I read that Aussie snipers actually made some of the No.1 HT snipers fully free floating and got great accuracy. Wondered whether this would work with a No.4? I have a project, unmatching No.4 with a good barrel but rough as boots wood with ishapore screw, various shades and types of wood and it will probably be bedded round the action with Acraglass as the area under the knox is too low to get the correct bedding as per peter and Tbone projects etc.
Yes, it can be free floated. Pressure on the forend could still make the stock touch the barrel, though.
It can also be center bedded, with a bedding pad built up between the two lightening slots.
What you ought to remember is that if there was a more accurate method of bedding a No4, then why wasn't it used in the first place? Believe me, as someone who has had to fit a few fore-ends and bed them according to 'the book', it'd be FAR easier to just make a barrel fully floating. Better still, if a fully floating barrel was a better option, why wasn't it used in the super accurate No4T
If I was you and wanted accuracy, I'd get a replacement fore-end and fit the body and barrel properly
The better question is the direction you went in, and that is accuracy with H barreled no1 mk3's. One of the most accurate H barreld rifles I've owned was ruff as guts, 100 floated average cond H barrel, and had a larger than average pressure plate around the main screw as the only non stock addition to the rifle, not even did it have up pressure at the barrel.
Hey charlie, watch you'r email tomorrow, I'll send you something interesting.
Now it could be that the H barrel liked being floated for reasons other than physical, ie perhaps the H floated
harmonics worked better than a no4 fully floated, but remember that the No4 barrel is 100% fully floated, with the exception that a number of people established that slight up tension reduced the accuracy more, so that is in the only contact.
I think it was Ed H used to put here an animation of a barrel snaking around, very good wat to visualize the issue.
Lets not forget where the H barrel originated from, a cut back lee metford (to measurements) barrel. yes it was thought to be better harmonics and that it still was approved by the NRA at the heavier than standard weight barrel because it was dimensionally the same as the lee metford one. I haven't ever had a lee metford apart to examine the bedding set up but would be betting it wouldn't be much different than the SMLE. So what Iam trying to get around to saying is that it doesn't have to be fully floated to shoot better. In fact i have seen some old range No1 mk3's with that much cork on top of and below it that it would'nt move if it had a truck trying to bend it!!and they shot very very well.Quote:
Originally Posted by RJW NZ
Cheers
Ned
Peter is absolutely correct in that the specified method of stocking up a No. 4 was to provide upward pressure at the forend tip. Center bedding was developed by target shooters because it was noted that the forend tip pressure could vary if the wood in the forend took on or gave off moisture. A retired CF armourer I met at the Prize Meeting at the Connaught Ranges told me that the most accurate LB No.4 he tested was one that happened to be free floating. Because it was not to spec, it was rejected, notwithstanding its shooting capability.
If by 'fully floating' you mean that the barrel is clear of everything, even the nocks form, then you'd be wise to remember that it's a whole lot of weight hanging off the front of the body - and even more so off the front of a light No1 rifle body.
The Small Arms School and Enfield tried all manner of stocking up configurations at the end of the war and guess what configuration constantly came out top. You got it in one!
It is worth remembering that the Lee Enfield series is fitted with a two-piece stock.
Therefore there is no material continuity between the fore end and the butt.
Thus all the tricks used on Mausers and Remingtons etc. are generally to no avail, for the simple reason that the mechanical structure is quite different, And then there is the fact that the action is rear-locking and thus behaves quite differently under recoil. The clever chaps at Enfield who took Lee's basic rifle and turned into the Lee Enfield (via the Metford series), knew what they were on about. It wasn't just about economizing on the walnut supplies.
A further complication is that the rifles were built and tuned for the ammo of the day; in the case of the No4, Mk7 ball. The catch for "hobby' users of the breed is that Mk7 ball is all but unavailable these days. If you successfully tweak your barrel bedding for one load, make sure you lay in a serious stash of components. You can just about guarantee that the beast will shoot all over the farm with a different load. And any correlation between the trajectory and the sight calibrations will be random coincidences. Unsurprisingly, just about every other sort of rifle on the planet is also fussy about its diet.
One example is the M-14 / M-1A. If you do a clone of the AMTU set-up and bedding, and shoot the requisite match ammo, you will probably get quite a thrill. Fiddle with the recipe and all bets are off. One individual of my acquaintance "worked" his M-1A by bedding the action but decided to "free-float" it by removing the little "hook" on the lower band (the plate behind the gas cylinder that is "unitized" in the AMTU set-up). The result was that the rifle sprayed ball and "match" ammo all over the place but would do amazing things with 125gn varmint bullets; Speers as I recall.
Military rifles are built around the ammo. Just look at all the various changes that occurred with the basic SMLE in the transition from Mk6 to Mk7 ammo: sight calibration, magazine design, bedding etc. Try getting reliable ammo retention and feed in a No4 using 125gn bullets!! Then see how much fun folk have with the wildcats like .303-.25!
thanks Bruce,Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz
finally someone with a way of thinking like me. As I tell all others who shoot service rifle and wonder why I can get good scores and them not, that these rifles where built around a standard load factory ammo, replicate as close as possible the ballistics and whacko it will shoot as it should. many do not understand this FACT.
Every breed of service rifle I have shot and there is not many that i haven't, I have loaded ammo to rerpoduce the issue ammo of the day.It simply works and takes out the one variable when trying to tune these nearly 100 yr olds!!!
Cheers
Ned
seems common sensish to me. I have yet to start the reloading thing though i have saved all my cases for each rifle. Anyone got a Mk7 ball recipe in the USA?