Printable View
303 no 4 mk 2 | Trade Me
I rather like collecting these things.
I assume the serial number is something Fulton's did? as its not a service number?
Picture 7 of 12 shows a crack that concerns me?
To fix that (or stop it becoming worse) drill some 4mm / 5/32in holes down vertically and tap in some dowels?
Looks like a gem with a very repairable crack. Your approach will work, but the structural integrity may be damaged. In wooden boat repair we might incise a 1"x1" fiberglass and epoxy patch on the receiver side. It's not what in included in the armour's spec, but it might be the best means of long-term structural preservation.
If you are interested, a version of this gun (MKI) with a PH-4 sight sold on Gunbroker a couple of weeks ago: WWII BRITISH NO. 4 MK 1 ENFIELD RIFLE : Curios & Relics at GunBroker.com
May need to take a look at the recoil lugs, may need repaired !............
Thanks, I guess it depends on what I find when I open it up. I think that crack will be more than a surface thing as it passes through the dowel hole. I also suspect it could need other work inside on yes the draws and/or main screw.
I have a PH and an AJP so a Fulton would complete a 3 way collection on the last of the no4 mk2s converted to target rifles.
Interesting that dowel, neither of my guns which are earlier (I think) have this, yet this later Fulton does, but an earlier Fulton a friend has doesnt. Earlier PH's than my one do ie I cant determine if its a date related "fashion" or a good reason. Does anyone know if there is a method/reason to determine if it was needed or not? Could it be to do with a particular class of shooting?
This is just a guess: Instead of simply gluing a crack, I've seen woodworkers insert a dowel at the end of a crack to stop a crack from spreading any further. This might be the reason for its location on this particular gun. As 303t says, check for recoil sloppiness in the drawers.Quote:
Originally Posted by ssj
If it was me, with my old Armourers hat on, I'd look for the reason WHY it cracked/split in the first place. Eliminate that first (and it might mean getting rid of the shoddy transverse dowel.....). Open up the crack and squeeze aero spec wood glue into it and then cramp closed. Then dowel downwards with two good fit,hard oak dowels. Then make good.
After all, the only loading that a patch in that position is going to experience is a side swipe from the outside. I would suspect that the drawers patch and crap looking transverse, oversize dowel caused the crack in the first place. Just my 2c's worth and pretty much what SSJ said in the start.....
The dowel isnt for the crack, or at least it isnt normally. Normally when I have seen the dowel inserted on target rifles in this position its an "advanced" accurising "trick" for No4s. There will or should be 1 per side in that position and the ends will be touching the receiver both sides. I assume its dampening resonance and improving accuracy. Cracks like that suggest to me something is badly wrong inside causing excessive load / movement where it isnt normally, so yes Draws or bob the bodger.
Attachment 61000
Ah....... Not being a target shooting man* I just accepted that the dowels were the dowels used to strengthen the drawers patch.
HOWEVER, armed with nothing more than a skeletonised No4 (an ex T rifle incidentally.....) and an old cut-away demonstration fore-end scaled up to pinpoint the exact position of the offending dowel as shown above, it's difficult to my enquiring engineers mind as to HOW the dowel could be an advanced accurising trick - or anything except in the fertile imagination of P-H. Simply because in that position, the dowel is below the level of the bodyside so would run straight through and......., er......... lock the sear!
Maybe some target shooters wanted a sear lock! Or am I missing something with my scaled-up sketch, old fore-end or SKN action? On the other hand, it does align exactly with a drawers patch!
*believing that if a standard correct fore-end fitting/setting was proven in trials to be the best configuration for accuracy AND for the No4T sniper rifle, then it was good enough for me. But maybe that's just me.........
Roger Wadham (RJW) shows various locations of screws and dowels used to "anchor the receiver" and specifically suggests PH placed dowels against the sides of the sear lugs. That would place them close to the dowels on this rifle but looking at a spare forend I suspect Peter L. is correct and that they are part of a draws repair.
Ridolpho
The picture is actually for Roger's W. book. It isnt just PH's imagination, it was common on Fultons, I have seen a number of them so fitted, in fact one today, bugger out shot me, not bad for an 83 year old, more of that in another post. The shooter bought it "new" off Fultons for 48 pounds, I cant remember the year, I must ask.
--edit--
re-reading the posts and yes the position looks a wee bit different, so maybe it is a draws repair. There is also what might be a crack through the rear screw hole? Still wondering whether to bid on it or not, the dollars are a wee bit tight this month.
Bid NOW SSJ. You know it'll sound cheap tomorrow! Like the great man on this site used to say. Everything is cheap - yesterday
Buy now sort it later as if it gets away you will always ponder crikey I should have brought it.
I was bidding years ago at an auction gave up because I was scared of spending the money the chap who won the bidding from me received a Lithgow Hooked Quillion with Lithgow WWI Scabbard for $175.00/AU try and get one now for under a grand good luck!!!
The Canadians, both the Defence types and in the form of the DCRA, did a lot of work squeezing performance and consistency from their No.4 "target" rifles. Part of the procedure was a bit of creative dowelling.
From C-71-111-000-/MM-000
Attachment 61017
Hope this link works.
I vaguely recall that an extract or the complete document was available as a file near here.
I have taken your comments to heart by the way. On the Parker Hale gun target gun I got my hands on a no4 mk2 unfitted lower fore end and I have set it up as as-issued. So now I will try the PHale setup v the as issued setup and see how they do, the only difference is the fore end though it maybe a winter job before I get time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
That's interesting BinO. I used those dimensions against an old slave action and the TOP dowel will act on the bodyside. But not if its much lower. I suppose that if the inside of the dowels werre cut accurately, it would stop the body moving left/right within the fore-end. Mind you, a tight front trigger guard screw pulling a round barrel into a round trough would have the same effect. As would careful shimming of the rear insides of the top of the fore-end
" a tight front trigger guard screw pulling a round barrel into a round trough would have the same effect"
I assume this is the re-inforce of the barrel?
yet it is "recommended" that that support on the sides is removed for accuracy,
first pic un-issued/un-used no4 mk2 stock, second pic the recommended pad.
Wow it gets fascinating. So we have Peter's traditional setup which pre-ww2 was determined as best. Then a lot of "playing" since. I use the term playing as I am wondering as Peter said what is Parker Hales imagination and what is tested and true. I see so many different mods on these No4s that I am left wondering what the heck is going on.
I can see I need to test what looks like "old wives tales" myself.
Sadly the gun went for more that I could bid right now so I couldnt get win it.
It is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz
Note however that the canadians had no4 mk1*s while we are talking no4 mk2 which has a transverse screw you can tighten up which clamps the two forks of the rear foreend against the mk2 type trigger support bracket. With the mk1* the steel anti-spreading tie plate and riveted brass rod would I assume prevent this. Here in NZ I have seen a few mk1's and mk1*'s converted to a screw with a big external brass pad either side by the way.
I know where you're coming from SSJ. Everyone in the Commonwealth who sold No4's in the 50's had their own way of setting up the rifles for better accuracy. Some with rubber pads and springs that I look at with absolute dispair and this that and the other etc etc. But I am of the old school based on the absolute FACT that in 1949, to improve the wartime standard of the No4 rifle - and the T incidentally, the Small Arms School at Hythe and the proving ground at Pendine tried every known method, including George Fulton who was an advisory member of the board, and no method constantly out performed the standard method of stocking up when it was properly done.
I remember reading these reports as it named the REME Armourer S/Sgt as S/Sgt Cooper from Hythe. I mentioned this to one of my old bosses who went to a file and showed me a photo of said S/Sgt Cooper with George Fulton drinking a cup of tea during the trial! I just feel that however well thought out (or badly thought out, depending on your point of view of course.....) and well meaning some of the so called 'tuners' or 'accurisers' were/are, they didn't have the inside knowledge that the original designers had. And that includes the all important harmonics of that hollow tube we call the barrel. Just my view and opinion of course.
