Makers mark on TRLIUX SUIT cover/mount?

Many years ago while looking for optic choices for my Austrian Stg58, I found and purchased a dust cover mount for the Trilux SUIT. It had the tabs on it, which I trimmed to fit my Stg58. The only markings on the cover is what appears to be a "B" on the right side tab:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...bw0bmfj4-1.jpg

Can anyone tell me the manufacturer?

The actual mount part of this unit was attached to the cover with aluminum rivets which didn't last long. I've since fixed the problem with nuts and bolts (staked) and haven't had any issues since.

B = BSA

My mount suffered the same fate, aluminium rivets gave out after a few rounds. But is that because it was a cheap repro? I would have thought that a service item would have been more robust.

I don't think that this could have been a military mount, with the use of aluminum rivets. It didn't last very long at all before they worked loose from recoil. I guess this means that at least some of the cheap reproductions have a "B" mark.

Does anyone have any detailed photos of a known BSA made cover/mount? Photos of the underside and any markings?

I'm not sure that BSA made SUIT sight cover/mounts. They were well off the L1A1 rifle scene by then. And absolutely concur with the alloy rivet theory. Wouldn't - and didn't - last 5 minutes against the recoiling forces. I seem to recall an old discussion about these SUIT sight mounts and alloy rivets as being put together in the USA from Israeli (?) parts

That would make sense, here in North America aluminum pop rivets are common. Steel are easy to get but you have to work at it more. A non shooter wouldn't know aluminum won't work... All this stuff came in years ago...and was assembled and passed off as correct.

So I know that Enfield made mounts, as I have one of those. Were there any other manufacturers for the military mounts? I assume they would have multiple sources, but who knows for something like this.

Actually, many of the sight mounts were made by outside contractors especially the fitting of SUSAT type sights and night vision to other equipment.

There is a lot of info on the similar threads bit at the bottom of the page

I never noticed that section before! Very helpful.

Here are pics of the covers I have;

Attachment 66634Attachment 66635Attachment 66636Attachment 66637Attachment 66638Attachment 66639

The first two appear to have been made by BSA, the last by Enfield.

The 'B' on the plain 'BSA' cover has a crude electro-pencil engraved B. The SUIT mount top cover 'B' looks like a stamp of some sort. The Enfield stamp is inside the cover near the front.

Could SUIT sight mounts have been fitted later to old-stock BSA top covers?

Looks like Charlie has the answer. Seems like the mount makers were supplied with covers upon which to mount their mounts.

Just noticed that I have one marked P-H internally similar to the DE marked example. Who'd have thought that?

Makes sense.

Here's the Enfield mount that I just purchased:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...vd5zapi2-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...fzudex1n-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...1ywjdlms-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...mmchtbwn-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...dk5uy9ol-1.jpg

The rivets are steel on this one.

There's good and bad news.......... The cover/mount looks to be original and substantial, the actual sight was good but the spring loaded sight mounting method on the cover bracket was total crap. I say many times, that according to the users - and watchers - SUIT stands for Shooter Undoubtedly In Trouble. And whoever worked out that the flip-over lever was correct at BOTH ranges was a total fraudster!

Interesting... I've never had the opportunity to test the zero at the two distances. I will say that the sight works very well shooting from a bench or prone at the local 100 yd range. I have a couple of the Israeli units probably intended for 5.56 cartridges so I always assumed that the cam would not be correct for the 7.62 anyway. I'm still searching for a Belgian scope setup so until then, the Trilux SUIT is fun to play with.

The cam was the same ... 5.56mm or 7.62mm there was only ever one size

Everyone agrees that the sight was good. So good that the identical principle still holds good in the SUSAT. You won't get a tougher or more waterproof sight I'm sure........ BUT! The irony was that in spite of all the grief and complaints about the old L85A1/SA80, nobody ever complained about the sight. I say nobody......., but I suppose a few did!

I like using the SUIT, its the only optical device I shoot with (nice to see the target clearly... and the pointy thing at the same time :madsmile:).

But I get no better results with the SUIT, sometimes worse, than with iron sights.

Having said that, my L1A1 is not nearly as accurate as my No.4 or M1 Garand. Maybe the FE reduces the accuracy? (having Peter's recent comment on the trial fitting of a FE to the L42), or its just what it is. The L1A1 never seemed to have the reputation for great accuracy, just a great battle rifle.

