BRITISH ARMY L42 SNIPER RIFLE C.E.S EQUIPMENT ITEM,EXCELLENT! | eBay
Printable View
To say the least, and " ISSUED WITH THE BRITISH 7.64mm SNIPER RIFLE" no less. Must be an upgunned version. We'd need to load for that wildcat.
Reminds of that 1920's lithgow fighting knofe for a thousand US dollars on ebay.... its just a bubba'd patt 1907 bayonet
Walter Mitty!
Mind you he's no more optimistic than the bloke on fleaBay in Scotland who has a No22C scope on there advertised as a 'Lee Enfield Sniper Scope' with an opening bid price of 1000 pounds!
In case you "Loos" it, there was a battle at Loos in WWI........"The MkII version was deemed an improvement" ? Isn't that the way subsequent marks work or am I missing somefink....... like BAR I would not mind seeing a 7.64 Sniper rifle now that would be a rare bird.
R P 1000 GBP :yikes:
Very, very butchered. Not worth much but would be invited into a collection as what it is, a fighting knife.
BFO how do they trace the provenance of these things anyone can mod an '07 and age the marks there are some clever people out there not saying anything about that '07 just how does one tell the real mcCoy's.
Lots were done after the fact too because of lack of hunting knives and availability of these. Price was once right too.Quote:
Originally Posted by CINDERS
i actually dont mind too much that it was modded (though about doing it myself several times, if i could find a stuffed 1907 as the right price). It irks me they did such a bad job of it. That sale to me is a targeted rip off for the unwary. There is no reason it cannot be identified. Even my google fu is not that weak.Quote:
Originally Posted by CINDERS
Im considering buying a knockoff no5 somone is trying to pass of in a local gunshop.
I could use the action, mod the stock and sell it as a sporter stock, as well as the genuine no5 sight and the muzzle flash/bayonet lug ut has on it.
It shits me as it was a matching Fazakerly with the serialised magazine and a amazing wallnut stock before it got butchered.
I could get the spare action i need and prevent some other schmuck getting ripped off
I've done a couple that were already hammered...for guys. They had already been done so I cleaned the lines up.Quote:
Originally Posted by BushyFromOz
An interesting one this, I contacted the seller to point out that that the item was in fact from a Swedish Mauser and not the one used for the L42 CES.
He came back to me saying that as an ex army SNCO that these were in fact issued with the L42 when the supply of the single bottle ran out.
I have never seen any specification for the CES which describes anything other than the single bottle so if the double bottle was being used does this mean that it was official and that for a good while now people have been paying hundreds of pounds for the plastic bottle when they could have picked up one of these twin bottles for just a few quid???
I'd be tempted to buy it and cut it in half, file to the profile should be enough meat on the middle bit to make two tabs to glue on each bottle and attach the chain to. A bit closer to the real deal than a Pi** bottle.
Well, I started a thread for a 6,5x62 mm Carcano.
My magnum wildcat;-D
Thread 13, Buccaneer. You could ask him for the authority/approval number if that was the case (it wasn't!). The fact is that the original bottle didn't 'run out' as he says but was available long after the L42 was withdrawn. Too late now of course but just shows how they spin us all along........
I assume that the seller knows what he's talking about because if it's who I think it is he's an ex armourer. I won't say who, but I leave it to him, if he wishes, to make any comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon
I have had several very interesting and pleasant email exchanges with the seller who is an ex Army SNCO armourer. I asked if there was any official authority for the use of the twin tubes or was it a case of "that's what we have so fit it anyway". His answer was "You are quite correct with your comment of; That's what we have, so fit it anyway. I have seen no officially sanctioned documentation to support my comments / experience of what I told you previously. It was simply, just done!.....As this was noticed towards the end of the useful Service life of the L42. This would have made complete sense logistically. After all, if you are casting a weapon system, WHY would you buy in non essential spare / accessories at a huge cost to the public purse, if the system / equipment was going to be got rid of."Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
I was at the Birmingham Arms & Militaria fair last Sunday and I was talking to another ex army armourer about this subject and he also confirmed that he had seen / used the twin bottles in the L42 CES kits but he said that he never saw any in the L96 ones.
It would therefor seem that although there was no official documentation to support the use of the twin bottles they were if fact used, if only for a short time, towards the end of the lifespan of the L42.
So the sellers claim that they were "genuine" can be taken as correct as in his experience they were used, but as the CES specification was never altered to include them then for the collector the only correct item would be the single bottle.
It has been pointed out many times on this forum that the first item out of the spares rack was the one that was fitted and no one bothered to see if they were "matching" so it would seem in this case what they had is what they used.
If the seller reads this then many thanks for answering all of my questions, I will not name him but if he wishes to comment then that's up to him.
He's a good chap in my experience and wouldn't knowingly misrepresent something, in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buccaneer
So it WAS official then......... or it wasn't...... That is the Q!
