SLR L1A1 STRAIGHT PULL

Well this morning I put a good 20+ rounds down the range of my old personel weapon. First time in many years. 7.62 x 51 GGG ammo through a 1961 all wood rifle triangle stock.

Fine for the first 5 rounds and then the usual hard to eject the empty case when the barrel gets hot, until you had fed the rifle with plenty of Browning spray oil!!!:madsmile:

I know I have discussed this with a number of people on here already in the UK.

What a waste of a beautiful self loading rifle to make it a straight Pull, when other rifles out there in the UK like the MASS conversions, could so easily have been applied to this weapon.

Only my point of view, but as I write, I understand the MASS days and the 50 Calibre days are very numbered here in the UK!!!

Forgive my ignorance Gil, but what's a MASS?

Roger,
Apologies finger trouble.
Manual Activated Release System - MARS :)

Thanks Gil - whether it's MARS or MASS I still hadn't heard of it, but I know what you mean now! Cheers.

Good to see you Gil. Yes, a pain but you can at least still have one. Unless you have status here, you can't even be considered. Unless it's dewat.

Nice one Gil, great too see it in action and welcome to our small UK L1 club, as Jim said, Pity about it being "man op" but its still a pleasure to own an example of the finest Service Rifle ever built...

Maybe off topic and apologies in advance for being so, however it's something that needs raising awareness of -

If you're a UK shooter it's worth finding out what a MARS rifle is - it, along with 50 cal, is currently under UK government consultation, namely "moving two firearms (.50 calibre and certain rapid firing rifles) from the general licensing arrangements to the stricter provisions of section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968".
This means banning them.
Few people shoot 50 cal I know, and yes it doesn't directly affect me either if they get banned, but it comes across as divide and conquer, once they've gone what's the next category to get rid of?
It's worth looking into and writing to your MP about.
Sorry again to hijack the thread but the more people that know about this the better.

Jon

Gil

Ah, so you got it! Well done! :thup:

---------- Post added at 08:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:34 AM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hayboy

Maybe off topic and apologies in advance for being so, however it's something that needs raising awareness of -

If you're a UK shooter it's worth finding out what a MARS rifle is - it, along with 50 cal, is currently under UK government consultation, namely "moving two firearms (.50 calibre and certain rapid firing rifles) from the general licensing arrangements to the stricter provisions of section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968".
This means banning them.
Few people shoot 50 cal I know, and yes it doesn't directly affect me either if they get banned, but it comes across as divide and conquer, once they've gone what's the next category to get rid of?
It's worth looking into and writing to your MP about.
Sorry again to hijack the thread but the more people that know about this the better.

Jon

---

Jon

You are absolutely correct, one way or another this concerns all of us that shoot. There is also a plan to put a maximum MV on in the legislation. Once you have a maximum MV restriction, it is but the moment of a piece of delegated legislation to knock another nought off the end.........

The consultation closes on 9 December, and I intend to put my comments in well before time.



Offensive and dangerous weapons: new legislation - GOV.UK

Jon,

What you said was absolutely accurate and worth airing on here about letting everybody know what MARS stands for and the issues surrounding any future bans to the sport.
This link shows you where the UK Armed Forces are and their influence on Police etc on the subject: UK Armed Forces Commentary: Who wants a new 5.56 assault rifle...? As I understand it, a Firearms Dealer found a way around the legislation here in the UK and thus the MARS rifle was born!!

My only gripe, if there is one to air, is why couldn't the L1A1 be converted to MARS (Manual Activated Release System) why it appears just the CZ Semi Auto larger bore market??
I suppose it looks more gucci for those younger owners and more current, compared to what was the best rifle in Military service at the time, cut short in its prime IMHO. It was a man stopper, what it said on the box.

David TS,

Yes I went for it, Lithgow rifle with Parker Hale parts which is always a bonus. The action pivot is a later Parker Hale replacement part, where PH acquired all the ex Enfield L1A1 plant when they re-tooled to build L85's, thanks to MrClark303 for pointing that out.

An AD prefix from the NZ Contract, more stamps on it, then a Roman Wine foot grinder!! Should have shown the figure 11 target all 5 rounds warmers within an inch great group on this barrel. I expected to use a lot more energy in cocking it each time, and knew only too well it drank oil to keep the action working, so a tin of Brownells oil is highly recommended. 1959 wood and stamped 1961 manufacture, and clearly going up in value daily................knowing my luck, it will be the next group to be targetted for a ban, I can feel it in my water!!!!

Didn't think that lump in the trousers would last long Gil......... send me a PM with your address, I,ve a few original User Handbooks, " RIFLE 7.62mm L1A1 and 0.22 inch CALIBRE , L12A1 CONVERSION KIT, 7.62 mm RIFLE" these are the revised ones 1977.

Geoff,
Lifes to short mate...............not a rehearsal so thought I better do it :lol:
PM sent

Very true, you can spend a long time dead as a bloke once said to me........... anyway guess it brought some memories back looking down the range ? maybe some not that pleasant, but think the good ones will always outweigh the bad......

Couldn't agree more guys, we have to enjoy shooting while we can, owning and shooting an L1A1 is a pleasure. Who knows what's next on the ban list, one things for sure, they never give us anything back, so enjoy it while we can.

I think those of us with straight pull L1A1's can easily prove they are not rapid fire rifles by the fact you have to stand on the cocking lever after about five rounds because they have gone into hard extract mode :lol:

David,
I am going to try mathematics next time on the range. I was firing GGG 7.62 on the video and as you say the sixth round was a hard extract.
I am going for 145 gn .308 next time to see the difference, certainly wouldn't advise 200 gn.
Wait Out on the result which I can video again.

