.22 Lee Enfield trainer rear sight..forgot what it is for: HELP!!!

[Frederick303]

Thank you for posting these pictures, they will be a big help to me in completing my project. I have never seen the actual side markings on one of these rifles. Your pictures are the clearest most detailed I have seen to date. I am afraid here in US of A we do not have any L81A1 action bodies, the closest match we have is P-H Model 84 MKII action bodies. With the exception of the open magazine well, these action bodies seem the same, to the point of the Mauser bolt having to have the reinforce guide rail be machined off and the funky late bolt release mechanism.

I note on your rifle the front hand stop rail is on a aluminum rail, instead of a steel metal insert with drilled screw locations, like that set up used on the old 1200TX target rifle. Is the aluminum rail original to your rifle or was it a post factory mod? I ask as the picture I have of the Model 84 MK II target rifle clearly shows the older drilled steel inset in the stock, not the aluminum rail.

I also note on your rifle the epoxy bedding seems a little different from what I expected. Having looked at Parker Hale 1200 TX and C3 rifles, it seems the first inch of the barrel is bedded as well as the action body on these designs. Is there a epoxy bedding pad under the first inch of barrel forward of the action body that is not evident on your photos?

Is the action body beded in the rear of the action body, around the rear action screw or is there simply a metal insert to avoid crushing the wood. In other words, is only the front ring of the action body bedded to that wood stock?

What sort of finish does the rifle have? Is it a paint or simply dark blue/black/oxide finish? From the pictures it seems to be a flat blue/oxide finish, not suncorite paint.

If you are familiar with the L81A1 rifle, could you tell us something of your rifle, its history, how you got it and how well it shoots? Do you notice a difference between it’s performance in the 600 and below vs. the 800 to 1000 yards competition? I am very interested in this rifle for some strange reason and have had a hard time getting any real information on it over here in the US of A. Anything you could add in regards to background information would be of great interest.

A further few questions for Peter Laidler:

Was the original L81A1 epoxy bedded at all? I ask as the stock I have seems to fit very closely to the action body without any bedding compound. I was under the impression the 1200TX and C3 were epoxy bedded, was the L81A1 similarly bedded?

You mention the rifle was very poor from a servicing point of view. Could you elaborate on that? I ask as the old Parker Hale 1200TX rifle seems to enjoy a good reputation, at least in Canada for 600 yards and under shooting in the Pre 1996 days when C21 was the cartridge. I have heard hunters with P-H 1100 and 1200 rifles speak very warmly of these rifles as regards accuracy in the field. I am curious about what marked this P-H design a failure, was it simply by the time it came along (1983) that it was essentially obsolete compared to the Swing, Paramount and similar actions?

You mentioned that the cadets were more at home with the L39A1 rifles. Was this true in the short range competition as well? I was under the impression that the L39A1/Envoy rifles really shown at the 800 to 1000 ranges, that in the shorts (200 to 500 yards) the Mauser designs did very well in the post 1968 to 1996 time period.

Thank you both for your time in answering these questions.

I have the UK provisional users manual on this rifle from November 1982. The only other manual I have been able to find is the M85 sniper service manual. Does anyone have access to any true L81A1 or M83 rifle service manuals?

Regards

Frederick303

[Peter Laidler]

You asked about the rifle and it's service. I will ask another Armourer who was heavily involved with these monstrosities to answer your questions, but the rifle generally, wasn't well received. I have to say that I was never involved with any part of it except for borrowing one a few times to take part in a shooting competition when the usual L42 I used to borrow was being used in another competition by the sniper who it was assigned to. I thought it was a bit of a cheek too, him using it officially when I needed it for a bit of sport shooting but there you go..........

The L81......... Can you imagine if you were quite happily working away in your company with XYZ type computers. All of the infrastructure was geared up to them and they gave satisfactory service. All of a sudden the works computers were all removed over a totally 'new' but ancient design was heaped onto the company............ Not only that, it was totally different to the extent that nothing seemed to interchance between the old and 'new' - except that the 'new' wasn't really new. In fact, it was the same age as the old but dressed up to LOOK new. But under the skin, it was cheap. Even the backsight was........, well...., just look at it! The deflectiongraduations didn't relate to anything and the sight leaf ranges were a) too small to read and b) a pure figment of someones fertile imagination. I'll tell you about done on the cheap too. Some of the backsights they used were old left over 40's 0-800 No5 backsights... Not that it mattered much of course but you get the point.

Then when the deed was done, people started asking '.......what the xxxx is all this xxxxx? Who knows about this stuff. Just a minute......, we can't even use the X or Y or Z's on it...........' Nobody had any answers. Nobody knew who had made the final decision to accept the rifle because it seems that nobody seemed to know ANYONE who was involved in the trials to adopt/accept the thing. It was totally alien. And furthermore, you couldn't use it in some of the popular speed competitions such as snaps and rapids because it didn't have a magazine. As I said earlier, it wasn't that there was a shortage of .303" ammunition - if this was the reason...... We were still buying millions of rounds of compatable HXP! Or just supply them with L39's that were plentiful. Which is just what those that wanted them used anyway

So from that moment onwards, it was doomed

Another rifle followed shortly afterwards too. The L98 Cadet GP 5.56 rifle. It had the inbuilt faults of the first SA80's PLUS more but you'll have to read the Steve Raw book to understand those!

Alas, the problem has been cured once and for all now. The Cadets now have everything they want for shooting. The L81 has gone and the new Cadet SA80 is identical to the current Army rifle but without the full auto facility. So rapid and snap shoots are back and they can compete against regular forces. And a big hand for the team involved in formulating and bringing into service the new Cadet SA80 - who listened to what they wanted and gave it to them! And before you ask, yes I was!

[Frederick303]

Capt. Laidler,

Many thanks for your reply. I really appreciate the “skinny”; it explains a great deal of the negative “lore” regarding this rifle and the follow-on L81A2.

I have noted on the PH parts I have is that the fit of the bolt to the action body is not what you would expect on a true match rifle, it is rather loose compared to a 1974 vintage Musgrave action. I attributed the looseness to the fact that the PH action body had not been used and was perhaps a left over reject action (even though it passed RC test). Certainly the machining finish was not what one would expect on a top of the line rifle and is far worse then the finish seen on Parker-Hale sporting rifles. I do get the “cheap comment”.

I have two of the modified No 4 L81A1 sights. One is really tight, when I put a dial indicator on it and checked the run out when making corrections it seems to have less than .001 slack in the threads. The second sight is not as good, it has close to a quarter minute of slack in the threads. I was under the impression that the reason for the modified No 4 sight was to keep the sighting equipment close to that of an issue weapon, to prevent some of the equipment battles that usually occur when folks can customize rifles. Somewhat of an attempt to transition to a “standard rifle”, not a full up “target rifle”. If what I get from your writing is correct, that was not so much the case as a case of just plain cheapness on the part of the MOD.

I do have one more question related to why the L81A1 did not catch on.

You mention that at the time there was still plenty of .303 in the system. It is my recollection from reading SAA pamphlets that the .303 SAA was “rechecked” for proof every year after 15 years of storage. As the last dates of RG MK VII ammunition was around 1957~58 in the UK and the last lots of Kynoch .303 MK VII loaded with cordite was around 1968, between 1973 and 1983 there must have been very little true MK VII cordite ammunition left in the system. I know RG loaded MK VIIZ in 1972 and 1973 and that HXP VIIZ was utilized after the MK VII cordite ammunition was no longer in use because of age or simply all fired off.

However in talking to former cadets from the mid to late 1970s, they seem to indicate that the MKVIIZ ammunition was not much liked when it came out, and that the Cadets preferred to use the remaining lots of MK VII. I gather that this was because the rifles they had had some cordite wear and would not group that well with HXP ammunition, at least those rifles that has some significant amount of MKVII ammunition through them.

By the early 1980s there could not have been that much 1950s RG MK VII left in the system and from what I have read, most of the Kynoch contracts from 1958 to 1968 were for export to former crown colonies. So by 1982 or so when this rifle was adopted most of the cadets would have been forced to use HXP ammunition, there could not have been much, if any MK VII ammunition left

In that case, unless the cordite worn rifles were replaced with like new UF55 or FTR 56 and 57 rifles, would not the accuracy of the cadet rifles be falling off a bit when used with MK VIIZ ball? Even if replaced by mid to late 50s FTR and new UF 1955 No 4 Mk II rifles, would not the accuracy of the L81A1 with select L2A2 ball be better then the No4 Mk II with HXP ball? I ask as it seems those were the two choices available.

By the by the accuracy spec I have for the M83/M84/M85 PH series of rifles is 5 shots of decent ball ammunition in a 38 mm circle @ 100 meters. That correlates to less than a 1.4 inch 100 yard 5-shot group on demand, which is better then I would expect on an as-issue No 4 MK II firing HXP of 1975 to 1985 vintage. If the rifle had a worn bore like many of the cadet rifles we have here in the US of A are, I would expect worse.

Now having spent many hours on a full bore range I note that folks seem to gravitate to accurate rifles, leaving the older pattern arms in the dust. Why if the L81A1 was more accurate, at least in slow fire events did it not find some favor? That implies to me that the Cadet No 4 rifles must have been fairly accurate shooters.

Your comments on this would be illuminating and welcome, especially if some part of my understanding is incorrect regarding the accuracy, or if the rifle would not maintain accuracy, or the No 4 rifles were more accurate then I expect.

Many thanks for your responses; your knowledge on these topics is irreplaceable.

Regards

Frederick303

[Peter Laidler]

As for ammunition Fred, well, Armourers have a saying that we don't mix it with ammo and ammunition technicians don't mix it with weapons - and never the twain shall meet. That's just a short answer to say that I don't know anything about ammo except this. If any of the ammo that was in the system was unsuitable, then they wouldn't have dished it out!

The only thing I do remember was that there were 30 round cut-down belts of .303" Mk7 and 8z issued that was only suitable for Bren guns. All the rest, be it RG, RL and HXP was as good as it gets and there was plenty of it. The real question is why they got the L81 when the answer was within the L39!

