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?
Here's a pic of a real one seen a few years ago, converted maltby action!
Attachment 39630
The old peepers ain't what they used to be but it doesn't look to me like the front pad seating surface has been milled at all. Judging by the size of the engraving it was set up for a visually impaired sniper.....
ATB
MY pal - yes, another Armourer - acquired a 1981 L42 that was earmarked for Mob Stores (mobilization stores) in the mid 90's and the markings were larger than that one. I'd say proportionately identical to the example shown in the earlier pic but the letters were a tad wider too according to he, whom I've directed to this site to pass his eagle eyes over.
Don't forget that when the rifle barrel/body was set up in the machining jig and a DTI passed over it, the body would ONLY be machined if it were a) not flat and b) even if it were flat, was not parallel to the bore. It was this parallelism that was all important.
It was this parallel to the bore that was the bain of Armourers lives later as it meant that for a subsequent barrel change, the NEW barrel had to align with the body and the collimated/centred tele sight as opposed to be simply zeroable with iron sights. So you'd start with 25 or 30 new barrels just to select the one that aligned the best.
Thx PL. I accept absolutely the argument re parallelism, but in practice how many have you actually seen that weren't at least 'kissed' by a miller? As you say though anyway, the front pad seems to have been seated too far back. The rear pad looks brand new to me, yet the screws holding it on are messily linished/filed (as Brian pointed out). If it had been on since 1944 (or whenever) those razor sharp corners would have become a little rounded off with the various FTR's & L42 conversion it is likely to have been through. I can't say too much about the size of the markings as I've never owned one of the very late conversions myself, although I've seen photo's of a couple & they looked more typical of XL39E1's photo AFAICR. I suppose the bloke on the pantograph might have got his scale setting a bit wrong when he did that one!
But perhaps we ought to see what Simon comes up with if Rob can get the serial number for him.....
ATB
Rob, could you please look in your PM in-tray. I sent you 2 messages recently and I wonder if they got through?
Patrick
No sign of a milled flat for the front pad. No sign of any solder. Apparent migration of paint under bottom edge of recently removed and apparently ill-fitting front pad.
Not a bad replica cheekrest, but look at the tunnel underneath the leading edge!
No "TR" on the butt socket.
Markings? Used pantograph engravers are not expensive to buy, to say nothing of small Chinese-made CNC engravers and routers.
Paint looks like BBQ paint and I don't see any phosphating, at least not definitively.
The most optimistic interpretation would be an attempted restoration of a receiver stripped of its pads some time in the past, and I'm not sure even Norman Vincent Peale could believe that.:p
I had the chance to see this rifle first hand on Friday and these are my observations. No one who has comented so far has mentioned the no gunsmith mount shown in the original photo, the fitting of this mount meant that the front pad had to be removed, the "mess" around the front pad area is where paint that had been applied has been scraped back, I can comfirm that the front pad area has been milled as you would expect. The rear pad screws were as Brian Dick stated completley buggered as someone had tried to remove them cold, they have now been removed and await replacement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
What was not obvious from the photo was that the top wood has been machined flat for a good part of it's length I assume to accept the scope that was being fitted to the no gunsmith mount.
There are none of the normal "4T" marks visible but as stated in Peters book these were probably linished clean especially when you consider the position of the larger engraving of the later L42,s.
The only other mark that I could see was a serial number on the left buttsocket which probably meant that all the previous marks in this area had also been linished off.
I have checked with Simon and the serial number does not appear on any of the lists he has but as so little is know about the late production L42's that is not necessarily supprising.
The butt and check rest are not original to the rifle and have both been removed.
The lettering engraved on the action does conform with the style and size as described in Peters book, the front pad, which came supplied loose with the rifle appears to be with tolerance when compared with another 4T that was there.
The barrel my have been replaced but then so had so many others.
On balance this rifle would appear to be a genuine L42 action that has been bodged to accept a different scope in the same way that so many 4T's were altered in the days when they had no real value.
Other people my come to a different conclusion to mine but faced with what was in front of me it is the conclusion I came to.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC01736-1.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Buccaneer
The milled flat surrounding the front pad in the photos isn't the usual "pad shaped" area, but the regular milling. At least that's how it appears in the photos- even fully enlarged. But "hands on" is always best. Usually...
As for the "no comment", no comment seemed required! ;) But here's one: Eeewww!
Don't buy it, if that's what you're considering (I forget now). It has nothing on it which says genuine at all IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buccaneer
Did you see the Enfield examiner's mark? Did you see the S on the cutoff block?
"No further questions, M'lud."
Buy Peter's book first, then you can be an eggspurt like us!;)
I'm not trying to be rude, just calling it as I see it, so please don't be offended.:wave:
About twenty years ago there were a few "L42's" knocking about in the UK that were supposedly the real deal that had been partially stripped down & somehow made their way onto the civvy market & were then reassembled. They all lacked pads, scopes etc etc. They were NOT genuine L42's but were put togethers from an assortment of parts. I just wonder if this could be one of them? IIRC there were about ten or so of these rifles produced, rumour has it by a couple of enterprising RFD's, & one feature I noticed on several is that they used commercial EFD manufactured barrels - as were recently featured in another thread on this forum. They had been chambered, but like the one shown in the recent thread, they had not had the extractor recess machined out. Our enterprising chaps had got round this by turning a reverse cone on the rear face of the barrel so that it would clear the extractor however it happened to breech up. It also meant they didn't have to worry about the knox or foresight alignment being a problem.
I just wonder if the barrel on this rifle might demonstrate the same feature - it was clearly visible from the breech with the bolt open, so far as I recall.
Even if the rifle shown in this thread is not one of them I presume these rifles are still floating around somewhere.........
