I actually had a major brain f*rt and forgot what this sight is for. It's been sitting around here for a long time and time to start moving out some of the extra "fluff" that has been cluttering up the shed for years.
SO!! Can anyone enlighten me as the what the sight is for: other than a cadet .22 training rifle.
Thanks in advance.Attachment 27589Attachment 27588Attachment 27590
7.62 Rifle L81A1 P-H Cadet Rifle
You were ALMOST right there Brian, but missed out one important word. The RUBBISH 7.62mm L81A1 P-H Cadet target rifle.
They made a big song and dance about introducing these rifles into Cadet shooting circles (and readily available to Regular Army shooting circles too if they wanted them) But, alas, Cadets had to give up their target No4's to get these L81's and the substantial 7.62mm ammo allocation. Regular target shooters didn't want the L81....... who wanted these when you already had a competitive L39 target rifle.
Shooting team coaches and others in the know were left asking '.............why can't we just have L39's, similar in every respect to the No4's that we know like the back of our hands already. We can swop over our sights, slings etc etc......... and on and on, but no!
I called in and questioned an old Training Warrant Officer at Banbury whom I knew well and asked him about all these L81's that were on charge and gathering dust in the main Armoury at XXXX. He confided in me and told me, in the few choice words that only Warrant officers are used to and said '.........I'll tell you the REAL reason or the load of old shxxe and waffle answer Sir.........., what one do you a) want or b) need?
The reason we keep them, even though they are never used, is that in THEORY and on PAPER, they ARE used, very often - in fact they're used on 5 weekends out of 4! They come with a most generous ammo allocation of 7.62mm ball, the same as our old and popular Bren and GPMG's guns. So all the ammo for these gets used for REAL training on the Brens and GPMG's.
I had to ask of course about who and how did the small units and schools do their target shooting. And guess what............? The L81 didn't feature! The School Cadets were still VERY competitive by borrowing the regular 7.62mm L39's or better still, using their old No4's. And as for .303" No4 ammo............. 'There's no need for someone of your rank to start questioning someone of my experience about ammo logistics. But we have sufficient for 10 years or so......... ' Good answer RSM!
Just box it all up Warren and send it my way, and while your at it, throw a few No32 scopes in with rifles attached etc....Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
Hey warren, while you are cleaning up, Please don't forget that information on Humphreys sights you promised me.
Oh, and don't worry about bigduke, I've allready organised the pantech to pickup those bits he's on about.
A question for Peter Laidler on these rifles.
I understand they were made from 1983 to 1990. I also understand that a subset of these rifles had problems with heat treatment of the action body. That is why the L81A2 came about.
But what i have never read, is how well did they shoot Green spot out to say 600 yards?
Was there a problem with the Epoxy bedding? I ask as the official spec I saw on these indicates they used Devcon F aluminum filled epoxy, which has been used for years in the US on 7.62 Match M1 and M14 rifles with no issues.
I am interested in building one, which is why I ask. I have a Parker Hale M84 MK II target action body to use, as well as most of the other bits. I am wondering what issues I should be aware of.
I don't think that anyone has an old EMER left for these L81 monstrosities any more but I'll ask. I don't think that the L81 and M84 bodies were the same either as the 81 wasn't machined for a magazine. I seem to remember that the body was drilled on the breeching up rings for a telescope mount but my views regarding mounting a telescope pad on a thin receiver ring are well known.
\If you need more info on them, Brian at BDL has a couple(?) of the user handbooks and Fultons have a couple of the rifles. As I said earlier, the scoped version came top in the accuracy part of the 80's sniper rifle trials. Accuracy was good. Maintainability was rubbish.
Another point that I seem to remember being discussed at length during the period was the fact that while they came with a cheap and nasty abortion of an iron sight, originally, there wasn't even a P-H MoA type sight that would fit. Believe it or not, the optional unit-buy sight that was suggested would foul the opening and closing of the bolt..........
I think it is fairly obvious that Peter does not like the L81 rifle so I thought that for all of you out there in forum land who don't know what he is on about I have posted a few pictures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
The sight mentioned at the begining of this thread is fitted to this rifle, also note the rather novel and simple way of adjusting the length of the butt simply by adding or removing spacers, remember this was designed to be used by cadets who as we know come in many shapes and sizes, a poorly fitting rifle that kicks a cadet every time he or she pulls the trigger could put them off shooting for life !!!!
