For what it's worth, I don't understand why some people have to show their rear ends around here, especially when the topic is personal preferences. Boxer, the old phrase about being 'inebriated with the voluptuousness of his own verbosity' comes to mind whenever I read your posts.
I had no experience with L46s until I agreed to help the widow of a coworker dispose of a large home gunshop. There were three pickup loads of all sorts of firearms related parts and paraphernalia. I found a bare barreled action that had large slabs of rust on several areas. It was a 1951 Riihimaki in 222.
We kept scratching around until we found enough of the pieces to put together a completed barreled action except for the bracket that held the magazine in place. There was no factory stock, but there were two partially finished stocks that were appropriately sized for the action. I put the thing together and buffed all the rust off, even though I assumed the bore was likely in the same shape as the exterior. I had to block out the magazine well and turn it into a single shot which suited me just fine.
When I got ready to fire it, I discovered that it had been rechambered to 223 Rem without changing the bbl caliber stamping. I came very close to touching off a 222 in it which could have been interesting. I was pleasantly surprised to find that it shot just fine. I am able to get �" out of it even though I've never gotten serous about load development. Hornady 55s and WC846 powder shoots better than I can.
To me this is the perfect rifle. Because the exterior is in such bad shape, I was able to buy it for my own use. If it had been immaculate, I'd have set a price on it beyond what I'd be willing to pay personally. At a distance, she looks pretty good. Get within holding distance and your first thought would be 'what in the world happened to this classic'. I am a poor at working with wood, so the stock details are in as bad a shape as the metal. Looks good at a distance, though. It suits me to a tee.