L1A1 fitted with a No.32 Scope

[PrinzEugen]

Really interesting thread guys and I think everyone's learned something new! Fascinating to see that the operational conditions in Nire led to some units to take independent measures to equip themselves.

[230Ball]

This thread caught my attention as I was researching L1A1 scopes. Was there a "standard" issue scope between the SUIT/SUSAT and the IWS?
Thanks,
Carl

[Bruce_in_Oz]

Regarding scopes attached to the dust-covers on the L1A1.

The obvious one is the cute Hensholdt number that started life in Germany in their G1 rifles and then turned up in Oz fitted on L1A1s.

I had one. On an L1A1. it worked VERY well and did not lose zero despite being bashed around the bush as a HUNTING rifle combo for several years. Even survived a tumble off a motorbike in far-west Queensland.

That scope was "withdrawn from service" and put in a drawer with some other interesting optics.

However, the rifle soldiered on in the great outdoors with a new lightweight scope (Leupold 2-7 variable) and a new, cover-mounted base system. This consisted of a bog-standard L1A1 dust cover with two steel blocks silver-soldered on and machined in situ to accept Parker-Hale rings. The cover was "spread" a little so that it was TIGHT on the receiver rails BEFORE the blocks were sweated on. This setup was a BIG improvement in target acquisition, especially in reduced light. Held zero very well.

Probably not "soldier-proof"; but I did not use that rifle and scope combo for hoisting over-loaded diggers over walls or as an improvised paddle for a Klepper kayak.

[Peter Laidler]

The problem with the standard L1A1 top cover when you mounted ANY scope was that the user HAD to prepare for a short useful life as Tankie and Skippy will no douby confirm. This was reiterated on any trials reports on any of the equipment. THere were many problems.

The first was that whatever you had had to be mounted on the cover otherwise you would have to have, by definition, a dedicated rifle which defeated the object of the trial really.

The second was that you HAD to use the original cover. If you made one from thicker material.............. Look......, think about it......., you can't!
Third this original cover with the mountings on it is already at a disadvantage because there ain't a mounting point at the front right hand side and for an inch rear of that is a 'danger area' where the ejected shell case very probably will strike anything in its path
Now, if you spot weld, soft solder, silver solder or whatever the mount or even a table upon which to mount the mount, these 'joints' have to absorb several rotational forces. Not just once but time and time again. We all understand the recoil forces but when the rifle recoils, the inertia wants to leave the cover mounted telescope behind of course but this can't happen so the rifle and cover drag the table, mount and telescope/SUIT/night vision with it putting a rearward loading on the joint.

Then, a millisecond later, guess what happens............? Yep....., this recoil stops because the rifle comes hard up against the blokes shoulder. But the now recoiling top cover, the table, mount and tele/SUIT/IIW have to stop too. This now puts rearward loading onto the joint. And just like your MGB doors and Comet window frames, they WILL crack

This is the reason why after we have repaired rifle sights, the IIW's and SUITS we have to subject them to a hold or fast test to see if they can absorb the shock loading of recoil and accelleration. But the poor old table on the top of and joined to the rifle cover just get a pasting every time. So the life expectancy is short. The SUIT was said to be spring loaded to allow for these forces but there has always been a degree of disagreement about this so-called buffering but if the trial manager, usually a Lt Col says it is a buffer of sorts, then a Capt can say it's not until the cows come home, but it is!!!!!

Just to illustrate this point, have a look at the top covers of the SUIT and the IIW and you'll find a little tag sticking down from each side at the rear. These are/were supposed to prevent that by locking the slide and preventing any further movement (look......., there's a bit more to it than that and I am really simplifying a couple of pages of a trial report here.....). But the little tags didn't really help anything so it was decided that when they eventually started to show stress fractures, they could bhe snipped off and made good with no detriment to the operation of the rifle.

In short, all of the reports relating to mounting of anything on the top cover of an L1A1 commenced with and ended with the proviso that if you did, you must expect a short life

[tankhunter]

Confirmed by the Amount of Top Covers I had to write Off in Service Peter!

A LOT of People don't know as We Armourers do. Is that attempting to 'Accurise' the SLR/L1A1/C1/FN Etc, to match shooting standards. Is neigh on well impossible! You may well 'tighten' one up, as I know we all have during service at one point or another. BUT, There is a major design flaw on this series of Rifles.

It is Basically made in Two halves. & the iron sights also, are mounted on one of each half. This means in effect, that if the rifle is worn at the hinge joint. Or more commonly, worn at the joint between the trgger Mech housing & the rear of the receiver. You WILL have lateral movement!....

There was an Armourers tool available which I know of us have used during Service Time. It is a wedge ended flat bar/tool. & two side supporting wedges with cutouts in them. To tighten: The Trgger mech housing was removed, & a support plate was placed on either side of it. Then the whole ensemble was placed in a vice. The wedge tool was place right at the rear of the inside of the TMH. & couple of smart taps with the Birmingham screwdriver (Hammer to our US Cousins!) & this would result in 'splaying' on the TMH sides in the required area. The result of this was (If done CORRRECTLY) that lateral movement was eliminated at this point. & IF the hinge joint was nice a tight with no play. The rifle WOULD indeed be more accurate.

All of this of course. did not take into account the opening & closing of the rifle. Would cause this fault/wear to reoccur at a later point in it's life. As far as I was concerned, it was a Temporary repair. BVut did the job at THAT Time!

ALL rifle for Battalion Shooting teams (& I was attached to them a LOT in My Service time. Through choice! IE: No duties, Guard's Etc) were tightened up like this before use by respective team members. Some required Re-Tightening during practice shoots, until the final competistion. They then need a check reshoot to check accuracy. & potential sight adjustments.

Even fitted with an optic sight unit. Which undoubtably aided target acquirement, & subsequent engagement. Because of this design flaw in the weapon having two halves. You WOULD STILL get varying standards of accuracy due to wear between the two halves!

There endeth the Lesson Troops!.........

[Bruce_in_Oz]

Here is a thread about the Hensholdt scopes for the G1 / FN. Includes pix of the critter and its special cover / mounting.

G1 Scope - The FAL Files