bedding the ol H barrel? Plus a bedding material Q

Does anyone have experience or seen a barrel bedded H barrel in action? The stock profile benefited from stiffening exercises, someone must have tried it on an H barrel to see what would happen, any ideas?

I have a good original fulton smle here thats been bedded along 2/3rds the barrel with what looks like 1/16 or 3/32 cork sheet. The cork's also been surface treated with a silvery, very slippery, powdery/clumpy material that comes off on my fingers easily. Any ideas what clever old world substance that might be? I'd say graphite except for the color and texture, it stains the same and feels slippery the same.

thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RJW NZ

Does anyone have experience or seen a barrel bedded H barrel in action? The stock profile benefited from stiffening exercises, someone must have tried it on an H barrel to see what would happen, any ideas?

I have a good original fulton smle here thats been bedded along 2/3rds the barrel with what looks like 1/16 or 3/32 cork sheet. The cork's also been surface treated with a silvery, very slippery, powdery/clumpy material that comes off on my fingers easily. Any ideas what clever old world substance that might be? I'd say graphite except for the color and texture, it stains the same and feels slippery the same.

thanks

---

The silvery stuff will be graphite.

I've got factory bedded H barrel rifles (snipers), I've bedded a couple of H barrels myself using the some of the "old methods" described in the books by James Sweet (many dozens of hours). I have a fullbore rifle that was bedded in the thirties and is a proven competition rifle. I've even got a H barrel fully floated from an action mounted in an aluminium bedding block. Bottom line... Nothing beats a properly bedded barrel using the methods (refined) of factory bedding for a standard barrel. It can be very hit and miss, though. Another problem is, the woodwork can be unstable due to climate. A fully floated "H" barrel in good condition can be almost as accurate as the best bedded barrel, but more consistent. To fight this problem some old target shooters here used to hand make foreends and handguards from harder, older and dryer, therefore better suited more stable timbers. Use of cork or gasket paper packing was seen as the easy way out temporary fix or a method of getting a bit more life out of a buggered foreend. The cork was also infamous for eventually becoming compacted, hardening and cracking away.

The bedding starts at the butt socket. Just working under the barrel can just transfer the problem further back. The secret wasn't to try to lock everything up so it didn't move. It was to set it up so it moved exactly the same each time it was fired.

Most of the (heavy barreled SMLE)range rifles that I've seen that shoot well, are free from the knox to the centre band, then contact the forend to the muzzle with some form of packing under the front guard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tbonesmith

Most of the (heavy barreled SMLE)range rifles that I've seen that shoot well, are free from the knox to the centre band, then contact the forend to the muzzle with some form of packing under the front guard.

---

Thats the "factory" method modified (packing rather than take the time and effort to do it in the wood). Centre bedded (5 o'clock to 7 o'clock) at the knox, then the same for an inch either side of the inner band (which does not exist on the H barrel) and then at least four inches to the muzzle, with contact from the front handguard to match. There needs to be four to seven pounds lift to get the barrel off the bare foreend at the muzzle.

Here's a pic of factory bedding- marks left by the barrel

RJW NZ

As an American I'm lucky, the only reason I'm not an Australian is because my ancestors were faster runners. ;)

I'm lucky because I bought the Australian book below from a New Zealander on the black arts of bedding the SMLE..............

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

I'm lucky because I bought the book below from an Australian..........

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

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...gNo1Hbar-1.jpg

As an American I have one question, did New Zealand sell all of its books or stop importing books from Australia since the Hobbits took over the place. :rolleyes:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...12/NZMap-1.jpg

P.S. Have you heard about the new beer can and credit card method of bedding the Enfield rifle? :crying:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../119ufm8-1.jpg

Hi Son, Ed and TBoneSmith, you've really well answered a bunch of questions thats been on my mind for months and months. In a probably rare moment of semi sanity I decided to wait as long as it took before I started accurizing my home spun target rifle properly. Your answers combined with a bit of a looky loo at fultons rifles in the last few months have completed the picture. There's an moa rifle in there somewhere, I just have to tease it out ...cheers and thanks R