Attachment 32385Attachment 32384Attachment 32383Attachment 32382Attachment 32381Attachment 32386Attachment 32387Attachment 32388
I didn't know anyone owned an ex MoD L81 rifle! Just remind me and the others Buccaneer. Was I right in saying that the L81 body isn't machined for a magazine? Or was it just blocked off to prevent magazine loading?
You can see why those Cadet Forces that did a lot of shooting just used their local TA or regular unit L39's! They already knew them intimately because they'd been using No4's since the 50's AND even when the No4's were withdrawn, they still had the MoA P-H backsights to use on the L39's
You are quite right Peter the body is not machined for a magazine, the floor of the body is the loading platform.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Thank you for posting these pictures, they will be a big help to me in completing my project. I have never seen the actual side markings on one of these rifles. Your pictures are the clearest most detailed I have seen to date. I am afraid here in US of A we do not have any L81A1 action bodies, the closest match we have is P-H Model 84 MKII action bodies. With the exception of the open magazine well, these action bodies seem the same, to the point of the Mauser bolt having to have the reinforce guide rail be machined off and the funky late bolt release mechanism.
I note on your rifle the front hand stop rail is on a aluminum rail, instead of a steel metal insert with drilled screw locations, like that set up used on the old 1200TX target rifle. Is the aluminum rail original to your rifle or was it a post factory mod? I ask as the picture I have of the Model 84 MK II target rifle clearly shows the older drilled steel inset in the stock, not the aluminum rail.
I also note on your rifle the epoxy bedding seems a little different from what I expected. Having looked at Parker Hale 1200 TX and C3 rifles, it seems the first inch of the barrel is bedded as well as the action body on these designs. Is there a epoxy bedding pad under the first inch of barrel forward of the action body that is not evident on your photos?
Is the action body beded in the rear of the action body, around the rear action screw or is there simply a metal insert to avoid crushing the wood. In other words, is only the front ring of the action body bedded to that wood stock?
What sort of finish does the rifle have? Is it a paint or simply dark blue/black/oxide finish? From the pictures it seems to be a flat blue/oxide finish, not suncorite paint.
If you are familiar with the L81A1 rifle, could you tell us something of your rifle, its history, how you got it and how well it shoots? Do you notice a difference between it’s performance in the 600 and below vs. the 800 to 1000 yards competition? I am very interested in this rifle for some strange reason and have had a hard time getting any real information on it over here in the US of A. Anything you could add in regards to background information would be of great interest.
A further few questions for Peter Laidler:
Was the original L81A1 epoxy bedded at all? I ask as the stock I have seems to fit very closely to the action body without any bedding compound. I was under the impression the 1200TX and C3 were epoxy bedded, was the L81A1 similarly bedded?
You mention the rifle was very poor from a servicing point of view. Could you elaborate on that? I ask as the old Parker Hale 1200TX rifle seems to enjoy a good reputation, at least in Canada for 600 yards and under shooting in the Pre 1996 days when C21 was the cartridge. I have heard hunters with P-H 1100 and 1200 rifles speak very warmly of these rifles as regards accuracy in the field. I am curious about what marked this P-H design a failure, was it simply by the time it came along (1983) that it was essentially obsolete compared to the Swing, Paramount and similar actions?
You mentioned that the cadets were more at home with the L39A1 rifles. Was this true in the short range competition as well? I was under the impression that the L39A1/Envoy rifles really shown at the 800 to 1000 ranges, that in the shorts (200 to 500 yards) the Mauser designs did very well in the post 1968 to 1996 time period.
Thank you both for your time in answering these questions.
I have the UK provisional users manual on this rifle from November 1982. The only other manual I have been able to find is the M85 sniper service manual. Does anyone have access to any true L81A1 or M83 rifle service manuals?
Regards
Frederick303
You asked about the rifle and it's service. I will ask another Armourer who was heavily involved with these monstrosities to answer your questions, but the rifle generally, wasn't well received. I have to say that I was never involved with any part of it except for borrowing one a few times to take part in a shooting competition when the usual L42 I used to borrow was being used in another competition by the sniper who it was assigned to. I thought it was a bit of a cheek too, him using it officially when I needed it for a bit of sport shooting but there you go..........
