Printable View
Mine was a Charnwood. So nothing original was harmed. There are enough LE parts hidden away all over the place to make up a whole arsenal, so a nice piece of workmanship like the bush carbine shown above is as pleasing to me as it is otiose to purist collectors.
Nothing wrong with a sporter done right as long as ypoui have the originals in stock as well.
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1..._LEFT_SIDE.jpg
regards
TerryinVictoria
I was able to ask the seller who made it:
Any idea who it was who made it, its really nice piece of work.
It came from the workshop of the small family business of Sorrell and Son. Whilst I haven't shot this one myself, my son has one of these and he says it handles and shoots really well, with all the recoil directed straight back and no muzzle lift at all. There is a 16.7" barrel version as well which is really cool.
Thanks for the positive feedback on the No 4 NZ Bush Carbine. Let all those bubb-a-rites be assured that no good Lee Enfield was harmed in the creation of this product. We source only top quality no 4 rifles that have been previously cut down or rendered useless for restoration.
Having said that, it was initially inspired by a no 5 7.62 kit made for use in the Congo and other African conflict zones after the war - a seriously shortened rifle with a 10" barrel and a ported front end. Saw it for sale a year or two back in a DWS UK auction.
We have used Enfields all our high school (NZ Cadets) and hunting lives, and realising the reliability of these rifles, well proven in a 100 years of defence roles all over the globe, we wanted the younger generation to experience the joy of owning and hunting with the old 'coal burner'. The gun needed to have attitude, short enough to carry into the NZ bush, and quick to the shoulder. Yet capable of killing a deer at 300m if necessary.
The no5 fits this bill admirably, but are now highly prized as collector's items and with the inherent problems of over lightening the action, the no4 was then the ideal choice.
We tried various configurations both physical and computer simulated (Lee would turn in his grave), and decided to try and be true to the initial design of both rifles.
The barrel is 5 groove x 18.7" (although 16.7" looks better) to maintain a reasonable muzzle velocity. The finished weight is 3.6KG or 8lbs
The fore woods are shortened to no 5 specs and then no 4 end caps and bands are used to protect the wood work. The difficulty in putting the caps on so far up the stock is the amount of wood left under the band, hence the shape of the front band is designed to spread the load. The use of no 4 end caps is not uncommon in these conversions, but look a bit like an unimaginative after thought, and can seriously weaken the fore wood. The lower fore wood on the Bush Carbine has been strengthened by splicing in a piece of wood in the lightening channel, making the nose a solid piece of wood.
The butt is a no 4 cut to BSA no 5 specs, but with both sling options left in tact.
The main reason for the vented hand guards was initially to give the rifle some character or attitude, and attract the younger generation back to the fold. But it does let the moisture out and prevents sweating and rusting under the top wood. Still mucking around with those vents - gone from three, to two, to three and back to two small ones on the last one. One of the Lee Enfield machine gun conversions had similar venting (Charlton automatic rifle), albeit for other reasons. And so does the FN rifle (L1A1).
It's taken over a year of experimenting to get this far and the scrap pile is surprisingly still quite small. But it's been an enjoyable exercise that you do because it is a hobby, not because you intend to make any money. Including the cost of the gun, the parts come to over $450, so the rest is done for love. But then we all love Lee Enfields, don't we....
Chris Sorrell
Sorrell and Son NZ
The big cut outs in the handguard more or less obviate the purpose of the handguard which is to protect the hands from excessively hot or cold barrels. I can well see someone getting the tips of their fingers onto the barrel through those holes. To protect from moisture a good coat of paint and or mineral jelly would do the job. Holes that let moisture out also let it in; they also weaken both pieces of wood.
I can't see any point in using a No.5 butt instead of a semi-pistol grip sporting stock with recoil pad as per the old PH sporters; it's intended to a be a "sporting carbine', not a pseudo-military piece. The No.5 buttplate is generally agreed to be for those who enjoy felt recoil.;)
Seems a pity to use up genuine No.5 flash hiders as there are so many buggered up No5s that could be restored with them. Likewise the other components like handguards, especially fluted ones.
