My old L42

[Robbs]

Time for some nostalgia. I purchased her in the late 80's in the UK for equivalent $700.00 Canadian (I was really looking for a No. 4 Mk1 (T), but my contact offered me this, what the hell I said). She looked sad but was all matching and I fixed her up and made her new again. I then learned all I could about the rifle. I actually talked to guys while on a UK exchange who fielded this the L42. The common thread was why did the British army wait so long to play catch up with the rest of the major armies when it came to having modern precision sniping rifles? Accounts from use during the Falklands war cited scopes fogging, wood swell affecting acuracy and just all round antiquated sniper rifle compared to what Argentina was fielding to their marksmen/snipers (U.S. made M21's). I eventually got myself a nice original No. 4 Mk1 (T) and the poor L42 could not match it in accuracy and grouping consistency with quality ammo. The rifle suffered terribly from forestock play. It was better with the top foreguard wood and front swivel band removed. Just as the British army did I traded her up for a modern precision rifle.
She was an interesting rifle to have for a while. An experience with history. But if a rifle is going to be in my collection it has to shoot well. I am a shooter damn it! I hope she continues to be a collector's wonder to future generations. Later old girl.

 

[stencollector]

I enjoy shooting my rifles as well, but at the same time, I don't mind a representative piece in the gun room. It would cost you your right arm to replace it these days. I always kick myself for not buying a L42 8 years back when they were just $1800. Mind you, the no4Ts were only $900 then.

It's hard to imagine why the British kept with the L42 for so long. While Laidler's books all rave about the L42, at the same time, there were so many advances in things like optics and synthetics, that one has to wonder what they were thinking using 50 year old technology in a theater of war.

 

[ian_in_vic]

I think that a lot of the "fuss" about the L42 probably started in Oman. In a climate as dry as that most of the issues wouldn't be apparent, and the individuals using the rifle in Oman were top tier. A thing to remember about the British, that we have inherited here in Canada, is that they are unbelievably cheap when it comes to the military in peacetime. Every time a major conflict appears it takes them time to get equipment up to speed, if the conflict isn't major they just don't bother. And yes, it costs lives.

 

[Lee Enfield]

I enjoy shooting my rifles as well, but at the same time, I don't mind a representative piece in the gun room. It would cost you your right arm to replace it these days. I always kick myself for not buying a L42 8 years back when they were just $1800. Mind you, the no4Ts were only $900 then.

It's hard to imagine why the British kept with the L42 for so long. While Laidler's books all rave about the L42, at the same time, there were so many advances in things like optics and synthetics, that one has to wonder what they were thinking using 50 year old technology in a theater of war.

Ah, but we have to remember that in 1968-70, the No32Mk3 with it's repeatable 1" elevation & windage adjustable turrets was still cutting edge.

The US was using M-84s, Redfields & K4 weavers at that time, none of which are as technically advanced as the No32.

I believe that (quite good) Kahles ZF-69 didn't debut until 1970, by which point in time the L-42 with it's recalibrated No32Mk3 scope was already in the pipeline....

The Unertl 10x from the late 1970s & Leopold 10x of the 1980s both were equipped with cammed turrets & 1 MOA click adjustments. The only improvement they have over the No32 is the magnification factor.

Sadly, there was no scope which was actually technically superior to the No32 in 1970.