No4Mk1 accuracy

I have a No4Mk1 that has been FTR'd, it has an ROF receiver with matching bolt and magazine, the barrel was changed with the original serial lined out.
The wood is Savage as is all of the metal bits that went into the FTR. I wasn't expecting too much for accuracy due to all of the mods done to the rifle.
There was a bit of swelling in the wood at the muzzle, I took a wooden dowel with some sand paper and the barrel was free floated.
I shot some 174 grain Hornady's at a local gravel pit, the first shot was on a target at 200+ yds.
I found a rock that really looked like a deer and was the same size, my first shot rested prone was right on to point of aim, from the 200+ yds distance I was shooting I saw the puff of dust but couldn't see the hit on the rock.
I strolled over and saw the mark on the rock, a high heart lung shot, the FTR was done properly I would guess.

Wow, if I'm reading this correctly, you sanded out the bearing at the front of the forend and it still shoots well? Just think how much better it would shoot if you'd read up on it and left it alone. The No.4 wasn't intended to be floated at the muzzle end of he forend. That bearing is there for a reason. :ugh:

---------- Post added at 05:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:15 PM ----------

I'm seriously hoping that with a name like .303carbine, you're just pulling our legs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Dick

Wow, if I'm reading this correctly, you sanded out the bearing at the front of the forend and it still shoots well? Just think how much better it would shoot if you'd read up on it and left it alone. The No.4 wasn't intended to be floated at the muzzle end of he forend. That bearing is there for a reason. :ugh:

---------- Post added at 05:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:15 PM ----------

I'm seriously hoping that with a name like .303carbine, you're just pulling our legs.

---

I shot it quite a bit before free floating the tip, it definitely shoots better after. The bearing on the tip was making the shots rise when the barrel heated up, I never like to touch anything on my Enfields unless it improves accuracy, in this case, it did.
One writeup stated that there should be 20 thou free float at the muzzle from the factory, I know my Remington rifles shoot better without the pressure point at the muzzle as well.

Can you remember what/who's writeup that was? I've been using the No.4T EMERS to properly fit No.4 forends for many years and it can be a real bastard sometimes. I'm still learning!!

Brian, I will look through the writeups and web stuff I have and let you know what I find, I hope it didn't deleted when my computer crashed last year.
I remember the 20 thou free float in the writeup, I don't remember reading anything about the bearing at the muzzle though.

About 6 lbs pressure at the tip of the fore-stock isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr.e moose

About 6 lbs pressure at the tip of the fore-stock isn't it?

---

I read it as "designed with a heavier free floating barrel", this was done to overcome the problems with the No1Mk111 bedding issues.
The No1mk111 rifle is more complicated than the No4 as it has multiple bedding points.
The biggest concern was simplified manufacturing when the No4Mk1 was designed and to speed up production.
I was out again tonight shooting at longish (200+) range with 174 grain Hornady's using the main battle sight, I got multiple direct hits with no misses.
The same shots at the same distance before I free floated the barrel steadily climbed on target.
I used the same batch of reloads and the free floated barrel seems to shoot better, your mileage may vary though.

Guess they are like cars of the same make and model, same as but different animals all my 4's have the @6lbs up pressure and we do some pretty stiff shoots that require throwing a good amount of lead in a short time span at medium say 300m to longish 600m and at that point the POI climb if they have it is the least of my problems :ugh: the heat haze from the top wood remains an issue (And no I will not stick green felt on them :madsmile:.)
If your 20 thou dowel job works then good for you go back to say 400 and try it out as a comparison and give us some feedback not that I am modifying something that outshoots me:p

Mmmmmmmmmm. I wonder just how accurate your now muzzle bearing-less No4 rifle would shoot if it were to be subject to something more scientific. Scientific like the post war trials held to ascertain the most accurate and reliable method of stocking up. Or tested from an Enfield Rest which is designed to eliminate all traces of human interference, however small.

The strange part about your findings is that they clash with the 1946/7 trials NOT of the No4T sniper rifle, but the bog standard rifle which clearly and distinctly states that the wartime expedient of eliminating the muzzle bearing will cease forthwith. Or words to that effect. Just my view of course, probably shared by one or two others I'd say

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Mmmmmmmmmm. I wonder just how accurate your now muzzle bearing-less No4 rifle would shoot if it were to be subject to something more scientific. Scientific like the post war trials held to ascertain the most accurate and reliable method of stocking up. Or tested from an Enfield Rest which is designed to eliminate all traces of human interference, however small.