As you say, there were also serious questions about the finished quality and quality of the bought-in body forgings too.......

[Buccaneer]

Is the action body beded in the rear of the action body, around the rear action screw or is there simply a metal insert to avoid crushing the wood. In other words, is only the front ring of the action body bedded to that wood stock?

What sort of finish does the rifle have? Is it a paint or simply dark blue/black/oxide finish? From the pictures it seems to be a flat blue/oxide finish, not suncorite paint.

Hi Frederick303 they say a picture is worth a thousand words so I stripped the rifle and took some more pics that I hope will answer your questions. The finish is more black oxide than blue with the reciever being more matt than the barrel.
I only aquired the rifle recently I bought it along with a M82 that was produced to the Canadian spec C3A1 which means that it had a 6 round detatchable box mag fitted it also came without a scope but with PH 5E target sights. I have not fired either of them as yet so I can't answer your question on how accurate it is. I would say that aluminum rail was factory fitted a very similar one is fitted to the M82.
"Rifles or the World" gives a good written description othis family of rifles, page 362 of the third edition. I hope this helps in your quest...Attachment 32419Attachment 32420Attachment 32421Attachment 32422Attachment 32423Attachment 32424Attachment 32425Attachment 32426

[Peter Laidler]

Thanks for the photos Buccaneer. They'll bring on the nightmares when I sleep tonight. I only ever used an L81 once and that was one of these 300, 500 and 900 yard comps. I don't recall how I did but I won't bother to check my trophy cabinet! OH, yes, the rail was a factory fitting. I'm thinking back now and am sure that the rail was a cheap LM type alloy that soon got chewed up by the adjustable sling loop. Maybe the Canadian and Aust spec snipers specified a more robust steel rail. I'm sure that the MoD spec for the rifle was the usual spec black phosphate and paint as I seem to remember that there was a note that came around that they weren't to be RE-phosphated due to de-embrittlement concerns

[MKV111Z]

Hi

It really was a dreadful piece of kit to use and was nicknamed the Elephant Gun, the accuracy wasn't bad once you were told that the torque settings of the screws was the critical bit. Although to find that out and what they were you had to read an article by Ma Parker of AJ Parker Birmingham in Guns Review.

Cheers

H

[Peter Laidler]

Just out of interest, does anyone else own one oif these things...... In L81 or M84 configuration? Anyone up your end of the world still got the EMER's/AESP's Skippy or Tankie. Were there EMEI's for yours Son?

[Frederick303]

Buccaneer,

Thank you for your posts of the rifle. They have clarified a lot of things about this rifle and its bedding. In particular the three screw mounting method, that looks very close to how the Winchester post 64 match rifles were secured to the wood. In particular the differences in your M83 action body and the M84 MK II action body I have are now apparent. Sad my repro rifle will not be quite right; I will have to fill in the magazine well or assembly it with the lower parts from a M8 2 rifle

The bedding does remind me of Devcon aluminum-filled epoxy. At least it has the same color. My guess is that is what they used.

It does look like the rear action screw is aluminum pillar bedded or something close to that.

The finish does look like a dark oxide/paint, I have seen some enamel paints that can go on with a very light layer and when baked seem to almost be an oxide finish. The bolt and barrel that I have (which were take off of de-milled rifles) both had a worn blue finish.

Once again, thank you very much. It has helped me a lot with this project. I will tell my wife (who is half Welsh) that the info came from Cardiff. Of course then I will have to hear about the Royal Welch Fusiliers and the fact that their enemies never saw their back and stories about leeks on St. David’s day, etc….


Capt Laidler

Thank you for all your information, it is very much appreciated. Being more interested in the target rifle aspect of the lee Enfield then their military service life, I find the extended Cadet use and history of the No4 to be of great interest. While that period is not so long ago, your postings have clarified a lot of what individual shooters from the period have said regarding their experiences. Once again your posts are invaluable.

Regards

Frederick303

[Frederick303]

MKVIIIZ


Looking at the three screw bedding method, I can well believe the torque setting on the screws mater. On the Winchester model 70 of mid 1970’s vintage, this is true as well. It relates to the middle screw, if this is over-tightened the action will be “flexed” and you will get wild shots. On that rifle the key to getting it to shoot well is to tighten both the front rear to factory spec, and then just tighten up the middle screw until it is snug. This was true of any of the rifles with factory bedding, with or without a surface expoxy bedding.

To avoid these problems in the mid 1970s pillar bedding was introduced. Correctly set up, the aluminum pillars eliminate this problem by limiting how much the action can be “sprung” by over tightening the screws.

Does this sound correct for the L81A1? Do you know what the correct spec would be?

Many thanks for any information you can provide.

Regards

Frederick303

---------- Post added at 12:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:17 PM ----------

One last comment on the torque settings, I just checked the M84 MK II schematic and note that they dropped the three screw arrangement. The rear screw was dropped and only the screw in front of the trigger guard and the action ring screws were retained. Might be because of the defect noted above by MKVIIIZ