When I was younger and keen..... I was the engine builder and engineer for a small MODSPORTS racing team. At races I used to see all manner of 'modifications' to cars and suspensions. Some were worth copying while others were a good looking frill - if not a complete fraud that would never stand close mechanical scrutiny
I am reminded of a letter I saw recently from Lt-Col Ransford, the Director of Small Arms & Ammunition at the British Purchasing Commission in New York about a proposal submitted to him by a Mr A.K. Stroud of the Automatic Appliance Corporation to convert M1917 Enfields into light automatics for Britain.
"The design of the conversion is unsound. It has been carried out by someone with little experience of rifles and machine guns, and less of service requirements. In its present state I consider the rifle dangerous to the firer. ... in any case we are more concerned with obtaining rifles to proved design than we are with converting those that we already have. ... I have arranged for the weapons to be submitted for detailed examination at the Inspection Department, New York, and subsequently for a brief firing trial to be carried out. I think there is no doubt that no further action is necessary and that we need waste no more time on these persons"
Same here, hill climbing minis and 240Zs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
I agree, many of the people I have talked to were retired builders, plumbers, electricians etc, all good with hand tools, and veyr good shots so any mod they made tended to be good quality. However what they were not was engineers. Now that doesnt mean they didnt eak out better accuracy here and there and in NZ alone there was a huge number of ppl tweaking it seems. But it was trial and error I think and well there is no way now I can see to determine which of the "tricks" worked and which didnt when you look at highly modded guns 60 years on. ie which of say 5 was good and if any one of those was actually bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
So I am going to start with a good known gun and a series of fore ends and play by myself one mod at a time, starting with an as-issued and working on it until I understand how this damn thing works, because it is complex. Then I'll try the mods out.
---------- Post added at 07:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:45 AM ----------
"I remember reading these reports"
and of course you have the huge advantage over say me at least, having the access to read everyone elses mistakes.
bye the way did anyone try and metal bed / insert inside the std stock?
And of course when we 'range trested for accuracy' we'd already been on the indoor Armourers test range using the heavy duty Enfield rest that would eliminate all errors. So what you were testing was the rifle!
I used to take my son Robert into work occasionally on a Saturday morning and walk over to the main Armourers shop, especially if they were range testing indoors. It's great fun range testing loads of rifles and especially GPMG's when you're 14. Favourite when you are 14 is the L2A3 SMG that has to be fired manually across a table but single shot only. But very often his would let go a few short bursts - which we blamed on the ammunition of course
Then there are the Finnish snipers based on vintage Nagant actions.
These are "technically" in the unusual caliber of 7.62 x 53; so designated because the ammo is loaded with a .308" diameter bullet and fired through a .308" groove barrel.
These critters are equipped with a very stylish one-piece stock that looks like many other "deep-bellied" stocks as seen on expensive European target rifles..
The BIG thing is that the bedding is ENTIRELY "barrel-centric".
There is a substantial parallel section on the barrel, just forward of the reinforce. Around this is fitted a sleeve that in turn is bolted through the bedding block in the stock by two rather substantial screws, one at each end of the sleeve.
The action AND the barrel effectively "float".
After-market "Gucci" triggers are fitted in place of the 19th Century original and a neat bipod adorns the front of the stock.
Apparently they shoot VERY well, especially with the nice optics clamped into a new design mounting system.
Now, given the demands of the two-piece stocking system of the Lee Enfield, we cannot follow directly in Mr. Valmet et al's tracks, especially with a "light" barrel. However, if one were being a little "creative" with a HEAVY barrel, it would be interesting, if a little expensive, to see what would happen.
You could even follow the Finns and use a .308" / 1:10" barrel and use some of the many .308 size "match" bullets out there.
Probably not going to sneak in under "standard" rifle specifications/"rules".
I have a Savage No4 Mk1* that has a metal bedding block about 20cm forward of the knox - it appears very crudely done, and is in reality a piece of heavy gauge sheet tin from looks of it. But I cant comment on its effect as the rest of the system is kaput - draws broken and stock cracked. Im going to attempt to restock with spare savage forend I have, once work commitments allows the time. Will try to set up as orig military bedding, following the forum articles and the numerous threads on this subject. Its a funny thing, this learning business, having come from family of 50'sand 60's target shooters I only knew about the various "tweaked" styles of set up until I started to read various books and found this forum - all I had a reference prior was my 2 x Matby's (which incidentally are ex target rifles and have had various treatments done - one in Aust and one a Fulton's - both shoot better than I can so they stay as they are)Quote:
Originally Posted by ssj
Having read and talked to a few ppl, making the area around the main screw more rigid might/can substantially improves accuracy. So I have a spare SA made replacement contract fore end that is a crap colour and damaged so Im going to try an aluminium plate/bed in it.
First thing though I have put a 10mm carbon fibre archery arrow epoxy bedded down the fore end to stiffen it for the target sling, this is also supposed to improve things for target work. I want to see how that does first.
I am finding that the no4 is a very curious thing. Almost like a thoroughbred horse you have to treat it right to make it work well, the thing is to figure out how to treat it, LOL. Its going to drive me mad I reckon :madsmile:
Are other milsurps as bad?
My P14 seems to need no/little work in comparison. Though Ive not met anyone alive who knows how to look after it.
Yes...Quote:
Originally Posted by ssj
The poor old P-14 was treated as "the dodgy cousin that nobody wants in their house" and rapidly offloaded to the outer colonies or "emerging states" post WW1.
So many were given away / dumped at sea etc, that when the next "great unpleasantness" started, those at the low end of the logistic food chain often found themselves clutching a "pike" (bayonet on a broomstick), or if they were "lucky", an American-donated M-17, for which there was, of course, no ammo.
Australia used the odd P-14 in the "value-added package" form of the No3T sniper rifle, earning some fame on Timor.
One thing I would mention, which applies more to the No1 MK III* than the No 4, is that a lot of the fine tuning on these rifles were specific to the rifle. By that I mean that the fit of the 3 barrel/wood points on the SMLE MK III, along with three two metal ones. (Barrel reinforce, pad before and after the inner band [Wood fits] the front nosecap to barrel, spring just to the rear of that and the inner band spring fit). In several of the written accounts of what they went through to make these guns shoot well in slow fire and rapid fire (Roberts comp) it is stated that a lot of the tuning was individual to gun.
Having examined a number of No4 rifles with central bedding, I can state that there is an art to where the pad is placed (1/3 of the way up from the barrel reinforce to under the middle band) on what distance and how the barrel compensates. Once again, based on the fact that the degree of hardness on No 4 action bodies varies somewhat, the draw pressure on these points seems to vary as well. It can be very frustration work, getting a rifle to group well with MK VII ammo at some distance. Of course with the near impossibility of getting shooting quantities of MK VII ammo these days, it really does not matter. All that I shoot these days, when I do is VIIZ or MKVIIIZ loads.
Lastly I would point out as competitive shooter and not a military user of these, that the front end bedding might be the best most reasonable method for service use, but when you add a US or British pattern sling and clinch it up tight, the center bedding on the No4 gives better results as regards group shift with varying sling pressures. I would much prefer to shoot a well regulated No4 center bedded than a front loaded No 4 if I have to use a sling.
Same is true of K31 by the away, they shot very well with a front load of 1 KG and a wee bit of damping induced by the top barrel clamp and handguard (just snug). Try to use the sling as you would on an NRA course of fire and it gets a wee bit trickier.
Maybe, THIS time?
Nice try Bruce, wrong thread though:)
That'll teach me to keep several tabs open at once!
Second time lucky??
"when you add a US or British icon pattern sling" Yes I have read this and experienced it. Hence its not unknown for target shooters in NZ to make thier own front ends out of a stiffer wood. I am going a similar but different route this winter to stiffen a spare fore end.