The strange part about your findings is that they clash with the 1946/7 trials NOT of the No4T sniper rifle, but the bog standard rifle which clearly and distinctly states that the wartime expedient of eliminating the muzzle bearing will cease forthwith. Or words to that effect. Just my view of course, probably shared by one or two others I'd say

---

My No4 was FTR'd back in WW2, the ROF rifle was stocked with Savage wood and muzzle bearing appeared to be more wood swell as it was very uneven and was tighter on right side of the muzzle than the left.
This was making the rifle shoot higher as the rifle heated up, after 5 shots the shots would string vertically and left slightly.
After removing the uneven bearing surface, it changed the accuracy to the good and vertical stringing ceased, this may be just my rifle though.
I have heard many opinions of how to properly bed the No4, I have seen wood, cork, felt, plastic, body filler, acraglass, etc.
I have seen No4's where the method used was to bed the barrel channel with acraglass from the king screw to the middle barrel band and leave the rest of the barrel to free float.
I have never seen that method used by anyone except for youtube "experts.
I am going to do some more shooting and determine if I need to redo the bearing pressure at the muzzle, as it was, it was about 45lbs upward pressure and was way too much.
If I find that it does need 4 to 6 lbs upward pressure, I will glue in a small piece of wood and form it until I get the required amount of upward pressure.
As it is, I get good repeatable accuracy, I am not shooting in any competitions where stock rifles are required, if the rifle requires muzzle bearing to shoot even better, I will do that if and when needed.
With my computer down for the count, all I could find was Wikipedia where they state that the No4 was made for easier manufacturing with a free floating barrel, I am not sure how accurate their info is though.

All FTR means is that it was basically rebuilt to new condition post WWII which is good from the shooting standpoint. Savage supplied many replacement parts that were in the MoD system so that's what they used in your case. Go over and read Peter's article on this forum about proper fitting of forends. I won't argue that you may have a perceived improvement in the accuracy of your rifle but removing the bearing and floating the muzzle isn't the answer. Your forend may have needed other adjustments since wood does change and will warp, etc with time. The fact is that the No.4 was not originally designed to be free floated at the muzzle. Much more extensive testing and retesting was done by the MoD as Peter states above.

Hi Brian, I got an answer to an email that I sent to Ian Skennerton, I asked him about the bedding of the No4 barrel.
He replied that the muzzle bedding was eliminated during the war years as it was not a problem as it was with the No1Mk111 rifle.
I got the feeling he really wants to sell me another book. :D

I've had hundreds of No.4 rifles through here and I've never seen a wartime No.4 free floated at the muzzle except for some Indian owned rifles, (including a nice No.4Mk.1T), so I seriously doubt it was a common practice in British and Commonwealth service even though there was a wartime relaxation of standards. It's all about barrel harmonics otherwise known in layman's terms as the "tuning fork effect". I'd suggest that you read post #9 again and then read, reread and then read again the article on proper forend fitting written for this forum and this forum only by Peter Laidler who actually worked on these rifles during his long career as a REAL REME Armourer in the British Army. I know Ian very well and he writes fine books but there's a big difference. I've been learning to do this work for well over twenty years and as I said before, I'm still learning and will never be an expert.

I have no doubt that there is a correct amount of upward pressure and I will revisit it and do some shimming to find the correct pressure for my rifle.
I shot it before doing anything to it at all, it was after I removed the wood at the muzzle did the accuracy dramatically improve, perhaps there was too much upward muzzle bearing.
There is still a bit of pressure, just not the upward 45 lbs or so it had, there was also some wood warping causing pressure on one side of the wood as well.
I am going to place two targets side by side at 50 yds and try 10 rounds off the bench as it is, then I am going to add a small shim under the muzzle that will be close to 5 lb and shoot another 10 rounds.

