Enfield 1983 dated rifle??

[enbloc8]

Armourer's Note: Hinge Pin screw incorrectly assembled!.........it SHOULD be 180 Degrees the other way!...........

Yes. And when the split portion is the long kind, you can find out real quickly why this is so, just by pulling the charging handle! SSSSCRAPE!

(My builder invariably puts 'em in wrong...first thing I do is put 'em back in right!)

[nzl1a1collector]

Thats one of the NZ rebuilt rifles IF there are no FTR71 markings on the TMH. If the owner can supply the Steel Batch Marking from in front of the mag well we can then tell what year the body was made. It won't be 1959/1960 production. It's most likely this rifle use to have the N/|\Z marking on it.

[enbloc8]

Thats one of the NZ rebuilt rifles IF there are no FTR71 markings on the TMH. If the owner can supply the Steel Batch Marking from in front of the mag well we can then tell what year the body was made. It won't be 1959/1960 production. It's most likely this rifle use to have the N/|\Z marking on it.

I have another picture showing the TMH...as I recall it's the original non-inverted serial with no FTR 71 markings.

[nzl1a1collector]

Lithgow Factory FTR Marking


Base Workshops Rebuild


I can't remember where these NB's were done, but I know someone who knew the guy that decided they would add the 'NB' to show it was a New Body.


and now the offending replacement part, direct supplied spare from Lithgow.... BODY

[Peter Laidler]

Last four pictures first. If that is the same body, then that looks suspiciously like an OLD body, refurbished. It might be my old eyes but the old marking have beeen linished clear under the new phosphate and paint

Top rifle. A previously ZF rifle number that has been reallocated at the factory. This is done and was done when a licensing agreement regarding quantities/royalties is in being. Bren bodies being a good example

Just ask yourselves this simple and very basic question.............

But first a parable about the bleedin' obvious. When your old Austin Allegro is 40 years old and done 200,000 miles, it's not just the body shell that is worn out, but the steering, brakes, suspension, moving electrical components and engine. The garage look at it , put an arm around your shoulder, sniff ruefully into a snotty handkerchief and tell you that it's shagged - and, if you have any financial or basic mathematical acumen, MUST be destined for the chop. Not just the bodyshell or chassis, but the whole car. I know about this as I totally restored a 1969 Mini Copper at VAST expense due to my lack of financial scholastic achievement. I also know about this because in my time, I have sentenced many weapons, both large and small, from old clapped revolvers to stonking great GPMG's ZF/BER. It's not because the body will have an elongated locking shoulder guide or body locking lug or ovoid axis pin hole, both of which make the body and TMH shake around like a bulldogs balls, but, just like your knackered Allegro and the knackered L1A1, the whole thing is worn out.

You COULD rebuild it with new, well......, everything - but we don't. It's bleedin obvious isn't it. And in the great scheme of national defence, doing that with a shagged £300 rifle (as was) that is diminishing in true value EVERY year is a textbook example of financial stupidity AND diminishing returns.

I could go into the FTR programmes as I know them (but first hand only relates to the GPMG......, so hold on a bit.....) but you get my drift. And ask yourselves this. If that WAS the case, why didn't they supply the REALLY expensive spare Bren bodies - or GPMG bodies. I'll tell you this. The factories weren't even allowed under the terms of the license to. I wouldn't mind betting the FN had some say in the supply of new rifle bodies outside the factory.

Then just think of the unlawfully 'made-up' rifles that could emerge if they were supplied to a workshop with access to the remainder of the parts. Tight control doesn't even enhter the equation chaps, believe me as I've been there, done that and, yep, even acquired the illicit T shirt in the past.

Nope, I have to politely say that the supply of replacement bodies outside the factory didn't exist in the environments that I was and am still fairly familiar with. I don't want to be contrary but here to tell it like it really is.

PS. The same applies to all/most of what we call Valuable and Attractive (V&A) stores such as night vision, optical etc etc

[mrclark303]

Morning all,

Well I contacted the owner of the militaria company yesterday, I pointed out it is an interesting piece worthy of further study and asked for his kind assistance. I have asked him to pass on any markings on the receiver (the one on the mag well inparticualr) and the steel batch code, these might yield some interesting answers, the batch code at least allows us to date the receiver.

