Bedding the T

Well I got curious as to what my stock maker said he used previously to fix the draws on a permanent basis in making up an aluminium block so I thought given I have a 14 y/o boy who wants to progress to all the 303's I own I said well it will outlast him as well lets have a Bo peep at the conversion.

He handles the full loads quite well guess at 6'3" he is the same height as I am think I have got problems there ? :surrender:
Anyway I digress, now that you have all spewed and gasped I am hoping some of you see the logic as the draws were pretty smashed from the previous owner shooting it with the front trigger guard swivel screw not bottomed out.
You could tighten the screw as much as you could and the whole shebang receiver included would just rock up and down as you lifted the barrel at the muzzle, I doubt he would have hit a barn side at 20'with it ??????
And that my friends is why the whole action and barrel were rocking around in the breeze literally I kid you not.:yikes:

The load I was developing I think may be a fizzer as the group at 300m was crap so its back to '08 (Varget) again.
So without smashing me to pieces looking from the rear at the block you can see the bedding is higher than the block should I get my gunsmith to level this off.
It pulls down well but I feel the front bedding compound may need re doing as well, I took pics of some other stampings under the barrel also on the mag catch release.
Does anyone know why there is an X on the left side of the stock pretty faint, sorry about the barrel serial but it matches the one on the wrist strap for the rifle.

It cost me a fair bit the rifle did and still getting there sinking $'s into it all I am trying to do is get it together so myself and son can enjoy shooting it at the range for many years to come.
Thanks people

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CINDERS

the bedding is higher than the block should I get my gunsmith to level this off.

---

all that means is that there is no bearing on the aluminium, the epoxy wouldn't stick anyway. If you relieved any of the bedding material all that would mean is clearance where you remove material. That bedding material that supports the bottom of the action is a flat plane, and that, along with the knox support and rest of the compond, dictates the pressure at the muzzle, you can't "adjust it" here and there, it orients the action and supports it in one position, and one alone. As I said to remove material here and there either does nothing but create additional clearances, or possibly destabilises the whole setup and stuffs it for functionality.

By the way have you read this?: Milsurps Knowledge Library - Worn draws in your No1, 4 or 5 fore-end .... (by Peter Laidler)

Thanks Tbone but my skills at wood work would see the valuable stock possibly ruined so I consign my self to having personnel repair the weapons for a fee I am no Paul Ghetti so have to park it up, save and then get it fixed and so on until it comes right just like so many other shooters out there.
Appreciate the input the L42 looks good and respectable 1st outing grouping.

So how does it perform? What are your typical group sizes?

These targets I shot at 22.86M (25yds as per milsurps Mk VII 303 target)) with the load I was developing the first one was off a rest with open sights, the second was with the sling open sights and the 3rd was with the scope fitted with the sling all prone.
The first one had me worried as it was crap grouping straight from the stock maker until I settled down and put the sling on and it came together but this is only a small indication will endeavour to get to the range sometime again and try it at a 100M.

I think the load at 38gns with X powder generates 38,600psi for 2440fps with the 174 SMK hence why I am trying it, is not enough fill capacity in the case and I am getting varied ignitions as I did have one click-bang so will try what I have loaded again at 100 and then go to Varget with a bit heavier crimp.
I was using 210 Feds and toyed with the idea of 215's that I use in my 6.5/284 but gave this thought away stick with what I know.
Thank you for asking Tbone

2208 is varget. Use a Lee collet crimp .There is way to much verticle in that last target either use a chronny to find the right load, close FPS spread then aply the crimp to tighten up the group.2208 will give a higher velocity for less pressue than cordite. Enjoy the range time.

On the last target I sighted the rifle to the 600 yard and reset the drum so it shot just under that's why there are 3 rounds clover leafed as I was purposefully doing it my surmising which will probably undo me is that the 174 SMK would have a better trajectory due to a better B.C than the bog standard WWII issue projectile. I like Varget or ADR 2208 bit sharper push than 09 but your using nearly 5.5 grains more of 09 to get the same velocity as '08.

Thanks Bindi for the reply try the 150gn Hornadys and see what you think

Any thing under 174 i consider to be varmit projectiles, even driven up to 2800fps have stability problems in most cordite used barrels.i know of a No4T that appears not to have a problem. HTs with little or no use on the barrell seem ok. My No5 does even though it had what appeared to be a new barrell the chamber is way larger than than any of the Ts or HTs really the place to dry the socks and undies when in use. I think a barrel on the small end of specs is better than the larger end. New or worn broaches.
Peter L may add some light to which end of the specs the No4T barrells came from.

No4T barrels were just what we used to call 'run of work' Same as replacements. Just the next barrel in the rack/shelf although we'd select for fit from a larger number for a T. Simply because of the collimation problems.

No5's were no different although we got two sorts from Ordnance. Some had a FE fitted, some didn't! And if you fitted one with a FE and forgot the put the Ring, ret, rear handguard on, it came off again!

But all of our range testing, accuracy and zeroing was done with bog standard issue Mk7. And it was all old CAC or Aust or RL/RG 55 or 56 stuff

Thanks Peter from that i take it there was no looking for tight chambers or bores then though mine tend to show this. Maybe the accurracy test was the selector then.

As usual, you're right Bindi. The accuracy test was the rule. Sometimes a sniper rifle just would not perform. No matter what you did. For these rifles we had to put the accuracy target, rifle fired off the Enfield rest, countersigned by the Out Inspector and the shooter plus the reason for submission to workshop (usually the snipers comments via the unit Armourer Sergeant would do) into an envelope and put that together with the condemnation certificate in an envelope attached to the rifle for its return to Ord.

The workshop at the RSSD would inspect it and then send it to the certified disposals group who'd give it the chop. Here's a little wheeze we used to do occasionally. If it was definately in for the chop, we'd return it incomplete with a 'stores to follow' note in the paperwork. So if it was to be FTR'd or whatever at a large Base workshop, they'd call in the rest of the stuff. But if it was, as usually the case, going for the chop, we'd keep the rest of the kit and 'dispose' of it locally. After all, one REME In examiner is as good as the next, so why double check the first with a second opinion? This holding back the remainder of the CES was purely to save a lot of time and effort you understand