No4t Cocking pieces, which is best.

I have often wondered,' noting' it said by several experts, the people who knew what they were doing when done, that when building up No4Tsniper rifles, they fitted the earlier/heavier button cocking pieces, much later than ever needed, instead of the regular fluted type.
That this was the way to go, is it still true today, or no longer necessary with better ammo. I was reading this in some back in the day information and one of the more common books on the subject.
I fully realise to get an accurate shot, or at least the best possible, the faster lock time you can achieve is preferable, so the heavier button type seems counter intuitive, from my perspective.
Although I have gone to the trouble of fitting the earlier button type, with the best finishes to my No4T just because it looks so right, I wonder, is it the best.
If I take both types of cocking pieces and polish and surface treat all parts, and then treat the slipways, so bolt, and pin internals are both the same, which bolt, should and will provide the best lock time, or was it best lock time and better combustion back in the day.
I'll Appreciate any answers. As I'm doing this, on two very similar rifles, it would be very interesting to have some others idea's on the answer. Thanks in advance if you choose to answer, and for your time.

Question: why didn't the real experts - BSA and H&H, who actually built the rifles - fit button cocking pieces?


I'd be interested to see the data the OP experts compiled that proves there is any difference in performance between different types of cocking piece...


IMHO, its a military rifle and should therefore be rebuilt or restored to specification, and not to someone's benchrest novelty...

I admit to polishing the shaft of the striker but only to a) get rid of any imperfections and b) it was a simple matter to put the shaft in the lathe or pillar drill, spin it and polish. No other reason than that! As for the lock-time question, different weights of cocking piece and.......... Well, mathematically and physically there might be something but in the real world of the bleedin' obvious, then you would need scientifically accurate timing and weight instruments to............ And don't forget from your physics lessons at school and theory lessons when you were learning about kinetics that while a button c/p might be a tad heavier, it'll take LONGER to accellerate than the light one. And the mainspring weights are ....... and.........

Nope.......... I suggest that you fit your bolt exactly as we did on the bench Harlon and leave all the hypothesis to the nerds. Just my view of course, probably shared by one or two others I suspect!

The whole exposed cocking piece was a hangover from the days of black powder and dubious priming mixtures.

Sure, in certain "special" situations, one could "discretely" cock the rifle before use by hauling on the cocking piece.

However, on the two way rifle-range, a "dud" round was a lot more likely to be simply ejected and a fresh one chambered in its place. The extra fooling around to re-cock by hauling back the cocking piece means that your firing hand is not in the right place to be ready to fire another quick shot, anyway.

If the rifle continued to just go "click" on fresh ammo, it was high time to find another one whose owner no longer needed it and to carry on.

Australian troops in Korea requested the larger old style knob, as it was easier to use with gloves in sub zero temperatures,
most pic's of OZ snipers in Korea show the old knob, my HT also has it, so maybe the No.4's were set up for the same reason.

Just one question Muffer and it's this..... Just WHY would they request a bigger knob if you'll excuse the pun! Surely you don't need to use gloves to cock the rifle - you just open and close the bolt. If it was a misfire, then looking on the realistic side, if your rifle misfires when you're on active service, you just reload and shoot again, surely. Or am I missing something? Another realistic view would be that the same gloved hands also lift the bolt (bigger knob perhaps?) and squeeze the trigger (arctic trigger?)

I never heard of this while in Oz and a lot of our blokes at the time were ex Korea men. Lauri Taggart from Castlemaine certainly didn't need a bigger knob

This is the first time that I have heard of this and it really doesn't make any sense to me either - starting with the physics!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunderbox

Question: why didn't the real experts - BSA and H&H, who actually built the rifles - fit button cocking pieces?


I'd be interested to see the data the OP experts compiled that proves there is any difference in performance between different types of cocking piece...


IMHO, its a military rifle and should therefore be rebuilt or restored to specification, and not to someone's benchrest novelty...

---

I think you just hit the nail on the head, who ever wrote that probably was exposed to converted Trials rifles and early converted Savages....which were mostly fitted with "button" cocking pieces.

Especially as I think the quote may be?? attributable to Reynolds.

