l42A1

Not talking ill of anyone but the L39 and 42 woodwork by Moon was not good. In fact I don't know anyone who had a good word to say about it. But that was because the L42 was done on the cheap. Not just the cheap, but the cheapest possible and that meant converting existing woodwork regardless whether it was suitable or not. Including thin fore-ends, Mk2 fore-ends retrospectively converted, No8 handguards that were totally unsuited for conversion and.............. Moon was told what he had to do, to a price - so he did the best with what he had! I could write a book about the sheer dire quality of the pure cr4p sent out. I think I did write a spiel about it for the forum is anyone is computer savvy enough to resurrect it.

Paul is a good lad trying to make a living these days. I met him earlier this year in Hastings, not sure whether he was doing the woodwork though for these, as I didn't see a lot of it around, only L1A1's in various stages, if I had I would have mentioned something as a lover of the rifle!!;).

---------- Post added at 06:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:24 PM ----------

Peter,
Isn't that always the case though?? Contractors MUST produce this to a specific parameter, at half the cost and then the MOD wonder why its not Rolls Royce Coach builders quality when it arrives.
As my Dad always said, "You get what you pay for son"

Couldn't agree more Gil. L42's were being sentenced Z-UF because there was no replacement woodwork. Can someone resurrect the article? Even the replacement fore-ends came through looked like they were removed from riflkes returned to Ordnance - for defective fore-ends! NOT the fault of Moon but guess who got the blame........?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

I think I did write a spiel about it for the forum is anyone is computer savvy enough to resurrect it.

---

Peter, is the article you're referring to the one at the bottom of the list of your articles/posts that pops up when you click the "Index of Peter Laidler's series..... (click here) " at the footer of all your posts.

Link here - hope it works : https://www.milsurps.com/content.php...ter-Laidler%29

Forgive me if I'm wrong; but I thought the L42and L39 wood was basically a cut down from the standard No4 wood set.(Mk1 for the L42 and Mk2 for the L39).
Surely it would not be that complicated to find a good No4 set and shorten it to the correct length. Is there anything special with regard to bedding?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 30Three

Forgive me if I'm wrong; but I thought the L42and L39 wood was basically a cut down from the standard No4 wood set.(Mk1 for the L42 and Mk2 for the L39).
Surely it would not be that complicated to find a good No4 set and shorten it to the correct length. Is there anything special with regard to bedding?

---

Fore-ends yes, hand guards no, The hand guard is longer than a standard No4, it providers the channel for barrel band plus has approx the same width of the band at the end, pic below in link, also you can see a repair on the fore-end as Peter describes in one of his articles.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...42A1-Large.png

Interesting! I've not accurately compared my L39 to my No4 rifle. I'll make a point of having a closer look.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 30Three

Forgive me if I'm wrong; but I thought the L42and L39 wood was basically a cut down from the standard No4 wood set.(Mk1 for the L42 and Mk2 for the L39).
Surely it would not be that complicated to find a good No4 set and shorten it to the correct length. Is there anything special with regard to bedding?

---

Here's what happens if you just shorten a no4 fore-end (not done by me!)

Attachment 93018

That top wood reminds me of the top wood and barrel band on the early A and B models of the Omark(Sportco) model 44 target rifle.

That's not impossible, but I don't have one to compare it to. It looks like a cut down version of my other no 4's handguard, although not identical as that doesn't have the fluting. I haven't removed them to compare the channelling.