Malay contract L2A1

Morning all,

I hope all our UK members have escaped the rolling storms undamaged .. !

I headed on up to the Birmingham International Arms fair last Sunday and finally had the opportunity to say hello to our very own Roger Payne, always nice to put a face to a name.

My main mission of the day was to acquire another SLR for the collection, this time an old spec deactivated Lithgow L2A1, all matching numbers, really nice example and a piece that's been missing from my Inch pattern Fal collection for a long while.

This one is 1964 dated and Malaya contract ... interesting piece, it is currently fitted with an incorrect British three slot Flash Eliminator instead of the Tactical Trumpet these contract L2's were famous for.

That spiked my interest, so I looked a bit closer at this piece, it seems I have an example pre 1988 section 1 fun hardware!

Over on another forum, a few of us have been fondly reminiscing about Pat walker, an RFD based in Gateshead in the 1980's. He was well know for his conversions of full auto firearms to Sec1 in the "have what you want" pre 1988 happy days here in the UK.

Now Pat and his team did a proper job of the conversions, but others took a far more relaxed approach!

Well this L2A1 is clearly a product of those long gone happy times (not one of Pats conversions), close study revealed London proof House 1982 marks and a section 1 modification .... a pin had been placed to stop the fire lever being rotated round to the rock and roll indent ...:thup::cheers:

Yep, a full Auto light machine gun and all that was altered to render it semi auto was the addition of a TMH mounted steel pin!

It seems insane today, but back then in the UK, a more relaxed approach was taken, the steel "stop pin" was not uncommon!

Then came murderous nut job Michael Ryan, and all the good wholesome fun stuff was swept away with the stroke of a pen!

If it was me, I would have cut the tip from the safety sear, machined the bolt carrier tripping extension away and replaced the fire selector and trigger plunger with the semi only units from the L1A1.

I was going to replace the FE during restoration, but I think I will retain it now as its part of this L2A1's history and a reminder of long gone happy times for us UK shooters!

I will post pics when shes ready for display..

Cheers all, John.

Not sure that I'd have cut the tip off the safety sear........ Think about it! Incidentally, it's not a 'safety sear' as such but an automatic sear

Well, here she is, restored and ready for display alongside one of my L1A1's for comparison.

I'm sure that ours had a backsight on the cover......... Or were the Malay Police ones different to our Army ones?

Hi Peter, I think the Singapore and Malaya contract examples had the L1 backsight, I would love a backsight top cover and blanking wedge for mine, but they seem to be quite rare and very expensive indeed!

Although we had L2's in the Battalions they weren't that popular as LMG's because the regular cadre NCO's had been brought up on Brens - which the L2 definately wasn't. Additionally, those Regular and Nasho crunchies that had been to Malaya (and were distributed into the 'new' battalions) had been equipped with L4 Brens to boot. They certainly knew how to split gas cylinders!!!!! The chrome pistons and gas plugs on Aust L1's and 2's seemed better/harder than the UK ones

Maybe Muffer or Bruce can say when the L2's were phased out.

The Unit I was with at the time had them withdrawn in 1986

Here's an ex Singapore L2A1 rifle as it came from the Factory in 1970.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...op8ergf3-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...c70dq5cm-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...eeangdam-1.jpg

The standard L1A1 type sighting arrangement was preferred because there was little point in having a 1000m backsight in the thick bush/jungle. The Recoil Reducer was also a standard feature on the Malaya contract L2A1 rifles right from the start.

Very nice example Kevin, is it part of your superb collection?

Its one of 6 that were imported into New Zealand back in the mid 80's. Now there are only 5 in this configuration as someone thought it would be better to remove the ugly recoil reducer and replace it with the standard L1A1 flash eliminator. Mind you I can't blame them, at the time you couldn't get standard L2A1 rifles, they were still in service.

It appears the barrel and bipod assemblies were sourced from CAL in Canada. Note the walnut "handguards" on the legs and late C1A1 stamped front sight protectors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Dick

It appears the barrel and bipod assemblies were sourced from CAL in Canada. Note the walnut "handguards" on the legs and late C1A1 stamped front sight protectors.

---

In my junk I have a new in (formerly sealed) box Lithgow L2 bipod assy which I was disappointed and surprised to find when I opened it is CAL marked.

I've never seen an Australian made one. In the early 90's I imported 25 or so of them, all new from a contact in Ontario along with a pile of other C1/C2 parts, some that I'm still using for repairs that come in from customers, (thank Christ for the gas tubes!). They interchange on both inch and metric variants. Anyhow, I remember pricing the beautiful bipods at about $50 each and it took forever to sell them. We only ever built a couple of the L2/C2 semi auto variants and they were lovely rifles. I also had the big disc rear sights for them graduated to 1000m. I had a few of the factory Belgian FAL HB rifles too but never kept one. I always preferred the standard L1A1/C1A1/FAL. Still do!

The following parts were Canadian made, but used on the Australian built L2A1 rifles:-

Barrel, Body and TMH parts
PROTECTOR, FORESIGHT
HANDLE, CARRYING ASSEMBLY
SCREW, FORESIGHT PROTECTOR
PIN, STRAIGHT, HEADED
BAND, FRONT SLING, LOOP
FILLER, HOUSING BLOCK
PLUNGER, TRIGGER SPRING

Backsight Parts
SIGHT, REAR
SPRING, BACKSIGHT LEAF
PIN, Axis, BACKSIGHT
LEAF, BACKSIGHT
SCREW, Locking, LINK
SLIDE, BACKSIGHT
SPRING, SLIDE, BACKSIGHT
NUT, ZEROING SCREW
LINK, Locking, BACKSIGHT
APERTURE, BACKSIGHT
SCREW, ZEROING BACKSIGHT

Bipod Parts
BIPOD, RIFLE
LEG, Assembly, LEFT
GUARD, HAND, LEFT
SPRING, HELICAL, COMPRESSION
LINK, BIPOD
PIN, Axis, BIPOD
PIN, Axis, LEG
LEG, Assembly, RIGHT
GUARD, HAND, RIGHT


Australian Parts

Barrel, Body and TMH Parts
PIN, COTTER, s, 3/32 in dia, 1/2 in lg.
BARREL, Rifle, 7.62 MM, WITH PERMANENT FITTINGS (As a complete assembly its "Australian")
LEVER, CHANGE, ASSEMBLY

Backsight Parts
BACKSIGHT, AND COVER ASSEMBLY (As a complete assembly its "Australian")
COVER, BODY WITH PERMANENT FITTINGS

Bipod Parts
RIVET, TUBULAR

All other parts were the same as for the L1A1 Rifle.

Peter,
I agree with that view on use within PARA Battalions at item #6 above. We certainly preferred the L4 7.62 to the GPMG or the L2 for many reasons, mostly surrounding the cleaning regime in constant downpours. This policy certainly continued up into the mid to late seventies from memory. My last Jungle warfare course in 73 confirms it fom some papers I have retained....as you do!!;)

On the L2A1 I seem to remember the recoil reducer not working for some distant reason and it left a hefty flash compared to the none fitted version, as a result we never used them in Auto at all but the Aussies did.

I never saw an L2A1 recoil reducer in the flesh and so didn't really understand it. 8 R Malay Regt were not far from us and didn't see one there either. We didn't have them like that in the Battalions down at Company strength. Maybe KtK can show us one stripped down to component form - if they can be stripped. BUT...... It can't be a recoil reducer as defined, it MUST be a muzzle brake. Think 25 pounder or 105mm howitzer here. That's because RECOIL and the inertia it develops is starting to take place and developing all the time while the bullet starts its travel. So in physical effect, recoil has/is already taking place and there's absolutely nothing that the 'reducer' can do about it except as a mass attached to the rifle (and affect the vibrating tube and accuracy? to boot). But what it CAN do is affect the perceived effect of recoil by the expanding escaping gas overtaking the bullet (which it does of course) inside the reducer chamber and pulling the thing plus the rifle forwards. This a VERY simplified and non scientific explanation and guesswork on my part with regards to the workings of the reducer.

At Shrivenham, under the great Lt Col Mike xxxxx who had a way of telling things '....like they are, here, today.....' with no flowery fuzzy logic or crap attached, we had a small class project to see what effect the standard flash eliminator had while acting as a muzzle brake. It's actually true, in scientifically measurable terms, the FE did act as a muzzle brake but in real terms, it was just a very effective flash eliminator.

Sorry to wander off at a tangent this lazy Sunday morning.

I'm surprised the L2 lasted as long as up to '86. The nearest we had was the little L86 LSW that while it was never a 'replacement' for the L4 or GPMG - or anything really, it became a bit of a pig in a poke. It's only real saving grace was that it was an accurate but short range, heavy rifle. And in Gulf 1, even that was questionable!

Peter,
Very Interesting, the L2A1 was an Aussie additive to their necessary armoury, and from memory again was a legacy of their involvement in Vietnam with 8RAR certainly using them up till about 72 when they came home. We saw lads from that Regiment in Malaya in 73 using them who were invaluable teaching what they had learnt fighting the Vietcong.
We of course were issued with ammo on these courses, as Sukarno's Communists were still active in the Malayan Jungle, and one finds blank firing attachments fairly useless when confronted with the Kalashnikov:lol::lol:

8 RAR...... The Grey Eight. Those words brought a warm nostalgic glow to my heart, and misty eyes and took me back a few years.

In the mid to late '80s the Oz Govt. commissioned a review of likely threats and possible future roles of the ADF and a very expensive white paper was drawn up that stated that our traditional enemy of Musoria was no longer a threat and we were to be more than likely to be involved in counter terrorism measures against Orangeland.

The first big exercise in what was called Low Level Operations against Orangeland was Exercise Kangaroo 1987 (K87) followed by Kangaroo 1989 (K89).

Some legal numpty in Canberra decided that our GPMGs were too warlike to be used in "police" type activities and our use of them could be misconstrued to be an act of war, so they were withdrawn and replaced with L2s and L4s for the Exercises.

I don't know where they found them but there were countless brand new or freshly FTRd L2s and L4s all over the place.

I was an infantry section commander on K89 and had an L2 in my rifle group and my "gun" was an L4. I never had experienced so much immediate firepower at my disposal :cool:

At the time we despised the decision to take our trusted GPMGs off us, but in hindsight I think it wasn't a bad trade off.

Too bad I "brassed up" a blacked out 'rover full of DS sneaking in the back of 1Div HQ after an evening of unofficial R&R that got everyone in strife. Me for not following the RFOF and them for obvious reasons.

The GPMG......... While I was at the Small Arms School I wrote an in-house paper on the GPMG for '.....those higher up' than me. They liked it and had it watered down a tad, slightly edited and published in The Infantryman (the in-house magazine of the Infantry). They deleted one important bit that I added at the end. It said, in effect, '..... next time you are huddled down, protecting yourself from any incoming, while covered in sand and you hear a GPMG open up from close-by just genuflect and thank those two great men. One is looking down upon you while the other invented the GPMG.'

I should have added a third. WO2 Maurice Fogwell who stood up to the Director of Infantry and told him at the end of the trials that there was NO alternative.

Sorry for the delay replying, I had trouble finding the photos I wanted. Here's what the 'Recoil Reducer' looks like.

Version A
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...kvbdg0cg-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...nnk6od61-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...zy28p8wk-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...x70nki6t-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...dzh5azpa-1.jpg

Version B (not sure who these photos belong to?)
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...27fdzb6j-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...s0kmgotk-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ybkde5pu-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...8qywi2qj-1.jpg

Merry Christmas

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Not sure that I'd have cut the tip off the safety sear

---

Our gov't went one further and prohibited them outright in the rifle. A washer had to be welded in there...so if you have the wrong plunger...

Thanks for those photos of the recoil reducer KtK - and have a good Christmas while we're here...... No doubt that it is in effect a muzzle brake with refinements! Loking from the photos the only differences I can see between the two are the means of adjusting the plug. Either a spanner or a 'C' spanner. I wonder why some of the screws are tack welded in place. Anyway, would love to let some students ponder their views.......

If I was writing a technical paper for an EMER I'd word it thus: But this is based purely on photos and guesswork so don't be too harsh on the slagging off!
Technical description. The RR consists of two main components and several locking screws plus the usual odds and sods. The main body is a substantial machined casting that reflects the energy that it is capable of withstanding ands is screwed and locked to the muzzle of the rifle in the usual way. Internally it consists of a chamber, the lead into which is conically concave to reflect the venturi effect of the expanding gas that enters it from the barrel. Around the larger circumference are 12 (?) threaded holes (presumably to take grub screws, the quantity of which will lessen or increase the felt effect of the RR?) plus an additional locking screw.

Screwed into the main internal body of the RR is a plug. The inner end of this plug is machined convex to match the concave section of the main body. The plug is threaded to enable it to be screwed into the main body at a pre-set (or adjustable?) depth. A section of this thread has been machined to form a flat platform onto which the locking screw seats and secures it. The plug is screwed in to the set depth?/pre-set depth?/depth set for the comfort of the firer? by using a XY spanner on the muzzle end.

Operation. The bullet travels up the bore and exits the barrel aperture in the body of the RR in the normal way, as does the gas at the accepted venturi standard norm of 29 degrees. While this action is taking place the rifle is recoiling. Within a millisecond the bullet has passed between the small gap between the concave and convex shapes of the main RR body and the plug as detailed in the technical description.

This violent and powerful blast of expanding propellant gas acts upon the convex area of the plug and as it does so it pushes the plug forwards. It is this forward angled force that will act to neutralise the recoil rearward recoil, not by eliminating it, which it cannot do - but by counteracting the energy imparted into the actual weapon.

The firer will still feel 'recoil' per-se and nothing can prevent this. However, because the energy imparted into the actual weapon by the pure recoil has been reduced by the action of the RR the firer will now encounter to a greater degree what is referred to erroneously as 'secondary recoil'. This is the energy of the breech block carrier and breech block assembly (the BBCBB) striking the rear of the trigger mechanism housing. This 'secondary recoil' is not (or hardly) noticeable during the normal action of the rifle.

Depending on the greater or lesser amount of grub screws within the outer circumference of the main body and the depth into which the plug is screwed and locked, the amount of gas used to push the RR (and therefore the rifle) forwards would seem to permit a greater or lesser amount of propellant gas to escape. On that basis, the further out the plug is and the less screws around the circumference, the less effective the RR is and the harsher the recoil. Whereas the more screws and deeper the plug, the lighter the recoil.

While in theory and in practice this RR will work, quite HOW well or efficiently it will work is a matter of bench testing in a laboratory or range. I would suggest that any short-arsed soldiers who cannot handle a service rifle be taken from the rifle sections and given safe jobs in the kitchen, Company office or as storemen