No offence, it's an interesting piece as a one off, but if being made on a commercial basis, those would be my comments.
But that was done primarily for bayonet fighting, rather than for shooting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
Hi, thanks for that, all comments appreciated. The whole purpose of this was to make it a 'pseudo-miltary' piece, and not just another sporterised no4. Point taken about the large cut outs, but they definitely do not catch your fingers. The next prototype has smaller holes more in keeping with the military theme. These no4's need to be ventilated to let the moisture out, I've seen plenty pitted badly under the hand guard. There is no obvious weakening, the gun can be picked up by the vent holes and there is no deflection at those points. The weakest point on a no4 hand guard is where it fits into the rear retaining ring, the wood is only about 1mm thick at that point, and then again at the middle band where it registers on only about 5mm of wood. This top hand guard is very short and rugged in comparison with the original, and the extended width of the front band is designed to spread the load and hold it down more firmly onto the fore stock.
The flash hiders are repros and easily purchased, I think the bayonet lug should probably be removed, but the gun looses some balance by doing so.
Working on one with a pistol grip stock at the moment, but that's another $700. These bits can be purchased from Survival Arms in Australia., See image below in mockup in our workshop.
Trust me, no offence taken, love the comments. Please suggest improvements in keeping with the theme. Just trying to get the young ones interested in Lee Enfields again, and it is certainly creating a lot of interest from that sector.
If I were able to, I´d be off like a shot to get hold of one. I´m highly satisfied with my Charnwood No 5 with its No 4 action. Yours is a very good looking conversion!
Attachment 40287Quote:
Originally Posted by crsoll
Finally got this completed. Bought this as a no4 mk2 that had been converted by the previous owner to 7.62 Nato, using the Sterling Conversion and Canadian barrel - not a genuine rifle by any means, so out with the hacksaw.
Cut it down to 16.7" barrel so it sits level with your shoulder when scrambling through the NZ bush. This has always been the number one bug bear with the typical hunting rifle, they catch on everything if sported over the shoulder.
The butt is most interesting being a skeleton stock designed to fit an AR15. The adapter to Enfield is worth about $250 NZ alone, needs no fitting, and attaches with an allen key.
I decided to screw the recoil tube straight into the enfield adapter and then shorten the skeleton frame back 60mm to give hand clearance for the pistol grip. (compare with the original photo in the last post). This created the problem that the force generated by the recoil was supported only at the top of the butt plate, and the bottom gusset transferred none of the load back to the rifle. To get around this we manufactured a sleeve to bridge the gap between the AR15 boss and the enfield adaptor, made of aluminium, and Dura coated matt black. There is also an additional 15mm spacer to lengthen the recoil tube, giving the overall correct dimensions of the original stock.
Inside the recoil tube is a long spring and weight design to take part of the recoil energy before you do - clever idea, but will it work?
Because the cheek rest sits higher than the original, this is ideal for a scope, and I have to say that when you bring the rifle up, what you were looking at in the bush comes straight up to the middle of the cross hairs without thinking.
The scope is a 1-3 vari-power Weaver, ideal for bush hunting, so you can shoot with both eyes open in an instance if need be.
The rifle has ended up quite heavy at 4.3kg with sling and mag attached, but the balance is perfect and rotates around the pistol grip and into your shoulder effortlessly. I can see now why the military went to this style of assault weapon.
Now all I have to do is go out and shoot it, when I get some time off.
With all the milsurp scrap lying around all over the world, it´s a wonder that there aren´t more gifted developers who put their new ideas on classical firearms into practice. I can see no reason why we should be stuck in the original time frame. A good German friend of mine is the best (only?) Luger gunsmith in this part of Europe. Whenever he comes up with anything new, the collecting fraternity enjoys its regular spasm of apoplexy:
10rd magazine w/ Luger M4 Carbine by Werle www.waffen-werle.de - YouTube
PS
All made from scrap Lugers that came from Russian arsenals