L42A1 bolt head question

[gundoc2112]

The following is a continuation of a conversation on another forum in regards to an L42A1 that has a #3 bolt head fitted.

The question is, when the L42s were converted, did they get new #0 bolt heads or were the bolt head that was on the No4T just get proofed to 19T?

I have read much about the proofing, but little else. As the accounts of the No4Ts being 'long in the tooth', I reckon it is plausible that a No4T could have come to the work bench with a #3 bolt head prior to conversion.

Thanks in advance for any input on this mystery and happy new year to all.

[chosenman]

I would suggest new bolt head. New barrel, new chamber, new head space, new bolt head. From what I have seen the numbers on 4T and L42 heads differ in that the font on the 4T heads are period correct when compared to the L42 which are standard bold. In any case surely the L42 conversion involved a tip to toe refurbished bolt.
Question for me is. Were the engineering capabilities precision enough to always fit a #0 bolt head when considering the conversion was of a firearm body which was manufactured twenty something years earlier to the technology standards of that era. Did all L42's leave Enfield with #0 head fitted. I've also owned three 4T's and all had a #2 head fitted.

[30Three]

I was wondering if there is any physical difference between the L42/L39 bolt head and the No4mk1 bolt head apart from the proof to 19 tons?
Would it be possible to fit a standard No4 bolt head and have it proofed?
When the conversion kits to 7,62 were produced, did the kit come with a set of the new bolt heads to be selected after barrel fitting?

[Brian Dick]

Remember also that the L42A1 with a #3 bolt head fitted may have had a shorter bolt head fitted originally after conversion. They weren't surplused until they were pretty much ALL long in the tooth and may have had upgrades over the course of their service which was 20 plus years. Many were used in the sniper schools too and got flogged to death in training, class after class.

The .303 and 7.62 bolt heads are identical with the 7.62 being proofed to 19T.

[gundoc2112]

As to your first sentence, it would cerainly make me hesitant to drop that much coin on a rifle with a limited amount of barrel life (and no replacement barrels to speak of),and that was my concern specifically in regards to the subject rifle. I was, however coming at the conversation from the standpoint of having owned and shot .303 Enfields. It was pointed out that the L42, having been chambered for a modern cartridge and not the more corrosive Mk7, eroding headspace and needing to change bolt heads would not likely be an issue.

As stated, I had never read anything thus far about new bolt heads being utilized in the conversion process, just that bot heads were proofed. I have since read through all the old threads on this forum to be sure I didn't miss anything. In my reading, I have seen many accounts of the No4Ts being worn and that the L42 program was done on the cheap.

I've gone through all the pictures on this site, of the L42s with the bolt number visible, all were #0.

---------- Post added at 05:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:28 PM ----------

Remember also that the L42A1 with a #3 bolt head fitted may have had a shorter bolt head fitted originally after conversion. They weren't surplused until they were pretty much ALL long in the tooth and may have had upgrades over the course of their service which was 20 plus years. Many were used in the sniper schools too and got flogged to death in training, class after class.

The .303 and 7.62 bolt heads are identical with the 7.62 being proofed to 19T.

So, the rifles were fitted with #0 bolt heads upon conversion?

[Roger Payne]

I very much doubt that it would have been mandatory even for them to have gone out with a 0 bolt head on them at the time of conversion; they would have gone out with the bolt head that gave a correct fit for the various bolt fit parameters (lift, over travel, & so forth), & the correct head space.

When we hear from PL no doubt we will get the definitive.....!

[Brian Dick]

I just looked at three I have here. Two of them are 1971 conversions with #3 heads fitted. The other is a 1975 conversion with a #0 fitted. They used what bolt head was needed to pass the gauging standard and that was it.

I have to say that if you want one, get it. With only 1080 produced and roughly half that number in the scrap pile, it's one of the rarest sniper rifles one can own. I can also attest that even the very tired rifles, barring the ones with worn out bodies, will shoot better than most of us can anyhow. I've had 60 plus through here since the early 90's and they always made me smile on the range!

[chosenman]

I think its a misconception that a number of rifles were worked harder than any other. No L42 remained the property of any single unit all its life in fact they all rotated through the whole of the army due to the fact if one "broke" the rifle and its entire CES was packed in the chest and sent to a command workshop, a replacement rifle would be supplied to the unit in question. School of Infantry rifles were no different. My battalion never had the same eight rifles from one month to the next.

[gundoc2112]

I very much doubt that it would have been mandatory even for them to have gone out with a 0 bolt head on them at the time of conversion; they would have gone out with the bolt head that gave a correct fit for the various bolt fit parameters (lift, over travel, & so forth), & the correct head space.

When we hear from PL no doubt we will get the definitive.....!

I would definitely be interested in the Captain's input!

---------- Post added at 05:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:42 PM ----------

I just looked at three I have here. Two of them are 1971 conversions with #3 heads fitted. The other is a 1975 conversion with a #0 fitted. They used what bolt head was needed to pass the gauging standard and that was it.

I have to say that if you want one, get it. With only 1080 produced and roughly half that number in the scrap pile, it's one of the rarest sniper rifles one can own. I can also attest that even the very tired rifles, barring the ones with worn out bodies, will shoot better than most of us can anyhow. I've had 60 plus through here since the early 90's and they always made me smile on the range!

I agree,and after many years of lustING after everyone on here's collections, L42 # A1991 will be arriving next week via the brown truck of happiness!

The rifle that had spurred this question, though, is the one currently on GB auction.

---------- Post added at 05:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:45 PM ----------

I think its a misconception that a number of rifles were worked harder than any other. No L42 remained the property of any single unit all its life in fact they all rotated through the whole of the army due to the fact if one "broke" the rifle and its entire CES was packed in the chest and sent to a command workshop, a replacement rifle would be supplied to the unit in question. School of Infantry rifles were no different. My battalion never had the same eight rifles from one month to the next.

I have read those accounts. Very much different than in the USMC. Unless an M40A3 was beyond repair, it was always sent back to the owning unit after higher echelon maintenance was completed.

[Brian Dick]

I'm sure Peter will be along to chime in.

Steve, I agree but there were so few conversions done in the first place that 20+ years of service definitely took it's toll on them. I've had a few that didn't see real hard service but the majority were very tired. The last 30 I imported that came from C.O. via C.S Military in 2001 were really rough at first glimpse, both the rifles and scopes. However, all of the scopes and rifles were serviced, repaired if necessary and test fired before resale and I never had a complaint from a buyer. I even exported some to the UK, Canada, and New Zealand where i assume they are still getting some range time along with the ones that are here in the USA.