No4 Sniper rifle/Armourer's Bipod

No Bindi, the actual WEIGHT of the bipod and bayonet wouldn't make any difference in this instance because it would be the weight of the RIFLE resting on the bayonet and any bipod of sorts you choose to use. What would be the real killer is that the barrel would be 'lifted' away from its muzzle bearing and any harmonics inherent in the long tuning fork that we call the barrel would be totally lost because the barrel would be tamped at both ends.

This would be a great student project. They were always looking for these simple to replicate ideas for advanced students. Next time I'm there I'll mention it to Dr Derek Xxxxxxx. Good idea Bindi.

Bren Bipod legs...... can't you just take a set off your mates Bren? Just joking!

Peter all jokes aside. What are your thoughts on that bipod being fitted to a No4 that has no muzzle pressure at all there fore creating a pressure point in reverse.

Mmmmmmmm, that long tuning fork would still be tamped at both ends so any natural tendency to do what it does is effectively neutralised. Just my thoughts. What about doing a couple of trials over there in Oz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

What about doing a couple of trials over there in Oz

---

With vids...

Jerry seemed to like his bipods out on the muzzle, but what would they know, haven't won a war for years (pretty good at starting them though!)





https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...neGun410-1.jpg

Mmmm I know where there is a suitable rifle. The owner is away on a months fishing trip. A crappy spike is easy, harris I have. What would a video really show when its the results on target we are looking for. :madsmile: crazy ideas which will be fun trying. :thup: :D

I do just happen to have a very nice Lithgow Mk2 Bren (U.K. deactivated) which when I get time I will photograph and post the pictures and it may be of special interest to our Australian members. It is a MK1 body and stock group but with a MK2 barrel and non adjustable bipod. The majority of it's component parts are M.A. marked and it appears to have been converted to D.P. format before being deactivated. It was suggested to me that all Australian MK2 Brens are of this configuration but this has not been confirmed to me.

Australia didn't make Mk2 Brens (thread 27). What you have is a Mk1 hybrid which most of them are, even those that were in service. Fitting different barrels*, butt slides, bipods, butts etc etc was the accepted permissible norm. The parts were designed/altered for ease of manufacture, simplicity and interchangeability between the mark/types. But regardless of how the gun was configured, the mark was that of the master component - the body. Mk1 body = Mk1 gun
*Barrels had to be the same mark/type though

Big ball bag (thread 25). Yes, but it was designed like that. Unlike the the No4 rifle. But even the FG42 had a different MPI when fired off the bipod.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

But even the FG42 had a different MPI when fired off the bipod.

---

Absolutely it would, another example, the VZ58 (CZ858 etc) has a service issued bipod that clips on the bayonet lug, and for the MPI shifts by a vast amount when using it. It's to the point where the shift between bipod and no-bipod requires re-regulation of the sights.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...039_594r-1.jpg

I know we could bang on about this for days, but the best thing for a barrel is to leave it alone to work as a barrel and not serve as an attachment point for hardware and Christmas decorations.

The SA80 LSW changes MPI when used off the bipod too. The dynamics of that are explained technically in the Raw book on the SA80. Mind you, the MPI of the LSW was apt to change dependent on which day of the week it was - or the amount of cosmic radiation in the range rations/pack lunches