Curious if anyone's ever installed a Special Interest Arms scope mount on their #4

My #4 is sporting an ATI clamp-on scope mount currently. It's... okay. But this scope mount caught my eye at some point. I like that it's low and far enough forward that the nice vernier sight can be retained. It definitely does require "gunsmithing" unlike most modern non-"T" scope mounts. It's the best I've seen, just judging by this pic.

I've conversed with the owner of this company. He says just two holes are needed, at the forward end; for 6-48 screws. The aft end of the mount uses some kind of clamping mechanism at the charger bridge.

Full disclosure, I have not purchased one yet, but I asked two gunsmiths about doing the job. Neither seemed keen to do it. Said one of them, "Surfaced hardened receivers mean carbide bits and broken taps".

Since SIA is/was known for doing a lot of LE #4 conversions of one type or another, I figured I'd ask Richard, the owner, about the difficulty in working with the receiver. He said he doesn't find the #4's steel to be particularly hard: "I've never seen a "hard" Enfield action. That is a common Mauser issue."

Thoughts?

Special Interest Arms - Enfield Accessories

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC00777-1.jpg

I’ve fitted them,it’s no drama. The receiver ring is soft and drills very easily.
It’s a very solid mount, as low a possible and the rear locking wedge is very strong and solid. On one that I fitted I had to shim the wedge, but that was easy and just .010 shim stock.
Like you, it’s the best I’ve seen. The length of the pic rail is ideal and the strength and solidity of the unit is exactly what it should be.

Thanks for the confirmation Tbone. I'm amazed these mounts have not gotten more notice. Do you remember if it's steel or aluminum? I'd think aluminum due to the bulk.

Richard emailed me the installation instructions earlier in the week, just to answer a few questions I had. Only the text, no illustrations unfortunately. It describes this wedge and mentions that some actions may require shimming, others possibly require careful removing of metal from rear edge of the wedge---with a caution not to alter the wedge's 5° angle if metal removal is required.

May as well voice my peeves about the ATI scope mount. BTW, you can see that the rifle's currently sporting a nice, simple little Weaver scope, 1-3x.

Other than having to pull off the nice rear site this mount isn't too bad. It's certainly usable. But it would have been nice if they're made it one 'rung' longer at the front. Mainly though I don't like how the designer didn't centerline the rail with the bore. Rather, he centered it with regard to the rear sight mount, which is offset to the right. So it is a little biased toward the right side. Left-hand shooters probably appreciate this, but I resent having to lean over more for no good reason.

that scope will only ever be correct at one range unless it is set to be off the same at all distances.

Armalon in the UK do a very nice no drill mount for no4. Head and shoulders above the ATI. Maybe have a look at that if you want to avoid drilling and tapping a nice rifle.

I have the Fultons steel Picatinny bases available that require no drilling and tapping. They are the best I've found.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bindi2

that scope will only ever be correct at one range unless it is set to be off the same at all distances.

---

Haven't actually used this one yet. But true. It's a simple, low power deal. Nice glass though. And very light. I put it on there knowing that even a little scope like this a much better than just using the irons. Especially with my eyes. My plan was to zero it at 200 yds and call it good. But if I had a better mount I'd get more ambitious about glass. I would not mind a scope that can be used for hold overs. Something with a few MOA hash marks would hit the spot (so to speak). If I get a better scope for the #4 then this Weaver will probably end up on my lever gun.

I actually don't have a problem with a yes-gunsmithing mount. My rifle's just a '49 Fazakerly. Nothing all that special or remarkable. Very bright bore though. And I have Huber trigger in it that's adjusted to a crisp 3.75 lb break. It's not a bad trigger to use, so long as you don't mind the switch to a single-stage trigger. Personally I prefer two-stage triggers, but this Huber is much better for precision than the original 7.5 lb trigger.

Getting back on track, I have no problem with a couple of small holes being drilled in the receiver, so long as they're done right. The Armalon and Fulton both look interesting though, and would be improvements over my ATI, from what I can tell. Can't run a rear sight with them, but that's probably true of most 'bolt on' mounts. Are they at least centered over the bore?

For the sake of argument, can the Armalon be purchased in the USA? And Brian, what is your web address?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SDWriter

And Brian, what is your web address?

---

Never mind. I found it through your user info. :)

bdlltd@bellsouth.net

x2 on the Fulton's mount. Got mine from Brian. Very easy to mount and rock solid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RangeRover

x2 on the Fulton's mount. Got mine from Brian. Very easy to mount and rock solid.

---

Thanks. I'm sure it is. I like that it's steel. I don't suppose you could take a pic similar to mine above, of the mount on the rifle from directly behind, and post it here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tbonesmith

I’ve fitted them,it’s no drama. The receiver ring is soft and drills very easily.

---

Hi again Tbone. Just have a follow-up question. To confirm, the receiver ring is a softer material than the steel on the side of the receiver? I assumed it was all one piece of the same material. Just asking because I've been following this thread below, where the OP is having difficulty drilling for his #4T 'repro'. In here you confirm that the side is a bit tricky to machine correctly due to hardness.

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=63726

I still haven't decided if I want to go this route or get a Fulton and Son mount. Both have their appeal. I don't want a Fulton if the rail is offset to the right, as it is with my ATI. No one has been able to confirm this one way or the other.

The Fulton mount isn't offset to the right. I told you that it has some play in the jam nut so that you can adjust it with all the screws loose, collimate your centralized scope and then tighten it all down using Loctite 242. The ATI is cheap junk, always was and always will be. So is the S&K, B-square, Cad Tech, and every other one I can't remember. I've been flogging these items for many years. I'm brutally honest and to the point. Pay the price and you'll only have to do it once. The Armalon is good too but made of aluminum. Better for a carbine or scout rifle if weight is a factor and you're using a lightweight scope. The steel Fulton Picatinny rail is rock solid when installed properly. I've sold more than I can count over the years to serious folks and never had a complaint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Dick

The Fulton mount isn't offset to the right.

---

Thanks! This is the first plain-English answer to my question. I think your previous reply of "It collimates easily..." wasn't really an answer sufficient to my... let's say, less technical understanding of the subject. From what I know at this point, collimation just means that the scope axis and bore axis are in perfect parallel. But since a scope wouldn't need to be at exactly 12 oclock for this to be true; could be just as parallel at 11:30, 12:10, or 8:00, that info still left me unsatisfied. Until now.

I am sure that the ATI is made less expensively and is less well designed. Making it the way they did is probably easier to do and they can start with a smaller piece of metal. To do this "right" I assume that Fulton starts with a wider piece and just needs to machine off a bit from the left side.

I just whipped up a crude modification to my earlier image to show, in case anyone is interested, what I'm talking about with all this centering over the bore blah blah blah.

Attachment 90987

I hope it's not bad form to share a pic that I found on another board. Here is one of the better pics I have found of the Fulton mount in use. I do like the positioning a lot. So many of the cheaper ones are kind of stubby. First modern mount I ever saw for the #4 was the CAD Tecknik (however it's spelled). That one had the scope sitting too high and too far back for my taste.

I find it interesting that this Fulton's owner has his scope sitting all the way to the rear. Must just work best for his comfort and needs, and eye relief of course. It has me thinking that perhaps the SIA mount's rail might actually be a skosh farther forward than ideal for some shooters/scopes, since its rail is positioned entirely forward of the charger bridge.

Attachment 91110

The Armalon does have the advantage that the scope does not need to be removed from the base to fit or remove the base from the rifle.

The ideal no-drill No.4 Rifle mount is yet to be built IMO.

Sounds like Titanium would be the ideal material, but for the price.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

The Armalon does have the advantage that the scope does not need to be removed from the base to fit or remove the base from the rifle.

---

I'd assumes that Armalon is functionally identical to the Fulton. But could you maybe rephrase the above? I don't really get what you are saying.

And yes, a titanium mount would be sweet. But oh, the price it would cost.

Here you see the placement of the screw on the Armalon mount which controls the locking segment.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...64687772-1.jpg

Unlike the S&K and the replicas thereof, the scope does not need to be taken on or off the base to fit or remove the base from the rifle, as the photos make clear, I think.

Thanks Surpmil. That image does clarify what you were saying quite nicely.

Might just be an interesting footnote for me though. From what I understand, the Armalons are hard to come by in the USA.

Google will take you there in moments and the rest is but an email or two I expect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

Google will take you there in moments and the rest is but an email or two I expect.

---

Could be. I've looked at their web site on several occasions. But I might wait and buy the Fulton steel version when the time is right. That "advantage" you point out might not work for me anyway. I think I'd rather un-attach a scope via its rings than pull off the mount itself and loose whatever collimating I'd done on the mount. That, and I'm not sure I'd be able to get an Allen head tool in that little gap easily anyway if a scope is just a few mm away. My initial plan is to use a spare Vortex 2-8x I have sitting in a box. It has a rather bulky occular end. I'll bet that trying to unscrew and then later re-torque that cap screw would be a PITA.

Valid points! To each his own...