Pachett v. Sterling Engineering Co.

[Lee Enfield]

https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/...CZBIA4LVPAVW3Q

fascinating legal decision & discussion of Mr. Pachett's travails with the Sterling Engineering Co. regarding patent rights & fees during 18 November to 14 Dec 1953...

And the text of the employment advert that Mr. Pachett answered in Dec 1941.

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]

This amply illustrates the strained relationship between Patchett and Redgrave. It was said to be more of a personal personality clash as opposed to the Sterling Company. The last owner, in private conversation, didn't have a good word to say about him. Indeed, when he was employed for certain tasks - and the Mk5/L34 springs to mind, it was on strict documented and enforceable terms agreed between both parties of course. But he got on well with the people as such - providing you accepted that he was correct - at all times!

(This paragraph has been agreed with the living parties)

[Gil Boyd]

Is it just me.............cant seem to open that XML file to take a look.

[Peter Laidler]

It's all legalese Barrister type jargon of the era Gil;. Nowadays, the party's Barristers would be called into the Judges chambers and told to go away and get to the gist of the matter and come back when a compromise deal has been agreed.

[henry r]

But he got on well with the people as such - providing you accepted that he was correct - at all times!

one of my grandfathers was an electrical engineer who trained between the wars... perhaps this was something they were taught.

[Lee Enfield]

This amply illustrates the strained relationship between Patchett and Redgrave. It was said to be more of a personal personality clash as opposed to the Sterling Company. The last owner, in private conversation, didn't have a good word to say about him. Indeed, when he was employed for certain tasks - and the Mk5/L34 springs to mind, it was on strict documented and enforceable terms agreed between both parties of course. But he got on well with the people as such - providing you accepted that he was correct - at all times!

(This paragraph has been agreed with the living parties)

I take it that you are referring to Patchett?


If you are still in touch with Mr. Howroyd, can he confirm that the Mk7 was developed to use surplus (presumably damaged or out of spec in some way) incomplete Mk5/L34A1 casings?

[Peter Laidler]

My words were carefully selected for me.
Is there any reason for asking about the use of damaged or otherwise casings? I ask because at a certain point in production the collection of parts that make the casing become 'the master component' and are fully accountable and recorded. So after that point, then it is highly unlikely that a gun would change from something to something else. Add to this that throughout the production of gins at Sterling, their wastage of casings was negligible

[Lee Enfield]

My words were carefully selected for me.
Is there any reason for asking about the use of damaged or otherwise casings? I ask because at a certain point in production the collection of parts that make the casing become 'the master component' and are fully accountable and recorded. So after that point, then it is highly unlikely that a gun would change from something to something else. Add to this that throughout the production of gins at Sterling, their wastage of casings was negligible

The reason for inquiring is that a Mk7 and Mk5 share the same barrel retaining system and mid casing barrel bushing.

It seems to "stand to reason" that if one had a Mk5 casing (perhaps damaged when installing the front or rear surpressor bearing surfaces) it would be simply a matter of removing the (damaged) front casing section and "viola" a Mk7 has appeared (assuming the stock trunnion isn't installed yet).

This is based around incomplete casings rather than returned from service or to the factory completed guns.

[Lee Enfield]

and appealed to the House of Lords in 2-9th Dec 1954/ 20 January 55
https://watermark.silverchair.com/72...5mToqkY2Z22lWg

[Gil Boyd]

I'm trying really hard here to read most of whats posted but again I get this:

Your session has timed out. Please go back to the article page and click the PDF link again.

am I alone?