The funny/tragic thing is that our politicians still haven't learned a damn thing, and if ever anything big and nasty kicks off again, we'll be in exactly the same boat, with the added twist that our army won't be big enough either. Oh, it's all sounding strangely familiar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz
The world has changed, a world war 3 fought today is going to be over quickly. The assets you have at the start once consumed wont be replaced there isnt the time, materials or energy to replace them. On top of that I'd hope the ppl and youngsters today would be worldy enough now not to fall for the cr*p of doing your duty and be cannon fodder for us thanks.
The other "over-looked" trick is the fitting of the bedding plate, (a la the L42), in the fore-end.
This nifty little steel plate stabilises the fitting of the fore-end quite a a bit. It also appears to function as a "stress-spreader", distributing the compression load from the front screw / trigger-guard over a significantly larger area of the fore end timber than "normal".
Fitting such a plate requires the correct tools and a certain amount of "carpentry" skills to do the job properly.
See the works of a well-known armourer and author for details.
Having fitted the L39/L42 front guard screw support plate on a few target No 4 rifles, I think there primary purpose is to make sure once you get the front reinforce pressure right ( and the correct collar length) it prevents wood crush from messing that fit up. And in the same way I will maintain the front or center bearing pressure.
I found an easy way to make the mod to a No 4 Forend: use the dremel tool with the flat sanding pad on it. With the variable speed tool it makes cutting the wood very easy and once installed there is nothing to indicate it was done. You do have to cut a small channel a few mm from the magazine well to the guard screw hole, but this channel lets you make the cut evenly. I use the bottom of M14 magazines plates, which for some reason I have a few on hand. The actual L39 plates are a wee bit thicker, but a shapped/cut up M14 floor-plate works fine and dandy.
The actual reason for the plate was a combination of all but principally, to prevent the waste of otherwise perfectly serviceable fore-ends that would have been scrapped due to that part of the fore-end already having been crushed. So you machine out the damaged part, insert a steel plate (that target rifle builders such as Fultons of Bisley had been doing for many years) that will spread the load of the tight FTG screw down onto the trigger guard, onto the plate, then onto a greater area. To be honest, it was a brilliant modification.
Not done to all rifles originally but adopted and codified for production
"The other "over-looked" trick is the fitting of the bedding plate, (a la the L42), in the fore-end"
got some pics / drawings please?
Page 23 of Ian Skennerton's S.A.I.S No. 18, 7.62mm L42A1 Sniper, L39A1, 2A & Lee Enfield Conversions booklet illustrates it and identifies the part no. as: 1005-99-963-1592 and drawing no. CR1473.
A quick search has not revealed a dimensioned drawing of this component (or the specs for the fore-end modification), in "the crypt", but some happy camper out there may have this information to hand.
The modification looks to me like the standard one made by gunsmiths in the UK to accurise No.4 rifles for shooting at Bisley. Part of the key to this was ensuring that the forend was a really tight fit between the 'draws' (the sloping faces at the rear of the lug that supports the sear and magazine catch) and the front of the socket for the butt. Typically the original wood bearing at the draws was cut away and new inserts, ideally made from hornbeam on end-grain, were glued in and secured by transverse wood screws from the outside of the forend. The heads are normally recessed with the holes filled with a section of dowel.
There is a good description of the modifications in 'Target Rifle Shooting' by Major E.G.B.Reynolds and Robin Fulton (Barrie & Jenkins 1972 ISBN 0 214 65353 6 )
Enscien
Attachment 61355
Attached is a sketch of the 'Plate, Seating' CR1473.
Material is ordinary mild steel.
That sound you can hear is the massed band of the "Routers and Wood-ruff Cutters", smartening-up a herd of No.4s.
Has any "enthusiast" tried this caper on an errant No.5?
While it is well known NOW that the PLATE seating (we used to call it the PLATE, reinforce - or reinforcing...) is mild steel, this was one feature that was 'blue lined' (or censored in civillian parlance) when the papers for the book were submitted for prior approval before publication! Quite why is a matter of speculation but even if it were some special quality rare earth metal, it's obvious that mild steel would suffice for the purpose.
