Printable View
5Batt, the barrel you show looks like the relief undercut is not deep enough, not that it matters if the barrel locks up on the inner face, but it sure would be a problem otherwise.
Bugger.....I told myself to let this one go, but then again, now I am talking about machining practices and not that other crap.
DONT LET GOQuote:
Originally Posted by muffett.2008
The correct information must be out for all to see.
There is so few of you knowledgeable real life armourers of this vintage out there who can sort the B#$$ S&*T from the waffle.
A laymans book might be the go (hint hint) for PL or company
I thought we already had THE expert on the other forum.
Is that my hat and coat?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well I went back and looked at it again (without a gauge - sorry!) The gap is certainly far less than 1mm - in fact it looks to be even smaller than that on the 1923 MkV that 5thBatt so helpfully posted. So, nothing to worry over, I think, except whether to buy it.
Inter war year Ishapores are not common, i would buy it, but only on the condition the barrel doesn't fall off before you can get 10 shots away :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by muffett.2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Homer
Y'all just about had me confuzzlated there. There's another Enfield site?Quote:
Originally Posted by gsimmons
BTW: Thanks, 5thBatt for your "above and beyond" efforts on this thread!
But, wait; there's MORE! as they say in the classics.....
After successfully tinkering with the lawnmower, I did a bit of a dig in the crypt.
No4 data re. breeching is as follows:
Distance from front face of receiver to inner breech ring: 0.701" + 0.005". (Taken from the 1961 version of the drawing for the Mk 4 pattern receiver.)
Distance from rear of threaded tenon to Knox form shoulder: 0.696" Max, 0.693" Min
Caveat; those figures for the barrel are from the drawing for the AUSTRALIAN "Barrel No4 .303 (AUST)" which was produced for the rifle clubs in the 1960s. The drawing is dated 12Mar1965 and the only obvious difference is at the pointy end. The muzzle has the external "cone" feature for easing the bayonet into alignment but is devoid of bayonet lugs. Do any forummers own one of these barrels?
There was allegedly a 7.62 NATO version of this barrel also produced at Lithgow, but I have neither a sample nor a drawing. Any clues?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz
I've had a standard profile 7.62 No4 barrel, made at Lithgow, it was the same as the No4 .303 barrels, as you say with the cone, but no lugs. Both the .303 and 7.62 were superb shooters when set up.
The 7.62 barrel interestingly came with breeching up washers of about 0.070" as I remember, so the tennon was long by this margin. I sold the rifle since, and havn't seen another barrel like this.
Surely.................. It's a case of what I call in mechanical engineering terms, the bleedin' obvious! If there's NO gap between the front face of the body and rear face of the nocks form, how will you know whether the rear face of the barrel is breeched up against the corresponding face of the body? I say, let's cut out the crap and stick with the facts!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz
Just one question here: What's the tolerance on the barrel end to knox form? Or is that a maximum drop?
According to the data above the gap can range from 0.002" (which, after all this time will likely be full of dried oil, rust, etc. and be unmeasurable.) to a "tenth" over 0.010". (Which would be about 5thBatt's first example.)
Good to have numbers, but after having a few barreled SMLE actions locked together to the point of having to cut one or the other to eliminate the seized juncture at the knox form, it's more than theoretically possible to have the two surfaces in contact.
Conversely, a 1mm gap would be well out of spec. (Even at 0.025" it's way big.)