Which model No 4 best for target work?

Dang Charlie! You've been holding out on me!! Honestly, I don't remember it but it's obviously a good 'un!!!

LOL I only actually fired it for the first time about 6 months ago but I got it about 4 years back. i was going to re barrel it as it was dark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by newcastle

(IIRC top was POF

---

I used POF for a while and in PL's words they are a real PIECE OF FAFF absolute crap ammo for sure........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Whooooooooa there....... Beerhunter is right and the points the doubters make are realistic but the fact is that the trigger was hung on the body to make manufacture AND ASSEMBLING the rifle an easier/simpler task for unskilled labour. The correct assembly of the rifle was a huge bottleneck in manufacture because if the trigger pull-off wasn't correct it had to be fully stripped again and then reassembled, tested and on and on, perhaps several times.

Why Mk1`/2's and 1/3's, Standardisation and ease of assembly at the factory again.

Brian is right (thread 7 line 2-3) in that there is little difference between the Mk1 and 1/2 variants. But that isn't the point. It's not WHEN they are both operating/functioning correctly, it's MAKING them operate/function correctly from virtually new. Adjusting a Mk2 trigger is simplicity itself. Youy can test it fully stripped on the bench. NOT so with a Mk1.

And, please, please please. for the sake of my sanity, patience and diplomacy don't tell me that you can set the trigger pull-offs correctly by tweaking or bending the trigger guard............

Go to the top of the class Beerhunter. But perhaps you should have added the words '.....and assembly by an unskilled workforce' after manufacture

---

Ah, tweeking the trigger guard is a really easy way of adjusting the trigger, unfortunately its a really easy way of totally screwing up your bedding too!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frederick303

If you read some of the old gunsmithing articles it would appear that the degree of action stiffness varied between manufacturers and action to action in the WWII production. This in turn affected the degree of compensation at various ranges. As when the Bisely finals were the decisive matches, the degree of long range compensation was important. That may have some affect on which action would be best for a particular distance given standard No4 service bedding and how true the front sight will be when zeroed.

Supposedly that was one of the Fulton Tricks that made their rifles desirable, though unfortunately when Major Fulton died some years ago all those records were destroyed. I have also read that part of the Fulton tricks were how they set up the bearings on the lugs to compensate for action twist due to asymmetrical support of the bolt, which in turn depended on the action stiffness.

The only difference I have noted in observation is that with Savage No4 MK I* rifles it seems a significant number need the front sight post to be zeroed to the left of center, which might have something to do with the metal heat/treatment. That is with standard service bedding.

In the Canadian case, they allowed only the standard front loaded bedding from 1946 until the adoption of the No 4 in 7.62 around 1963. Only one exception was made for an English team that came over around 1955/56 that had some center-bedded rifles that were allowed. The Canadian had pretty good luck with Longbranch rifles, their scores at Connaught seem to be very good, though I note that most of the winning Bisley Canadian shooters pre 1962 seem to have a match tuned No1 MK III for the Bisley finals when they came over as a team to the UK.

Not a real answer, but it might explain why some folks though the WWII actions were better for target work in some way.

It might also relate to the barrels and bore size, as I recall talking to an old time shooter at Connaught two decades ago about this and he said back in the day a lot of the issues folks had with accuracy had to do with the fouling characteristics of different lots and the relationship to bore size. I do not really recall the details well enough to say anything definitive, but I seem to recall him saying the post war BSA barrels were very fine barrels.

---

The centre bedding was quite popular here in the 1960s I'm told. Quite a few of the DCRA conversion rifles are bedded that way.

Incidentally, an older shooter and amateur gunsmith told me that he was assured by an ex-SAL employee that the 7.62mm CAL barrels were actually made by Douglas in the USA. He named his informant, but I don't recall the name and both are dead now. I'm skeptical, since if it were true, one would have expected it to have come out by now.

I seem to recall that the "asymmetry" of the No4 action was scoffed at when Long Branch referred to it in reference to the design of one of their light weight rifles. It is an interesting fact that the long recoil lug, which must have greater resistance to flex or compression than the smaller lug (however small a difference), bears on the weaker and presumably more flexible side of the body. It would be interesting to set up a barreled action in an absolutely immovable mount bearing only on the barrel and see what moves with some dial indicators and high speed cameras.

The Mk2 has a smaller circular relief cutout on the underside behind the recoil lugs, quite a lot smaller than those rifles that had a rounded rectangular cutout. This leaves quite a bit more mass in that area and presumably more rigidity. Whether that is actually beneficial to potential accuracy is another question!

"For Years we were told that the No 4 made the better target rifle" depends on the range. Here in NZ the No4 was regarded as the better of the three guns to shoot above 500yds or so, suggesting yes that is the case.

---------- Post added at 09:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 PM ----------

"see what moves with some dial indicators and high speed cameras." the idea had crossed my mind but just use modern electronic strain gauges? that way you may also see the vibration going on graphically.

" Personally I dont see any fifference in the trigger performance between th 1, 2, 1/2, 1/3" That exactly what they intended to standardize, the trigger pull wich was all over the place on the 1's. even those corrected in 1/2 and the 1/3 were iffy because the bracket had to be brazed on. The No 4 mark 2 had the trigger mount incorporated into the manufacturing process and had the POTENTIAL to be a better trigger but recall, It is a combat rifle . They fixed alot in the 4/2's. that trigger fix was a major fix for competative accuracy. easy to tune and stayed tuned, That III and early 4's wood caused nightmares in competition, Think of all the climactic extreams the British deffended in there colonies. Not easy to design a one size fits all rifle. but it seems to me they did in the 4/2's

Kinda funny they even developed the 4/2's with the semi auto trend since the mid to late 20's. and with the pattern 13 and 14 under thier belt and our own model of 1917 all superb bolt action designs developed by English engineers to supercede the III. and yet. all discarded to build more III's and variants of the 4's after the war.go figure! not that I'm complaining.

I don't quite understand what you are getting to or get the point you're making for or against the Mk1's and Mk1*'s. But if you're saying that the brazed-on trigger block of the Mk1.2 and 1/3 was a negative point then you don't understand the mechanics and later geometric effect of the modification.

Capt. Laidler:

Could you elaborate on that point? Is there a technical consideration besides the east of bedding and the consistency of the trigger pull? I ask as I have noted of the three DCRA 7.62 type conversions I have had a chance to examine, all three were built on MKII actions.

Also a Canadian MK 7 that was supposed o have been assembled from parts by a Canadian armorer. He used a Savage MKI/3 action, everything else is a Canadian part.

Does the Trigger bracket in any way affect the accuracy or vibrations of the action?

Sure can....... I was under the impression that Mike was unsure about the methodology of the Mk1 to 1/2 modification and that it wasn't as robust or accurate as a standard Mk2 rifle. Not so! It was both VERY tough and well thought out. Firstly a semi machined block of steel but machined to width was brazed in two planes to the white metal bead blasted clean rifle body. Horizontally between the ears of the trigger guard lugs and vertically down the inside of the butt socket. People don't realise this. This block was then machined to size using already known datums and pre-set machinery. The now dead accurate trigger axis pin was drilled exactly and square on a pre-set jig plate using the sear axis pin and the backsight axis pin holes. This meant that every rifle was identical.

I have heard/read/been told that this was a simple job. Not a bit of it. It was brazed because the brazing heat would not alter the induction hardened bolt locking surfaces in the body. but this was marginal and many bodies did fail and were scrapped. The rifles came out as 80% new rifles.

Mike still hasn't explained where he read of anti-Irish bias, much to the annoyance of several forumers plus more in the PM arena. Or shall sleeping dogs lay