I did a deal with seller, so there on the way the fact they are two it certainly won't fit in the space in the transit chest provided, So I'm going to try what I said in post #14.......
In summary, the 3 key points of Buccaneer's post 18 are:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buccaneer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buccaneer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buccaneer
Er........... what are you saying F-10? In relation to what?
If I'm not mistaken, the two chambered oiler was brought up in another thread and it was pointed out that cutting it in half and using in leu of the actual pull through container would not work as these are smaller diameter and therefore would not fit the slot in the chest nor hold the brush.
Beg pardon, but the story sounds hokey to me. If the purpose of the pull through container being added to the L42 CES was to hold the lens brush, then it makes little sense that the British army would have substituted that item with an oiler that would not work for that intended purpose or fit in the appropriate slot. Just sayin'.
Do you have any personal experience of this matter?Quote:
Originally Posted by gundoc2112
Peter L if your repairing or replacing items at a forward repair depot is it (advisable?) are you able to to add items that are not officially sanctioned but will do the same job if the normal spares are unavailable like the what is being thrashed about here
Just my opinion, that's all. I'd just like to point out:Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
1) in all this forum, that includes former British snipers, armourers, and advanced collectors, there has been no mention of the discussed item being part of the L42A1 CES,official or otherwise
2) The discussed item would not work for the purpose of the CES item it is being theorized to have substituted.
3) Despite no knowledge of the above mentioned folks, you have one guy that is selling the discussed item (at a much marked up price; type in 'Swedish oiler' in ebay keyword, they go for $4.00)cites being an ex armorer as the sole proof of this being legit.
Maybe it's just me, but I've been to enough gun shows to have trust issues. Caveat Emptor and all that good stuff. But alas, it is just my lowly opinion. Take it for what it's worth.
Every body's opinion is worth it GD whether people act on it or not is entirely up to them or to buy a story and not the item well thats their peril for not doing their leg work or like here asking anyway bloke it is what it is.
Stories are exactly that they need tangible proof thats why I posed the question to Peter as if anyone can supply a reasonable and plausible answer it would be himself but not forgetting the other armourers and long experienced gun doctors here in this site, I just thought one source would suffice, but feel free to chip in the more knowledge we get the better.
During my conversation with the seller I asked about the stowage and he said that they were altered at unit level to accept the twin storage bottle, he also said that the lens cleaning brush was reduced in length to fit as the twin bottle is slightly shorter.Quote:
Originally Posted by gundoc2112
As he pointed out there was no official sanction for doing this that he was aware of they just used what was supplied to keep a soon to be obsolete weapon system going.
I have spoken to two unconnected sources who both say that they saw / used the twin bottle in the L42 CES, this does not make it official or correct all it says that at some point they were used.
I just say as I saw - and know. The FACT is that during its life there was never a shortage of the little bottle, nor was there a dues-out and original stocks (from the Charlie G) were still in stock long after the kit was declared obsolescent and much later, when it was declared obsolete.
Permitted changes in the CES were detailed in the green CES book via a series of little paste-in (or over-written) amendments. A good example of this was the authorised replacement plastic case for the Sct Regt Scope which was change number 18 or so as I recall. But if a unit Armourer at a hard pressed unit took it upon himself to make a small change, then who would notice you might ask. I'll tell you. The annual PRE/UEI team inspection, that's who - and it WOULD be noted on their paperwork return! As for taking out the wooden housing block, enlarge the hole and strap and............ Not in my limited experience I'd proffer especially when the real McCoy was readily available. Lots of the rifles and cans were fitted with webbing slings as a preference by the sniper but the original would be in the chest. This was to be expected
You could get away with crap stuff. Say for example you'd encountered a shortage or hicc-up in the supply chain for some reason just prior to the PRE (or UEI) inspection. In that case you might strip a, say, GPMG to make up two or three other guns serviceable. But you'd tell them the problem and what you'd done. Skippy will know this system best.
There were some parts of a CES which if missing, the kit would simply not, never, be issued. Not saying that the bottle would be a bar to issue. Just as example of how things worked
I have just spotted that the seller has relisted the twin bottle with a footnote that I suggested saying that these bottles were not officially recognised.
Can't really fake the real thing I would say ....
Attachment 81085
Even the lens tissues and little brush are original in yours CODFan!
I think the only real similarities of the original Charlie G pull through container and the double one shown by the OP is that they were made in Sweden.
So how much smaller are they compared to the single bottle ?
OK Gentlemen, I think I will step in here. As I have only just seen this thread.
I can openly state, that I am the seller in 'Question'! :madsmile: The listing description is a factual account of my own experience of these type of bottles. & is clearly described in the listing data. Peter, our much respected 'Sage' on all things Small arms related. Has correctly stated the procedure's paperwork wise. On In Service Weapons during that Period in time. However, as also explained in the description, anomalies DID occur in Service!