I never quite got my head around why the straight pull L1's became difficult to extract. I'd like to put one on the enfield layer with the cover removed plus fil it with a high speed camera at Shrivenham to see exactly what is happening within. After all, the breech block is locked down and held down by the carrier (which is why the carrier is a proofed part on the L1A1). Carrier is drawn rearwards, lifts the BB, creates primary extraction...... so what is the prob? First Q is this. During the hard extr phase, say after 8 rounds, does the BBcarrier retract slightly before it tightens up? That would indicate that the BB is trightening up and won't lift after the mechanical safety. If the BBcarrier is tight from the word go, it would indicate sumfink else inn'i

Answers to those queries please chaps........

Well you can't blame it on gas;)

Peter,
If you are baffled I am sure the rest of us are too.
Let me try these Winchester .308 145gn out on it, as I think its a round/case issue where the neck has been shimmed on the new barrels, could be wrong!

............the neck has been shimmed on the new barrels,

I don't understand that bit Gil. The first answer we/I need is as per thread 16

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

I never quite got my head around why the straight pull L1's became difficult to extract. I'd like to put one on the enfield layer with the cover removed plus fil it with a high speed camera at Shrivenham to see exactly what is happening within. After all, the breech block is locked down and held down by the carrier (which is why the carrier is a proofed part on the L1A1). Carrier is drawn rearwards, lifts the BB, creates primary extraction...... so what is the prob? First Q is this. During the hard extr phase, say after 8 rounds, does the BBcarrier retract slightly before it tightens up? That would indicate that the BB is trightening up and won't lift after the mechanical safety. If the BBcarrier is tight from the word go, it would indicate sumfink else inn'i

Answers to those queries please chaps........

---

sumfink else inn'i. You and your technical terms Peter:lol:
When I bought my first example, I tried Privi .. The action was absolutely solid, felt like the BB/BC was welded solid with zero movement.

It took resting the butt on the firing point edge and a technical tap with a rubber mallet to the cocking handle to unlock the action.

This was addressed when I swapped the Privi for GGG and no more problems.

Seems to be a common problem, with a common cause, that's despite a myriad of different barrels with different chamber cuts..

Reason. The common consensus centers on thick walled civilian .308 ammo that adheres to the chamber walls and sticks like money to my Brother in Laws wallet (believe me that sticks tight).

The thinner walled mil spec 7.62x51 would appear to spring back, allowing the case to unstick.

The 7.62 chambered AR10 derived Rifles appear to suffer less, perhaps down to the rotating bolt unsticking the case?

I suppose it lies in a multitude of small overcomable issues. Don't forget of course the Belgium FN was manufactured using metric dimensions, while all the components of the "inch-pattern" UK FALs were manufactured to a slightly modified design using British imperial sizes. When I look at that original video by the SAC the weapon was brought in to fire .308, when they assumed that was to be the NATO round.
Yes I can relate to perhaps the BB not doing what it should, but I think the issue is two fold:
1. The selection of the right round for the barrel
2. The barrel itself and the alignment to a round being placed into an expanding non discript barrel on these straight pulls, and thats why after so many rounds, the heat transfer is magnified and "parts" expand, where a more efficient casing on a round would prevail.

Simply put, its a compatibility issue, when you see the progress of the straight pull in this country and the way some RFD's have tackled it, or is it the lack of gas inertia to overcome the initial unlocking of the bolt toggle from the locking shoulder, as they are not working as the original gas operated designs intended them to.

Am I addressing an issue we all have after a number of rounds going through the weapon as it is configured here as a Straight Pull?? A time lapse camera with the top cover removed would solve it as Peter L suggested!!!

When the Aussies made their single shot manually operated target L1A1's they positioned the new cocking handle on the back of the carrier (by the rat tail rivet).
The British straight pull use the original cocking handle position, putting pressure on one side at the front of the carrier.
With all the parts been used(and old) is the act of cocking imparting twist to the carrier adding extra friction?

Is the cartridge/chamber preventing easy extraction, or is it the carrier.
If I remember correctly (its been 30+years) the carrier should be free to move rearward for about 3mm before contacting the unlocking cams on the breach block, pulling UP on the breach block , so the rear of the carrier (where the cam surfaces are) is forced down, also as the cocking handle is pushing from the front of the carrier there will be some effort to rotate the carrier in it's rails adding even more friction.
If the cocking handle is at the rear top of the carrier (as the Aussies did) the cocking action would lift the rear of the carrier, reducing any rotation.

Could it be down to the bolt locking against the shoulder with the pressure and also sticking of the case in the chamber, with no gas force to help extract and unlock???
Ammo pressure and choice of ammo I submit is crucial.
With lower pressure cartridges such as the 7.62 x 39mm or .308 145 gr. Lets see when I next attend the range.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skiprat

When the Aussies made their single shot manually operated target L1A1's they positioned the new cocking handle on the back of the carrier (by the rat tail rivet).
The British straight pull use the original cocking handle position, putting pressure on one side at the front of the carrier.
With all the parts been used(and old) is the act of cocking imparting twist to the carrier adding extra friction?

Is the cartridge/chamber preventing easy extraction, or is it the carrier.
If I remember correctly (its been 30+years) the carrier should be free to move rearward for about 3mm before contacting the unlocking cams on the breach block, pulling UP on the breach block , so the rear of the carrier (where the cam surfaces are) is forced down, also as the cocking handle is pushing from the front of the carrier there will be some effort to rotate the carrier in it's rails adding even more friction.
If the cocking handle is at the rear top of the carrier (as the Aussies did) the cocking action would lift the rear of the carrier, reducing any rotation.

