4T's

[Bruce_in_Oz]

Also, in the conversion to the L-42, a whole new fore-end / hand-guard set-up was used, i.e., that from the No8 .22 trainer. This donor system, whilst having a somewhat different trigger, has a fore-end with a "solid' back end a back-strap like a No4 Mk1 - 1*. It also has a slightly more "beefy" profile. A MUCH better solution than trying to revive and fool around with old, pre-loved, several times sanded, standard No4 fore-ends and hand-guards.

The L42 project appears to have had a whiff of "poverty-pack" in its genesis, but, because of the competent engineering that had gone before, it worked, and surviving examples STILL work quite well.

Has anyone seen a genuine drawing for the chamber and lead (throat) of the proper L42A1 barrels. I am interested in finding out if they were given a little "extra" freebore to stretch and flatten the pressure curve. Comparison to these features on the L1A1 barrel would also be interesting.

[Nigel]

That statement is contrary to accepted wisdom. The only part of the No.8 used was a minor conversion of the No.8 top handguard. The original forend, if serviceable, was retained from the No.4(T).

[GeeRam]

That statement is contrary to accepted wisdom. The only part of the No.8 used was a minor conversion of the No.8 top handguard. The original forend, if serviceable, was retained from the No.4(T).

Correct.
The No.8 fore-end was longer - and was the same as used on the civilian Envoy models, whereas the L42 and the L39 had modified, cut down No.4 fore-ends.

There is a side by side comparison photo somewhere on Milsurps, which I remember showed the differences between the two.

[Roger Payne]

Maybe Bruce was thinking of one of the other heavy barrel 7.62mm conversions such as the Envoy? I often have to stop & think! IIRC that (Envoy) does have the fatter profile forend, similar to the No8. The L42 forend is the original pattern cut down to half an inch in front of the front of the barrel band recess, the barrel channel routed out with a 1" round nosed cutter, & the slot in the front of the trigger guard machining to take the steel plate that replaces the collar. I have had a lot modded over the years, but have generally omitted the slot for the plate as the collar works just as well as it ever did, & from what I remember PL indicated it was still an acceptable alternative to the plate.

[Alan de Enfield]

Saturday November 8th 2008 The Old Jouster Forum

Extract from a post by PL.


The conversion programme from No4T to L42 was, as we all know, undertaken in several tranches at Enfield between 1970 and 81. The butts, if they were serviceable, remained with the original rifle and the same applied to the fore-ends but unlike the butts, the fore-ends were to be modified by an outside contractor. The reason for this is unknown to the author in spite of asking many questions. But it’s felt that there was little wood-machining facilities remaining at the Enfield factory at the time. Additionally, even if there were, the facilities that did remain, a left-over from the L1A1 era, the General Staff Requirement (the GSR) of 1080 L42s was insufficient to re-start it. But there you go! In their previous morphication from No4 to No4T, then if it was accurate enough to be selected as a telescope rifle as a plain No4, then provided it was put back, as it was, after conversion, then the accuracy would remain. And as a general rule, it did. This was (presumably) the thinking back in the 70’s. Put the same fore-end back onto the rifle and it should retain its accuracy as before.


Of course there were several differences. The first being that the fore-end was shorter BUT, as there was no barrel bearing from the reinforce forward, then already, life is easier. Additionally, if the OLD No4 barrel and body was a proper fit in the fore-end at the reinforce then given that the new reinforce was machined to exactly the same dimensions, then that too would be a perfect fit. And by and large, they were. So far, all is well ….., in theory.


The problems start when the fore-ends are sent out on a rotating basis to an outside contractor for conversion. Cutting the front end off is simple but it’s the simple mathematics of routeing a 1” half-round groove down a fore-end that’s narrowing towards the front that are flawed. When the 1” half round cutter gets to the front of the ‘new’ shortened fore-end, you’re left with a wood thickness of anywhere between .050 and .070” thickness at the top edges. What planet were they really on? Did they really need a 1” wide channel when the new barrel was only .830 or so in diameter? I ask this because when Armourers were fitting new fore-ends at Field and Base workshops, they would slide a .020” shimmed spacer between the barrel and fore-end, right down to the reinforce and if it cleared all the way, that was sufficient. So, .870” (.040” + .830”= .870”) is all that was really needed for the new barrel channel. That way you’d have a bit of meat spare on each of the top front ends of the fore-end. But no………. It wouldn’t be half as bad if the bodger with the routeing cutter machine routed it down the centre of the fore-end. But no! Of all those fore-ends that I’ve seen, it’s slightly off centre to the extent that while even the thicker side is thin, the thin side is, well……………


