A couple of L42 questions

[Longshaor]

Hi all,

I've got a couple of questions relating to the L42A1 sniper rifle. First off, the technical one. I understand that the barrel is a larger diameter than the old No 4 .303 barrels up to where the foresight block is mounted. Does anyone happen to know what that diameter is?

Now a service use question. With only 1080 or so rifles converted, how many were typically on issue within an infantry battalion? Were there some TA regiments that simply never got them?

Cheers!

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.

[enscien]

The original CR1470 barrel is 27.5" long with the breech end similar to that of the .303" original. It has a diameter of 0.93/0.92" at 4" from the breech end, tapering to 0.79/0.77" at 1.31/1.30" from the muzzle and left with the 'snakeskin' hammered finish. This last portion is turned down to 0.670/0.667" dia to suit the foresight block (original .303" Mk 1 type bored out to a larger internal diameter to suit). Later barrels were manufactured on a different hammering machine which could only produce a parallel blank so they had to be turned along the complete length, leaving a stepped portion in the middle where a lathe steady was used.

[Longshaor]

Hi Enscien,

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE INFO!!! I've been unable to scare up a copy of either the barrel drawing or get this sort of dimensional info until now. I'm planning on having Krieger make a custom 7.62mm heavy barrel to work with the L42 fore stock I already have. Thanks again, this has been a huge help!

Cheers!

[XL39E1]

Fultons of Bisley hold Enfield Drawings of these barrels! The earliest drawing dated 20 oct 1967 has a muzzle dimension of .588-.598, this is marked DD(E)24720/SK/392. Next is dated 24-June 1968 with a muzzle dimension of .587-.590. This is marked DD(E)24720/SK/392/J. Then there is a drawing dated 20 Nov 70 with muzzle dimensions of .667-.670. This appears to be the standard barrel after this date and marked with CR1470. Interestingly the L8 muzzle dimension appears to be .596 (drawing ref no DD(E)20029/392) dated 29 dec 1960.

[Longshaor]

THANKS, MATE!

I'll be e-mailing them tomorrow!

Cheers!

[enscien]

Fultons of Bisley hold Enfield Drawings of these barrels! The earliest drawing dated 20 oct 1967 has a muzzle dimension of .588-.598, this is marked DD(E)24720/SK/392. Next is dated 24-June 1968 with a muzzle dimension of .587-.590. This is marked DD(E)24720/SK/392/J. Then there is a drawing dated 20 Nov 70 with muzzle dimensions of .667-.670. This appears to be the standard barrel after this date and marked with CR1470. Interestingly the L8 muzzle dimension appears to be .596 (drawing ref no DD(E)20029/392) dated 29 dec 1960.

That ties in with the later foresight blocks which have a thinner wall where they are sweated onto the barrel. The change was made because some of the earlier thick walled blocks worked loose after firing.

[Peter Laidler]

As I remember it, the earliest barrels used standard No4 block band foresights but the specifications were too wide to accommodate the existing foresight blocks which could vary between not-go at all to just plain loose. So the barrel spec was increased. Now, the screw, protector foresight acted as the old pin, block band foresight would. It meant that each block band was machined to suit the barrel. That was the case up until the end. New barrels came machined down but the fitting of the block band foresight meant machining the internal diameter to the exact diameter required for that barrel. After that it was tinned and sweated in place. When cooled, a needle file cleared out the slot for the foresight protector screw.

I never heard of a thick walled block band foresight working loose as ours were always tinned as well as pinned although there were still a few in the system on older rifles but this is no doubt the cause for the change from thick walled to thin walled. In any case, a larger diameter barrel there is preferable in any case

The later, thin walled block band foresight had a smaller internal recess down the left and right of its length - the vestiges of its previous .303" rifle days. You could fill these narrow gaps with solder while sweating and aligning the block band. This kept it fully secure and trouble free thereafter

We had a few old trials barrels here at Warminster with both small and larger diameter muzzles

[enscien]

I never heard of a thick walled block band foresight working loose as ours were always tinned as well as pinned although there were still a few in the system on older rifles but this is no doubt the cause for the change from thick walled to thin walled. In any case, a larger diameter barrel there is preferable in any case

My understanding is that the problem was with the new 'block, band, foresight' as used on the L39 and Envoy conversions. These were only sweated on and weren't drilled for a retaining pin. (The Envoy type has the dovetail block slit for a retaining screw to clamp the commercial tunnel foresight, wheareas the L39 type has a solid dovetail, for a drive fit.)

[Peter Laidler]

As a matter of interest Ensci, we were permitted to and did occasionally replace the usual block band foresight on the L39's with either of the commercial types on condition that '.........there was no resort to public funds'. Indicating that if the rifle was set up with commercial sights, then they were to be provided by the individual or the unit, but not from public funds. Of course, the unit funds WERE public funds but noone questioned that. This was allowed so that units or individuals could partake in civilian competitions on even terms. I seem to remember that the EMER specified that when/if the rifle was returned to Ordnance, it had to be returned in its issued form.