---

Andy, excellent points, I know a chap who shoots one of the single shot Lithgow rifles in the US (pic of said rifle attached) and he doesn't report any issues.

At the end of the day, these rifles were designed to have a steel piston strike the top the carrier and with said 3mm of moment in the BC giving a suitable sharp pull on the BB to unstick the case.

Gil, you will I am sure find your rifle improves with use and chamber cleaning, I only get the very occasional issue with my two rifles now, mostly, they both shoot just fine if fed their preferred diet GGG.

The rubber mallet gathers dust in my range bag, I am glad to say...:thup:

Mmmmmm. I'm not sure that the position of the c/handle will have an adverse effect on the hard extraction issue Skippy, But owners COULD satisfy our curiosity by slightly rounding or putting a small radius on the rear RIGHT hand edge of the runner of the BBcarrier (the BBC). That would eliminate any tendency of the rear right side to jamb up caused by a tendency to rotate and therefore friction.
I am inclined to believe that it is a barrel issue. I say this because when we tested certain* rifles on the layer we fired them with the gas plug rotated so that there was no gas (or need for gas). And they worked just fine. The 'new' rifles with new-made barrels simply do not allow the BB to lift and while doing so, the top surface of the BB face rocks slightly, rotating about its fulcrum and let the extractor just tweak the case, loosen it and then........ THAT IS PRIMARY EXTRACTION. If you ain't got that, what follows is, er...... no extraction
What I need to know is this.......... Rifle will not extract or eject. Does the BBC move slightly rearwards or is that solid too? Are all the rifles to the UK MoD CHS spec. Or is this some dodgy proof house spec or some home builders spec or other enthusiastic amateur spec?

Clarkie, your thread 24, para2 is not really relevant because by the time the piston strikes the BBC, the bullet has left the barrel, the pressure has subsided to a safe level (there will be a bit of course but basic physics tells us that gas vents immediately). So what you are faced with is exactly what the piston is faced with when it imparts its energy.

* rifles that came in with non gas related problems or just accuracy testing were fired without gas. It saves cleaning afterwards.....

Oh, yes...., an afterthought. It would be a very simple matter to eliminate the cocking handle position querie. Just knock out the PIN, axis rod from the BBC and insert a short steel bar. Length of nylon cord around both sides of rod, fire rifle and pull rod and BBC rearwards. That is cycling the BB and BBC directly and centrally - as per the piston. If it is perfect, that's the problem and answer. If not, back to the drawing board but another querie answered and eliminated

Peter,
I am waiting for the ACPO guidelines on L1A1 Straight Pulls as issued a number of years ago, but I am certain they had to conform to a specified specification laid down to conform to be able to be sold as Section 1......anybody got a copy they can put up, and have I got that right?

I don't think that it was an ACPO matter Gil;. I believe that it was a HO decision based on the definition of 'assembling new component parts* into what is a new weapon'. The component parts that were the subject of this decision were the proofed or load bearing parts had to be either new or never having been used in, or formed part of a firearm in the UK in the past. That's because the law relates to within the UK and not anywhere else. More to it than that but............ Not an ACPO matter. No doubt they were hopping up and down like frogs on fire at the decision but there you go........

Peter,
Absolutely right, Home Office but through ACPO Firearms Committee to ensure Forces Licensing knew what they had coming in the day!;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

I don't think that it was an ACPO matter Gil;. I believe that it was a HO decision based on the definition of 'assembling new component parts* into what is a new weapon'. The component parts that were the subject of this decision were the proofed or load bearing parts had to be either new or never having been used in, or formed part of a firearm in the UK in the past. That's because the law relates to within the UK and not anywhere else. More to it than that but............ Not an ACPO matter. No doubt they were hopping up and down like frogs on fire at the decision but there you go........

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gil Boyd

Peter,
Absolutely right, Home Office but through ACPO Firearms Committee to ensure Forces Licensing knew what they had coming in the day!

---

I do have the info on that meeting somewhere Gil and Peter, need to look it out ... The outcome of decision was to allow the first importer of these SP rifles (Anglo Custom) to go ahead and bring them in under Sec1 of the firearms act.

Until that point I believe it was not allowed, due in part to a small caveat placed within the 1988 Firearms amendment, designed to ensure people didn't find a way to circumvent the new laws and keep their AR15/L1A1/AK's etc by having them rendered Straight pull.

20 plus years after the fact, this was no longer an issue. Added to this, around the year 2000, Imbel Fals were imported in small numbers by Sabre Defence, built as straight pull rifles, the only thing they lack is a ported barrel!
Some of the first rifles even had pistons and springs fitted (most subsequently removed by RFD's over the years quite rightly), as this was part of the standard build, so the factory just fitted them.

Taking these Imbel rifles into account, it was realised that the L1A1 is effectively the same rifle, the HO therefore agreed to allow L1A1's to be built up, using modified original and new components, providing reasonable steps had been taken to ensure they couldn't be easily returned to a functioning semi automatic rifle.

Following on from this original Anglo Custom agreement, came Suffolk rifles, Tony (is that a police siren I hear) Buckland and a few others, last, but by no means least we have Gils new rifle, part of what I feel will be the last of the breed to be built up in the UK.

