Printable View
A smartarsed mate of mine sent me these pics.
I haven't seen them before. Can anyone provide some info on the origins? TIA.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...IMG_1197-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...IMG_1198-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...IMG_1199-1.jpg
Have not seen the drawings, but i have seen a picture of a Australian Soldier with a Bushnell scope mounted on a SLR.
You mean this one?
Attachment 75762
Are they official drawings/blueprints. They don't look like it to me. To be really honest, that idea stood two chances. Slim and none. We just know from experience that the top cover will not accommodate the recoiling forces of a telesciope mounted to it for very long. Even the little No78 telescope would tear the welds of the mount away from the cover. I know you're going to mention the SUIT. That's why it was spring loaded.
Afternoon Peter, regarding the spring function of the SUIT, I didn't realise one of its functions was to absorb recoiling forces. I wonder if the Israeli fixed latch mod made their SUIT mounts fail more often than ours?
Having seen (and drawn) more than a few engineering or technical drawings over the decades I will say that there are enough drafting standards errors visible to lead me to believe the drawings were workshop drawings and are not official drawings.
Whilst I will stand corrected, to my untrained eye these drawings are for a mounting system that isn't attached to the dust cover :confused:
Mmmmmmmmm. Where are they attached then? Looks like it to me and certainly are on the cover in thread 3.
Peter, they look to me to attach via the carry handle slot and a bracket attached to the side of the body.
On the RH side of the first drawing "Carrying Handle Removed To Permit Fitting of Retaining Key" .
Going by the drawings, it's interesting to note rifle they are based on, British and laminate handguards. So that could possibly date these drawings to the early 1970's.
I wonder if this was a design aimed primarily at Civilian users of the rifle, with the hope of selling to the government's?
An effort to incorporate mounting to the receiver as opposed solely to the top cover shows some lateral thinking and perhaps knowledge of the issues with the SUIT mounts?
Correct, the date at the bottom says 1973Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
Talking of which, I don't ever recall seeing a SUIT sight in Oz, certainly down at Battalion level. Did we ever have them? There was talk of the then 'special' Hythe sight for night shooting. We used to do that using standard sights which proved the need for the Hythe sights.
The trouble with modifying the rifle - or any bit of standard kit - is that it then becomes NON-standard and therefore omni user standard kit. Or as we used to call it, a one man dog!
The first time I saw a SLR with scope was in 1969, next time I had one in my hands was in 1975. Both of these early ones had the rail brazed to the cover and didn't fail in the time I was involved.
Saw a heavier version made by Frank Taylor in the early eighties. (all three on service weapons)
Had a slide with rail in my junk for ages, might be still around, but then with our stupid laws........maybe not.
Great to post a pic if it's still about...Quote:
Originally Posted by muffett.2008
Any L1A1/FAL scope mount that is attached to the body as shown in those sketches is doomed to failure. The body flexes quite a lot on firing and welds, brazing, or screws all fail in a few hundred rounds. During the NZ 'deer wars' of the 1970's and 80's we found that dust cover mounts lasted well (100,000 rounds +) provided that the cover is expanded/distorted slightly to be a very snug fit in the body grooves and a dot of gas weld is added to the rear of the cover and carefully file fitted to remove any linear movement during firing. FAL's and L1A1's (brand new from Lithgow) were used for commercial venison recovery from choppers. Barrels were replaced at about 20,000 rounds, and FN sold us replacement FAL bodies which were replaced at about 100,000. The bodies would crack between the body pivot pin hole and the locking shoulder hole (I still have a pile of cracked examples). Properly adjusted and cleaned rifles would last a good bit longer than dirty rifles with the gas regulators closed up. Some of our shooters were as rough as guts on their gear!
I accept that we didn't have deer wars here Woodsy but we did have about 100,000 ham-fisted squaddies. But the thought that a thin top cover mounted telescope lasting 100,000 rounds is absolutely and totally at odds with how it happened in major trials here. The attrition rate of SUIT and IIW covers through cracking where the top-hat mount was fitted was always being investigated. There will ALWAYS be clock wise (or anti clockwise, depending on where you are.....) moments about that thin cover, tearing away at any load fixed to it caused by momentum or recoil! It's called fatigue
Back again after some deep thought. The nearest effect I can think of to semi replicate the effect I speak of it this. Look at any MGB door (or VW Golf Cabrio) and have a look at the door skin, where the front upright/vertical window channel sits against the door. There will (?) be a split. And no matter how careful you are closing the door, no matter how careful you adjust the window mech or adjust the door shuts or the top seal, it WILL split. What's more, that section is double skinned too as the top of the panel is rolled over. This isn't corrosion, it is metal fatigue caused by........ I won't go into the technical aspects of this because this is the expertise of our friendly metallurgists (where are you Breaky and JM). But in short, it is caused by the constant flexing of the thin weak door panel that supports the upright at that point and is probably thicker than the steel of our cover! There is a word for the effect but I can't think of what it is - but insidious metal fatigue seems to fit the bill.
