Bolt head for Lithgow #1 rifle

I need a bolt head to replace that currently installed in my rifle - the headspace currently measures .076", which is longer than the 'NO GO' specification. In order to bring the headspace within the specified range (and as close as possible to the minimum), I need a bolt head which measures ca. .641" from the rear surface which contacts the bolt body to the face of the bolt head - any bolt head which measures within plus-or-minus .003" of that length would be acceptable.
Does anyone have a spare that falls within that range, or can anyone point me to a likely source for one?
I am aware that over-long headspace is not necessarily a safety issue, and that it can be compensated-for in fireforming the brass, but still want to bring the rifle's headspace within the specified range, to avoid potential problems.

Thanks;

mhb - Mike

I'd think a WTB would be more to the point, there are guys here with pocket fulls of them...

Others may chime in as its not just a drop in fit putting another bolt head on the bolt to bring it up to spec the thrust has to be taken evenly by the other bearing surfaces of the bolt which may require judicious hand fitting by a person familiar with the lee enfields, I am not having a go at yourself just saying about the intricacies of fitting a bolt head correctly. There are threads on the matter from the armourers here.
I probably have one but we are forbidden to export gun parts besides its risky and not worth the hassles from the boys in blue or customs having learnt the hard way and was only saved by a good friend in the force..........!

Buying one bolt head that's the specified length is a total crap shoot. There are soooo many factors involved fitting bolt heads. Please read Peter Laidler's article on bolt fitting here and you'll see what I mean. This is why I refuse to sell bolt heads anymore. I will fit them if someone is in need but only to MoD specifications. I NEVER use SAAMI specifications. They are too tight and there's no supply of long bolt heads to be had because so many have upgraded the headspace on their rifles needlessly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Dick

Buying one bolt head that's the specified length is a total crap shoot. There are soooo many factors involved fitting bolt heads. Please read Peter Laidler's article on bolt fitting here and you'll see what I mean. This is why I refuse to sell bolt heads anymore. I will fit them if someone is in need but only to MoD specifications. I NEVER use SAAMI specifications. They are too tight and there's no supply of long bolt heads to be had because so many have upgraded the headspace on their rifles needlessly.

---

I have studied-up all the pertinent references I could find, and am aware that there is more to the process than just installing a new bolt head - BUT: as I do not have a selection of spare bolt bodies or heads, and as I have only one #1 rifle - the one I wish to 'optimize', I cannot think of any other economically viable approach.
Are you able to provide, say, a new Australian bolt body and bolt head, properly timed, which I can use as a basis for the project?
Can you explain the problem with any disparity between minimum and maximum headspace measurements as stated in the MOD and SAAMI specifications - it is my understanding that the 'GO" dimension (.064") is the same in both cases?

Thanks;

mhb - Mike

I have recently been through this with my No1MkIII*.
Initially I bought a couple of unused bolt heads to find one that would improve the head space; which was originally bang on the .074" gauge. While that is still considered safe; my project was to optimise the rifle for competition shooting as well as helping case life when reloading.
One of the problems I encountered with the bolt head that appeared to be the correct length; was that it would not clock in. It was stopping before getting to the vertical. Machining it would have lost the length advantage, so no point.
Eventually I was advised by a UK gunsmith to replace the bolt assembly. I bought an unused bolt body and found luckily that my original bolt head clocked in perfectly and the head space was down well below 0,70" prior to mating bolt lugs. Having carefully mated the bolt lugs very carefully to get even contact on both; the end result is that the bolt will not quite close on the 0.070" gauge so over 0,004" improvement on headspace.
However I would advise the best option is to get a professional to do it because in the USA it's probably easier to find one. There are no Enfield specialists in France, which is why I decided to do it myself.

Thanks for sharing your experience!
Having taken advantage of all the information on the issues involved with fitting-up and adjusting a #1 bolt, available from many sources, I feel that I have enough understanding of the process to undertake it.
Your advice about seeking-out an expert is undoubtedly good, but, while lacking in-depth experience with the Lee-Enfield rifles, I do qualify (by prior profession) as an expert in riflesmithing, and am reasonably confident I can carry out the work successsfully, given the needed parts.

mhb - MIke

Mike,

I have a small supply of SMLE and No.4 bolt heads, both used and nos to select from. I don't have any new Australian bolt bodies. I'm not an expert on anything. I've had much help working on Lee Enfields over the past 20+ years from folks much more knowledgeable than I. I can tell you the only thing the same about SAAMI and MoD specifications is the GO gauge at .064. I've just measured my few remaining unfitted long bolt heads and they are all .639 so they won't help get you where you want to go anyhow. A new bolt body may help if you can find and fit one. If your rifle fails the .074 No Go gauge with a .641 bolt head installed, may I suggest that there may be something else amiss with the rifle body, (receiver). Possibly the hardening in the locking recesses is worn through. What type gauges are you using to check it?