All the L1A1 SP builders went about modification to prevent conversion to Semi Automatic in different ways and barrels were either new, or "re-purposed" NOS barrels, with sufficient meat on them to machine to profile.

We have also seen SP M1 Carbines, Garands and M14's among others appear over the last 6 years or so, some all new build (M14 for instance) others using original parts kits.

Your comments on cycling single shot rendered L1A1's in for work without issue is very interesting Peter. Regarding military CHS, you are spot on, the Proof Houses require a different spec that in itself can cause some serous cycling issues too.

Some of those who did supply these from memory and keeping an eye on the thread over the years was:

Anglo Custom
Suffolk Rifles
Imbel
AR Buckland
Lufdeftech
Mervyn Young NI
Enfield Guns

Few other RFD's whose names escape me, probably long gone like a few on that list.

The below answer is what was given to Anglo Customs in the day no date I'm afraid unless someone else has it:

ANGLO CUSTOM L1A1

The Home Office has formally, through FELWG and ACPO, classed our
L1A1 SLR as unquestionably Section 1. The adaptations to the bolt and
carrier mean not only that it could not be converted to S5 use but that the
fact it was submitted for formal approval means all Police Authorities will
be informed as part of ACPO's guidance.

What are the chamber dimensions of the replacement barrels? If they are a bit tighter than the military chambers, that's probably where the problem is.

Brian,
It would appear they all varie from RFD on that list, but all conforming to Sec 1 to be able to sell them over the years, with non conformative parts, otherwise they would have clearly been Sec 5. In so doing, one has to suspect, various barrels were selected......or am I wrong?
Just want a rifle that does what it says on the box, and I hope I get there with these .308 145 gr rounds.
You may have a point there though.
I'll leave it to an expert or one of the developers to bring forward a theory.

We could move forwards if somebody out there who owns one would just answer the bloody question that I've asked twice. Pulling teeth or what.............!

Incidentally, whether the SP rifle works better with certain brands or loads of ammo is based on ultra fuzzy logic. And that is a palliative and NOT a cure. It SHOULD work on all ammo, Nigerian shixe full of dynamite or Pakistan stuff full of curry powder.

Dentist here................your question:

What I need to know is this.......... Rifle will not extract or eject. Does the BBC move slightly rearwards or is that solid too?

Answer: As solid as a fossilized turd............both parts as far as I can make out, no movement at all

If anybody else has a different answer be helpful to know :thup:

We're getting somewhere now. And every SP L1 owner ought to start taking notice because........

We already know that when the rifle is locked in the loaded AND fired position the only part of the BB that is touching the BBC - and vice verca - is the rear LOCKING bent inside the top of the BBC which positively holds the rear of the BB down, in front of the locking shoulder. If the BBC is jambed in this position after firing it indicates that the BB has lifted slightly and is bearing hard up against the rear inside shoulder of the BBC. That is all it can be. There is a simple test for this.

Fire the rifle without the cover and immediately after firing, when the BBC and BB are stuck fast, beat the rear top rounded surface of the BBC with a plastic or rawhide mallet. This WILL force the BBC AND the BB down causing the BB to dislodge from its tight engagement with the BBC. That is the next test chaps. Skippy and Tankie, any comments?

slightly off topic,had an M1 Garand in straight pull nightmare on live ammo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

We could move forwards if somebody out there who owns one would just answer the bloody question that I've asked twice. Pulling teeth or what.............!

Incidentally, whether the SP rifle works better with certain brands or loads of ammo is based on ultra fuzzy logic. And that is a palliative and NOT a cure. It SHOULD work on all ammo, Nigerian shixe full of dynamite or Pakistan stuff full of curry powder.

---

"When I bought my first example, I tried Privi .. The action was absolutely solid, felt like the BB/BC was welded solid with zero movement"

Answered back at "20" Peter. Interesting though, I will try the BBC technical tap next time in jams

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by philb

slightly off topic,had an M1 Garand in straight pull nightmare on live ammo

---

That's interesting, I haven't heard any issues with the SP Garands, is it one of the old Cotswold Arms examples, or one of the Italian built Rifles?

Maybe someone wot knows abo' compu'ers ought to separate this thread and take parts of it into a new thread titled. BETWEEN US WE CAN SOLVE THE SOLID LOCK-UP L1A1's.

Cotswold arms.....

Any idea what barrel was fitted to them Phil, was it as accurate as the Italian assembled Rifles I wonder, they are surprisingly accurate beasts. Garands are a joy to shoot, SP or not.

Maybe someone ought to get all the L1A1 parts of this thread and put it into a fix my SP L1A1 thread. Otherwise it'll just go into mission creep and get nowhere..............

Peter,
I have asked Doug if he could put it under one banner BETWEEN US WE CAN SOLVE THE SOLID LOCK-UP L1A1's ;)

It can be solved Gil, just so long as we don't go off at tangents. The L1A1 problem solver now is to shoot without cover until jambs* or hard extraction (h/e) occurs. Then tap rear of BBC down with mallet. H/e cured, we can proceed further.

* why does my apple comp tell me jams is wrong and insists jambs is correct in relation to something sticking? Jambs.... as in door jambs! Anyway

One issue you won't be able to sort is the barrels........ as they start in all shapes, sizes and makes. The only consistent ones would be from Walther that were supplied to the rifle manufacturer that were exporting them to the UK.

The rest are mongrels to put it in a polite way, some out there I was informed were were produced from Browning .30-06 MG barrels, one of the reasons I never imported the .22 kits from the states as the maker of these stipulated what barrels they were for, either metric or imperial which is something I wouldn't be able to tell with out a crystal ball............