You can reinforce the area behind the upright window channel with a spot welded plate. You drill the split to do what it does. You can weld or braze the split up you can wave a magic wand over it and call in the witch doctor but guess what................. Or you can just do what everyone else in the known universe does. You can strengthen it, paint it and then cover the split area with a door mirror and forget it. The point I'm, making in a practical way is that whatever you do, the problem remains. Whether it's a heavy thin skinned door thudding shut imparting rotary energy to the upright causing it to recoil when the door hits the buffers (yep, that's what it's doing....) or you attach the heavy weight to the thin top cover and imparting rotary energy in another way.
As for mounting anything to the body ........ Let's leave that for another day
Good way of putting it Peter, I guess that's why the whole sprung metal top cover/ mount combo was ditched for the solid aluminium railed jobs in the modern era.
I have one such beast, never used it, (to me), it's like fitting an electronic dashboard in an MGB, sticks out like a bulldogs wotsits, totally out of place on a classic rifle.
The "will it/ won't it shear off and eject" possibility this time out, when I use the SUIT is all part of the fun!
In 1981 I purchased an FN FAL factory sniper rifle with the dust cover mounted Hensoldt trajectory-compensating scope. I have used that rifle extensively for commercial meat shooting, hunting, practical rifle competition, and plinking. When I bought it 35 years ago it did 3 shot 0.75" groups at 100 metres with Aussie F4 7.62x51 ball. Admittedly, I have looked after it but it still shoots to the same level of accuracy today. When I was doing the dust cover mounts (not only during the 'deer wars' but also more recently for practical rifle shooters) I crinkled the edges of the dust cover with centre punch to make the thin groove fit very tightly, and also spread the sides of the cover so there was plenty of lateral tension, plus the small weld previously mentioned to remove linear movement. A full-length steel Weaver style rail was screwed from the under side and silver-soldered to the dust cover. Having said that, the modern commercial aluminium clamp-on dust cover mounts are very good, and are more rigid than the dust cover conversions.
I don't believe anyone could make a truely 'soldier-proof' item. When the sqaddies put their devious little minds to it, nothing is safe! It is a shame that they do these things to the items that could save their lives!
Evening Woodsy, any Chance of a few pics of your adjusted top covers? Sounds like you have rather extensive experience regarding workarounds with top covers.. interesting stuff
I would like to Publicly announce here & now.
That should I ever procure an MGB Car. I will NEVER mount a Telescopic sight, or indeed.
A Pair of Bulldogs 'Wotsits' on it!.........:madsmile:
I thank You!........:D
I had one of those Hensholdt scope assemblies, complete with the "FN special" dust covers back in the "good old days".
Quite a light scope, but handled a prodigious quantity of rounds fired under it and held zero fine.
The biggest weakness was the light-weight method of attaching the scope to the mount.
It is very reminiscent of a late WW2 German system for the K(G?)- 43 sniper variants, be they the odd, square-bodied ZF-4 or the more conventional ZFK-31/1 unit.
This latter item: here,
The thin, spring-steel retaining straps tend to crack and fail, just as they did on my old Hensholdt on that late and lamented L1A1. The "repair" is to make new straps from THIN spring steel sheet, not unlike a wide mainspring from a large clock.
It occurred to me at some stage that such a piece of kit was probably a bit extravagant for a "bush gun" used for hunting feral critters from the back of a motorbike, so I grabbed a spare NEW dust cover, "spread" it about a millimeter and then silver-soldered a pair of steel base-blocks to the top. This assembly was then set up on a barreled action and the PH style dovetails machined, more-or less to to bore alignment. The scope for this job was one of Leupold's lovely, very light, 2-7 variables.
