disco stu wrote:Have to laugh, typical government program spending years to achieve what civilians were already managing to do.
Interesting video. I always enjoy his videos
Wyliecoyote wrote:As to those L42s, never saw one that could shoot a decent group, 4 inches at a 100 was outstanding. More importantly i never saw one hold a day to day POI and this was a primary reason they were poorly regarded along with scopes failing, scopes internally fogging up in tropical climate, mounts breaking, mounting screws breaking, headspace issues, barrels fouling excessively, magazine issues and so on. Deservedly, their only place is in a museum or the local dump.
During the 1980s trial phase of a replacement for the L42 all testing snipers voted unanimously for the SSG69 P1 with the ZF69 Zeiss. There were other rifles including a modified Omark fitted with a SLR magazine. We ended up with the 82s with the ZF69 as a compromise. Great scope, fairly average rifle but they came with a spare barrel and extractor and iron sights. With those iron sights fitted it was surprising how a good shot could reliably hit a figure 11 target at 800 meters.
The L42s were sold off for a few hundred dollars to those who wanted one with their sniper owners having first option. Most sat in armouries for years and i have no doubt there will be some still there today.
Whenever i get into a conversation about these old gems i often get asked what is the best way to bed a number 4 or any other variant of 303. My answer is simple. Gently dropped into one cubic meter of Readymix.
The often referred to phenomena of number 4s having a better elevation at a 1000 yards and beyond is contentious. The theory being that the action flexes in such a way that the slow and fast bullet converge at some predetermined range of around a mile. The legend goes you shot the Omark to 900 yards and then brought out the 3oh to finish the 1000. Best of of luck with that. I must add that the exponents of this this myth were almost always C graders, were in their 80s and fought at Tobruk.
Brian Litz of various US shooting teams and connected closely to Berger bullets has for a number of years asked for anyone in possession of a mythical positive compensation rifle to present it for evaluation. To date, not a single rifle has been put forward, yet the myth perpetuates.
straightshooter wrote:Wyliecoyote
Much of your commentary reasonably reflects reality but is liable to give 303 venerators apoplexy.
in2anity wrote:Wyliecoyote wrote:As to those L42s, never saw one that could shoot a decent group, 4 inches at a 100 was outstanding. More importantly i never saw one hold a day to day POI and this was a primary reason they were poorly regarded along with scopes failing, scopes internally fogging up in tropical climate, mounts breaking, mounting screws breaking, headspace issues, barrels fouling excessively, magazine issues and so on. Deservedly, their only place is in a museum or the local dump.
During the 1980s trial phase of a replacement for the L42 all testing snipers voted unanimously for the SSG69 P1 with the ZF69 Zeiss. There were other rifles including a modified Omark fitted with a SLR magazine. We ended up with the 82s with the ZF69 as a compromise. Great scope, fairly average rifle but they came with a spare barrel and extractor and iron sights. With those iron sights fitted it was surprising how a good shot could reliably hit a figure 11 target at 800 meters.
The L42s were sold off for a few hundred dollars to those who wanted one with their sniper owners having first option. Most sat in armouries for years and i have no doubt there will be some still there today.
Whenever i get into a conversation about these old gems i often get asked what is the best way to bed a number 4 or any other variant of 303. My answer is simple. Gently dropped into one cubic meter of Readymix.
The often referred to phenomena of number 4s having a better elevation at a 1000 yards and beyond is contentious. The theory being that the action flexes in such a way that the slow and fast bullet converge at some predetermined range of around a mile. The legend goes you shot the Omark to 900 yards and then brought out the 3oh to finish the 1000. Best of of luck with that. I must add that the exponents of this this myth were almost always C graders, were in their 80s and fought at Tobruk.
Brian Litz of various US shooting teams and connected closely to Berger bullets has for a number of years asked for anyone in possession of a mythical positive compensation rifle to present it for evaluation. To date, not a single rifle has been put forward, yet the myth perpetuates.
Well you obviously haven't seen many shoot my friend. As an almost weekly observer of No4-7.62 conversions, I can attest that all No4-7.62 rifles built and stocked up by any decent service rifle shooter easily go south of 2moa. That's seriously just a basic requirement for being in Master Grade. In fact, you want some proof, here's my No4-223 over the bags at 50m:
This is literally the first and the last time it's ever been shot over the bags; with a round count at around 500 now (all SR comp shooting), she's still a baby and will shoot x10 into 2moa at 500m from the sling if you're doing your bit. A possible at 500m if you will, i.e. < 2moa with wind. The No4-7.62 conversions are absolutely no different - properly stocked up some will mechanically go close to 1moa. The 7.62 are in fact more forgiving to use at distance because they shrug the wind better. I witness it regularly with my own eyes.
