Comments by "geodkyt" (@geodkyt) on "L8(T) Enfield: The British Army Fails to Make a Sniper" video.

I also wonder if they didn't out-think themselves by trying to convert existing No4(T) rifles for this program. After all, while the No4(T) rifles had been hand selected from No4 Mk1 rifles for accuracy before being converted to No4(T), after converting the rifles to 7.62x51mm, you've basically reset the rifle back to "normal production", and so you have no idea if the converted caliber rifle is an example of a "typical"production rifle, an exceptionally accurate example, or "just barely meets minimum standards" rifle. They probably would have seen better results if they had followed the same process as was originally done to create the No4(T) rifles - hand select exceptionally accurate L8 rifles ( after the NATO conversion) and then send them to the top gunsmith to get fitted into a "sniper" configuration and married to a scope. Had Britain finalized the L8 program in the early to mid 1950s, and followed the same plan as the original No4(T) by "sniperizing" exceptional L8 rifles instead of trying to convert existing No4(T) rifles to NATO caliber sniper rifles, they might have ended up adopting an "L8(T)" as their Cold War sniper rifle (rather than develop the L42A1), even if the "infantry" L8 rifles ended up only briefly equipping Territorials until they could get L1A1s. But this would have hinged on having enough L8 rifles produced to be able to cherry pick the best ones for sniper conversions, fast enough that they didn't see a need to do a more extensive sniper development. By 1965, having survived with the WWII era No4(T) just fine (despite them using a now "nonstandard" catridge), the pressure to get a NATO caliber sniper rifle into service simply wasn't great enough to justify not going the extra mile for more accuracy, especially as Britain was not in a "wartime economy" production mode nor trying to also completely replace all of the rest of their small arms suite at the same time. So, taking an extra 5 more years to get the L42A1 was worth it by then. Ultimately the L42A1 was a far superior sniper rifle, but one that probably wouldn't have been feasible in WWII, amd probably wouldn't have been considered worth the effort in the 1950s The No4(T) was a pretty limited conversion path nowhere near how involved and extensive the conversion process was for the L42A1 ("take an exceptionally accurate standard infantry rifle, install a rear sight with the battlesight aperture ground off, screw on a cheek riser, install a 3rd sling swivel in front of the magazine, and drill and tap for a scope mount" as opposed to "do all that, but also rebarrel them with a unique match grade barrel, and cut down and accurize the stock) how much production capability it would have cost them... after all, in addition to fielding the No4(T) quite widely as a sniper rifle, in WWII they were using it as a section ("squad", in American parlance) level SDM in parachute rifle units.
70
@Panzermeister36 You don't compare TO the standard rifles to evaluate the sniper rifles. But, you don't select rifles at random, slap scopes.on them, and test those against already know good sniper rifles - which is basically what they did with the L8 sniper versions. You compare the standard rifles to EACH other, and hand pick the best ones for conversion to sniper rifles. See, the original No4(T) rifles were hand selected from the most accurate No4 Mk1 rifles. Then they scoped up those rifles for No4(T) snipers. They did not take an untested rifle and decide, "Well this one will be a No4(T)," and convert it before test firing it for baseline accuracy. But, when they rebarrelled existing No4(T) rifles to .308, they effectively did the equivalent of grabbing No4 rifles at random off the new production line, slapping a scope on them, and then being surprised that they didn't perform well. Much of the secret to accurizing a No4 rifle (without going to a different, far stiffer and incompatible with the standard forearm, barrel) is literally, "I dunno" because of the variables the light barrel and full length forearm impose.
2
@Panzermeister36 When they rebarrelled them the way they did, they went and added back in the variable that had been filtered out when the rifles were first selected to be built into No4(T) back in the 1940s. That's why the L42A1 uses a heavier, stiffer barrel, with the forearm cut away. It eliminates the possibility of those variables caused by a relatively thin barrel in a fully stocked forearm that isn't free floated.
1