FYI, the last time I got serious about an enfield last year, it was a 7.62 ishy, with a medium to decent bore. I sleeved it with an epoxy filled carbon fiber tube to stiffen the barrel, put a Canwest target trigger in it, and epoxy bedded the receiver and knox form, I also dowelled the fore end to trap the receiver the same way fultons rifles sometimes are. The end result was cloverleafs in nice tidy small bunches. I had to sell it onwards as one sometimes does, I hope to get it back soonish, I'll probably have to crowbar it out of the guys hands., but, that was an extraordinary shooter, and doubley satisfying being an ishy 308. This accurizing stuff really does work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Son

The silvery stuff will be graphite.

I've got factory bedded H barrel rifles (snipers), I've bedded a couple of H barrels myself using the some of the "old methods" described in the books by James Sweet (many dozens of hours). I have a fullbore rifle that was bedded in the thirties and is a proven competition rifle. I've even got a H barrel fully floated from an action mounted in an aluminium bedding block. Bottom line... Nothing beats a properly bedded barrel using the methods (refined) of factory bedding for a standard barrel. It can be very hit and miss, though. Another problem is, the woodwork can be unstable due to climate. A fully floated "H" barrel in good condition can be almost as accurate as the best bedded barrel, but more consistent. To fight this problem some old target shooters here used to hand make foreends and handguards from harder, older and dryer, therefore better suited more stable timbers. Use of cork or gasket paper packing was seen as the easy way out temporary fix or a method of getting a bit more life out of a buggered foreend. The cork was also infamous for eventually becoming compacted, hardening and cracking away.

The bedding starts at the butt socket. Just working under the barrel can just transfer the problem further back. The secret wasn't to try to lock everything up so it didn't move. It was to set it up so it moved exactly the same each time it was fired.

---

I am a Yank, and as such have far less experience than the regular user of these rifles but I would put forward a few comments on Son’s above analysis:


1) On the original H barrel SMLEs that I have examined in detail from the pre 1940 era (the barrels on the two examples I have seen were dated 1938 and 1939) the front nose cap was not relieved and the barrel bedding was such that the nose cap exerted some slight downward pressure on the barrel with the to upper “nubs” the bearing was equal on each of the nubs (the center area having a slight cut to eliminate barrel bearing. As the profile from the front sight forward is identical to that of the regular SMLE bedding, it was bedded the same as a standard SMLE, with the exception of the stud under the nose cap was missing and the middle band was also missing. This rifle shot quite well at 100 and 200 yards, with slight vertical stringing. That said it had a well worn but smooth barrel with a very stable walnut stock, which was stored inside a house in a temperate climate

2) In speaking to folks while at Malabar range back in February 2002 about some of their thoughts on the nose cap bearing. It was the general opinion of the few folks I spoke with that had extensive experience with the HB SMLE that with changing weather conditions the effect of a conventionally bearing nosecap would be detrimental the zero and accuracy of the SMLE, hence most all of the HB SMLE rifles in the pre 1960s competitive era had the nose cap cleared enough to allow the barrel to flex without hitting the nose cap. On the examples I saw, the clearance was enough to be perceived. This clearance allowed for both dry and wet days, as well as allowing for some slight stock warping. Were the nose cap to be fitted as in conventianl bedding, the barrel could become cramped as the stock swelled and warped with temperature and humidity. It is my understanding this was also true of the HB sniper rifle; they shot best when the barrel had no contact with the nosecap, though the nose cap hole was not enlarged on these rifles.

3) It was the opinion of both Fulton’s and AJ Parker that the SMLE front nose cap was a serious problem as regards the SMLE accuracy. In both of their regulation procedures the hole in the nose cap was opened up to avoid contact, with both the standard weight and after 1950 the heavy weight SMLE barrel. From my own limited testing, this seems to be a better method of setting up these rifles for accuracy. In any case when that is done, the nosecap no longer exerts any downward force on the front of the barrel, any such force being exerted by the upper handguard packing or in the case of the heavy barrel, the barrel itself. Since Fulton rifles were set up for Bisley conditions, with great variation in the humidity and hence stock swelling.


