L1A1 fitted with a No.32 Scope

[tankhunter]

Could it be down to the L1/FAL having more fire power?

BP, A Snipers role does NOT really need more 'Firepower'. as you say. I ASSUME you mean by this, that the Rifle concerned has a bigger Magazine capacity than the L42?

The very nature of the Sniper's role is stealth. To that end, he would select targets carefully from a CAREFULLY chosen & well camoflauged position. One of his main considerations is NOT to be observed in his work. & his movements would be precise, Careful/slow. So as not to attract attention. A larger magazine capacity for a sniper's role is really of low importance to be honest. It is ACCURACY that is of the UTMOST primary consideration. No matter WHAT Semi-Auto weapon is chosen to do the same job. I am of the Opinion that a Bolt Action Snpier Rifle is superior to a semi!

I submit that the picture of the Soldier with the the Scoped SLR has merely picked it up on the Battlefield & fitted it to his SLR. As it looks 'Ally' (Good) as we used to say in the Para's! something that always happened in a combat enviroment worldwide. In all Armies I suggest, is the Souvenier hunter! Undoubtably, a scope would aid observation of targets etc of your general Infantier. But The powerfull Jolting upon recoil that is produced from an SLR. would more than likely make short work of the internal gracticule in this case! No, this was procured merely to stand out as something a bit different for his mates to see & look good. In HIS opinion, I suggest!

Just my Professional opinion of course!

Peter, your thoughts on this Sir!.............

[David TS]

Any idea what that scope is on Muffers photo is, anyone? Looks like the mounts are stuck onto the cover with some blobs of araldite or chewing gum

My first thought on seeing the photo (and before seeing your post Peter) was that the image is photoshopped.

A bit of trawling round t'internet has found the original caption to the photo:

"South Vietnam. January 1971. Private Ron Graham of Mount Hawthorn, Vic, sizes up a target through the 2.75mm telescopic sights of his SLR L1A1. Private Graham was serving with C Company, 7th Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment (7RAR), based near the 1st Australian Task Force Base (1ATF) at Nui Dat. Infantrymen reported that the sights were first class for targets beyond 300 yards and were more often used for watching tracks."

The 2.75mm bit is probably a bit of journalistic ignorance, I suspect it means a 2.75x magnification scope.

Apparently the Belgians used some weird strap mounts:

Image hosting, free photo sharing video sharing at Photobucket

So now I'm not so sure...........

---------- Post added at 08:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:46 AM ----------

By the way, shortly I will be posting a picture of my L1A1 fitted with a SUSAT

[Brit plumber]

BP, A Snipers role does NOT really need more 'Firepower'. as you say. I ASSUME you mean by this, that the Rifle concerned has a bigger Magazine capacity than the L42?

Yep, more rounds in the mag. Maybe he thinks of himself as a sharpshooter than a sniper. He has gone as far as camoing his rifle to. The sling also looks like an Argie sling to me, the end looks like it has a longer tab on the end than a Brit sling and it also looks like it can twist at the swivel unlike the Brit L1. Can anyone point out why the rifle in the photo is a L1 rather than a FAL?

L1A1


Argentine FAL


Even the front sight protectors are similar. The big give away to me would be the handguard vents that have been covered.

[David TS]

Can anyone point out why the rifle in the photo is a L1 rather than a FAL?

The photo in Muffett's post #17?

Aussie SLR's were inch L1A1's, not metric FAL's, they were made by SAF Lithgow

[Peter Laidler]

I heard the same that Big Duke report BUT interestingly, this is not mentioned in any of the post-op reports so...........

[Brit plumber]

The photo in Muffett's post #17?

Aussie SLR's were inch L1A1's, not metric FAL's, they were made by SAF Lithgow

Sorry, I meant the one that the Royal Marine in the Falklands has. I know some of the differences between the L1 and the FAL but I can't tell with the Marine photo. The giveaway to me would be the machining on the body or the vents in the hand guard but I can't see either. I've been cought out in the past by looking at the sight protectors as some FALs had a similar style to the L1A1.

[skiprat]

In the photo of the marine, the flash eliminator looks to be the British type, long, with slots, and a prominent bayonet lug on the bottom.

[David TS]

Sorry, I meant the one that the Royal Marine in the Falklands has. I know some of the differences between the L1 and the FAL but I can't tell with the Marine photo. The giveaway to me would be the machining on the body or the vents in the hand guard but I can't see either. I've been cought out in the past by looking at the sight protectors as some FALs had a similar style to the L1A1.

Ah, apologies.........

It is difficult to ID as the fore end guards are covered with scrim or similar, but if you look carefully it appears you can maybe just see the front ventilation hole
in the hand guard, which would suggest it is a Brit L1A1 and not a FAL (as that would of course be three slots).

[Lanceng156]

Sorry to bring up an old thread but...



3 LI taken between Nov 72 - Mar 73: Northern Ireland: Belfast (Ardoyne) or Apr - Aug 74: Northern Ireland: Belfast (Lower Falls).

Cheers
Danny

[Peter Laidler]

We've seen this 3LI/ex KSLI photo before and the same comments would apply now as then.