L1A1 shorter return spring housing ?

I would like to add a little to this from an inspection point of view of two British ex war reserve refurbished L1A1 rifles, they were bagged and tagged in 1990. I think the issues I found had more to do with the civilian employee's. The rifles I examined came wrapped and preserved, they had tags indicating "In the case of complaint this label must be returned to: OIC sub depot bldg 034 COD Donnington Telford Salop TF2-8JT"

Both rifles had been refurbished, one was covered in Australian made parts, no problem there. But the other had a body cover with cracked 'ears' and it looked like they went at the plastic Handguards, Butt and Pistol Grip with a sandblaster and then a spray gun to do the paint finish on the metal.... and plastic.

Dose anyone know if I can sill return the 'label' to the OIC sub depot bldg 034 COD Donnington and get a replacement rifle? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tankhunter

Morning John, Yes you are quite correct. ( & as you can see, Peter backs this up) They were ALL refurbished stock weapons.
Anything going back into stock. Would as a matter of routine. Have been totally refurbed to as new standard before being put back into reserve.
It would be pointless quite frankly, to have done anything else. If they were ever needed, thy could be issued out with confidence.
That they were fit for purpose & Ready for further service. As required.

(And the 'Bounus' of this procedure was. That it kept the Civvy Employee's workflow going!.....) ;)

---

We had to accept the cracked ears on the body cover as 'of no mechanical or material consequence' if I remember the correct wording. As a result we were authorised to simply snip them off and make good.

You're right about the plastic. We did slightly bead blast these parts as a method of hiding/eliminating/smoothing-out of any small blemishes. We STILL do the same (in khaki of course) on L85 grips and handguards. But the paint is different and only warmed to dry as opposed to going through the oven. It's the same paint as used on plastic car bumpers etc etc. We still do L85 plastic parts today!

The chief small-arms examiner at Donn. was Ivan 'the terrible' Cooper. You could send him a letter to say that you were a tad disappointed with the work that he allowed into the War Reserve stock and you feel tempted to write to trip advisor. But before you do, maybe he could refund part of the cost to show some degree of goodwill and that would be an end of the matter. I expect he'd have a laugh. No....., knowing him, a grumpy old ex wartime trained Armourer he wouldn't!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nzl1a1collector

I would like to add a little to this from an inspection point of view of two British ex war reserve refurbished L1A1 rifles, they were bagged and tagged in 1990. I think the issues I found had more to do with the civilian employee's. The rifles I examined came wrapped and preserved, they had tags indicating "In the case of complaint this label must be returned to: OIC sub depot bldg 034 COD Donnington Telford Salop TF2-8JT"

Both rifles had been refurbished, one was covered in Australian made parts, no problem there. But the other had a body cover with cracked 'ears' and it looked like they went at the plastic Handguards, Butt and Pistol Grip with a sandblaster and then a spray gun to do the paint finish on the metal.... and plastic.

Dose anyone know if I can sill return the 'label' to the OIC sub depot bldg 034 COD Donnington and get a replacement rifl? :D

---

Best return it Kevin,happy to act as your UK agent, so just mark the box as "Tractor Parts" and I will pm you the address!

On the subject of these war reserve L1A1's, does anyone know what the story is behind the final sell off of Enfield and BSA (mainly BSA for some reason) L1A1 parts kits bought from Donnington in about 2010.

The final stock of L1A1 parts was cleared out of Donnigton by a well known Sec5 dealer a couple of years back (2013 I think), he now sits on many, many tons of component parts!

Why were these rifles stripped I wonder? The matching number receivers/TMH's appear to be in very good to excellent condition, with little sign of use, all have military proof marks, so were once compete rifles.

The majority of the Straight pull rifles I have seen built up from these kits are not suncorite painted, but still in original factory chemical black finish, so appear to have seen little service... Perhaps Ex Cook House Rifles issue!


Also, my 1962 Enfield SP also has six different Enfield inspectors stamps on the right wall of the receiver, not somthing I have seen on other examples I have handled in the past

It seems to indicate a rifle (or component part) stored and inspected periodically at ROF Enfield, did Enfield carry out any FTR programme on the L1A1 I wonder?