Brian

It's not by chance a DP rifle is it?

He clearly knows everything, no explanation will placate him so just sell him the bolt heads I say........

The following, quoted from one of mhb's posts on another forum, may help us understand the difficulty he is having adapting to the unfamiliar SMLE -

"Some of the information in CPT Laidler's excerpt is a bit confusing: 'CHS', though obviously related to headspace, is not explained, though 'GO' and 'NO-GO' limits are clear enough; the '.050" limit' referenced is unexplained, and not self-explanatory. The permissible degree of over-rotation of the bolt head is interesting, but only useful it there are a number of candidate bolt heads to work with. . .
I was unaware of the need for the rear of the bolt head shank to contact the firing pin collar before the head is fully turned-in to the bolt body: is this critical in some way? If so, it would seem that it could be achieved (if not currently present in the assembled bolt) by increasing the firing pin protrusion until contact is achieved, and then shortening the protruding tip of the pin as necessary."

(View in context at Lithgow stock finish... - Page 3 )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Dick

Mike,

I have a small supply of SMLE and No.4 bolt heads, both used and nos to select from. I don't have any new Australian bolt bodies. I'm not an expert on anything. I've had much help working on Lee Enfields over the past 20+ years from folks much more knowledgeable than I. I can tell you the only thing the same about SAAMI and MoD specifications is the GO gauge at .064. I've just measured my few remaining unfitted long bolt heads and they are all .639 so they won't help get you where you want to go anyhow. A new bolt body may help if you can find and fit one. If your rifle fails the .074 No Go gauge with a .641 bolt head installed, may I suggest that there may be something else amiss with the rifle body, (receiver). Possibly the hardening in the locking recesses is worn through. What type gauges are you using to check it?

Brian

---

If I could acquire a new Aussie bolt body from Springfield Sporters (and they do have them), and send it to you, would you be willing to undertake to select the longest suitable bolthead (which times properly) you can find among your assortment? It is likely that such a combination would substantially improve the headspace in my rifle, and, should it prove too long, I can shorten the bolt head as needed. I did ask Springfield Sporters whether they would be willing to select and time one of their bolt heads to a new Aussie bolt body, but they have not answered my query, and initially said they do not do any gunsmithing, though I can't think why they couldn't thread a few bolt heads into a bolt body or bodies to see whether any combination of them times correctly.
In the process of working-over this rifle, I have inspected the lug seats in the receiver, and they do not appear deformed or excessively worn, so it seems that the receiver, per-se, is not the cause of the excess headspace issue.
I have Clymer headspace gauges of .064" and .067", and a suitable assortment of shim stock to be sure of the headspace measurement.

Thanks;

mhb - MIke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

He clearly knows everything, no explanation will placate him so just sell him the bolt heads I say........

---

Mr. Laidler:
I am attempting to resolve a problem by determining the best possible (and achieveable) solution. Many have offered useful or at least well-intended suggestions and comments. I have tried to explain the problem accurately, to make it clear what I do and do not know, and what I feel I can or cannot do. I do not believe this to be an insoluble problem, or beyond my abilities to resolve with the assistance I've received thusfar, which, while highlighting the numerous factors to be considered, have in no way convinced me that the solution is out of reach.
If you have convincing arguments tending to show that I'm attempting the impossible, please state them, so that I can add this project to my (short) list of 'things that no fellow may do'.

mhb - MIke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parashooter

The following, quoted from one of mhb's posts on another forum, may help us understand the difficulty he is having adapting to the unfamiliar SMLE -

"Some of the information in CPT Laidler's excerpt is a bit confusing: 'CHS', though obviously related to headspace, is not explained, though 'GO' and 'NO-GO' limits are clear enough; the '.050" limit' referenced is unexplained, and not self-explanatory. The permissible degree of over-rotation of the bolt head is interesting, but only useful it there are a number of candidate bolt heads to work with. . .
I was unaware of the need for the rear of the bolt head shank to contact the firing pin collar before the head is fully turned-in to the bolt body: is this critical in some way? If so, it would seem that it could be achieved (if not currently present in the assembled bolt) by increasing the firing pin protrusion until contact is achieved, and then shortening the protruding tip of the pin as necessary."