I will pass on any info he provides me with.

[mrclark303]

Last four pictures first. If that is the same body, then that looks suspiciously like an OLD body, refurbished. It might be my old eyes but the old marking have beeen linished clear under the new phosphate and paint

I see what you mean Peter, it does look like the makings have been burnished off the left wall (marked there on the early Lithgows) and a new inverted AD stamp (as per the later Lithgows) on the other side.

Perhaps a batch of early production rifles that failed inspection, used for trials etc, then stripped for reusable spares???

Just an idea.

[nzl1a1collector]

The Body in the combined photo is of a brand new unissued Lithgow made Body. The Steel Batch Marking at the front of the magazine well indicates the Body was made in 1970. Its not a reworked old Body, the reason its missing the L1A1 desination is Australia produced both L1A1 and L2A1 rifles and the Body is the same for both.

It was expected that the Base Workshop was to stamp/engrave the correct designation onto it, but this didn't happen. They were left blank. There are tons of examples in New Zealand of the bodies being replaced on the early L1A1 rifles due to 'stretching'. The cost of a new Body in 1981 was $132 AUD.

In the UK you might of not replaced the Bodies, but in Australia and especially New Zealand we did.

Yes you're correct it would cause issues with illegal rifles being assembled, I've seen them as well as a L7A2. This is why in Australia there was a massive witch hunt at one of their supply bases over 'missing' 'unaccounted for' bodies, which in the end turned into a storm in a tea cup.

[enbloc8]

Yes you're correct it would cause issues with illegal rifles being assembled, I've seen them as well as a L7A2. This is why in Australia there was a massive witch hunt at one of their supply bases over 'missing' 'unaccounted for' bodies, which in the end turned into a storm in a tea cup.

Didn't that mess in Australia come to light during the 1996-97 buy-back of civilian semiautomatic arms? I seem to remember mention of a sizable number of L1A1s with bogus serial numbers (or none at all) that were turned in.

[Peter Laidler]

An apology to KtK:

During this thread, it veered over to the fact that new L1A1 bodies were supplied by Lithgow to New Zealand. I expressed the gravest disbelief that this could happen for several reasons. One being that the body is the 'master component' and if you supplied 'spares', then you could -and some definately WOULD - make up a rifle (or in this case, a machine gun) from spares. Scary, but true. Another reason was that the serially numbering of the master component is the method by which the £7/15/- licensing royalties per gun could be assured. (It varied a bit between EFD/LB/MA depending on agreed/forecase output).

In total disbelief that this could happen, I contacted a Senior Army Officer in NZ and while the answer didn't come from him for roundabout reasons that have to remain restricted, the answer has come from another impeccable source.......

The short answer is yes, the NZ Army Base Workshops at Trentham did replace L1A1 bodies. The early Lithgow L1A1’s had soft bodies and these were progressively replaced as the rifles passed through the workshops, from un-numbered replacement bodies supplied by Lithgow. These bodies were then pantograph renumbered to match the original number. Some bodies were also replaced if any looseness could be detected in the fit of the locking shoulder *(a practice that was often done to get a spare body to finish up to a complete rifle for personal use ‘outside the system’). Hand stamped numbers would indicate such a shonky replacement, where the officially replaced bodies were always pantographed in the original style. The odd rifle has turned with no numbers at all, particularly after the L1A1 was declared obsolete but plenty of spares were still in store. The RNZAF Workshops at Woodburn near Blenheim were fairly prolific in turning out ‘new’ privately owned L1A1’s. When a body was scrapped for destruction there was no real physical check to make sure that actually occurred, just an Amourer’s report that the body was written off. Things are much different today where all destruction is carried out under supervision.

So there it is, virtually from the horses mouth, that NZ were supplied new bodies to replace the soft original bodies. A totally alien situation to my cloistered world! Apologies Kevin......
* a common fault that would ZF a rifle until oversize locking shoulders were introduced. The oversize was of the actual shaft to take up the wear in the body and not the actual shoulder part. It was THIS that gave rise to the 'stretching bodies' myth. But once the rot had set in, even the different 'oversizes' became a palliative and not a real cure