L39 A1 Stock question?

[Buccaneer]

I have recently acquired an L39 A1 rifle fitted with a number 4 butt, not the standard Monte Carlo style that is normal on these rifles.
At first I thought that someone might just have swopped it but I have since seen another in the same configuration.
As can be seen from the pictures the color match is very good so it is possible that this is how this rifle was built? Skennerton refers to a limited number of 7.62 "CENTAR" rifles being made up for cadet use but he states that the project did not continue, could this be one of those rifles?
Both of the rifles in the picture are 1970 manufacture and are only 20 rifles apart by their serial numbers, as can be seen both of them are fitted with the correct 7.62 magazine which seems rather early for this modification but I suppose it could have been done later in their lives.
Attachment 115532Attachment 115531Attachment 115530

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.

[XL39E1]

All L39A1's had the standard No4 butt fitted when built and issued to whatever unit! The butt fitted to the lower rifle (509) is a No8/Envoy/7.62 conv. butt fitted later in its life!
The Cadet Centar rifle were all engraved as such but there are very few around.
All the L39's were machined to take the 7.62mm Magazine, so that was just a case of take a mag off the shelf and fit it!

[Buccaneer]

All L39A1's had the standard No4 butt fitted when built and issued to whatever unit! The butt fitted to the lower rifle (509) is a No8/Envoy/7.62 conv. butt fitted later in its life!

Forgive me if I am a little confused as according to "Skennerton" The Lee Enfield , it would seem to indicate that the Envoy, Enforcer, L39 & L42 rifles were all fitted with the Monte Carlo stock as standard and I have found no mention of the standard No4 butt being used on any of these rifles. On both of the rifles that I have the color march is very good which would seem to indicate that both the butt and fore end were fitted at the same time, even the description given in "The Lee Enfield" states that the L39A1 rifle "is in essence an L42A1 sniper rifle without the telescopic sight or 7.62mm magazine" nowhere does it state that they were issued with a No4 butt, hence my original question.

[tr63]

It was issued with the Standard No 4 butt stock on the l39a1 , l42a1 as it left Enfield .

[Roger Payne]

If you think about it Paul, the L42A1 was 'just' a converted to 7.62mm No4 (T) & so retained its original type butt. The L39's also started life with standard No4 butts, although as intimated above, user preference may have resulted in some being changed to the No8/Envoy type.

[30Three]

My L39A1 has the standard No4 type butt.
Looks like you have two very nice rifles there!

[Alan de Enfield]

Forgive me if I am a little confused as according to "Skennerton" The Lee Enfield , it would seem to indicate that the Envoy, Enforcer, L39 & L42 rifles were all fitted with the Monte Carlo stock as standard and I have found no mention of the standard No4 butt being used on any of these rifles

If you look at the manual and master parrts list for the L39 (and L42) you will see that the butt is a standard No4, and it was only issued with the 'N' length butt.

Would you like a copy of the illustrated parts lists ?

[Strangely Brown]

The first L39 I ever bought was fitted with a standard No.4 butt; my first foray on the zero range at Bisley with it gave me a very fat lip after which Fultons, (he knows who he is!) very kindly found and fitted a No.8 butt for me.

I suspect it's a combination of head size and butt length as to why the standard butt suits some people but not others.

[Buccaneer]

If you look at the manual and master parrts list for the L39 (and L42) you will see that the butt is a standard No4, and it was only issued with the 'N' length butt.

Alan, many thanks for the offer, I had not seen an L39 before fitted with the standard No4 butt and I only used "The Lee Enfield" as a reference which does not mention or show the No4 butt being used. It will teach me to do a bit more research next time... Thanks to all for putting me straight.

[Peter Laidler]

L39 A1's. Don't forget that initially, it was proposed to use the remaining ex Fazakerley Mk2 bodies to 'new build' the No4T rifles using these new bodies and barrels to a new standardised spec. In effect, a fully interchangeable optical system as opposed to the accurate and time consuming method in use to set-up the old No4T. So far, so good. Then the money men got involved.......... So the purse was gradually closed and you retained the old fore-end that was weakened after being cut short. Handguards that were equally dire. And the great idea to rotate the telescope through 90 degrees clockwise to put the deflection drum on the right (range drum in place of azimuth/deflection - think about it.....) was kicked into touch pretty much because it would entail the manufacture of the new metric range drum and new 'upside-down' deflection drums.. So it was done on the cheap to use up the ex India failed 1965 contract magazines and extractors. The military L39 was done on the cheap too I suspect, as a means of using up the partially converted ex Fazakerley bodies