Printable View
Gentlemen,
Been thinking about this for a while;
Which model of the No 4 L.E. is best for target work, all else being equal?
I ask, as the No 4 Mk 2 is often cited as being best, with it's hung trigger etc, yet years ago in I think Guns Review, there was an article on target shooting with the No 4, and it stated that for best work, a well set up no 4 Mk 1 was the best and most reliable.
I have been wondering if this is still regarded as true?
Thanks in advance for any light shed.
Richard.
If you read some of the old gunsmithing articles it would appear that the degree of action stiffness varied between manufacturers and action to action in the WWII production. This in turn affected the degree of compensation at various ranges. As when the Bisely finals were the decisive matches, the degree of long range compensation was important. That may have some affect on which action would be best for a particular distance given standard No4 service bedding and how true the front sight will be when zeroed.
Supposedly that was one of the Fulton Tricks that made their rifles desirable, though unfortunately when Major Fulton died some years ago all those records were destroyed. I have also read that part of the Fulton tricks were how they set up the bearings on the lugs to compensate for action twist due to asymmetrical support of the bolt, which in turn depended on the action stiffness.
The only difference I have noted in observation is that with Savage No4 MK I* rifles it seems a significant number need the front sight post to be zeroed to the left of center, which might have something to do with the metal heat/treatment. That is with standard service bedding.
In the Canadian case, they allowed only the standard front loaded bedding from 1946 until the adoption of the No 4 in 7.62 around 1963. Only one exception was made for an English team that came over around 1955/56 that had some center-bedded rifles that were allowed. The Canadian had pretty good luck with Longbranch rifles, their scores at Connaught seem to be very good, though I note that most of the winning Bisley Canadian shooters pre 1962 seem to have a match tuned No1 MK III for the Bisley finals when they came over as a team to the UK.
Not a real answer, but it might explain why some folks though the WWII actions were better for target work in some way.
It might also relate to the barrels and bore size, as I recall talking to an old time shooter at Connaught two decades ago about this and he said back in the day a lot of the issues folks had with accuracy had to do with the fouling characteristics of different lots and the relationship to bore size. I do not really recall the details well enough to say anything definitive, but I seem to recall him saying the post war BSA barrels were very fine barrels.
I do thank you Frederick, for taking the time to write such a thorough and comprehensive reply.
What you have to say is very interesting, regarding the differing rifles & barrels.
Again, thank you for your time!
Best wishes,
R.
A No.4T sans scope ought to be the best.
The Mk.2s trigger mechanism was to make manufacture easier (less skill and time required), not to improve the trigger.
If the sole objective was easier manufacture, why did they bother converting all those Mk.1/2 and 1/3's? That exercise undoubtedly took a fair amount of skill and time. Hmmmm. . .
As I understand it that is the purpose of the Mk.2 design, to improve trigger pull qualities by hanging it from the receiver where swelled woodwork doesn't affect the fit of the trigger/sear/cocking piece engagement surfaces causing inconsistent pull weights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerhunter
Tom VH is correct. There were some problems with unseasoned wood during wartime with the remedy being the Mk.2 design. Personally, I don't see any difference in the trigger performance of the Mk.1, 1/2, 1/3 or Mk.2 but that's just my opinion having fired a few over the years. If it makes a rifle more accurate, then why weren't all the sniper rifles converted? I've had wartime rifles that were tack drivers and post war rifles that were tack drivers and vice versa!
Because that was probably not the sole objective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parashooter
Really I suggest you have to be in the mind set of the British after WW2 when they were fairly broke being in huge debt from war costs so also of the era mindset as well as being British. I talk to my parents now in their 8th decade and the insights can be interesting. (dad hated stens dangerous things but like his enfield)
a) After WW2 the cold war was just starting.
b) Work for ppl. " At the same time, they held out the prospect of a new social order that would ensure better housing, free medical services and employment for all."
c) Labour government coming into power.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwa...ction_01.shtml
So with various hot spots around the world, commie threats
Malayan Emergency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
upgrading an existing rifle when nothing else was immediately available, pretty cheap to do and keep voters employed such work until the next generation rifle could be designed makes some sense. Also conscription was still in force, cant have soldiers without guns now can we?