(View in context at Lithgow stock finish... - Page 3 )

---

Please read the rest of the thread, so that you may have the full context of the discussion. The excerpt was just that: I had not seen the full text, and what was included was not fully explained, nor all directly related to the headspace issue, per-se; therefore, my additional questions.

mhb - MIke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

It's not by chance a DP rifle is it?

---

No. It's a John Jovino 'put-together' Aussie #1 Mk3*

mhb - Mike

You need two gauges .064 and .074. Shim stock and a guage is not accurate. You don't face the bolt body off. You may face the bolt head off. The bolt must close on .064 and not close on .074 using only gentle that is very gentle pressure. Being a JJ put together make sure it has copper blocks in the draws in place before firing. Side note to tight head space is just as damaging as to loose. Headspace allows for different rim thickness.

I'm happy to assemble a complete bolt for you to MoD specification. That means CHS of .064 GO and .074 NO GO as Bindi states above. Nothing more, nothing less since those are the specifications I live by and the only specifications that matter. The .067 gauge is pretty much useless to me. If you're trying to get headspace down to .067, it's just a waste of a good long bolt head that someone else will probably need who's rifle is really out of specification. Unfortunately, I don't have an endless supply of them. I only have a half dozen. I'd need the complete bolt and preferably the rifle too, (at least the barreled body), in order to do the job correctly and check it with proper military gauges. I'd need all the bolt parts in order to achieve proper assembly, not just the bolt body and bolt head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bindi2

You need two gauges .064 and .074. Shim stock and a guage is not accurate. You don't face the bolt body off. You may face the bolt head off. The bolt must close on .064 and not close on .074 using only gentle that is very gentle pressure. Being a JJ put together make sure it has copper blocks in the draws in place before firing. Side note to tight head space is just as damaging as to loose. Headspace allows for different rim thickness.

---

Thanks for the input.
A properly-made headspace gauge of known dimension and steel shim stock of known and verified thickness is accurate enough in this instance.
I said nothing about facing-off the bolt body, but did mention shortening the bolt head itself (only if necessary), which appears to be an approved method of altering headspace in the SMLE.
I am aware of the need to apply little or no pressure in checking headspace, and that minimum headspace in the rifle is set so as to permit the use of cartridges with maximum permissible rim thickness or head-to-datum line case length.
The forestock itself, while new, does not have copper block inserts at the draws, but does bear evenly and properly on the action body draw surfaces, and the rifle shoots very well. I understand that coachwood compresses more readily than walnut or some other hardwoods used for rifle stocks, but that is not, as yet, an issue, and can be dealt with later as the rifle is subjected to continued use.

mhb - MIke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Dick

I'm happy to assemble a complete bolt for you to MoD specification. That means CHS of .064 GO and .074 NO GO as Bindi states above. Nothing more, nothing less since those are the specifications I live by and the only specifications that matter. The .067 gauge is pretty much useless to me. If you're trying to get headspace down to .067, it's just a waste of a good long bolt head that someone else will probably need who's rifle is really out of specification. Unfortunately, I don't have an endless supply of them. I only have a half dozen. I'd need the complete bolt and preferably the rifle too, (at least the barreled body), in order to do the job correctly and check it with proper military gauges. I'd need all the bolt parts in order to achieve proper assembly, not just the bolt body and bolt head.

