L42a1 scope tin

[Gil Boyd]

Yes Simon and I have been conferring

[Roger Payne]

Gil,
I don't want to pee on anyone's cornflakes - & I could be wrong here - but Peter will I'm sure correct me once he's back in circulation next week if I am, but I would be very wary of the 're-built by the MoD with a new receiver' story. Sniper rifles, along with all rifles generally, may have new parts fitted as existing ones become worn or otherwise unserviceable - barrels, woodwork, strikers etc are obvious examples. However, the receiver (body) of the rifle is a different matter altogether: it is the MASTER COMPONENT PART, & does NOT get swapped for new parts like other components. Like I said, I may be wrong here, but if the body of the rifle had 'had it', as it were (beyond a simple repair), I would have thought that the whole equipment would have been condemned. Think about it - if you replaced the body with another one (a standard No4 rifle body) on a 4T or L42, the action would have had to be barrelled up & then machined up as per H&H's system for converting the 4T's in the first place, simply in order to ensure that the pads were positioned & machined correctly; or at least, Enfield would have had to have come up with an equivalent system for ensuring the pads were collimated with the bore - are they going to do this for one rifle when they weren't exactly short of them?

Just my tuppence worth.

ATB

[Gil Boyd]

Roger,
Thank you for that, and I have already been conferring with Peter on this as well. I haven't declared all my cards on the open site for obvious reasons, but as I was finding it hard to find any two L42's showing the same slight variations on marking or characteristics, I thought I would ask those in the know on the site, for a list of the obvious ones to reconfirm my beliefs in case I had missed something over the years.
You can perhaps read between the lines that we have collectively come to the same conclusion, but I am now curious as to how it rose from the ashes so to speak, and will look at it myself, and decide on a course of action from there.

[PrinzEugen]

So assuming it's simply a No4 action which has been converted (I presume it's this one sold by Bonham's) then it depends what you're paying. The rifle's not worth much, so you would be paying for a CES in other words - assuming that's all correct of course. The scope would be hard to fake, but there are repro tins, brackets, lens brushes (!), chests etc. It's worth banishing all hopes of it somehow being a genuine L42 before looking.

* (written as you were posting the above)

[CODFan]

Gil,

This thread has been good to expand my own personal learning.

Was this confirmed ....

Are the "19T" proof marks with crossed flags on the bolt handle, bolt head and receiver?

What markings are present on the barrel?

[chosenman]

Gill, I think during the conversion process the receiver was bead blasted to remove the no4 T markings, the TR should still be present though on the wrist. The S in front of the extraction port may or may not be present, mine is. The S51 on the butt stock could technically be there however sizing the butt to the sniper 30 years on from its conception means most L42's have a walnut butt without this marking I have only encountered one which still has its original S51. I live just outside Colchester if you want to see mine in the flesh PM me.

[Gil Boyd]

Thanks for all the comments. I have gone through it all carefully now and found the S in place the TR on the band, and the scope number on the wrist. The L42A1D71 stamp is as it should be, and the only number that is different on the whole rifle is a different number under the fore grip wood, which is not unusual and just means it had been changed at some stage, as they took a lot of stick in the supported position.
The crossed flags and the 19 ton emblem is there on the bolt. There is a spare bolt in the chest without a bolt head un etched with 19T.
No S51 but that is no big shakes, as the butt could have been changed and with the rifles known history now, that would have been more than likely.

Other than that, not sure where the summary on the rifle assessment came from and appears it was written to ensure the salesroom had a 110% rifle in front of them for sale, and all matching numbers throughout which would have been a challenge, as I have never seen any of the Lee range doing that ha ha!!!!. I will put pics up next week when its in my hands, as it has had some repair work to the butt.
Contrary to what was written on the report the action is the original or does appear so at this stage.

[PrinzEugen]

Well it sounds promising... look forward to seeing the pics.
From an auction house perspective, especially a prestige one like Bonham's, I suppose there's a certain amount of 'arse covering' in any description, and any doubt is likely to be magnified.

[Gil Boyd]

Absolutely spot on. They would only sell something that went from A to Z if M was missing in their book, it would have to have an element of doubt attributed to it.
As I said I see it in my hands next week, so I shall make the call on what I find. Only thing currently not sure about is the spare bolt and why would someone put a spare bolt in the chest that wasn't relevant..heyho we'll see

[Simon]

Keep in mind that if you do buy it the spare bolt is technically a pressure part and you will need a slot for it on your FAC. Yep, I know, bloody ridiculous isn't it