Fultons of Bisley; Enfield accuracy secrets revealed. (By RJW NZ)

[Peter Laidler]

Thanks once again for those humourous but VERY descriptive pictures Ed. I'll be using them on the next small arms school instructors course. One picture really does describe a thousand words.

Naturally, once again, I'll be telling them (and the more senior Officers that drop in from time to time) that I thought them all up.

Thanks again Ed

[Surpmil]

What's mystical is the best bedded No.4 I've ever had is the 1931/3 Trials (T). Still centered and exerts a good 5 pounds upward pressure at the fore end tip w/ the original Enfield installed wood...

Oddly enough, it's also the best shooting of all my 303 L-Es, even though it's been around the block a few times!

Nothing odd about that IMO: hand-built rifles using the best materials available.

[Edward Horton]

Thanks once again for those humourous but VERY descriptive pictures Ed. I'll be using them on the next small arms school instructors course. One picture really does describe a thousand words.

Naturally, once again, I'll be telling them (and the more senior Officers that drop in from time to time) that I thought them all up.

Thanks again Ed

Mr. Laidler

Please take whatever you can use from my postings Mr. Laidler, after all I took everything I could get from my spies who raided the old MOD Patern Room Library.

If you want to see if your students are awake in your next Enfield class Mr. Laidler display this photo on your screen and see if they notice the "slight difference".

[Edward Horton]

I'm not disputing this at all, but why have target shooters with No4 rifles, tended towards the same modification, ie centre bedding, for so long? One reason I hear with regularity is that shots tend to string vertically less as the barrel heats up in longer/faster course of fire.
I'll add that any rifles I set up from a while ago were and will be bedded conventionally, as per instructions/posts from Peter Laidler, unless they are performing very well as they are, as in the case of a couple of centre bedded No4's I've got.
It's interesting that these rifles continue to be set up in an inferior manner...

tbonesmith

A sniper is trained to "shoot and scoot" or fire one shot and move to a new location. Now forgive me for saying this but when was the last time you saw any of your Australian mates shooting in regulation competition with a No.4 (T) sniper rifle.

If you do not understand my warped sense of American humor then let me put it another way.

Your comment on center bedding.

"One reason I hear with regularity is that shots tend to string vertically less as the barrel heats up in longer/faster course of fire."

How many No.4 (T) sniper rifles are used in a "longer/faster course of fire" when that job is normally given to the Bren gunners.

I'm very thankful Mr. Laidler is here in our forum and I enjoy the information he gives us all. BUT I also have the ability to separate Mr. Laidlers strict military Armourers discipline or perspective and then apply it to my civilian usage of the Enfield Rifle.

Now if you study the "Canadian Marksman" you will notice that the different amounts of up pressure at center bedding point affected accuracy between 300 to 1000 yards. BUT at 300 yards and below up pressure at the very fore end tip was still needed to give good accuracy at these shorter ranges.

If you notice the center bedding up pressure is a compromise of what "up pressure" gave the best grouping between 300 and 1000 yards for the center bedding point.

And if you think about it the No.1 Enfield was also "center bedded" at the "inner band" and the center bedding was adjustable.



Its all about controlling barrel vibrations.



Do any of you rub Viagra on your barrel.

[jmoore]

Note three nodes (areas of little movement) on the last of Edward Horton's illustrations, only one of which (the breech end) is fixed. A similar situation likely exists w/ L-E barrels. That's why both bedding techniques have some merit.

It's also why the location of the bedding is important for proper damping! Good bedding in the wrong place can easily make accuracy worse.

[Bruce_in_Oz]

There is also another major fly in the ointment here.

Ammunition. As I see it, the No1 was originally built around the Mk6 cartridge. I understand that there are several differences in and around the barrel, between a mk1 and a Mk3 / 3*.

And then the ammo was changed to Mk7, a radically different projectile weight and shape. The rifles had to be tuned to the ammo, not the other way round as per the "sporting" world.

So, if your rifle is bedded by the book, it was probably bedded for Mk7 ammo. As soon as you start feeding it anything else, all bets are off.

One problem that occurred was that pretty much for the life of the SMLE, the barrels were throated for the old round-nosed projectile, not the slinky Mk7. Freebore, anyone?

The No4 barrel seems to be a little different, if the drawings I have seen are an indication.

No1 barrels have a leede of 0.600 inches; quite long, but capable of handling Mk6 ball.

The No4 throating is defined differently and the reference to a diameter of .300" Basic is really odd, given that bore spec on the same drawing is .301-.304" with a groove diameter of .313" to .319" (fairly "agricultural" by today's barrel making standards).

The bullet leede is essentially a 5 degree included taper starting at the forward end of the short cone in front of the cartridge area.

I'll stuff it into CAD and see if I can come up with a printable comparison drawing of that area.

And it would be interesting to compare it with Bren and Vickers chamber specs.