No4Mk1 accuracy

So even the UK team was using center bedded rifles, surely the English team would not have used a non standard method if it was not providing better results?

I think on that basis we ought to accept that your method of bedding - as used by the UK team of the 50's - is better than the method used by the UK MIlitary. Mind you, in their defence, they did try hard to get it right for a mass produced Infantry battle rifle using mass produced ammo from factories across the world. Add to that, that their trials, tests and tribulations were carried out in laboratory conditions and not on a dusty open range somewhere.

I wonder if you've got any views on the bedding - or lack of it - on the grouping capabilities of the SA80 LSW that I could pass on to the trials team..... Just being a bit facetious in my own pommy way of course.

This ancient post raised my interest as I recently acquired a N°4 MkI* made by Stevens-Savage, anno 1943. The rifle is stamped FTR and has a new stock and barrel. The latter is free floated at the fore end but has an insert (pressure point) about under the junction of receiver/barrel. With 174 SMK it shoots 1.6 MOA at 100 meters.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...0qbr7uee-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...vvk0wbw9-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...bwedrw0g-1.jpg

I usually stay away from this issue due to strong beliefs expresses by many here on the forum and elsewhere and people can get quite "tense" at times, but, most of my No4's (actually make that all my No4's) come to me as ex range/fullbore rifles (have quite a number now) majority are centre bedded.
If they group well (and many do i must add) i leave as is - if it aint broke don't fix it - if they don't group well/at all, and i can determine bedding is at fault, i refit forend or another forend as per orig military spec - following PL's much referred to instructions (Took me some practice from novice level to get it wright but seem to be doing ok now) Invariably if i do it correctly they generally group well assuming barrel is ok.
So there you go, my five cents worth, that does nothing to help the argument/different views at all - so i guess im in both camps so both sides can berate me if required - :lol:

This is always an interesting topic and a lot has been written by people more experienced than I.
However I would like to comment and add some of my own personal experience!
I own a No4Mk1/2 that was regulated by Fultons at some time, it shot well from the first time I tried it and after trying varying reloads I have found a good set up.It will shoot close to 1MOA in the right hands (not mine).
It should be remembered that the No4 rifle came out at the start of WWII and probably did not get seriously looked at as a target rifle until after that conflict; which would explain why the "target" crowd continued with the No1 rifle for a while. The military probably did not look at further enhancement after the war because when set up properly, it did what it was supposed to with good accuracy for a service rifle.
I have recently set up a No1MkIII* for service rifle competitions, and I stayed with the original type set up. I wanted to see how good I could get it before deciding whether to go the "bedding" route. To be honest, it's shooting very well in standard form; not far off the No4 in my hands.
Attachment 76301Attachment 76303
The two 10m targets are the No1MkIII* testing SMK and SB bullets.
The single target is the No4 rifle shot by my friend Charlie, first time he'd tried this rifle (and he's left handed) Both are at 50 metres.
When I shoot them, there's really not much in it!