I'd be interested to hear what the experts think of this rifle's markings and date.
Printable View
I'd be interested to hear what the experts think of this rifle's markings and date.
RobD: I'm no expert but that's an interesting location for the front pad- it must sit well back from the receiver ring when mounted. I know, from Mr. Laidlers book, that some "T's" were done that way- the example he shows is a Maltby.
Ridolpho
PM me with the serial number and I'll check my records.
Cheers,
Simon.
The front pad could be set back but I seem to recall that it was only the width of a hacksaw blade or so. This wsa in order that when drilling and tapping the rear pad screws the drill and tap could clear the induction hardened rear left locking shoulder. There were 80 and 81 L42's. I agree with thread 2 that the pad there looks a bit tooooo far to the rear!
The engraving isn't correct and the rear pad screws are buggered like I've never seen before.
cheek piece looks like a reproduction,
To the point that they don't look like correct screws at all!Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Dick
Having never seen a large font '80s conversion in person, a comparative photo of the markings would be helpful if anyone has such.
I know it is only a drawing but the markings of the late contract L42 as shown on page 109 of Peters book "An Armourer's Perspective" seem to be a pretty good match to the ones show on the pictured rifle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Dick
And well they might be Buccaneer........ If only the holes were an equally good match is what I say!
Will this rifle be at Bisley on Wednesday Rob?