Another transitional rifle, this time based on a P-17 action
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...standard-5.jpg
Another transitional rifle, this time based on a P-17 action
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...standard-5.jpg
Yea verily, that was a steal. As I see it, you bought a Parker sight with adjustable backsight ring for a sensible price - and got a free rifle!
Patrick
Mick,
Going back to the question of why use 4T receivers? I dunno, but would hazard a guess that the answer is that it was assumed as they were the basis for accurate sniper's rifles, they would lend themselves to conversion to really accurate target rifles.
ATB
Roger,
I think without a doubt it would have had more clout to say, "it's been built on a No4 T reciever" when doing the sales pitch.
It's a pity that they used them, from an asthetic point of view it would have looked tidier if both Whittaker and Hart had used non "T" recievers, I suspect at the time they would have been more plentiful and could have done a better job engraving their company name on the side.
You got that one right Patrick. When you're at an auction over here and one of these 7.62 rifles comes up for sale it's obvious which ones are being sold with sights, even if you're blindfolded. The ones without sights go for £40-£80, but the ones with sights shoot up to £100+ almost straight away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick
Nice rifle Mick.
A sad end to this thread I'm afraid; I spoke to Mrs Hart this morning only to find out that Geoff Hart had passed away last October.
I had been chasing his address and phone number for some time, sadly too late.
There were so many things I wanted to ask Geoff regarding his work on the 7.62mm conversions which I dare say will now remain answered.
John Light who started Brindles Engineering summed Geoff Hart up perfectly:
"he was a super engineer commanding my greatest respect".
And that from a man who I think is a super engineer!
This is all part of the rich history that is the Lee Enfield. Some people may be concerned regarding the use of No.4T receivers in the manufacture of these types of target rifles, and I wonder what the fate would have been of these receivers if they had not been converted - we will never know.
The whole 1-piece vs 2-piece stock thing seems to go in cycles.
Remember that the original Lee was dropped into a 1-piece stock.
I guess that somewhere in a committee memo, somewhere will be the reasons for going 2 piece, but, FWIW, here are my thoughts:
1. The previous rifle in service was the Martini, with a 2-piece stock.
2. 2-piece stocks have a number of logistical advantages:
a. Much easier to find the wood to make the two items. ie. a short, roughly triangular bit and a long, thin bit.
b. Less work fitting replacement parts.
c. Ability to provide for motley sized soldiers without stupidly large inventory.
d. That great big steel bolt holding the butt to the receiver acts as excellent reinforcing whilst butt-stroking someone.
3. Now this is important!! The Lee Enfield, like the Martini, transfers recoil via the REAR of the receiver, unlike a Mauser type. That Lee Enfield butt socket is a marvel of engineering thought. It is internally tapered to match the taper on the butt. The butt is compressed into the socket during fitting. There is supposed to be solid contact between the forward face of the receiver socket and the forward face of the butt. There should be a tiny gap between the rear of the socket and the shoulder on the butt. If not, the recoil is transferred via this tiny interface and the butt will chip and become loose very quickly. It is altogether a very tough and cleverly conceived assembly.
4. I have played with a Canadian J5550 "ultra-light" experimental with its 1-piece stock. Interesting concept, but the issue of recoil transfer was, in my opinion, overlooked. On the example I had in pieces, there was no added forward lug (a la Remington 700 etc.), not that there is much to bear on around there, anyway. There was only a tiny scrap of left-over metal where the socket had been cut away. Other than that the only semblance of recoil shoulders was the magazine catch hanger. A steady diet of Mk7 ball would have flogged the "toothpick" stock to death quite quickly.
And that is why you do not bed Lee Enfields the same way you do Mausers.
Does anyone have details of Charlie Epps efforts in Canada? I only have pictures of complete rifles, not internal details.
A friend here in Oz once had a Martini cadet actioned .22 target rifle set up in a 1-piece stock. What was interesting about it was that the outrageously heavy barrel had a bearing/pull-down block at the rear and the action floated free in the stock. Similar things have been seen on bolt-actioned bench-rest rifles, especially in the '60's.
All observations and arguments gratefully accepted.
Cheers.
Luvvly jubbly Mick
Lots of 4T's about:runaway:
Not many Harts:super:
John
My big question would be do you think they actually bought complete No4(T)’s and broke them down for their actions or did they manage to get a job lot of previously used receivers from rifles that had been broken down for spare parts and later sold off by the MOD?