1971 L42A1 Enfield Sniper Rifle (Originally a No.4 Mk1(T) mfg by Long Branch)

[mudgee]

Regarding the L42A1 made at Long Branch, SN 71L0630, with matching in-service L1A1 scope serial number 116-C. A lovely rifle.

SUMMARY: My belief is that 71L0630 was built on a 1945 dated body, and likely was originally fitted with a C No. 32 Mk. II scope, serial numbered in the high 600-C range, and was later fitted with an L1A1 scope made from a C No. 32 Mk. 3 serial number 116-C.

* This rifle started off as a No. 4 Mk.I*(T) not a No. 4 Mk.I(T).

* No.4 MK.I*(T) 71L0555 has a 1944 dated body. No. 4 MK. I*(T) 71L0573 has a 1945 dated body. L42A1 SN 71L0630 is serial numbered after both of these rifles and it is extremely unlikely that an older, i.e. 1943, dated body would appear in this batch. At the moment I have recorded 8 sniper rifles in the 71Lxxxx series dated 1944, and 6 (including this one) dated 1945. I am not aware of any 71Lxxxx rifles dated 1943. I have other 71Lxxxx rifles listed as well, but there are no year of manufacture recorded for those bodies.

* The year on the body of this L42A1 has a rounded bottom on the last digit, so that rules out 1944.

* This rifle 71L0630 likely left the Small Arms Limited factory at Long Branch with a C No. 32 Mk. II scope in the high 600-C serial number range, but as the butt has been changed, we do not know that first scope's serial number. Rifle 71L0644, 14 higher that the L42A1 in question, has its wrist marked for scope 696-C. My research database shows that the scopes were NOT mated to the rifles in a strict sequential order, so one cannot extrapolate accurately for the original scope serial number. The C No. 32 Mk. 3 scopes appear to have been reserved for the 90Lxxxx series of sniper rifles. e.g. 90L8198 was and still is matched with C No. 32 Mk. 3 SN 22-C. I believe that this scope 116-C was mated with this rifle 71L0630 either in normal British service or when it was converted to L42A1.

Seaforth interesting comments thanks

[Badger]

Necrothread of the week for sure.

Yes, it’s normally a no-no, but in this case due to the value of the research and continuity of the thread, we made an exception.

Regards
Doug

[Surpmil]

Necrothread of the week for sure.

What would the point be of starting another thread, and *maybe* posting a link to the earlier thread, when this way readers can just scroll back from the last post if they want to know the rest of the story? If the information still valid and still of interest, what is "necro" about it?

Websites which are all about entertainment and driving traffic don't like thread revivals because it doesn't show as well on their stats, which they use to sell advertising space. Websites which are about serious research and the sharing of useful information have different policies. It's a bit like building market share through quality rather than gimmickry.

Of course the presence of recognized authorities like Peter Laidler, Warren and others brought many of us here in the first place, but it's the quality of the info which has resulted and the carefully crafted and often improved format which make that information accessible which have made this site the success it is.