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigduke6

One issue you won't be able to sort is the barrels........ as they start in all shapes, sizes and makes. The only consistent ones would be from Walther that were supplied to the rifle manufacturer that were exporting them to the UK.

The rest are mongrels to put it in a polite way, some out there I was informed were were produced from Browning .30-06 MG barrels, one of the reasons I never imported the .22 kits from the states as the maker of these stipulated what barrels they were for, either metric or imperial which is something I wouldn't be able to tell with out a crystal ball............

---

To add some detail to this, the Anglo Custom Rifle L1A1's were assembled by LDT - or LuxDefTec, or in full Luxembourg Defence Technologie

They were all fitted with a brand new Lothar Walther match grade barrel, chambered in .308.

That's true Geoff, both mine are completely different to each other in profile and different again to the service rifle behind the hanguards, both much heaver, more like an L2A1 barrel to be honest (no, they aren't L2 barrels before anyone asks), with my Lithgow noticeably heavier that the Enfield.

Maybe....., just maybe, we could start on the barrels after we've eliminated the BB and BBC's from the equation. It is all a process of elimination.... One step at a time and all that. Without a plan of action it's a lost cause. A bit like......, let me think of a suitable analogy........ Yes, urinating into the wind will do!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Maybe....., just maybe, we could start on the barrels after we've eliminated the BB and BBC's from the equation. It is all a process of elimination.... One step at a time and all that. Without a plan of action it's a lost cause. A bit like......, let me think of a suitable analogy........ Yes, urinating into the wind will do!

---

Peter

Yeah, sorry ;)

I look forward to the outcome of any scientific experiments, as I have a vested interest, as all of us that own one have.

I ought to whip mine out of the cupboard (it's only six feet behind my keyboard.......), take the top cover off, and reacquaint myself with the extraction process :)

Yep sorry, Peters valiantly trying to heard the cats! All posts BBC/BB connected until further notice...:madsmile:

Next question. I know(?) what the answer will be but it has got to be asked, so says my mentor at Shrivenham. Does the same h/e occur when you fire blanks. I wouldn't think that anyones fired blanks - or have they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Next question. I know(?) what the answer will be but it has got to be asked, so says my mentor at Shrivenham. Does the same h/e occur when you fire blanks. I wouldn't think that anyones fired blanks - or have they?

---

Peter

I've had a vasectomy, but I suspect that isn't the information you are seeking, and is way too much information for a friendly family forum :madsmile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David TS

Peter

I've had a vasectomy, but I suspect that isn't the information you are seeking, and is way too much information for a friendly family forum :madsmile:

---

David, gutted, you beat me to the punch line!

On a serous point, anyone got any 7.62 blanks ... I assume to be used with a blank fire adapter Peter?

Yep, I got the blanks punch line...... A BFA would be no use with a straight pull rifle - no gas port. But keeping strictly on message, had a request as to why I asked about whether the jambing occurs with blank firing. Simple.

If the jambing DOES occur with blank, then it is a HEAT issue OR heat is a secondary issue. Secondly, because blank does not produce recoil* it cannot contribute towards the notion of the BB being jambed or lifted up hared against the underside of the BBC.

Heavens...., all this talk of blanks and BBC's.......
* to correct a myth. Blanks do produce a recoil but in discussions relating to weapons, it is so small as to be academic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Yep, I got the blanks punch line...... A BFA would be no use with a straight pull rifle - no gas port. But keeping strictly on message, had a request as to why I asked about whether the jambing occurs with blank firing. Simple.

If the jambing DOES occur with blank, then it is a HEAT issue OR heat is a secondary issue. Secondly, because blank does not produce recoil* it cannot contribute towards the notion of the BB being jambed or lifted up hared against the underside of the BBC.

Heavens...., all this talk of blanks and BBC's.......
* to correct a myth. Blanks do produce a recoil but in discussions relating to weapons, it is so small as to be academic.

---

A couple of questions Peter, is the pressure generated by a blank (with BFA fitted) equivalent to the pressure drop when a live round leaves the barrel and the rifle unlocks?
Second, the Anglo custom rifle (David TS) has a heavily modified BB fitted and the BBC has has various adjustments too... I wonder if that will have further effects on function??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

Second, the Anglo custom rifle (David TS) has a heavily modified BB fitted and the BBC has has various adjustments too... I wonder if that will have further effects on function??

---

Am sure this was to stop anyone swapping the parts over to another "not so" straight pull rifle.......

I am keeping to the subject of h/e in SP L1A1's. Ask mission creep Q's on another thread

Peter et al,
The interesting saga continues. Went to the range today with two lots of rounds:
1. Winchester .308 and
2. Smallmark 7.62

Quite a cold start to the morning so excuse the gloves on the .308 segment. As you will see I thought 308 would solve the issue, but it didn't and at the 5 round mark on stoppage I used the old rubber hammer which in part did move the working parts forward slightly but not enough to free it. I stood the rifle up and placed both hands on the cocking handle to release the spent round. I then pulled the rifle through, plenty of oil on both blocks so no more oil needed.

Went over to Smallmark 7.62 Military rounds and same again. Ironically once I had cleared the empty case and pulled it through again in the same manner as previously, I put a drop of oil on each round and fired 13 none stop until a further stoppage.

I have yet to try GGG 7.62 and will report back. I thought I had a few in stock but no.
Any ideas welcome on a postcard.