This was one of my standard "bush" setups until I sold it to help raise the deposit for a house. A few years after that, our beloved leaders made owners of such rifles "offers that couldn't be refused". The Hensholdt scope and mount, complete with original "hard' canvas case, ended up with a collector of such things.
Bloody politicians Bruce and their knee jerk policies! While my Lithgow and Enfield L1's are straight pull builds, I do enjoy owning them and my .22lr conversion kit (despite official grumbling regarding them over the years) and there is a certain pleasure in sticking ones middle finger up at "the man"!
It's such a shame that the Australian ban was so very comprehensive..
All points taken on board. But it just begs the next question of course. Why manufacture new solid top covers to cater for the telescope need if modified standard ones were even moderately successful? And to get some idea of the rotary loading of a telescope on a recoiling rifle, just bear in mind that even on a No4T and L42, the recoil can AND DOES shear the 3x front pad screws and/or stretches them to breaking point and/or shears the front mounting spigot clean off even when the clamp screw is present. Don't believe it...........? Then why did this problem cause the 2x trials (pin and then bush) to attempt to rectify the situation?
Just my opinion of course. Not based on any real practice of course I agree. But just metallurgy, maths and experience
NB: The absolute tightness of the cover is only really relevant to retaining the collimated accuracy of the telescope. A longitudinally loose cover COULD in theory add an amount of additional inertia/momentum to the weight of the tele but it'd be marginal
This is a photo of the scope set-up on my FAL Sniper. As you can see the Hensoldt sight is attached by a sturdy Stanag mount, rather than the flimsy metal strap system. The dust cover is a purpose-built stamping rather than a modified standard one. i don't have any photos of my L1A1 dust cover mounts (I just made 'em and sold 'em) but I can supply drawings if needed. I purchased 1,000 L1A1's from the NZ Army in 1988 when they went to the AUG. I fully rebuilt the few that had tired barrels (well over 900 were fully serviceable) and supplied them in .243, 7mm/08, and .308 with various weight barrels as required (target rifles, bush carbines, hunting rifles), with scope mount dust covers, muzzle brakes, suppressors, etc.
That is a very sturdy looking mounting system, good job and many thanks for posting the picture. I wonder if my ex NZ Lithgow (AD64 example) was one that went through your hands on its way to the UK?
Peter makes a good point about the ultimate "robustness" of such arrangements on the L1A1. Probably not "soldier-proof" enough for some folk who are sometimes more than a little casual about equipment that others paid for.
The mounting system on the H&K rifles is quite robust, if a little bulky, and designed into the system, pretty much from the beginning. It holds zero after multiple mounts and dismounts and prodigious quantities of rounds downrange. You are advised to maintain the rubber boot on the rear of the scope to avoid engraving an extra "eyebrow" during shooting. I copped it once whilst hunting pigs in the Channel Country in Queensland. The action was rather chaotic on one occasion: the porkers were running towards me, very close and fast. I dropped my head height to use the iron sights THROUGH the scope mount. Only ever did that once! More fond? memories of "the good old days".
I never found a mount for the SiG AMT in Oz, probably couldn't have afforded one, anyway.
A friend had a couple of the late-pattern AR-10 rifles with the specially slotted carrying handle and the correct optics. They were quite nice to shoot and the mounts held zero very well.
Another thing I discovered was that the SKS was absolutely brutal on scopes. "Cheap" entry-level Tascos and "Brand-X" jobs would pop their reticules after a distressingly small number of ball rounds. Quality scope brands, (worth three or four times the price of the rifle), held up well, as one would hope.
Another variation on the theme was a bunch of small "reflex" sights I saw on L1A1 dust covers, back in the 1980's. I didn't grab one at the time. Anyone remember them?
Indeed, M14's also will eat cheap scopes, and are vicious on cheap or not robust mounting solutions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz
I doubt it as mine were sold locally. I do know that later batches were sold overseas. The NZ L1A1's were mostly AD59 through to AD64, with very small numbers in later years. The bulk of them were supplied in 61-62. I have a 59 in excellent original condition with the acceptance number NZ 43 (only the first thousand rifles were so marked) which is the only one I have kept from the 1,000. I suspect it is either ex Navy or Air Force judging by the condition, as the Army were pretty hard on their gear and virtually all of their early rifles had been upgraded with later parts (laminated fore-ends, plastic furniture, etc.) in a mix and match fashion as required to keep them serviceable.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
When I went to BOD Trentham to collect my rifles I saw many cases of new AUG's ex Steyr in Austria, as Lithgow were not in production of them till later. The first 5,000 were Austrian manufacture with the NZ prefix on the serial number. The armourers had mistakenly issued NZ0001 to the field and had only just got it back to give to the Army museum. It was only two weeks old and was well scuffed up when they got it back. The Steyrs are now being replaced with the Lewis Machine Tool version of the AR15 in various iterations to suit the different services. Sadly, the Steyrs will either be destroyed or sold overseas. Probably not a bad thing as I think they are bloody awful anyway, and only marginally better than the SA80!
