-
Legacy Member
The whole Lee-Enfield bedding thing is a serious field of study in its own right.
Because the rifle is stocked in two pieces, all the stuff pertaining to bedding Mausers etc. is fairly irrelevant.
Effectively ALL the recoil thrust is transferred to the butt via the extremely robust union of steel and wood in the butt socket. I suspect that a lot of the problems with "wobbly" butts are the result of fiddling or improper maintenance or assembly.
The front end of a butt is tapered. This taper matches the interior profile of the socket. However, the butts were made 0.030" oversized at the socket end. They were then soaked in linseed oil
for at least five minutes before being compressed in a die to nominal size. They were then immersed in linseed oil for at least half an hour before assembly. There MUST be compression of the tapered timber during assembly to the receiver or the butt will go wobbly quite quickly. Then there is the big one; bearing surfaces. There MUST be a clearance between the external rear face of the butt socket and the wrist of the butt. If not, the recoil force will be transferred via this tiny surface and the butt will compress at that point and even may chip. ALL the recoil force is to be transmitted via the compressed timber at the front of the conical section.
All this is necessary because the action locks at the rear. The Canadian J5550 "ultra-light" shed the socked and a lot of other bits of metal. Without the socket, there is nothing much to transfer the recoil to the wood apart from the draws / trigger hanger. Adding a lug like a Remington 700 at the front would not have worked because the recoil thrust emanates from the rear locking shoulders of a flexible receiver and the whole thing would have been dancing around in the wood in no time.
The square end of the stock bolt is another part of the problem on SMLEs. Too many "assemblers" get them as tight as they can with their often incorrect screwdrivers, then find that the square shank does not line up with the stock bolt plate in the fore end, so they back off the screw.
The fore end is basically there to keep the dirt out of the trigger, stop you burning your fingers during rapid strings and be a better handle for your bayonet-tipped pike. Conveniently, it may also be used by clever types as a damper for barrel whip and vibration. However, because it is a long stick of reasonably hard timber, the fore end is both a lever and a resonant body, completely independent of the butt. If you free-float the thing, it becomes one tine of a very dodgy tuning fork. The trigger guard runs at a 4.5 degree angle for a reason. The wedging action of a correctly trigger guard adds considerably to the rearward retention of the fore end under recoil.
The Lee-Enfield fore end is a whole different beast from the front bit of a one-piece stock.
-
-
08-05-2009 08:09 PM
# ADS
Friends and Sponsors
-
Banned
-
-
FREE MEMBER
NO Posting or PM's Allowed
Hi Frederick 303,
Thanks for all your insights, its great to be learning more about this rifle and what looks to me in 2009 to have been the golden era of enfield shooting. It's steadily more apparent that we're slowly losing those who really know their stuff, and in drafting my humble outline there has been few people to discuss the nuances with.
The intent of the article has been more to demonstrate accurizing techniques in situ for the compulsive tinkerers among us, as a complement to the sketches and text other members have posted, than to be be a truly definitive expose' of Fultons. I would imagine a completely unmodified Fultons no1mk3 would be a somewhat rare discovery.
Based on your examination of the other Fultons no1mk3's, have you ever seen those 'striations' under the receiver before?
Having looked over the pictures of the Fultons rifle at Joe Salters.com even Fultons seem to have been trying, discarding and improving techniques constantly, a living process as it were.
-
Legacy Member
Ed,
How are those screw-on sights working for you? Have you tried them out? Your son was quite insistent on me getting them ready for you for your Birthday. He really wanted to get you some sort of gift that you would like. Nice kid you have there.
RJW,
Based on what Ed wrote, if my post came off as know-it-all or snobby in any way, it was not meant that way. I was trying to be as accurate as possible, within the bounds of what facts I am fairly sure of. I am not an expert, just a fellow who really likes the target history aspect of the Lee Enfield and have collected a bit of data on the rifles over the last 9 years. I have a fair outline of what Fulton they did and when, but there are some notable gaps and there are some areas that the surviving samples seem to conflict with individuals recollections of Fulton regulation, when they did it and why. One example:
Writing to the NRA armourer at Bisley, he indicated that the weld build ups you see on the No1 action bodies were done in the 1950's and that the individual that did the welding is still alive. Apparently it had to be very carefully done with precise heat profile. However, in correspondence with other individuals who had rifles that they were sure were pre WWII regulation, such weld build ups were evident on such rifles. There was supposedly some variation in how the action body build up was done on those rifles.
