L42A1 bolt head question

The following is a continuation of a conversation on another forum in regards to an L42A1 that has a #3 bolt head fitted.

The question is, when the L42s were converted, did they get new #0 bolt heads or were the bolt head that was on the No4T just get proofed to 19T?

I have read much about the proofing, but little else. As the accounts of the No4Ts being 'long in the tooth', I reckon it is plausible that a No4T could have come to the work bench with a #3 bolt head prior to conversion.

Thanks in advance for any input on this mystery and happy new year to all.

I would suggest new bolt head. New barrel, new chamber, new head space, new bolt head. From what I have seen the numbers on 4T and L42 heads differ in that the font on the 4T heads are period correct when compared to the L42 which are standard bold. In any case surely the L42 conversion involved a tip to toe refurbished bolt.
Question for me is. Were the engineering capabilities precision enough to always fit a #0 bolt head when considering the conversion was of a firearm body which was manufactured twenty something years earlier to the technology standards of that era. Did all L42's leave Enfield with #0 head fitted. I've also owned three 4T's and all had a #2 head fitted.

I was wondering if there is any physical difference between the L42/L39 bolt head and the No4mk1 bolt head apart from the proof to 19 tons?
Would it be possible to fit a standard No4 bolt head and have it proofed?
When the conversion kits to 7,62 were produced, did the kit come with a set of the new bolt heads to be selected after barrel fitting?

Remember also that the L42A1 with a #3 bolt head fitted may have had a shorter bolt head fitted originally after conversion. They weren't surplused until they were pretty much ALL long in the tooth and may have had upgrades over the course of their service which was 20 plus years. Many were used in the sniper schools too and got flogged to death in training, class after class.

The .303 and 7.62 bolt heads are identical with the 7.62 being proofed to 19T.

As to your first sentence, it would cerainly make me hesitant to drop that much coin on a rifle with a limited amount of barrel life (and no replacement barrels to speak of),and that was my concern specifically in regards to the subject rifle. I was, however coming at the conversation from the standpoint of having owned and shot .303 Enfields. It was pointed out that the L42, having been chambered for a modern cartridge and not the more corrosive Mk7, eroding headspace and needing to change bolt heads would not likely be an issue.

As stated, I had never read anything thus far about new bolt heads being utilized in the conversion process, just that bot heads were proofed. I have since read through all the old threads on this forum to be sure I didn't miss anything. In my reading, I have seen many accounts of the No4Ts being worn and that the L42 program was done on the cheap.

I've gone through all the pictures on this site, of the L42s with the bolt number visible, all were #0.

---------- Post added at 05:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:28 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Dick

Remember also that the L42A1 with a #3 bolt head fitted may have had a shorter bolt head fitted originally after conversion. They weren't surplused until they were pretty much ALL long in the tooth and may have had upgrades over the course of their service which was 20 plus years. Many were used in the sniper schools too and got flogged to death in training, class after class.

The .303 and 7.62 bolt heads are identical with the 7.62 being proofed to 19T.

---

So, the rifles were fitted with #0 bolt heads upon conversion?

I very much doubt that it would have been mandatory even for them to have gone out with a 0 bolt head on them at the time of conversion; they would have gone out with the bolt head that gave a correct fit for the various bolt fit parameters (lift, over travel, & so forth), & the correct head space.

When we hear from PL no doubt we will get the definitive.....!

I just looked at three I have here. Two of them are 1971 conversions with #3 heads fitted. The other is a 1975 conversion with a #0 fitted. They used what bolt head was needed to pass the gauging standard and that was it.

I have to say that if you want one, get it. With only 1080 produced and roughly half that number in the scrap pile, it's one of the rarest sniper rifles one can own. I can also attest that even the very tired rifles, barring the ones with worn out bodies, will shoot better than most of us can anyhow. I've had 60 plus through here since the early 90's and they always made me smile on the range!

