Need an opinion on the last one..

[Warren]

A picture of one of these was shown in a copy of the Armourer about 12 to 15 years ago. Apparently it was found at Arnhem in relic condition. ANYONE have any info or an opinion on it

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Aragorn243]

It looks like a barrel with a NATO grenade launcher on the end of it.

[Beerhunter]

There doesn't seem much point having that 94 Grenade (Energa) launcher on it because the sight is missing. Additionally anyone who has fired a 94 Grenade off a No.4 (Step forward Beehunter, don't be shy.) can assure you that the last thing you need is LESS weight on the bloody rifle.

Frankly the whole thing has been built as someone's flight of fancy.

[Peter Laidler]

I agree with beery 101% plus some. Someone with a fertile imagination. You could just ask the simple question '...why bother?' when there was already an energa type grenade launcher available for the No4 and 5 (albeit rare for the No5.....) anyway....., and furthermore, it fitted onto the standard rifle. What Armies need is standardisation not a mish mash of kit.

I would like to see the barrel configuration UNDER that launcher to see whether the bubba re-machined the foresight block band and bayonet lugs on to the existing barrel, then measure their diameter. Because there ain't enough (?) meat on that part of the barrel to go out to the diameter of the block band and bayonet lugs. Without those lugs, I've a feeling that when the grenade is fired, the grenade would go first, followed by the launcher. It MUST be secure. That's why they have a hinge and clamp.......

Annanuvverfing...... That launcher looks to me like it's a body tube, probably with a damaged rear end that's had the hinge, clamp and sight axis block machined off. Just my opinion having seen a few! To sum up in few words Warren, and knowing how you'll understand where my personal opinion is coming from ........... 'a load of bollxxxx'

[Thunderbox]

I think it might be real, but of Indian manufacture/conversion in 1960s.

[Maple_Leaf_Eh]

I think it might be real, but of Indian manufacture/conversion in 1960s.

If you look closely at the No.5 forestock, you may see a tiny shiney spot. Is this an Ishapore Screw?

However, more to the storyline, I would seriously question the "relic of Arnheim" provenance. Yes the Paras and Glider troops were uniquely equipped, but there are limits to their eccentricities. One former SF supporter I know will tell you that the special forces are more disciplined than casual observers might think. No room for cowboys or free-runners, despite whatever public persona they might try to cultivate. When something happens, it is for a clear and defensible reason.

[Peter Laidler]

Which begs the question of if it ain't got a sight, even the rudimentary lift-up leaf sight, then how do they aim. For horizontal and elevation?

[Bindi2]

Q warren.

is the barrel turned to that configaration or is it added to the barrel

[Peter Laidler]

Barrel can't be turned to that configuration as there's not enough meat on it. Or do you mean turned to that spec from new? If it was from new, then how did they get the block band foresight on? Just a thought

[Peter Laidler]

As a matter of interest Warren, can we assume that the top one is a Soviet equivalent of the pre-war tank 4" or so bombthrowers. We had a few of these in our store and nobody really knew what to do with them so I gave a cou7ple to the Tank Museum. I seem to recall that all the labels indicated that they were rifles converted by STOKES, presumably of Mortar fame on old DP and EY rifle bodies/barrels