Based on the above I would venture to guess that Sons statement might not be quite correct under all weather conditions. The entire history of competitive shooting with the SMLE tends to indicate that relieving the nosecap bearing is worthwhile, though in the case of the standard weight barrel the downward tension then has to be applied by either cork (AJ Parker method) or spring bearings (Fulton method)

That said, I have not spent much time shooting the SMLE standard barrel or heavy barrel at long range, I would be interested in Sons reaction to my comments, especially if he is of the opinion that the conventional nosecap bearing is better in most cases. Not setting up for an argument, rather I am hoping to augment my “book learning’ what he has learned from experience.

Thanks Frederic, that really helps me for when I get to the sharp end of accurizing the project,
I've pulled a pic of my fultons/parker hale, which has an obviously deliberate careful opening of that hole. I don't know who trimmed the barrel, it could have been the first owners, (navy) who had the facilities to do so. Its obvious someone considered this end of the rifle to be a very important part of it.
Another fultons had the entire nosecap as carefully bedded internally with an epoxy type mix as any receiver I've seen.

BTW, in the olden days, ok, golden days, what was used for bedding before epoxys arrived on the scene? (I know Eds answer already, a substance not in much evidence these days - elbow grease, as in very carefully fitted by a wood man with enough skills to shame a handful of wood choppers/boat builders)

Frederick, I haven't said anything about nosecap contact, I hadn't got into that sort of detail. The only part the nosecap plays in what I referred to as "refined standard bedding" is to hold the handguard on. The barrel is held firmly along at least the last four inches of the foreend to the muzzle, and the handguard trimmed (or packed) to provide a firm hold onto the top of the barrel. The bedding on the woodwork actually ends at the rear of the front sight block. Any contact forward of that can have an effect on the results.

My Lowmount HT shoots moa groups when it's in the right mood. If the groups are bigger, I do a quick check with a .002" feeler gauge to see if the nosecap is touching the barrel. If it is I loosen the screws and re-tighten them to ensure a gap all around the muzzle. That fixes it, I'm not going to bore the nosecap out on that rifle.
I have another H barrel target rifle that won't shoot without contact from the nosecap.

That is what I meant when I said "it can be hit and miss". There is no guarantee any one method will work on a particular rifle. Those blokes you spoke to could have experimented with and ruined dozens of new foreends to get the results they were after.

If you'd like an education from the old masters, I'd suggest you read James Sweet's book. It goes into detail about several methods... You'll see another popular method was called the "semi floater". Here the barrel has no contact with the foreend after the inner band recess until it goes through the front of the nosecap where some used a rubber ring tightly locating the barrel. This was also one of the so called "rubber nose" techniques. Others shot better semi floated with no "rubber nose". Some competitors would try every variation possible and use whatever gave them the best results. Others stuck to one method and battled on until it was as good as they could get it.

The barrel centering stud was an aid to dull the effects of moisture effected foreends by adding spring tension upward on the standard barrel. It does next to nothing. It was discarded for all heavy barrel work.

Another thing shooters did to lessen the effects of weather was to make foreends out of more seasoned harder timber. They also sealed the wood against the elements with all sorts of finishes and additives.

When you take all this into account, you get to where I was above "A fully floated "H" barrel in good condition can be almost as accurate as the best bedded barrel, but more consistent." The amount of work that a properly bedded barrel and action can take for the possibility of a negative result or only short term success that renders a good foreend useless, I will always recommend floating a barrel to everyone except the most diehard purists. There just isn't enough good foreends left to experiment with.

But, as the adds (and Ed) say, when everything else fails, there is always Mastercard! :rofl:

Here's a pic of Malabar for you...
cheers,
Brad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Son

Here's a pic of Malabar for you...

---

Let me know if you're heading out there any time soon, I'd love to catch you if are.

Ahhhh.....