---

I appreciate your offer of assistance, and may take you up on it. I am currently awaiting word from Springfield Sporters and, possibly, SARCO (or some other source) on availability of suitable parts and their ability/willingness to select and/or fit parts to achieve the necessary bolt head length and timing requirements.

mhb - MIke

In answer to your question about why the bolt head has to be in contact with the bolt body shank is that when the weapon is fired it is the bolt body and recoil lugs that take the back thrust and not the threads in the bolt body and the bolt head threads.
On the side of caution I would fit the copper thrust plates that were typical for Lithgows I have seen first hand what can happen to the draws if they are not tended to with one of my most expensive Lee's being told by the owner it shot very well I do not call a 20 MOA group at a 100m good!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mhb

It's a John Jovino 'put-together'

---

Don't know if that's good or bad now, I see mixed info about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CINDERS

In answer to your question about why the bolt head has to be in contact with the bolt body shank is that when the weapon is fired it is the bolt body and recoil lugs that take the back thrust and not the threads in the bolt body and the bolt head threads.
On the side of caution I would fit the copper thrust plates that were typical for Lithgows I have seen first hand what can happen to the draws if they are not tended to with one of my most expensive Lee's being told by the owner it shot very well I do not call a 20 MOA group at a 100m good!

---

Thank you for the input.
Actually, what I asked about was not the need for the bolt head to contact the bolt body, but for the rear of the bolt head shank to contact the firing pin collar before the head is fully turned-in to contact with the body. It is now obvious that the firing pin must be in its fully-forward position for this to occur, but the excerpt did not say so.
I appreciate the word of warning on the thrust plates, but would rather not fix a problem that does not yet exist (the wood is new, has perfect contact at the draws, and the rifle shoots into 1 1/2MOA as it now is. That's all A.G. Parker would promise for their match-prepped #1s, and I have to assume that's very good accuracy for the type - I hope it will do even better when I have the headspace issue resolved.

mhb - MIke

---------- Post added at 08:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:38 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

Don't know if that's good or bad now, I see mixed info about that.

---

when his hosts apologized because the chicken wasn't exactly fresh: "That's quite allright! Some parts were (are) excellent!" In fact the rifle looks good and shoots quite well - and I hope it will be even better when the headspace issue is resolved.

mhb - MIke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mhb

and the rifle shoots into 1 1/2MOA as it now is

---

Why would you bother tinkering with it if it shoots that well? More than acceptable accuracy for a SMLE. But thats only an opinion.

Cheers

Does the rifle pass or fail the .074 NO GO specification? If it passes, then it doesn't have an issue with headspace. If it's in spec and shooting 1.5" groups at 100 yards, you might be better of leaving it alone.

The rifle fails the .074" gauging - actual headspace is .076". It does shoot very well, but I'm a handloader, and want to reduce the headspace to well-within the permissible range, to limit stretching of the brass, and without having to resort to spacers and fire-forming. And, I'm pretty sure that closer-to-minimum headspace won't make it any less accurate...

mhb - MIke

OK, well, it ain't out much if at all. I'd want to check it with a real military gauge before I did anything to it. I've been reloading for Lees of all descriptions for 30+ years and always full length resize because of the variety of rifles I shoot. You can neck size only to help brass life if you only have one rifle. It's just not something I've ever worried about much. I've had the bases pop off brass before that I reloaded one time too many. A problem that was embarrassing at a public range when I was a lot younger but easily remedied with a military broken case extractor from my range bag! I certainly got my money's worth out of the brass though. The old rimmed cartridge is very forgiving. Some try to compare the .303 to .30-06, 7.62 and other rimless cartridges with their associated issues but it's really apples and oranges.

The .303, being rimmed, gets a bit interesting with reloading life, etc.

You can have a rifle that gauges up TIGHT according to the HS gauges, but delivers VERY short case life.

If the chamber was cut very early in the life of the sundry reamers, or, has been "refreshed" by one or more of the "usual suspects", your carefully head-spaced brass will be merrily expanding in all directions every time it is fired.

Running such cases through the full-length sizing die every time will squeeze it back "into place", BUT at the expense of major "over-working" of the brass. Cases so treated, will become "work-hardened" and thus, VERY prone to cracking and splitting.

The solution, as has been discussed on these fora several times before, is to minimally size the brass until it just comfortably fits back in the chamber in which it was fired. (A "set back" FLS die does this nicely). NECK sizing will provide just the right amount of movement of the neck AND the rather tiny shoulder of the .303, to retain a new bullet and minimise material "working". The truly serious will also neck-anneal every few re-loads; good brass is expensive stuff.

What you will end up with is brass that comfortably fits YOUR chamber and that will last a reasonable number of recyclings.

These are not "bench-rest" rifles, but "pre-loved" military battle implements. There was little thought of "reloading" given by the various Majesties' governments.

If you REALLY like reloading, in bulk, take up IPSC pistol shooting.