I had a good read of Mr. Laidlers articles on fore end fitting, it makes a lot of sense and I will be trying his methods.:thup: 3 to 7lbs sounds more realistic than the 45 lb that was there due to warping of the fore end.
I found another high spot in the No4 barrel channel, the article said the barrel needed to be free all the way to the tip.:bash:
I relieved the small pressure point on the side of the barrel, now there appears to be appropriate amount of upward muzzle pressure.
I am going to have to do some reloading and more testing this weekend when I get the chance.

Over the past two days I have been testing the No4 again, I applied the bedding as per Mr. Laidlers instructions.
I tested the rifle with the same rest, same ammo , same distance, same target on two consecutive days.
First off with the bedded rifle, I shot a dismal four inch group at 55 yds with 174 grain Hornady's over 37 grains of IMR 3031.
Next day with the bedding removed and barrel tip free floated, same target etc., I shot another four shot group, I shot a triangular group that measured
1& 1/4 inch x 1 & 1/4 inch x 3/8ths inch with two bullets touching.
I guess my rifle just doesn't like the bedding at the tip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Mmmmmmmmmm. I wonder just how accurate your now muzzle bearing-less No4 rifle would shoot if it were to be subject to something more scientific. Scientific like the post war trials held to ascertain the most accurate and reliable method of stocking up. Or tested from an Enfield Rest which is designed to eliminate all traces of human interference, however small.

The strange part about your findings is that they clash with the 1946/7 trials NOT of the No4T sniper rifle, but the bog standard rifle which clearly and distinctly states that the wartime expedient of eliminating the muzzle bearing will cease forthwith. Or words to that effect. Just my view of course, probably shared by one or two others I'd say

---

So what's your opinion on the target shooters using mid or centre bearing bedding with fully floated front on No4's then? Seemed to be the method of choice back in the day and used by just about everybody that was remotely competitive also was the bedding method of choice by Parker Hale.

So what 1 No.4 dislikes (Front pressure) another may just love so I say it is what it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 303carbine

Over the past two days I have been testing the No4 again, I applied the bedding as per Mr. Laidlers instructions.
I tested the rifle with the same rest, same ammo , same distance, same target on two consecutive days.
First off with the bedded rifle, I shot a dismal four inch group at 55 yds with 174 grain Hornady's over 37 grains of IMR 3031.
Next day with the bedding removed and barrel tip free floated, same target etc., I shot another four shot group, I shot a triangular group that measured
1& 1/4 inch x 1 & 1/4 inch x 3/8ths inch with two bullets touching.
I guess my rifle just doesn't like the bedding at the tip.

---

It appears as though every rifle has a mind of it's own, Ray Attachment 68427

Some rifles that have been worked on by Fulton's of Bisley do not have the up pressure at the muzzle. However they have moved the up pressure bedding to further down the barrel so it still has up pressure, just not in the same place. I have a Fultons No4 M1/2 and the muzzle definitely has clearance in all directions. That said; they are the exceptions to the rule. The standard rifle has the pressure applied at the muzzle. This is also true of the No1. But the up pressure needs to be set after checking the contact at the draws and under the knox form etc; it is one part of the puzzle that is Enfield accuracy!

It's called center bedding. Common on Canadian DCRA No.4 7.62 target rifles also.

I do not mean to step in where a certain REME Captain might provide a more definitive answer, but the British tests results showed the front loading on the barrel gave the best accuracy results off of a rifle rest. Not sure off of what soldier hold tests were done, but I seem to recall the UK test results were replicated twice. That said, from a competitive shooter point of view, using either the US single point sling or the UK 2 point sling the center bedding seems to give the best results. The chief difference I noted was the degree of sling tension does not seem to have as much effect on zero or rifle zero movement as the rifle heats up.

Now this might not be that big a deal in UK shooting, as with 2 to 3 shooters at a firing point the time between shots is on the order of 1 to 2 minutes. But in US shooting, where the shooter is on his own, often times if the conditions are the same you might be shooting as fast as possible, or around 25 to 35 seconds between shots in a 22 round string (2 sighters and 20 shots for record). In shooting a number of rifles side by side, front loaded and center bedded rifles, it seems the center bedded rifles hold zero and seem to show less deviation relative to minor changes in sling tension than with the front loaded rifles.

I will say that a lot of things competitive shooters prefer are not absolutely applicable to service rifles and how they are used under service conditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frederick303

I will say that a lot of things competitive shooters prefer are not absolutely applicable to service rifles and how they are used under service conditions.