I wish that you'd had the opportunity to come over Rod, maybe when Colonel KA was the NZ Liaison Officer here. He was a GOOD friend of ours. You could have had a half day or so on the FF or 100m range with the SA80-A2. I know that when I sing its praises people always say '...well you've got to say that haven't you...?' You know....., sing the party line and all that........ But it really is a different weapon now. I'm serious when I say that it was as good as anything else of the type. Ironically I'm meeting up with some of the old A2 REME trials team tomorrow. Have a good weekend
Having an NZ census marked AD59 is one hell of a rare beast,wow, well done Woodsy! Love to see some pics of her...Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsy
I believe virtually all of the early NZ contact 1959 rifles had their receivers replaced, alas the NZ census numbers went with them..
Interesting point on the A2 Peter, I recently had a good look at the collection, especially the fascinating SA80 history wall, with its assorted prototypes, trials and issue examples. It was very informative to be walked through the alterations made through the years to the latest issue standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
The chap who took me round has extensive experience of the type as you know and sang it's praise every bit as much as yourself!
The AUG (Tupperware Rifle) was sold on the claim that it was low maintenance, low parts consumption.
Maybe if you are wandering about the Alps, picking Edelweiss, or something.
I had been black-smithing L1A1s for a few years before the little green rifles arrived.
Some clown in the "paperwork" department authorised, in the official manual, "traditional" lubrication for these things. That went as well as you wold expect. Dust plus oil equals grinding paste, just what you need on plastic firing mechanism components.
My boss, a VERY experienced Warrant Officer, decided that the best way to thoroughly clean all the sundry plastic bits was to chuck them in a washing machine, en masse. It worked a treat. The cleaned parts would then be inspected for wear or damage and "triaged". Got some funny looks from the "greasers" (vehicle mechanics). We used to keep boxes of firing-mech "packs", ready lubed with GRAPHITE, in a locker. Modular repair; whip out the suspect unit, drop in the "new", tweak the trigger extension rod adjustment and away you go.
The return springs inside those tubes were a challenge as well, especially as the proper tool for stripping them was a bit slow in filtering down. Early springs were lubed with a special light grease. This of course, made things interesting when water got inside, just like the old L1A1 return springs. It didn't take much water to start causing a "hydraulic lock" effect whilst firing. The solution was to pre-coat the spring as the factory with some sort of "moly" compound. This, of course wore off rapidly and it was quite common to see gun-plumbers re-spraying the springs with "moly in a can". Or just shrugging their shoulders and dropping in a complete new set.
One of the more interesting "issues" was that of parallax in some of the optics. Bear in mind that this is a 1.5 magnification job, about the last place one would expect such a problem. But it could be clearly observed when the offending unit was held in a firm mount and you moved you head slightly whilst looking at a test target about 200m away. The reticule would move, relative to the target. For "government work" out to 300m this appears to have been of no concern to anyone further up the food-chain. The more fussy users found that a slightly different cheek-weld would produce interesting results. At 300m, your fist-sized group on the centre of the bull, was suddenly a fist-sized group, somewhere in the "3" ring, or COMPLETELY OFF the Figure 12 "Hun's Head". On top of that, in the original AUG / F-88, the scope was a dinky optical tube mounted inside the "carry handle", cast integrally with the "body". To swap out this tube you needed a special "dry-nitrogen" flush kit to purge the interior before whacking the plug back in. Fine in a country the size of a handkerchief, but in Oz??
Cocking handle assemblies were the other horror. They would wear rapidly and fail to "hold" in the "hold-open" notch. Why? Well, because of a "perceived" problem of limp-wristed Diggers "short-stroking" the cocking handle, a new "drill" was introduced: Step ONE, haul the working parts fully to the rear and engage the handle in the "hold-open". Step TWO, flick the handle clear of the notch and allow it to fly forward freely.
