The measure is as precise as I can, knowing that I'm not measuring with the same tool than you or Cinders, I would appreciate a picture of your rear pad, please.Quote:
Originally Posted by jsne
Printable View
The measure is as precise as I can, knowing that I'm not measuring with the same tool than you or Cinders, I would appreciate a picture of your rear pad, please.Quote:
Originally Posted by jsne
when I did my No4T, followed peters books, had the pads and mount fitted by a good gunsmiths.
scope rebuilt, and only problem was rezeroing which took a 30 odd rds of ww2 ammo
but was brilliantly accurate ( based on a long branch enfield )
0.2500" within reason its as accurate as I can be;Quote:
Originally Posted by jsne
Method ~ I took a mounting screw out of the bracket and screwed it into the front mount as one would if mounting the bracket then using electronic calipers measured from the top of the receiver to the center of the mounting screw from the bolt race side so the actual caliper points were in contact with both points of reference.
Heres the pics on the bolt race side you can see where the calipers actually marked the action just underneath the pad.
Hi again
Some new measurement on Your foto and some more foto:
On my Long branch 75Lxxxx Green 0.390
On my Long branch 61Lxxxx Green 0.394
Diff: 0.004
So it is not a exact point too measure.
The new blue line: On the drawings of the front pad it says 0.20
It is what it is on my homemade pad on the picture
My left over Accumount front pad says 0.247
The small black line on my rifle says 0.040
If have used the Accumount it will bee 0.057
So all together my homemade pad centerhole is lowered 0.064 / 1.63 mm
And my rear pad is raised with a shims 0,8mm but it is hard to see on the picture.
You can see on Cinders riffle the front pad sits a little lower at the top edge of the reseiver.
You need too bring the scope in level with the bore.
all i can think is that Accumount Pads an Bracket is poor quality.
Dont know if it helps.
JSNE
I get 0.2900", which is not that much but maybe enough to mess everything up.Quote:
Originally Posted by CINDERS
So I listed the options that I get :
1) I fit the rear pad as it is, the scope will be fit higher than it should be..
2) I change the front pad by a new one, not drilled at first, than I tried to drill the holes after marking the pad by the inside of the receiver trough the actual holes.
3) I get a new rear pad, that can seat on the edge of the body, knowing that the scope will be high on the body
4) or I change the bracket by a repro of good quality...5 years I'm looking after...
If you have another option, fill free to propose.
I take the opportunity to advise anybody that would like to fit an Accumount repro on his Lee Enfield, that he should consider another option.
Am I looking at the pic wrong? It looks to me like the mating surfaces of the rear pad and the bracket are not the same profile.
You're right, it needs some adjustments...Quote:
Originally Posted by harry mac
Why not go with a Fultons ones when you think of the time & effort to shag around with the Accumounts ones you would probably be streets ahead with a set of them is the bracket an Accumount as well Lou if it is one wonders how accurately that would be manufactured like your trying to put together a system that has untold errors which is going to eat up untold time & effort to get right if you can get it right at all.
While the Fulton’s mounts are pretty good, I’ve had this situation arise with them too, although to a lesser extent. I think the mistake is to expect these to fit out of the box given the range of variation on the bodies and brackets you may be fitting too.