Para 2 above. 2013!!!!! Who told you that? Stockpiling obsolete spare parts and weapons is just an expensive way of storing fresh air. Especially after the early 90's when Donn became a commercially owned and based storeage and distribution agency that paid for the space it used.
Para 4 above. The finish of these SP rifles appears to be/most certainly is a recent chemical finish and not the original or phosphate/paint finish
ROF Enfield was not a store but a manufacturer.

Hi Peter,

That's what I have been told, the final sell off of L1A1 parts went to tender a couple of years ago, (mainly small parts I think). The last of the complete parts kits (everything bar barrel) were bought at tender by a few UK dealers in 2010 with Straight pull builds in mind ... Big final clear out I would guess.

Regarding finish, interesting, whoever carried out the chemical refinish, certainly did it with great care, as the finish is uniform, inside and out. It must have been done at some point prior to store as they all exhibit slight signs of use, edge wear etc. They were purchased out of Donnington this way, with no refinish to the receivers, just to the new barrel.

With regard to Enfield Peter, I was just thinking out loud, trying to come up with a good reason for the row of separate Enfield inspection stamps on the receiver (all different inspector numbers) not something I have personally seen before on an L1.

Cheers, John

Attachment 64973Attachment 64972pics of the Enfield inspection stamps on my Enfield, all along the left wall of the receiver, there are others, but so lightly stamped you can't read them.

Also pics of the change lever, just for fun and because its the first (and so far only) lever I have seen with the non destructive test triangle mark on!

John, Your TMH is from another rifle Mate. Notice where the serial number is.
The base area behind it , has been milled. Thus removing the original number, & then re-engraving the No. to match the receiver.

It was quite common for change levers (The Crunchies used to call them Safety catches)
to work loose on the crossshafts.
Easily rectified with a small blob of weld to the head of the crossshaft. & the lever itself.
You had to be carefull not to apply TOO much weld. as the heat transference Across the metal surfaces. COULD destroy the tempering of the operating coil spring. In the lever Thumb section. That housed it, & the positioning Ballbearing!....:eek:

On the subject of TMH's, replacement was a Field or Base repair. The TMH part number was 'blocked' against a unit demand. I often wondered why as it wasn't a special time consuming fitting job but Ian Kxxxxx at REME Tech Services (later 14 MAG) told me that it was to save on costs. Being an expensive part - I seem to think that the last VAOS price was £91 or so - it meant that Field workshops would only keep a couple in stock on an as-need basis. If a rifle was ZF at Field or Base (you can only ZF a weapon at that level.....) they'd occasionally change out a perfect TMH and send it for the chop with an unserviceable one. That's presumably what's happened to yours with a re-number, to save an expensive waste.

Thinking out aloud, I'm trying to think of reasons for scrapping TMH's. There were a few faults.
Loss of the little front filler plate that was a simple repair. That was usually caused by letting the hammer fly forwards uncontrolled while the TMH is off the body.
Loose rear block that we could repair/tighten by dollying the cross rivets with the ball-pein hammer.
Worn out axis pin holes - virtually to the point of being oval! There was a set of ring punches to 'cure' this but ring punching really is a palliative and not a cure in engineering circles. There were several good suggestions to cure them*.
Never encountered worn trigger/hammer axis pin holes
Damaged threads in backsight housing slide part. Quite how was never explained to anyones satisfaction! Other bits easily rectified.

Got any more Tankie, Skippy, Son, BAR, BinO? Anyway, that's my Saturday morning contribution on this pommy Bank Holiday weekend

* The best(?) being a suggestion by the Armourer apprentices section at Stirling Base Workshop. It was a kit of two bushes that were bushed into both opposite overbored axis holes in worn out TMH. Holes then slightly countersunk internally. Bushes locktited and flared out on the inside to retain them tight. New two part longer axis pin and screw. VERY good but barely economic so I was told! They were well rewarded though for the time and effort. More to it than that of course and Bordon EMER team raised a few small points - if anyones really interested......

Morning Mike, I thought the TMH was replaced, very neatly done job, other examples appear to range from just barred out and renumbered to ground off and renumbered.

I suppose if this one was refurbished for war reserve, it would be done carefully.