Printable View
Or is it?
I have just been offered this L42. No bracket or scope but it does have an empty transit chest.
I only have these 5 pictures at this time. Its a bit of a journey to go to see it but based on what you can see is it the real deal? Just to make it more appealing its a conversion on a MK1 Savage.
Its number is 2C0520.
I don't recall ever seeing a front pad ''window'' that large before. They're usually all but invisible with the pad on. Probably ok but let someone with more experience than me be the judge.
Scope number on the wrist is suspicious too, don't believe there were any legit Mk.3/L1A1's with serials that high. It's easy to see that a previous number has been sanded off.
The serial number should tell you something. CO indicates Charnwood Ordnance. Have you ever heard the phrase '.....straight as a corkscrew?' If something is too good to be true, it usually is!
Confused of Sussex.
Peter is 2C0520 a typical Charnwood serial number or is it a early MK1 Savage serial number?
I thought the rifle had a few issues but wanted an expert opinion just in case.
Hey, that's got me thinking........ I was looking at the (2)CO part instead of the 2C-xxxx part!!!!! Maybe you ought to have put the serial number into the enforcer help section and see what Simon says. Yiou don't say what the 'issues' are. Incidentally, it has got an 00 bolt head. That's not a mistake. It was a relaxation in standards to allow certain barrels to be used during conversion plus a few other things......
I'll check the serial against my data for you later this evening and see if it's listed.
I'd be interested to see some close ups of the side wall and pads and the butt socket by the cocking piece.
Cheers,
Simon.
Can the serial for the scope on the wrist 34288 be traced to confirm its existence as further provenience just a thought.....
No32 telescopes didn't go up that far Cinders. Some of Charnwood Ordnance concoctions had their own serial numbers commencing CO - hence the confusion
Scope production never got up to 30,000. It looks to possess original parts - the body pads look genuine (the front pad looks typically very late), the rear pad has been off & on again, or at least its screws have. The cheekpiece looks to be from a very early converted (4T) rifle (note the extra 'notch' at the bottom front not usually seen on most 'pieces - I've seen a few like this now, & some were made from birch rather than beech). If it is an early H&H conversion of a Savage Mk1 then don't necessarily expect to see the D6E examiner's stamp in the usual place. The serial number is not in my copy of 'the list' but mine might be incomplete. I'd be interested to see what Simon says when he gets a chance to have a look.
More clear photo's of the body pads & the milling of the body for the front pad would be nice, as would the back of the body/bolt guide way area (you never know, someone might have added a bogus D6E!!), & the under side of the body showing the mag well machining to accommodate the 7.62mm magazine, or lack of it.
Hope this helps.
Nothing in my Data with that serial number, the caveat being just because it isn't listed doesn't mean it isn't righteous.
There's been a number of good honest L42's appear on the Service thread that weren't listed and out of laziness I've never bothered to add them to my data.
Maybe Colin XL39E1 could check through the info he has too as like Roger says the info we have may be slightly incomplete or out of date.
Cheers,
Simon.
Hi Peter glad you are keeping well. Just a little info for you and everyone here that is not a serial number sequence we ever used. We never had a reason to make any L42s we had hundreds of then from all makers BSA Savage etc. I hope this helps with this rifles authenticity or not of course
Cheers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
We KNOW that you didn't make them because if so, they'd have come to light by now. In any case, you probably 'owned' every L42 in circulation at one time!!!!! But CO was a serial number prefix that you used - although not 2CO. But reading it like that, you can see how the confusion arose. Regards.
From looking at the pictures and talking with the owner there are some things I'm not comfortable with.
The barrel is a chordal barrel which I thought were only on the later ones. You can see the step in the barrel just forward of the barrel band.
The machined area around the front pad.
Are there 72 dated L42's? I was under the impression the initial work was completed by the end of 71 resumed in 75 and again in 79,80.
The scope number 34288 is probably a rifle number as there is an E above the number which is hidden by the bolt in the photo.
The bolt has yet a different number.
Not sure if its the trick of the light or its painted in B and Q black paint.
