-
Anyone else got any views, but I'd say that it was 'foreign'
-
-
08-01-2012 03:56 AM
# ADS
Friends and Sponsors
-
Contributing Member
Peter
Would be interested to know why those 40 or so L42's needed their brackets replaced......
-
-
-
Just general fair wear and tear really. The biggest(?) fault as I recall was that they'd fail the on-off-on-off or stability test where the rifle was clamped to the Enfield rest and bore sighted at the range chart. Then the sight was removed and replaced a few times and the grat point had to go back onto the same place otherwise you'd be chasing your zero around. I forget the sequence now but wear within the front hole that went over the spigot would elongate and that'd prevent the telescope collimating correctly with the bore/test screen. You could always tell which ones would fail because the scope/bracket would rock up and down in the spigot. But to be honest, the snipers would tell you anyway as while the rifle would be accurate, it wouldn't hold its zero on the 400 yard range. That was a sure sign of that type of failure.
As a result of this failure, the rifles had to go back to Ordnance with the zeroing screen shooting target fixed to them. Danny Hxxx at Donnington said during the time that these rifles were perfect and could go back on the shelf with new brackets - which they did eventually. I might have got bits mixed up a bit but that's the gist of the problem and how it was overcome. They did want some replacement fore-ends and handguards too and that's when they looked at sanctioning the use of L39 fore-ends but that never materialised although they did use the handguards
There were plenty of telescopes of course and these came from Ordnance in thick heavy creamy coloured sailcloth type material bags with a fold-in top. The telescopes were accountable and the old one had to go back. Mind you, one or two might have gone astray in the paperwork
Sorry for going off at a tangent but just ignore the stuff that you don't need!
-
The Following 4 Members Say Thank You to Peter Laidler For This Useful Post:
-
Contributing Member
Thanks for the explanation, Peter
Interesting that the bracket wore before the spigot on the front pad - weren't the pads made from EN1A - a pretty soft low carbon steel.
You would think that the cast iron bracket would have faired better than the pad?
-
Thank You to waco16 For This Useful Post:
-
The pads didn't wear as much as shear off. We could fix them but the spigot hole in the bracket could become visibly ovalised (Ovalised..... is that a word........?) Anyway. A lot of these problems and faults were manifesting themselves in the 80's when the grand old lady was getting tired.
-
Thank You to Peter Laidler For This Useful Post:
-
Originally Posted by
waco16
Thanks for the explanation, Peter
Interesting that the bracket wore before the spigot on the front pad - weren't the pads made from EN1A - a pretty soft low carbon steel.
You would think that the cast iron bracket would have faired better than the pad?
My first L42a1 has that drama. About 2 MOA vertical slop. If it weren't so consistant I suppose it would have to be sorted (have done it before), but I'm lazy and REALLY don't want to pull the scope from the bracket to do the repair.
This is the "repaired" bracket, not the "elongated hole" unit.
-
The Following 2 Members Say Thank You to jmoore For This Useful Post:
-
Contributing Member
I suppose we are all entitled to be a little worn after 40 odd years of (rough) service !
Nice repair on the bracket - did you bore it out and drop a sleeve in?
-
Thank You to waco16 For This Useful Post:
-
Originally Posted by
waco16
did you bore it out and drop a sleeve in?
"Drop" would not be a good term. About 0.0015" pinch. The happy part is that the length worked out perfectly. No secondary fitting. But it's definitely snug on the spigot. Hence the "dark" areas on the ID.
-
-
Advisory Panel
Can anyone pass any further comments on the most unusual, almost absurd number matching of the cradle/cradle caps....
Myself I think it's a genuine bracket, the patina and overall configuration is almost impossible to fake, and it's out of an old collection in the USA
. As for the wonky markings, I'd say it's a disgruntled employee thumbing their nose at authority as much as they can without having the product rejected as unfit for service and thereby getting themselves in trouble. Clearly done on purpose.
Would make no difference in use, in fact the more odd the markings, the easier they are to differentiate from others. Maybe someone thought he was going one better than the requirements!?
“There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.”
Edward Bernays, 1928
Much changes, much remains the same. 
-
-
Legacy Member
The seller just added the receiver pads today - very rough and extremely odd method of fixing to the receiver. The front pad has 3 screws and 2 pins - odd pattern for the screws - not to normal spec. Then there are the 2 pins that anchor the pad to the top of the receiver. The rear pad has only the through-hole for the bracket fixing screw - no individual mounting screws like we see on every other correct rifle - seller says rear mount was silver soldered only. With all that I've observed, it definitely looks "foreign" to British construction. I tend to agree with prior assertion this may have been a setup copied by and implemented by India (or another former colony using British equipment). I also think it is an original bracket - just not original to war department specs. With the odd configuration of the mounting blocks, I'd be concerned the bracket may not match the mounting points of a correctly setup rifle from H&H.
-
PM