Hi All,
please don't all get so upset, it was just a question ruminating in my head. I've ' read it' in several places, when reading about No4T's and in loads of pictures of them, a lot have them.
As I wasn't born until 10yrs after the war was over, I cannot be held responsible for the design of a larger Knob. As to the physics, there are all kinds of things that can be done to adjust for that.
My question was really why and which, whoever was there, they must have had some reason for the heavier Knob, lock time was where my mind went first.
It makes the most sense to me, to fit the lightest possible piece, which is why I wondered about the reasoning behind fitting the button type in the first place. Nether the less, someone with more knowledge than I, decided to do so, and for some serious reason.
I'm sure it wasn't just that I, and others see them as cool looking, on our "benchrest novelties" some nigh 80yrs later. Seeing as they go for nearly a buck a year on ebay these day's, and those real rifles are lucky, that see a shooting position these days, and not just locked up in a vault somewhere.
As to what I'm polishing, it's the whole pin, the inside of the bolt, then a chemical peening process is applied to the one part, and the springs,it makes it almost frictionless with a light oil. I don't know about lock times as I don't have equipment for that. I have tested this same process on my suspension dyno, and I know it works there, and also on engines, and nice as it's mostly invisible.
I would think a little preload on the spring, would probably equalise out the heavier piece. making it the same basically, just with a harder hit. I don't know why, but they did they use it, when the other was already in use, there must of been a reason. On a sniper rifle strikes me accuracy would be the main issue. If it was just gloved hands thats good to know, I wondered about the primers back then, I have no knowledge of them. My apologies if I'm wrong, but I thought maybe a harder hit would make sure they went off, never experienced that issue having a larger knob. thanks for the answers.

I believe Reynolds states that the rounded or MkI cocking piece was intended to reduce the chance of injury to the hand during bayonet...shall we say, "practice" ;)

Eliminating it was a cost-saving measure we are told, and as we know from the other cocking piece designs that were tried and sometimes used, the authorities were quite keen on reducing costs of manufacture - or was it just that sometimes some engineers were quite keen on making their mark by trying to "improve" things?
,
The half-cock is a much under-rated feature IMO and it's certainly easier to put the rifle on half-cock with the MkI cocking piece. If you want to restrike a misfired cartridge, it's nice to be able to cock the action without opening the bolt too. The Lee Enfield has such a good safety that the half cock doesn't get the attention it deserves.

The idea of weights and lock times had never even crossed my simple mind I'm afraid. I suppose if one wants to polish things it might be worth polishing the firing pin shoulder, the firing pin hole in the rear of the bolt and the bolt bore itself. Then case harden the whole thing afterwards for real excitement!

When the No4 was the "Dominion standard" for competitive shooting here such things used to delight the heart of many a range shot, along with projects like hardening and polishing the faces of cocking pieces, grinding 'pulls' off triggers etc. etc.:ugh:

The “safety” on a vintage Lee Enfield is functional but decidedly inelegant.

A couple of things spring to mind.

1. The firer has to change the position of the firing (“master”) hand to apply or release it.
2. It adds significant weight to the back of the striker and thus increases lock time.

There was an early attempt to employ a “lever” style mechanism on the side of the body, but it appears to have been ditched on the probably correct grounds of insufficient ruggedness.

I also suspect that the rifle was regarded as a very expensive pike (remember the change from the ’03 to the ’07 bayonet), that could, if necessary be used at distances on rare, ungentlemanly occasions.

Thus, rapid operation of a “safety catch” was not uppermost in the thoughts of certain people.

The safety “catch” system on the SMLE / No4 / 5 is a work of industrial art.

Just two small components manage to perform several tasks wth style and an unequaled ergonomic efficiency.

Unlike in previous Lee Enfield rifles, (and also Mausers) the firer does not have to remove their “master” hand from the wrist of the butt to go from “stab and club” mode to “shoot” mode. Just roll the thumb forward and apply fire as required. Try that with a Mauser or Arisaka!

Likewise, to “apply” the safety mechanism, (PROPERLY), the trigger finger is removed from the trigger and used to drag the lever rearwards to “lock” position. Adherence to this simple drill probably prevented a LOT of “own goals” over the years.