Hi,
Actually I have the crushed wood problem on my Pattern 1914 target rifle. After I bought it I found it was missing the spacer for the main front screw. I think on purpose to increase the "grip" on the front, result is a badly crushed area. I was wondering how best to repair it. I have made a new spacer and was pondering the next step, I dont have any steel but I do have some brass strip.
For the target No4 it has been "pillar bedded" with a thick walled aluminium spacer epoxy'd in, trouble is it means I have to now work to this point as its so fixed. Since this gun is so much trouble Im wondering if it was a bad idea. I might retro-fit it back to this config as well.
---------- Post added at 10:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 AM ----------
Isnt the problem more likely to be the floating barrel?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz
"Isn't the problem more likely to be the floating barrel?"
If the fore-end is not firmly attached in the area of the front screw and Knox form, it will be the woodwork doing the "floating".
Even when correctly assembled and tensioned, it will resemble an asymmetrical tuning fork; one tine ringing like a bell, the other, sort of "soggy". This is not a recipe for consistent accuracy. Don't forget the added influence of the top handguard in this situation.
If the barrel is "fully-floating" and the fore-end "loose" (not tensioned sufficiently), all bets are off.
Could Captain Laidler please step in here with the envelope containing the "correct answer" from the usual impeccable sources?
In my experience the Enfield accuracy was designed around the wood. The degree to which the wood "damps" the barrel depends on both the front barrel pressure and the rear barrels reinforce pressure. I once tried floating the rear barrel reinforce on a No 4, while maintaining the correct front barrel pressure. The idea was to then adjust the front guard screw height to (different sizes of the guard screw collar) play around with the front barrel damping pressure between 3 and 10 pounds of lift without having to mess around with adjusting the wood underneath the barrel reinforce just ahead of the action body.
In any case that was a complete flop. The accuracy was wild with a lot of flyers. Put back in the barrel reinforce with a shim of maple wood, much like you see on Canadian regulated rifles and….….accuracy comes right back, no more flyers.
The problem I see with doing the old aluminum block/pillar bed is that you might lose whatever damping is going on with the wood to action/barrel reinforce fit. No idea if I am correct on that, but I notice on the old No 4 rifles regulated to shoot 303 at 500 to 900 yards you do not see epoxy, except under the center bed and often there is a thin veneer of wood between the bed surface and the expoxy.
Correction: The only place I have seen epoxy in the bedding on Enfield action bodies was in the rear action draws and the surface between the rear of the wood and the socket for the buttstock. I have seen some old workhorses with what appears to be Bisonite surface bedding, which seems to have been applied for tightening up warn draws without changing any other fit relationships.
Actually I have found that pretty much if you copy what was done by Fultons or the standard bedding you will get the best results. I still do like center bedding for a match rifle, if you are going to use a sling.
Epoxy would have been expensive say 50 years ago? now its very cheap. I certainly have played with various pressures on the re-inforce and the fixed pillar bedding makes this vary hard to do. "In any case that was a complete flop" thanks for the tip. I am currently adding alloy foil 1thou thick to it to increase pressure slightly, I might try some more as its shooting like a dog at the moment.
"Actually I have found that pretty much if you copy what was done by Fultons or the standard bedding you will get the best results." Fultons/parker Hale/AJP pretty much all seem very simliar on no4s and this is what I have done. "I still do like center bedding for a match rifle, if you are going to use a sling. " I am but its very shooting badly.
The first service instructions on using epoxy in US match tuned M1 rifles date from around 1955~1956. The AMU service note I have on that topic dates from 1956 (at least from memory). Very little epoxy is used, a pound of Bisonite would last for a great many rifles. Given that the No 4 rifle was still in used as a service rifle from 1955 until 1968, and in New Zealand I think the transition to match rifle occurred in the 1970 season, there was ample time for good techniques to be worked out if epoxy was the way to go. The fact that I have seen rifles with wooden inserts that seems to be epoxied in with early 1950s barrel dates (based on the Birmingham proofs) tells me they knew about it but did not use it.