If you are contemplating target shooting a no4, Criterion are now producing match grade No4 barrels so getting a decent gun and re-barreling would seem "essential" assuming the rules allow it.
As an aside, here in NZ there was a big history of shooting no1 mk3s and no4s so there are a lot of examples about. I own and shoot 2 so far, both no4 mk2s (and a Pattern1914 that was probably used as a target gun). From what I have seen written the no4 mk2 is supposed to be about 1/4moa more accurate than the mk1. However the post ww2 barrels would have been made better than the ww2 ones on average I would think so it could be the accuracy is mostly due to the better made barrel. Now I have read that ParkerHale went into the factory and hand selected barrels for ball burnishing and fitting to its rifles so that suggests my theory might stand up.
Whooooooooa there....... Beerhunter is right and the points the doubters make are realistic but the fact is that the trigger was hung on the body to make manufacture AND ASSEMBLING the rifle an easier/simpler task for unskilled labour. The correct assembly of the rifle was a huge bottleneck in manufacture because if the trigger pull-off wasn't correct it had to be fully stripped again and then reassembled, tested and on and on, perhaps several times.
Why Mk1`/2's and 1/3's, Standardisation and ease of assembly at the factory again.
Brian is right (thread 7 line 2-3) in that there is little difference between the Mk1 and 1/2 variants. But that isn't the point. It's not WHEN they are both operating/functioning correctly, it's MAKING them operate/function correctly from virtually new. Adjusting a Mk2 trigger is simplicity itself. Youy can test it fully stripped on the bench. NOT so with a Mk1.
And, please, please please. for the sake of my sanity, patience and diplomacy don't tell me that you can set the trigger pull-offs correctly by tweaking or bending the trigger guard............
Go to the top of the class Beerhunter. But perhaps you should have added the words '.....and assembly by an unskilled workforce' after manufacture
I wouldn't think that there is the slightest chance of obtaining a "most accurate" rifle by making a choice based on model or manufacturer. There is no statistical evidence at all that supports any sort of correlation, let alone the data set and laboratory research that might be needed to even detect variations due to metallurgy or machining patterns.
Shooting performance of the rifle is purely down to bore condition and bedding. Again, there is no evidence that any of the well-known gunsmiths were doing anything to a No4 other than selecting a decent barrel and making sure the forend was a good fit. If there was a "secret formula", presumably we'd by now all know that "X's SRb model can reliably shoot 1/4 moa" etc. On the contrary, if you look at dozens of Fultons SRb No4s, they are a complete bag of bitsas - many are made from mixed manufacturer parts.
The conversions were done during FFR.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parashooter
Once again, what a breath of fresh air, common sense and the bleedin obvious Thunderbox comes up with.
I'm sure Beery really means FTR and not FFR - Fitted For Radio!. But as he says, once a Mk1 had been converted to Mk1/2, it is IMMEDIATELY not the cause of a bottleneck during the assembly stage.
You are right Peter. I did mean FTR. And what palaver those petrol-powered Truck, Rover 4X4 FFRs were. Not as bad as the Champ (yes I am that old) but so many odd parts and a 24v system to boot.
During the production run for the No.4 Mk2, there were a number of special orders with these serial numbers:
PP1 PP43 Parker Hale 43
PF 361160 PF 361259 Parker Hale 99
PF 401087 PF 401495 No 4 (T) Rifles? 408
PF 401157 PF 404206 Parker Hale 3049
PF 405813 PF 405848 G E Fulton (Bisley) 35
PF 411229 PF 411264 G E Fulton (Bisley) 35
Would these be likely candidates to start choosing an accurate target rifle. (Several months ago one of the Parker Hale rifles with IIRC a PH5 sight sold or $475 USD.)
