Enfield 1983 dated rifle??

[Peter Laidler]

An apology to KtK:

During this thread, it veered over to the fact that new L1A1 bodies were supplied by Lithgow to New Zealand. I expressed the gravest disbelief that this could happen for several reasons. One being that the body is the 'master component' and if you supplied 'spares', then you could -and some definately WOULD - make up a rifle (or in this case, a machine gun) from spares. Scary, but true. Another reason was that the serially numbering of the master component is the method by which the £7/15/- licensing royalties per gun could be assured. (It varied a bit between EFD/LB/MA depending on agreed/forecase output).

In total disbelief that this could happen, I contacted a Senior Army Officer in NZ and while the answer didn't come from him for roundabout reasons that have to remain restricted, the answer has come from another impeccable source.......

The short answer is yes, the NZ Army Base Workshops at Trentham did replace L1A1 bodies. The early Lithgow L1A1’s had soft bodies and these were progressively replaced as the rifles passed through the workshops, from un-numbered replacement bodies supplied by Lithgow. These bodies were then pantograph renumbered to match the original number. Some bodies were also replaced if any looseness could be detected in the fit of the locking shoulder *(a practice that was often done to get a spare body to finish up to a complete rifle for personal use ‘outside the system’). Hand stamped numbers would indicate such a shonky replacement, where the officially replaced bodies were always pantographed in the original style. The odd rifle has turned with no numbers at all, particularly after the L1A1 was declared obsolete but plenty of spares were still in store. The RNZAF Workshops at Woodburn near Blenheim were fairly prolific in turning out ‘new’ privately owned L1A1’s. When a body was scrapped for destruction there was no real physical check to make sure that actually occurred, just an Amourer’s report that the body was written off. Things are much different today where all destruction is carried out under supervision.

So there it is, virtually from the horses mouth, that NZ were supplied new bodies to replace the soft original bodies. A totally alien situation to my cloistered world! Apologies Kevin......
* a common fault that would ZF a rifle until oversize locking shoulders were introduced. The oversize was of the actual shaft to take up the wear in the body and not the actual shoulder part. It was THIS that gave rise to the 'stretching bodies' myth. But once the rot had set in, even the different 'oversizes' became a palliative and not a real cure

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.

[Peter Laidler]

Whatever the factory does is a matter for the individual factory but as the L1A1 and L7 guns are a 'licence build' and as such, the body is the accountable part up[on which royalties are levied, Lithgow, Enfield could simply scrap rifle AD12345 and rebuiold another rifle as 12345. And everyone is happy! At Enfield, we didn't run a FTR programme for the L1A1 rifles and a rifle, say, UB60A12345 found with a damaged beyond repair body would be certified destroyed at Ordnance. And that would be that! For a GPMG, where we DID run a full Enfield FTR prohramme, then if a GPMG UE69A12345 went in with, say, ovalised body rivet holes of cracked side plate/plates, then it was scrapped and the number never re-issued. The idea that we'd re-body was something totallt alien

You are talking about a rifle with a missing of lost number. A recovered rifle would be sent back through the full workshop system for a full ground-up rebuild. This was because you wouldn't know what'd happened to it while it was 'lost'. It might have been lost in the sea during a beach landing or during a river crossing...., you know the sort of thing. If the number was known, it'd be reinstated otherwise a new number would be allocated from the MoD security people who deal with such stuff

[Woodsy]

Strangely enough Peter, in NZ we repaired GPMG's with ovalised sideplate holes by redrilling and installing larger rivets, extending their life by a few years. That said, the old L7's have been scrapped and we have now gone to the latest FN produced MAG GPMG which seems to have solved the problem.

[mrclark303]

Strangely enough Peter, in NZ we repaired GPMG's with ovalised sideplate holes by redrilling and installing larger rivets, extending their life by a few years. That said, the old L7's have been scrapped and we have now gone to the latest FN produced MAG GPMG which seems to have solved the problem.

Unfortunately the vendor selling the "83 Enfield" hasn't contacted me back, so I guess we will never get to the bottom of this interesting rifle.

[Peter Laidler]

I don't think the '83 Enfield was interesting as such except as a way of cooking the books! As it's aroused a degree of interest, maybe that's why it's all gone quiet.

Re the GPMG's. We found that you could only go up one rivet size on some of the rivets. The problems arose when the ovalised rivet holes became ovalised over the next rivet size diameter. Then it was the chop!

[mrclark303]

Well I for one would love go know how this rifle "came to be", nothing to do with the current owner/dealer, I am sure he bought it in the trade that way, why would he bother, its not a high cost item and a new spec deac Enfield or Lithgow would be worth the same really.

I wonder if someone with access to a significant stock of mixed L1A1 parts is assembling them for deac display??

I don't think that's against the rules is it, providing the paper trail is correct ???

It might explain the delibarete wrong date...

Very limited market for live rifles here.

Love to see who is listed as submitting on the deac cert!