Furthermore, rotating the lever (proper name “Lever, Locking”) rearwards withdraws the striker slightly so that, if you have “one up the spout” but the action forward it cannot discharge if dropped or “roughly handled”

The “other bit” the Safety Catch proper (the funny looking ring and stick thing) is driven in and out by the wonderful multi-start thread on the Locking Lever. This crafty bit of machining is the other important function of the system. As the “catch” is driven in by rotation of the lever to the rear, it engages the body of the bolt and prevents it from rotating. This, in turn, prevents “embarrassing incidents, like a cocked action flying open at an “inopportune” time, for instance whilst bayoneting and butt-stroking your way through the enemy trenches.

A “safety” that could be flicked to “hot” without changing your grip was a VERY good idea when you were bayonet fighting and suddenly needing something with a bit more “reach” than a SMLE with an ’07 on the front.

As “pikes” go, the combination of “ugly” butt and long bayonet was not bad……………..

I'm not sure if I am restating the obvious here but the reason that some No.4Ts have the rounded cocking piece is because they were built from "Trials Rifles", which have that style of cocking piece - as simple as that. (That is to say, other than the usual: that was the one on the armourer's spares box during a repair.)

As to the "experts", even they can't "get around" the physics. At least not without some help from Gene Roddenberry.

Hi All,
Thanks to all for your responses, well it seems I was way off in my thinking this had anything to do with the purpose of the weapon as a sniper. I would never thought for a second about the points you made, all valid, and I'm so glad I asked. I would still be trying to figure it out, must say it's a damn shame, I love the way it looks, just right to my mind, but I want this to fire small tight groups that's my objective, so I guess the Button cocking piece may have to go if a significant difference is noticed.
Although I won't be bayonet fighting with it, the half cock/re-cock feature is bloody nice to have, I've only had it happen a few times, but when it does I hate it, much rather hit it again safely and then wait, and I'm confident it's dead.
Thanks to all for humouring me, and the helpful info too, I would never of thought about that.

The change back to large knobs was dealt with either on this forum or Gunboards a while back, the documented info was from AWM and 3RAR war records, in Oz use the halfcock was used a lot, as per early training manuals.(not that this has any bearing on the OP's original question, but I do remember seeing a lot of pic's of Canadian snipers in white conditions.)

Never heard of using the index finger to apply the safety; the thumb seemed easier, but what do I know? The ability to apply or release the safety quietly is also a great advantage

Regarding locktime and certainty of ignition, best convenient reference I have is Stuart Ottesons' book : The Bolt Action: A Design Analysis.
Has a fair bit of theorical calculations and actual measurements of rifles from the 1888 commision rifle onwards. Not much directly related the the L-E, but it's not needed for this discussion. Energy, not momentum, is what makes primers detonate. Which means a light striker with a strong spring is ideal. Also helps lock time, too.

The drama is that the Enfields are cock on close. So the upper limit of spring strength is reached much sooner than with cock on close designs. Gotta be able to close the bolt!

I reckon the ability to pull back the striker by hand is a vestigial feature left over from the black powder era. Minor utility value, but not enough to include said feature in any modern design of which I'm aware.

Did try a stronger spring (Wolff "Blitzschnell") with a lightened & shortened stroke cocking piece a ways back, but couldn't see any improvement downrange. Would probably need a well sub-MOA rifle to notice any difference.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ields007-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ields008-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

Never heard of using the index finger to apply the safety; the thumb seemed easier, but what do I know?

---

Using the index finger to apply the safety is the correct British Army drill. As the index finger of the right hand is applying the safety, the remaining three fingers brush the bolt handle down. The thumb of the right hand is used to take the safety off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beerhunter

Using the index finger to apply the safety is the correct British Army drill

---

First I've heard that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

First I've heard that.

---

Likewise.

Trying to chamber a round with the tips of three fingers pushing on the bolt handle and ending up with your index finger on one side of the cocking piece and the rest on the other side, rather than all four fingers and the thumb in the normal grasp of the butt wrist, ready to aim and fire? I'd like to see a demonstration of the advantages thereof as opposed to just sliding the hand around the butt wrist slightly to use the thumb.

And me BAR. Sounds a bit cack handed to me, especially when the left thumb, that MUST be redundant on the butt if you want to apply the safety, is only a gnats knacker away!

The question of the half cock has always been a bit contentious as some insist that it is an APPLIED safety. NOT SO......... It is an inbuilt MECHANICAL SAFETY.

However, as I am sure Gil will agree, there was an unwritten tacit agreement during 'the troubles' that the Browning pistol could be carried loaded and ready (one in the chamber) but instead of the applied safety, to put the hammer into the half cock position. You can't apply the safety there. It being easier to get your pistol and fully cock it is easier than using the small safety lever. But like all these tacit agreements, it was all very well but come the accident and subsequent Court of Enquiry, it wouldn't wash. THen it was by the book or nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

Trying to chamber a round with the tips of three fingers pushing on the bolt handle and ending up with your index finger on one side of the cocking piece and the rest on the other side, rather than all four fingers and the thumb in the n I'd like to see a demonstration of the advantages thereof as opposed to just sliding the hand around the but wrist slightly to use the thumb.

---

Where did that come from? I was describing applying the safety, noting to do with chambering a round?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

And me BAR. Sounds a bit cack handed to me, especially when the left thumb, that MUST be redundant on the butt if you want to apply the safety, is only a gnats knacker away!

The question of the half cock has always been a bit contentious as some insist that it is an APPLIED safety. NOT SO......... It is an inbuilt MECHANICAL SAFETY.

However, as I am sure Gil will agree, there was an unwritten tacit agreement during 'the troubles' that the Browning pistol could be carried loaded and ready (one in the chamber) but instead of the applied safety, to put the hammer into the half cock position. You can't apply the safety there. It being easier to get your pistol and fully cock it is easier than using the small safety lever. But like all these tacit agreements, it was all very well but come the accident and subsequent Court of Enquiry, it wouldn't wash. THen it was by the book or nothing.

---

With a Browning High Power/ M.35/No2MkI* you certainly can apply the safety lever with the hammer at the half cocking position.

I do it all the time at the range, with my Inglis No2MkI* and the FN Browning I used to have.

Ok Lee Enfield, I stand corrected there. Didn't have one handy while I was writing it but just used the sectioned drawing to see what was what. But you get my drift re the half cock........

Anyone else care to add to that either way?

It's the 1911/1911A1 that the safety cannot be applied at half cock. Since i have legally carried both types of pistol for self defense, I think the only way to carry either the Colt or Browning is with the hammer fully cocked and the safety applied. Practice makes perfect drawing, lowering the safety catch and firing. To lower the safety, full cock and fire would be a bit much IMHO.

Reference for "On with fore-finger, off with thumb" on No1 rifles, (at least in Oz service):

Small Arms Training
Vol 1 Pamphlet 3
Rifle
1943
Australia
Page 6
Para 2.i

"Push forward Safety Catch (sic) with thumb of right hand.

Para 2.ix

"......and apply safety catch with forefinger and with remaining fingers ensure that bolt lever is fully down."

See here: http://www.weapons.org.uk/index.htm for a copy.

Of the many things learned in five years of training with the Air Training Corps RAAF, (Cadets), some of it has stuck, even after forty years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beerhunter

Where did that come from? I was describing applying the safety, noting to do with chambering a round?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beerhunter

.... As the index finger of the right hand is applying the safety, the remaining three fingers brush the bolt handle down....

---

The part about "brush the bolt handle down" implied movement to me, so I carried it to what seemed the logical conclusion. ;) I see what you meant now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Ok Lee Enfield, I stand corrected there. Didn't have one handy while I was writing it but just used the sectioned drawing to see what was what. But you get my drift re the half cock........

Anyone else care to add to that either way?

---

My take is that carrying either a HP or 1911 variant at half cock and loaded chamber is the second least safe way to carry one. The next being at full cock and safety off. If the hammer's fully down the inertial firing pin can't be jarred forward. Have tried it. beat a hammer down pistol with a ball pein until the pistol's hammer fractured in two. No discharge...But well OT, so back to L-Es.