Enfield - Fully stocked versus free floating barrel?

[paulseamus]

Given all of the effort, shown in the H Morris film, to produce the timber to fully stock a No4 why were Enfields not produced with a fully floated barrel? (amazing video)

Fully floated barrels now appear to be the norm in todays bolt action rifles.

With war time production pressures, and the benefit of hindsight, could production have been speed up with a fully floated partially stocked rifle--L42A1ish?

Less timber machining, less machining of the barrel blank but more barrel weight? Less accuracy?

Just wondering.

Paul

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.

[spinecracker]

Captain Laidler has addressed this issue most succinctly in prior posts. Due to the design and harmonics of the No.4 Mk.1 rifle chambered in British .303, the most accurate form of bedding was the one that was they had. Experimentation with other forms of bedding did not produce the same level of accuracy. I am sure that they would have cut back on material if they could (and there were experiments with lightened rifles). I do not know much about No.5 Mk.1s (heck, I don't know much about No.4s), but there is a reason why the rearsight was only marked up to 800 yards versus 1300 yards. Regarding the L42A1, this was chambered in 7.62x51 and had a heavier barrel, which changed the harmonics and allowed a shortened forend.