No4 T with a difference....

Although the deal was made many moons ago, managed to pick it up yesterday from another forum member, had to kill some time first and have been meaning to drop in to IWM Duxford, seems like I arrived on the correct day and had an excellent greeting from the sound of a Rolls Royce Merlin engine and display from a Spitfire, also a P51 Mustang.... More about these in the off topic forum and more pics,

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF5317-1.jpg


Back to the No4 T its one of the Hart conversions, I had a few ideas what I was going to do with it, but thought I,d take the stock off and see what had been done on the "conversion process" Although the front pad screw holes had been blanked, after removing the Brindles sight, the rear pad screw holes and bracket hole were still clear, after the stock was removed I was surprised there was no recoil lug !!

I don't know what the stock would of been like on the inside but I guess at sometime its been messed with as it doesn't ring home compared with the the rest of the rifle.


https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF5369-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF5370-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF5373-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF5374-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF5377-1.jpg

It looks like the rear of the action becomes the recoil lug.

Love the Spit Geoff. I was there in July 2009 the day before the show and saw some fantastic flying machines!

The Remington Lees used the draws as the recoil lug area.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...tuff0091-1.jpg
"1879 Model" R-L
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...tuff0131-1.jpg
That's all you got to stabilize the action body against the recoil of the .45-70.

So having the rear of the action as well to act as a recoil lug is a bonus!

To me it just seemed a pointless exercise to go to all the trouble of removing the butt socket and with the new trigger (the draws not doing anything in the stock) I would of thought they may of added something to beef it up, the rear of the action is only a few MM, and has some filler in, it is in compression with the stock via the two allen screws that fit through the trigger guard, similar to your first Pic JM.

Hmmm, I suspect the butt socket was added partly due to the lack of recoiling surface in the Lee design. The 1899 Lee in 30-40 had that area enhanced, too. Seems not a well thought out way just to get a one piece stock. Which helps shootability how?

BTW, it wouldn't do to try and stabilize the entire action bottom on this set up as the rear locking lugs means the action front will squirm a few thouandths every shot. Getting that to work is making me little pea brain squirm!

1899 Lee:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff009-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff034-1.jpg

The butt socket was added on the Enfiield at the insistance of the Small Arms School, trials due to the flimsy nature of the small of the butts of the Remington-Lees that broke during the bayonet fighting phase of the trials. I don't know if this what you meant JM but that's the reason we did it

And a two piece stock was a logical progression for the British Army: the butt of Lee Enfield bolts in to its socket just like its beloved and indestructible predecessor, the Martini Henry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

I don't know if this what you meant JM but that's the reason we did it

---

That's it, but the bedding drama seems more certain to create split stocks even without buttstokes to the enemy types...

The "slicking" of Lee Enfields by converting to use a one-piece stock seems to have gone in and out of fashion a few times.

I reckon the engineers at Enfield / Small Arms School got it right for a military rifle when they took the Lee mechanism and adapted it for a two-piece stock.

The rear-locking action does move and flex minutely when fired; the heavily relieved right side more than the beefy left side. We are talking tiny amounts here, but regular movement it is, just the same.

From a logistical point of view, the supply of wood for a Gew98 stock requires a substantial source of very high quality, LONG bits of tree. The clever chaps at the Arisaka plant overcame that by forming the lower section of their rifle butts by dove-tailing and gluing in an extra bit before final profile machining. Probably the very same reason that the Teutonic types went to laminated stocks on a grand scale.

On top of the tree issue, there is virtually no way to accommodate soldiers at the extreme ends of the height scale with a CONVENTIONAL, wooden, one-piece stock.

Theoretically, a one-piece is better for bedding. However, no matter what applies to nice sporters that see very little bayonet fighting, a MILITARY rifle has to be built for seriously rough handling. The theoretical disadvantages of a separate fore-end were neatly overcome by the clever application of such bedding devices as the various plungers, collars and bearing points in that separate fore-end. The No4 carried on the idea. Interestingly, using the SAME ammo in a very different barrel required a very different approach; a simpler one, as it turned out.

Interesting BigDuke - I must admit the 'hart' conversions have somewhat passed me by - were they all built using 4ts?
I suppose it's a no4 based target rifle with a more interesting past than most. I quite like it actually - seems like it would be impossible to return to its original state so it's just something to enjoy - hopefully after all that stuff they've done to it, it shoots well!

Have to admit PE I dont know the first thing about them, its just a good example of what not to do with a No4 T, and any other Milsurp, if the butt socket was there it would be looking a lot different now ! but I doubt I would of got it for the same price.

It was bought for the parts, but I will give it a run out and see how it performs , I think it may look a bit different in the future.