Marcus Odean has a No4-7.62 that can hit Vs at 1000yards under forgiving wind.
Seriously mate you've got no idea what you're talking about, sorry. It all revolves around the stocking up.
bladeracer wrote:I think his comments are historical, about what was happening back in the day. Nowadays I'm sure modern technology and modification has made these rifles more capable, fifty years after they needed that capability.
in2anity wrote:straightshooter wrote:Wyliecoyote
Much of your commentary reasonably reflects reality but is liable to give 303 venerators apoplexy.
Sorry, but he's simply not right. Yes "off-the-rack" SMLEs and No4 303s generally don't yield great accuracy, but the L42 has been accurised. A tuned L42 will go close to 1moa, by definition. It wouldn't have made it through trials and lasted like it did if it were worse than this. Any No4-7.62 rifle built by T-Bone is basically guaranteed to be a sub 2moa gun, from the sling - that's the service he offers.
bladeracer wrote:in2anity wrote:straightshooter wrote:Wyliecoyote
Much of your commentary reasonably reflects reality but is liable to give 303 venerators apoplexy.
Sorry, but he's simply not right. Yes "off-the-rack" SMLEs and No4 303s generally don't yield great accuracy, but the L42 has been accurised. A tuned L42 will go close to 1moa, by definition. It wouldn't have made it through trials and lasted like it did if it were worse than this. Any No4-7.62 rifle built by T-Bone is basically guaranteed to be a sub 2moa gun, from the sling - that's the service he offers.
When you say "by definition", what was the requirement in the day from the L42 for it to be accepted? I thought it was only required to give 2MoA at 100m?
Was T-Bone building the L42 back then though, or are they building them with modern materials and machining?
Wyliecoyote wrote:I think many of you have missed my most important point. Its all well and good to cite intances of range rifles hitting "Vs" given you have sighters, 11 in fact because the last is the only shot fired blind. The L42 was not capable of maintaining a constant POI which is the most important factor for the purpose of military use irrespective of whether it could shoot 1/2 or 4 MOA.
in2anity wrote:Wyliecoyote wrote:I think many of you have missed my most important point. Its all well and good to cite intances of range rifles hitting "Vs" given you have sighters, 11 in fact because the last is the only shot fired blind. The L42 was not capable of maintaining a constant POI which is the most important factor for the purpose of military use irrespective of whether it could shoot 1/2 or 4 MOA.
A properly stocked up l42-esque hb rifle should not have a wandering poi any worse than similar free floaters of 60s/70s/80s era. Unlike the whippy, front-bedded No4 (or worse SMLE), the l42a1 bedding is only 2-point. It's when the bedding like the drawers and king screw area starts to break down that you start to see strange groups - and yes, it requires great attentiveness to keep on top of this tuning. I'm not arguing that this wasn't out of the scope of military maintenance - that makes complete sense. All I'm saying is that No4-7.62 conversions (including l42a1s) are a lot better than 4moa shooters, even when they are hot, and can shoot the same score as say an l96a1 from the sling, particularly in a SR match. Well, if your shooting this F-class kind of stuff, yeah ofc it's not gonna shoot into the X-ring.
bladeracer wrote:I think you are applying fifty-years of continual testing and improvement that the rifle didn't have when it came out. No military can keep a weapon in service for several decades while they iron it out, it has to work from day one or it gets dumped and replaced with something that does work.
in2anity wrote:bladeracer wrote:I think you are applying fifty-years of continual testing and improvement that the rifle didn't have when it came out. No military can keep a weapon in service for several decades while they iron it out, it has to work from day one or it gets dumped and replaced with something that does work.
But the l42a1 wasn't dumped until the nineties? (indicating it must have performed "well-enough"). Surely they would have kept refining them over this long period of service? Not sure I i get yu point Blade
in2anity wrote:We’ll all just have to agree to disagree on this one. The original l42a1 posting a competitive score against a palma target rifle of the era is a realistic proposition, with accounts of it being done even on the longs. The implication for this is an easily sub 2moa rifle, likely much closer to 1moa. Granted the original l8(T) is different beast (we digress), with poor performance largely stemming from inappropriate bedding. But as I said, these sorts of builds can, and DO get tuned to a high performing level, even to this day. Is just requires big samples of groups data.