making a usuable 4T, I need help!please

Hi gents,
Finally, after 5 years of long wait, I started to fit a repro bracket with a n°32 MkI.
I read, read again, and drunk a lot of whisky as described in the nice documentation written by Mr Laidler. I'm sticking to any step described, and everything was going well until the fitting of the rear pad. When I aim a DAP at 250 yards through the barrel and set the drum to 250 yards on the scope, the grat on the DAP, my rear pad is positioned as follow ... https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...25_small-1.jpg
I measured the pad, the bracket, the size shows some minor differences with the blueprint, but not at a point to get so much gap. What did I not do? what should I do to correct this, if possible..
Thank you

1. is your scope optically centred?
2. your front pad is too high (assuming that your scope is optically centred)

If I read it correctly Lou, you are saying that there is too much gap between the rear pad and the body. - that we can see on the photo. I suspect that you have not collimated or rotated the telescope to get the tip of the pointer , the optical axis of the telescope aligned with the mechanical axis of the telescope.

Or, alternatively - or both - you need to swing the rear of the telescope to the right so that the rear of the bracket sits closer to the rifle. You can do this by carefully filing the inside rear of the front pad to swing the bracket to the right at the rear.

You really should be doing this work with the rifle stripped down. It will be much easier!

Seems to need some careful filing to make the two fit properly.

The pad is above the side of the receiver. Filing for fit is still off in the future.

Where do you buy the bracket/ pads?
When I made my repro T i have a simular problem.
It endet up with I have to make a new front pad.
I was 1,6 mm too high.

Jsne

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee Enfield

1. is your scope optically centred?
2. your front pad is too high (assuming that your scope is optically centred)

---

1. Yes, this is the first thing I did.
2. I measure 0.02 inch of difference in between the dimensions described in the blueprint and my actual pad, if I'm correct of course, 0.89 inch Vs 0.87 inch (bottom of the front pad and the center of the thread)

---------- Post added at 10:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:11 AM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

If I read it correctly Lou, you are saying that there is too much gap between the rear pad and the body. - that we can see on the photo. I suspect that you have not collimated or rotated the telescope to get the tip of the pointer , the optical axis of the telescope aligned with the mechanical axis of the telescope.

Or, alternatively - or both - you need to swing the rear of the telescope to the right so that the rear of the bracket sits closer to the rifle. You can do this by carefully filing the inside rear of the front pad to swing the bracket to the right at the rear.

You really should be doing this work with the rifle stripped down. It will be much easier!

---

I guess that my scope is collimated, https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=48787&page=2, first thing I did, according to your article.
My problem, is that for me, the rear pad is to high on the body if I want to get the grat on the DAP at 250 yards.

---------- Post added at 10:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 AM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsne

Where do you buy the bracket/ pads?
When I made my repro T i have a simular problem.
It endet up with I have to make a new front pad.
I was 1,6 mm too high.

Jsne

---

I bought it to Accumounts. When I received the pads, I measured it and compared, there was not that much diffrences. But anyhow, I've an abnormal situation.

The situation you have is very common with the accumounts. In this situation I usually machine a shoe that packs you off the body like your shim does, except it also gives you a register to the shelf below. Once drilled and tapped and soldered in situ you can file or mill off most of the excess material above the receiver.
I’ll try and dig up some pics...

It's seems that my front pad is the faulty part. Can somebody measure the following lengthes, the yellow and the red,please.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...41_small-1.jpg

This happens with all the Accumout and all the Sarco mounts and brackets. Mostly the pads from Fultons are better, but it depends a lot on the bracket you are mating it to too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tbonesmith

The situation you have is very common with the accumounts. In this situation I usually machine a shoe that packs you off the body like your shim does, except it also gives you a register to the shelf below. Once drilled and tapped and soldered in situ you can file or mill off most of the excess material above the receiver.
I’ll try and dig up some pics...

---

It's common, so..is it the front pad which is faulty?

I don’t particularly think the front pad is faulty, there’s just more fitting in the whole arrangement than might be expected, and the rear pad is made small in order to shim, as opposed to large in order to machine down. On several occasions I have scrapped the supplied rear pad and machined a new one, larger from scratch as it was less work than building up the supplied item.
It’s the same story for their (Accumounts) k98 turret mounts... without serious rework they simply will not and cannot collinate... pretty surprising they keep churning them out like that but that’s how it is.