My ten P's worth, I believe it is caused by the lack of gas inertia to overcome the initial unlocking of the bolt toggle from the locking shoulder. It is a problem that all L1A1 straight pull variants have, M14’s and AR10’s suffer from it too, as they are a compromise and are simply not working as the original gas operated designers intended them to.

With lower pressure cartridges – such as 7.62x39mm and .223 they do not seem to cause the same issues, so one has to try all options!!!!!!!!!!

SLR L1A1 STRAIGHT PULL 20 rounds in .308

SLR L1A1 STRAIGHT PULL 20 rounds in 7.62 mm

Lord knows I know nothing about the straight pulls but you may be onto something with the lower pressures. So let's say you reloaded 7.62 with a cast bullet and a lighter load? Reference what we call here the Ed Harris load that I shoot in 303. Hell I don't even know if you guys can reload please forgive my ignorance. Again just throwing it out there. Also if anyone comes across the pond to Virginia please let me know and we can hit the range and you can shoot my L1A1 till the sun goes down.

:D Green with envy, wish we could do that here. Refilling here in the UK is OK no problem.

Gil says '............My ten P's worth, I believe it is caused by the lack of gas inertia to overcome the initial unlocking of the bolt toggle from the locking shoulder. It is a problem that all L1A1 straight pull variants have, M14icon’s and AR10’s suffer from it too, as they are a compromise and are simply not working as the original gas operated designers intended them to......'
The fact that there is no 'gas inertia' is irrelevant SP rifles simply because, by default, there is no gas inertia! There CANNOT be! So there is nothing to assist the opening of the breech because it is positively locked. That is mechanical safety. And even if there WAS gas, as on an L1A1, the breech CANNOT be unlocked until the gas in the barrel is down to atmospheric pressure. Let's wait and see what Gils video shows us about how the BB is locked by the BBC

Peter,
As I said it is because there is no enertia to assist which is why there is the problem from the outset, as we all agree. My money is probably on the expansion of the case, as I noticed a brighter ring at the back end of the casing. Might try three rounds leave it for a few minutes and try another three. It could simply be too much heat, but I am no expert!!

Ah, yes, I see where you're coming from Gil (and others) but while there is no gas to impart inertia to the BBC to unlock the BB, because it's a gasless S-Pull, YOU have to supply the inertia. In short, it is now a mechanically operated rifle, just like a No4. But I maintain that even then, the mechanical inertia (now called 'mechanical effort') that you as a 12 stone human can impart will be FAR greater than what could be applied by the piston. There must be some other cause. Think about this:
a) The 12 stone human easily absorbs the recoil forces plus the very small extra inertia when the gas operates the BB and BBC. So on that basis alone (it's not quite an equal and opposite forces thing, but a good analogy I say) the average bloke SHOULD easily be able to operate the cocking handle to open the breech. And
b) When the gas plus is turned to shut off the gas - now turning it into a mechanically operated rifle don't forget - the average crunchie/Armourer had absolutely no problems hand cocking the rifle again. I say that this is exactly how your rifles should be able to operate.

The more I see and listen, I am pretty sure that............. let's wait to see Gils video

And while we're here, the sticking working parts problem CANNOT be a fired case sticking in the chamber. If that were the case, the BBC would still slide rearwards for 3/8" until it tried to unlock the BB and unseat the stuck case. But clearly in these SP rifles it is the BBC that is stuck fast. And that is not influenced by a case that's expanded into the chamber. Nope....., the answer will come.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David TS

Gil

Ah, so you got it! Well done! :thup:

---------- Post added at 08:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:34 AM ----------




Jon

You are absolutely correct, one way or another this concerns all of us that shoot. There is also a plan to put a maximum MV on in the legislation. Once you have a maximum MV restriction, it is but the moment of a piece of delegated legislation to knock another nought off the end.........

The consultation closes on 9 December, and I intend to put my comments in well before time.



Offensive and dangerous weapons: new legislation - GOV.UK

---

Completed survey.

Post #58 updated for member to add two movies

Regards,
Doug

Thanks to Doug for achieving the harder things in life down loading footage successfully :thup:

Good vids Gil.
It looks like the breach block carrier is free to move rearward until the unlocking cams contact the cams on the breach block, so the carrier is free to move, no problem there.
Thinking out loud.... if you were to fire again without the extractor you would eliminate any extra chamber friction, but would highlight any problem with rearward pressure acting on the breach block/locking shoulder. (extracting the good rounds would be a pain!)

The LSW L86 had a habit of throwing in the odd hard extraction, when you managed to remove the case you could see the dirt pressed into the fired case. The LSW had a habit of sucking in dirt to the chamber.. once the stuck case was removed all evidence had gone and the weapon would function as normal until the next dirty chamber,

That probably dose not help, but how much dirt would stop a civil made straight pull? ( not made to mil. Speck.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gil Boyd

Thanks to Doug for achieving the harder things in life down loading footage successfully

---

where would we be without Doug...

Skiprat,
Thanks for that. Not an easy one to achieve, firing and presenting a video without the actual rifle in your hands to experience the stoppage, from your perspective.