The L81......... Can you imagine if you were quite happily working away in your company with XYZ type computers. All of the infrastructure was geared up to them and they gave satisfactory service. All of a sudden the works computers were all removed over a totally 'new' but ancient design was heaped onto the company............ Not only that, it was totally different to the extent that nothing seemed to interchance between the old and 'new' - except that the 'new' wasn't really new. In fact, it was the same age as the old but dressed up to LOOK new. But under the skin, it was cheap. Even the backsight was........, well...., just look at it! The deflectiongraduations didn't relate to anything and the sight leaf ranges were a) too small to read and b) a pure figment of someones fertile imagination. I'll tell you about done on the cheap too. Some of the backsights they used were old left over 40's 0-800 No5 backsights... Not that it mattered much of course but you get the point.
Then when the deed was done, people started asking '.......what the xxxx is all this xxxxx? Who knows about this stuff. Just a minute......, we can't even use the X or Y or Z's on it...........' Nobody had any answers. Nobody knew who had made the final decision to accept the rifle because it seems that nobody seemed to know ANYONE who was involved in the trials to adopt/accept the thing. It was totally alien. And furthermore, you couldn't use it in some of the popular speed competitions such as snaps and rapids because it didn't have a magazine. As I said earlier, it wasn't that there was a shortage of .303" ammunition - if this was the reason...... We were still buying millions of rounds of compatable HXP! Or just supply them with L39's that were plentiful. Which is just what those that wanted them used anyway
So from that moment onwards, it was doomed
Another rifle followed shortly afterwards too. The L98 Cadet GP 5.56 rifle. It had the inbuilt faults of the first SA80's PLUS more but you'll have to read the Steve Raw book to understand those!
Alas, the problem has been cured once and for all now. The Cadets now have everything they want for shooting. The L81 has gone and the new Cadet SA80 is identical to the current Army rifle but without the full auto facility. So rapid and snap shoots are back and they can compete against regular forces. And a big hand for the team involved in formulating and bringing into service the new Cadet SA80 - who listened to what they wanted and gave it to them! And before you ask, yes I was!
Capt. Laidler,
Many thanks for your reply. I really appreciate the “skinny”; it explains a great deal of the negative “lore” regarding this rifle and the follow-on L81A2.
I have noted on the PH parts I have is that the fit of the bolt to the action body is not what you would expect on a true match rifle, it is rather loose compared to a 1974 vintage Musgrave action. I attributed the looseness to the fact that the PH action body had not been used and was perhaps a left over reject action (even though it passed RC test). Certainly the machining finish was not what one would expect on a top of the line rifle and is far worse then the finish seen on Parker-Hale sporting rifles. I do get the “cheap comment”.
I have two of the modified No 4 L81A1 sights. One is really tight, when I put a dial indicator on it and checked the run out when making corrections it seems to have less than .001 slack in the threads. The second sight is not as good, it has close to a quarter minute of slack in the threads. I was under the impression that the reason for the modified No 4 sight was to keep the sighting equipment close to that of an issue weapon, to prevent some of the equipment battles that usually occur when folks can customize rifles. Somewhat of an attempt to transition to a “standard rifle”, not a full up “target rifle”. If what I get from your writing is correct, that was not so much the case as a case of just plain cheapness on the part of the MOD.
I do have one more question related to why the L81A1 did not catch on.
You mention that at the time there was still plenty of .303 in the system. It is my recollection from reading SAA pamphlets that the .303 SAA was “rechecked” for proof every year after 15 years of storage. As the last dates of RG MK VII ammunition was around 1957~58 in the UK and the last lots of Kynoch .303 MK VII loaded with cordite was around 1968, between 1973 and 1983 there must have been very little true MK VII cordite ammunition left in the system. I know RG loaded MK VIIZ in 1972 and 1973 and that HXP VIIZ was utilized after the MK VII cordite ammunition was no longer in use because of age or simply all fired off.
However in talking to former cadets from the mid to late 1970s, they seem to indicate that the MKVIIZ ammunition was not much liked when it came out, and that the Cadets preferred to use the remaining lots of MK VII. I gather that this was because the rifles they had had some cordite wear and would not group that well with HXP ammunition, at least those rifles that has some significant amount of MKVII ammunition through them.
