GE Fulton Mount on No 4 install help needed

[LithgowMKIII]

Hi Gents,
I have a Faz No 4 Mk II '52 that I picked up recently. I bought a Fulton rail mount but apparently there are enough variances in the charger mount that the aluminium wedge that came with it won't fit; I need to fit it down a bit. Before I go down the path of no return, I thought I better ask for help here. I did a search here but couldn't find any advice or photos. If anyone has experience with this please let me know. Thanks in advance.

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.

[Peter Laidler]

I always thought that the Fulton mounts were steel and not alloy. But in any case, the main mount shound sit down across the bridge charger guide without any undue leverage ESPECIALLY if there is any leverage across the backsight axis area. THEN secured by the taper lock wedge.

[LithgowMKIII]

I always thought that the Fulton mounts were steel and not alloy. But in any case, the main mount shound sit down across the bridge charger guide without any undue leverage ESPECIALLY if there is any leverage across the backsight axis area. THEN secured by the taper lock wedge.

Yes, I think you are right; looks like steel. The wedge on the other hand is aluminium. The rail fits fine but the wedge is has too much metal in the backside next to the charger. I have since asked Brian Dick, who said to carefully file the wedge to fit. He has extra wedges if I mess up. Hopefully I won't. Off day project! I'll post pics when done.

[Brian Dick]

The wedge nuts are steel not aluminum.

[LithgowMKIII]

Thanks Brian, I stand corrected.
I have no time today to work on it but here some pictures just in case someone comes by this and is wondering:

Also, here's a pic of the rifle:

[villiers]

That Fultons setup looks a LOT better´n the Armalon I had. The Fulton wedge looks as if it´s adjustable. Armalon sent me two brass shims that fit on the sides of the action. I needed to get it even higher and ended up with a set of homemade shims that kept falling out, as the sides of the Enfield action are not precisely the same height. Apart from having to fiddle around with the shims, it had to be re-adjusted for 100 and 300 metres, which needed a different set of shims each time. Don´t think there´s any alternative to a traditional Enfield mount in the long run.

[Peter Laidler]

Fitting this telescope is optically similar to fitting the No32 telescope. In that you must - or at least, SHOULD do is to ensure befrore you start that the tip of the graticle or the actual aiming mark is at the optical centre line of the mechanical axis of the telescope bore. You do this by rotating the telescope tube between centres (or vee blocks)

Then mount the telescope onto the bracket THEN see if you can adjust the bracket on the rifle, up/down or left/right using shims or removing metal whatever the case might be so that the....... Anyway, all the reasons are given in the thread that details this rigmarole. In short, this means that a) you have the full range of movement available for any range and deflection adjustments, b) you are using the centre of the optical axis of the telescope which is always the best/less optical aberration and c) better for taking on and off.

[Brian Dick]

Windage adjustable rings like the ones Millett offers are also very handy in putting all the variables Peter mentions into place. The charger bridge was never intended to be a datum for aligning a telescope over the centerline of the bore so you must improvise, overcome and adapt!

[LithgowMKIII]

Great advice! Thanks.

[LithgowMKIII]

It worked. Thanks guys!