Loose front pad on a #4T.
How to repair ?
Does Peter have a tutorial ?
Thanks.
Printable View
Loose front pad on a #4T.
How to repair ?
Does Peter have a tutorial ?
Thanks.
You can use the search bar top right of the page to search subject matter a bit of fishing and I found this there are 4 parts to it this is what you require I think.
In his book he states the T's had an issue with the front pads working loose in WWII my T & scope were part of testing to resolve that issue so pretty unique to be listed in Peters book, rifle & original scope still together.
https://www.google.com/url?client=in...19171,72519168
https://www.google.com/url?client=in...19171,72519168
Hey MJ, good to see you are ok, take care mate.
Heat it from the backside until the soft solder flows.
Remove the pad and screws.
Clean, flux and tin with new soft solder.
Discard the old screws and replace with new ones, (4BA oval head slotted). I like to trim them pretty close to correct length. Peter teaches us to file a small groove in the threads with a Swiss file so the solder flows into the threads.
Heat again from the backside until the solder flows and tighten the screws.
Dress the screws up on the inside of the body and touch up.
That's all there is to it. It's a bit of a three handed job. Get your wife to hold the torch if she doesn't mind while you tighten the screws. When it all cools off, it should be solid as a rock.
On the early T's the pads were not soldered.
The British ran into problems with it however the Canadians did not solder them until the British complained. whined bitched and made it official.
If you have a trails rifle the pads will probably not be soldered but the screws on the front mount will be chewed to rat poop.
For casual use I would not worry about soldering them and if you need new or want new screws send me a PM
cheers
Waren
Don't solder if you don't want to. I'd argue that there's a reason why it's the correct method of repair. I've done quite a few, some sent here by clients. Others purchased that way. When I imported the last 30 L42A1s in 2001, a third of them had loose front pads. I learned how to do it properly and they went out of here repaired and I haven't had any complaints. Those who feel it necessary to stake the screws should stake the screw heads into the old stake mark on the pad instead of continually staking the pad. It works just as well without butchery. Many L42 front pads have a half dozen stake marks from the front pad shooting loose in service.
Maybe that's why mine has a few stake marks Brian due to the testing of different methods holding the front pad into position to stop it working loose.
Isn't yours one of the listed pad staking trials rifles? I have one of the listed rifles too. A bog standard 1944 BSA/H&H rifle with Mk.3 scope. I'll have to get it out and see how many stakes are on the front pad. I found that if you repair one correctly using Peter's method of soldering the screws in, staking isn't that necessary for the range time we're giving them.
My 4T has a single stake mark, but my L42 has 3 stake marks
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...No4T0017-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../IMG8740-1.jpg
You are correct Brian it is listed as yours will be in Peter and Ian's book on the No.4 T rifle mine has it's original scope that is listed in the book a MkIII A K & S Ser = 16684.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Dick
Does any other person here have one of the sniper T & scope listed in the above book be interesting to find out just how many are still alive & kicking.
Is your rifle still paired with its original scope !
Funny how they started in England and ended up where they have, mine I purchased from and eastern states seller on the other side of Australia, if they could only tell us of their journeys.....!
Holland and Holland ALWAYS soldered the pads. I don't think I ever saw a rifle/pad that wasn't soldered. That was part of the EMER. Brian is correct about staking the screw head into a previous stake-hole instead of staking the pad into the new screw. Screws are easily replaceable. Pads ain't!
My pad staking trials rifle is sn. K38685. The Mk.3 telescope is original, (sn. 23912), and matching along with the No.8Mk.1 telescope case and chest stenciled "Personal Property of Sam Cummings". It has two stakes per screw on the front pad. One on each end of the screw slot.
Thx Brian sadly all the CES gear for mine is long gone and to get it all together at today's prices I'd have to get a loan out.
It still has it's original lense caps but the strap is long gone it sports a repro set now brought from England, I had the seller stamp them 1944 for my T's DOM.
I understand. You have the important part. That's all that matters.
Thank you for the replies.
Sorry for the delay I had to spend some more time on hospital for a blood clot problem.
I will certainly get after this as soon as I'm on my feet again. Pegs are a little wobbly still.
All the advice is gratefully taken.
1945 M47
MJ
Have a speedy recovery MJ1
Ditto that. Hope you're feeling back to 100% soon.
Same regards from me too. Had the same problem a couple of years ago.
Do you have more info on this? I have a savage no4 mk1 T that I have been suspecting may be a trials rifle. The pad screws are all chewed up and I thought some idiot in the surplus market was the culprit!
What more information do you need? There's always someone who has to put an ill-fitting screwdriver on the screws and bugger them trying to tighten screws that are already soldered in.
We used to test-fire the rifles after major workshop repair with the telescopes attached, in a test called 'hold fastness' or just 'the fast test' for short. The Enfiield layer recoil would be set to xxxxing hard. This would shake the xxxt out of the telescope/erector system and the anti-rotation of the tele and bracket would severely test the front pad security. A good test was to try to wiggle the tele and bracket and look for any oil squeeze between the body and the pad. Any oil squeeze - and back it'd go for 'failed fastness test'. As I mentioned sometime earlier, occasionally an L42 would shear the threaded spigot off the pad.
In real life,by the early 80's, the L42 had passed its shelf life and it was easier to Z/BER the rifle
I used to take my son in occasionally if there were varied things to shoot. He'd put the rifles and MG's into the layer and fire the trigger. We had to stop him because with Brens, L4's and L7 GPMG's he seemed incapable of letting go of the trigger. So several 'short bursts' used to tuen into a full magazine or 20 round belt! SMG's were something else!
It's funny they didn't mount the rear pads with the bearing surfaces vertical rather than horizontal. Had they done so, the rear pads if properly set up would have also taken a considerable portion of the recoil forces and probably eliminated all such problems with the front pads shooting loose or shearing their spigots.
The simplest way to make them would have been turned out of a disc on a lathe so that the bearing surfaces of the pad would be curved to match the radius of the distance between the two pads. That would have allowed vertical adjustment without the need to meddle with the bearing surfaces of either rear pad or bracket leg.
The brackets could have been machined to match, and a simple steel "stop-block" screwed and soldered to a suitable flat machined on the inside rear leg of the brackets above the bearing surfaces so at to set vertical alignment. Adjusting same would then involve only removing the stop-block and replacing with a larger one or lapping down its height as required.
Of course making the front spigot 50-100% larger would also have probably solved the problem. ;)
By God, you are right! That skinny sleeve on the front pad takes the full load of the recoil. At most the rear pad gives some frictional support if that rear screw is plenty tight, which is not really an option with these spring-loaded jack screws.Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
I recently acquired a No. 4 Mk. 1 (T) that appears largely complete and in fine condition. Was thinking of shooting it a little to see how it performs, but for what these things go for now, and given frailties like this, I think I will stick to less valuable rifles at the range.
:D I wouldn't worry togor, just clean off the pad and bracket surfaces with alcohol to remove all grease and oil and reef that "thumbscrew" down as hard as you can and you'll get some degree of frictional bond!
I seem to remember a long time ago PL stated that sometimes the snipers did those thumb screws up so tight they actually snapped as there is not much left after the threads with that little bit if shaft before the knurled knob.
It's always the front one done up then the rear one apparently, I cinch my front one a bit then the back one then go & finish tightening the front then go back to tighten the rear the same.
I just remember Peter saying you don't have to Gorilla them.
Hand tight and check them frequently if you're on the range. They will bend too. I've seen it all including people who cut grooves in the thin part of the thumbscrew to crank it on with a flat bar of steel. Ugh!
At this point the value of my rig is in what it might have done in the past, not what it can do presently. There's no up side to shooting it at full power only to get unlucky. Next owner is free to feel differently, but this is how the supply of older guns slowly dries up.
Your call togor, but really there's nothing to worry about if the knurled screws are well tightened down. The failures AFAWK all occurred after long years of military service.
But in case my comment #24 wasn't entirely clear, I'll second the above remarks: don't use anything but your hand to tighten the knurled screws
Understood but mine was made in 1944 and sold off with its crate probably in 1960s. Used condition but rifling and throat appear to be in good condition.
Gets me thinking...are those jack screws a common thread size or something oddball? Perhaps for shooting they could be swapped out with some screws that are given a precise torque. Overkill some might say but then again these rigs are not cheap.
The original thumbscrews worked just fine in service from the 1940s until the 1980s in British service if you include the L42A1 in 7.62. These rifles don't need the thumbscrews installed with a torque wrench. Hand tight is just fine. I'd challenge you to hurt it if you make sure the rifle and telescope are well maintained and in spec. Many will print moa at 100 yards, and they are pleasant to shoot.
Thanks for the comment. Everything appears as it should in terms of matching numbers, according to the excellent materials on this site for these rifles.
Am genuinely curious, and have this Prvi 174gr ammo I could shoot. I took a fired case from that Maltby '42 and 'resized' it in the chamber of this rifle. The chamber appears tighter, as one might expect. Another of my "poor man's techniques" for assessing bore conditions.
As far as shooting them I had mine out 5 weeks ago at 600m still in the black and nice to shoot off a bench set up, when I loaded with AR 2208 (Varget) the recoil pulse was sharp so swapped & developed a load with 174 SMK's AR 2209 (H414, 4350) sends a nice push now.
I noticed the Prvi recoil is sharp. I have Varget and H4350 available. Care to share your charge weights?
R.P Case, FLS'ed & annealed, Federal Match primer, 46gns of 2209, 174 SMK set COAL to MkVII ball round check fit in mag, again drop it 5% then work up I take no responsibility for the load as what is safe in my rifles may not be in anyone else's.
Also as I do not know anyone elses reloading habits, I know your not numpties but I again stress I take no responsibility for ppl using this load.
Caveat emptor on all posted load data. Thx
Ah, yes...... Good comment from Surpmil Rob regarding the alternative method of attaching the scope to the rifle. The problem was that the spec stipulated that the bracket had to fit and be interchangeable with the bracket that was scheduled to be mounted on the left side of the Bren body. It didn't come to pass and by the time that the telescope Bren idea was abandoned the No4 T was already in hand. As were the brackets and pads. Better still would have been the front bracket thread, centred on the body-side and threaded through the substantial front and rear body-side.
asy to introduce but the last thing you need in wartime is non interchangeability
So far as I remember, the sheared-off spigot was a problem for the L42's. We did see No4T's come through the workshop system during the 70's into the early 80's but loose pads, yes. Torn-off front pad spigots, no.
The sheared spigot repair came as a technical or miscellaneous instruction formulated at the big York workshops. It seemed OK but in the later days of the L42 when time counted, such repairs - and making handguards and fore-end patching at the muzzle end. it was uneconomic to repair stuff!
On te same subject of timed repairs v costs, I'll mention SLR blank firing adaptors if someone brings the subject up on the L1A1 forum
I'd agree Peter: threaded into the body side would have been best. Makes one wonder how they intended to collimate the base & bracket on the Bren? Manufacturing tolerances only?
And of course the beating the poor old spigot would take on an automatic weapon would be much greater than on a sniper's rifle. Design fault there IMHO.