By the early 1980s there could not have been that much 1950s RG MK VII left in the system and from what I have read, most of the Kynoch contracts from 1958 to 1968 were for export to former crown colonies. So by 1982 or so when this rifle was adopted most of the cadets would have been forced to use HXP ammunition, there could not have been much, if any MK VII ammunition left
In that case, unless the cordite worn rifles were replaced with like new UF55 or FTR 56 and 57 rifles, would not the accuracy of the cadet rifles be falling off a bit when used with MK VIIZ ball? Even if replaced by mid to late 50s FTR and new UF 1955 No 4 Mk II rifles, would not the accuracy of the L81A1 with select L2A2 ball be better then the No4 Mk II with HXP ball? I ask as it seems those were the two choices available.
By the by the accuracy spec I have for the M83/M84/M85 PH series of rifles is 5 shots of decent ball ammunition in a 38 mm circle @ 100 meters. That correlates to less than a 1.4 inch 100 yard 5-shot group on demand, which is better then I would expect on an as-issue No 4 MK II firing HXP of 1975 to 1985 vintage. If the rifle had a worn bore like many of the cadet rifles we have here in the US of A are, I would expect worse.
Now having spent many hours on a full bore range I note that folks seem to gravitate to accurate rifles, leaving the older pattern arms in the dust. Why if the L81A1 was more accurate, at least in slow fire events did it not find some favor? That implies to me that the Cadet No 4 rifles must have been fairly accurate shooters.
Your comments on this would be illuminating and welcome, especially if some part of my understanding is incorrect regarding the accuracy, or if the rifle would not maintain accuracy, or the No 4 rifles were more accurate then I expect.
Many thanks for your responses; your knowledge on these topics is irreplaceable.
Regards
Frederick303
As for ammunition Fred, well, Armourers have a saying that we don't mix it with ammo and ammunition technicians don't mix it with weapons - and never the twain shall meet. That's just a short answer to say that I don't know anything about ammo except this. If any of the ammo that was in the system was unsuitable, then they wouldn't have dished it out!
The only thing I do remember was that there were 30 round cut-down belts of .303" Mk7 and 8z issued that was only suitable for Bren guns. All the rest, be it RG, RL and HXP was as good as it gets and there was plenty of it. The real question is why they got the L81 when the answer was within the L39!
As you say, there were also serious questions about the finished quality and quality of the bought-in body forgings too.......
Hi Frederick303 they say a picture is worth a thousand words so I stripped the rifle and took some more pics that I hope will answer your questions. The finish is more black oxide than blue with the reciever being more matt than the barrel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frederick303
I only aquired the rifle recently I bought it along with a M82 that was produced to the Canadian spec C3A1 which means that it had a 6 round detatchable box mag fitted it also came without a scope but with PH 5E target sights. I have not fired either of them as yet so I can't answer your question on how accurate it is. I would say that aluminum rail was factory fitted a very similar one is fitted to the M82.
"Rifles or the World" gives a good written description othis family of rifles, page 362 of the third edition. I hope this helps in your quest...Attachment 32419Attachment 32420Attachment 32421Attachment 32422Attachment 32423Attachment 32424Attachment 32425Attachment 32426
Thanks for the photos Buccaneer. They'll bring on the nightmares when I sleep tonight. I only ever used an L81 once and that was one of these 300, 500 and 900 yard comps. I don't recall how I did but I won't bother to check my trophy cabinet! OH, yes, the rail was a factory fitting. I'm thinking back now and am sure that the rail was a cheap LM type alloy that soon got chewed up by the adjustable sling loop. Maybe the Canadian and Aust spec snipers specified a more robust steel rail. I'm sure that the MoD spec for the rifle was the usual spec black phosphate and paint as I seem to remember that there was a note that came around that they weren't to be RE-phosphated due to de-embrittlement concerns
Hi
It really was a dreadful piece of kit to use and was nicknamed the Elephant Gun, the accuracy wasn't bad once you were told that the torque settings of the screws was the critical bit. Although to find that out and what they were you had to read an article by Ma Parker of AJ Parker Birmingham in Guns Review.
Cheers
H
Just out of interest, does anyone else own one oif these things...... In L81 or M84 configuration? Anyone up your end of the world still got the EMER's/AESP's Skippy or Tankie. Were there EMEI's for yours Son?
