shooting then two-round "bursts" are the way forward if you want to keep your rounds on target. I even have a little "LSW Champion Shot" trophy from 4-Div CADSAM '99 to prove I can do that :-) PeteVerdon 21:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Random stuff

Barrel length is 495mm, not 518mm - apparently they shaved a few mils off during production to improve the balance ... and then had to stick a whacking great weight on the end when that one went tits-up...

Re muzzle velocity: simple maths - shorter barrel, different time/pressure curve, lower muzzle velocity. LSW chronos at about 970m/s according to John Hobbis Harris' SAA+Shooting Pocketbook, no way will the L98 get near that with a 10cm shorter barrel.

Production dates - most/all L98s I've come across are serialled as 1987 batch (year is given by the first two digits of serial number, eg. UE87Axxxx would indicate 1987, UE88Axxxx 1988 production, etc).

BFA - won't fit for the same reason bayonets won't fit (in theory!).

For the record, I'm an ATC SNCO.

80.41.106.171 22:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd disagree with you on the velocity issue. The main reason for the velocity disparity between the L98 and the L85/86 is the lack of gas port on the barrel. I've had a .223 cut from 22" to 16" (559mm to 406mm, difference of 153mm) and only dropped 220fps off my chrono'ed velocity. I'll try and take a chrony to an L98 when i next have one to hand. SanjayMortimer (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The GP

who ever said the L98A1 is bolt action is a fool who doesn't know thier riles. The Gp has a cocking handle not a bolt. Therefore it can not be a bolt action rifle. Next time you decide to write about something may I suggest that you research very carefully and if you did research it change the source you research ftom!!!!

Incorrect, L98 does indeed have a bolt, the fact that it is tucked away and obscured may have lead you to incorrectly presume it doesn't have one. You seem to confused as to the differences between a bolt and a bolt handle. The L98 does not have a conventional bolt handle, instead the bolt is held in a bolt carrier assembly which slides along guide rods, the cocking handle is attached to the bolt carrier via the cocking linkage. SanjayMortimer (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Problems

Added this section based on my experience with the L98 while an ATC Cadet and NCO. Can't find any online examples myself, so if it counts as OR please feel free to remove or source. MartinMcCann 21:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"As the L98 is a modification of a service rifle, its size makes the rifle unsuitable for use by some cadets as they have smaller body frames and lower strength." Removed this since it isnt true, one of the reasons the L98 was adopted by cadets is because it's so small and compact it's easy to use by allmost any build of cadet. 78.144.113.92 (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"The pin securing the cocking handle to its connecting rod is also notoriously weak, often breaking during vigorous and prolonged use." 78.144.113.92 (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Changed To "vigorous and prolonged", normal use should NOT break this pin

pictures

Added a Picture or two please comment on them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noltyboy (talk • contribs) 12:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

MISCONCEPTIONS

This article was obviously written by a cadet and so are some of the comments

Lets clear things up, firstly, someone claims there is no such thing as a DP(Drill Purpose) GP rifle, incorrect, every det has at least 2 or 3 DP rifles to hand, they are marked as such in white paint have the barrel cut out and the welded up firing pin, these weapons are needed as live weapons are no longer permited to be stored in buildings that do not have solid brick walls(the old fashioned wooden cadet huts).

Second, cadets have always been allowed to use automatic weapons such as the old Bren or the current issue LSW, the only reason for the shortage of LSW is due to a shortage in the regular forces, cadet issue LSW weapons having had far less use rounds wise than service weapons, plus SUSATS aint cheap!

Third, the original production run of L98 rifles were converted versions of L85A1 rifles, no more have been made since, you can tell this from the remaining hole and "R" "A" markings where the change lever would have been located, many cadet weapons have L98 markings stamped over L85A1 markings, only the hanguard was specialy marked as a L98 component due to the oil bottle clip inside the top cover, also, there will never be an "A2" version of this weapon, the modifications to rifle 5.56 were made purely to enhance the functioning of the gas system and bolt, the gas parts were changed and the cocking handle improved to help cocking and the "forward assist" drill if needed, the L98 needs no such modification as it already has a bloody great big cocking handle to push on in the event of the bolt failing to close, may I also add that the L98 does not take a blank firing adaptor or flash hider(a factory fitted component), the BFA is not needed and will not fit the muzzle any way as it lacks the NATO standard 22mm flash hider for it to fit on, the BFA is designed to bottle neck escaping gas at the muzzle and provide sufficiant pressure to operate the gas parts of a L85A2, it is not considered to be a safety feature, the L98 has no gas parts. There is also no such thing as an "Emergency Battle Sight" on a L98 rear sight, the flip sight has a "battle setting" of 300 in the down setting and adjustable sights when you flip the leaf sight up, the "Emergency Battle Sights" are fitted on top of a SUSAT, they resemble the sights from a hand gun or SMG and consist of a ghost ring and front sight blade, these sights are very crude and will only put the rounds down range in roughly the right direction, no one ever uses them as it is far easier to just point shoot the weapon at close range , plus I have never seen a broken SUSAT

