An Armourer's Perspective questions

I went thru the stickys and couldn't find answers.

The book talks about 674 rifles that were rejected by Holland and Holland in the first contract and 7 in the second contract and returned to service, but still have the TR stamp. Have any of those shown up in the US surplus market does anyone know?

Did 7.62 L8(T) ever make it to civilian surplus in Europe?

How often if at all, did No.4 T's come stateside with the back sight modification to allow bolt removal without scope removal (done by a unit armorer) mentioned in the book?

Anyone have a picture of the "HANDKERCHIEF, Mk1 mentioned in the parts designation extract? Can't find any other mention of it so far.

The next question is just Yankee ignorance but the pricing for the contracts are in a format I can't suss out. The funny L for the pound and " 2/8/6d ". And later it says "price of 48/6d". Can anyone explain? I'm about to read Chapter 4 and understanding that will be handy.

Thanks.

Britain went 'decimal' in the early 1970's when we went from having 12 pennies in a shilling & twenty shillings in a pound, to just 100 (new) pennies to the pound. The prices shown in Peter's book are from the old system, where they are shown in pounds, shillings & pence, or sometimes, lower amounts were shown just in shillings & pence, eg. 2/8/6 would be 2 pounds 8 shillings & sixpence (although p is used to denote pence now with the old system a d was used), & 48/6d denotes forty eight shillings & sixpence - the same price as 2/8/6, but just expressed another way....

Rifles bearing the TR but which were not converted do turn up periodically. I have a BSA 1945 receiver that is beautifully marked with the TR & also the D6E examiner's mark, but the pads were never fitted. In fact the TR is officially cancelled. Whether it was a specification reject, or just arrived at H&H too late to get converted (in early 1946 the wartime contracts were terminated), I couldn't say.

Only a handful of L8 T's were ever made & I couldn't say for sure that there isn't one in the US, but there won't be many.

Most 4T's do not bear the modification to the underside of the rear sight as this was something just carried out by some armourers such as PL. It can't have been too general or more rifles so modified would turn up.

'Fraid i can't help with the handkerchief question, but probably somebody will come along....!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atticus Thraxx

HANDKERCHIEF, Mk1

---

Surely just a piece of cloth or a handkerchief to lay the parts on? Perhaps the MK1 is the British sense of humour; a bit like the eyeball MK1?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

Most 4T's do not bear the modification to the underside of the rear sight as this was something just carried out by some armourers such as PL. It can't have been too general or more rifles so modified would turn up.

---

I frequently wish my (T)'s had received that modification!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

Surely just a piece of cloth or a handkerchief to lay the parts on? Perhaps the MK1 is the British sense of humour; a bit like the eyeball MK1?

---

The standard issue Handkerchief Mk1

Pictures from an old (21012) post by Waco.

Was the old Money from memory Roger.�� yours must be better than mine, i‘ve a vague memory of bieng issued a handkerchief when i took the Queens er how many was it 12 Pennys, or by then a 5 pence piece in 1986.

I‘ve also a vague memory of our L42‘s not requiring scope removal in order to achieve bolt removal. So they must have been modified at some point by one of my predesessors. I wonder if that was before or after conversion to 7.62x51.

I have however in my basic armorer precis a note that the pressed /stamped expedient version of the rear sight allows for bolt removal without any modifications and I just verified that on a No4 I have here that has such fitted.

It might be an idea for owners wishing to leave the scope attached to acquire and fit one of these sights rather than risk bodgeing the original. cutting the „ghost ring“ off such a sight should be in most folks capability to not interfear with the underside of the scope.

Heck, the aperture on the stamped sights breaks often enough, I'd bet a lot of us have a couple broken ones laying around. I know I've got at least one that would just need the remaining stubs ground down.

I've done quite a few over the years, & it is the cursor rather than the sight ladder which really requires the attention. However, I have never modified a WW2 original sight off a 4T, only replacements, which have usually been of Faz origin. I also luckily happen to have a small bucket full of rear sight cursors.....;)

Peter, sadly I am old enough to remember the 'old currency'. I was about thirteen or fourteen when the change over occurred.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

Peter, sadly I am old enough to remember the 'old currency'. I was about thirteen or fourteen when the change over occurred.

---

15th Feb 1971 - a 'dark day' indeed !

2.4d = 1p

No more 'Jenny Wrens', 'Joeys', 'tanners', 'bobs', florins', 'half-a-dollar' (half-a-crown) or a 'dollar', no more Guinea's (although horses are sold in Guineas)

The smallest denomination coin I have in my collection is a 1/2 Farthing (1/2880 of a pound)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

15th Feb 1971 - a 'dark day' indeed !

---

Indeed.. my wife was working in the Bank of England at the time, and she always said that the word in the bank was that they decimalised wrong thing. Instead of changing the value of the penny, they should have changed the value of the pound to match 100 pennies. We ended up with one of the highest value, low end coins in the world at the time, and when inflation kicked in, prices went up 2.4 times higher that they needed to. In other words, instead of retailers adding 1d to the price of something, they added 1p, or 2.4d!

The reason they decimalised the penny was purely political... (so no change there then!)

To those of you who moan about having worthless small denomination coin, be careful! There is a value in having a low denomination minimal value coin when inflation is about!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bombdoc

Indeed.. my wife was working in the Bank of England at the time, and she always said that the word in the bank was that they decimalised wrong thing. Instead of changing the value of the penny, they should have changed the value of the pound to match 100 pennies. We ended up with one of the highest value, low end coins in the world at the time, and when inflation kicked in, prices went up 2.4 times higher that they needed to. In other words, instead of retailers adding 1d to the price of something, they added 1p, or 2.4d!

The reason they decimalised the penny was purely political... (so no change there then!)

To those of you who moan about having worthless small denomination coin, be careful! There is a value in having a low denomination minimal value coin when inflation is about!

---

very correct. The 1 and 2 cent coins have been axed in OZZIE and the 5 cent is not looking good. Advised price and rounding up for cash is common.

There are at least two legit L8T rifles in the USA. Both are listed in “Armourer’s Perspective”. One is a trials rifle listed in the text and the other a later one that’s pictured. I imported them both for different collectors in the past ten years.

---------- Post added at 11:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 AM ----------

I’ve modified many Mk.1 rear sights over the years too. I only ever used replacements or take offs with smashed battle apertures. I don’t think I ever saw the modification on an original wartime rear sight. I believe it was more prevalent on the L42 but admit I haven’t seen many on original rifles. I’m with Roger that it was a modification done by Armourers at the request of the snipers but certainly not standardized.

Cheers Brian. There you go, the L8T info is in the book!

"Thamesbank was unable to tender due to their being bombed out" might be the most British sentence I've ever read. :lol: