Printable View
There were heavy target barrels used towards the end of the 70's, not normal profile.
I recently removed one from a No.4 and restored it to it's correct configuration.
We really need photo's, trying to envisage your rifle is very difficult using only your words.
I think that he's just trying to bamboozle and frustrate us Muffer and others. He's succeeded with me............. Admittedly, I'm not the brightest light in the box......
Well if it's anything other than a target shooter's project rifle, I'd be flummoxed. Or "gobsmacked" to use a term recently employed by Patrick Chadwick. But not frustrated. Maybe bamboozled...
Ian
Understanding that your rifle is chambered for 303, I suggest that you Google for images of a Parker Hale T4.
(still have not worked out how to post pics from my ipad)
Parker Hale and Fultons and others built 7.62 heavy barrelled target rifles on No4 receivers.
Perhaps your rifle is a 303 version of this once popular target rifle.
Paul
Hi one and all, Many thanks to J Moore, Paul Seamus and Muffett.2008 for the help and useful comments. I've posted photo's of the troublesome rifle, in my gallery. My apologies if I've done it wrong again, but there they are. I don't particularly care what this is now, that I've bamboozeled and frustrated, I'm happy. I have nothing better to do than to run around buying $100 guns and spending my time writing them up on here, just for the hell of it. Thanks to all who have something realistic to say. to the others, I'll give you my address.
I did my best to get as much detail as poss, and that's it. Receiver ring dia 1.3", barrel dia by receiver, 1.266", My A3 which is a known heavy barrel 1.2085" right at receiver ring. The enfeild barrel has a manufacture date of 1953, serial # EI6487. The muzzle dia is already in previous emails.
Regards Ian
Harlton
who ever modified your rifle did a nice enough job. It looks as if it may be a commercial "sporterised" No 4.
The pictures rule out my suggestion of it being a Parker Hale T4. The barrel in the pictures is not a T4 profile.
For those interested below is a link to the pictures of this mystery rifle.
No4 MK1/2 - Photo 1790
Cheers
Paul
Having viewed your photos, it appears to be a standard No.4 barrel that's been shortened a bit.
Unfortunately, the close ups of the markings are quite out of focus, so no useful info in that area.
Here's a bog standard No.4 barrel front end for comparison:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff039-1.jpg
ETA: And harlton's muzzle end photo:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...5f019c35-1.jpg
The tapered area behind the front sight assembly varies a bit. Yours isn't unusual.
Your rear sight is worth more than the rifle, which is a happy thing if it came with the purchase!
ETA: Your receiver body looks normal, but I would guess that the "48" is an early post-WWII rebuild mark rather than the manufacture date. The serial number could be original to the receiver which the butt socket looks more like E16487 than E"I". If so, it would be Maltby, probably '42. But that serial number after two rebuilds could (and likely is) assigned merely to keep inventory straight, and may have nothing to do with the original! (Note the rough file marks surrounding and under the butt socket S/N.)
have to say I kind of like the faux L42 sporterized stock. Which reminds me I need to get some cash to Tbone for the one he has done for me.
Hi Jim,
Thanks for the info, the No 4's I own, all have a smooth profile and the handgaurd, at the receiver end fits with ease,room to spare. Where as this top handgaurd doesn't fit at all, (see photo) I'm still waiting on the ring or band that fits on just before the receiver and I hope one size fits all.
Now, I am in no way being augmentative, here, but this barrel is roughly 0.1" thicker than all my others all the way up to the receiver, it's has an F on the barrel and a 53, plus the usual test markings, which is what I was trying to show in the photo, but with no luck. It has 5 grooves, but would over + 0.1" be a manufacturing tolerance, or is this an improved profile. The reason for the question is, that I'm building myself a No1 mk 3* special, a sniper/range rifle, and I'm trying to settle on a barrel profile now. This compared to all the others I have, including the two long lee's, this is the heaviest going, quite considerably. If I could find a really good used one, please,or another rifle missing the wood, I could save some cash, or I have a gunsmith who willing to make me one, so he could replicate that profile.
The number is IE as I said, not 1E as could be interpreted from all the other numbers, but not from the stamping on the bottom of the mag, photo included. The receiver is milled perfectly flat, most are not. Which makes sticking my sight on it a breeze.
I don't really get, what people got out of joint about, all the dimensions, I have supplied are accurate. Which to me is far more informative than a picture, which is in all due respect, is dimensionless. I work To .0005mm and .05grams, on 20,000 rpm engines, so a barrel which is .1" o/s and prevents furniture from fitting, is a lot to me. Actually it's a first, in over 20+ yrs of playing with these.
I understood that when they FTR a rifle they scrub off the existing #'s and electro-pencil in a new one, or maybe that's just on the No5's.
This rifle for $100, was a hell of a deal, it's like new, I can shoot it all day without feeling like I'm destroying something, as I do with my No1's. So I will sort out the bedding, which would have been my next question, but I think I'll pass, attach my sight, and enjoy it. The sight didn't come with the rifle, that would have been the steal of the year, it cost the same as the rifle, which I still think is a hell of a deal, at just over $200 trigger pulling ready, for an almost a new Lee, with a target sight.
If anybody does want to throw in their 2cents worth on bedding issues, for a non-L39-42ish rifles I'm interested, as I don't think it will shoot as well now, as with it's full wood. Again thanks for your input.
Regards Ian
Hi Paul,
The barrel isn't that heavy, it's just heavier than normal, It's 0.1" thicker overall on it's entire length, than my other 3, No4's and heavier still at the receiver end enough to prevent the handgaurd from closing where-as my other handgaurd's go on with ease and room to spare. I own 2 long lee's and it's heavier than those, if I pretend the first 5 or6 inches is missing and start from there. Thanks for the link nice rifles, haven't seen them before.
The main reason, I'm so interested in this barrels origins is, that I love Australian Range rifles, and as I cannot buy one in Canada I'm building one. A Buddy in N.Z, sent me some parts so I have a nice start, but a Barrel in the post would get us into trouble I think. Although I've checked with everyone in Canada and they say I'm OK, but I think your end would be the problem. Anyhow, I'm in need of the barrel now, I have most other parts. I purchased this gun, to either use the barrel, or sell as parts to pay for it.
Seeing as it's caused so much trouble, I kinda like it now, and I agree with you the sporterised parts are well done, and look good. The muzzle is a professional job, not a bubba's garage special. I cut the ring into the handgaurd to match, but I think a company has done the rest. I would like to find another of these barrels in full length for my sniper/range rifle, if I know what it was. Anyway Thanks for the compliment, and the links and info.
Regards Ian