L42A1 dated 1980

[Buccaneer]

Is there anyone dim enough to remove the original pad rather than removing a portion of the S&K type scope mount?

Hi Surpmil, I think you have failed to grasp the reason for the removal of the front pad, it is only relatively recently that these and other rifles have been seen as collectors items to the point where a 10cent plastic bottle was sold for $1800.
Not so long ago these items would have been thrown in the bin, transit cases burned as having no further use and rifles stripped and altered to meet the owners requirements. People were not "dim enough" as you put it by making alterations to rifles but simply doing something that suited them at the time hence the huge number of threads on this forum about rebuilding "bubbered rifles"
The front pad was removed because it was of no use, why damage a perfectly good no gunsmith mount for the sake of removing a piece that was of no further use?

I'm afraid I don't buy that. The paint visible in the photo at the start of this thread extends up into the area on which the pad normally sits. When a pad is screwed and soldered on, nothing gets underneath.

The paint around the front pad area had been applied after the pad had been removed the "mess" was caused when the paint scraped off to expose the front pad area.

Is it a tapering flat about 6" long? Sounds more like an Enforcer hand guard supplied by the gent who made them for Parker Hale and may still make them. I bought a few off him once too.

The flat on the top hand guard is parallel and runs for about two thirds of the length, it appears to have been done on a spindle moulder.

I've never heard of the "TR" markings being linished off. Has anyone else?

So you think the TR marks would be removed, but not the serial number? Even unconverted TR actions had the TR struck out, not linished off. So why would they be removed this time?

I have Peter Laidler's excellent book and on page 112 it states "The original No 4 Mk1 markings have been linished clean, but can sometimes be seen." it also states that "during this conversion process, the beadblasting and phosphating process has often deleated other markings like the small "s". There is also a reference to this on the UK Knowledge Library, 1971 L42A1, point number 6 in the comments section as posted by Alan Roberts, it states "be aware that unlike the earlier 70's conversions, these were linished clean of any markings prior to conversion EXCEPT THE SERIAL NUMBER, according to the specifications. These particular rifles are extremely rare beasts so if you own one don't be supprised if yours doesn't have the small"s" or the "TR" ect"
So in answer to your question YES people do know about the absence of these markings.

I can confirm that in answer to a point made by Roger Payne that the extractor recess is properly cut in the barrel.

I have no intention of purchasing this rifle if fact it is not for sale I posted what I saw for information on what appears to be a grey area of L42 knowledge. Based on what I have read the chances that this rifle started out as a 1980's conversion seem to be better than 50/50, the owner has sent me a picture of a mark on the rear of the action it is not very clear but may help to shed some light on the subject.

I am not offended by your comments nor am I an expert as you claim to be, but at least I can spell "expert"............

[Roger Payne]

Hi Buccaneer,
Thanks for coming back to me on the rear face of the barrel. At least it is probably not one of those rifles to which I referred earlier.

Unfortunately the EFD examiners' marks on the rear action aside the bolt-way are indistinct, at least too much so for me to be sure as to what they say, but my eyes can't make either of them look like the D6E that I would expect to see on a rifle that started off as a 4T prior to L42 conversion. If it was originally a BSA Shirley the other one of them would probably say 7EE.

All in all, my money is still on it being as wrong as a nine bob note, but I accept that you feel it is correct, & sometimes we just have to agree to disagree.....

ATB.

[Surpmil]

The paint around the front pad area had been applied after the pad had been removed the "mess" was caused when the paint scraped off to expose the front pad area.

Fair enough, if you know that to be the case.

The flat on the top hand guard is parallel and runs for about two thirds of the length, it appears to have been done on a spindle moulder.

Sounds like an Enforcer handguard then>

I have Peter Laidler's excellent book and on page 112 it states "The original No 4 Mk1 markings have been linished clean, but can sometimes be seen." it also states that "during this conversion process, the beadblasting and phosphating process has often deleated other markings like the small "s". There is also a reference to this on the UK Knowledge Library, 1971 L42A1, point number 6 in the comments section as posted by Alan Roberts, it states "be aware that unlike the earlier 70's conversions, these were linished clean of any markings prior to conversion EXCEPT THE SERIAL NUMBER, according to the specifications. These particular rifles are extremely rare beasts so if you own one don't be supprised if yours doesn't have the small"s" or the "TR" ect"
So in answer to your question YES people do know about the absence of these markings.

That may well explain the markings, though as we know from other cases, what happens in fact is often not what the official documents indicate.

I can confirm that in answer to a point made by Roger Payne that the extractor recess is properly cut in the barrel.

I have no intention of purchasing this rifle if fact it is not for sale I posted what I saw for information on what appears to be a grey area of L42 knowledge. Based on what I have read the chances that this rifle started out as a 1980's conversion seem to be better than 50/50, the owner has sent me a picture of a mark on the rear of the action it is not very clear but may help to shed some light on the subject.

I am not offended by your comments nor am I an expert as you claim to be, but at least I can spell "expert"............

"eggspurt" was in quotation marks to indicate that it was a humorous and deliberate misspelling; it's an ironic "North Americanism".

I'm sorry if you're annoyed by my delivery, but we often misunderstand each other's "tone" on the Internet. Excuse me if I am under-estimating your knowledge. As you know, many posters in these sorts of threads are new to the subject and I didn't read your other posts in different threads to try and appraise your knowledge.

I'm afraid the pads are in the wrong place and there is no record that I have ever heard of, of a UK converted No4(T) having pads in that position. Of course, if one was inclined to a bit of fakery, the points you made above about the removal of markings would make the 80s series L42 an ideal candidate wouldn't it?

I assume the mag well is machined out for the 7.62mm magazine.

[XL39E1]

Did we ever find out if the serial number is on Simons list?

[Buccaneer]

I assume the mag well is machined out for the 7.62mm magazine.

Yes it is.

[DanL96a1]

XL39A1 from what I have read in this tread it is not on Simons List of 1970 – 75 L42’s. “I have checked with Simon and the serial number does not appear on any of the lists he has but as so little is know about the late production L42's that is not necessarily supprising.” Post #17.fficeffice" />>>
>>
I have not seen many 1980’s L42A1’s but I seem to remember that the 80 –82 batch, was converted from New referbished atctions? Or was this urban mith? I hope PL or RP will correct me with the 80 – 82 L42’s if this is wrong? >>
>>
I’m a keen amature when it comes to L42A1’s, as my L42’s were a 1971 manufature, and I have only limited knolowage on this type. But I feel that this 1980’s L42 dosent have the “feel” of the “orginal” 1970’s L42’s. The ones I have seen in 1980’s style, are like the picture shown in post #11.

[Simon]

XL39A1 from what I have read in this tread it is not on Simons List of 1970 – 75 L42’s.

Who said my info only covers those conversion dates???? I certainly didn't

Cheers,

Simon.

[Roger Payne]

Hi Daniel,
AFAIK the late batch were converted from existing 4T's just the same as all of the others. The one shown in XL39E1's posting clearly still shows the original Maltby receiver markings & I think this is typical of all L42's I have seen. PL must have the last word on this, but I think as all L42's were effectively FTR'd from the point of their conversion they may well suffer from some loss of original markings, but I think the extent of this is rather variable across the whole conversion range. (Of course I haven't seen anywhere near all of the L42's ever produced, but I have seen nearly 400). Indeed, if the late batch was particularly heavily linished before reassembly it would be nice to see some definite evidence of this on a rifle, or preferably rifles, whose provenance is/are beyond reproach. The one in this thread certainly doesn't fit the bill.

It is possible that you might be thinking of the idea that was kicked about of making new-build L42's on new No4 Mk2 bodies. I suppose it would have become the L42A2 had it ever got off the ground, but like so many other projects, it didn't.

All the best.

[XL39E1]

I wonder if Charnwood ordnance can remember seeing any 1980 or 1981 dated rifles as they had a few though there hands?

[Roger Payne]

Actually XL39E1 it was at Charnwood that NobsDave & I had the run of the whole batch of 385 when they first had them in. If only decent digital cameras had existed then I'd have the info as I'd have photographed the receiver of every one of them!

ATB.