I started this project with what is, in most respects, a new-condition Lithgow #1 Mk3*: the barrel definitely is a brand-new one, and the chamber is neither oversized nor 'messed-with'. My intention, as with all of my rifles, MILSURP and otherwise, is to get the best possible accuracy out of it, with the understanding that the #1 is, first and foremost, a battle rifle, not a target rifle. Still, on the word of A.G. Parker (from their 1934 catalog), a properly set-up #1 should be capable of 1 1/2 MOA, and this rifle has already done that. I am fairly sure that one of the original #1 rifles built specifically for match shooting would have had headspace much nearer to the minimum than the permissible maximum (and that the same would have been true of the generality of brand-new #1 rifles). So, being aware of these things, and also of the various means for optimizing cartridge case life, I think it worthwhile to correct the over-long headspace in this rifle, and can think of no reason not to do so, if the necessary parts can be had.

mhb - MIke

The catch with the No1 (SMLE) is that there was a "standard" bolt-head, that had "tolerances". A LUDICROUS amount of hand-fitting was required to produce ONE serviceable rifle.

This meant essentially "custom fitting" of EVERY bolt assembly; a great way to get really nice match rifles, but not a good way to churn out millions of "disposable" battle rifles.

There was a VERY good reason that the No4 series was set up with a "variety" of bolt-heads, pretty much from day one.

Lithgow ALSO produced a range of "incremental' bolt heads, but not until the late 1940's / early '50s. These have a "letter" code and appear to have been produced to squeeze the last bit of life out of the No1 rifle before it was binned in favour of the L1A1.

Anyone know what happened in South Africa, India, etc?

Many of the rifles would have been condemned (apart from dubious headspace), for a range of reasons.

Sheer wear on the fit of the bolt / bolt-head to the body will produce the nasty effect of the bolt-head "lifting / "mis-tracking" during cycling. This is something now regularly seen on "sporters" that have been in steady use since the 1950's. If the major wear is on the body of the rifle, there is not much that ANYONE can do about it.

No4 / No5 rifles are a BIT less prone to this BUT will "flog out" eventually, ESPECIALLY the "North American" Mk-1* variants; with "chipped" receivers and consequent "errant" bolts now appearing with monotonous regularity. Seventy years is a LONG time to be using a piece of machinery that was intended to have an operational life estimated in DAYS.

More sound words of wisdom from the likes of Brian and Bruce. But, alas (and sigh.......), I think that you're both flogging a dead horse.......

I will cease troubling the members of this forum. I do appreciate all the helpful and well-intended input provided by most of you. I even appreciate the factual information contained in Mr. Laidler's writings, which have helped me better understand the issues involved.
I am still certain I can do what I set out to do, when and if I can obtain the needed parts, and there is good reason to think I can.
I have the necessary skills and experience to do whatever hand fitting may be needed: I've made around a thousand rifle barrels from bar stock, made the tools with which to rifle them, built a couple of hundred rifles with my barrels and others, assembled, rebuilt and re-barreled many more over the past 50 years or so.
I am satisfied, from close inspection, that there are no other mechanical issues with this rifle which would preclude it from being 'corrected', to resolve the one problem which I have identified.
As for you, Mr. Laidler: though I do not doubt your qualifications as an expert on this topic, and have already acknowledged the usefulness of the information you have made available to the participants in this forum, I cannot say much for your inexplicable attitude toward what has been an honest request for assistance. I'm not even sure whether your rather contemptuous interjections reflect your general personality traits, or, possibly, and more excusably, an ongoing flareup of hemorrhoids. You haven't even said whether you think what I hope to do is impossible, improper, or blasphemous, nor given any reasons for so believing.
If you merely think I can't do it, my response, in a vernacular I understand is still current in the U.K. is: Bollocks.

mhb - Mike

mhb: I would suggest you lead off a thread with your credentials as opposed to revealing them dozens of posts in. Many members of this forum have little or no mechanical experience and the true experts like Mr. Laidler patiently explain basics to us. With your background I don't quite understand the posing of questions you already know the answer for (and on multiple forums).

Ridolpho

I'm certainly no expert mhb and never ever said that I was. But I have a gift of putting over what I know - but it just seemed to me that you weren't willing to listen to sound advice of others and what I call '......the bleedin obvious' and take it on board. And from reading your threads that Ridolpho alludes to (thread 32), it's clear that you didn't know it all and aren't the expert you said that you were. But, like it or loathe it, I say it like it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mhb

I will cease troubling the members of this forum.