I'm bound to ask what difference would there be in these rifles to a standard Fazakerley made Army issue Mk2 rifle of the era. Fazakerley is to gun making is what King Herod is to baby-sitting circles
Nothing special with my No.4's except one is hard bedded with no movement of the muzzle and both shoot better than I as I am looking at a score from a 200M shoot we had a while ago I was using 174gn SMK's from the sitting position with the hard bedded one and it reads V V V V V V V 5 4 4 - 48.07 & V 5 5 5 5 V V V 5 5 - 50.04 = 98.11/100.20 also I finished 2nd in the state championships 2 years running a 2 day shoot using my a Spec - 1 as issued No.4 the courses of fire were from 100 - 600M prone, sitting and standing. I think there is an element of luck, skill and just being on your mettle on the day. The chap that won both those years was shooting a 1915 Lithgow No 1 Mk III and is still hard to beat and whats worse he has just brought another 1915 Lithgow:confused:
Here is what goes pretty much for all of us, I look at things that make a rifle what it is, does the bolt move freely, rip it apart with the owners permission and get a good look at the marking and o/all condition of the bottom wood and the draws and bearing 2 2/3rds around the mag well, if the back of the bottom wood is cracked where the plate is then this needs a fixin. Barrels are barrels but a good one that accepts a 295.5 - 300 is pretty tight look at the crown for dings and then the ol bore scope up the pipe to check the throat and over all condition don't want a rusty ford up there do we, check the stock comes together it should not rock on the trigger guard screw front when tightened right up means the collar is too long between the screw head and the seat, though at times the screw will bottom out before the action is tight in the wood, all being good boil the barrel hot steaming water do not burn yourself use 2x1.5l kettle fulls swab out till dry it will dry quickly but gotta get the water out. While still warmish cane it with Hoppes No 9 or Coppa Killer by Montana do 2 cleanings, swab out with metho let dry then lightly oil the bore and other items bit of blo in the wood fit sling a box of crackers and hey range time this is of course the F pin protrusion is ok and the bolt over turn is no more than 5 degrees and it head spaces on a .067 is what I use others use a .070 both as go gauges and the .074 as the no go. I did here there was a rule a .074 H/S weapon could be shot but only in the event the cooks tent was going to over run by the enemy best powder I use is AR2209 between 40gns+ a tich more not much though the AR2208 is just a bit to sharp, anyway have a good time there is plenty of helpful chaps here, by the way use FED-210 primers and Rem cases Have fun.......:dancingbanana:.
Thanks for all the interest and time taking in replies chaps.
So it appears beauty is where you find it, or in this case accuracy.
No preference of Mk 1 over Mk 2, or anything.
For Years we were told that the No 4 made the better target rifle, but in the last while, it has come to light how well the old SMLE can perform, as seen in Cinders thread above, (Thanks for that!) And, as seen in results at long range, they still seem hard to beat!
Have a 1923 Lithgow, FTR'd in '54. Not tried it much yet...
Thank you again,
Richard.
Interestingly. for years my most accurate Enfield was a bitsa No.4 Longbranch. However a few years back i bought a REALLY rough REALLY cheap 1915 Lithgow from Brian Dick for what was going to be a refurb / sniper / bubba project (NOTE : Brian doesn't sell rough rifles. I actually had to plead to see if he had any old beaters specifically and he found this one for me that he had been saving for a project himself). I decided to shoot it before tinkering and Lo and behold it was simply fabulous so i abandoned the project. It has a really stiff action and bolt - maybe tolerances were particularly tight that year or something.
Middle group of these three at 100 yards from testing ammo. That group was Sellier and bellot ammo as it likes that (IIRC top was POF and bottom might have been some old Radway Green - but twas very hangfirey).
Attachment 64149
If you are old enough, it should be FFW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerhunter
Dang Charlie! You've been holding out on me!! Honestly, I don't remember it but it's obviously a good 'un!!!
LOL I only actually fired it for the first time about 6 months ago but I got it about 4 years back. i was going to re barrel it as it was dark.
I used POF for a while and in PL's words they are a real PIECE OF FAFF absolute crap ammo for sure........Quote:
Originally Posted by newcastle
Ah, tweeking the trigger guard is a really easy way of adjusting the trigger, unfortunately its a really easy way of totally screwing up your bedding too!Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
The centre bedding was quite popular here in the 1960s I'm told. Quite a few of the DCRA conversion rifles are bedded that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frederick303
Incidentally, an older shooter and amateur gunsmith told me that he was assured by an ex-SAL employee that the 7.62mm CAL barrels were actually made by Douglas in the USA. He named his informant, but I don't recall the name and both are dead now. I'm skeptical, since if it were true, one would have expected it to have come out by now.