I know some of these things can be explained but...
The owner has had it for 15 years and purchased it without a scope at Litts (?) auction.
The barrel could have been changed in service. This was a simple Base workshop job. Loads of '72's. Could the E-34288 have been another rifle number that a civvy had put there. Wrong bolt....... If it fits PROPERLY and gauges up, then just do what we did every day of the week.
Just being the opposite of The Devils Advocate.......
Regarding the number list. We had another official acceptance list at Warminster that was still restricted so never disclosed or discussed openly. But I did do a comparison with the 'other lists.....' when the opportunity arose one quiet Saturday morning of which we say no more. Some of the small discrepancies could be easily explained away, as could some of the duplicated numbers and on occasions, a couple of transposed numbers. So it's always worth looking at transposed numbers when back checking.
One of the old Lockies (RSAF apprentices) explained it to me as '.......it was just quantities that came in. But it was serial numbers that went out'
Is it feasible to ask the seller for more photographs? Nice clear ones showing the front pad machining, mag well etc? The ones he's provided you with so far aren't great.....
If it's kosher then there's no reason for him not to co-operate.
He's helpful but has no idea on how to take pictures for emails, states its his age.
The previous ones were taken by a friend at his rifle club.
He is ok with a visit to view but its a 4 hour drive for me one way.
Have until the weekend to make up my mind.
Then, & it's only my tuppence worth, I'd say if it is cheap enough to justify buying as a made up rifle using original components, then you can justify it. However, if it is 'proper L42 price' then I'd avoid it like the plague. None of us have seen it all, but I've seen approaching 1000 4T's & L42's over the last thirty five years & I've never seen front pad panel milling as messy as that on a real one.
Thanks Roger I'll think I will pass on it.
If anyone is seriously interested the price is around £1800 to £2000 in the North Somerset area.
Please PM me for details.
Yes your right Roger the milling under the front pad looks like woopdee do's on a moto cross track......
For my own education here, the concern is the "wavy" edge on the bottom of the front scope mount pad, correct?
You fellows are much sharper at this than I am, that for certain.
Are there any concerns with the cheek riser and how it fits near the wrist? That looks poorly fitted to me, or where they like that some times?
The cheekpiece is real but IMHO has been re-fitted to this rifle, & as you note, the wood to wood fit is not the best.
Concerning the front pad - it's not the pad itself, it's the milled flat area that the front pad sits on that is suspect. When Enfield, & Holland & Holland set up the UK produced rifles originally they were done such that the scope in it's bracket would lie perfectly parallel to the rifle bore. This meant that a tiny depth of metal would need to be machined away from the receiver side wall so that the front pad located into position precisely. If you look at the receiver of an original 4T/L42 with its front pad removed you can see a 'window' a few thou in depth that conforms pretty precisely to the mating surface of the front pad. With the pad on, it is so precisely done as to be difficult to see, though it can usually be determined if you look carefully. In this case it looks like the the guy doing the milling had had a few too many Buds before he started.
The cheek rest was never actually designed for the No4T. It went there by default! It was made and designed for the high telescope mounted P'14's and Sgt Cooper at the sniper school tried the idea on the first of the production No4T's. It suited them too so the idea was submitted, approved and the rest is history. But the fit onto a No4 butt, even at H&H was nowhere near perfect so it had to be fitted properly if the Armourers were so inclined - which most weren't! The only ones that were a perfect mechanical fit were those fitted by apprentices during their course
Peter, I had wondered if that extra little notch at the front bottom of the early cheekpieces was a hang over from the from the original intent to fit them to the No3 (T).
You're probably right DRP. The underside configuration was for fitment to the P'14 stock butt
There are a few 72 dated L42's around, not many though! 34288 is recorded on the lists but as a "G" prefix, E and G always get mixed up.
Post # 1 the OP states serial number 2C0520 ...... So the butt, may be off an original rifle? as I,ve seen and handled a L42 with the rifle serial stamped on the butt were the scope number should be, IIRC in a PM to DRP he states he has seen it a few times.