As far as the action body striations go, I would expect they are Fulton work, I have not seen similar such cuts on Parker Hale, or AJ Parker rifles. That said I have found nothing in print on that, and am under the impression that Alex Martin rifles from the 1930s that were exported to Canada might have had similar such modifications, though that is based on one description of one Alex Martin SMLE imported into Canada between 1930 and 1940. I have not seen pictures of that particular rifle.
The written history of Fulton regulation on the SMLE is not well documents, in so far as I know. Some years ago I wrote to Fultons asking if they had any records on the rifles development and they responded by saying that Robin Fulton took those records when he sold the business around 1990. Apparently the family destroyed those records when he died.
-
Thank You to Frederick303 For This Useful Post:
-
Banned
-
Legacy Member
Ed, thank you for the kind words, but I really am not an expert just a fellow student. I have learned a lot from many on these sites, most especially Mr. Laidler, Kim Williams, other armourers and match rifle shooters/tinkers. Just for clarity sake, here is what I sent to Ed back around 2 years ago. I have clarified my comments and must add that I have no written verification for this (as I do have on the prior topics), as such do not take it as gospel. If someone has better information that that below, or actual written verification I would love to see it or be corrected on any erroneous statements. I must reiterate that, as I have noted that hearsay has a way of becoming established fact if it is repeated often enough. I would hope I am not contributing to any erroneous beliefs. With that warning, here is what I think Fulton did with regards to headspace and the substance of what I sent to Ed back in 2007:
Ed, you may not recall me but I sent you the text copy of Chapter 11 of Jim Sweets book on the Enfield. You had requested that from me some time ago. In any case I thought I might add some info that you might find helpful on the headspace issues you were discussing.
First, though I cannot prove it with a document that states it exactly; I have from several sources had indications that part of the Fulton "regulation" on their Sr(B) No 4 Rifles was to adjust the headspace for the current lots of RG ammunition being made at the time they sold the rifle. As you know the rim thickness varied between .058 and .063 inches RL (Woolrich) pre-war and RG post-war ammunition lots used at Bisley apparently held these tolerances a bit tighter, at least within each lot used at Bisley. If this was because it was actually monitored or because the lots used were made during a brief period and all cases were off of one case line (unlikely but possible) I do not know.
The procedure as described to me was that the ideal was to have the rear of the bolt "kissing" the case but not preloading the bolt (i.e. compressive tension on bolt/action body interface). The case wanted to naturally lie on the bottom of the chamber (as apposed to being held within the chamber between the rim and the forward wall of the chamber) with the rear of the bolt just touching or just short of touching the case. The bolt contact if it occurred should be such that it did not effect the natural position of the cartridge within the chamber, as there might be an occasional case which had a thinner rim. Ideally with the rear of the bolt "kissing" the rear of the thickest case one might expect to be issued, it was the best adjustment that could be achieved with issued ammunition. Practically this meant that the headspace would be around .0625 ~ .063, or so I was told.
The reason is to improve the consistency of the ignition. When a case is loaded into an oversized or tapered chamber, as you have on the Lee Enfield, the case lays on the bottom of the chamber. When the firing pin is released, and contacts the primer, the more free distance between the bolt and the barrel not occupied by the rim of the case, the more the case actually moves forward prior to ignition. The more headspace that exists, the more the case head movement back into the bolt face as the pressure within the case rises. This case movement will not be consistent, and does affect the ignition force on the primer and the vibration pattern created shot-to-shot. This random barrel vibration pattern will affect short range gilt edge accuracy and vertical long range accuracy.
Now the interesting thing is that Fulton set up an awful lot of the rifles that ended up winning and placing in the King and Queen's finals. The final stage is a long range 900~1000 yard contest and slight ignition differences that are less evident at shorter ranges do make a notable difference at the long line. This procedure is consistent with current target shooting art (maximizing consistency of ignition).
Now I cannot prove the above and the source was a fellow who was describing some Fulton tricks without revealing too much. He did not explain why it was done the technical explanation is my own hypothesis. It might be they closed the headspace up even more than above, but my recollection was he said it might be up to a "few thousandths under gauge". I would expect the Australians learned this trick from England, as I seem to recall it was not a really late development but known for some time, quite possibly pre war and even dating to as early as 1930.
The same gentlemen also spoke to me about "preloading the action" with headspace that was tight enough that it took some very slight force to close the action. The amount would be slight, but the action would start from a preloaded amount of tension. I understand this was done on some rifles meant for really long range shooting (900~1200 yards) in the match rifle division in the 1930s. This likely to be done when the early MK VIII type Kynoch match ammo was being used and such rifles were not used with issued military ammunition, as the variations in rim thickness and tension could then not be maintained. In this procedure the preloading tension had to be consistent or bad shots would result from those rounds having too much tension or those rounds having too little tension. This might explain using rim thickness gauges by shooters of the era, especially if such an action set up was used in the match rifle division. I do not recall if a tighter chamber was used with such a barrel but I would imagine that the chamber dimensions would be close to minimum spec. I gather this technique did not long survive, even in the match rifle division (Match rifle in UK refers to rifles used with heavier barrels and used @ 900 to 1200 yard any sight matches) being used for just a short while in the 1930's when the shift over from the .303 Magnum to the .303 MK VIII type ammunition occurred in the match rifle division.
The only physical evidence I have to back of the above hearsay on the first technique regarding the short headspace is that the L39A1 and the L42A1 both were set up with headspace dimensions that are a bit shorter than those seen in NATO chambers. The chambers are effectively "short". I would think this technique of short headspace was pulled from prior work done on the Enfields. Robin Fulton was involved in one manner or another; I seem to recall reading about his work on the first heavy barrels tested in the 1966~1968 time frame on the No 4 actions. Fulton was involved with the heavy barrel development of the Enfield hammer forged barrel, which subsequently was used in the L39/L42 platforms. For reference here are the headspace specs for 7.62 NATO M14/ L42A1 rifle.
M-14 rifle
7.62x51mm NATO Go 1.6355"
7.62x51mm NATO Field Reject 1.6455"
7.62x51 Enfield L42A1 sniper rifle
Go 1.628
No Go 1.635
-
The Following 7 Members Say Thank You to Frederick303 For This Useful Post:
-
FREE MEMBER
NO Posting or PM's Allowed
Would I get around all these headspace/rim thickness problems just by neck sizing brass, once it´s been through the same chamber?
(I´ve got a lot to learn in the short time that´s left)
-
If you have that option, then a guarded "yes", a neck sized case might help. Fulton's shooters were by and large shooting service ammo, however, so they ran w/in the constraints of their game.
-
-
Banned
Villiers
Headspace is governed by the cases you shoot and reload and not the rifle, American commercial cases were never designed to shoot in military chambers. Because these commercial cases are lighter and thinner they can become distorted (banana shaped) when fired above a certain pressure in a military chamber. When these warped banana shaped cases are reloaded your group sizes will increase determined by the amount of case distortion.
How and if you fire form your cases for zero headspace governs the initial case stretching and distortion, neck sizing a distorted banana shape case will not improve your accuracy.
-
FREE MEMBER
NO Posting or PM's Allowed
Yes, I´ve noticed the Privi, PMC and S&B last a lot longer than the US cases. Think the US also uses better grade, softer brass. The cartridge bases are noticeably wonky after only having been fired once or twice.
But if the case, when fired, fills out to the sides of the chamber and the bolt head, there´ s not going to be much space left for it to go banana shaped.
PM
Fred or Fredrick 303 contacted me by email and sent me information about how Fulton of Bisley headspaced some of their regulated Enfield’s and later information on bedding. 