Does this have a heavy barrel like the L39/Envoy? Any markings on barrel? Ron

Would say its the same profile Ron, but no markings (apart from the proof marks)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz

The "slicking" of Lee Enfields by converting to use a one-piece stock seems to have gone in and out of fashion a few times.

---

I am only aware of Bert Whitakers "Special's" and Geoff Hart's conversions of the No.4 to a one piece furniture target conversion.
I don't doub't for a moment there are others but I have yet to come across them; if anybody has knowledge of others please contact me!

My understanding is that Geoff Hart probably converted around 30 to 35 No.4's using his own conversion plans, which taken into context is the next stage Bert Whitaker would have taken had he not died so tragically in his tent in the US whilst shooting for the British team in July 1976.

Bert was working on a trigger according to his son, Geoff Hart deceided he would use the Brindles trigger which was already in existence. John Light who was "Brindles" had a good relationship with Geoff so it was innevitable that the two would get together on the trigger and John would supply them to Geoff.

Big Duke,
I have a register of Whitaker's and have started one for Hart's, although at this stage it only contains two numbers! Any chance of a PM with it in please??

I have been promised Geoff Hart's RFD register but have been out of action for a year with a spinal problem (now fixed, but bloody painful) so hope to get back to my research in a short while.

---------- Post added at 04:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:36 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rgg_7

Does this have a heavy barrel like the L39/Envoy? Any markings on barrel? Ron

---

Geoff was known to have used Shultz & Larsen barrels in some of his conversions, if I can get my hands on his RFD register all will become clear!

PM on the way Mick, I thought it was a shultz & Larsen barrel at first, but no mark on it unless he he bought the blanks and did the work himself ? has the brindles trigger and sight.

Brindles sights are uncommon to say the least; I spent a day with John Light about 2 years ago and he showed me all his experimental stuff. When I expressed my astonishment that I thought in many areas they were better than some P-H sights that had been on the market John said, "Well it's only me since dad died". I should point out that John is now in his 80's. He is also a cousin of Robin Fulton (Fulton's of Bisley).

What is a shame about that late 1970's mid 1980's period is that John made a rifle from scratch but didn't have the time to develop it, the year he showed it at Bisley he was given an order for 15 sights for South Africa.
I asked why the rifle didn't progress further, he simply said that the machining was in place for the sights and it was his bread & butter and the rifle could wait!

Thanks Mick, any idea of what his rifle was based on ?

It was very much his own design, the furniture appears to be off at a fairly large cant (imagine the pistol grip off to the right at about 45° degrees?) I only handled it for a few minutes and cannot remember the locking details of the bolt.
The princible opposition when John made this would have been George Swensons "Swing".

I actually found it very comfortable to hold, albiet I was standing at the time

Here's an earlier thread on this very subject: Just how far can you modify an enfield?

I remember reading about Ellwood Epps doing one-piece stock conversions as well as reaming out for his .303 Epps cartridge, which is a bit like an "Ackley-ised" number; very similar to the "improved" .30/40 Krag. Not recommended with max loads in a SMLE, but popular conversions on P-14 actions. Epps also further wildcatted his improved case to 8mm, .338", .35" etc.

An "improved" .303 case will hold a LOT more powder and will match a .308Win.

There is, however, the perennial problem of getting the radically different case to feed from a SMLE / No4 type mag.

A 6.5 - .303/.30-40 Improved would be quite a screamer on a previously "sporterised" spare P-14 action, assuming you got it for peanuts and the barrel and stock at a discount. Or, you could just chamber it for the Dutch / Romanian rimmed version of the famous 6.5 x54 Mannlicher cartridge.

There was also a .303 ICL improved from Canada, again mostly built on P-14s or reworked M-17s and Arisakas.

If you want more grunt when rebuilding a pre-sporterised P-14 , why not just go to 7.62 x 54 Russian?

Mick, nice to see you back in action. I have an option to buy an as-new Whittaker that is an ex-club gun (which the club never used!). It is stocked up in a lovely piece of walnut & looks as tight as a drum. As much as I regard a 'transitional' rifle of this type as a good rifle ruined, I was forced to admit it looked rather appealing! I will see if I can get the serial number for you even if I don't buy it....

ATB

Roger.

With Bert only building 117 of them and the vast majority probably now split for Ebay parts I reckon they are worth saving; although only worth a pittance today fully assembled!

Thanks Roger, if the serial number is avaliable I will post all I have on it on the forum.

Link for BigDuke6 to previous post on Hart conversion.

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=11415

Thanks Mick, regarding the transformation and the conversion of rifles, managed to save this P17 (M1917 to our American friends) a few months back, it come with a John Wilkes sight, this is going back to a P17 some day as the ears are still present and the rest of the action hole free.

Maybe its my love for old Milsurps but I,m sure the original walnut stock even cut down would of looked and fitted a million times better.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF4551-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF4554-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF4553-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF4556-1.jpg