I know of six L42 rifle serial numbers, (rifles recovered for spares.....) IIRC two of them I'm told are not on the list, the number 34288 is not one of the six I have.
Hi Geoff. Yes, I've seen rifle as well as scope number stamped into the butts below the cocking piece on a number of occasions now. Maybe the work of a 'belt & braces' armourer during a repair! I've also seen a few rifles with the rifle serial on the underside of the butt behind the S51 stamp, though not many.
I've seen rifle serial numbers stamped on a few L42 butts too. ROF Maltby also did it during the war on may service No.4's for reasons unknown to me.
Just to be Lucifer's lawyer for a minute, it certainly has the look of long service; that is not something easily faked. True, the stock and even the barrel might have seen that service on another, presumably genuine L42.
That oversize flat for the front pad is odd, but this would be a very early conversion (2C Savage) if genuine; perhaps the person on the milling machine did not understand the instructions/requirements or was a "learner"? Being purely cosmetic it would not be grounds for rejection presumably. Regardless, if someone were building a fake it's the last thing they would want to do, and photos of No4(T)s have been in books for 50+ years.
The front pad screws have been staked and restaked. We know why that happens: lots of shots fired; unless they came off another rifle...? But did the screws as well? Plenty of slot damage too.
The rear pad mating surfaces appear to have a bit of a cant inwards toward the body side as though someone has tweaked them with a file. Doesn't prove anything either way.
Could it be that someone wanted an L42 and was on the inside or had a contact who was and obtained a kit of parts except the body, which they then built up on a different body?
The butt has been on there a while and has plenty of meat left over the edges of the socket. Scope numbers overstruck or nothing there until the spurious 30---- added?
And what's that proof mark on the barrel ring? Would a rifle in continuous military use since production have that? It's well buried under the paint by the look of it.
I'd agree that it's entirely possible that the rifle has been assembled with a kit of genuine parts on a suitable 'donor' body.
https://www.milsurps.com/attachment....8&d=1453664639
I don't like the fitment of the front pad on another concern.
It looks to me that the front pad is setting too high.
Most if not all of the No4T and L42 rifles I have either seen or pics of same show the top edge of the front pad on the same line as the top edge of the receiver where mounted.
Hal,
IMHO Pad locations are crucial when fitted by whichever manufacturer, and if the holes that hold them in place are drilled incorrectly, even out by a knats whisker it will make an ultimate difference to the fall of shot when a scope is fitted. It will later also cause dramas in the inevitable movement of the scope and tightening region needed before shooting.
So in short, the correct LE pad template was not used or was incorrect when the front pad was fitted on this rifle IMHO!!
---------- Post added at 08:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:28 AM ----------
Meant to say, if it looks like a bitzer, is the 19T repeated on the barrel and the back of the bolt handle, just me being over safe, just in case its been thrown into the rifle with no consideration of the tonnage implications on the barrel which will be clearly stamped correctly??
If it's being offered for sale in the UK it should legally be in (civvy) proof, shouldn't it? If not, the seller could be for the high jump!
Its really quite shocking the number of times you come across firearms being sold in the UK out of proof (not casting any aspersions on this particular piece), but the lack of "legal proof" knowledge shown by some RFD's is quite breath taking!
IMHO and like many, not wishing to cause unecessary grief in this matter, surely the hammered 7.62 barrel will at the very least be stamped and like minded to 19T with the bolt etc otherwise, yes.............a bit naughty, as it would be a dangerous beast to fire as it would be in the "Unknown Zone" in my book.
It would be a bit like watching Chummly on the TV series Pawn Stars firing blunderbusses, Cannons and 1861 Rifles etc on a range in Las Vegas when people bring them in with no knowledge of their past whatsoever, and Chummly without any consideration behind the "What If" syndrome, as to the absolute and often fatal damage these rifles can cause if not tested properly at a recognised proofing house which will/should be stamped somewhere on the side of the barrel !!!!!!!!!!:banghead:
What defines 'out of proof' I'm bound to ask...... At what point is something out of proof? If you replace a barrel with an already proofed barrel, does the whole rifle need to be re-proofed? The whole proof laws are so antequated that you'd be hard pressed to get a conviction. We've been down this road before...........
