Worn / Damaged Crown

There are a lot of Enfields with worn or damaged crowns, and owners looking to counter-bore or re-barrel - is it necessary ?

Here is an interesting article suggesting that maybe it is'nt always necessary

The Over-Rated Crown

If the .301" gauge runs freely then leave it alone is my option

I don't think I've come across an Enfield that appeared to have its shooting affected by crown damage. No4s in particular very frequently have dents and dings around the crown, but it doesn't seem to have any noticeable effect. Same goes for pitting in the couple of inches at the muzzle.

Interesting results especially with such ugly looking damage to the muzzle/crown. 'Hard to believe the results. Now, an explanation would be great as I have spent considerable funds and time and anguish recrowning several rifles for negligible improvements over what were essentially fine shooting Swedish Mauser rifles........I did the re-crowning simply because I believed/had been educated to believe it had to be done and that it was necessary and for aesthetics. Is recrowning primarily an issue to improve long range accuracy? Does it have practical value for short range shooting/hunting?:sos:

I've been educated to the same end. Re crowning was the only way to re establish accuracy. Is this so much balloon juice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

I've been educated to the same end. ...........

---

Me too - thats why I posted it.

Maybe one of our 'engineering' type forummers has an old rifle they dont mind butchering and could duplicate the test and see if the results match ?

I have burnished the dinged crowns of a few rifles, with a good cosmetic results. I am too poor a marksman to really know if the group tightened, but I was pleased. I used a long, thick, countersunk brass wood screw, valve grinding paste to go between the screw head and the crown, a power drill/driver to spin the screw, and an aluminium sleeve to protect the bore. I ended up with a sparkling smooth crown and absolutely no damage to the rifling. I can explain in more detail if anyone is interested.

Surely............ Leaving aside the .306 or .307 gauges that are simply barrel/muzzle WEAR gauges, then if the actual BORE gauge of .301" runs smoothly '.... without let, hinderance or hesitation' (or .297 in the case of the 7.62's) then THAT is the final arbiter.

Or am I missing something in the telling here? After all, if whatever it is you're fretting about ain't impeding the gauge, then the bullet MUST be good to go.

A bbright shining crowned muzzle might LOOK good but it ain't doin' nothin!

The perceived wisdom seems to be that ' having a nice shiney, perfect crown / muzzle' helps accuracy - a damaged crown / muzzle has a negative effect on accuracy.

My very limited understanding - what I have been told - is that if the last inch (for example) is bit chewed up with little of no rifling then the bullet will 'flop about' as it comes out of the muzzle, will be unstable and accuracy will be lost.

I suppose you could say that a .306 (or .301) gauge would run thru' a .500 barrel, but, the accuracy would be pretty poor

Alan....... It's correct that it's what's ahead of the bullet that counts, not what it's left behind. But you're missing the point. We're on about muzzle crowning. Muzzle crowning is a totally different matter to a worn/corroded/shot-out/cordworn muzzle. You ain't comparing or thinking like with like.