L39 article

[mrclark303]

A nice article on the L39 below, nothing most of us folks don't know already, but a well written and concise article nonetheless.

It's the sort of article that brings new people into our orbit, to appreciate our beloved breed and contract Enfielditis!



Enfield L39A1 Self-Loading Rifle: From Target to Tactical - RifleShooter

[Brian Dick]

Sorry to be a smart *** but since when is the L39A1 a self-loading rifle? I get immediately dubious of these articles when they can't even get the type of rifle correct in the bloody title.

[Surpmil]

The author: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=B07XKW1T7...alEnabled=true

[Alan de Enfield]

It may be useful to have Peter Laidler's 'notes' on the L39
Written many years ago.

(I wonder if the AI got some of its information from this ?)


L39 owners weekend reading............
________________________________________
I was having a browse through the Small Arms Committee minutes relating to the L39A1 rifle the other day and found some bits and pieces that I think I ought to pass on. Including some things that I never realized either!

The first bit is that contrary to what I firmly believed, that the rifles were built up to new rifle specification from ‘new’ components (including new barrels obviously) including bodies but the committee minutes state ‘….rifles converted from the Rifle No4 Mk1/2 and 2’ too. I was under the impression from the Armourers technical blurb that all L39’s were made ‘as new’. But this is clearly not so because Mk1/2 type L39’s will exist.

This COULD mean that L39’s were made from brand new, unused ex c.1955 Fazakerley bodies. It could also include USED ex .303” Mk2 bodies. It could also Mk2/1 rifles unbreeched and rebarrelled at the point of conversion to L39 at Enfield and it COULD include bodies converted to Mk1/2 but UNUSED since conversion at Fazakerley in the late 40’s to mid 50’s. However, no mention is made of Mk1/3 bodies.

Paragraph 3 of the build standard states that the rifles will be fitted with the stock butt of the No4 rifle, ‘….identical except that a small recess is machined under the knuckle to hold spare foresight blades in a suitable container. There you have it. The correct, ‘as-issue’ butt is that of the No4, modified as detailed above. But (if you’ll excuse the pun), more later….!

Para 8 of the build standard also states that the magazine will be the standard .303” magazine that will be used as a loading platform. It goes on to state that the rifle may be fitted with a 10 round 7.62mm magazine at the users request

Now here’s a surprise…….. Para 20 states that certain rifles are fitted with a special factory size 00 bolt head. ‘……..at the factory only, it is used when assembly tolerances require a smaller head than a ‘0’. The bolt head is special and is not provisioned as a spare’. There’s a thing to get your know-it-all mates coughing into their beer!

Instruction 1 to the committee says that the first 50 EX type rifles (or should this be XL rifles?) were produced and procured with trigger pressures set to the SERVICE limits of 1st - 3 to 4 lbs and 2nd – 5 to 6.5 lbs. But subsequent series production is to be set at 1st - 2.5 to 3.5 lbs and 2nd – 4 to 5.5lbs pull. To cater for this permissible adjustment, the face of the sear can be adjusted to a maximum angle of 80 degrees ( to decrease the sear load pressure). Additionally, magazine catches with an additional sear spring location recess BELOW the original will be provided or may be encountered. There, that’s the answer if you have one on yours!

Now, in conjunction with the civilian target shooting world and the Army Rifle Association, the Light Weapon Defect and Modification Committee has agreed that build standard of the L39 rifle may be altered to include the following:
A commercial SLING SWIVEL can be fitted in place of the front trigger guard screw
A commercial STOCK FORE-END can be fitted using commercially or UK Military recognized practice to ensure the correct bedding and assembly of the barrel and body
STOCK BUTT can be replaced with the service No5, No8, No4 variants and a commercial ‘monte-carlo type with suitable face pieces (I think they mean cheek rests…..) dependent on the competitors competitive situation (type of competition rules ?)
TUNNEL FORESIGHTS of the PH FS-22A or any similar trade pattern WITH THE CORRECT DOVETAIL ARRANGEMENT. Can be used.
REARSIGHT: Any make of sight, similar to the PH 5C or AJP 4/47 which can be readily adapted can be used providing that it does so without resorting to any alteration of any kind to the rifle.

