L42A1 bolt head question

[chosenman]

I think its a misconception that a number of rifles were worked harder than any other. No L42 remained the property of any single unit all its life in fact they all rotated through the whole of the army due to the fact if one "broke" the rifle and its entire CES was packed in the chest and sent to a command workshop, a replacement rifle would be supplied to the unit in question. School of Infantry rifles were no different. My battalion never had the same eight rifles from one month to the next.

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.

[Brian Dick]

I'm sure Peter will be along to chime in.

Steve, I agree but there were so few conversions done in the first place that 20+ years of service definitely took it's toll on them. I've had a few that didn't see real hard service but the majority were very tired. The last 30 I imported that came from C.O. via C.S Military in 2001 were really rough at first glimpse, both the rifles and scopes. However, all of the scopes and rifles were serviced, repaired if necessary and test fired before resale and I never had a complaint from a buyer. I even exported some to the UK, Canada, and New Zealand where i assume they are still getting some range time along with the ones that are here in the USA.

[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

[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.

[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!