Boys Anti Tank rifles for the Carriers

[rob love]

I used to stow my mk1 Boys rifle in it's holders without any major issue. The only issues I had earlier were the use of the flat style muzzle break, which does not fit into the carrier, but I know both Kevin and Bruce have that problem licked.

I am nearing completion of my current carrier, so hopefully in the next month I can verify the fit of my current Boys rifle in my current carrier.

I would love to solve the mystery behind what exactly went into those little stowage clips on the back deck of the carrier. The carrier was designed for the earlier Boys rifle, so they will not be for the two legged V bipod. Peter Laidler is supposed to have a small book on the Boys rifle available at some point. Perhaps I'll contact him on another forum and see what light he can shed on it.

[Bruce Parker (RIP)]

Originally Posted by rob love

I would love to solve the mystery behind what exactly went into those little stowage clips on the back deck of the carrier. The carrier was designed for the earlier Boys rifle, so they will not be for the two legged V bipod. Peter Laidler is supposed to have a small book on the Boys rifle available at some point. Perhaps I'll contact him on another forum and see what light he can shed on it.

That mystery is even more confounding if the Boys is stowed 'ready for use' (ie with the monopod attached).

[Bruce Parker (RIP)]

I tried the fit again. The bracket at the back is 2" wide and falls 54" to 57" from the division plate muzzle bracket, which means it coincides with the rifle wooden cheek piece. The problem is that the cheek piece plus the rifle at that point is over 4" wide.

No fit.

I thought that maybe the bracket was meant to hold the cheek rest and left hand carriage rail of the Boys only, with the buffer tube and right rail hanging off the bracket inwards. This worked at the rear end but the barrel was too far to the right to fit the middle support bracket. So I took off the cheek piece and it clicked into place. The rubber strap won't work with the stud on the right and I think the stud would be better positioned on the bottom of the bracket. Mine is on the side because I think it originally took a web strap that used a buckle at the top: the stud being the anchor for the strap (similar to the way the web strap works out the front of the commander's position).

Note how the monopod sits nicely in the space forward of the cooker trays.

The odd thing is that there is room on the left side of the rear bracket so why didn't they make it wide enough to hold all 4" of the rifle without removing anything? The butt bracket in the front is wide so why not the rear one?

And of course, what DO those clips under the batter box hold? My guess (assuming they hold a Canadian Boys bipod at all) is that that is exactly what they are for. If you were unlucky enough to be issued a Canadian Boys I don't think the bipod would fit as neatly as the British monopod. In that case it may have been necessary to remove it, like it or not. Did early British carriers have these clips?

[rob love]

I have the earlier monopod on mine. I thought I had checked it for fit before, and it did not. I'l try it again next time I head out to the shop.

I can't see them making the operator remove the cheekrest in order to stow the rifle. Anytime you have an operator un-do screws, you lose them. They would have to have a stowage bin filled with the screws, along with bandaids for the damage the screwdriver will inevitably cause to their fingertips.

[Bruce Parker (RIP)]

Originally Posted by rob love

I have the earlier monopod on mine. I thought I had checked it for fit before, and it did not. I'l try it again next time I head out to the shop.

I can't see them making the operator remove the cheekrest in order to stow the rifle. Anytime you have an operator un-do screws, you lose them. They would have to have a stowage bin filled with the screws, along with bandaids for the damage the screwdriver will inevitably cause to their fingertips.

I agree, it doesn't make sense to take things apart for stowage unless there's a conflict and absolutely no other choice. Not great when you want to deploy the weapon in a hurry too. The problem is that I have the original brackets and the rifle just doesn't fit otherwise. I've considered trying it upside down with the pointy side of the cheek rest sitting on the bracket felt but I expect the cast butt piece will conflict. There would be no problem with the monopod however...

Here's pic of a similar Mk.1 carrier so I think the rear bracket is correct. Front and middle came with the carrier and can only go on one way.

[Bruce Parker (RIP)]

OK, final theory (yet untested):

What about sitting the rifle on it's right side? Muzzle and middle support would work (the front even better because the foresight rubs against the stowage locker when the rifle is upright). The side of the right carriage rail would sit comfortably on the felt as it's only 1-5/8" tall. The bottom of the rifle and cheek rest would sit against the tall, left side of the bracket, explaining why it is taller than the right. The butt piece and wood grip are nicely out of the way.

By rotating the rifle on its right side the monopod might conflict with the stowage box, hence requiring storage under the battery box??? Or maybe the monopod would sit above/rest on the stowage box, but the Canadian bipod would not, hence the battery box clips?

Nice theory, but again it begs the question why, given that a small change in the bracket would allow the rifle to remain whole and accessible.

[kevin powles]

Gents, I'm sure in one of Nigel's books there is a picture of it stowed, I will look later today, I'm sure it is either stowed mounted upside down or on its side. That monopod will most defiantly not fit in the clips under the battery box.