All very nice, BUT: the PLASTIC cocking handle engages in the cast-aluminium "hold-open" notch with a VERY small actual engagement area. Add to this the requirement for regular "safety" checks and, first, the plastic cocking handles would wear and then the "lug" on the cast-aluminium body would wear and pretty soon your "hold-open" wouldn't. The body was die-cast. There are only a few Aluminium alloys that can be die-cast: 7075, as used in the M-16 uppers and lowers, is NOT one of them. NONE of the die-casting alloys can also be "solution hardened" as can 7075. These "castable" alloys are also almost impossible to anodize, as well.
Then there were the "upgrades", ALL of which, in succession, added weight. The addition of a M-1913 "Picatinny" rail was special thing. The "manufacturers" took a huge batch of standard (mostly pre-loved) bodies and and machined off the "carry handle' bit and milled a special slot in the top of the body.
To this was added a "rail" unit, which, of course, could not be welded to the die-cast body, so it was "locked in place" with a "spring plunger". Oh, goody!! The boys and girls in the unit and field workshops quickly found out which anaerobic sealant held it there the longest. Of course, this rail extended, unsupported, back over the plastic "butt" assembly. Why? Because it had to be able to accommodate the optics unit of choice far enough back to obtain correct eye relief. Standard optic unit was the same old inner tube mounted in a substantially heavier, (how unusual), housing that clamped to the new "rail". Thus, the next "common fault" to appear was BENT scope rails.
Then someone decided that more bits had to be attached to the front end to accommodate IR lasers and such, and let's not forget the saga of the "modified" M203 equipped variant. That thing needed wheels.
So, someone decides to ditch the "plastic fantastic" and go with the M-4. Promptly, of course, loading IT down with Gucci gizmos until it weighs as much a loaded L1A1, but without the down-range "wallop" of the old girl.
Sounds like the F88 required just as many mods and changes as the L85 did through the years!
Interesting that NZ have decided not to stick with it and go with AR variants as the F88 replacement, I assumed they would keep commonality with Australia.
Peter, I concede to your superior knowledge of the SA80 A2 as my limited experience was with the original model back in the '80's (although I still struggle with the concept of tension springs in firearms!). Yes, I regret not being able to catch up with you at Warminster. Colonel K waxes lyrical about his trips there with you!
Bruce, the AMT was another of the rifles that saw service in the' deer wars' and I made up scope mounts for a few of them, but strictly functional with no thought given to retaining originality. The chopper boys were only interested in getting job done solidly and quickly so they could get back into the money!
MrClark, I have attached some photos of my L1A1 I took this morning.
NZ experienced problems with AUG requiring several recalls to replace faulty components. Some AD's were experienced after some of the plastic trigger components broke, scope problems were ongoing, stocks cracked with the high UV, and if fired in very wet conditions the operating rods would 'hydraulic' and cause splits in the die cast body. That was just a few of the problems off the top of my head. The 5.56x45 LMT rifle is a nice piece of kit. Designated marksmen in the infantry platoons having been using them in 7.62x51 for few years now.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
Woodsy, I am going to have to slap your Dam legs Mate! Your hinge pin screw, is 180 Degrees round the wrong way!!!! Now promise Me, you will buck up!......:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Woodsy
I have to say that the direction of the axis screw never bothered me. Was there an EMER designated 'correct' way I'm bound to ask.
Must be because I live 'down under'! We do everything the opposite way round!:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by tankhunter
That AD59 looks to be in excellent original shape Woodey, a real museum standard rifle. I would be chuffed to bits to have her in my collection! Does she still have the Slaz marked handguards and the early bee hive break leaver?
Yes, all Slazenger woodwork, non-rotating carry handle, but a smooth body catch lever. I noticed a few beehive levers on some rifles but by the time I realised their significance I had sold them all! I keep my eyes open for one. The condition of this rifle I have kept was head and shoulders above the very few AD59's I had. The early Slazenger wooden fore-ends were very fragile and very few of the rifles had any, and most of that was knocked around. My introduction to the L1A1 was at Burnham Camp in 1961 and we were issued brand new rifles for training but they were taken back at the end of each day. Our standard issue rifles were .303 Long Branch No.4's that we racked beside our beds.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
Pete, I cant state or indeed quote the designation on the hinge pin situation. But as you know yourself, when they left the factories originally. That is how they were assembled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
And indeed, although the positioning of the H/Pin screw has absolutely no effect on the Rifle Operation when firing.