I think its a misconception that a number of rifles were worked harder than any other. No L42 remained the property of any single unit all its life in fact they all rotated through the whole of the army due to the fact if one "broke" the rifle and its entire CES was packed in the chest and sent to a command workshop, a replacement rifle would be supplied to the unit in question. School of Infantry rifles were no different. My battalion never had the same eight rifles from one month to the next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

I very much doubt that it would have been mandatory even for them to have gone out with a 0 bolt head on them at the time of conversion; they would have gone out with the bolt head that gave a correct fit for the various bolt fit parameters (lift, over travel, & so forth), & the correct head space.

When we hear from PL no doubt we will get the definitive.....!

---

I would definitely be interested in the Captain's input!

---------- Post added at 05:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:42 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Dick

I just looked at three I have here. Two of them are 1971 conversions with #3 heads fitted. The other is a 1975 conversion with a #0 fitted. They used what bolt head was needed to pass the gauging standard and that was it.

I have to say that if you want one, get it. With only 1080 produced and roughly half that number in the scrap pile, it's one of the rarest sniper rifles one can own. I can also attest that even the very tired rifles, barring the ones with worn out bodies, will shoot better than most of us can anyhow. I've had 60 plus through here since the early 90's and they always made me smile on the range!

---

I agree,and after many years of lustING after everyone on here's collections, L42 # A1991 will be arriving next week via the brown truck of happiness!

The rifle that had spurred this question, though, is the one currently on GB auction.

---------- Post added at 05:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:45 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chosenman

I think its a misconception that a number of rifles were worked harder than any other. No L42 remained the property of any single unit all its life in fact they all rotated through the whole of the army due to the fact if one "broke" the rifle and its entire CES was packed in the chest and sent to a command workshop, a replacement rifle would be supplied to the unit in question. School of Infantry rifles were no different. My battalion never had the same eight rifles from one month to the next.

---

I have read those accounts. Very much different than in the USMC. Unless an M40A3 was beyond repair, it was always sent back to the owning unit after higher echelon maintenance was completed.

I'm sure Peter will be along to chime in.

Steve, I agree but there were so few conversions done in the first place that 20+ years of service definitely took it's toll on them. I've had a few that didn't see real hard service but the majority were very tired. The last 30 I imported that came from C.O. via C.S Military in 2001 were really rough at first glimpse, both the rifles and scopes. However, all of the scopes and rifles were serviced, repaired if necessary and test fired before resale and I never had a complaint from a buyer. I even exported some to the UK, Canada, and New Zealand where i assume they are still getting some range time along with the ones that are here in the USA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gundoc2112

I have read those accounts. Very much different than in the USMC. Unless an M40A3 was beyond repair, it was always sent back to the owning unit after higher echelon maintenance was completed.

---

Ha! you fellas probably had lots of spare rifles at unit level. Unfortunately most British infantry units, with the exception of the SAS and RM had 7-8 rifles which were all subject to a heavy pasting once a year when the battalion ran its own sniper cadre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Dick

I just looked at three I have here. Two of them are 1971 conversions with #3 heads fitted. The other is a 1975 conversion with a #0 fitted. They used what bolt head was needed to pass the gauging standard and that was it.

I have to say that if you want one, get it. With only 1080 produced and roughly half that number in the scrap pile, it's one of the rarest sniper rifles one can own. I can also attest that even the very tired rifles, barring the ones with worn out bodies, will shoot better than most of us can anyhow. I've had 60 plus through here since the early 90's and they always made me smile on the range!

---

I have had the pleasure of shooting (yet to own one though) a number of L42's, wonderful rifles to shoot.