---

I think you should just post a WTB for the parts you want and do what you want to do. You aren't interested in advise or information so just go ahead.

Attachment 82143Attachment 82142
As it turns out, I was able to acquire the bolt head I needed (MA53). It timed perfectly with the original bolt body, and restored the rifle's headspace to well within the 'GO/NO-GO' range (actually, .065"). I did not buy the specimen offered on Australian e-bay, which went for $88 AUS (plus shipping), but found one closer to home for $38 US, shipped.
The rifle now looks good and shoots excellently - it won the local MILSURP 'As-Issued' monthly BR match last Friday with a score of 191 - 4x, on the NRA 100 yard smallbore target, and am sure it (and I) will do better in future, when we become more accustomed to each other.
Anyone have a spare windage-adjustable rear sight assembly for the #1 Mk3?

mhb - MIke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mhb

Anyone have a spare wondage-adjustable rear sight assembly for the #1 Mk3?

---

I dont think there is any such thing as a spare one of those ;)

Theres on on ebay right now. My advice would be, take them when you see them and not worry about the price. Waiting for a bargain on one of those usually means waiting and awfully long time

You will also need a tool for adjusting the fore sight blade windage, a set of new foresight blades to do it properly and a some instructions on zeroing which are here in the knowledge library

Thing is with the adjustable windage sight it was discontinued mid 1916 in WWI I think so if your rifle is after that date and you wish to shoot in the "As issued" category then it is not compliant because later rifles did not come equipped with the windage sight if they did it was probably put there by a target shooter at some point in time. My 1916 Lithgow has the adjustable rear sight on it the H barrel & stamp on the wrist the barrel being done in 1937 for some strange reason a whole lot were done that year.

I do have a spare Lithgow rear windage sight for my '16 if the one on it sh*ts the tin (sorry NFS), they come up on flea-bay from time to time you may jag one cheap but not likely.................especially if it is Lithgow manufacture.

P.S If I am incorrect on the deletion or reinstatement date on the rear sight I am sure to be corrected, glad you got your rifle sorted congrats on the win.:thup:

Thanks for the input. I probably should have asked whether anyone had a rear sight assembly he could spare...
I corrected the elevation in the process of sighting-in by replacing the installed '0' blade with a '+.045', and do have a sight pusher for windage adjustment, but that isn't really a viable alternative for match shooting. For those MILSURP rifles without windage adjustment, I just establish a good windage zero and hold-off as needed as light changes, wind, etc., make it necessary during the course of the match.
I have read that the windage adjustable rear sight was dropped as a wartime expedient sometime around 1916, but was re-instated, at least for some manufacture, after the Great War, and was again dropped for Round 2.
For our matches, the Rules Committee (me) has established that the rifle must be representative of the type as manufactured at some time in its service life, not necessarily exactly as it would have been at the time the action or other major parts were made. And, since this particular rifle is frankly an assemblage of spare parts, it doesn't seem improper to install the desired rear sight type, if it can be had.
The search continues...
Oh, and CINDERS - thanks for the colorful addition to my variant-English vocabulary: 'sh*ts the tin', which I presume, from the context, is an Aussie variant of 'packs it in'.

mhb - MIke

I've got a few wind adjustable sights here if in need. Please contact me directly if interested. bdlltd@bellsouth.net.

Pleased to see you got the rifle sorted and shooting well.
If you competitions are at 100 yards; do you really need a windage sight? I would think it's got to blowing hard to make a difference at that range! Or do you shoot multiple distances?
The other option for windage adjustment is to move into the modified class with a dioptre rear sight.
Attachment 82167

I am in need (well, want) and will certainly contact Brian directly.
Windage adjustable sights are not absolutely necessary, but I'm very much in favor of them for any and all rifles for which they are available.
In the case of MILSURP rifles, such sights are not always original, of course, but I try to acquire them if they are.
Our local matches are for essentially unaltered MILSURP rifles, but we do shoot for both group size and score, and windage adjustment (and finely-adjustable elevation) make it much easier to keep things in the middle, given the vagaries of weather and different ammunition. In our latest match, I had the best score, but not the smallest group aggregate.
We are fortunate to have a very good range facility, but less-so in that it faces almost due South, so that the sun is usually in one's face, and crosses from left to right as the day progresses, which makes windage correction (by one means or another) VERY helpful for good scores - then, there is the wind, which is almost always present here among the mountains on all sides.
It's also true that my aging eyes do not accommodate well with open rear sights (I much prefer apertures), but the L-E combo is among the best such, and I can still manage. And, as I said, the L-E was and is an experiment with a rifle type I'm not well acquainted with, and the results so far are encouraging.

