Or perhaps even though 100 was the original number there were substantially les actually produced? Stopped short because of a change of mind...? Then they usually try to corral them all for destruction too.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
Printable View
Or perhaps even though 100 was the original number there were substantially les actually produced? Stopped short because of a change of mind...? Then they usually try to corral them all for destruction too.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
Another example has now surfaced, this one in a private collection and complete with mount and original bag....
So we have BL033, BL063 and BL078 so far.
From memory, we can thank Peter for these images :cheers: I forgot I had them
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../UuuunBT-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../IPuivcS-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../oJ5xrCS-1.jpg
Would the L1A1 scope survive internally over time with the inertia of the rifle using Green Spot or alternative 7.62 round, or am I being negative? Can't help thinking, if this scope was the answer and the supposedly B's & E's , why terminate its production? Something was'nt right!!!
Many thanks Kev, much appreciated mate.Quote:
Originally Posted by nzl1a1collector
Peter is very kindly sending me a copy of same.
It did make me laugh, as Pete pointed out, the No74 illustrated, is mounted the wrong way round!
Perhaps as part of a separate trial, ensuring Snipers didn't bug out to soon, as the enemy would appear miles away!
Morning Gil, Pete pointed out that one of the issues was the typical one regarding optics and mounts spot welded to the cover.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
Basically the mount would inevitably detach before long as the spot welds failed under recoil.
I would imagine two things put paid to the No74 MK1, first and most obvious, the rifle isn't capable of the accuracy required in a dedicated Sniper rifle, second, the mounting system was funimentally flawed.
The second issue could have been avoided if they manufactured a top cover with a slightly raised ( so avoiding the reciprocating bolt group) flat platform formed into it, allowing it to be screwd or bolted through. The downside here, is it would mean the scope mounted even higher......
The No74 itself is a really nice,well thought out little scope though.
It's interesting the EMER is dated March 1966, the surviving scopes found so far are all 1967 dated and in a serial range below 100.
Of course this might just be a coincidence, re the serial range found so far, but it does suggest a very limited initial production run.
I
Probably best fitted to the H&K or Armalon .22 inerds for shooting then. Thats the place for it.:thup:
That drawing is for the Gurkha Regiments ONLY
It's funny how you don't immediately see what's staring you in the face....
Looking at the image of the prototype No74 scope, it's obvious that the mounting system discussed earlier is exactly what they originally envisioned.
It's not possible to see how this has been constructed dur the limitations of the image, but it appears to be much more robust mounting base.
Perhaps a separate prototype dust cover?
I assume the bean counters got involved and insisted on a mount assembled to a standard top cover, probably dooming it to failure...
That dust cover resembles the one issued for our AN PVS 502. It was a huge hollow affair with two holes at top for screws to attach the rail. Not much better than spot welds.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
The prototype illustrated appears to be mounted on a modified X8E2 (Ex2) unit sight top cover.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/x8e1-x8e2-slr-manual/
The extended scope base, addition of the locking tabs to the rear and deletion of the front locating pin.