We certainly have, getting away from the antiquated monopoly of the Proof House side of the argument, the simple fact is a rifle has to be Birmingham/London or CIP proofed to be legal to sell on in the UK, Sec58 stuff aside, that doesn't mean it all has to be proofed at the same time to be legal, for instance, you can fit an old spare London Proofed barrel to a Lee Enfield that's previously been Birmingham proofed, providing the pressure baring parts have all been proofed, its legal to sell..Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Well that's my interpretation of Proof law, or am I wrong chaps? I am assuming whilst on the subject of Proof, UK military issue firearms are also now London, Birmingham or CIP proofed, as I guess we no longer have the facility to proof within the MOD?
I'm always surprised at how you guys on that side of the pond need to "re-proof" known firearms so often.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
Here the (re)manufacturers inspection is deemed as good enough, and I've seen a number of actions condemned (by the gunsmith) as damaged or worn beyond use.
I suppose the onus here is upon the 'smith to get it right. I am aware of some cases where the owner "knew better" than the smith and took the firearm (or bare receiver/bolt) and fired it, causing injury (or death). In each case I am aware of the 'smith had refused to return the firearm until the owner was made aware of and had signed off on the fact that it was unsafe to fire....in one case, causing the lawyers for the (late) owners estate to trundle away with their tails between their legs....
At the Small Arms School, we were told that before members of the public could fire several of our Vickers and Bren Guns, the guns would need to be commercially (civilian) proofed. NOT SO I told them. As did the former UK Military proof master from Cold Meece! Antequated or what......... I mean....., what are you proofing in a blow-back SMG? The clue is in the words 'blow-back'!
Spot on Peter, pointless indeed, but the law is the law and we have to follow it to the letter unfortunately, we have all seen milsurps that are not in (legal) proof on the range.
By way of example, a certain large UK dealer sold a friend of mine an Enfield last year, he was very pleased with it and brought it round for some advice regarding changing the furniture, on inspection, no civvy proof. As he is quite new to shooting I spoke to them on his behalf, confident that this rifle had just slipped through by mistake and it could all be taken care of ... Not a bit of it, I was "told" by the rather snotty owner that military proof marks are adequate and that I had no idea what I was talking about ...
I suggested he might want to read up and call me back, he did, apologised and the rifle was collected proofed and returned. But how many had he sold prior to this, if something goes wrong and there is an accident with one (god forbid) he will be hung out to dry by the Police and his business insurance ... broke and banged up for the sake of a £50 proof!
The flip side of the coin, if you are shooting said rifle and its goes "bang" and injures your neighbour in the next shooting point, your shooting insurance will be invalid and quite possibly your FAC, as you aren't following the set conditions.
Absolutely correct and the reason I raised it on this particular rifle, as I see the 19T clearly where it appears but no barrel marks tendered to be able to balance my views.
Having served, I can assure you, it is the Law here in the UK that ALL rifles have to carry a recognised CIV proof mark if sold as Sec 1/5 weapons.
Heaven knows, this may all change if EU legislation goes through causing more confusion yet AGAIN!
With this mark, one can feel confident that ALL the required tests have been carried out by a registered and recognised house here, and the rifle is as safe as its owner there after.
Military symbols are of great historic significance to all of us that love shooting history, but it has to be right and lawful.
Any views?
Proof house regulations are just that, regulations that are made up and administrated by the proof houses, they are nothing to do with the law and as such the police would not be interested in trying to enforce them. I have no doubt though that if something nasty was to happen then criminal negligence charges would be pursued.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
On a point made earlier re the fitting of already proofed parts as spares, all of the gunsmiths that I know would routinely return a repaired firearm for re-proof.
The proofmarks are datable which means that in theory a firearm could be assembled using parts carrying proof marks but it in itself would never have been proofed as a complete gun unless re-submitted.