I can only say what I personally experienced late in the day over these L42 weapon systems. Luckily for Me, Buccaneer has also enquired with other former service Armourers. Who also concur with my statements on these little bottles. So it is not just me, laying out a fanciful 'fairy Story'!.......
I would NEVER do that, & along with most of you guys. faced with a similar situation. Would ALSO be sceptical!........
However, the full (My) explanation is in that listing description. & that is actually what happened to me late in the day of the L42. & full reasoning behind the alternative issue of these bottles to my unit at that time. Peter has stated the Bottles were in 'Plentiful supply' then also, & for a while after withdrawal. I do not question His account at all. He is senior to me in Service, & also a Personal Colleague. But he will I'm sure, understand what I have written in my description. As things DID indeed, occur at times. Which were never documented, were against regulations, were utilised but never OFFICIALY sanctioned Etc. I could think of hundred's of examples, as could he. If he were taxed to scan his memory Banks! :lol:
I have even encountered (& I'm SURE this has happened to others also) the frustration of putting a spares demand indent in. & receiving a totally different item! This is what happened to me over these bottles initially, & was 'clarified' over the phone at that time. As to why I had received a couple of these, & not the single container! Now when you think about it, way back then over such an INSIGNIFICANT NON essential item of CES. WHY would I delve further into the whys & wherefores of their issue?.........Peter will also concur I'm certain. that we as Armourers, had Far more important priorities & things to do. than worry about plastic oil bottles!......:banghead:
As a parallel addition to this explanation. Approx. a year ago, I purchased at a large Militaria fair. & carrier bag FULL of small arms cleaning apurtences (That's accessories to you lot! :D) In this bag along with the majority of L85 Cleaning kit items. to my utter delight, were a batch of genuine L42 scope lens cleaning brushes. ALL nato Stock numbered. & lo & Behold, SOME of them WERE the 'Mk.II' cut down Variants. Done so they WOULD fit into the small twin tubed containers! STILL sporting the SAME NSN's !!!.....I never thought much about it at the time, & didn't question it in my mind. Because When I explained to the ordnance 'bod' on the phone that the brushes would not fit these. He said 'you only need to cut the handles down to fit'........
And these brushes were done already, VERY neatly machine cut! ALSO confirming the issue procedure explained earlier here. :thup:
As Most (NOT All!) books on particular subject. Are written in a LOT of cases by Civilian's, who have never served in our Armed forces. I have ALWAYS advised 'collectors' & 'instant experts' who have not been in Uniform. To use their books as a GUIDE only! & NOT to slavishly follow all of the content! And keep an open mind at all times.
Because, as sure as eggs are eggs. Sooner or later SOMTHING will come along, to disprove 'The Bible' !........ I would stake my reputation on it, that other Forum members on here. Who Have/Are served in British military Service. Have at one time or another. Encountered some type of example of this kind of situation. If they are honest.....
I am grateful to those who have come forward to defend my reputation in this matter. Some of who know Me quite well. & know Me to be Honest & forthcoming with my assistance where needed.
To those who were sceptical & mistrusting over this matter. I bear you no ill will, & TOTALLY understand your viewpoints & comments. If I were in a similar position, I too. Would question my account!...
but as we age on in life, I have learned to take a lot in my stride. As I KNOW Peter has also. ;) I contribute on here, as a medium to Help, NOT mislead.
As do others who take the time to help out/ assist where We Can.
One question I would raise from a common sense point is: 'WHY would I mislead. misinform deliberately. Over such a lowly & mediocre little 'Item', such as this container'?.......It would be madness, not to mention morally wrong to do so!....
So there you have it Gentlemen. take it or leave it. THAT, is a true & factual account from another Armourers hands on experience.
Oh, & as a parting 'Shot'. I have corrected the spelling mistakes on the listing description. I will pick up my Hundred Lines on the way out! :D
I will leave it there, & Humbly withdraw with My dignity!......:cheers:
An interesting post mike, I was expecting some snippets at the end regarding how comfortable women's clothing is, maybe next time.:lol:
Thanks for your informative Post, Mike. When I first clicked the link to the listing I recognised your eBay identity and so I realised who was selling the item. With something like this where I have no personal experience I look at the person who is selling the item to gauge the credibility of their story attached to the listing and if I was interested in buying it, whether or not I would want to go ahead. In this case because I have met you and I have had dealings with you in the past as well as purchasing items from you, this has built up trust between us.
I would have no hesitation to doubt what Mike has stated and if I needed/wanted this oil bottle, I would have no hesitation from buying it from him.
Nice One Geoff! But as I know you served in the Woman's Auxiliary Balloon Corps. I will leave that to your good self to explain Mate! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by bigduke6
SH*t job but someone had to do it....... shower times could be entertaining though.....Quote:
Originally Posted by tankhunter