The way I have regulated the two pressures, which might not be right with MK VII ammunition, but seems to work with regular modern single base tubular powders like Varget, IMR4895 and IMR 4064, is to adjust the action body bedding and draws for a good fit with center bedding. Basically the action is sitting in the wood centered and true, the rear draws and butt socket are fits are correct. If using a new stock this means careful scraping with metal scrapers and use of spray black to see how good the fit is. To get a good fit on the curved surfaces I use sandpaper under the barrel and reinforce, with the action body/barrel assembly supported in the wood by means of a front ring to ensure the sanding does not go off center. If you over sand it is no issue, just epoxy in a thin veneer of wood, I use maple/walnut sheets I get from the hobby shop. On curved surfaces you will have to steam the wood to get the wood to take the right shape, but your wife’s steam iron with a bowl of warm water to dampen the wood works just fine. I use a wood glue for the veneer that is supposed to be water proof once set up. The shim wood is the thinnest I can find, something under 1/16th of an inch, I do not recall at the moment. I would not use such thin veneers to get the draws right, I seem to recall there is a good tutorial on this sight on getting that right.
You want to be sure that the barrel reinforce is only bearing along a 1/3 portion of the bottom of the reinforce, with the force symmetric with the barrel. The reason for this will be apparent. Bearings surface if from the handguard ring up to around 1/8 inch from where the barrel assumes a linear straight line to the muzzle. Basically you want the reinforce in contact only on the curved surface of the barrel.
If using a front barrel seat I would start with between 8.5 and 10.5 pounds of lift force needed to bring the barrel off of the seat when the action body is fully seated into the wood. This is measured by using a fish scale on the barrel right in front of the front stock ferrule, with the rifle sitting straight up, in the position you would have it if shooting at a bench.
Once you have those fits more or less correct, (which may take several nights of messing around) then apply some blue locktite to the front trigger guard screw. Also apply some graphite with a wee bit of thick grease under where the barrel meets bed and under the barrel reinforce but nowhere else. A very thin smear is all you need, not globs of it, just enough so the barrel can slide easily under recoil. Without using the stock spacer screw it is until it is a good fit, that is snug but no more. Count the turns from start until it is snug. Now go out to the range and fire ten shot groups at the range you want the rifle to shoot at. Look for good round groups. Tighten up the front guard screw a wee bit, say 1/3 of a turn. Check again.
Now here is where it gets a bit dicey. As you increase the front guard screw, you are increasing the reinforce pressure but after a wee bit of crush you will also be reducing the front barrel pressure. I have no idea what the correct reinforce pressure is, but on the few front bed rifles I set up the front lift pressure went from something around 10 Lbs. down to something around 6.5~8 Lbs. If the pressure on the front barrel seat is below around 4.5~5 Lbs, then the pressure on the front reinforce is too high, at least in my experience and you will get wild shots or two grouping, for reasons I know not. Then you have to reduce the barrel reinforce seat , to get the front pressure back.
Now one of the reasons I like the center bed is that if you run into this problem, it is a lot easier to simply shim up the center bed with a thin veneer and have another shot at it. The center bed pressures seem to be much less important, as long as they are something over 10 Lbs.
In any case once you have a fit that shoot s decent groups, count out the number of turns on the front guard screw. Disassemble and then cut down a collar with the action free of the wood so that when tight it gives you the correct number of turns before the collar stops. Then reassemble the rifle with the collar and you are mostly done. If you go to this trouble I would be sure to install the action metal collar, it will help keep the bedding constant over a number of seasons.
By the by, after a few thousand rounds you may have to go back and touch up the fit of the rear draws, they seem to loosen up after ~2,000 rounds. I cannot say with any more precision than that as I have only had one rifle with that many rounds through it. To fit that rifle I steamed out the slightly crushed wood and then treated it with a minwax wood hardener/epoxy made to be used on slightly rotted wood. That restored the fits, in fact it took a bit of tamping to get the stock back on the action.
Depending on the fit you may have to adjust the handguard to ensure that they are snug but not too tight, as the barrel may sit a wee bit lower in the stock when you are all the way done. You do not want to have the rear handguard have to be inserted and used like a crow bar to make it fit, that will mess up the fit of the action body to the wood. It should go in easy and have minimal play.