But that’s not all. After the conversion process, the fore-ends have been scraped or sanded off to within an inch of their lives. But not as you’d expect a half decent Armourer to do it ….. Oh no, not with a bit of care and thought as he’d been taught over years and years of his apprenticeship and during his service of care and consideration. The contractor had gone hammer and tongs with what seems to be a sanding belt and in doing so, had rounded the top edges making them thinner than the thin-ness they are already but also has run the sander into the upper band recess and as you’ll see later, has caused even more problems. Let me give you an example. At one particular Infantry unit I was charged with overseeing, the snipers would pull the sling tight, almost wrapping it around their arm and body and in doing so, pulling the top band backwards as they did so. You’ve got it in one! The fore-end at the band part was so sanded away that there was insufficient support for the band by what should be the edges of the band recess in the wood. So, the band would just pull in and chip away and take a gouge or two out of the bottom of the fore-end or just slip back, down the bloody fore-end! Then the top of the band would draw down into the band groove in the handguard and that’d split too. And so far, we’re only with the original Mk1 fore-ends already fitted! It gets even worse when it comes to the spares stockpiles ordered next!


As fitting a fore-end was a Field Workshop repair, the rifle, with its split handguard and fore-end would make its way to the workshops. There, in the days of plenty, a new fore-end would be ordered from Ordnance. The old handguard and fore-end would be put into a rack waiting for the day that once a pile had been gathered, they’d all be repaired in one hit. The ‘new’ fore-end would duly arrive from Ordnance. But that was only half the battle because the ‘new’ fore-end had been converted by the same butchers who had converted the original. Even previously new Mk2 types that were retro-modified to Mk1 spec were sanded to within an inch of their lives too, with thin front ends and off centre barrel routing channels. As for the modification to the rear, to retro modify from ‘open rear’ Mk2 to ‘closed rear’ Mk1 spec, well, words fail me! Many of those that I’d encountered were simply a bodge too. For example, even the back strap (that replaced the Mk2 type tie bolt and nut) wouldn’t sit into the recess machined for it, making it impossible to fit to the rifle right from the start.


Armourers soon started to file defect reports about the situation. I saw one with the report that came back from Ordnance to the effect that ‘……..most of the retro modified fore-ends were converted from second hand stocks, taken from scrapped or other well worn rifles and their condition reflect this’. I suppose that makes it alright then was my immediate thought! But that reply in itself was incorrect. Clearly some of the converted fore-ends were clearly converted from NEW stocks of Mk2 fore-ends. Indeed, some I saw were retro converted from a brand new very late Mk2 Fazakerley fore-end configured for the UF55A type rifles …., you know the sort, the partially completed No5 rifle bodies without the original cut-off block. We know this because Sgt Roger Xxxxx had to cut this away from the fore-end before he could even start to fit it to the rifle! I actually saw a new fore-end come straight from Ordnance, with the front top edges so thin that when the Armourer saw it, he came over to me, commented on it, pressed it between his finger and thumb and it cracked away before my very eyes. Yes, they were an absolute disgrace. As if to make them look a bit better (difficult…..) it looked as though they’d been given a bit of a quick blow job with a can of cheap varnish. Words fail me


It soon became apparent that it was easier to forget about ordering ‘new’ fore-ends and simply repair what you had. At least you knew it fitted! This was achieved by undercutting and dovetailing in a 2” or so long patch x 1” or so deep at the front of the fore-end and extending it an inch or so behind the upper band so that by carefully making good, you could a), leave the top much wider by narrowing the barrel groove/channel and b), leave a LOT more wood to the front and rear of the band recess. The accompanying photographs show a selection of the repaired fore-ends and some of the methods used by the older Armourers. Apologies about the picture quality as some of these are taken from old photographs taken during the era, to highlight the problems. They do also show just how you can go about completing a similar repair to your own rifle should you need to. But just remember this. ONLY TAKE OUT THE MINIMUM OF WOOD FROM THE NEW BARREL CHANNEL. The minimum is the diameter of the barrel PLUS .020” clearance all around.


As a sop to make the best use of many otherwise ‘serviceable’ fore-ends, a small plate was inserted into and under the front of the trigger guard. It would appear that this plate was done to all replacement stocks but not necessarily to the original fore-ends unless it was required. This WAS a good idea but not a ‘new’ idea because the gun trade had been using a similar ploy for many years


As for the handguards, well, the converted No8 handguards were the first to go because being originally wider than the No4 fore-end, they were also slimmed down on the sander to within an inch of their lives and in turn, this had left the front end about as marginal as the fore-ends! The later ‘new manufacture’ handguards were much better but during the mid 80’s, these were in short supply and with trials being undertaken to replace the trusty old steed, no more were ordered. Maybe Ordnance had got the message about the pxxx-poor quality of the bodgers involved earlier! When this happened, many Armourers were made aware of the shortage of serviceable L42’s and reverted to the converting of No4 rear handguards by extending them forwards to fill the need. You’ll still find these on some L42’s but you’ll have to look hard to see the join, under the band and inside, extending rearwards. An external giveaway is the small wooden plugs in place of the brass liner rivets. The quality of these REME Armourers repairs and conversions is a testimony to their years of apprentice and on-the-job training. A far cry from the diabolical workmanship of the original bodgers that they’d encounter later.


