Which model No 4 best for target work?

[Richard Hare]

Gentlemen,

Been thinking about this for a while;
Which model of the No 4 L.E. is best for target work, all else being equal?

I ask, as the No 4 Mk 2 is often cited as being best, with it's hung trigger etc, yet years ago in I think Guns Review, there was an article on target shooting with the No 4, and it stated that for best work, a well set up no 4 Mk 1 was the best and most reliable.

I have been wondering if this is still regarded as true?
Thanks in advance for any light shed.

Richard.

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.

[Frederick303]

If you read some of the old gunsmithing articles it would appear that the degree of action stiffness varied between manufacturers and action to action in the WWII production. This in turn affected the degree of compensation at various ranges. As when the Bisely finals were the decisive matches, the degree of long range compensation was important. That may have some affect on which action would be best for a particular distance given standard No4 service bedding and how true the front sight will be when zeroed.

Supposedly that was one of the Fulton Tricks that made their rifles desirable, though unfortunately when Major Fulton died some years ago all those records were destroyed. I have also read that part of the Fulton tricks were how they set up the bearings on the lugs to compensate for action twist due to asymmetrical support of the bolt, which in turn depended on the action stiffness.

The only difference I have noted in observation is that with Savage No4 MK I* rifles it seems a significant number need the front sight post to be zeroed to the left of center, which might have something to do with the metal heat/treatment. That is with standard service bedding.

In the Canadian case, they allowed only the standard front loaded bedding from 1946 until the adoption of the No 4 in 7.62 around 1963. Only one exception was made for an English team that came over around 1955/56 that had some center-bedded rifles that were allowed. The Canadian had pretty good luck with Longbranch rifles, their scores at Connaught seem to be very good, though I note that most of the winning Bisley Canadian shooters pre 1962 seem to have a match tuned No1 MK III for the Bisley finals when they came over as a team to the UK.

Not a real answer, but it might explain why some folks though the WWII actions were better for target work in some way.

It might also relate to the barrels and bore size, as I recall talking to an old time shooter at Connaught two decades ago about this and he said back in the day a lot of the issues folks had with accuracy had to do with the fouling characteristics of different lots and the relationship to bore size. I do not really recall the details well enough to say anything definitive, but I seem to recall him saying the post war BSA barrels were very fine barrels.

[Surpmil]

If you read some of the old gunsmithing articles it would appear that the degree of action stiffness varied between manufacturers and action to action in the WWII production. This in turn affected the degree of compensation at various ranges. As when the Bisely finals were the decisive matches, the degree of long range compensation was important. That may have some affect on which action would be best for a particular distance given standard No4 service bedding and how true the front sight will be when zeroed.

Supposedly that was one of the Fulton Tricks that made their rifles desirable, though unfortunately when Major Fulton died some years ago all those records were destroyed. I have also read that part of the Fulton tricks were how they set up the bearings on the lugs to compensate for action twist due to asymmetrical support of the bolt, which in turn depended on the action stiffness.

The only difference I have noted in observation is that with Savage No4 MK I* rifles it seems a significant number need the front sight post to be zeroed to the left of center, which might have something to do with the metal heat/treatment. That is with standard service bedding.

In the Canadian case, they allowed only the standard front loaded bedding from 1946 until the adoption of the No 4 in 7.62 around 1963. Only one exception was made for an English team that came over around 1955/56 that had some center-bedded rifles that were allowed. The Canadian had pretty good luck with Longbranch rifles, their scores at Connaught seem to be very good, though I note that most of the winning Bisley Canadian shooters pre 1962 seem to have a match tuned No1 MK III for the Bisley finals when they came over as a team to the UK.

Not a real answer, but it might explain why some folks though the WWII actions were better for target work in some way.

It might also relate to the barrels and bore size, as I recall talking to an old time shooter at Connaught two decades ago about this and he said back in the day a lot of the issues folks had with accuracy had to do with the fouling characteristics of different lots and the relationship to bore size. I do not really recall the details well enough to say anything definitive, but I seem to recall him saying the post war BSA barrels were very fine barrels.

The centre bedding was quite popular here in the 1960s I'm told. Quite a few of the DCRA conversion rifles are bedded that way.

Incidentally, an older shooter and amateur gunsmith told me that he was assured by an ex-SAL employee that the 7.62mm CAL barrels were actually made by Douglas in the USA. He named his informant, but I don't recall the name and both are dead now. I'm skeptical, since if it were true, one would have expected it to have come out by now.

I seem to recall that the "asymmetry" of the No4 action was scoffed at when Long Branch referred to it in reference to the design of one of their light weight rifles. It is an interesting fact that the long recoil lug, which must have greater resistance to flex or compression than the smaller lug (however small a difference), bears on the weaker and presumably more flexible side of the body. It would be interesting to set up a barreled action in an absolutely immovable mount bearing only on the barrel and see what moves with some dial indicators and high speed cameras.

The Mk2 has a smaller circular relief cutout on the underside behind the recoil lugs, quite a lot smaller than those rifles that had a rounded rectangular cutout. This leaves quite a bit more mass in that area and presumably more rigidity. Whether that is actually beneficial to potential accuracy is another question!

[Richard Hare]

I do thank you Frederick, for taking the time to write such a thorough and comprehensive reply.
What you have to say is very interesting, regarding the differing rifles & barrels.

Again, thank you for your time!

Best wishes,
R.

[Beerhunter]

A No.4T sans scope ought to be the best.

The Mk.2s trigger mechanism was to make manufacture easier (less skill and time required), not to improve the trigger.

[vintage hunter]

not to improve the trigger.

As I understand it that is the purpose of the Mk.2 design, to improve trigger pull qualities by hanging it from the receiver where swelled woodwork doesn't affect the fit of the trigger/sear/cocking piece engagement surfaces causing inconsistent pull weights.

[Parashooter]

If the sole objective was easier manufacture, why did they bother converting all those Mk.1/2 and 1/3's? That exercise undoubtedly took a fair amount of skill and time. Hmmmm. . .

[ssj]

If the sole objective was easier manufacture, why did they bother converting all those Mk.1/2 and 1/3's? That exercise undoubtedly took a fair amount of skill and time. Hmmmm. . .

Because that was probably not the sole objective.

Really I suggest you have to be in the mind set of the British after WW2 when they were fairly broke being in huge debt from war costs so also of the era mindset as well as being British. I talk to my parents now in their 8th decade and the insights can be interesting. (dad hated stens dangerous things but like his enfield)

a) After WW2 the cold war was just starting.
b) Work for ppl. " At the same time, they held out the prospect of a new social order that would ensure better housing, free medical services and employment for all."
c) Labour government coming into power.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwa...ction_01.shtml

So with various hot spots around the world, commie threats

Malayan Emergency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

upgrading an existing rifle when nothing else was immediately available, pretty cheap to do and keep voters employed such work until the next generation rifle could be designed makes some sense. Also conscription was still in force, cant have soldiers without guns now can we?

[Beerhunter]

If the sole objective was easier manufacture, why did they bother converting all those Mk.1/2 and 1/3's? That exercise undoubtedly took a fair amount of skill and time. Hmmmm. . .

The conversions were done during FFR.

[Brian Dick]

Tom VH is correct. There were some problems with unseasoned wood during wartime with the remedy being the Mk.2 design. Personally, I don't see any difference in the trigger performance of the Mk.1, 1/2, 1/3 or Mk.2 but that's just my opinion having fired a few over the years. If it makes a rifle more accurate, then why weren't all the sniper rifles converted? I've had wartime rifles that were tack drivers and post war rifles that were tack drivers and vice versa!