mhb - MIke

We have ranges here where you have to keep your rounds on ice unless you want high pressure, Albany down south can have up to 50 - 60 klm winds and horizontal rain, our range offers all 4 elements with a section of brush just near the targets that got wrecked in a storm and removed now we have a whirlpool right in front of the targets try doping that one at 1000yds.
Swanbourne rifle range in Perth now closed to the public but still in use up to xxxM by the SASR and Mandurah now closed faced due West (I have shot on both) the sun is right in your eyes they were both right on the ocean very nice breezes and lighting from that big yellow ball in the sky........

As far as the Lee Enfield line goes nothing will touch its service or conflict history the only rifle that may beat it for cycle speed is the S R K-31 but then they only have a 6 round cap and rather flimsy paper chargers that may buckle in haste whilst reloading all the while the Lee has 4 more rounds (5 if you cheat) it can send your way while your fluffing about. The Lee can tolerate a fair bit of abuse and ingress of crud before ghosting on you I love'm to bits and with 17" of cold steel hanging on the end put the wind up allot of the WWI storm troopers Aussies were very adept at the bayonet as the Turks and Germans found out in both wars.

Some pics of our range Pic 1. 500M, pic 2. 900M, pic 3 Club House (not shown our 1000yd benches to the Rt)

It gets plenty warm here in Arizona, too, but I haven't been a serious Highpower competitor in a very long time: I don't think I'd be happy laying out in the sun in my leather coat on one of our 100+ F. days anymore, and my running gear isn't happy with sitting or prone, either.
Our local matches are not at all 'serious', and it has happened that those of us who've showed-up for one on a less-than-promising match day have simply agreed not to do it...
We really do have a nice range, though it's not set-up for known-distance NRA Highpower matches. It could be expanded to 1000 yards, but there doesn't seem to be much incentive to do so, currently. There are 1000 yard KD ranges within reasonable driving range, and there is a very fine and complete multi-discipline range north of Phoenix (the Ben Avery complex) about 4 hours away.
There is no doubt that the Lee-Enfield is one of the most tested battle rifles ever, and I've never heard of any rapid-fire performance to compare with SGT Snoxall's 'mad minute' performance in 1907, IIRC: 38 shots with 38 hits on a 12" plate at 300 yards.
I've owned and shot the K31, and was unimpressed. It shoots well, but not better than several more conventional bolt rifles. The Swiss were most fortunate to have never needed to test it in a shooting war, I think. The British Empire, on the other hand, were truly a world-spanning, equal opportunity practitioner of the arts of war, and learned what worked the hard way.

mhb - Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 30Three

Pleased to see you got the rifle sorted and shooting well.
If you competitions are at 100 yards; do you really need a windage sight? I would think it's got to blowing hard to make a difference at that range! Or do you shoot multiple distances?
The other option for windage adjustment is to move into the modified class with a dioptre rear sight.

---

Pick up a central no4, always on ebay, as good or better than the equivalent parker hale or BSA, and cheaper, also, SIA still provide a reconditioning service for them, much cheaper than getting a PH serviced at fultons!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BushyFromOz

Pick up a central no4, always on ebay, as good or better than the equivalent parker hale or BSA, and cheaper, also, SIA still provide a reconditioning service for them, much cheaper than getting a PH serviced at fultons!

---

Thanks for the tip on sights. If I ever decide to add target sights, I'll look for the Central. I have a number of match rifles, per-se, but like to keep most of my service rifles in as-issued condition (while getting the best performance I can out of them).
As for the current #1 Mk 3* 'project' rifle; a friend has advised me that he believes he has a windage-adjustable rear sight assembly he doesn't need (he also has a nice assortment of Lee-Speed match rifles), and another friend helped me to find a source for NOS windage adjustable rear sights, also. One way or another, I should be able to complete the project as envisioned. Friend One will be back from the Big Sandy machinegun shoot Monday, so I'll check with him first.

mhb - MIke