L39, L42ish

[Peter Laidler]

I wouldn't mind Fred and others, but he didn't just jump in and ask specific questions, 1,2,3,4 and so on, - it was just bits and pieces, all over the place!!! And I don't think that he's any more qualified than any of the other University mechanical engineering graduates on this forum. I gave up after the first page or so!

To be honest, nobody in the whole world owes me an apology of any sort. Having been in the Army system for so long, you just take the rough with the smooth and move on. Anyway all you forumers out there, it's nice and bright here in Oxfordshire, there's no rain forecast so things are looking up

[jmoore]

Well it's big hammer time. I spent a while (~2hrs) of my own time doing photos this morning- before the recent ugliness was read, if that makes a difference.

BTW, harlton, don't get close to the object to make details when your camera won't focus. Stand off a bit and then use the camera's cropping or trimming feature to zoom in. With 10 megapixels there's buckets of detail in those further away shots.

[ETA: Like this:


And after "trimming" in the camera:


Not a great shot, but it was handheld and not carefully set up.

End ETA]

I'm going to dump a bunch of photos on you in a bit.


But if this is a fishing expedition to get L42 barrel dimensions (and mind you, this wouldn't be the first time), well, you are only getting one.

[jmoore]

Here's what we need from you, harlton. A photo like this showing a "regular" barrel next to your "fat barrel". You did indicate you had more barrels. I am absolutely sure that 0.100" will show clearly, as there's not that much between a No.I and a No.4:



Then we will have proof. Be nice and do the shot straight on...

But here's the start of the deluge:

L42a1:

~0.790"

'55 Faz No.4 Mk.I:

~0.635"

Behind the sight is 0.5985" , the Dia increases to 0.6455", in the space of a 1/4 of an inch

Note that there's MUCH more than 0.100" difference here between the L42 and the No. 4. Harlton's barrel is more like 0.010" different. ONLY 0.090" off...

And random SMLE barrel at the same location:

~0.590"

(Only about 0.045" difference, but clearly noticable even without measuring tools!)

Breech end, No.4:



Front edge of reinforce, No.4:


Just forward of reinforce, No.4:


And SMLE:


~10" in front of receiver face, No.4:



And SMLE, same location:




Want more? Be polite! (Which I'm fixing to fail to do myself

BTW: Very few folk on this forum are impressed with titles, degrees and fancy jobs. Even less with rudeness.

But, if you insist, here's your 20,000 rpm:

[Peter Laidler]

There's no need for any more photos JM. It IS a bog standard Fazakerley made 1953 (or 58) No4 barrel. Fazakerley only made standard No4 format barrels. Likewise, regardless of what the bolt or magazine or fore-end reads, the serial number is the number marked on the master component which is the body side. It's like pulling teeth, but there it is

[jmoore]

Well, he made me start! Curiousity and a night's sleep after a 25 hr day got the ball rolling. Besides it was just some old barreled actions piled up. No disassembly required.

At least there's a mess of new reference photos for later.

[Bill Hollinger]

Harlton, to to add a little more advice:

Whenever the subject of your photography is going to be close, use the "macro" feature and a tripod. On macro you can get the lens as close as 6 to 10 inches. Your background should be a neutral color and texture such as an old OD green Army blanket. Turn the flash feature off and use natural light is available. If no natural is available you can use florescent and to keep the shadows down, drape a white sheet out of the frame but enough to pick up reflection. The photo below is one I took on a green towel which can be seen in the bottom of the frame but it appears almost white at the top right of the frame. Note to detail. All modern digital cameras have macro setting and the ability to turn the flash feature off. Play with your camera and I think you might just be very pleased with the results. Now, lets get past this and move on.



What do you Enfield gurus think of this #4???

[Peter Laidler]

Talking of good pictures Bill, let's have a big photo of that there Jeep of yours. I'd like it as my new screen saver.

On the same subject Harlon now..... One picture really does describe a thousand words. And as an engineer, this is close to our hearts. After all, if you could just describe something, why do we have or even bother with engineering drawings for heavens sake. And as engineers, remember .... dog don't eat dog!

[Bill Hollinger]

I'll PM you Peter.

[jmoore]

What do you Enfield gurus think of this #4???

Maltby. 1943 with a '48 rework of some degree.

Never upgraded to No.4 Mk.1/2 configuration. Replacement wood, the buttstock not too distant past.

Post 1968 US import due to the small "IAC" mark just above the trigger. Probably late eighties to mid nineties?

and the serial number, amazingly enough, is AO 14720. Or is that AOI 4720...?

Can I be a guru now? Please, please, please?

[muffett.2008]

Some good photo work there JM, that second last shot of the Vernier dial was exceptional, crystal clear.
Obviously a good nights sleep steadies your hand.
Pete, it's lousy here, you sent all that **** weather over to us, just so you could have clear blue for the Olympics.