I think it's fair to say the sales pitch is creative!

[bigduke6]

I did a deal with seller, so there on the way the fact they are two it certainly won't fit in the space in the transit chest provided, So I'm going to try what I said in post #14.......

[Flying10uk]

In summary, the 3 key points of Buccaneer's post 18 are:

but as the CES specification was never altered to include them then for the collector the only correct item would be the single bottle.

It has been pointed out many times on this forum that the first item out of the spares rack was the one that was fitted and no one bothered to see if they were "matching" so it would seem in this case what they had is what they used.

It would therefor seem that although there was no official documentation to support the use of the twin bottles they were if fact used, if only for a short time, towards the end of the lifespan of the L42.

[Peter Laidler]

Er........... what are you saying F-10? In relation to what?

[gundoc2112]

If I'm not mistaken, the two chambered oiler was brought up in another thread and it was pointed out that cutting it in half and using in leu of the actual pull through container would not work as these are smaller diameter and therefore would not fit the slot in the chest nor hold the brush.

Beg pardon, but the story sounds hokey to me. If the purpose of the pull through container being added to the L42 CES was to hold the lens brush, then it makes little sense that the British army would have substituted that item with an oiler that would not work for that intended purpose or fit in the appropriate slot. Just sayin'.

[Flying10uk]

Beg pardon, but the story sounds hokey to me. If the purpose of the pull through container being added to the L42 CES was to hold the lens brush, then it makes little sense that the British army would have substituted that item with an oiler that would not work for that intended purpose or fit in the appropriate slot. Just sayin'.

Do you have any personal experience of this matter?

[CINDERS]

Peter L if your repairing or replacing items at a forward repair depot is it (advisable?) are you able to to add items that are not officially sanctioned but will do the same job if the normal spares are unavailable like the what is being thrashed about here

[gundoc2112]

Do you have any personal experience of this matter?

Just my opinion, that's all. I'd just like to point out:
1) in all this forum, that includes former British snipers, armourers, and advanced collectors, there has been no mention of the discussed item being part of the L42A1 CES,official or otherwise
2) The discussed item would not work for the purpose of the CES item it is being theorized to have substituted.
3) Despite no knowledge of the above mentioned folks, you have one guy that is selling the discussed item (at a much marked up price; type in 'Swedish oiler' in ebay keyword, they go for $4.00)cites being an ex armorer as the sole proof of this being legit.

Maybe it's just me, but I've been to enough gun shows to have trust issues. Caveat Emptor and all that good stuff. But alas, it is just my lowly opinion. Take it for what it's worth.

[CINDERS]

Every body's opinion is worth it GD whether people act on it or not is entirely up to them or to buy a story and not the item well thats their peril for not doing their leg work or like here asking anyway bloke it is what it is.
Stories are exactly that they need tangible proof thats why I posed the question to Peter as if anyone can supply a reasonable and plausible answer it would be himself but not forgetting the other armourers and long experienced gun doctors here in this site, I just thought one source would suffice, but feel free to chip in the more knowledge we get the better.

[Buccaneer]

Beg pardon, but the story sounds hokey to me. If the purpose of the pull through container being added to the L42 CES was to hold the lens brush, then it makes little sense that the British army would have substituted that item with an oiler that would not work for that intended purpose or fit in the appropriate slot. Just sayin'.

During my conversation with the seller I asked about the stowage and he said that they were altered at unit level to accept the twin storage bottle, he also said that the lens cleaning brush was reduced in length to fit as the twin bottle is slightly shorter.
As he pointed out there was no official sanction for doing this that he was aware of they just used what was supplied to keep a soon to be obsolete weapon system going.
I have spoken to two unconnected sources who both say that they saw / used the twin bottle in the L42 CES, this does not make it official or correct all it says that at some point they were used.

[Peter Laidler]

I just say as I saw - and know. The FACT is that during its life there was never a shortage of the little bottle, nor was there a dues-out and original stocks (from the Charlie G) were still in stock long after the kit was declared obsolescent and much later, when it was declared obsolete.

Permitted changes in the CES were detailed in the green CES book via a series of little paste-in (or over-written) amendments. A good example of this was the authorised replacement plastic case for the Sct Regt Scope which was change number 18 or so as I recall. But if a unit Armourer at a hard pressed unit took it upon himself to make a small change, then who would notice you might ask. I'll tell you. The annual PRE/UEI team inspection, that's who - and it WOULD be noted on their paperwork return! As for taking out the wooden housing block, enlarge the hole and strap and............ Not in my limited experience I'd proffer especially when the real McCoy was readily available. Lots of the rifles and cans were fitted with webbing slings as a preference by the sniper but the original would be in the chest. This was to be expected

You could get away with crap stuff. Say for example you'd encountered a shortage or hicc-up in the supply chain for some reason just prior to the PRE (or UEI) inspection. In that case you might strip a, say, GPMG to make up two or three other guns serviceable. But you'd tell them the problem and what you'd done. Skippy will know this system best.

There were some parts of a CES which if missing, the kit would simply not, never, be issued. Not saying that the bottle would be a bar to issue. Just as example of how things worked