As Armourers though, It DID give a visual indicator. That the 'User' had taken the rifle apart (Which was forbidden) & may possibly have 'tinkered' with the Internal components!.......
I have observed this on quite a number of occasions, as I'm SURE you have yourself? That observing this visual indicator regarding the h/Pin screw assembly.
Upon taking the Trig Mech housing off the rifle concerned. A VERY Dangerous situation was discovered!....You will be perfectly aware of the 'Matchstick under the sear' Scenario!!!
Some idiots who performed this 'trick', forgot to remove those sticks after an exercise. & there rested a potential situation for lethal consequences!!!....
We all knew that it was done on occasions, & we all knew the reasons why. But nonetheless, it WAS forbidden. BUT, the Crunchies still performed this little 'trick'!....:ugh:
So the 'Visual indicator' regarding the hinge pin screw positioning. Did have an important part to play in being the 'Right' way round under 'Normal' conditions. ;)
And as you also know, we all get used to seeing what is 'Normal' don't We? As a Human failing (?) we are resistant to change! As we both feel, if it aint broke. don't fix it!....:beerchug:
Back to Scope mounts, I had totally forgotten the ones used by National Parks and Wildlife, I do their annual inspections in my area and they use three different brackets........if
(Well thats new, this posted itself before I had completed typing) .....I remember I will take pic's next time they are due in.
The L1A1 is their preferred weapon for Airiel culling, complete with case catchers of course.
We use deflector plates mounted above the ejection port to deflect the cases downward away from the rotor blades. .308 cases can do quite a lot of damage to $50,000 composite rotor blades! Semi-auto shotguns (Benellis are very popular) with buckshot are also used for some culling operations, and we use rubber deflectors that still allow access to the cocking handles.Quote:
Originally Posted by muffett.2008
[QUOTE=tankhunter;374607]!....You will be perfectly aware of the 'Matchstick under the sear' Scenario!!!
QUOTE]
When the FAL's and L1A1's were sold in NZ for civilian use, the Police required dealers to remove the safety sear, grind the safety bent, and fill the safety sear slot with a welded-in steel washer. Most of our cops had been through basic military training and were well aware of the matchstick trick. Although the safety sear performs an important function, the lack of it makes no difference to the use of the rifle or the life of the components, despite literally thousands of rounds fired through them. The only time I have had to replace a hammer or sear is because some clown has tried to do his own trigger job.
In a tail wagging the dog way Woodsy, I had to modify my Straight Pull L1A1 Safety Sear to make the new production .22 conversion kit work with my rifle.
These new kits were designed for the US market, so lack the safety Sear trip on the bolt group. I cut away the arm from a spare sear in mine, but it would have been just as easy to remove the bent from a spare hammer I suppose and just let the connecting arm glide around the hammer.
While we are on the subject of (and getting the thread back on track) I thought I would dig out an old custom L1A1 scope mount and try it on a rifle (very quick phone pics mounted on one of my Lithgows this morning), I posted pics of this mount a few years back when I was attempting to discover its origins. It would seem that this is yet another civilian gunsmithing mounting system, probably UK pre 1988 ban in origin.
How it will stand up to fullbore I don't know, I intend to shoot it with my .22 conversion kit initially.
I carefully examined the mounting blocks and they are very well made (purpose built for Parker Hale mounts with their pin and hole system, (probably a very good idea for the L1's recoil), they appear to be Tig welded from underneath and brazed on too, but would they stand up to regular use, I doubt it somehow..
The ocular end of the scope looks a bit far back for comfort to me if you're going to use it for full bore. Been there done it - or rather it done it to me!
Evening Peter, yep I think we have all been smacked in the eyebrow by our scopes at some point if were honest!
The worst case I have seen was a young squaddy (use to his L85) who got thoroughly "scope kissed" despite the warning by a Springfield A4 Sniper, what a mess, just not prepared for a .30-06 kicking!
It's staying purely .22 conversion kit for now as it's a rather nice mount and it would be a shame to shake it to bits.
Same as when we let the press loose with the new SA80 carbine, together with a load of other carbines of the past as a comparison shoot. 2x Stens, Sterling, .30 carbine, little SA80 shorty carbine etc etc and then, the biggie........ the No5 carbine. I did tell them to hold it tight, sight in and squeeeeeze the trigger. The girl from the Daily XXXX didn't quite take the briefing to heart and got a real smacking from the recoil and many swear words followed. To be fair, she took it all in good heart bless her!