ATB
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
The paint around the front pad area had been applied after the pad had been removed the "mess" was caused when the paint scraped off to expose the front pad area.Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
The flat on the top hand guard is parallel and runs for about two thirds of the length, it appears to have been done on a spindle moulder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
I have Peter Laidler's excellent book and on page 112 it states "The original No 4 Mk1 markings have been linished clean, but can sometimes be seen." it also states that "during this conversion process, the beadblasting and phosphating process has often deleated other markings like the small "s". There is also a reference to this on the UK Knowledge Library, 1971 L42A1, point number 6 in the comments section as posted by Alan Roberts, it states "be aware that unlike the earlier 70's conversions, these were linished clean of any markings prior to conversion EXCEPT THE SERIAL NUMBER, according to the specifications. These particular rifles are extremely rare beasts so if you own one don't be supprised if yours doesn't have the small"s" or the "TR" ect"Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
So in answer to your question YES people do know about the absence of these markings.
I can confirm that in answer to a point made by Roger Payne that the extractor recess is properly cut in the barrel.
I have no intention of purchasing this rifle if fact it is not for sale I posted what I saw for information on what appears to be a grey area of L42 knowledge. Based on what I have read the chances that this rifle started out as a 1980's conversion seem to be better than 50/50, the owner has sent me a picture of a mark on the rear of the action it is not very clear but may help to shed some light on the subject.
I am not offended by your comments nor am I an expert as you claim to be, but at least I can spell "expert"............
Hi Buccaneer,
Thanks for coming back to me on the rear face of the barrel. At least it is probably not one of those rifles to which I referred earlier.
Unfortunately the EFD examiners' marks on the rear action aside the bolt-way are indistinct, at least too much so for me to be sure as to what they say, but my eyes can't make either of them look like the D6E that I would expect to see on a rifle that started off as a 4T prior to L42 conversion. If it was originally a BSA Shirley the other one of them would probably say 7EE.
All in all, my money is still on it being as wrong as a nine bob note, but I accept that you feel it is correct, & sometimes we just have to agree to disagree.....
ATB.
"eggspurt" was in quotation marks to indicate that it was a humorous and deliberate misspelling; it's an ironic "North Americanism".Quote:
Originally Posted by Buccaneer
I'm sorry if you're annoyed by my delivery, but we often misunderstand each other's "tone" on the Internet. Excuse me if I am under-estimating your knowledge. As you know, many posters in these sorts of threads are new to the subject and I didn't read your other posts in different threads to try and appraise your knowledge.
I'm afraid the pads are in the wrong place and there is no record that I have ever heard of, of a UK converted No4(T) having pads in that position. Of course, if one was inclined to a bit of fakery, the points you made above about the removal of markings would make the 80s series L42 an ideal candidate wouldn't it?
I assume the mag well is machined out for the 7.62mm magazine.
Did we ever find out if the serial number is on Simons list?
Yes it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
XL39A1 from what I have read in this tread it is not on Simons List of 1970 – 75 L42’s. “I have checked with Simon and the serial number does not appear on any of the lists he has but as so little is know about the late production L42's that is not necessarily supprising.” Post #17.
I have not seen many 1980’s L42A1’s but I seem to remember that the 80 –82 batch, was converted from New referbished atctions? Or was this urban mith? I hope PL or RP will correct me with the 80 – 82 L42’s if this is wrong?
I’m a keen amature when it comes to L42A1’s, as my L42’s were a 1971 manufature, and I have only limited knolowage on this type. But I feel that this 1980’s L42 dosent have the “feel” of the “orginal” 1970’s L42’s. The ones I have seen in 1980’s style, are like the picture shown in post #11.
Who said my info only covers those conversion dates???? I certainly didn'tQuote:
XL39A1 from what I have read in this tread it is not on Simons List of 1970 – 75 L42’s.
Cheers,
Simon.
Hi Daniel,
AFAIK the late batch were converted from existing 4T's just the same as all of the others. The one shown in XL39E1's posting clearly still shows the original Maltby receiver markings & I think this is typical of all L42's I have seen. PL must have the last word on this, but I think as all L42's were effectively FTR'd from the point of their conversion they may well suffer from some loss of original markings, but I think the extent of this is rather variable across the whole conversion range. (Of course I haven't seen anywhere near all of the L42's ever produced, but I have seen nearly 400). Indeed, if the late batch was particularly heavily linished before reassembly it would be nice to see some definite evidence of this on a rifle, or preferably rifles, whose provenance is/are beyond reproach. The one in this thread certainly doesn't fit the bill.
It is possible that you might be thinking of the idea that was kicked about of making new-build L42's on new No4 Mk2 bodies. I suppose it would have become the L42A2 had it ever got off the ground, but like so many other projects, it didn't.
All the best.
I wonder if Charnwood ordnance can remember seeing any 1980 or 1981 dated rifles as they had a few though there hands?
Actually XL39E1 it was at Charnwood that NobsDave & I had the run of the whole batch of 385 when they first had them in. If only decent digital cameras had existed then I'd have the info as I'd have photographed the receiver of every one of them!
ATB.
Simon,
Sorry I hope I didn’t offend you, I just meant the distinction of 1970 – 75 batch of L42’s to the 1980’s batches. Thank you to Roger for the clarification it is an interesting tread and subject, I personally am fascinated by the L42’s, and thanks to PL, RP, and XL39A1 have managed to gain a better understanding and respect for these rifles. I wonder if there any more pictures of civilian owned 1980’s L42 about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanL96a1
Not on our site that I've been able to find. But keep checking in, there's no telling when one will pop up.
Danl96a1,
Not at all, my reply was meant to be tongue in cheek.
Cheers,
Simon.