Last thing to do is once the rest of the fits are correct is to adjust the trigger. If a MK I or MK I* action.
Now if you got this far you are wondering what sort of results one gets. With US loads shooting with 150 grain to 175 grain US bullets (Hornaday, Sierra) and power charges of around 40 to 41 grains of Varget /IMR4064, the accuracy of the above will be about 10 shot groups on the order of 1.5~1.8 MOA. I have never fired a perfect 100 with the No 4 on the US decimal target, much less a perfect 200. I have fired personnel best of 188 with the best single 10 shot string being a 96. In all of those strings there have been shots called out, as well as shots that were not where expected. In comparison on a well-tuned M16A2 with the full match set up I used to be able to do a 196~198 pretty easy, and those rifles were known to group with good ammo something less than 1 MOA. I have not fired one in 5 years so I have no idea how these old nearly 51 year old eyes would do today.
If it would help and I can figure it out, I will try to get the wife to take some photos of a disassembled rifle. I have one called “rex the wonder gun” that has been subjected to experimentation for something like 10 years, two stock sets and still shots pretty decent, despite a well-worn bore at this point.
Thanks. My main gun (an ex-AJP) does strange things, it groups extremely well for a handful of shots then jumps up 6MOA then can group for the same number of shots again and then progressively shoots unpredictably vertically. It is centre bedded and it maybe the re-inforce pressure is actually to heavy rather then the too light I thought. My other gun (an ex-parkerhale no4) I am setting back to as-issued. this post will help me understand what is going on, currently the front loading is 3lbs which I intended to brass shim heavier to see the effect. For centre bedded the info I have says use cork above the bed to clamp it, but from what I read here this isnt your setup?
If you can do pics that would be great.
If the bedding is set up right, and the draws are still tight, I would expect the issues might be something else. Generally if a rifle two groups or has some kind of jump in its group there is some kind of stiction fit that is moving under recoil, setting up different forces on the barreled action shot to shot. That is why the graphite is used under the barrel reinforce and the front barrel seat, to ensure they can move under recoil and return to their original placement. It could also be a case of bad fouling.
You might have a warped stock. If the barrel is not more or less centered in the stock channel at the very front band, then the stock might have warped and changed the bedding pressures. If that is not the case, before I did any messing with a factory bedding job I would check the following:
1) Fouling: Sometimes old barrels have a lot of fouling that is really difficult to get out, both carbon and copper. You might need to clean out both, which means using a copper cleaner and then a carbon cleaner. A clean bore is a happy bore. If there is something rough in the bore or the throat, which might be the issue as well. if you can polish that down with JB bore cleaner or another similar substance that might resolve the issue.
2) Once cleaned out check the crown, if worn it might lead to the wild shots.
3) When reassembling the rifle use some graphite on the barrel seat and the barrel reinforce.
4) Give the rifle some time to settle in the stock. When I used to take the M1 and M14 rifles out of their stocks, once reassembled you had to give the rifle a good 20 rounds to make sure it settled down.
5) Check the handguard for fit, if the rear one is wedged or a stiction fit, that could account for wildly varying vertical stringing.
6) One last issue, if the stock has dried out it may no longer fit correctly. The old method I would use with glue and the epoxies available here in the US of A is to let the stock absorb linseed oil, but I am not sure if that finish is compatible with what AJP did. Frankly given the very historic aspect of the rifle, I would be very hesitant to make any major change to the bedding.
1) It is a new barrel < 500 rounds, it is a Lithgow H barrel. It used to shoot well then just went awol one day.
2) Crown is new-ish
3) I will try this.
4) tried this, nope.
5) should be ok though I have the rear one acting as a clamp over the centre bedding, I might try it free and see how it does.
6) I have re-seated/bedded the receiver as it has indeed dried out. If it was original I'd be more circumspect but its clearly been altered over the years so I do not know what is or isn't original, so no worries, I bought it to shoot it.