It also doesn't help that the rear pad, as well as being undersized, is configured at the bottom edge to fit an 'angled ledge' receiver, like later LB 4T's, rather than radiused to fit a 'radiused ledge' receiver, as were the vast majority of 4T's (all UK set up & the earlier Canadian examples). A radiused bottom will need some degree of fitting but generally, so long as it's fitted to a radiused receiver ledge will 'find' its place without requiring too much, & will sit pretty well aligned with the horizontal line of the rear sight bed. But again, this assumes the rear pad has been produced to the original specs. I have only ever fitted genuine pads, the pads made by my late machinist, & those sold by Fultons, & have never found any problems with any of them, beyond what one would normally expect to encounter in doing a job like this.

I say, when making a replica, do NOT go by the drawings. They are an ideal, the perfect theory and not 'done-it' practice. 1st and MOST important, collimate the telescope optical and mechanical axis. Mount the front pad and sweat it on. Then adjust the rear of this pad to swing the graticle to centre on the azimuth of the bore against the DAP. Lift or lower the rear pad* to suit suit what you have achieved so far. Point of grat SET TO 100 and tip on the DAP. When it's EXACT, sweat everything on using clamps. Test again. When it is perfect only THEN start drilling of doing anything that will take what you're doing past the point of no return.

That's it said very simply. There is a half decent amateur attempt by me at putting this into a readable semi technical thread somewhere too that one or two have followed simply enough. There are also true experts out there who's understanding of the optics, mechanics and optical/mechanical collimation is greater than mine. BUT whatever you (or anyone else attempting this) stick to one tried and tested idea

* If you have to make a rear pad to suit, it is quite a simple matter but Fulton make pads that are a good fit with some simple hand fitting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tbonesmith

I don’t particularly think the front pad is faulty, there’s just more fitting in the whole arrangement than might be expected, and the rear pad is made small in order to shim, as opposed to large in order to machine down. On several occasions I have scrapped the supplied rear pad and machined a new one, larger from scratch as it was less work than building up the supplied item.
It’s the same story for their (Accumounts) k98 turret mounts... without serious rework they simply will not and cannot collinate... pretty surprising they keep churning them out like that but that’s how it is.

---

So, it's normal to get some arrangement to fit this pad. I'm a bit disappointed, because when I received the parts, I compared the size of the pads to the blueprints located in the library, and except that there was sometimes 0.02 inches of difference, I was confident enough to start to fit the mount. I followed strictly the Mr Laidler's article, and up to that step concerning the fitting of the rear pad, I had no problem. I'm waiting for some pics, please, Tbonesmith.

---------- Post added at 07:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:25 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

I say, when making a replica, do NOT go by the drawings. They are an ideal, the perfect theory and not 'done-it' practice. 1st and MOST important, collimate the telescope optical and mechanical axis. Mount the front pad and sweat it on. Then adjust the rear of this pad to swing the graticle to centre on the azimuth of the bore against the DAP. Lift or lower the rear pad* to suit suit what you have achieved so far. Point of grat SET TO 100 and tip on the DAP. When it's EXACT, sweat everything on using clamps. Test again. When it is perfect only THEN start drilling of doing anything that will take what you're doing past the point of no return.

That's it said very simply. There is a half decent amateur attempt by me at putting this into a readable semi technical thread somewhere too that one or two have followed simply enough. There are also true experts out there who's understanding of the optics, mechanics and optical/mechanical collimation is greater than mine. BUT whatever you (or anyone else attempting this) stick to one tried and tested idea

* If you have to make a rear pad to suit, it is quite a simple matter but Fulton make pads that are a good fit with some simple hand fitting

---

Your thread is very clear, no doubt, but I'm facing a situation that you don't speak about.

Not sure if this is helpful or not, but ....

Articles by Peter Laidler ... :thup:

Making Up a Useable No.4 Sniper - Part 1

Making Up a Useable No.4 Sniper - Part 2

Making Up a Useable No.4 Sniper - Part 3

Making Up a Useable No.4 Sniper - Part 4

Regards,
Doug

Mine was Accumount as well, and with same problem.
Have you drilled the three holes for the front pad?
If not. Best solution is to get some other pads.
But the three holes have too fit Exactly.
I dont know if they doo.

2. It is posible to measure out how mucth too high the front pad is.
And lower the centerhole in the front pad.

If you sre interested I can explain how.
But it will take me a little time to whrite it
Because my English is not that good

Jsne

Thank you Badger, I'm already working with these articles, but the problem that I'm experiencing is not in, that 's why I'm asking for some help:thup:

---------- Post added at 01:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:44 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsne

Mine was Accumount as well, and with same problem.
Have you drilled the three holes for the front pad?
If not. Best solution is to get some other pads.
But the three holes have too fit Exactly.
I dont know if they doo.

2. It is posible to measure out how mucth too high the front pad is.
And lower the centerhole in the front pad.

If you sre interested I can explain how.
But it will take me a little time to whrite it
Because my English is not that good

Jsne

---

Pictures are sometime better for explaining, I would be happy to see how you did.

Here's jsne's thread on the build of his faker T.
https://www.google.com/url?q=https:/...k5E5ABxxMsbgqm

First you need to measure out how mutch you need to lower the
Spigot on the front pad:
Put the rifle or barel/action to exat straight level
Using a Spirit Level (buble thing) on the front barrel over the bayonet
Lugs.
Put your scope in the bracked and mount it tight in the front Pad.
Now with the rear thumpscrew removed insert the rear pad between
The bracket an action body
Now place the Spirit Level on the front tube of the scope.
Use a set of feeler gauges in the gab under the rear pad
Until the scope is lewel with the rifle.
The thicknes of the numbers of your feeler gauges is what you need to lower the Spigot on the front pad.
Lk
In Peter Laidlers book about the story of thr no.4 t
He explain how do repair a worrn out Spigot
It is exactly the same I doo but with an exentric bushing with the center
Iowered to what you need.
I have the book and can scan the side to you.&

But I think wee need Peters permission to copy anything
From his book
So Peter if you read this? Will it be Ok?

jsne

The rest will folow in s cuppel og days

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsne

First you need to measure out how mutch you need to lower the
Spigot on the front pad:
Put the rifle or barel/action to exat straight level
Using a Spirit Level (buble thing) on the front barrel over the bayonet
Lugs.
Put your scope in the bracked and mount it tight in the front Pad.
Now with the rear thumpscrew removed insert the rear pad between
The bracket an action body
Now place the Spirit Level on the front tube of the scope.
Use a set of feeler gauges in the gab under the rear pad
Until the scope is lewel with the rifle.
The thicknes of the numbers of your feeler gauges is what you need to lower the Spigot on the front pad.
Lk
In Peter Laidlers book about the story of thr no.4 t
He explain how do repair a worrn out Spigot
It is exactly the same I doo but with an exentric bushing with the center
Iowered to what you need.
I have the book and can scan the side to you.&

But I think wee need Peters permission to copy anything
From his book
So Peter if you read this? Will it be Ok?

jsne

The rest will folow in s cuppel og days

---

I have the book, no worries, I will check. thank you jsne

Bottom of page 94 then pages 96 - 97 give you the information required

At the risk of speaking out of turn, I am just wondering how you aligned the barrel on your point of aim? Surely 250 yards is a little excessive? Though in theory farther is better, at Holland & Holland it was all done indoors if I remember my reading correctly.

Are you using a new cartridge case with a small hole drilled through the center of the base, or perhaps a headspace gauge with a centered hole through which you sight by eye? (if so, be sure is snug in the chamber and well centered; a little cello tape perhaps to make it snug?) The easiest thing is to set up the barreled receiver "rock-solid", sight down the barrel and have an assistant move the sheet of paper or cardboard with the alignment marks until it is centered exactly on the barrel and then secure it to the wall. Then if everything is level at both paper and rifle ends, you will have the exact point of aim for the telescope - assuming you have the correct distance between the two alignment points for the distance you are using...

If you want a "back up" check on the alignment of your scope, buy one of the No.22 sights which are for sale very cheaply as they are no use for much else, and fit that into your bracket. The reticule on the No.22 is permanently centered, and as it was an artillery sight, and there was no way to move the reticule even if you wanted to, we can be pretty confident that the reticule is not only well centered, but STILL centered. Rotate the scope in the mounts to test it. They also have very little parallax having no magnification.

What you need is the optic axis to be paralel with the bore.
If you have colimatet the scope correct the axis bore run paralel with the tube.
So what you have too do first is to make sure your Accomount pad
Have the correct hight.
When you have done that you have to start all over again to fit the pads in the correct positions.
And remember the front Pad is for vertical position and the horizontal position is the rear Pad.

jsne

Some advice with the front Pad:
It is good you have the book.
It will explain the princip werry well.
But you have too make a costimate Spigot inlet.
Start with remove the Old Spigot and drill out the hole
After Peters advice.
Then with a small file. File the hole oval downward as much you need
You may have too make your new Spigot inlet oval as well in order too not remove more material from tne Pad than needed
Put in your new costimate spigot and make sure it id positioned right and square.
Then braze it on.
I start to make the Spigot with cutting the threat
If you have acces to a lathe you can make it a little oversized
And turn in shape afterwards. The same with the aerier under the Spigot that neet to bee lowered the same distance as your Spigot.
It is easy too fix the bracket in the lathe.
Just use a bolt and screw it in the spigot from behind
Then turn it with a small steel werry little at the time.
If you dont have acces too a latte you need too make the new spigot
To exact dimensions first.
And it will then be easyest to remove the material under the new spigot
Before you braze it.
You can use a dremmel for that. But take your time and bee patios
Atter your done file the top of the Pad in shape.
Refit the pad on the rifle and start all ower to make sure to colimate it right.
Stick straight to Peter Laidlers advice through the rest of the job and all will be fine.
You can use Surpmils advice to make a bettet boresight.

When all done I use to coldblue the Pad because it will color the braze as well and make your work almost invisible.

Feel free to ask if you have any questions
Or if I is hard to understand 😀

I will follow the tred

Jsne

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

At the risk of speaking out of turn, I am just wondering how you aligned the barrel on your point of aim? Surely 250 yards is a little excessive? Though in theory farther is better, at Holland & Holland it was all done indoors if I remember my reading correctly.

Are you using a new cartridge case with a small hole drilled through the center of the base, or perhaps a headspace gauge with a centered hole through which you sight by eye? (if so, be sure is snug in the chamber and well centered; a little cello tape perhaps to make it snug?) The easiest thing is to set up the barreled receiver "rock-solid", sight down the barrel and have an assistant move the sheet of paper or cardboard with the alignment marks until it is centered exactly on the barrel and then secure it to the wall. Then if everything is level at both paper and rifle ends, you will have the exact point of aim for the telescope - assuming you have the correct distance between the two alignment points for the distance you are using...

If you want a "back up" check on the alignment of your scope, buy one of the No.22 sights which are for sale very cheaply as they are no use for much else, and fit that into your bracket. The reticule on the No.22 is permanently centered, and as it was an artillery sight, and there was no way to move the reticule even if you wanted to, we can be pretty confident that the reticule is not only well centered, but STILL centered. Rotate the scope in the mounts to test it. They also have very little parallax having no magnification.

---

The distance of 250 yards is the distance recommended by Mr Laidler in the "make up a usable n°4 sniper" thread, and I'm sticking to it.

I'm using a partially recalibrated brass, that was fired in the rifle, it fits nicely.

---------- Post added at 09:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:18 AM ----------

Thank you Jsne,
Before starting any modification, I want to be sure that the frond pad is the cause of the problem, could anybody measure the following lengthes on his front pad? the yellow, red and blue drawn on the picture, thank you
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...r6_small-1.jpg

These are about as accurate as I can get them from my BSA 1944 T which is featured in Peters Book in Pad Trials when they had issues with the front pads working loose both scope & rifle are still together after 73 years and will remain so until I am wheels up. The measurements will be different "T" to "T" but these give you something I guess;

Yellow - 0.9105"
Red - 0.5540"
Blue - 0.4440"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CINDERS

These are about as accurate as I can get them from my BSA 1944 T which is featured in Peters Book in Pad Trials when they had issues with the front pads working loose both scope & rifle are still together after 73 years and will remain so until I am wheels up. The measurements will be different "T" to "T" but these give you something I guess;

Yellow - 0.9105"
Red - 0.5540"
Blue - 0.4440"

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CINDERS

These are about as accurate as I can get them from my BSA 1944 T which is featured in Peters Book in Pad Trials when they had issues with the front pads working loose both scope & rifle are still together after 73 years and will remain so until I am wheels up. The measurements will be different "T" to "T" but these give you something I guess;

Yellow - 0.9105"
Red - 0.5540"
Blue - 0.4440"

---

For me, I get :
Yellow 0.948"...0.038 of discrepancy
Red 0.548"...0.006 "
Blue 0.455"...0.011 "
Is it possible that these discrepancies can lead to a 0.236" at the rear?, I guess no.

Hmm
As I see it it is only the red line there is important
Are you sure 0.548 is Right?

Mine is about same as Cinders.
When I made my repro T I made a front pad 1,6 mm
Lower.
I still have a 0,8 mm shim at the bottom of my rear pad
And a little removed on top after I soldered it.