Both times the rifle had to be stood up and both hands to extract the spent round. On inspection of that round and interestingly enough both rounds in both calibres, had a bunished ring around the back end.
Almost as if it was held by heat. So my non experienced untrained REME eyes lends the problem to one of expansion.
At least my rubber hammer had a day out!!
I just wonder if a hand loaded 7.62 or .308 might help here, as in that way both could be loaded with a lesser charge.
My next port of call was GGG and Winchester .308 39 grains this time with fully pressed sized cases.
Any thoughts on that

Well, that's pretty conclusive then. Contrary to what has been said many times, Gils video shows that the BBC DOES retract 3/8" until it commences to unlock the BB. So it IS a breech block/spent case/hard extraction problem. If the primary extraction was operating as it should, then as soon as the BB lifts it tweaks the cast outwards by virtue of the top face of the BB acting as a fulcrum. Clearly if the BB cannot lift, it cannot cause primary extraction. End of story - it is not a primary extraction problem. But WHY isn't the BB being lifted..........? Think of this. The BB levers upwards and rocks on the top front surface in a 10:1 or so ratio. So it should lever even the tightest stuck case outwards. Even the tightest taper (say, your morse taper lathe or drill) just needs the slightest tweak to break the taper lock.

From this we can establish that the problem, certainly in Gils rifle, is a case so tight that it a) the rearward loading by the case on the BB is so great that it causes the BB to lock so hard against the locking shoulder that it b) defeats the leverage of the BB to lift and cause primary extraction.

So where do we go now.

Peter,

Totally accept that diagnosis, the reason I am teatering on heat and expansion is, that it occurred on the fifth round in both calibres. I will try next week, to:
1. varied rounds in both sizes as stated above
2. wait after say 3 rounds to allow cooling to occur around the breach

Any views on that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

So where do we go now.

---

I've run into this with other rifles...and bought a chamber ream. When applied, the ream removes so little material that it turns to dust in one's fingers but the cartridges then fed and fit and empties extracted smoothly. Chamber issue...

I'll send you my ream, you send it back after.

Jim,
Its certainly worth a try. Clearly a replacement barrel in these Straight Pulls do need all the help they can get!!

Have you run 7.62 headspace guages thru the chamber?

Before you polish ream the chamber,

If this was a military barrel, I would figure that
You need to change the locking shoulder as your headspace is too tight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee Enfield

headspace is too tight.

---

It should still extract. If too tight, it won't chamber...

See my post #31. Try at least polishing the chamber. I experienced this with some commercial chambers in single shot H&R Pardner sporting rifles sticking Nato spec ammo. I made a mandrel from a fired case and used Cloverleaf valve grinding compound. It cleared the issue with no worries or signs of damage.

One of the problems we seem to face in the UK is that the proof house won't accept the recognised norm in headspace gauges! Even though we've been making rifles here for a couple of years now, especially Enfields, they seem to have their own standards. So it could be headspace. For example, I suspect that if you sent an L1A1 rifle in with CHS between 1.6325 and 1.643 I dare say that it would fail. I could be wrong of course. My friend sent a P'17 in that failed CHS, so he sent it back with a 2/2004 CALIBRATED and still sealed set of UK Military CHS gauges - and it still failed!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Dick

See my post #31. Try at least polishing the chamber. I experienced this with some commercial chambers in single shot H&R Pardner sporting rifles sticking Nato spec ammo. I made a mandrel from a fired case and used Cloverleaf valve grinding compound. It cleared the issue with no worries or signs of damage.

---

I think a very careful chamber polish wouldn't hurt, Lithuanian GGG NATO ammo worked a treat in my L1A1's right out of the box. I bet it runs just fine in Gils too.

One of the issues is CHS I am sure. I know this was a serous issue with some of the rifles being built by Suffolk Rifles, the gunsmith who assembled the L1A1's on behalf of the Company, head spaced them according to service spec I believe (So I was told) .

The London Proof House rejected the rifles for excessive CHS and "forced" Suffolk Rifles builder, to swap out the locking shoulders prior to proof.

I do know one person who subsequently changed the Locking shoulder back after proof, to ease the extraction issue.

Were the CHS specs radically different from Military to Civilian chaps?

Gil, Is this rifle marked as .308 or 7.62mm or is it the one that is marked 7.62x51 non standard?

Geoff,
Clearly stamped 7.62 x 51 NON STD (Non Standard) as attached photo

I wonder why it is marked non standard. Non standard what?

Peter,
One has to assume it is part of the avoidance of Sec 5 making them Straight Pull in this country. New undefined parts and all that!!!

Could it be marked non std because it is a barrel without the gas port?

David,
More like re chambered from something else!

Regarding the NON STD markings, is it anything to do with the proofing in this country now being strictly to CIP?
I think that even if something is originally proofed to a load / calibre, if it is re-proofed now and falls outside of CIP criteria, the Proof House now marks it as non standard. Not one hundred percent sure, but think it's something along these lines.

Jon

This is all I could find on the London Prooof House website concerning barrels:

So how is a firearm actually proofed? And what requires it to be proofed in the first place? Abiding by the regulations of the Proof acts of 1868 and 1978, every firearm in the United Kingdom must be proofed before it can be imported, exported, sold, after it is made or modified.

Modification means that any substantial change to the barrel takes place that would affect the safe operation of said barrel (re-chambering, suppressor threads, shorter barrel, etc…).

In essence, what the law is trying to accomplish is to guarantee the safety of the end user from a faulty barrel (and in a roundabout way, protects the business making the firearms). The same process takes place with American manufacturers but it isn’t regulated by the government. There are set SAAMI standards that our gunmakers abide by on legal agreement but aren’t regulated by the U.S. government.

Gil, I have seen non standard before but am sure it was a different Calibre, John did ask me regarding the Non Standard and I would give the proof house a ring and let them clarify.

I think its to do with the components supplied to the proof house for them to load, this could be a big variation on bullet weight or similar compared to the standard ammo etc for a variation somewhere in the chamber........ too many variables to list.

