The Sterling HR81 was designed to be a military trainer

[45flint]

I got a message from a friend of the designer Roy Hutchinson and he said.

“They (Sterling) originally asked him to design an air rifle with the specific purpose as a military training weapon. It was the company that insisted on a bolt action not Roy.”

Makes perfect sense now why Sterling Arms, a military arms manufacturer got into air rifles. They were probably trying for a military contract? If you look at the orginal HR81 the design with bolt action and integrated rear sight, it looks a bit more like a staid military rifle than air rifles of the time? Also any loss of efficiency by the bolt configuration would be immaterial for a trainer.

New to the party not sure if this is old news?

[Jerry Cornelius]

IIRC Sterling were a funny outfit in the 1980s so I suppose it’s possible they might have thought there was a market. I can’t imagine what it would have been though, our cadets were using lee Enfield number 8s, if not number 4s and SLRs. Who’d want an air rifle instead?

I think it’s more likely the company wanted to claim some sort of military connection with the gun as a marketing tool for the civilian market. It’s an obvious route given their background

[AC all day]

It wasn't just Sterling viaing for a military contract.... Saxby and Palmer also went down that route in the 80s with a. 223 cartridge. It was never released as an airgun venture but was certainly produced for the ministry. I have samples of the TAC version and servo type plus drawings, in a last throw at Airmunitions / Crown, Saxby went to the Police as training ammunition in various calibers Inc 12g and 40mm!!

[Geezer]

By contrast, Sterling’s ex-boss, James Edmiston, says in his book (p76) that Roy came to them with the design, which already included the bolt action.

[45flint]

By contrast, Sterling’s ex-boss, James Edmiston, says in his book (p76) that Roy came to them with the design, which already included the bolt action.

Does he in his book address any thought of a military trainer? Not sure the boss of a failed company would necessarily honestly address its failures? Curious the name of the book?

[Jerry Cornelius]

Does he in his book address any thought of a military trainer? Not sure the boss of a failed company would necessarily honestly address its failures? Curious the name of the book?

I’d take anything anyone says about Sterling Arms with a large pinch of salt myself. It was a murky affair

[greenwayjames]

I’d take anything anyone says about Sterling Arms with a large pinch of salt myself. It was a murky affair

Murky affair is an apt description of the amount of deception about on all sides at the time. Once politicians get involved truth goes out of the window.


"Not sure the boss of a failed company would necessarily honestly address its failures? "

He may not have had any choice in the matter

[Muskett]

I think the Air Cadets were looking for a replacement for the BSA Buccaneer at the time. Not sure what happened there though.
Sterling Arms sales of their SMG were dwindling, and they wanted something to sell, or call it a day. Frankly, it had been devoid of R&D and imagination for years. Not sure what they do now.

Went bust 1988, now a Dormant Company.

[Geezer]

Does he in his book address any thought of a military trainer? Not sure the boss of a failed company would necessarily honestly address its failures? Curious the name of the book?

Nope. It’s called “The Sterling Years”.

[Hsing-ee]

It's absolutely NOT a military trainer as it has ordinary open sights and all British and American service rifles since the 1930s have had aperture sights, so unless they were 'aiming' at sales in the Soviet Union they were on a hiding to nothing.

If the trainer cannot duplicate the sight picture of the service arm, it is a total waste of time.

The bolt action was there as it allows a fixed barrel - at the time it was believed that break-barrels lacked sufficient lock-up consistency to allow confident use of a scope and that tap-loaders were not as accurate as they should be. It's a very small bolt action and has nothing in common with even a .22 rimfire bolt action, never mind a 7.62 mm bolt action rifle which would only be a designated marksman or sniper rifle in the modern military.

The Sterling was an interesting experiment, but the inefficiencies of the design, the awful balance and the predictably underdeveloped trigger had it sticking to the shelves like a Pontiac Aztek. The later Park rifle by the same designer was a much closer near-miss in terms of technology but was trampled into the mud by the wave of PCPs that arrived at the same time.

The BSA Buccaneer was actually a good match to the British Army's much maligned bullpup SA80 series rifle, with the balance in the middle but lighter weight so the youngers could handle it, and with peep sights like the SA80 version for the second and third line troops - like Cadet forces and cooks.

[Geezer]

It's absolutely NOT a military trainer as it has ordinary open sights and all British and American service rifles since the 1930s have had aperture sights, so unless they were 'aiming' at sales in the Soviet Union they were on a hiding to nothing.

If the trainer cannot duplicate the sight picture of the service arm, it is a total waste of time.

The bolt action was there as it allows a fixed barrel - at the time it was believed that break-barrels lacked sufficient lock-up consistency to allow confident use of a scope and that tap-loaders were not as accurate as they should be. It's a very small bolt action and has nothing in common with even a .22 rimfire bolt action, never mind a 7.62 mm bolt action rifle which would only be a designated marksman or sniper rifle in the modern military.

The Sterling was an interesting experiment, but the inefficiencies of the design, the awful balance and the predictably underdeveloped trigger had it sticking to the shelves like a Pontiac Aztek. The later Park rifle by the same designer was a much closer near-miss in terms of technology but was trampled into the mud by the wave of PCPs that arrived at the same time.

The BSA Buccaneer was actually a good match to the British Army's much maligned bullpup SA80 series rifle, with the balance in the middle but lighter weight so the youngers could handle it, and with peep sights like the SA80 version for the second and third line troops - like Cadet forces and cooks.

This is all true, except that the SA80 is cumbersomely rear-heavy, esp with a full mag. It’s much maligned for a reason, because it’s, er, malignant. Especially in its original form.

Also I can not recall any suggestion at the time that the HR81 was intended as a trainer. All the adverts and write-ups went on about a fixed barrel with the pellet loaded directly into the barrel rather than via a tap, seen as an advantage that would give greater accuracy and more consistent alignment with a scope, making it ideal for hunting or the then new sport of FT.

[Hsing-ee]

This is all true, except that the SA80 is cumbersomely rear-heavy, esp with a full mag. It’s much maligned for a reason, because it’s, er, malignant. Especially in its original form.

Also I can not recall any suggestion at the time that the HR81 was intended as a trainer. All the adverts and write-ups went on about a fixed barrel with the pellet loaded directly into the barrel rather than via a tap, seen as an advantage that would give greater accuracy and more consistent alignment with a scope, making it ideal for hunting or the then new sport of FT.

The H&K refit on the SA80, basically a new rifle, is supposed to at least work.

The bolt-action mechanism I think was advertised to 'size' each pellet as it went into the barrel. Pellet sizers were a thing back then. Much like a thumb pushing a pellet into the barrel of a break-barrel rifle I suppose. I think they claimed 2" groups at 45 yards or something which was impressive for the pellets of the time.

I really wanted the HR81 to work but it was a great disappointment.

I think I read old Mr Weihrauch was impressed with the build quality but not with the design, which is basically a Benjamin pump-up rifle and a Webley Service Mk II thrown into a bucket with a Relum Tornado. Yikes.

Excellent bluing!

[Geezer]

The H&K refit on the SA80, basically a new rifle, is supposed to at least work.

The bolt-action mechanism I think was advertised to 'size' each pellet as it went into the barrel. Pellet sizers were a thing back then. Much like a thumb pushing a pellet into the barrel of a break-barrel rifle I suppose. I think they claimed 2" groups at 45 yards or something which was impressive for the pellets of the time.

I really wanted the HR81 to work but it was a great disappointment.

I think I read old Mr Weihrauch was impressed with the build quality but not with the design, which is basically a Benjamin pump-up rifle and a Webley Service Mk II thrown into a bucket with a Relum Tornado. Yikes.

Excellent bluing!

Agree with all that on the Sterling.

The H&K redesign/rebuild (L85A2) did sort the reliability issues, and the recent A3 is a minor improvement, but both do very little to address the fundamental ergonomic shortcomings.

In my experience, the SA80 has the poorest ergo’s of any military bullpup. Anything from the 1940s EM2 through the AUG, FAMAS, VHS, Tavor etc are better.

[eyebull]

Agree with all that on the Sterling.

The H&K redesign/rebuild (L85A2) did sort the reliability issues, and the recent A3 is a minor improvement, but both do very little to address the fundamental ergonomic shortcomings.

In my experience, the SA80 has the poorest ergo’s of any military bullpup. Anything from the 1940s EM2 through the AUG, FAMAS, VHS, Tavor etc are better.

Just thinking about the SA80 sets a little vein throbbing in my temple. We could have just bought a joblot of M4s off the shelf for gods sake.

[pajj]

In summary then: The HR81 is to air rifles what the SA80 is to military rifles.