Sterling HR rifles

[Powderfinger]

I have read James Edmiston's books and agree with his conclusions about the government wanting to get rid of independent arms makers. It's easy to forget that the 1980s government seemed to want everything to become part of BAe (incongruously including Leyland Cars).

It also must have been embarrassing for the government to end up issuing SA80s with great fanfare when they were really a shoddily bullpupped AR18.

His stories about shortsightedness of the gun trade also rings true.

He was told by someone prominent in the guntrade that "There is no future in underlever air rifles" in about 1981. Weihrauch disagreed...

There's also a great story about a dispute over firearm rifle barrels with a well-known maker.

Sterling HRs are interesting but a compromised design: the bolt action, crackle finish parts, dated internals and plain stock indicate intention to make a military trainer. But if so, why give the action and barrel a high-quality blacking instead of a crackle or parkerised barrel and action?

[Hsing-ee]

I can recall reading an account about the prototype HR81 doing 22ft lbs in initial tests and having to be tuned down to legal limits, This was years ago, Can't recall where I read it!!

I know Roy was a member on here and posted occasionally..


John

The only way you’d get 22 fpe out of it is if you put petrol in the comp chamber.

[johnbaz]

The only way you’d get 22 fpe out of it is if you put petrol in the comp chamber.

I can only quote what I read although I can't even recall where I read it, It was so long ago!!

john

[Hsing-ee]

I can only quote what I read although I can't even recall where I read it, It was so long ago!!

john

If I was marketing a new British rifle to compete with the HW80 I’d make it out to be a cannon as well!

[ogilkes]

I have had 6 of them 5 in .177 4 of them boxed and brand new. all of them made by Sterling. all of them bought 1991-92

Cannot match that. I have a boxed 81 in .22 and a deluxe also in .22. Finally a Benjamin 83 in .177 with the Williams peep sight, a huge improvement over that clunky horror Sterling put on them. As has been said they are pretty mediocre, and you can see how Roy Hutchinson was moving slowly towards something interesting, this one, then the Park HR81, and then? He had a series of unused prototypes before he gave up the business and went on to design fishing kit.

They are a British classic, beautiful, worthy of ownership, but please, take the TX 200 out to shoot with.

[ogilkes]

Interesting info on the .177”s above, thanks, guys.

I doubt Sterling were ever in contention to make AR15s. The design was then owned by Colt, and only licensed around that time to Diemaco (now Colt Canada).

Sterling did make AR18s and AR180s, but mostly for the civilian market, from 1979-85. A completely different design from the AR15.

Sterling’s then owner, James Edmiston, maintained that Sterling was driven out of business by the government on spurious accusations of violating export rules to Iraq. Maybe. He also claims that the HR81 was awesome.

The British Government in the 20th Century did have a bit of an institutional prejudice against private-sector gun makers, on the not completely unreasonable basis that things designed and made at the Royal Small Arms Factory were cheaper than buying something similar from the private sector. But they tended to freeze then out, not actively attack them.

Another view is that military/LE sales of the Sterling SMG dwindled, especially with the arrival on the market of the MP5 (Edmiston also maintains that the Sterling was better than the MP5), sales of the civilian/LE Mk4, Mk6, and Mk7 Sterlings did not take off, nor did sales of the AR18 variants, and nor did sales of the Sterling-branded (but German designed, Italian made) Sterling .38/357” revolver. All of which are facts.

I don’t know if Sterling made their own .223” or .22” airgun barrels. But the story above sounds questionable.

Sterling did actually have a licence from Armalight for the AR15, but the US government never approved the issue of the sample guns requested so it went nowhere. there was a later company called Sterling Northolt which also had such permission but Plod would not give them a RFD licence, they did not like James Edmiston apparently.

[Shed tuner]

The only way you’d get 22 fpe out of it is if you put petrol in the comp chamber.

agreed....

[Hsing-ee]

.... sales of the Sterling SMG dwindled, especially with the arrival on the market of the MP5 (Edmiston also maintains that the Sterling was better than the MP5)

How was it better than the locked-bolt MP5? Cheaper? Easier to fire prone? Manufactured in his factory?

[Geezer]

How was it better than the locked-bolt MP5? Cheaper? Easier to fire prone? Manufactured in his factory?

Indeed - side mag is an extra point of contact for control (no it isn’t, doing that causes feed failures), easier prone (yes, but...), and it’s “complicated bolt arrangement [which] makes the weapon very sensitive to the ingress of sand, mud, and other dirt. Only in parade ground conditions can the MP-5 be relied upon to function consistently”. It was a “lousy design” but well marketed and unfairly procured.

I love his bio on the book, saying he “considers himself a product of the so-called working class - whatever that may mean”. He went to prep school at the Dragon (£10,000 per term now), big school at Rugby (£12,000+ a term), where his father had been a pupil, and then Oxford University. He was a junior officer in the HAC, and bought both a house in Chelsea and Sterling Armaments in his 20s.

So take your choice. Was he a dynamic individualistic entrepreneur thwarted by the lethargy and plotting of the Establishment, or a rich kid who thought it would be fun to own a machine-gun factory, without realising that its core product was obsolescent? Or a bit of both?