Rant over

Nonsense

This will create a weapon which can produce tighter groupings (without the need to cock after each shot). This sentence is nonsense. Firing a set of rounds quickly will not provide a tighter grouping. Every shot must be correctly aimed in semi-automatic mode. A "good shot" will achieve a tight grouping regardless (or how did those people manage it with the Lee Enfield .303?). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TinyMark (talk • contribs) 21:18, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

The .303 and it's .22 conversion are a more accurate rifle. The Semi-automatic nature of the L98A2 would make it more accurate for most people over the A1, as coking the rifle is diffucult to achieve without changing your posture, especially for cadets. It could also be argued that thr reduced kick because of the gas parts would have an influence on frouping, with he A1 having a higher muzzle velocity. PiP 00:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Making a rifle semi-automatic does not make it more accurate, the rifle may be easier for the shooter to fire more accurately. The phrase "This will create a weapon which can produce tighter groupings" is poor. The weapon is not producing tighter groups, it is helping the shooter use it more precisely. SanjayMortimer (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

WHT

The air cadets must now pass a weapons handling test every 6 months to fire either the .22 or the L98, is this also true in the Army and Sea cadets? PiP 00:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, a WHT must have been passed in the last 6 months for a cadet to be able to fire the L98 rifle. --86.140.197.29 22:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

In my county, cadets have to have passed a WHT at least 48hrs prior to firing any weapon(82.34.146.59 (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC))

ATC and blanks?

"Air cadets are no longer allowed to perform blank firing excersices, as of 2005."

ACP45B (NATO unclassified, though not available in the public domain) states that the air cadets are forbidden to fire blank rounds. I remember reading that when I was studying for my Staff Cadet interview ~1999. Was this just a reminder from wing with increased numbers of cadets going on the army cadet leadership course where you can fire blanks? I don't think it represents a change in policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.5.173.29 (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This is wrong. I'm an RAD CCF cadet and we are allowed to fire blanks. --Imagine Wizard (talk • contribs • count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 18:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

What's that got to do with the ATC?Captain Seafort (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Page merge with SA80

This is a variant of the L85A1/A2 rifle. The page should be merged. Koalorka (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I know it is a variant but there is enough information to warrant a separate article. This can then be summarised in the SA80 article per WP:SUMMARY. Whilst it may be a variant, it is a completely different rifle to the SA80. Woody (talk) 09:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, much as the M16 and M4 are different "versions" they are certainly different enough to warrant a seperate artical, as is this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.113.92 (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've given the article a fairly comprehensive cleanup and removed some irrelevant or innacurate sections. If anyone has a problem with this then they can contact me on my talk page.ANHL (talk) 12:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Merger With L98A2

It was decided that the L98 A2 did not need a page of its own, when it is finally rolled out to all counties perhaps this page could be renamed, 2 versions of effectively the same rifle did not warrant 2 seperate pages. This is however not true of the L98 and L98, and so merging with the SA80 page has not taken place. Teta (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Change to 'L98 Cadet rifles"?

Since this page now covers both the A1 and A2, shouldn't it be renamed?ANHL (talk) 08:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I like that idea. Support. Malpass93 (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The page deals specifically with the L98A1, with a brief section on the L98A2, which will eventually replace it. Renaming it, i assume would title it "L98, Cadet GP Rifle", this name however would be incorrect, since "Cadet GP Rifle" refers to the rifle IN SERVICE at the time, L98 refers to a family of rifles. Since the L98A1 is the CURRENT GP, and the L98A2 WILL BE the GP, L98 Cadet GP Rifle, is incorrect. It would be much like renaming SA80 to SA80 L85 IW. L85 IW refers to a specific weapon, whilst SA80 is a family of weapons

I suggest the name remains as it is. Teta (talk) 12:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

We're going to have to do something, either make a new page for L98A2 or have this page for both rifles; much like how the SA80 page covers all variants. How about a single pagem 'L98 Cadet Rifles'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANHL (talk • contribs) 11:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects, I will change the page to 'L98 Cadet Rifles' in a couple of days.ANHL (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

L98A2

There was a load of uncited text on here about this proposed weapon, adorned with which was eventually deleted as no references were forthcoming. I would be nice to have some VERIFIED info on this project, but would people please stop adding uncited stuff that I have to say comes across as at best original research or speculation. Highfield1730 (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Everything you removed came to pass, your view that it original research or speculation is just the tiresome unimaginative mantra of all tiresome unimaginative editors on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.106.161 (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Well that's going to be the nature of it. Information on deployment is restricted and will never be published on the interwebs. The weapon is being deployed this month to my unit, but you can only take my word for it because I can't scan in restricted documentation to confirm it. Post deployment it is highly unlikely that there will be a verifyable online source to say when the weapon was deployed, it will simply say 'mid 2009' and be unsourced. One of the big weaknesses of wikipedia due to its nature will always be that for cases such as this you can't verify true information, despite the fact that hundreds of ACF staff have firsthand knowledge.

Not a critisism per se, just an observation. --El Rog 09:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Civilian use?

If this rifle is a single-shot bolt-action weapon, then it is presumably legal for civilian ownership (assuming you have the appropriate FAC). As such, is it possiblt for a civilian to buy one, or is their availability restricted beyond what would normally be required by law? 86.179.239.198 (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)