Interesting video from Ian McCollum - L8(T)

Bolt action rifles, lever action, pump action, self loading rifles and other miscellaneous longarms.

Interesting video from Ian McCollum - L8(T)

Post by bladeracer » 15 Dec 2021, 9:16 am

https://youtu.be/F5axeVX84gs

L8(T) Sniper Rifle Trials.
The .7.62x51mm Conversions to the No4 Rifle.
Apparently they selected some No4(T) rifles for their accuracy in .303, then converted them into L8(T) Rifles (basically changed the barrel and magazine to 7.62x51mm), and retested them to see if they were any more accurate.
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12656
Victoria

Re: Interesting video from Ian McCollum - L8(T)

Post by disco stu » 15 Dec 2021, 10:33 am

Have to laugh, typical government program spending years to achieve what civilians were already managing to do.

Interesting video. I always enjoy his videos
disco stu
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 526
New South Wales

Re: Interesting video from Ian McCollum - L8(T)

Post by bladeracer » 15 Dec 2021, 12:26 pm

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


Yes, that was a laugh :-)
Even in Afganistan troops were having high- and low-tech equipment sent to them from their families back home because it was better than the government was giving them to work with.
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12656
Victoria

Re: Interesting video from Ian McCollum - L8(T)

Post by bigrich » 15 Dec 2021, 4:06 pm

i love gun jesus :D
User avatar
bigrich
Brigadier
Brigadier
 
Posts: 4485
Queensland

Re: Interesting video from Ian McCollum - L8(T)

Post by Wm.Traynor » 15 Dec 2021, 7:28 pm

I had to watch "the L42A1 sniper", video on the same channel. I barely recall seeing something like them at the QRA (Belmont) donkeys years ago. They were acquired by Oz blokes who intended to compete at Bisley. The bullet was the "notorious" 144 grain solid and it was said that the rear locking action of the SMLE gave better elevation at 1000 yards than the Omark.
My recollection of this period is very hazy and others might like to correct me. I am not at all sure of my facts now but thank you bladeracer for the topic :thumbsup:
Wm.Traynor
Sergeant Major
Sergeant Major
 
Posts: 1644
Queensland

Re: Interesting video from Ian McCollum - L8(T)

Post by Wyliecoyote » 15 Dec 2021, 11:02 pm

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.
Wyliecoyote
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 141
Queensland

Re: Interesting video from Ian McCollum - L8(T)

Post by straightshooter » 16 Dec 2021, 6:16 am

Wyliecoyote
Much of your commentary reasonably reflects reality but is liable to give 303 venerators apoplexy.
"Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about."
"There is no expedient to which a man will not resort to avoid the real labor of thinking." Sir Joshua Reynolds
straightshooter
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1263
New South Wales

Re: Interesting video from Ian McCollum - L8(T)

Post by in2anity » 16 Dec 2021, 7:45 am

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 honestly 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, with Central+blade front sight:

IMG_3152.jpg
No4-223 50m Central+blade
IMG_3152.jpg (78.27 KiB) Viewed 4056 times


This is literally the first and the last time it's ever been shot over the bags. The very first 5 shots after being rebarreled. Now with a round count at around 500 (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 shooting ammo they like, 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.
Last edited by in2anity on 16 Dec 2021, 9:19 am, edited 5 times in total.
At what point does lack of maintenance become patina?
User avatar
in2anity
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3048
New South Wales

Re: Interesting video from Ian McCollum - L8(T)

Post by in2anity » 16 Dec 2021, 7:51 am

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.
Last edited by in2anity on 16 Dec 2021, 7:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
At what point does lack of maintenance become patina?
User avatar
in2anity
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3048
New South Wales

Re: Interesting video from Ian McCollum - L8(T)

Post by bladeracer » 16 Dec 2021, 7:54 am

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:
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:

IMG_3152.jpg


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.
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12656
Victoria

Re: Interesting video from Ian McCollum - L8(T)

Post by in2anity » 16 Dec 2021, 7:56 am

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.

