The book referring to the Falkland conflict, and the L42 being dumped in the stream is “Out of Nowhere - A history of the military sniper” by Martin Pegler on page 289 references 278. I agree with Peter and with Gil, not handing in a rifle you were issued with, broken or not is the worse kind of crime in the MOD armed forces.
As Peter correctly states the L42 had done two life times, 1945 – 1992 in the case of my the L42’s.
I was involved three times in the loss of a weapon. First a DP Bren that was in a wet muddy snow filled trench which was filled in - and never found. But even though it was an unfireable DP, heaven and earth was moved to locate it using engineers with mine detectors. Never located and written off as an exercise loss at Warcop in the 60's The Browning MG from the tank and later the loss of PART of an SA80 although not as the loser in this case. And believe me the reperciussions are sooooooooo great and the penalties sooooooooo severe that....... Look, you just don't loose them! And as C-Man says (thread 39) come to that, try losing a pair of Binos or compass or any of the other what we call 'starred' or WOCS/controlled stores stuff.
And you now know the reason why the L42 was withdrawn. It was at the end of its life and new barrels and new bolts could not cure old worn bodies.
M85's in Military service. I would/will believe it when I a) see documentary evidence (but I don't think that there will be any) b) see one that is UK Military proofed. There definately WAS a delay in the implementation of the L96 following the L42 and the few L96's in service were withdrawn for crack testing/metallurgy injvestigation but as I said, there was a rebuild programme for L42'ds to make sure that the small stocks remaining remained acceptable. Not only were new brackets obtained but a small relaxation was allowed for the fitting of the fore-ends. Won't go into that here but......
Just as a matter of interest the reason why there is a letter C stamped or engraved after the serial number and a crack test mark on the body is to show that the L96 has been tested and re-proofed following three catastrophic early failures during the trials/proof stage.
I realise that several forumers take my 'what a load of bollocks......' answers to heart, I only want to say it as it REALLY is, on the shop floor. Re the L1A1's and the matchstick farce/fallacy, maybe someone could resurrect the thread or point it out. I'd like to read it again for a laugh.
Anyway, it's absolutely pi........ er........ pouring down with more rain here in dull, dark, dismal and overcast Oxfordshire
Coming back to the Parker Hale M85, I found the picture of the Gurkha sniper shooting, a Parker Hale M85*. The book is “The techniques and equipment of the deadly marksman sniper” by Mark Spicer pages 95 and 115. Whatever the where’s and why for’s I think that the M85 would have made a good, got to weapon if the L96 was not available.
*Author states that it was apart of the Falkland Island Defence force
I think you could be getting the L96 / AI bedding system mixed up with the AI chassis system. The former is a flat based receiver (permanently) Resin bonded to a flat topped Aluminium* chassis, the latter uses a V block to centre the action in the Aluminium* chassis.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanL96a1
*NB Our American cousins may note that there are in fact two I's in Aluminium ;)
Cheers,
Simon.
P.S. A question for Peter? What was the reasoning behind the magazine capacity for the L96 being 11 rounds as opposed to ten? Would I be correct in thinking it was so that even with a full Mag the spring would not be completely compressed?
Good question about the mag capacity Simon and the simple answer is that I don';t know..... Nor did anyone I asked! However, there were in fact THREE magazines for the L96 and two different magazine springs. There was an early (?) 10 round magazine that would take 11 rounds that had an outrwards partial protruding rib at the bottom and then a definbate 10 round magazine with the same configuration and another 10 rounder without the little rib. Please excuse me if I have the sequencing wrong as I don't have mine handy. I know that this was subject to a trial when the mag length was reduced to make it distinctly 10 rounds and I had the info on microfische. At this time the stainless mag springs came in. All were interchangeable.
But the good question and my pi55-poor answer illustrates the point about trials and procurement that seems to go above some peoples understanding of what life is about in the real world. Even for a simple change in magazine format and spring, there was a trial before it could be accepted. Anyway, that's why you can find three different types of L96 magazine.
Another example of a 'simple' change was the rear butt spike. It also housed the rear sling loop. To be honest, the butt down-spike was one of those things that was there, taught on the course in lesson 3, but thereafter the butt spike was shoved back into the butt and not used. BUT, because when it was pushed back in and screwed up with the split taper, it fouled/upset the sling loop. So an Armourer suggested that a sleeve be slid down that would allow the useless butt spike to be pushed back tightly into the butt against its spring and tightened up via the taper...... oh, I won't go on..... b) allow the sling loop to swivel. Great and worked a treat! It was adopted but before future production could be altered it had to go before the trials team and the......... and the.......... and on and on it went up to Andover and then Abbey Wood and Jeeeees. But that's just another example of how it REALLY is.
So when you read of how your mates uncle's friend who knew someone in the cookhouse in Aldershot who's brother said........ I just roll my eyes skywards and occasionally bite my tongue. But sometimes I don't bite my tongue. Anyway, it's still xxxxxx raining here. It's like the monsoons have followed me back!
Peter,
one criticism..........Jeesss is spelt Jeeez:lol::lol:
On the subject of scopes - looking at a May 1990 Guns Review article on the M85 and also looking at the Parker Hale Hand books - it appears that it came with a Tasco 6x44 with bullet drop compensating elevation turret.
Nigel raises an important point there regarding telescopes. The attrition rate of the S&B L13 6x42 and later L17's was heavy and apart frrom small, what we called 'outer' repairs were virtually unrepairable at unit and Field workshop level. The main problem was that the complete range and deflection drums were held to the casing by two approx 6BA but metric screws that went through the casing tube and threasded into an inner sleeve. Not just an inner sleeve but an ALLOY inner sleeve to boot. The slightest knock would pull the thread out. I mean....., how do you tell a sniper who has a 2k stalk not to knock the scope turrets? You COULD use a longer screw to go deeper into the allow sleeve but if you went through it, into the inner body it'd interfere with the left-right deflection or the range adjustment. That was it!
There were cheaper options such as the Tasco or the very good Bushnell that would have made it more bearable but........ politics and the EU and all that stuff
One of the Instrument Techs, Neil Sxxxxxx was asked to look into them for an answer and had a few L13's to faff around with but the only answer was to replace the inner sleeve that wasn't available as a spare. In any case, it meant a complete strip down and optical rebuild. In effect a factory job. The good news was that he/we kept the old scopes as handy spares!
The parts that Peter indicated are referred too in the "official parlance" as
Tube, Erector, Inner. No Off 1
Screw, Countersunk, M2.6 thd, 6mm o/a lg. No Off 4
I've been rooting through the bookshelves in the Gun Room and found the attached A4 promotional blurb for the M85. The scope is referred too simply as a 6 x 44 daylight scope but appears to be a BDC Tasco.
Cheers,
Simon.
That's interesting Simon. The stock in the PH literature is wood and the scope is in two piece rings opposed to the one piece mount. I wondered why the repair manual gives advice on the maintenance of a wooden stock.
Anyone know if the actual trial rifle was of the wood type stock illustrated in Simon's post or was it submitted with the composite McMillan stock we recognise?