L42A1 bolt head question

[chosenman]

I have read those accounts. Very much different than in the USMC. Unless an M40A3 was beyond repair, it was always sent back to the owning unit after higher echelon maintenance was completed.

Ha! you fellas probably had lots of spare rifles at unit level. Unfortunately most British infantry units, with the exception of the SAS and RM had 7-8 rifles which were all subject to a heavy pasting once a year when the battalion ran its own sniper cadre.

[mrclark303]

I just looked at three I have here. Two of them are 1971 conversions with #3 heads fitted. The other is a 1975 conversion with a #0 fitted. They used what bolt head was needed to pass the gauging standard and that was it.

I have to say that if you want one, get it. With only 1080 produced and roughly half that number in the scrap pile, it's one of the rarest sniper rifles one can own. I can also attest that even the very tired rifles, barring the ones with worn out bodies, will shoot better than most of us can anyhow. I've had 60 plus through here since the early 90's and they always made me smile on the range!

I have had the pleasure of shooting (yet to own one though) a number of L42's, wonderful rifles to shoot.

I would agree Brian, they always make me smile and the examples I have used, shoot beautifully, even I can happily print cloverleaf groups all day and I am no crack shot.

[chosenman]

I think the old saying "never judge a book by its cover" is relevant here. I have two 1971 examples, one incidentally has a #0 bolt head the other is marked but I cant make it out. One looks considerably rougher than the other but the performance of both is comparable. For the record the performance is gooood

[gundoc2112]

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...xzdzv3rq-1.jpg
I think the old saying "never judge a book by its cover" is relevant here. I have two 1971 examples, one incidentally has a #0 bolt head the other is marked but I cant make it out. One looks considerably rougher than the other but the performance of both is comparable. For the record the performance is gooood

Thanks for the intel! I'm Facebook buddies with your son and have drooled over your Gurkha L42. You, Sir, have an amazing collection!

[chosenman]

Thank you very much! Always trying to improve it.

[gundoc2112]

Thank you very much! Always trying to improve it.

Same here, but that Gurkha rifle is a crown jewel. My cover is off to you!

This topic actually is an offshoot of a conversation that Danny and I were having. I was of the mind that a high number bolt head was no bueno and he had put forward that said bolt head may have been what was on the No4T at time of conversion. As it is not a topic that I have seen tackled in regards to an L42, I felt it prudent to bring it to a wider and much more knowledgeable bunch than myself.

[Peter Laidler]

Have you ever started to read something and started to think '......where do they get all of this stuff from?' or '............what planetary orbit are they circling........?' I'll let you waffle on for a day and then tell it like it was.......... Just keep digging the hole

[chosenman]

Come on Fletch! Don't keep us on the dark!!

[Roger Payne]

FWIW PL I stand by my post (#6), & await the definitive with bated breath!

[Bindi2]

Have you ever started to read something and started to think '......where do they get all of this stuff from?' or '............what planetary orbit are they circling........?' I'll let you waffle on for a day and then tell it like it was.......... Just keep digging the hole

That's tough GURU but I understand why.