The inspection of any altered or modified L39 rifle will be undertaken by the periodic REME Armourers inspection which we still call the PRE. They will take into account the competitive nature of the weapon and their inspection will concern only the safety and mechanical condition. Any weapon that includes any deviation from the build standard will be returned to that standard prior to disposal or return to Ordnance.

Well, there it is! What is quite interesting is the fact that no sights are fitted to this weapon according to the build sheet standard, not even a standard backsight! Even to the point that Field and Base workshops required to test them for accuracy were to have available a PH5C sight in order to do so (using the authority of the SA Committee to purchase one!). The report also states that no government stores are to be used outside the build sheet standard. So this means that even if you just wanted to use a standard No4 Mk1 type (or an L42 metric version) backsight, you weren’t allowed. But I don’t expect anyone ever abided by those rules.

There, another few useless bits of Lee Enfield knowledge that you didn’t know about. Anyone want me to go through the L42 blurb too?

[Strangely Brown]

It may be useful to have Peter Laidler's 'notes' on the L39
Written many years ago.

(I wonder if the AI got some of its information from this ?)

[I]
L39 owners weekend reading............
________________________________________

TUNNEL FORESIGHTS of the PH FS-22A or any similar trade pattern WITH THE CORRECT DOVETAIL ARRANGEMENT. Can be used.
REARSIGHT: Any make of sight, similar to the PH 5C or AJP 4/47 which can be readily adapted can be used providing that it does so without resorting to any alteration of any kind to the rifle.

I don't think I've ever come across an L39 with PH FS-22A fitted, that's not to say they don't exist!
The majority of end user military units tended to visit AJ Parker (rather than Parker-Hale) and buy the larger and brighter "Matchmaker" foresight tunnel which takes the 17mm foresight elements rather than the 15mm foresight of the FS 22A.

The other conundrum is why do we often see L39's fitted with the small brass foresight element boxes underneath the butt when the Matchmaker elements are too big to fit!

I feel the hand of a hard sell from Edna Parker in this...

[Mk VII]

I had to make the brass box myself, out of a plumbing fitting, to get something that held the larger elements.

[mrclark303]

Sorry to be a smart *** but since when is the L39A1 a self-loading rifle? I get immediately dubious of these articles when they can't even get the type of rifle correct in the bloody title.

I did notice that Brian, but it's just a small link gaff ...

---------- Post added at 10:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 PM ----------

It may be useful to have Peter Laidler's 'notes' on the L39
Written many years ago.

(I wonder if the AI got some of its information from this ?)


L39 owners weekend reading............
________________________________________
I was having a browse through the Small Arms Committee minutes relating to the L39A1 rifle the other day and found some bits and pieces that I think I ought to pass on. Including some things that I never realized either!

The first bit is that contrary to what I firmly believed, that the rifles were built up to new rifle specification from ‘new’ components (including new barrels obviously) including bodies but the committee minutes state ‘….rifles converted from the Rifle No4 Mk1/2 and 2’ too. I was under the impression from the Armourers technical blurb that all L39’s were made ‘as new’. But this is clearly not so because Mk1/2 type L39’s will exist.

This COULD mean that L39’s were made from brand new, unused ex c.1955 Fazakerley bodies. It could also include USED ex .303” Mk2 bodies. It could also Mk2/1 rifles unbreeched and rebarrelled at the point of conversion to L39 at Enfield and it COULD include bodies converted to Mk1/2 but UNUSED since conversion at Fazakerley in the late 40’s to mid 50’s. However, no mention is made of Mk1/3 bodies.

Paragraph 3 of the build standard states that the rifles will be fitted with the stock butt of the No4 rifle, ‘….identical except that a small recess is machined under the knuckle to hold spare foresight blades in a suitable container. There you have it. The correct, ‘as-issue’ butt is that of the No4, modified as detailed above. But (if you’ll excuse the pun), more later….!