On your sight (thread 46) I'm pretty sure that you won't have enough elevation to zero that to the trajectory of the .22" bullet MPI because the graticle acts as a foresight. Could be wrong of course
Planning to zero her in tomorrow at 25yds, she's roughly bore sighted, I'll report back with positive ... or negative results!
It's an old cheap scope that used to be on my Spikes Tactical AR, we will see..
Thanks all for a very interesting thread.
I'm very envious of Woodsy's early SLR. Sadly, I currently can't own one due to it's military pedigree and my location, but I'm working on it.
Back to the original question, the bloke got back to me on the origins of the drawings and I quote; "It's a copy of plans for a DMR version of an SLR, tested and trialled by Lithgow in 1973, before the term DMR was invented".
DMR to the best of my knowledge stands for Defence Materials Review or something similar. Something akin to our current DSTC.
Thanks again to all the contributors to this very enjoyable thread.
Morning all,
As I managed to get away from my office at 5pm yesterday I hightailed it over to my local range to test the scope (and my new L12A1 magazine, cheers Mike), just me and the skylarks in the gathering September haze ... cracking way to end the day!
Very pleased to report that at 25yds the scope mount combo worked a treat, though as you correctly predicted Peter, the scope was at the very limits of its vertical adjustment at 25yds.
After some zeroing the rifle L12A1/ scope / mount combo was printing very satisfactory and consistent groups, only limited by the L1 trigger and the poor operator at the controls!
When I can get down to Severnside next I shall move back to 50 then 100yds to see how she works at more realistic ranges..
DMR - Designated Marksmans Rifle.
If you look closely at the drawings they show that the scope mount is actually attached to the RHS of the upper body ( upper receiver for some ) and does not rely on a dust cover solution as that had been tried and failed. There is a re inforce that goes into the removed carry handle slot.
It was never intended to be a sniper rifle, just a more accurate L1A1 with an optical sight. Some of the mods pioneered in this then became commercially available in the "Target Shooters Package" that used to be put together by the now deceased Des Batcheldor when he was at SAF Lithgow. Back in the 80's you could pay $125.00 more for your SLR and Des wound do a trigger job, tighten the headspace, smooth the action rails and bolt carrier, and generally tighten up a few more bits to get the rifles shooting a little better. And they did shoot better. He was a lovely guy and a craftsman in every sense of the word.
What should be done with the drawings - maybe give them to the SAF Museum at Lithgow ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lithy
I wondered whether anyone would come up with mounting the tele and mount onto the bodyside. I would say that a telescope/mount screwed into either side of the L1A1 body is also doomed to fail for the simple reason that the anti-clockwise moments about the mount/telescope during recoil are still the same as those that plagued the top cover mount idea. But in this bodyside mount notion, this leverage is applied to the two or three (or four?) screws that are threaded into the 1/8" / 4mm maximum steel bodyside material. And what about the breech block carrier guiode rails machined internally too?
No need to get 'machineries' out chaps.........., Once again, I've done the maths for you. If it will tear/shear the screws from the pad and body of a No4T AND shear the spigot/locating lug off suddenly and without warning, you just ask yourself how long the screws (?) will last in a 4mm thick bodyside before total shear takes place. Bigger screws? Think about it!
I would agree that that's the best place for them, they need to be properly achieved and preserved.Quote:
Originally Posted by aiae308
The factory at Lithgow, now owned by the French Thales conglomerate, seems to have a limited interest in history, especially of the documentary kind.
Unfortunately, ALL of the previously surviving paperwork, including ALL of the microfilm aperture cards and a couple of truckloads of paper and ancient waxed linen drawings from the old "towers", were sent to the "Powerhouse Museum' in Sydney. Sadly, this organisation has a big reputation for being "anti-gun' and it is not likely you will get access to anything there, in the unlikely event that any of the stuff from Lithgow even survives.
I'll look after the plan :-)
The big three have taken over the asylum here too. H&K, RO/BAE and Thales
I would think a better place for all that would be the National Archives or National Library in Canberra.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz
I would have to agree, its terrible if achieved materials important to Australian history (though I am sure the tree huggers would disagree) are allowed to disappear, the National Archives would seem the best place, I think our Antipodean members should start lobbying!