If your measurements are right something is wrong
And maby you should not follow my advice.

Jsne

Hi again
As mentioned I have made a new front pad when I made mine.
I just find the one I have left over from Accumount.
And I don’t think the point you measure is a good one.
Ny Rifle is a 1944 Long branch in 75L series.
i have an Other Long Branch from 1944 in 61L series
And the distance from the top edge of the resiever til where you red line stop is not exactly the same.
I will measure both precisely in the week end.
Cinders ? Could you if your front pad is s guinie one
Measure the fistance from the Center hole to the
top edge of the reseiver.?

Jsne

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsne

Hmm
As I see it it is only the red line there is important
Are you sure 0.548 is Right?

Mine is about same as Cinders.
When I made my repro T I made a front pad 1,6 mm
Lower.
I still have a 0,8 mm shim at the bottom of my rear pad
And a little removed on top after I soldered it.

If your measurements are right something is wrong
And maby you should not follow my advice.

Jsne

---

The measure is as precise as I can, knowing that I'm not measuring with the same tool than you or Cinders, I would appreciate a picture of your rear pad, please.

when I did my No4T, followed peters books, had the pads and mount fitted by a good gunsmiths.

scope rebuilt, and only problem was rezeroing which took a 30 odd rds of ww2 ammo

but was brilliantly accurate ( based on a long branch enfield )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsne

Cinders ? Could you if your front pad is s genuine one

---

0.2500" within reason its as accurate as I can be;
Method ~ I took a mounting screw out of the bracket and screwed it into the front mount as one would if mounting the bracket then using electronic calipers measured from the top of the receiver to the center of the mounting screw from the bolt race side so the actual caliper points were in contact with both points of reference.

Heres the pics on the bolt race side you can see where the calipers actually marked the action just underneath the pad.

Hi again

Some new measurement on Your foto and some more foto:

On my Long branch 75Lxxxx Green 0.390
On my Long branch 61Lxxxx Green 0.394
Diff: 0.004
So it is not a exact point too measure.

The new blue line: On the drawings of the front pad it says 0.20
It is what it is on my homemade pad on the picture

My left over Accumount front pad says 0.247

The small black line on my rifle says 0.040

If have used the Accumount it will bee 0.057

So all together my homemade pad centerhole is lowered 0.064 / 1.63 mm

And my rear pad is raised with a shims 0,8mm but it is hard to see on the picture.

You can see on Cinders riffle the front pad sits a little lower at the top edge of the reseiver.

You need too bring the scope in level with the bore.

all i can think is that Accumount Pads an Bracket is poor quality.

Dont know if it helps.

JSNE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CINDERS

0.2500" within reason its as accurate as I can be;
Method ~ I took a mounting screw out of the bracket and screwed it into the front mount as one would if mounting the bracket then using electronic calipers measured from the top of the receiver to the center of the mounting screw from the bolt race side so the actual caliper points were in contact with both points of reference.

---

I get 0.2900", which is not that much but maybe enough to mess everything up.
So I listed the options that I get :
1) I fit the rear pad as it is, the scope will be fit higher than it should be..
2) I change the front pad by a new one, not drilled at first, than I tried to drill the holes after marking the pad by the inside of the receiver trough the actual holes.
3) I get a new rear pad, that can seat on the edge of the body, knowing that the scope will be high on the body
4) or I change the bracket by a repro of good quality...5 years I'm looking after...

If you have another option, fill free to propose.
I take the opportunity to advise anybody that would like to fit an Accumount repro on his Lee Enfield, that he should consider another option.

Am I looking at the pic wrong? It looks to me like the mating surfaces of the rear pad and the bracket are not the same profile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harry mac

Am I looking at the pic wrong? It looks to me like the mating surfaces of the rear pad and the bracket are not the same profile.

---

You're right, it needs some adjustments...

Why not go with a Fultons ones when you think of the time & effort to shag around with the Accumounts ones you would probably be streets ahead with a set of them is the bracket an Accumount as well Lou if it is one wonders how accurately that would be manufactured like your trying to put together a system that has untold errors which is going to eat up untold time & effort to get right if you can get it right at all.

While the Fulton’s mounts are pretty good, I’ve had this situation arise with them too, although to a lesser extent. I think the mistake is to expect these to fit out of the box given the range of variation on the bodies and brackets you may be fitting too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CINDERS

Why not go with a Fultons ones when you think of the time & effort to shag around with the Accumounts ones you would probably be streets ahead with a set of them is the bracket an Accumount as well Lou if it is one wonders how accurately that would be manufactured like your trying to put together a system that has untold errors which is going to eat up untold time & effort to get right if you can get it right at all.