I would agree Brian, they always make me smile and the examples I have used, shoot beautifully, even I can happily print cloverleaf groups all day and I am no crack shot.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...xzdzv3rq-1.jpg
I think the old saying "never judge a book by its cover" is relevant here. I have two 1971 examples, one incidentally has a #0 bolt head the other is marked but I cant make it out. One looks considerably rougher than the other but the performance of both is comparable. For the record the performance is gooood:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chosenman

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...xzdzv3rq-1.jpg
I think the old saying "never judge a book by its cover" is relevant here. I have two 1971 examples, one incidentally has a #0 bolt head the other is marked but I cant make it out. One looks considerably rougher than the other but the performance of both is comparable. For the record the performance is gooood:)

---

Thanks for the intel! I'm Facebook buddies with your son and have drooled over your Gurkha L42. You, Sir, have an amazing collection!

Thank you very much! Always trying to improve it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chosenman

Thank you very much! Always trying to improve it.

---

Same here, but that Gurkha rifle is a crown jewel. My cover is off to you!

This topic actually is an offshoot of a conversation that Danny and I were having. I was of the mind that a high number bolt head was no bueno and he had put forward that said bolt head may have been what was on the No4T at time of conversion. As it is not a topic that I have seen tackled in regards to an L42, I felt it prudent to bring it to a wider and much more knowledgeable bunch than myself.

Have you ever started to read something and started to think '......where do they get all of this stuff from?' or '............what planetary orbit are they circling........?' I'll let you waffle on for a day and then tell it like it was.......... Just keep digging the hole

Come on Fletch! Don't keep us on the dark!!

FWIW PL I stand by my post (#6), & await the definitive with bated breath!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Have you ever started to read something and started to think '......where do they get all of this stuff from?' or '............what planetary orbit are they circling........?' I'll let you waffle on for a day and then tell it like it was.......... Just keep digging the hole

---

That's tough GURU but I understand why. :beerchug::beerchug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

FWIW PL I stand by my post (#6), & await the definitive with bated breath!

---

Roger, I completely agree with your post #6. Fitting 70's mass produced barrels onto 40's mass produced bodies will have almost certainly thrown up a - + window resulting in a variance of the head space.

Fear not DRP or Chosenman. But the facts are this. No L42 or L39 got out of the factory using a No3 bolthead (the b/h). I know that there are others more versed in the art than me that will say they did, but believe me, they didn't. The only place a No3 b/h was acceptable was at unit level. If it got to a Field workshop with a No3 b/h, they'd move heaven and earth with stocks of No2 b/h's - given the large variations in length, over and underturn to send it out with the correct CHS AND a No2 b/h. If not, it was the chop. Why sell a restored car with 100,000 miles on the engine?

There was never a No4 b/h in UK Military service. They have been noted BUT there was Never a No4 in the parts list, EMER or the intermediate wartime SAI's issued to quartermasters. It is correct that some rifles were allowed to pass into service with a specially ground 00 size b/h. This was a factory acceptable relaxation for those tight bodies that otherwise passed all of the factory specification/standard

As for selectively fitting barrels to ensure that the rifle went out with a 0 b/h........ all I can say, rolling my eyes skywards in despair, is this. Just think about it........... In short, you'd need barrels in the system to cater for bodies that would exceed the 3 b/h size too. NOPE, just one barrel and chamber spec if you don't mind - please!!!!! You can't fix a clapped body with an oversize barrel.

A minor correction here if you don't mind. Generally speaking, the sniper rifle was a one man dog and it stayed that way for obvious reasons and in my experience, the snipers could tag on to a shooting detail at a unit range day just to keep his/their skills up so at the unit levels, the rifles never really got flogged to death. I know that they'd allow others on the range day to use them for interest or farmiliarisation and all that but really, it was to chuckle when the novice smart-arxe NCO who knew everything was showing off to the blokes and split his eye while he did so - to everyones amusement!

But if at unit level, something went wrong with the rifle, it was generally two things (plus a third but not too common) that the Unit Armourers were required to send it into the Field or Command workshops for. And that was loose front pad or loose block band foresight. In these most common cases, by tacit agreement between them, the rifle went in on its own, less the CES, to be repaired. This was because once the faults were fixed (you'd do both at the same time anyway), the rifle had to be zeroed. The re-zeroing would be so minor that it could be done by the sniper! In any case, when ANY sniper rifle was returned to a unit the 1045 was endorsed with 'SNIPER RIFLE - TO BE FINALLY ZEROED BY THE END USER' or ZEROING IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE END USER. So fine zeroing would be done by the sniper as a good excuse and authority to tag onto a range day with his pal for some pretty-well unsupervised 'range practice' .