Son, if your last name rhymes with "Ledge" then you will have forgotten that many a year ago you sent me a scanned version of the heavy barrrel bedding guide from the 4th edition, which I in turn made into a word document. I gave it to Ed Horton some years later, which I think lead him on his quest to get the actual book.. I am well familar with all of Sweets books, I have every edition but the 5th.

I think I understand you now.

Ah, yes. I do remember. Have you done many rifles using the techniques in the books? The only one I experimented with (with very mixed results) was the full bedding. I don't get to do enough shooting to be able to play those games anymore. My last "accuracy creation" (fully floated barrel in an aluminium action bedding block) is still in the test firing stage after about 4 years.
]
not sure what you think you understand, though...

You all may remember my request for info.to bed my Aldis scoped SMLE to "as issued" military spec. I received much good advice and as some of it was conflicting I worked out a plan of action and seem to have achieved what i think is a good result. I only use methods which will get the rifle back to standard using what was available in 1916. No epoxy or stuff. My object is to see what sort of accuracy the gun is capable of as if it was just given to a Tommy and he was told to "go and shoot some `uns". I coated the metal work with oil and dusted the wood with Johnsons Baby powder. This has the advantage of not being quite as messy as other methods and make the gun smell nice. It also showed that the metal was not touching the wood in any of the right places. I fancy the wood had shrunk a good deal. I cut out the draws and patched them with oak. I then spent many hours veneering the draws, ledges and knox form to get it all tight and touching in the right places I also got it bedding for half an inch either side of the inner band, free of the forend but touching the nosecap under the influence of the spring. I was not sure of what to do forward of the inner band but Barlow in his book "The Elements of Rifle Shooting "is insistent that a rifle must have a little downward movement at the muzzle. so that is what I did. This rifle ,with it`s offset scope is a pig to shoot.How anyone sniped anything quickly I do not know. Hesketh -Pritchard in his book"Sniping in France " says the offset scope saved many German lives,due to the difficulty of rapid aquisition of a target and I can well believe it. Anyway ,after a lot zeroing I managed to get a 5 shot group from a rest at 200 yards which measured just over 4 inches. As the "standard" for my 4(T) was only 6 inches at 200 yards I was reasonably pleased with that result. I will see if I can repeat it next time.

Son, if your last name rhymes with "Ledge" then ...

Did you happen to own a mark9 at Bankstown airport?

We appear to have our very own 'Stig'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RJW NZ

Son, if your last name rhymes with "Ledge" then ...

Did you happen to own a mark9 at Bankstown airport?

We appear to have our very own 'Stig'.

---

Not guilty! Name actually rhymes with the plural of ledge....

...and I found out last night that I'm not the Stig :crying: it's some bloke in England! BUGGER!:banghead:

As far as the "ledge" thing, I did not want to repeat Son's name if he did not want it known.

As far as my understanding on your comments, what you meant by "standard" bedding was not Standard SMLE bedding as we know it for the regular weight barrel.

I have done some experiments with the bedding on the heavy barrels, as well with the standard weight rifles. The tests are by no means complete enough to give a detailed report, but I have some data, with caveats on what works and what does not. In general agree with you, if you want to have a chance of getting a good shooter with the first attempt, the standard bedding A.K.A sweets 1958 “standard bedding” you mention would work; my understanding of it, with some added detail would be as follows:

1) Good draws on two rear legs
2) Well fit barrel reinforce and front lower 1/2 of receiver (receiver ring and 1/3 of way back to rear of receiver)
3) Barrel free from reinforce to around up to rear band.
4) Full contact from 3.30 to 8:30 from around the rear bad up to the front nose cap.
5) Nose cap barrel hole opened up so it does not contact barrel.
6) If there is any slight warping of the forestock, ensure the nose cap does not contact the front sight through the cut.
7) If the lift pressure on the barrel is insufficient, it can be corrected by adding some packing under the hand guard.
8) If packing is used add graphite under the barrel and between the packing and barrel.
9) The above assumes a coach wood stock, I am not sure this is the case with a walnut stock. Coach Wood seems to work better than walnut in my very brief experiments.
10) Both the nose cap spring and rear barrel band are omitted:

In Skennerton's match handbook he mentions that using a brass middle band suitable sized and a cut down front nose cap plunger spring you can use the nose cap with out modification and still get good results. That bedding he mentions does not use packing to control the barrel flex, just the two nubs on the nose cap and the weakened nose cap plunger spring. That bedding discussed in his hand book is very close to the bedding of the standard SMLE and what was what I though you were originally referring to.