If you can narrow it down then it may help resolve the problem or at least take the ammo or the chamber specs out of the equation.

Geoff,
I have spent ages trawling the web for anything relating to NON STD (non standard) in Proof house terms......nothing.
I will try and contact them at London, but Birmingham are 100% easier to speak to and contactable.
I can only assume, as the rifle when issued to the Army is "Standard" and if bought in this country by a private shooter it still conforms to a Section 5 weapon and therefore cannot be held by a normal FAC holder, unless converted.

To get around this so shooters can use an L1A1 has to be built as a straight pull, and to make it acceptable it has to conform to "Non Standard" parts as issued originally with the rifle, and that is the simple meaning in my view of NON STD stamped on the barrel, or does it only relate to the barrel??

Any views until I hear the real reason?

Wish I hadn't asked now.......... So much for trying to keep the thread on finding a reason and a cure for sticking SP L1A1's................

Peter,
Surely this is what we are trying to achieve by thrashing out as many likely causes as possible.
Albeit, the barrel is stamped NON STD 7.62 X 51 it may be it works better with one manufacturers round then others, which is why I am going to try GGG rounds through it next week, and hopefully get a good result :thup:

I asked Bill Smallwood of Parker Hale if he had seen it used before and this was his reply:

Yes I have seen it, when we build a custom rifle in .308/7.62 we chamber it .308 non standard, this is done with a target reamer which has tighter tolerences, (neck,throat etc.) this gives for greater accuracy but will make the standard 7.62 round hard to extract some times, when we chamber in the none standard .308 chamber we submit it to proof with all the correct measurements and they stamp it as .308 NONE STANDARD and add the neck, and throat size, there are 3 different measurements but i will get them e-mail them to you. This chamber will benefit you if you home load

That in part answers the sticking issue which I hope the GGG will resolve

Very interesting info Gil, this must be an issue in a SP L1A1.

While such a tight chamber has to be a good thing in a high end bolt target rifle, its bound to lead to trouble in a SP L1!

Chamber reamer required perhaps, but you should be pleasantly surprised by the GGG.

Well that certainly clears up the issue regarding ammo........ just remember Gil, Target shooters get really anal about ammo, some have reloading rooms.......... the easy option would be to send a .308 reamer down it.

My mate had the same issue with a 7.62 x 51mm target rifle and the bolt wouldn't close or had real problems on normal ammo, I opened it up with a .308 and no more issues.

Peter at least now its one variable that can be taken out the equation, with correct loaded ammo or opening up the chamber would be a starting point.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gil Boyd

.308/7.62 we chamber it .308 non standard, this is done with a target reamer which has tighter tolerences, (neck,throat etc.) this gives for greater accuracy but will make the standard 7.62 round hard to extract some times,

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gil Boyd

there are 3 different measurements

---

And a reamer will make it standard...and I'll bet no one will actually be able to tell the difference on paper.

Given that the SAAMI spec headspace measurement for the .308 Win cartridge is different to the 7.62 x 51 NATO spec in all of GO, NOGO and FIELD, this may well have a bearing on hard extraction issues.

Unless you know what any particular SP L1A1 is chambered and headspaced at, I think it reduces the experiment to one of simply trying what ammunition works and what doesn't.

If any given rifle suffers HE issues, unless you know exactly the dimensions of what it is headspaced and chambered at, you can't try and correct it.

Bill Smallwood's answer was interesting, but only of use if he were to give the dimensions of his reamers.

I wouldn't just chuck a .308 reamer down a chamber until I had at least done a minimum of a headspace check on it.

.308

GO 1.630"
NOGO 1.634"
FIELD 1.638"

7.62x51

GO 1.635"
NOGO 1.6405"
FIELD 1.6455"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David TS

I wouldn't just chuck a .308 reamer down a chamber until I had art least done a headspace check on it.

---

It will only remove the outside diameter not length, no change in HS. The target reams are very small in outside dia...

David,
He is sending me the "three" different measurements, that will be interesting too.
Thanks everyone for taking time out to try to solve "my" issue with this one rifle. Just spoken to Paul of Enfield Guns and he says this is the only one he has had, that had that proof mark etched on it..........so it is going to be a trial and error scenario until headspaces/rounds etc can be ratified.
But not forgetting of course others have had a similar issue with stoppages on SP L1A1's!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

It will only remove the outside diameter not length, no change in HS. The target reams are very small in outside dia...

---

Jim

You've got me confused there!

A standard chamber reamer will cut both diameter and shoulder. Unless you headspace the existing chamber first, how would you know how far to send another reamer down the chamber with the intention of increasing the chamber diameter, before you start taking metal off the shoulder, thus increasing chamber length, and increasing headspace?

Back to the GGG, does your rifle shoot well with it David?

I know of two Imbel Fals that also shoot particularly well with that brand.

Both mine are faultless with it. Hopefully Gils will appreciate a steady diet of finest Lithuanian cuisine too!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hayboy

Maybe off topic and apologies in advance for being so, however it's something that needs raising awareness of -

If you're a UK shooter it's worth finding out what a MARS rifle is - it, along with 50 cal, is currently under UK government consultation, namely "moving two firearms (.50 calibre and certain rapid firing rifles) from the general licensing arrangements to the stricter provisions of section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968".
This means banning them.
Few people shoot 50 cal I know, and yes it doesn't directly affect me either if they get banned, but it comes across as divide and conquer, once they've gone what's the next category to get rid of?
It's worth looking into and writing to your MP about.
Sorry again to hijack the thread but the more people that know about this the better.

Jon

---

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.