Para 8 of the build standard also states that the magazine will be the standard .303” magazine that will be used as a loading platform. It goes on to state that the rifle may be fitted with a 10 round 7.62mm magazine at the users request

Now here’s a surprise…….. Para 20 states that certain rifles are fitted with a special factory size 00 bolt head. ‘……..at the factory only, it is used when assembly tolerances require a smaller head than a ‘0’. The bolt head is special and is not provisioned as a spare’. There’s a thing to get your know-it-all mates coughing into their beer!

Instruction 1 to the committee says that the first 50 EX type rifles (or should this be XL rifles?) were produced and procured with trigger pressures set to the SERVICE limits of 1st - 3 to 4 lbs and 2nd – 5 to 6.5 lbs. But subsequent series production is to be set at 1st - 2.5 to 3.5 lbs and 2nd – 4 to 5.5lbs pull. To cater for this permissible adjustment, the face of the sear can be adjusted to a maximum angle of 80 degrees ( to decrease the sear load pressure). Additionally, magazine catches with an additional sear spring location recess BELOW the original will be provided or may be encountered. There, that’s the answer if you have one on yours!

Now, in conjunction with the civilian target shooting world and the Army Rifle Association, the Light Weapon Defect and Modification Committee has agreed that build standard of the L39 rifle may be altered to include the following:
A commercial SLING SWIVEL can be fitted in place of the front trigger guard screw
A commercial STOCK FORE-END can be fitted using commercially or UK Military recognized practice to ensure the correct bedding and assembly of the barrel and body
STOCK BUTT can be replaced with the service No5, No8, No4 variants and a commercial ‘monte-carlo type with suitable face pieces (I think they mean cheek rests…..) dependent on the competitors competitive situation (type of competition rules ?)
TUNNEL FORESIGHTS of the PH FS-22A or any similar trade pattern WITH THE CORRECT DOVETAIL ARRANGEMENT. Can be used.
REARSIGHT: Any make of sight, similar to the PH 5C or AJP 4/47 which can be readily adapted can be used providing that it does so without resorting to any alteration of any kind to the rifle.

The inspection of any altered or modified L39 rifle will be undertaken by the periodic REME Armourers inspection which we still call the PRE. They will take into account the competitive nature of the weapon and their inspection will concern only the safety and mechanical condition. Any weapon that includes any deviation from the build standard will be returned to that standard prior to disposal or return to Ordnance.

Well, there it is! What is quite interesting is the fact that no sights are fitted to this weapon according to the build sheet standard, not even a standard backsight! Even to the point that Field and Base workshops required to test them for accuracy were to have available a PH5C sight in order to do so (using the authority of the SA Committee to purchase one!). The report also states that no government stores are to be used outside the build sheet standard. So this means that even if you just wanted to use a standard No4 Mk1 type (or an L42 metric version) backsight, you weren’t allowed. But I don’t expect anyone ever abided by those rules.

There, another few useless bits of Lee Enfield knowledge that you didn’t know about. Anyone want me to go through the L42 blurb too?

So are you saying Jeff John is actually Hal 9000??

You're saying this is an AI piece?

Blimey, there you go.

[Terry Hawker]

So are you saying Jeff John is actually Hal 9000??

You're saying this is an AI piece?

Well I don't know anything about AI, but I did know Jeff John. In 1992 he was the chief buyer for the famous Pony Express gun shop in the San Fernando Valley, just north of Los Angeles. He was a bit of anglophile, very knowledgeable about Brit arms, and if I'm not mistaken, also wrote an article or two for Guns and Ammo magazine. He certainly would not have made that rifle miss-identification Brian - the first thing that led me to believe that the real Jeff John had nothing to do with that piece.

[Alan de Enfield]

I did notice that Brian, but it's just a small link gaff ...

---------- Post added at 10:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 PM ----------



So are you saying Jeff John is actually Hal 9000??

You're saying this is an AI piece?

Blimey, there you go.

Somewhere I saw a caption to this article saying (something to the effect) that the article had been written with the assistance of AI.

[Surpmil]

Oh, the Anglos and their files, don't get me started!

"We hand fit them you know; because otherwise they never bloody will!"


Alright, alright it was only a joke.