Don't know if that's good or bad now, I see mixed info about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by mhb
Printable View
Don't know if that's good or bad now, I see mixed info about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by mhb
Thank you for the input.Quote:
Originally Posted by CINDERS
Actually, what I asked about was not the need for the bolt head to contact the bolt body, but for the rear of the bolt head shank to contact the firing pin collar before the head is fully turned-in to contact with the body. It is now obvious that the firing pin must be in its fully-forward position for this to occur, but the excerpt did not say so.
I appreciate the word of warning on the thrust plates, but would rather not fix a problem that does not yet exist (the wood is new, has perfect contact at the draws, and the rifle shoots into 1 1/2MOA as it now is. That's all A.G. Parker would promise for their match-prepped #1s, and I have to assume that's very good accuracy for the type - I hope it will do even better when I have the headspace issue resolved.
mhb - MIke
---------- Post added at 08:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:38 PM ----------
when his hosts apologized because the chicken wasn't exactly fresh: "That's quite allright! Some parts were (are) excellent!" In fact the rifle looks good and shoots quite well - and I hope it will be even better when the headspace issue is resolved.Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
mhb - MIke
Why would you bother tinkering with it if it shoots that well? More than acceptable accuracy for a SMLE. But thats only an opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by mhb
Cheers
Does the rifle pass or fail the .074 NO GO specification? If it passes, then it doesn't have an issue with headspace. If it's in spec and shooting 1.5" groups at 100 yards, you might be better of leaving it alone.
The rifle fails the .074" gauging - actual headspace is .076". It does shoot very well, but I'm a handloader, and want to reduce the headspace to well-within the permissible range, to limit stretching of the brass, and without having to resort to spacers and fire-forming. And, I'm pretty sure that closer-to-minimum headspace won't make it any less accurate...
mhb - MIke
OK, well, it ain't out much if at all. I'd want to check it with a real military gauge before I did anything to it. I've been reloading for Lees of all descriptions for 30+ years and always full length resize because of the variety of rifles I shoot. You can neck size only to help brass life if you only have one rifle. It's just not something I've ever worried about much. I've had the bases pop off brass before that I reloaded one time too many. A problem that was embarrassing at a public range when I was a lot younger but easily remedied with a military broken case extractor from my range bag! I certainly got my money's worth out of the brass though. The old rimmed cartridge is very forgiving. Some try to compare the .303 to .30-06, 7.62 and other rimless cartridges with their associated issues but it's really apples and oranges.
The .303, being rimmed, gets a bit interesting with reloading life, etc.
You can have a rifle that gauges up TIGHT according to the HS gauges, but delivers VERY short case life.
If the chamber was cut very early in the life of the sundry reamers, or, has been "refreshed" by one or more of the "usual suspects", your carefully head-spaced brass will be merrily expanding in all directions every time it is fired.
Running such cases through the full-length sizing die every time will squeeze it back "into place", BUT at the expense of major "over-working" of the brass. Cases so treated, will become "work-hardened" and thus, VERY prone to cracking and splitting.
The solution, as has been discussed on these fora several times before, is to minimally size the brass until it just comfortably fits back in the chamber in which it was fired. (A "set back" FLS die does this nicely). NECK sizing will provide just the right amount of movement of the neck AND the rather tiny shoulder of the .303, to retain a new bullet and minimise material "working". The truly serious will also neck-anneal every few re-loads; good brass is expensive stuff.
What you will end up with is brass that comfortably fits YOUR chamber and that will last a reasonable number of recyclings.
These are not "bench-rest" rifles, but "pre-loved" military battle implements. There was little thought of "reloading" given by the various Majesties' governments.
If you REALLY like reloading, in bulk, take up IPSC pistol shooting.
I started this project with what is, in most respects, a new-condition Lithgow #1 Mk3*: the barrel definitely is a brand-new one, and the chamber is neither oversized nor 'messed-with'. My intention, as with all of my rifles, MILSURP and otherwise, is to get the best possible accuracy out of it, with the understanding that the #1 is, first and foremost, a battle rifle, not a target rifle. Still, on the word of A.G. Parker (from their 1934 catalog), a properly set-up #1 should be capable of 1 1/2 MOA, and this rifle has already done that. I am fairly sure that one of the original #1 rifles built specifically for match shooting would have had headspace much nearer to the minimum than the permissible maximum (and that the same would have been true of the generality of brand-new #1 rifles). So, being aware of these things, and also of the various means for optimizing cartridge case life, I think it worthwhile to correct the over-long headspace in this rifle, and can think of no reason not to do so, if the necessary parts can be had.
mhb - MIke
The catch with the No1 (SMLE) is that there was a "standard" bolt-head, that had "tolerances". A LUDICROUS amount of hand-fitting was required to produce ONE serviceable rifle.
This meant essentially "custom fitting" of EVERY bolt assembly; a great way to get really nice match rifles, but not a good way to churn out millions of "disposable" battle rifles.
There was a VERY good reason that the No4 series was set up with a "variety" of bolt-heads, pretty much from day one.
Lithgow ALSO produced a range of "incremental' bolt heads, but not until the late 1940's / early '50s. These have a "letter" code and appear to have been produced to squeeze the last bit of life out of the No1 rifle before it was binned in favour of the L1A1.
Anyone know what happened in South Africa, India, etc?
Many of the rifles would have been condemned (apart from dubious headspace), for a range of reasons.
Sheer wear on the fit of the bolt / bolt-head to the body will produce the nasty effect of the bolt-head "lifting / "mis-tracking" during cycling. This is something now regularly seen on "sporters" that have been in steady use since the 1950's. If the major wear is on the body of the rifle, there is not much that ANYONE can do about it.
No4 / No5 rifles are a BIT less prone to this BUT will "flog out" eventually, ESPECIALLY the "North American" Mk-1* variants; with "chipped" receivers and consequent "errant" bolts now appearing with monotonous regularity. Seventy years is a LONG time to be using a piece of machinery that was intended to have an operational life estimated in DAYS.
More sound words of wisdom from the likes of Brian and Bruce. But, alas (and sigh.......), I think that you're both flogging a dead horse.......