---

In the current case, I thought about asking a front pad not drilled in order to fit it in place. But I guess that finally, I'm building up a look like 4T, not a perfect replica (I would have bought an original bracket and pads). So I will make a rear pad adapted to my rifle, from far, it will look like a 4 T, from a close sight, it will be definitely a scoped Lee Enfield, but I hope accurate enough for shooting at 200m.

---------- Post added at 10:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:47 AM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tbonesmith

While the Fulton’s mounts are pretty good, I’ve had this situation arise with them too, although to a lesser extent. I think the mistake is to expect these to fit out of the box given the range of variation on the bodies and brackets you may be fitting too.

---

I'm really surprised, even if you spend 120 GBP, you still get a chance to get the same error than with the Accumounts pads?

I think what T bone is saying is that no matter how accurately machined the pads are there is some variation in the machining of the mating surfaces of the brackets & from receiver to receiver.

Just thinking around the box - not necessarily out of it. In the making of the No4T sniper stories one of the first operations described at H&H was to run a mill over the right receiver wall to achieve some kind of standard datum - some rifles show almost no material off, some partial removal of "No4mk1" marks, others complete removal of it. I would assume that the receiver skim process was left set up at H&H and each new rifle simply run through it for expediency of a standard. Am not reading this step being accounted for / allowed for in these modern day conversion stories..perhaps this contributes to some of the cause to the front pad fit and relative alititude/attitude of the rear pads as observed. I wonder if this milled "datum" is anywhere in the drawings or other documents?..must be reference the bore / chamber axis as an assumption..

Just the Friday eve thoughts of a tired ex Engineer..bungabunga!

I think somewhere some one made a jig to hold the action square and horizontal to do machining actions on it like milling/drilling but that was a long time ago either way its a big call to build one as it was not a small item by any stretch.

If everyone just followed the simple instructions wot I writ a couple of years ago there woul;dn't be this discussion. Loads of others seemed to do so and are happily plugging away on the ranges. Once you have drilled the holes in the body, you're left with what you've got.

Reminds me of my friend who was restoring an old ex Triumph police car back in the 80's. There was a hole in the roof and a couple on the big compound curved boot lid that he wanted welded up. Everyone told him that it was a fraught task - and to just use low heat, tin the underside and then put tinned copper plates in place, a dash of heat and there'd be no distortion. But his pal said that he could MIG the holes up, which he did. He never got the buckled roof straight nor the boot lid. He did eventually solve the boot lid buckled curvature by buying a new one!

I would assume the rifle was set up in a jig for that process which held it from a control surface such as the bolt way, bore or even chamber perhaps. The cutter would be run down to the preset depth and what was taken off was taken off, or not. The point of the jig would be to ensure that when the pad was fitted it's relationship to the bore was relatively constant and the subsequently machined contact surfaces of the pad were even and centered. There is very little 'meat' on the front pad and misalignment when machining the actual pad mating surfaces could for example produce a 'shoulder' with an uneven or insufficient bearing. Presumably the angled cut on top of the left receiver ('body") wall was done at the same time as the side wall and the jig rotated the necessary angle so that that surface was also consistent.

As Fas as I understood, when I read Mr Laidler's book, the front pad was fitted to the body, than the spigot was milled (page 32 .303 N°4 (T) Sniper rifle), no other kind of work is mentionned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lou Cypher

Hi gents,
Finally, after 5 years of long wait, I started to fit a repro bracket with a n°32 MkI.
I read, read again, and drunk a lot of whisky as described in the nice documentation written by Mr Laidler. I'm sticking to any step described, and everything was going well until the fitting of the rear pad. When I aim a DAP at 250 yards through the barrel and set the drum to 250 yards on the scope, the grat on the DAP, my rear pad is positioned as follow ... https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...25_small-1.jpg
I measured the pad, the bracket, the size shows some minor differences with the blueprint, but not at a point to get so much gap. What did I not do? what should I do to correct this, if possible..
Thank you

---

Surely, when bore-sighting the rifle, the scope range scale should be set on zero, no matter how far away the DAP is? Bore-sighting merely makes sure the optical centre of the field of view and the axis of the bore are aligned.
If you set the scope at 250 and align it with the bore, when you actually come to engage a target at 250 your bullet will strike the ground well short, or the target really low.