Buccaneer,
Thank you for your posts of the rifle. They have clarified a lot of things about this rifle and its bedding. In particular the three screw mounting method, that looks very close to how the Winchester post 64 match rifles were secured to the wood. In particular the differences in your M83 action body and the M84 MK II action body I have are now apparent. Sad my repro rifle will not be quite right; I will have to fill in the magazine well or assembly it with the lower parts from a M8 2 rifle
The bedding does remind me of Devcon aluminum-filled epoxy. At least it has the same color. My guess is that is what they used.
It does look like the rear action screw is aluminum pillar bedded or something close to that.
The finish does look like a dark oxide/paint, I have seen some enamel paints that can go on with a very light layer and when baked seem to almost be an oxide finish. The bolt and barrel that I have (which were take off of de-milled rifles) both had a worn blue finish.
Once again, thank you very much. It has helped me a lot with this project. I will tell my wife (who is half Welsh) that the info came from Cardiff. Of course then I will have to hear about the Royal Welch Fusiliers and the fact that their enemies never saw their back and stories about leeks on St. David’s day, etc….
Capt Laidler
Thank you for all your information, it is very much appreciated. Being more interested in the target rifle aspect of the lee Enfield then their military service life, I find the extended Cadet use and history of the No4 to be of great interest. While that period is not so long ago, your postings have clarified a lot of what individual shooters from the period have said regarding their experiences. Once again your posts are invaluable.
Regards
Frederick303
MKVIIIZ
Looking at the three screw bedding method, I can well believe the torque setting on the screws mater. On the Winchester model 70 of mid 1970’s vintage, this is true as well. It relates to the middle screw, if this is over-tightened the action will be “flexed” and you will get wild shots. On that rifle the key to getting it to shoot well is to tighten both the front rear to factory spec, and then just tighten up the middle screw until it is snug. This was true of any of the rifles with factory bedding, with or without a surface expoxy bedding.
To avoid these problems in the mid 1970s pillar bedding was introduced. Correctly set up, the aluminum pillars eliminate this problem by limiting how much the action can be “sprung” by over tightening the screws.
Does this sound correct for the L81A1? Do you know what the correct spec would be?
Many thanks for any information you can provide.
Regards
Frederick303
---------- Post added at 12:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:17 PM ----------
One last comment on the torque settings, I just checked the M84 MK II schematic and note that they dropped the three screw arrangement. The rear screw was dropped and only the screw in front of the trigger guard and the action ring screws were retained. Might be because of the defect noted above by MKVIIIZ
Frederick303,
I have 2 L81A1's. I will post some pictures of both for you. one is a stripped reciever having the caliber machined off.
Hi Fredrick
I see you had some good sense in marrying a girl with welsh antecedents. The RWF flashes by the way are a left over from their service in the West Indies when the order to abolish the Queue didn't reach them. I'm ex 41/69 so what do I know about Gogs anyway?
Sadly over 20 years have elapsed since those days and the memorey isn't what it was so I can't help I'm afraid but good luck with getting the beast to shoot well.
Cheers
H
My Dad's uncle Alf Jones was in the 2nd Batt. Welch Reg't. in WWI. He made it from Mons to the end. My
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
AS I recall the bolt used to wobble in the raceways like all get out, and it was quite easy to cramp it (a characteristic of all P-H Mausers built on those investment-cast Spanish actions). Keeping track of all the loose spacers, and not losing any, was quite a business - I pencillled the serial numbers on them, with a Front and Back initial as well.
The antiquated swivel at the front of the action had been provided for ... well, God knows, as nobody should be learning to shoot with one of those by the 1980s and it was too far forward for cadets with their miniature arms to be able to use any sling attached to it.
Most of the public schools threw this abortion of a sight away and bought commercial replacements. The Cadet movement were not allowed to do that, and probably wouldn't have had the money anyway.
P-H were producing some junk by then - our club bought a second-hand P-H sporter on the Spanish action for Running Deer a few years back - what a piece of junk, bits like the muzzle-brake unscrewed themselves and screws in the die-cast trigger unit sheared and the magazine rattled like a tinker's cart and eventually wouldn't feed unless you held it up with the hand.
Frederick303,
Hope this helps. As a side note: I wasn't looking for these when I came across them. I'm surprised there are not more out there on our side of the pond.
I promise that I am not posting this to give Peter any more sleepless nights but I found this info in a 12th edition of "Small Arms of the World" published in 1990 and thought it might be of interest.....
Attachment 32701Attachment 32702Attachment 32703Attachment 32704