Morning all,
When we last went shooting Charlie, my Enfield L1A1 / L2A1 combo printed a super 1 inch group at 100yds from the bench rest, this combo has always been very accurate indeed .... but the Lithgow L1A1/L2A2 combo, well that's another story, just seemed very random, good enough for government work I suppose, but not very accurate.

Both sights appear (I am no optics expert) to be in very good order and fitted with new springs on rock steady mounts.

I have had a few ex Israeli L2A2's pass through with the screw secured latch mod, yet to try one on my rifles, I wonder if that cured the wondering zero issue some SUIT's seem to suffer from?

On the subject of FE's possibly effecting accuracy, I wonder if there is a difference between the three slot and the five slot FE's ...

No difference in accuracy - or lack of accuracy - whether 3 or 5 slot F/E. But there was an almost discernable change in the brilliance of the flash that was (only?) detectable with instruments. Don't forget amongst all of this chatter about the sight and cover mount and accuracy, that it was the RIGIDITY of the sight assembly when fitted to the cover assembly that was the problem. It wasn't a wandering zero problem as such, it was the sight would and could move. And if, as in the case of the L1A1 and the SUIT, that there is a chance that the sight can move in relation to the rifle, then guess what WILL happen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

my Enfield L1A1 / L2A1 combo printed a super 1 inch group at 100yds from the bench rest

---

Morning John,

Yes I remember well, and recall wishing that I got similar results!

I've never been able to achieve that sort of consistency. I completely agree with Peter's analysis and I'm sure that it applies to my L1A1/SUIT. The smallest shift in the sight/mount/rifle relationship will magnify itself when trying to get a tight group (preferably in the centre of the target) at 100 yards.

We need more 'trials' :banghead: on the range (I've scrounged some tin-hat targets ;))

Regards,

Charlie

Hi Charlie, sounds like a plan to me mate, boy do I need to get away from this bloody office and get some range time in!

With your extensive background knowledge in these things Peter/Mike/Skippy, do you think the Israeli latch screw mod makes any difference to the SUIT?

I mentioned my sight dissatisfaction with the general accuracy of the L1A1 when compared to my No.4 or M1 Garand. So I did a search on 'L1A1 accuracy'...

2011:
Peter referred to the Trials team in 1965/66 who quickly established that none of the L1A1's produced accuracy sufficient to pursue any further trials and development of the sight (TELESCOPE Straight Sighting No 74).

In the post Accurizing an L1A1/FAL? Tankhunter refers to the old problem with the break in the sight axis, inherent in the FAL design.

And there's another 10 pages on L1A1 accuracy!

Anyway back to the FE...

I notice in the great film (LiveLeak.com - SLR .308 Rifle british FAL Variant. (comments)) (always worth another look) that the rifle they're using doesn't have a FE. So, back to my question, is it possible that the FE might reduce the overall accuracy, as Peter mentioned in his post about trial fitting a FE to the L42? And if so, is the L1A1 (or other FAL based rifle) more accurate without one? Were there ever any trials carried out?

TIA

Charlie

PS - off topic I know :ugh:

I forgot how hilarious that film was Charlie, "This proper Gentleman's Lee Enfield, is to be replaced by this "Belgium type" ... is what it sounds like, reading between the lines .. the narrator is insulting Jonny foreigner"!

Lithgow certainly didn't use the FE on the single shot target model, I guess it comes down to what is acceptable accuracy in a service rifle, if it can hit body mass at 500+yds, then that's good enough for Government work.

The bloke with the L42 stepped in to cover the rest ..

Any general issue service rifle (or whatever they call them today, individual weapon or alike) is by design a compromise of necessary features, accuracy being just one of many ... by far the most important feature is cost according to treasury bean counters, always has been and always will be I should think....

I will give you a call about another brass conversion day Charlie.

Don't forget that when we talk about accuracy we eliminate ALL human and environmental interference by shooting from an Enfield rest and laid using a layer. That is the only way to really test accuracy. Another point to ponder is that the No74 and SUIT sight aren't affected by the iron sights being on different planes.

Interesting subject.

Doubled up in error

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Doubled up in error

---

Sort yourself out, THAT MAN!!!!!!!!!........................:madsmile: