hey guys looking at building a l42a1 replica just wondering if anyone knows how to do the timber? is there anywhere that offers the top wood?
cheers
Printable View
hey guys looking at building a l42a1 replica just wondering if anyone knows how to do the timber? is there anywhere that offers the top wood?
cheers
EFD Rifles used to offer the handguard
Aren't EFD Rifles defunct since Geoffrey Organ died, or is the Australian connection still trading?
Are you going to have this rifle chambered in .308 or .303? In Australia I don't see any in .308. You reckon you want to make your own scope mounts and everything too? Compared to those things making a stock is something you could take to a stock maker or just search for spares or repro.
I think it was Colin Moon (C Moon & Co) who did the wood for EFD (and supplied replacements to the MoD in the 80's I believe) but I'm sure I read somewhere that Colin sadly passed way a few years ago.
If you check out the Milsurps Knowledge library and make use of the search engine, you should find lots of helpful info on the woodwork and I seem to recall that a member here posted about doing a similar conversion, using one of the little green S&B 6x42 scopes.
Yes Sadly Colin has left us all. He was brilliant at doing our Police Enforcer woodwork, but especially brilliant for all things Parker Hale.
cheers for the replies sent a text to tbone hopefully he can hook me up with propper timber
jon
Fultons of Bisley have handguards.
Colin Moon died a few years ago, & was the person that Geoffrey Organ used to get his woodwork made for him. Geoffrey died last year from leukaemia but his partner Paul Panagi has continued the business though under the slightly different name of 'Enfield Guns'. Anybody wanting what EFD used to provide might do well to google 'Enfield Guns'.
Roger
Thank you. I was aware of Paul Panagi and Enfield Guns, but was not aware that this was the follow on from EFD.
Not talking ill of anyone but the L39 and 42 woodwork by Moon was not good. In fact I don't know anyone who had a good word to say about it. But that was because the L42 was done on the cheap. Not just the cheap, but the cheapest possible and that meant converting existing woodwork regardless whether it was suitable or not. Including thin fore-ends, Mk2 fore-ends retrospectively converted, No8 handguards that were totally unsuited for conversion and.............. Moon was told what he had to do, to a price - so he did the best with what he had! I could write a book about the sheer dire quality of the pure cr4p sent out. I think I did write a spiel about it for the forum is anyone is computer savvy enough to resurrect it.
Paul is a good lad trying to make a living these days. I met him earlier this year in Hastings, not sure whether he was doing the woodwork though for these, as I didn't see a lot of it around, only L1A1's in various stages, if I had I would have mentioned something as a lover of the rifle!!;).
---------- Post added at 06:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:24 PM ----------
Peter,
Isn't that always the case though?? Contractors MUST produce this to a specific parameter, at half the cost and then the MOD wonder why its not Rolls Royce Coach builders quality when it arrives.
As my Dad always said, "You get what you pay for son"
Couldn't agree more Gil. L42's were being sentenced Z-UF because there was no replacement woodwork. Can someone resurrect the article? Even the replacement fore-ends came through looked like they were removed from riflkes returned to Ordnance - for defective fore-ends! NOT the fault of Moon but guess who got the blame........?
Peter, is the article you're referring to the one at the bottom of the list of your articles/posts that pops up when you click the "Index of Peter Laidler's series..... (click here) " at the footer of all your posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Link here - hope it works : https://www.milsurps.com/content.php...ter-Laidler%29
Forgive me if I'm wrong; but I thought the L42and L39 wood was basically a cut down from the standard No4 wood set.(Mk1 for the L42 and Mk2 for the L39).
Surely it would not be that complicated to find a good No4 set and shorten it to the correct length. Is there anything special with regard to bedding?
Fore-ends yes, hand guards no, The hand guard is longer than a standard No4, it providers the channel for barrel band plus has approx the same width of the band at the end, pic below in link, also you can see a repair on the fore-end as Peter describes in one of his articles.Quote:
Originally Posted by 30Three
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...42A1-Large.png
Interesting! I've not accurately compared my L39 to my No4 rifle. I'll make a point of having a closer look.
Here's what happens if you just shorten a no4 fore-end (not done by me!)Quote:
Originally Posted by 30Three
Attachment 93018
That top wood reminds me of the top wood and barrel band on the early A and B models of the Omark(Sportco) model 44 target rifle.
That's not impossible, but I don't have one to compare it to. It looks like a cut down version of my other no 4's handguard, although not identical as that doesn't have the fluting. I haven't removed them to compare the channelling.
Not a real good pic, but the best I can do with this new fangled computer.
The rear retaining ring is the same as the No. 4, the barrel band is a similar shape also, but with a sharper apex.
If I find time tomorrow, I will take a couple of pic's of one
Attachment 93100
Yes I can see the resemblance; it may have even been partly inspired by that look.
no one would happen to know the oal of the top timber? on i mine i beleive is off the 44 but is just a little to short.
thanks
As promised. No.4 for comparison.
Attachment 93128Attachment 93127Attachment 93129
The overall length is 295mm. The internal profile is a bit different as well and the barrel/sling band end is painfully thin in comparison to No.4 top wood. So pretty fragile as already described by Peter. Some pictures below showing original on L42, a new spare (C.Moon manufactured) and a new No.4 one. You could try and make one from a No.4 as the splice/joint for the extra piece would be under the barrel band.Quote:
Originally Posted by sparky12130
Hope this helps.
Attachment 93170Attachment 93171Attachment 93172Attachment 93173Attachment 93174Attachment 93175Attachment 93176Attachment 93177Attachment 93178Attachment 93179Attachment 93180Attachment 93181Attachment 93182
The Armourers could easily make new top handguards from No4 ones and I showed how easily it could be done. But the trouble was that when the workshops were highly civilianised in the late 70's onwards, everything was time managed so you couldn't afford to spend hours and hours on woodwork when time was worth £££'s. Nope, so the skills went at the same time. Same as patching generally. Especially the dire fore-ends........ One of my old Armourer friends showed me a wood-rim sterering wheel thatrhe'd just patched, repaired, re-rivetted and polished for his sons old Midget. They don't train people like that any more.........
Peter,
Agreed. I did the blacksmiths course recently and learnt that that to is a dying trade due primarily to the "cheap" production of gates etc bought from China and elsewhere at half the price, however, they don't last long when they are in the open, compared to a blacksmiths production of the same. But what a course and highly recommended for anybody who owns guns and metal, its amazing what you learn about metal/heat and of course yourself!
The other course was a Farriers one, always fancied having a forge in the back of a Landrover and turning up at famrs to shoe the horses.
So to find a good "specific" gunsmith is very rare. They normally only tinker out back, and sell out front in clean clothes!!
As regards the cost of labor and skilled gunsmithing, I would add a wee bit from the other side of the pond.
I live in an area that is pretty much a gun shooters/collectors/tinkers paradise, large amounts of arms, fairly cheap and free trade of long arms allowed with no added cost or time with transfer. Lots of older arms going back to the US civil war and a lot of arms from older collections in anti-gun states next to PA flow into our area. Should be a lot of gunsmiths to support the trade in older worn arms, but there are not. The price of skilled labor cannot be supported by market, new arms being so cheap. The result is the actual skilled tradesman I know who can re-checker an old stock, make a missing sight part, bed a rifle correctly or convert a No 4 upper handguard to a L42/L39 guard are all private individuals who do it for fun and not as paying propositions.
It really comes down to the customer, few folks are willing to pay the 50 dollar an hour shoptime fee required to support an ongoing concern with overhead. So smithing on older arms is really a task that comes down to skilled individual who trade time/skills with each other. There are more of such individuals around then one might expect, within 30 miles of me I know individuals that can rebuild a singe shot rifle from the ground up, Inlet and checker a stock that would equal the masters, restore any kind of finish on metal work on Mausers, Enfields, etc, none of whom have put out a shingle or take payment for their services.
I suspect that is true in all areas, the cost of manual labor relative to newly manufactured items makes repair of older items a less economically advantageous action then even 20 years ago. At the same time the vast quantity of information available on line makes it possible for a reasonable adept individual able to perform that that were formerly the realm of specialists.
That said I note the young chaps coming up, are for the most part pretty poor at such things nor do they take any time to master same. At 22 I was using a file and hand stamps to make adjustable rear sights for AK rifle, figuring out how to fix a revolver with timing difficulties and doing my first wood to steel bedding jobs, the young chaps today seem to think screwing on a set of sights on a Picatinny rail is high adventure.
