Printable View
Thanks for the comment. Everything appears as it should in terms of matching numbers, according to the excellent materials on this site for these rifles.
Am genuinely curious, and have this Prvi 174gr ammo I could shoot. I took a fired case from that Maltby '42 and 'resized' it in the chamber of this rifle. The chamber appears tighter, as one might expect. Another of my "poor man's techniques" for assessing bore conditions.
As far as shooting them I had mine out 5 weeks ago at 600m still in the black and nice to shoot off a bench set up, when I loaded with AR 2208 (Varget) the recoil pulse was sharp so swapped & developed a load with 174 SMK's AR 2209 (H414, 4350) sends a nice push now.
I noticed the Prvi recoil is sharp. I have Varget and H4350 available. Care to share your charge weights?
R.P Case, FLS'ed & annealed, Federal Match primer, 46gns of 2209, 174 SMK set COAL to MkVII ball round check fit in mag, again drop it 5% then work up I take no responsibility for the load as what is safe in my rifles may not be in anyone else's.
Also as I do not know anyone elses reloading habits, I know your not numpties but I again stress I take no responsibility for ppl using this load.
Caveat emptor on all posted load data. Thx
Ah, yes...... Good comment from Surpmil Rob regarding the alternative method of attaching the scope to the rifle. The problem was that the spec stipulated that the bracket had to fit and be interchangeable with the bracket that was scheduled to be mounted on the left side of the Bren body. It didn't come to pass and by the time that the telescope Bren idea was abandoned the No4 T was already in hand. As were the brackets and pads. Better still would have been the front bracket thread, centred on the body-side and threaded through the substantial front and rear body-side.
asy to introduce but the last thing you need in wartime is non interchangeability
So far as I remember, the sheared-off spigot was a problem for the L42's. We did see No4T's come through the workshop system during the 70's into the early 80's but loose pads, yes. Torn-off front pad spigots, no.
The sheared spigot repair came as a technical or miscellaneous instruction formulated at the big York workshops. It seemed OK but in the later days of the L42 when time counted, such repairs - and making handguards and fore-end patching at the muzzle end. it was uneconomic to repair stuff!
On te same subject of timed repairs v costs, I'll mention SLR blank firing adaptors if someone brings the subject up on the L1A1 forum
I'd agree Peter: threaded into the body side would have been best. Makes one wonder how they intended to collimate the base & bracket on the Bren? Manufacturing tolerances only?
And of course the beating the poor old spigot would take on an automatic weapon would be much greater than on a sniper's rifle. Design fault there IMHO.