I seem to recall that the "asymmetry" of the No4 action was scoffed at when Long Branch referred to it in reference to the design of one of their light weight rifles. It is an interesting fact that the long recoil lug, which must have greater resistance to flex or compression than the smaller lug (however small a difference), bears on the weaker and presumably more flexible side of the body. It would be interesting to set up a barreled action in an absolutely immovable mount bearing only on the barrel and see what moves with some dial indicators and high speed cameras.
The Mk2 has a smaller circular relief cutout on the underside behind the recoil lugs, quite a lot smaller than those rifles that had a rounded rectangular cutout. This leaves quite a bit more mass in that area and presumably more rigidity. Whether that is actually beneficial to potential accuracy is another question!
"For Years we were told that the No 4 made the better target rifle" depends on the range. Here in NZ the No4 was regarded as the better of the three guns to shoot above 500yds or so, suggesting yes that is the case.
---------- Post added at 09:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 PM ----------
"see what moves with some dial indicators and high speed cameras." the idea had crossed my mind but just use modern electronic strain gauges? that way you may also see the vibration going on graphically.
" Personally I dont see any fifference in the trigger performance between th 1, 2, 1/2, 1/3" That exactly what they intended to standardize, the trigger pull wich was all over the place on the 1's. even those corrected in 1/2 and the 1/3 were iffy because the bracket had to be brazed on. The No 4 mark 2 had the trigger mount incorporated into the manufacturing process and had the POTENTIAL to be a better trigger but recall, It is a combat rifle . They fixed alot in the 4/2's. that trigger fix was a major fix for competative accuracy. easy to tune and stayed tuned, That III and early 4's wood caused nightmares in competition, Think of all the climactic extreams the British deffended in there colonies. Not easy to design a one size fits all rifle. but it seems to me they did in the 4/2's
Kinda funny they even developed the 4/2's with the semi auto trend since the mid to late 20's. and with the pattern 13 and 14 under thier belt and our own model of 1917 all superb bolt action designs developed by English engineers to supercede the III. and yet. all discarded to build more III's and variants of the 4's after the war.go figure! not that I'm complaining.
I don't quite understand what you are getting to or get the point you're making for or against the Mk1's and Mk1*'s. But if you're saying that the brazed-on trigger block of the Mk1.2 and 1/3 was a negative point then you don't understand the mechanics and later geometric effect of the modification.
Capt. Laidler:
Could you elaborate on that point? Is there a technical consideration besides the east of bedding and the consistency of the trigger pull? I ask as I have noted of the three DCRA 7.62 type conversions I have had a chance to examine, all three were built on MKII actions.
Also a Canadian MK 7 that was supposed o have been assembled from parts by a Canadian armorer. He used a Savage MKI/3 action, everything else is a Canadian part.
Does the Trigger bracket in any way affect the accuracy or vibrations of the action?
Sure can....... I was under the impression that Mike was unsure about the methodology of the Mk1 to 1/2 modification and that it wasn't as robust or accurate as a standard Mk2 rifle. Not so! It was both VERY tough and well thought out. Firstly a semi machined block of steel but machined to width was brazed in two planes to the white metal bead blasted clean rifle body. Horizontally between the ears of the trigger guard lugs and vertically down the inside of the butt socket. People don't realise this. This block was then machined to size using already known datums and pre-set machinery. The now dead accurate trigger axis pin was drilled exactly and square on a pre-set jig plate using the sear axis pin and the backsight axis pin holes. This meant that every rifle was identical.
I have heard/read/been told that this was a simple job. Not a bit of it. It was brazed because the brazing heat would not alter the induction hardened bolt locking surfaces in the body. but this was marginal and many bodies did fail and were scrapped. The rifles came out as 80% new rifles.
Mike still hasn't explained where he read of anti-Irish bias, much to the annoyance of several forumers plus more in the PM arena. Or shall sleeping dogs lay