I have had some success on the semi floaters, as long as there is some damping, A.K.A. the “Holden hose” method. I found in my test that for the Holden “floater or semi floater” method to work the front nose cap should be pretty much glued to the forestock, or at least bedded with epoxy so there is not shifting in recoil. I say semi floater, as I got very erratic results when I played with some stock contact at the front under the nose (built up, or with some contact back around the middle band area. The results are inconclusive and I have to go back and redo those tests again. But I am pretty sure if you do a classic floater that you need the Holden type rubber hose mount at the nose cap and the nose cape must be expertly fit to the forend. My floater was built on a MLE 1894 action built up as SMLE, so I do not know if that would affect the results.

I did try bedding a barrel to a cut down SMLE forend on a rifle as a floater and a semi floater. The forend was cut off at the inner band location, just behind where the outer rear band would go. That arrangement, when with a very well draws and barrel reinforce would not group well at all. I added a pad /wooden plug at the site of the inner band and played with various upward forces on the barrel at this point. It still would not group well. Not sure why as the range rifles I have that have a similar bedding arrangement see to do quite well. It seems that the lower band on the range rifles does something.

On the rifle I have that has the oldest and most worn barrel, the nose cap has the nubs and it is bedded as a standard SMLE, less the plunger and the middle inner band. There is some slight build up of the barrel channel both ahead of and behind the opening for the inner band, which in unison with the last few inches of the barrel channel before the muzzle cap provide a slight resistance when the nose cap is pushed onto the barrel. I could not estimate the force but it is very slight. This rifle has a walnut stock, if built on a 1916 BSA action and is very accurate at short range (consistently less that 2.25 MOA with good cordite loads, ten shot strings), as long as the wood is behaving. The walnut has a slight warp which comes out when it is very hot. Then the groupings are not so good. By warping I mean the stock does go up and down, bur sort of rotates and you can literally see the nose cap rotate relative to the barrel. This occurs when it get really hot and/or is dried out. That problems seemed to depart when I soaked the wood in linseed oil as per Peter Laidler’s comments (actually got he idea from Ed Horton)

I suspect as far as actions go, that the MKIII actions are preferred. All three of my heavy barrels, plus one I tried to purchase but had to back out off because of a warped action had MK III with the cut on the right hand side for the cut-off. I do not know what that is, but that seems to be constant on all of the original HB rifles I have seen. The actions are a BSA 1916, a Lithgow 1916 and Lithgow 1940.


The caveats:

A) All my testing has been done with exactly three heavy barrel SMLE rifles and three MLE range rifles (which do not have nose caps). As the barrels have had various states of wear, from a brand new barrel bought from Lawrence ordnance, to one 1938 barrel that has seen better days but shoots well at short range.

B) Some of the barrels prefer Cordite to nitro powders, and getting reliable, accurate, consistently igniting cordite rounds is a pain. Attempts to remanufacture these rounds by taking old cordite and putting them in boxer cases has been difficult, I think I have figured it out but will not know until I do more tests (cordite is hard to light, I seem to need the hottest primer I can get). On the new barrels I have not put any cordite through them; as such I might be comparing apples and oranges.

C) All my testing has been done at 100 yards. That is not really that reliable of a test, especially if you really care about how the bedding effects the rifles compensation. Mostly in the prone slung up position, though when I am using a chrono I do shoot from the bench. I can get some idea of the compensation when using the chrono and comparing that to where the shots end up n the paper, but my chrono seems to miss about 3 shots out of 20 making it an exercise in frustration. I would like to eventually shoot these rifles in competition, but here in PA during the competitive season I have few enough chances to fire over the full course and so I have not, preferring to shoot my regular service rifle (AR15) in these events. As I am ending the period when I can be competitive with the service rifle and detest match rifles, I suppose I might start to shoot vintage SR(B) rifles in these matches.