Blade they were shooting exactly the same as i describe in the 60s and 70s - heck probs better because people could actually shoot back then and were a lot more into SR shooting. SR shooters regularly shot their SMLE's with Central sights in TR-like fullbore comps up against omarks, and still shot possibles. That's by-definition sub 2moa.
At what point does lack of maintenance become patina?
User avatar
in2anity
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3048
New South Wales

Re: Interesting video from Ian McCollum - L8(T)

Post by bladeracer » 16 Dec 2021, 7:58 am

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?
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12656
Victoria

Re: Interesting video from Ian McCollum - L8(T)

Post by in2anity » 16 Dec 2021, 8:06 am

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?


An OG l42 with the right ammo would put the first x10 into a 1.5moa no dramas, probs even tighter for the first x5. I just threw in a quick search and found this https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=55065 that's what I see every Saturday, over irons, out of pretty arbitrary No4-7.62 converts.

T-Bone isn't performing miracles - he applies the same basic principles as was done 50 years ago (and does it well), albeit slightly different ejector setup, and obv barrel tech has improved. But there were still many "diamonds in the rough" barrels/actions 50 years ago. As you know, every barrel is unique. Isolating "shooter" No4 donars was part of the process, then retrofitting with a heavy range barrel, and tuning the rifle over huge sample sizes - literally thousands of rounds. None of this "i bought another milsurp, let's shoot a 5 shot group using s**t factory ammo, from our comfy chair+bags, and make 'the forum-post-to-end-all-forum-posts' about accuracy" as if you have any idea of what your are talking about.

Probs the biggest criticism of the l42 is not so much accuracy, but reliability. They are indeed finnicky beasts to keep cycling with 100% reliability, especially with rimless cases, dissimilar to modern designs such as the l96a1. I sure know which one I'd prefer to take into combat, and it has nothing to do with inherent accuracy - both will score the necessary hits.
At what point does lack of maintenance become patina?
User avatar
in2anity
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3048
New South Wales

Re: Interesting video from Ian McCollum - L8(T)

Post by Wyliecoyote » 16 Dec 2021, 9:27 pm

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.
As for a 223 on a number 4 as validation, seriously? The stresses of the 308 campared to 223 are not proof of anything other than the action was not suited to begin with. Which it wasn't.
We are talking a military sniper rifle shooting military issued ball ammunition, not handloading for a MADDCO or even Black Mountain or Lithgow barrel. Completely out of context because of the different scenario and era as Blade has pointed out.
When i was at Inf Center in Singleton we occasionally took L42s for a run at Cessnock or Mudgee where many of the sniper students and staff shot them. With circa 1978 L2A2, a batch known for delivering consistent accuracy, some of the PH 82s would run well under MOA. Not all of them, but some of them. The L42s liked L2A2 better that the latter F prefix ammo of the mid 80s, but at no time did any of the L42s excel to the point anyone would say anything reassembling high praise. They served a purpose and now rightly sit with collectors and in museums.

I have absolutely no doubt that one could sit down and tinker to get one of these things to shoot acceptably, but the military doesn't handload or play with bedding. There is no unit like the US marines have at Quantico that screws barrels in and out of their M40s until their purpose made M118LR ammo shoots under half MOA. The Aus military do not use gunsmiths to tune rifles, they have armorers that fix broken parts.There needs to be a seperation of one off feats of the NRA or SSAA and various gunsmiths that labour over 303 clunkers as opposed to our own military issued rifles and ammunition.
The sole objective with the replacement of the L42 was to get a rifle that could go anywhere in the world, with a current lot of military ball ammo and expect it to do the job. It simply couldn't and that came from all those that served with them, trained with them or used them as a comparison of what we once had been issued.
The Parker Hale 82 was not perfect, but it was better, it's scope would fog up in the tropics as its seals aged, the wood stock walked and gave POI issues, and it to has since been replaced for those very performance reasons the L42 also didn't meet. The fact is that those who actually used the L42s, are the ones that called for their replacement. That would be primarily, Noel Izslaub, Darby Matthews, Phil Oakford and Jimmy Dixon and as i stated earlier, all voted in favor of the SSG69 during the 1980s trials. In later years they would be my instructors at sniper section of Inf Centre.
Wyliecoyote
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 141
Queensland

