At last, an L 42 question

[Peter Laidler]

That's about right Bian but nobody can be sure. But statistically, 200 is on the very high side for an EX series of that type

[newcastle]

Were the "No.4 conversions" which were prior to the L39 included in that number? And why would they go into an XL series of numbers (I presume X for experimental) when they had already made the No.4 Conversions??

[Thunderbox]

OK, I found the pics that started this. initially I saw drawings from some military spec sheet for the L 42 and it described a set up like this, a plate the same area as the front of the TG, 1/16th thick, but even though I later found L 42 images I never could find out what the wood set up was supposed to be underneath or how this was supposed to be different than not having the plate, the area's the same after all.

I think this version was originally a gunsmith method of widening a "waisted" triggerguard, but later used where the wood was already crushed. It was very common for Fultons and other 'smiths to discard the front trigger guard screw bushing, as target shooters liked to think they were then able to get a much tighter bedding.

[RJW NZ]

What strikes me as odd , and the reason for asking in the first place, is that with that step on the trigger guard I can't see a corresponding step in the wood. This would imply that the side rails along the magazine well aren't getting pressured on that front 1-2 inches, something which is usually described in bedding literature as being a must have. The trigger guard would be lifted off the wood on an long shallow angle all the way back to the rear screw. Any thoughts?
Just to clarify, this isn't a random query, I'm at this phase on a rifle.