Viewpoint - British Army Contract for L96A1 Sniper Rifle (by Gil Boyd B.E.M)

[chosenman]

The wooden fore-end and butt stock was in the eighties fast becoming antiquated when in comparison the Americans were playing around with composite stocks and synthetic bedding compounds and having exciting results at Fort Benning. Technology was bringing the sniping game into new territory, the Americans were training their snipers that deadly fire could be delivered out at 1000 yards and our doctrine was still deadly fire @ 600m and harassment fire @ 800m, even after the L96 was delivered.

If the Falklands conflict hadn't of happened would the L42 have seen a few more years service? Who knows, but it had had its day and composite was the future. Could you imagine asking the question in the 60's, 70's. "Can we have a stock that wont shrink or expand and will be thermally stable in all extremes of weather keeping the shot constant". Mind blowing! In the future when we are all shooting ray guns this debate will be running about composite technology.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Gil Boyd]

Steve,
I think there were some very serious issues when the L96 first deployed, and as a result a lot of units never took hold for real until the early 90's it would appear. So yes the L42 did go further then!

[DanL96a1]

I seem to remember that there was a “supply and demand” problem with the L96, apart from any mechanical problems, it might have been faced with in hot and cold climates. I thought that the Parker Hale M85 was a supplement, to the L96’s as there was not enough to go around, as it were.

I agree that the wooden stocks would be susceptible to warping in wet weather, but most of the stocks used were well-seasoned bits of timber. Problem is that plastic stocks move too, in my option the L96 trump card is its alloy v bock. This basic engineering principle ensures accuracy in all weathers. This can be seen in target rifles designs, competing at the highest levels today.

[Simon]

in my option the L96 trump card is its alloy v bock. This basic engineering principle ensures accuracy in all weathers.

I think you could be getting the L96 / AI bedding system mixed up with the AI chassis system. The former is a flat based receiver (permanently) Resin bonded to a flat topped Aluminium* chassis, the latter uses a V block to centre the action in the Aluminium* chassis.

*NB Our American cousins may note that there are in fact two I's in Aluminium

Cheers,

Simon.

P.S. A question for Peter? What was the reasoning behind the magazine capacity for the L96 being 11 rounds as opposed to ten? Would I be correct in thinking it was so that even with a full Mag the spring would not be completely compressed?

[chosenman]

The supply and demand issues arose when the first production rifles developed catastrophic bolt problems. I know one of the Air Service guys who trialled the L96, or PM rifle as it was known and he accounts good results with the initial rifles supplied, then, for whatever reason the production rifles destined for units failed.

Furthermore there couldn't of been many M85's floating around in the early 90's as when the Royal Marines deployed to the Gulf War they took L42's to supplement their L96's with the green Schmidt & Bender 6x42 scopes fitted.

[Peter Laidler]

Whooaaaaaaaaaa. I think we should firmly nip in the bud ANY of the fairy stories that you might have heard of or read from your mates mate who's uncle knew a man in the NAAFI at Catterick who's brothers pal saw............ You know the sort of pure horse shi............, er........., manure. The notion that on actice service - or ANY service, certainly in my time in the Forces from the easrly 60's until a year or so ago would bin their rifle or chuck it in the stream or chuck it in the bog and grab an Argie rifle is the stuff of fairy stories. Another was of blokes throwing their SA80's away in Gulf 1 and picking up AK's. THEY WOULDN'T DARE, nobody would, believe me.

Let's keep this great thread on an even keel. No......... Not an even keel, but a what I call the bleedin' sensible keel. Throwing a rifle away indeed. Lets get real chaps.

The reason why the L42 was replaced were twofold. Lack of spare parts, especially for the telescope (that's why there was a hurried L1A2 sub-variant approved later) and woodwork and the MoD didn't want to do another purchase and the fact that the MoD/Crown had just lost its old Crown Immunity status and the L42 had outlasted its 1st life and was at the end of its second life following its (*effectively a) FTR in the early 70's. And, accurate as it was, it just couldn't go on and on. And the stockpile was getting smaller and smaller as the wear and tear took its toll. And the same hurriedly applied to the old No4's later too. L39's............ They'd never HAD a first life so they went on for much longer!

Forgot to add but it was this loss of Crown Immunity and the risks of selling off 70 year old stuff in the UK was the reason why that as a condition of sale they were all exported. Any takers to the contrary.............

[bigduke6]

would bin their rifle or chuck it in the stream or chuck it in the bog and grab an Argie rifle

Wasn't this quoted in a book by a Sniper who was there ? going by memory it was the scope that was the problem.

[Gil Boyd]

I have to support Peter, in the theory that weapons were cast aside and others picked up adhoc including enemy ones. I have to say, that every BRITISH weapon issued to a soldier who entered that campaign/War/Conflict * cross out which is applicable, returned to the UK, whether it was damaged in action or otherwise. Thats us, thats the way we are, following hundreds of years of shelf stacking/filling properly!!!

I know this to be the case because I have one, seriously damaged and made its way back home to be sold on the open market.
I do believe the Crown Immunity still applies as most MOD kit now has to leave our shores and covered by HM Customs proof of travel too.

I can probably hear people saying, "the rifle let me down so I ditched it", purely meaning it was handed in to the QM and a replacement given. Don't forget the soldier doing that has signed his life away when the weapon system was issued in the first place, and the last thing he is going to do is to "throw it away" on his signature, there would be too many repercussions for that to happen. Lets put that down to pub talk and not really substantiated in fact.
I would never ditch my baby after hours of care and love on the range, over a moment of a braking piece that could be replaced easily!

[bigduke6]

Thats us, thats the way we are, following hundreds of years of shelf stacking/filling properly!!!

Understand that Gil and I,m not doubting the system I know of one similar (may get to know the one you mention shortly), Just wish I could remember the book it was in, then again I may of read the book after being in the pub !!

[chosenman]

Well said Gil! I think unless you've experienced "the system" going diffy on a weapon or a stared item simply isn't an option, not with your name next to it anyway!!!!!!!!!