At $50/Hr thats to cheap for a skilled G/S I think my G/S is around the $100/hr and my motorcycle mech at $120/hr
And plenty of them are 'monkey see - monkey-do' merchants with no real idea of the why's and wherefores of the reasons certain things are done in a certain way. It's called in-depth knowledge of the technicalities and what we used to call the 'rude mechanicals'. My friend wanted a load of butts making for a certain type of gun. I could write a book about the stupidity of the 'specialist' he chose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
I think I may be the owner of one of those! ;)
As an amateur smith I would say if you take your time, you can pretty much master any task. Just learned re-checkering in the last few months and it is kind of nice to take an arm where the checkering is but a faint outline and restore it to its former glory. It takes a lot of time to do correctly, but not that had if you have magnifying specs. Got my set of tools for next to nothing form a chap who was getting rid of his fathers smith tools. Same is true of adjusting bedding on a M1, M14, K98K, all the Enfield's (ultimate in time waster). The thing is all the procedures you need are on line or the armorers manuals.
The thing I dread more than any work is adjusting the timing on Webly pistols. No two sets of worn parts are the same dimensionally, at least here in the US where all spares came out of worn revolvers..
Exactly David! I wouldn't agree that you can learn or master any task by perseverance. Accurately setting up a bolt is an art learned after being taught as apprentices after being taught the reasons for each of the 6 associated functions. But mastered by being shown by someone who's done it a zillion times and knows exactly what to look for. Or what about bolt heads, or Bren locking shoulders - or L1A1 locking shoulders........ or barrel nuts......., who glibly just think that it's a straightforward swop. Nope......., most people didn't have the remotest idea that while there might be numbers on them but in real life, they're pretty well meaningless.
Did not mean to imply we hobbyist were masters of the craft, simply that it could be done if one was willing to work slowly and, as my father would have said, "make haste slowly".Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
The first time I set up a lee Enfield bolt was in the 1990s, on the advise of an old timer from the Australian Army who had gotten is REME rating around 1956, and used to post on the old Gun and Knife forum from the mid 1990s. Somewhere in the copious notes I have from that period I am sure I still have his procedure for set up of the SMLE bolt. Back then brand new Australian SMLE Bolt bodies, new BSA 1956 SMLE Bolt bodies and both Long branch and Fazakerly No 4 bolt bodies could be purchased cheaply. For the most case I did not find it all that difficult, though in truth generally I did not have to do much fitting to get good lug contact with on both sides. Later on when trying to fit used bolt bodies to incomplete SMLE rifles which were very cheap, I found it to be much more of a chore and resorted to selectively fitting used bolts till one could be found that fit with just a wee bit if stoning. Barrels were available and cheap as well, there were cases of BSA commercial No 4 barrels for 25 dollars and SA rather rough SMLE barrels for the same sum.
Now because material was so cheap and plentiful from the late 1980s through around 2008, and several articles form the period talked about Fulton techniques (such as in precision shooting Arthur Clarke's articles) that used different engagement of the two lugs to get a dead zero with the sights at true mechanical zero, I did play with that and noted that the degree of adjustment, at least with Savage actions was distinctly different than with Fazerkerly actions. A Savage with equal lug engagement would always have the front sight too the left of center viewed from the action body, at least on every mid-war action I worked on. Same for bedding, having a 50 M range in my back yard it was possible to make adjustments and see what the group would do at 25 and 50 M. Same was true of the various UK bedding techniques, which I know you are not exactly all that convinced of the utility of same, but nonetheless the amount of printed material available was astonishing.
In any case I do think the Enfield rifle was a tinkers delight back then, with more material available than on any other non US design out there, and could be transformed into a rather reliable range/match rifle with time, a willingness to make slow adjustments, a healthy supply of dense walnut or ebony insert material, rubberized engine gasket material, animal glue, small wood pegs, an occasional small spring, fine graphite dust and a 50 dollar No5 or TZ sight, which is what one could expect to pay in the late 1990s when we yanks discovered them on Ebay.
Alas those days are gone, parts are not all that easy to find anymore nor are sporters a cheap and unwanted. One of many reasons the young chaps have no mechanical interest, it simply is not practical or cost effective