Inaccuracy was down to the poor quality of the fore-ends and when these became 'dues-out' ('temporarily' out of stock big time!) then the rifle was BLR/Z and returned to Ordnance and a replacement was issued

From this, you can see that in my opinion the same rifles stayed with their same home units for a LONG time. And if the regiment was posted to, say, Germany, they'd take over the weaponry from the unit they were taking over from and so on*. Obviously at the different training centres where the snipers were trained and tested, the rifles there were shot to death and the attrition rate was pretty bleak as you'd expect from vehicles used in cross country driver training.

I should clarify a small point and I know it's a tad academic but when a rifle, let's say our L42 is inspected at workshops and a fore-end or something else is NLA or Dues-Out, then the rifle will go back to the unit as Z-BLR**. It would not sit for more than a couple of weeks at a workshop awaiting spare parts believe me..... The Z-BLR paperwork would be the signal and authority for the Quartermaster to demand a replacement from Ordnance. The replacement issue would arrive at the same time as a 'calling-in notice' for the Z-BLR rifle which would be packed up and returned to a RSSD. More to it than that of course but notice that because the rifle is Z-BLR, it'd be set aside for repair at a later date. A good example of this is shortly after the introduction of the L96's that were withdrawn, L42's were rebuilt where possible and retained '........pending'. Luckily for some current L42 owners, new brackets were obtained to rebuild these otherwise soon to be scrap rifles. Whereas a rifle sentenced Z-BER for beyond economic repair for, for example, elongated/knackered front pad screw holes would go straight for the chop.

*not absolutely correct of course, depending on circumstances
** and Z-BER usually stripped of anything useful and shipped back to Ordnance. Plenty of these stripped heaps of sxxx were sold off, believe me!

Well, I'm no wiser! I stand by the original. It wouldn't be manditory at the time of conversion to of had a 0 head fitted. However, I'm better placed to speak about the life of an L42. From personal experience I can say my battalion in the eighties of which possessed eight rifles never had the same rifles from one month to the next. Only just before xmas I was chatting with an old mucca and looking at a set of pictures from back in the day. The pics were taken over a three year period and my mate was pictured with around six different rifles. I would imagine the SOI's turnover was just the same. Also as previously mentioned the battalion ran its own sniper cadre every year which obviously involved some intense range work. In short they were all pretty well battered!

I just say it as it applied to me as the snipers Armourer in the mid 60's and much later, well into the L42 era and having wisely learned the wily ways of the Quarternastering system. Sniper div turnover was severe especially at the later part of its life - split probably 50-50 between rifles and telescopes either worn-out, dues-out and clapped-out!

I was a bit perplexed at the thought of sniper rifles being turned over as frequently as described. I know only too well how well battered they were later in their lives, but this frequent turnover just doesn't ring true. I appreciate that I'm not the brightest light in the box when it comes to the field service part of Army life....., being more of a technical man and all that. But a sniper rifle would seem to be a pretty important part of a snipers main reason for being a, er........, sniper! Much like a sheep dog is a pretty important part of being a shepherd sort of way. If the poor shepherd didn't know what sheep dog he was going to get from one month to the next, well....., we wouldn't be eating a lot of lamb or mutton would we? One man dog and all that stuff. If a sniper had his rifle changed on a regular basis what'd be the point of having them. Like the shepherds dog. If it needed the chop, then it gets the chop but 2 rifles a year written off or even exchanged for some reason or another, per sniper, per year in that one example is an awful lot of rifles.

Thank you all that weighed in. Whilst I have seen much discussed of bolt heads in .303 rifles, have seen little discussed on the L42. Very much appreciated.