No.4 barrel support vs sporter?

The firearms manufacturers like Enfield, BSA, Savage ect had more resources and smart people doing the math and the tuning of these things far better than we mere mortals can do so what you may think is something new they would have tried and discarded for a reason.
The SMLE and its derivatives were not designed to be a pin point 1/2 moa weapon rather a weapon that was reasonably effective, reliable and could bash out the rounds as that Sgt did in the very early 1900's think it was 38 consecutive bulls eyes at 300yds in 1 minute now that is a feat of arms. :yikes:
(And no I do not know how big the bull was)

Ridolpho,
The way things are going here mate, we won't have a COOP chain anymore they are set to close down, let alone buying and selling rifles in them, no dividend in that:lol:

I don`t ever have any problems, this girl is spot on out as far as I can see....(with a scope) !....................Attachment 51669

You got long arms...............ex Police by chance :lol::lol:

If these short forends and different packing with all manner of stuff were better - and SCIENTIFICALLY proved to be better, just ask yourself one simple question or rather, answer this very simple question. Why is it that the stocking up of the No4T sniper rifle was NEVER relaxed, as was permitted for other rifles. Not a difficult question to answer I am minded to suggest. Maybe they knew something that we ain't latched onto yet..........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

If these short forends and different packing with all manner of stuff were better - and SCIENTIFICALLY proved to be better, just ask yourself one simple question or rather, answer this very simple question. Why is it that the stocking up of the No4T sniper rifle was NEVER relaxed, as was permitted for other rifles. Not a difficult question to answer I am minded to suggest. Maybe they knew something that we ain't latched onto yet..........

---

Differing needs maybe? different era? cost constraints? anyway I aim to play and see what I get.

They were just cut down to give the perception of a lighter, and in some cases they were lighter, hunting rifle. They shoot passibly but I doubt they could be more accurate without work. Most of them shoot fine for what we're doing.

Yes I remember only too well the dreaded plastic ground effects, and the floppy, big as the trunk bloody wing, and they usually had their silly names atop the windshield too. Spent many years on my Norton Commando, not being killed by them, while going to work and college.
It was probably some of them, who cut the 1" & a bit off the barrel, and then the wood down. However as annoying as they both are, at least something should be able to be made out of the latter.
That's my only goal here, is to take a cut down sporter and produce a decent rifle out of it, for use at the range, and as I have a nice one anyway, and it's not like there isn't a lot of them, in need of use.
It's already fully floated, with just a small bearing area left at the re-enforce, So yes I'm going to shot it as is, and as I already have all the bits to follow that, I'll try a center bearing and see how that works next.
I have no standard ball ammo, so I'll try 4 or 5 loads and then stick with the best one of the first test, to evaluate the other changes.
I have some stuff I can add to the barrel if necessary, to change the harmonic's and I do have a full stock too, to try if necessary, but I'd prefer to use just the half stock like the longbranch scout type, as I like the look, the fixing that it offers, if I'm using a lot of pressure there.
I don't know if others have already done it, I would suspect so, but my objective is to use as few extra part's as possible to produce a decent working rifle. Another reason for trying to stick with the half stock, is to use as much of what comes with it as possible.
If I start replacing the stock, it's getting expensive and that's not my goal. Cheap, easy and repeatable would be ideal. I hate that sportster look, just looking for something cheap and easy to play with at the range. Thanks for your help

Just a thought SSJ about your plans to run a series of tests/trials........... For them to be conclusive, you really need them to be based about a control sample and ideally 1 rifle because the alternative is that each rifle you test in a different configuration would have probably given different results before you even started the trial. I can't seem to word that statement any differently without it being MORE confusing than it already reads!!!!!!! Anyway, you get my drift!

There is another optimum accuracy length for a standard .303" No4 barrel and from memory, I seem to think that it was 12" ? UN-supported. This was due to the short length controlling the vibration/harmonic output of the what is effectively a tuning fork. But don't quote me on that! The BIG downside of course was the much reduced m/v and huge flash!

No 5 (with shorter stock and shorter barrel) is generally found to be most accurate free floating. But the No. 4 with its slim barrel would likely need the front pressure as damping.