As Sgt Roger Xxxxx said to me once while we were ‘busy’ range testing a few ‘……….the rifle is just SO accurate, it’s a credit to Enfield and that’s in SPITE of the fore-end, and not BECAUSE of it’. I couldn’t have put it better myself Roger! Oh yes…., a word of advice and warning. If you see him or any other old-time Field and Base workshop Armourer of the 70’s and 80’s, please don’t mention L42 rifle fore-ends and handguards because you’ll soon learn that they all suddenly suffer from rabid outbursts of Tourettes syndrome and a robust reply can sometimes offend
Next, we’ll show how a needy fore-end can be saved from the great scrap-bin in the sky. Thanks to Armourer Sgt Roger Xxxxx for the technical explanations and old defect report photos

[bombdoc]

Apropos of nothing much in particular.. I can remember on my junior officer visit to Donnington in 1973 seeing huge piles of No4s in cage pallets, just stacked up anyhow. They did not seem to be in any sort of state of preservation, and we were told that they were "war reserve", although how true this was is questionable. There seemed to be a steady stream of them being fed into the chopping machine at the time..

As has been said, the Army seemed to be completely disinterested in either target shooting or Sniping at the time.. I spent a year with an infantry unit in Germany, and the L42s never came out of the Armoury.. They also had eight L39s which again seemed to be covered in dust (...except for one that year!) and all the competitive shooting was done with SLRs and other normal service weapons. The unit did hold a small amount of green dot ammunition, which I think I was the only one to use. As I recall there was very little interest in TR that year at Bisley, and only the weirdos (and Gurkas) shot McQueen..!

[Roger Payne]

With reference to Alan's pasting of Peter's old posting; as a practical point, if needing a No4 forend modified for a needy L42 then Long Branch produced varieties often work well, as they tend to be fairly 'chunky', lessening (if only a little) the problems of paper thin sides as you get to the front end/barrel band recess area. Just in case anyone is contemplating doing it.......

[Gil Boyd]

Bombdoc,
Interesting as this applied to nearly ALL units leading up to the Falklands War as well it wasn't unique to yours.
There seemed to be a large "hole" surrounding the term Sniper up to and including that war, and a lot of smoke and mirrors surrounded it. Many units CO's didn't understand the full capabilities of men trained in this area of soldiering, but nevertheless sent them on the courses as they appeared on available courses to attend. Colonel H 2 PAR CO was one of them sadly!

Having done the research into this many times with Peter Laidler, and clearly had it not been for the 2 PARA Padre David Cooper who went to the Falklands, who himself was a National Rifle shooter, fighting the corner to take other proven target rifles with them including the L42A1 there would have probably been very little read about its use post war.
The struggle continued on their return from the Falklands, but I can confirm EVERY unit's boss that went on Op Telic and more importantly Op Herrick (Afghanistan) learnt very quickly the absolute benefits of sniper trained personel at FOB's up country.

So much so, that they have a renewed vigour in Infantry Units and hopefully long may that continue. I hope we NEVER return to the days of "STORES are for STORING" mentality from RQMS's especially surrounding Armouries and the weapons held there!!

[bombdoc]

Bombdoc,
Interesting as this applied to nearly ALL units leading up to the Falklands War as well it wasn't unique to yours.
There seemed to be a large "hole" surrounding the term Sniper up to and including that war, and a lot of smoke and mirrors surrounded it. Many units CO's didn't understand the full capabilities of men trained in this area of soldiering, but nevertheless sent them on the courses as they appeared on available courses to attend. Colonel H 2 PAR CO was one of them sadly..

The struggle continued on their return from the Falklands, but I can confirm EVERY unit's boss that went on Op Telic and more importantly Op Herrick (Afghanistan) learnt very quickly the absolute benefits of sniper trained personel at FOB's up country.

So much so, that they have a renewed vigour in Infantry Units and hopefully long may that continue.

Oh yes.. Dave Wood was an old skydiving buddy of mine...! I have heard the stories of snipers on Tumbledown and having stood on the ridge, can believe how effective one would be in that context..

I get the feeling that the appearance of the L96 was the real breakthrough, and really ignited the resurgence of interests. What really hacks me off at the moment is that the Army is distancing itself from the NRA and abandoning the need for civilian marksmanship when the L96 was based on Bisley shooting! The NRA is facing being ditched by the Charities Commission because of this..!

[Gil Boyd]

Sad to hear that. It will be driven by one or two individuals wyho are in post now if thats the case. Be patient they always get moved on!!
Hopefully no damage will be done before they go!!