L39A1 and Envoy Accuracy

Greetings all

I enjoy owning and shooting old target rifles. The L39A1 and Envoy type are interesting and have some questions.

--Accuracy wise, how would a new L39A1 or Envoy compare accuracy wise to more current .308/7.62mm target rifles?

--From a bedding standpoint, did the L39A1 and Envoy rifles require a significant amount of work to keep them shooting?

Thanks

Jim

I've got an excellent very lightly used L39A1. All original right down to the .303 mag used as a loading platform. Has a twin zero micrometer sight and larger matchmaker fore-site. I use later anschutz clear acrylic "slim line" sight inserts. I'll be taking it out this Sunday and shoot it at 600 with the full bore guys (as I normally shoot it in service rifle). Might swap with somebody a send a few rounds down to get a comparison.

All the things are there for an accurate rifle....heavy long hammer forged freely floating barrel. Action hung trigger with crisp two stage, good sights. But we're talking about a 1970's target rifle based on a 1930's receiver, with 1940's sights. Not a lot has changed in the grand scheme of things technically...but you'd want to think they're making more accurate target rifles in the 40 years since.

All I know is that in the prone position I can group it pretty well, but you'd need a rest or sled to compare apples for 7.62 apples. But it's not going to win a Queens Prize.

It is of course down to the shooter: I'd guess that for at least 90% of shooters, an Enfield-based target rifle will produce the same result as a modern target rifle.

I'm not a fanatical target shooter (as a military shooter I find it incredibly tedious that a target shooter can take 40 minutes to set up, adjust and fire just 12 shots....), but if I focus hard enough, I can usually place third or fourth, using an L39 or Envoy amongst twenty or so modern rifle users.

At short to medium ranges (up to 600 yards) I'd say an Enfield can still be competitive. For medium to long ranges (up to 1200 yards), you're starting to feel the disadvantage of a relatively short barrel designed for a slower round (the 144 gn NATO ball). When rebarrelled, Enfields do keep on going: One of the Envoys in my stock was the top-scoring rifle at 900x and 1000x during the 1994 Commonwealth Games. Its an Envoy fitted with a Madco stainless barrel and a target butt, but otherwise standard (top rifle in photo).

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...99585905-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by newbieDAN

All the things are there for an accurate rifle....heavy long hammer forged freely floating barrel. Action hung trigger with crisp two stage, good sights. But we're talking about a 1970's target rifle based on a 1930's receiver, with 1940's sights. Not a lot has changed in the grand scheme of things technically...but you'd want to think they're making more accurate target rifles in the 40 years since.

---

Thank you sir. All other things remaining equal, I have heard rear locking lugs on the bolt is a disadvantage.

Regards

Jim

Back in the 1970s the fashion at Bisley was to shoot the No.4 Rifle conversions at long range (900 and 1,000 yards) because its positive compensation was reckoned to be useful in coping with variations in performance of the military ammunition used, giving an advantage over stiffer actions. By the 1980s the very stiff front locking single shot actions such as the 'Swing' and 'Paramount' gained the edge, with the additional advantage of faster lock times and match triggers. Ammunition consistency was also improved.
The bedding on these rifles is critical. If you look at most No.4 Rifle conversions that have been used for serious target shooting you will often notice pegged holes at the back of the forend, in front of the transverse screw or bar. This is where gunsmiths have inserted special internal hardwood inserts (preferably hornbeam) at the 'draws' securing them by screws from the outside. A tight bearing at this point is considered essential, also at the reinforce and other specified points on the underside of the receiver.
Envoy rifles used coverted No.8 rifle forends (a batch of completely new forends was started, but never completed and eventually destroyed!) with glued-in inserts at the draws which have usually been replaced later on. L39s used converted No.4 rifle forends and would not have had the pegged draws installed in military service.
To relieve pressure on the bearings it was considered good practice to slacken the front trigger guard screw by a few turns at the end of the shooting season so that the wood could recover, retightening when the rifle was brought back into use a few months later.
There is useful contemporary information on bedding No.4 rifle conversions in 'Target Rifle Shooting' by E.G.B.Reynolds and R.A.Fulton (Barrie & Jenkins 1972 ISBN 0.214.65353.6)

---------- Post added at 03:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:39 PM ----------

[/COLOR]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by enscien

Back in the 1970s the fashion at Bisley was to shoot the No.4 Rifle conversions at long range (900 and 1,000 yards) because its positive compensation was reckoned to be useful in coping with variations in performance of the military ammunition used, giving an advantage over stiffer actions. By the 1980s the very stiff front locking single shot actions such as the 'Swing' and 'Paramount' gained the edge, with the additional advantage of faster lock times and match triggers. Ammunition consistency was also improved.
The bedding on these rifles is critical. If you look at most No.4 Rifle conversions that have been used for serious target shooting you will often notice pegged holes at the back of the forend, in front of the transverse screw or bar. This is where gunsmiths have inserted special internal hardwood inserts (preferably hornbeam) at the 'draws' securing them by screws from the outside. A tight bearing at this point is considered essential, also at the reinforce and other specified points on the underside of the receiver.
Envoy rifles used coverted No.8 rifle forends (a batch of completely new forends was started, but never completed and eventually destroyed!) with glued-in inserts at the draws which have usually been replaced later on. L39s used converted No.4 rifle forends and would not have had the pegged draws installed in military service.
To relieve pressure on the bearings it was considered good practice to slacken the front trigger guard screw by a few turns at the end of the shooting season so that the wood could recover, retightening when the rifle was brought back into use a few months later.
There is useful contemporary information on bedding No.4 rifle conversions in 'Target Rifle Shooting' by E.G.B.Reynolds and R.A.Fulton (Barrie & Jenkins 1972 ISBN 0.214.65353.6)

---

Excellent information. Thank you kindly.

Regards

Jim