---

Exactly, but competitive shooters will always know/figure out the best accuracy tricks and have long known that service bedding does not provide the best accuracy results, it may provide the most consistent accuracy for mass production standards or over varying and extreme conditions but it certainly doesn't provide the best accuracy obtainable.

Well.....Capt. Laidler says otherwise, he has written several times that in terms of absolute accuracy the front loaded No4 rifle did better than the center bedded. I seem to recall that Major Reynolds in his 1960 book on the Enfield says the same thing. Major Reynolds was involved with the entire adoption of the No4, so you have two first hand sources saying the same thing.

Given that the sniper rifles were hand tuned, if the center bedded method was better I suspect the UK would have gone to it. Still for competitive shooting with a sling the center bedded method seems to work about as well as any method.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frederick303

Well.....Capt. Laidler says otherwise, he has written several times that in terms of absolute accuracy the front loaded No4 rifle did better than the center bedded. I seem to recall that Major Reynolds in his 1960 book on the Enfield says the same thing. Major Reynolds was involved with the entire adoption of the No4, so you have two first hand sources saying the same thing.

Given that the sniper rifles were hand tuned, if the center bedded method was better I suspect the UK would have gone to it. Still for competitive shooting with a sling the center bedded method seems to work about as well as any method.

---

Well it seems you are somewhat conflicted on the issue having read your comments on the matter in another thread, anyway its clear that your now sold on which is method best. Me personally I will stick with what works better well at least for vast majority of competitive shooters since the 60's and little ol me anyway.

Not so much sold, as willing to admit that if Capt Laidler says something, I stop and listen.

One thing is today for the most part we shoot regular single base powders in our rifles, the supply of match grade MKVII cartridges that doe not show hang fires being rather non-existent.

I have found in a long career in engineering that assuming previous generations got something wrong means you have missed one or more constraints they were operating under that made their decision rational.

I'm certainly not discounting Peter's opinion at all in fact I have a healthy respect for it.

That said and after reading Peter's comments in a few other threads on this topic I think Peter himself appears quick to dismiss anything other than the military standard as simply foolish endevour and if anyone gets it work its a fluke and plain lucky. By doing this I feel he discounts some very experienced and extremely competent gunsmiths of yesteryear from companies like Parker & Hale, Fultons to name a couple that both used center and mid bearing setups to great success. Gunsmiths that would arguably be as and some maybe more experienced than Peter himself when it comes to Lee Enfield's.

Then add to the discussion the extensive research that Canada did on the bedding, that again shouldn't be dismissed out of hand either I reckon some pretty smart and experience people were involved in that process and they seemed to use their results with great success. Finally we have the hundreds if not thousands of competition shooters, some extremely competent gunsmiths themselves that have used this method since the 60's to great success.

In addition I think the acceptance standard of accuracy for a No4 T is nothing special if I had a target rifle that was shooting such groups it would be left in the safe.

Be interesting to see if Percy Pavey or James Sweet had anything to do with the No.4 bedding as both were world class shooters with the 303 rifles not sure but I think Pavey won Bisley. My comp died so on a tablet until it gets repaired which I may say is painful to use......

I think both used No1's, I know they were both still using them as late as 1959

Percy's record

His record in senior competition in Australia is unmatched, winning numerous King's and Queen's badges. The Kings and Queens prize is the same prize event and is linked to whoever is the monarch of the day. The trophy is presented at state, national and international events.

Between 1930 and 1959, he won the Victorian prize five times (1930, 1932, 1935, 1958, 1959), the New South Wales prize twice (1931, 1952), the Queensland prize three times (1930, 1939, 1950), the South Australian prize twice (1938, 1955) and the Tasmanian prize twice (1938, 1956). In 1952 he became the first man to win a King's or Queen's prize and the Jamieson Aggregate in the same year.

In 1928 he won the Canadian Grand Aggregate and the first stage of the Governor General's Aggregate. His proudest moment was winning the coveted King's Prize at Bisley, England (where he represented Australia five times) in 1948 and was presented with this award by King George V. In 1956 he won the Scottish Championship and the Scottish Grand Aggregate. He won the Grand Aggregate, the top prize in the sport, 16 times - the only Australian to achieve this.

