L42A1 dated 1980

[XL39E1]

Here's a pic of a real one seen a few years ago, converted maltby action!

Attachment 39630

[Roger Payne]

The old peepers ain't what they used to be but it doesn't look to me like the front pad seating surface has been milled at all. Judging by the size of the engraving it was set up for a visually impaired sniper.....

ATB

[Peter Laidler]

MY pal - yes, another Armourer - acquired a 1981 L42 that was earmarked for Mob Stores (mobilization stores) in the mid 90's and the markings were larger than that one. I'd say proportionately identical to the example shown in the earlier pic but the letters were a tad wider too according to he, whom I've directed to this site to pass his eagle eyes over.

Don't forget that when the rifle barrel/body was set up in the machining jig and a DTI passed over it, the body would ONLY be machined if it were a) not flat and b) even if it were flat, was not parallel to the bore. It was this parallelism that was all important.

It was this parallel to the bore that was the bain of Armourers lives later as it meant that for a subsequent barrel change, the NEW barrel had to align with the body and the collimated/centred tele sight as opposed to be simply zeroable with iron sights. So you'd start with 25 or 30 new barrels just to select the one that aligned the best.

[Roger Payne]

Thx PL. I accept absolutely the argument re parallelism, but in practice how many have you actually seen that weren't at least 'kissed' by a miller? As you say though anyway, the front pad seems to have been seated too far back. The rear pad looks brand new to me, yet the screws holding it on are messily linished/filed (as Brian pointed out). If it had been on since 1944 (or whenever) those razor sharp corners would have become a little rounded off with the various FTR's & L42 conversion it is likely to have been through. I can't say too much about the size of the markings as I've never owned one of the very late conversions myself, although I've seen photo's of a couple & they looked more typical of XL39E1's photo AFAICR. I suppose the bloke on the pantograph might have got his scale setting a bit wrong when he did that one!

But perhaps we ought to see what Simon comes up with if Rob can get the serial number for him.....

ATB

[Patrick Chadwick]

Rob, could you please look in your PM in-tray. I sent you 2 messages recently and I wonder if they got through?

Patrick

[Surpmil]

No sign of a milled flat for the front pad. No sign of any solder. Apparent migration of paint under bottom edge of recently removed and apparently ill-fitting front pad.

Not a bad replica cheekrest, but look at the tunnel underneath the leading edge!

No "TR" on the butt socket.

Markings? Used pantograph engravers are not expensive to buy, to say nothing of small Chinese-made CNC engravers and routers.

Paint looks like BBQ paint and I don't see any phosphating, at least not definitively.

The most optimistic interpretation would be an attempted restoration of a receiver stripped of its pads some time in the past, and I'm not sure even Norman Vincent Peale could believe that.

[Buccaneer]

No sign of a milled flat for the front pad. No sign of any solder. Apparent migration of paint under bottom edge of recently removed and apparently ill-fitting front pad.

I had the chance to see this rifle first hand on Friday and these are my observations. No one who has comented so far has mentioned the no gunsmith mount shown in the original photo, the fitting of this mount meant that the front pad had to be removed, the "mess" around the front pad area is where paint that had been applied has been scraped back, I can comfirm that the front pad area has been milled as you would expect. The rear pad screws were as Brian Dick stated completley buggered as someone had tried to remove them cold, they have now been removed and await replacement.
What was not obvious from the photo was that the top wood has been machined flat for a good part of it's length I assume to accept the scope that was being fitted to the no gunsmith mount.
There are none of the normal "4T" marks visible but as stated in Peters book these were probably linished clean especially when you consider the position of the larger engraving of the later L42,s.
The only other mark that I could see was a serial number on the left buttsocket which probably meant that all the previous marks in this area had also been linished off.
I have checked with Simon and the serial number does not appear on any of the lists he has but as so little is know about the late production L42's that is not necessarily supprising.
The butt and check rest are not original to the rifle and have both been removed.
The lettering engraved on the action does conform with the style and size as described in Peters book, the front pad, which came supplied loose with the rifle appears to be with tolerance when compared with another 4T that was there.
The barrel my have been replaced but then so had so many others.
On balance this rifle would appear to be a genuine L42 action that has been bodged to accept a different scope in the same way that so many 4T's were altered in the days when they had no real value.
Other people my come to a different conclusion to mine but faced with what was in front of me it is the conclusion I came to.

[jmoore]

No one who has comented so far has mentioned the no gunsmith mount shown in the original photo... [T]the "mess" around the front pad area is where paint that had been applied has been scraped back, I can comfirm that the front pad area has been milled as you would expect.

The milled flat surrounding the front pad in the photos isn't the usual "pad shaped" area, but the regular milling. At least that's how it appears in the photos- even fully enlarged. But "hands on" is always best. Usually...

As for the "no comment", no comment seemed required! But here's one: Eeewww!

[Surpmil]

I had the chance to see this rifle first hand on Friday and these are my observations. No one who has comented so far has mentioned the no gunsmith mount shown in the original photo,

Because it's irrelevant.

the fitting of this mount meant that the front pad had to be removed,

Is there anyone dim enough to remove the original pad rather than removing a portion of the S&K type scope mount?

the "mess" around the front pad area is where paint that had been applied has been scraped back,

I'm afraid I don't buy that. The paint visible in the photo at the start of this thread extends up into the area on which the pad normally sits. When a pad is screwed and soldered on, nothing gets underneath.

I can comfirm that the front pad area has been milled as you would expect.

Never seen such a fitting except on one Maltby that was an Israeli conversion reputedly. The body side of the No4 was not a control surface during manufacture. If you examine a few rifles which have had their pads removed such as that jmoore just posted a photo of, you can detect the variations in the edge of the machined flat where the inconsistencies of the body side and upper edge are apparent. This was the reason for the machining.

The rear pad screws were as Brian Dick stated completley buggered as someone had tried to remove them cold, they have now been removed and await replacement.

So which screws are shown in the photos then? Not the buggered ones obviously, and apparently not the as yet unfitted replacements...?

What was not obvious from the photo was that the top wood has been machined flat for a good part of it's length I assume to accept the scope that was being fitted to the no gunsmith mount.

Is it a tapering flat about 6" long? Sounds more like an Enforcer hand guard supplied by the gent who made them for Parker Hale and may still make them. I bought a few off him once too.

There are none of the normal "4T" marks visible but as stated in Peters book these were probably linished clean especially when you consider the position of the larger engraving of the later L42,s.

I've never heard of the "TR" markings being linished off. Has anyone else?

The only other mark that I could see was a serial number on the left buttsocket which probably meant that all the previous marks in this area had also been linished off.

So you think the TR marks would be removed, but not the serial number? Even unconverted TR actions had the TR struck out, not linished off. So why would they be removed this time?

I have checked with Simon and the serial number does not appear on any of the lists he has but as so little is know about the late production L42's that is not necessarily supprising.

If the rest of the evidence added up, I would agree, but it only adds up for the prosecution, not the defence.

The butt and check rest are not original to the rifle and have both been removed. The lettering engraved on the action does conform with the style and size as described in Peters book, the front pad, which came supplied loose with the rifle appears to be with tolerance when compared with another 4T that was there. The barrel my have been replaced but then so had so many others.

On balance this rifle would appear to be a genuine L42 action that has been bodged to accept a different scope in the same way that so many 4T's were altered in the days when they had no real value.

Other people my come to a different conclusion to mine but faced with what was in front of me it is the conclusion I came to.

Don't buy it, if that's what you're considering (I forget now). It has nothing on it which says genuine at all IMO.

Did you see the Enfield examiner's mark? Did you see the S on the cutoff block?

"No further questions, M'lud."

Buy Peter's book first, then you can be an eggspurt like us!

I'm not trying to be rude, just calling it as I see it, so please don't be offended.

[Roger Payne]

About twenty years ago there were a few "L42's" knocking about in the UK that were supposedly the real deal that had been partially stripped down & somehow made their way onto the civvy market & were then reassembled. They all lacked pads, scopes etc etc. They were NOT genuine L42's but were put togethers from an assortment of parts. I just wonder if this could be one of them? IIRC there were about ten or so of these rifles produced, rumour has it by a couple of enterprising RFD's, & one feature I noticed on several is that they used commercial EFD manufactured barrels - as were recently featured in another thread on this forum. They had been chambered, but like the one shown in the recent thread, they had not had the extractor recess machined out. Our enterprising chaps had got round this by turning a reverse cone on the rear face of the barrel so that it would clear the extractor however it happened to breech up. It also meant they didn't have to worry about the knox or foresight alignment being a problem.

I just wonder if the barrel on this rifle might demonstrate the same feature - it was clearly visible from the breech with the bolt open, so far as I recall.

Even if the rifle shown in this thread is not one of them I presume these rifles are still floating around somewhere.........

ATB