[Muskett]

The Sterling air rifle was a flop because it wasn't very good. No one wanted another rifle with a poor trigger. No one in the UK was listening to the shooters. Nor did they understand the increasing buying power of the consumers.

Gun making in the UK had been starved of investment and innovation through the 60's and 70's. High taxation, lack of leadership and little innovation were the main three. Reliance on old machinery was normal. Just about sums up the decline of British manufacturing.

The Sterling submachine gun was a field proven weapon and excellent. Sold well because it was good; well I liked the ones I shot. Sadly, due to taxation and other high costs it barely made a profit. Not enough to finance it being taken further or to find any future. A 10mm one would have been interesting, and a closed bolt new design might have made an impression. With a little imagination it could have gone places.
When you really need to be flat its the gun to have.
Less clunky and less heavy than an Uzi. A lot better made than the Grease Gun. MP40's aren't that groovy for real.

MP5's are accurate, but rattle and can jam. I really want to love them, but every time I've used one I've been disappointed because they don't feel solid enough. Maybe I'd need to own one.

[Maple]

I think they must have been very inconsistent re power. I showed interest in one in a gunshop several years ago and the owner said NO I can't sell that to you it's doing 17 ft lbs. He said he was waiting for his repairer to get it down below 12 and to make sure it stayed below.

[Dutch]

Great history lesson, thnx guys. I was lucky enough to find a Sterling HR81 cal. 22 with checkered walnut stock at Kempton in 2018. Lovely rifle, mostly as a decor piece: stunning finish, the bolt mechanism, the walnut stock and the subtle crackle finish on front end assembly. I wanted to get used to the lousy heavy trigger and the enormous twang when it pops but still haven't. The original sights are not world class for the period, but certainly not too bad and sturdy construction. Someone mentioned trigger & spring assembly can be tuned, might look into that further as it is a lovely rifle to handle.

[les allam]

I don't want to be seen bashing the hr81, but they are an unpleasant gun to shoot with. A fellow member of my club had one, it was doing 4 ftlbs, he replaced the main spring put new seals in and relubed the gun.
It then gave about 6 ftlbs.
My one does about 5-6 ftlbs but feels like 15 ftlbs .
Les..

[Hsing-ee]

I don't want to be seen bashing the hr81, but they are an unpleasant gun to shoot with. A fellow member of my club had one, it was doing 4 ftlbs, he replaced the main spring put new seals in and relubed the gun.
It then gave about 6 ftlbs.
My one does about 5-6 ftlbs but feels like 15 ftlbs .
Les..

Inefficient guns tend to go 'brangggg!' and punch the shooter, while the efficient guns just go 'pop' and punch the target.

[Geezer]

The Sterling air rifle was a flop because it wasn't very good. No one wanted another rifle with a poor trigger. No one in the UK was listening to the shooters. Nor did they understand the increasing buying power of the consumers.

Gun making in the UK had been starved of investment and innovation through the 60's and 70's. High taxation, lack of leadership and little innovation were the main three. Reliance on old machinery was normal. Just about sums up the decline of British manufacturing.

The Sterling submachine gun was a field proven weapon and excellent. Sold well because it was good; well I liked the ones I shot. Sadly, due to taxation and other high costs it barely made a profit. Not enough to finance it being taken further or to find any future. A 10mm one would have been interesting, and a closed bolt new design might have made an impression. With a little imagination it could have gone places.
When you really need to be flat its the gun to have.
Less clunky and less heavy than an Uzi. A lot better made than the Grease Gun. MP40's aren't that groovy for real.

MP5's are accurate, but rattle and can jam. I really want to love them, but every time I've used one I've been disappointed because they don't feel solid enough. Maybe I'd need to own one.

I’ll disagree with you on the MP5. It’s a really good SMG, especially in the CQB/HR role that became the SMG’s niche after the introduction of assault rifles. Like all HKs of its variety, it has some issues, but it gets the job done.

(As you mentioned 10mm, the short-lived MP5/10 was particularly impressive when I shot it.)

I will completely agree with you on the Sterling “Small Metal Gun”. Slightly over-engineered (stock, mag follower), but an absolutely excellent SMG for the WW2/pre-assault rifle Cold War era. Up there with the Uzi (which, like you, I think is overrated), the Beretta M12, the Swedish M45, the PPS43, and the much-overlooked Star Z62 and successors.

Thing is, once you have assault rifles and take the SMG out of the infantry section, the requirements for SMGs change. You end up, depending on role/requirement, with a combination of some or all of short assault rifles (very good for overt CP duties), accurate SMGs for CT/HR, and compact to small SMGs for non-infantry personal defence, and covert stuff, some of which are actually replacements for pistols rather than for long guns (eg PM63, Skorpions).

I also completely agree with you on the HR air rifle, as you may have gathered. My only nuance was that while they clearly didn’t listen to real enthusiasts (all HW/FWB users at the time), the wider market might actually have thought that a combination of fixed barrel, British-made, new, etc sounded just right - you know, the kind of people who bought Airsporters.