Re: Interesting video from Ian McCollum - L8(T)

Post by in2anity » 17 Dec 2021, 7:21 am

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.
At what point does lack of maintenance become patina?
User avatar
in2anity
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3048
New South Wales

Re: Interesting video from Ian McCollum - L8(T)

Post by bladeracer » 17 Dec 2021, 9:34 am

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:
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.
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12656
Victoria

Re: Interesting video from Ian McCollum - L8(T)

Post by in2anity » 17 Dec 2021, 9:44 am

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 :unknown:
At what point does lack of maintenance become patina?
User avatar
in2anity
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3048
New South Wales

Re: Interesting video from Ian McCollum - L8(T)

Post by bladeracer » 17 Dec 2021, 10:58 am

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 :unknown:


Being "in service" can mean simply that they were stashed in a locker somewhere and they forgot to offload them years ago, or it could mean a few guys found good rifles that they liked so they stuck with them when their mates were converting to something better. It doesn't necessarily mean all combat units went to war with all of them right up to their last day.

If the military only required 3MoA out of them, and they were achieving that, then they were performing as required. Trying to claim they were effortlessly or consistently making 2MoA or better back then, simply because modern ones are achieving it now, is just silly. Just our knowledge of how to get the best out of the rifle is so much broader than it was back then, let alone the technology advances. If Troy Corser took a 1980 RG500 around Phillip Island now, and we assumed it went the same forty years ago, we'd all be thinking it must've been laps ahead of everything else back in the day :-)

Whether the military kept up an effort to improve them I have no idea, but if any significan changes were made I would expect to see different suffixes. If it started and ended as the L42A1 then I doubt much changed.
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12656
Victoria

Re: Interesting video from Ian McCollum - L8(T)

Post by Gun-nut » 17 Dec 2021, 5:19 pm

It's my understanding from the research I've done, that the biggest deficiencies of the l42 system were the 1930's era no32 scope that was used throughout the rifle's service life into the 1990s. Be interesting to see what one could do with a modern optic.
Gun-nut
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 428
Victoria

Re: Interesting video from Ian McCollum - L8(T)

Post by in2anity » 18 Dec 2021, 9:18 am

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.
At what point does lack of maintenance become patina?
User avatar
in2anity
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3048
New South Wales

Re: Interesting video from Ian McCollum - L8(T)

Post by bladeracer » 18 Dec 2021, 10:44 am

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.


How many of them were "easily sub-2MoA" though? A handful of rifles selected out of the batch for their precision does not mean they all shot the same. If I had a large enough sample and a heap of load development I'm sure I could put together a sub-MoA Sten Gun eventually :-)
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12656
Victoria

Re: Interesting video from Ian McCollum - L8(T)

Post by bladeracer » 18 Dec 2021, 10:47 am

You are trying to declare that the rifle generally, meaning virtually all of them, were awesome shooters, but you are working from a tiny sample that have been weeded out over decades for their precision, and then had a lot of tuning done to further improve them. That's a vastly different proposition to an armourer receiving a truck load of rifles to distribute to units.
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12656
Victoria

Re: Interesting video from Ian McCollum - L8(T)

Post by in2anity » 18 Dec 2021, 6:59 pm

Seems like some are trying to declare that the bell curve of distrubution of accuracy is rather crap for the l42a1, which i don't agree with. I reckon "most" of them shot pretty damned well. No doubt we are all wrong to a degree, and the actual truth lies somewhere on that curve - something we will never know for sure.
At what point does lack of maintenance become patina?
User avatar
in2anity
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3048
New South Wales


Back to top
 
Return to Centerfire rifles