Question on early No. 4 "T" Enfield conversions accuracy.

[rayg]

I know the Trials rifles, and a few others were converted by Enfield originally but were any accuracy acceptence tests done like had been done with the ones mfg later that were stamped TR and sent to H&H for conversion or were they just standard rifles that were in stores or off the assembly lines?
My Trials rifle that was converted to a "T" sniper has the sniper stylized "T" stamped on the barrel under the wood by the receiver. Could that mean that in addition to the set up to sniper, mounts, cheek rest etc. that the barrel/rifle met sniper accruacy tests or had been improved to do so. Ray

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Roger Payne]

That's a very perceptive question! You know, I'd never given it any real thought.......Peter! Where are you????

ATB

[jmoore]

I don't know if they were specially selected or not, but mine is the MOST accurate No.4 Mk.1(T) of all that I have or have shot!

[rayg]

Are you talking about the Trials one?

[jmoore]

Yah, dot's de von!

[Peter Laidler]

Mmmmmmmm, very perceptive question...... I don't think that they were shot for accuracy as I can't see any paperwork to suggest that they were with regards sniping. They were alrady reputed to be the most accurate rifle we'd had to that date, simple (simpler) to produce and we needed sniper rifles. There was a telescope coming on stream so the No4 it was....., albeit the initial trials rifles

[rayg]

I would imagine that some where along the way, they must have been test fired to meet some requirements for accuracy. I can't see that they would just convert any rifle to a sniper without some accuracy standard.
Regarding the trials rifles, as they were made in peace time and were a trials type, there was probably greater care taken in the manufacturing/machining and accuracy requirements, don't you think? Ray

[Surpmil]

Did the number of 1403 trials rifles converted to "T" specs represent a discernable scale of issue in relation to the number of battalions in existence? Or, did it represent all the trials rifles made, or only a portion of those? There are some examples known that were not converted after all.

If it represents only part of those known to have been on hand (and presumably unissued at that date), then one might conclude that there was some form of accuracy test and that some rifles did not pass; or that the number 1403 was chosen for some specific reason related to scale of issue or...?

It would hardly have made sense to go to the trouble of converting them and then to find out when doing the final zeroing that some would not group adequately and had to be either 'remediated' or returned to standard No4 specs.

On the other hand, the press of work at that date may have led to there being no final zeroing tests at all and the rifles being left up to the end user to zero(?)

Or of course, the rifles may have already been tested before the outbreak of war to a standard that was considered adequate for conversion and therefore there was no need for further testing beyond post-conversion zeroing.

Presumably those rifles that went out on troop trials before the war were inspected and refurbished after the trials were over, and the trials probably did not include firing more than a few hundred rounds from each rifle anyway(?)

I regret to say I never fired either of my trials "T"s so can't comment, but I recall reading that they were effectively "hand-built" rifles and naturally would have been made to as high a standard as possible in order that the design might be fairly tested without manufacturing standards affecting the results.

Just throwing some guesses out there...

[Peter Laidler]

Clearly they were all test fired and passed the required accuracy test prior to issue and trials otherwise there'd be no point in putting them a) through the trials and b) issuing them for extended troop trials afterwards, albeit as bog standard No4 rifles.

Given this and the greater accuracy required of a No4 over a No1 and the simplicity of fitting up a No4 over a No3 rifle, then I'd say that it was cut and dried! Any further accuracy tests were pretty academic as they'd already been through and passed one!

Just my thoughts, knowing how the trials teams work now and presumably used the same 'bleedin obvious' formula then.

I've just re-read that again and I hope that it doesn't sound insulting to anyone out there in forum-land........... So please don't take it as an insult but rather a play on language!

We have the paperwork regarding these trials. It's pretty exhaustive so I don't want to go through it all again.....................

[viking guy]

Hello Peter Laidler! I have found owned your books for many years and find them very informative. I enjoy my rifles more than ever, knowing they conform to the details you clearly reveal to us. What a service you have done for us collectors of these wonderful rifles. Many thanks.

Now, on to accuracy. Mine will shoot 1-1.5moa at 100 and 200 yards with Greek HXP or Winchester white box 174gr. on my best days.

What kind of 4 or 5shot groups is a good T capable of at 300 thru 500 yards? I assume the group sizes farther out are hampered by the low magnification of the No.32 MKII-MKIII.