Brent65

Your argument is well stated and makes rethink my former opinion. Ultimately the arguments of the various tuning methods comes down to record and with at least the No1MK 3, the Fulton regulation or Martin nodal regulation both seemed to have dominated the Kings and Queens list from the 1930s to 1959 (in the UK).

That said the Canadian experiments were all done after 1963, when the 7.62 NATO service weight barrel was approved. In Canadian competition, between 1946 and 1964 all .303 rifles had to be bedded in the conventional manner. Only one deviation was made , (around 1956) to allow the visiting UK team to shoot their center bedded No4 rifles. So at least in Canadian service, the scores made are a reflection of what a carefully tuned conventional bedding job could do.

Finally the groups achieved with any of the tuned Enfield match rifles would not be all that impressive today with our CNC made match rifles. Sorry , but 2~2.25 MOA for a No1 was considered good and something approaching 1.6~1.7 MOA for a No 4 was considered very good. The Bisley target bull was never reduced below 2.5 MOA in size. It was 3 MOA at 1000 yards. Now if you compare this to the US standards, (Pre 1966) this was not small shakes. The 300 yard target was 4 MOA, the 600 yard target 3.33 moa and the 1000 yards was 3.6 MOA (until 1975 on LR target).

That said your point has validity and you could be correct.

So even the UK team was using center bedded rifles, surely the English team would not have used a non standard method if it was not providing better results?

I think on that basis we ought to accept that your method of bedding - as used by the UK team of the 50's - is better than the method used by the UK MIlitary. Mind you, in their defence, they did try hard to get it right for a mass produced Infantry battle rifle using mass produced ammo from factories across the world. Add to that, that their trials, tests and tribulations were carried out in laboratory conditions and not on a dusty open range somewhere.

I wonder if you've got any views on the bedding - or lack of it - on the grouping capabilities of the SA80 LSW that I could pass on to the trials team..... Just being a bit facetious in my own pommy way of course.

This ancient post raised my interest as I recently acquired a N°4 MkI* made by Stevens-Savage, anno 1943. The rifle is stamped FTR and has a new stock and barrel. The latter is free floated at the fore end but has an insert (pressure point) about under the junction of receiver/barrel. With 174 SMK it shoots 1.6 MOA at 100 meters.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...0qbr7uee-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...vvk0wbw9-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...bwedrw0g-1.jpg

I usually stay away from this issue due to strong beliefs expresses by many here on the forum and elsewhere and people can get quite "tense" at times, but, most of my No4's (actually make that all my No4's) come to me as ex range/fullbore rifles (have quite a number now) majority are centre bedded.
If they group well (and many do i must add) i leave as is - if it aint broke don't fix it - if they don't group well/at all, and i can determine bedding is at fault, i refit forend or another forend as per orig military spec - following PL's much referred to instructions (Took me some practice from novice level to get it wright but seem to be doing ok now) Invariably if i do it correctly they generally group well assuming barrel is ok.
So there you go, my five cents worth, that does nothing to help the argument/different views at all - so i guess im in both camps so both sides can berate me if required - :lol:

This is always an interesting topic and a lot has been written by people more experienced than I.
However I would like to comment and add some of my own personal experience!
I own a No4Mk1/2 that was regulated by Fultons at some time, it shot well from the first time I tried it and after trying varying reloads I have found a good set up.It will shoot close to 1MOA in the right hands (not mine).
It should be remembered that the No4 rifle came out at the start of WWII and probably did not get seriously looked at as a target rifle until after that conflict; which would explain why the "target" crowd continued with the No1 rifle for a while. The military probably did not look at further enhancement after the war because when set up properly, it did what it was supposed to with good accuracy for a service rifle.
I have recently set up a No1MkIII* for service rifle competitions, and I stayed with the original type set up. I wanted to see how good I could get it before deciding whether to go the "bedding" route. To be honest, it's shooting very well in standard form; not far off the No4 in my hands.
Attachment 76301Attachment 76303
The two 10m targets are the No1MkIII* testing SMK and SB bullets.
The single target is the No4 rifle shot by my friend Charlie, first time he'd tried this rifle (and he's left handed) Both are at 50 metres.
When I shoot them, there's really not much in it!