I think it's fair to say the sales pitch is creative!

[gundoc2112]

If I'm not mistaken, the two chambered oiler was brought up in another thread and it was pointed out that cutting it in half and using in leu of the actual pull through container would not work as these are smaller diameter and therefore would not fit the slot in the chest nor hold the brush.

Beg pardon, but the story sounds hokey to me. If the purpose of the pull through container being added to the L42 CES was to hold the lens brush, then it makes little sense that the British army would have substituted that item with an oiler that would not work for that intended purpose or fit in the appropriate slot. Just sayin'.

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.

[Flying10uk]

Beg pardon, but the story sounds hokey to me. If the purpose of the pull through container being added to the L42 CES was to hold the lens brush, then it makes little sense that the British army would have substituted that item with an oiler that would not work for that intended purpose or fit in the appropriate slot. Just sayin'.

Do you have any personal experience of this matter?

[gundoc2112]

Do you have any personal experience of this matter?

Just my opinion, that's all. I'd just like to point out:
1) in all this forum, that includes former British snipers, armourers, and advanced collectors, there has been no mention of the discussed item being part of the L42A1 CES,official or otherwise
2) The discussed item would not work for the purpose of the CES item it is being theorized to have substituted.
3) Despite no knowledge of the above mentioned folks, you have one guy that is selling the discussed item (at a much marked up price; type in 'Swedish oiler' in ebay keyword, they go for $4.00)cites being an ex armorer as the sole proof of this being legit.

Maybe it's just me, but I've been to enough gun shows to have trust issues. Caveat Emptor and all that good stuff. But alas, it is just my lowly opinion. Take it for what it's worth.

[Buccaneer]

Beg pardon, but the story sounds hokey to me. If the purpose of the pull through container being added to the L42 CES was to hold the lens brush, then it makes little sense that the British army would have substituted that item with an oiler that would not work for that intended purpose or fit in the appropriate slot. Just sayin'.

During my conversation with the seller I asked about the stowage and he said that they were altered at unit level to accept the twin storage bottle, he also said that the lens cleaning brush was reduced in length to fit as the twin bottle is slightly shorter.
As he pointed out there was no official sanction for doing this that he was aware of they just used what was supplied to keep a soon to be obsolete weapon system going.
I have spoken to two unconnected sources who both say that they saw / used the twin bottle in the L42 CES, this does not make it official or correct all it says that at some point they were used.