D) Until I do some real matches at long range and really get the rifles to perform under realistic conditions that I really cannot say with any sense of reliability that my concussions are valid. I am still just a student of the rifles, which is why I was so interested in your comments.

I actually built a heavy barreled SMLE from scratch with a new barrel in the wrap from OZ and brand new receiver I found in teh back of a gunstore. I built it up with stuff from ebay and Sprigfiled sporters and fultons and AJparker and sons until I have a brand new rifle. I took it out to shoot it and because I didn't knwo enough about teh bedding (before I doscivered this or the old britishguns.net) I eventually gave up on it and sold the whole kit. Best I got from it was about 4 inch groups at 100. Now I'd know what to do and Im very annoyed with myself for selling it.

Frederick, I think the first thing you really need to do is standardise your ammunition. I'm talking about handloading, using the same make of cases that have had the same useage, same primers, individually weighed loads and the same projectiles. The old target shooters here, while being issued military ammo for each competition, would even sort them for a thou or two difference in rim thickness (being about the only control they had over the ammunition used).

You make no mention of the front trigger guard screw collar. What length are you adjusting it to?

Bedding a foreend has to start at the back. They need to have about 80% contact with the front face of the butt socket (making sure the barrel goes straight down the centre of the channel as you go). Then you need contact around the magazine well from the receiver ring back at least 3/4 of the way around each side, but must be even each side. 4.30 to 7.30 (at least) bedded around the receiver ring and at least five to seven o'clock at the barrel knox. Thing here is, as you remove wood to set the receiver down at the front, you change the angle and the contact at the butt socket and along the sides of the mag well. Fix them again, and then re-check the front of the receiver. Do whatever you do at the mid point (inner band recess) I still prefer an inch either side from 4.30 to 730. From here the semi floater, rubber nose or standard bedding completes this part of the job. The last thing you do is tighten the draws. In the case of a coachwood foreend, take out the copper recoil blocks for the entire bedding process. Once the rest is done, fit one pad (with shims?) so it is very firm to remove the foreend (pulling down from the back only) and ensuring it has contact on the sear lug down it's entire length. Take it out and repeat for the other side, getting the same tension. Fit both sets of copper blocks (and shims) and then check to make sure the barrel is still perfectly aligned down the foreend. If it isn't, then your shimming is wrong. Now you need to measure for the front trigger guard screw collar. Fit the trigger guard and rear screw. Install the front screw and just nip it up until you feel resistance on the screwdriver. Measure the gap between the top of the trigger guard and the bottom of the screw socket under the receiver ring. Trim the collar in a lathe to be .020" shorter. Fit the collar and tighten the screw.( No need for gorilla tight- the wood will be crushed down that .020" easily and then you are trying to squash the steel collar.) If you have fully bedded the front of the barrel (bedded 4.30 to 7.30 for at least the last four inches to the front sight block, then now. before fitting the handguards, outer band and nosecap, you check that it takes between four and seven pounds of lift to get the barrel off the wood at the muzzle end. Fit the nosecap so it makes no contact with the barrel (unless rubbernose) and then fit the front handguard either shaped or packed so it has crush on the barrel to correspond with the foreend bedding at the front, and also pack either side of the inner band recess so the outer band requires effort to close.

I don't think I missed too much... Now here's the kicker... You can do all the above perfectly and some rifles will still not shoot- there is no explanation, but it was a well known fact among the rifle accurisers. Also they could lose their accuracy for no apparent reason (climate?). When Mr Horton refers to it as "the black art" he isn't kidding. Chanting and dancing around a fire at the full moon might even improve the chances of success.

Another option is to permanantly glue the action into the foreend as the "benchies" do. If you are using modern epoxies anyway.... (blasphemy)

Then there's the fully floated option... initial testing only, this shoots moa...