Printable View
How did you get the 'T' body pads to miss the ejector block on the No7 Steve H? I thought of putting a set on my No7 many years ago, before someone told me that they were are rare as rocking horse manure.
The Army did have about 100 or so BSA made/converted .22" No4T's for use on the indoor gallery ranges. We had some here at Warminster many years ago and the telescopes were specially stopped-down/focussed to cater for the short 25 yard range
No ejector on mine, just a cover plate. I contoured the front pad to clear that area. Like I said, cobbled together but it shoots well.
I haven't done a comparison with the #8 but I have compared a UK built C7 against a Longbranch C7 and those against a martially C broadarrow marked Martini Cadet with a .220 marked barrel and a commercial No1 rifle built as a 22rf for clubs. Surprisingly, it doesn't shoot well at all. In the ten years I've owned it, I haven't been able to find a combination it likes. The bedding seems fine the upwards pressure spring is free. Oh well, it may forever remain a mystery. To bad because it's in excellent condition inside and out.
The Martini won hands down. Both the C7s are ammunition fussy but with ammunition they like, they will both win 100 yard egg shoots.
On paper, the Martini shoots the tightest groups. At 25yards, 10 shots go into one ragged 3/8inch hole with standard velocity ammunition. Both of the C7s shoot very similarly at the same range.
At 50 yards, the Martini groups open to about a half inch and the C7s around 5/8 inch. At 100 yards, the Martini is still shooting into 5/8 to 1 inch while the C7s both shoot around an inch, sometimes less.
As my eyes age, my shooting ability declines. The one thing that is shared by all 4 rifles, is that they all like "Standard Velocity" ammunition
Well i understand that the 6.5x55 L42's were very good althought i have never shot one.
Does the Model of 1917 count? It is one of my more accurate. And the 2A1 is good, too. My accuracy problem probably stems from the fact that I don't reload so am at the mercy of what ever ammunition I can find. Some is very good, some, not so much.
Do you mean something like this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Claven2
Attachment 18731
This 50 meter group is high - the sights were set for 100 meters.
Or this?
Attachment 18732
Or this?
Attachment 18733
- from the RWS test range in Fürth, just in case some suspicious person doesn't believe the first two pics! However, please note that not just the type of ammo, but even the batch, can influence results. In the bottom test, all shots touch a 3mm circle at 50 meters.
Conclusion:
The Enfield No. 8 is the most accurate small-bore trainer ever, bar none!
QED
Now someone prove me wrong!
:wave:
It's a .22, not a .303. The "vibes" in the barrel are completely different. Just for laughs and out of (my) experimental curiosity, try temporarily removing ALL the fore-end woodwork, bands etc, so that you have an oddly naked looking rifle with a free-floating barrel.* It may group very much better, although the position of the group on the target will be significantly changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by bearhunter
:wave:
*And try shooting with the naked barrel/knoxform resting on the palm of your gloved hand - that produces better damping than a sandsack!
Thoughts on accuracy in general, and Enfields in particular
My last posting referred to a suggestion for a simple, reversible experiment on any .22 Enfield of the No. 2/6/7/9 varieties. It was based not on any armchair theory, but my own experience that a No. 8 shoots better up to 100 meters than just about every full-bore service rifle, every other small-bore trainer, and even quite a few modern target rifles. And that is not merely my subjectively inflated opinion, but the sober judgement of the RWS test facility, which tested both my No. 8s and my 1880s French trainer.
Add to this my further experience that my No. 1 MkV shoots best in the "naked" configuration that I recommended for test purposes, and I begin to think along the following lines:
Towards the end of the 18th century, great efforts were imade to improve clocks for maritme timekeeping. The problem of determining longitude had become the limiting factor in marine navigation. Ingenious solutions were propsed, and tested. One, involving measurement of lunar eclipses, was even judged superior to chronometric measurement, but was, of course, useless for everyday use.
The clocks made by Harrison were initially ever more refined versions of the pendulum clock - a device that does not respond kindly to the motion of a ship at sea. The later versions were masterpieces of ingenuity, with compensation for balances for variations for other compensations.... etc etc to the nth degree. It was only when Harrison abandoned the pendulum principle in favor of superbly made spring escapement actions that the whole chronometry problem was solved, and the introduction of Harrison's marine chronometer can be considered a breakthrough similar to inertial navigation for aircraft in the 20th century.
Dear readers, forgive me for the diversion, but I see a certain parallel with the tuning methods applied to Enfield (and other) rifles. The whole methodology of setting up the fore-end wood as a kind of cantilever, with concerns as to upward pressure, screw tension, bits of wood and cork with bands inner, outer, up, down, left and right... reminds me of those ingenious, but ultimately unsucessful, marine pendulum clocks. A rifle barrel is also a piece of springy metal that receives a heavy shock when the cartridge is fired. There is no way that one can avoid that shock, but one can vary its amplitude and interaction with the barrel. As I have no wish to regurgitate what others have thought out and described in detail, I recommend all those irritated by apparently perfect rifles that just will not group to dig around for the topic "Optimum barrel time" and try it out. It reduced the group size on my M1917 from a barely acceptable 3-4 MOA at 100 meters to 1 MOA (but only with a scope - I just cannot point iron sights that accurately!).
So bearhunter, strip everything off the front end, as I suggested, and try out a 50-pack of every type of standard-load or competition-load 22 ammo you can. But as you already correctly noted, forget the hotter, varmint/Stinger-type loads - they just stir up the bad vibrations in a barrel that is comparatively long for a 22. When you have found the best ammo for the "naked gun", then you can gradually put back the fore-end "decoration" (Oops - a bit of provocation there!):lol:
:wave:
In my experience, No8s are consistently more accurate than No7s and No9s.
Its quite remarkable that cadet No8s in school shooting teams were fully competitive against clubs using Anschutz and other purpose-built modern rifles.
I had an Anschütz once.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderbox
I sold it.
My best ever score with a No. 8 was 100.8. That is to say, 10 tens and 8 of those eliminated the dot in the middle. The 25 yard target that was used can be found on the HRAC website. It looks similar to the present day 10-meter air rifle target. To put that into easily understood terms for other shooters: Imagine Dirty Harry pointing his 44 at you from 25 yards away- the No. 8 would put all 10 shots down his barrel, with 8 out of ten not even touching the sides.
I still have the trophy as Best Cadet, but not, alas, the target. OK, I admit that was half a century ago. The eyeballs can't hack it any more, but the rifles still do.
:wave: