Wonder wot an H barrel sporter is cappable of?

[Bruce_in_Oz]

Essentially,

1. The Knox form is standard SMLE (apart from markings),
2. the profile forward of there is the same as the original Lee Enfield ("Long Lee") barrel, i.e. heavier.
3. the barrel steps down near the muzzle to accommodate the standard SMLE front sight base.

I have a set of key dimensions somewhere in the dungeon; might have to dig them out.

Note also that Lithgow built the long barrels as aftermarket spares until the early 1930s. A change in the Rifle Club regulations that specified a standard (SMLE) barrel length saw many long rifles "abbreviated" to this new specification. I suspect that Lithgow initially produced the "H" barrel to facilitate this change, hence the profile that would drop into the fore-end of the shortened "range-pattern" rifles. It probably took about 5 nanoseconds for the SMLE shooters to twig to the possibilities of dropping the new, stiffer barrel into a SMLE, with its superior trigger set-up, shorter lock time and less mass in the striker assembly.

The two "H" barrels that I have here were received new in their bags. The finish on the lands is mirror-bright: in the grooves, less so. Definitely rifled with a hook cutter. Both barrels gauge very close to .303 bore all the way. HOWEVER, they both exhibit slight "belling" near the muzzle, probably from over-enthusiastic lapping. I have slugged one of them; as best I can measure (being a 5-groove barrel), the groove diameter is 0.315ish. Given that the original spec for the rifling allows for groove diameter up to 0.319", that is not too bad. Probably need to save up and buy some more serious measuring tools[COLOR="Silver"]

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.

[Jc5]

I have a set of key dimensions somewhere in the dungeon; might have to dig them out.
[COLOR="Silver"]

I would also be grateful to see these dimensions if you dig them up. Additionally, does anyone know the dimensions of the MLM/MLE cavalry carbine barrels? Also, the MLM MkI is supposed to have had the thickest barrel of all. Does anyone know how those dimensions compare?

Thanks!

[bigduke6]

I would also be grateful to see these dimensions if you dig them up. Additionally, does anyone know the dimensions of the MLM/MLE cavalry carbine barrels? Also, the MLM MkI is supposed to have had the thickest barrel of all. Does anyone know how those dimensions compare?

Thanks!

Jc5,
will get back to you on that either tomorrow or Thursday, measurements wil be talken off a LEC (cavalry carbine)

[Frederick303]

Regarding the debate over a regulated No 4 and the Australian heavy barrel SMLE.

It is true that prior to WWII the heavy barrel rifle was not legal at Bisley. However in 1948 it was made legal for use by both the Australians and New Zealanders. UK and other commonwealth shooters were allowed to use the heavy barrel SMLE starting in 1950, albeit those rifles could not have the rear sight attached for some reason.

While some did go to the heavy barrel SMLE at Bisley, most of the winning SMLE rifles in the Kings finals and then the Queen’s finals after 1951 retained the service weight barrel. There seem to be two reasons, one the regulation SMLE barrel shot better at 900 and 1000 yards when using ammunition with typical velocity variations, (properly regulated) and 2) the heavy barrel had a tendency to string the shots vertically more than the light barrel when the ammunition was wet, as it often is @ Bisley. After 1958, with one exception in 1961 or 1962, the Queens finals were won with the No 4 until 1968 when such competition ended (being replaced by TR). I may not be correct, but other than the great Australian Percy Pavel in 1948, I do not think there was but one other year in which the heavy barrel SMLE won the Queens finals @ Bisley ( I think that was a BSA barreled rifle). The No 4 won first in 1949 or 1950, then 1954, then in 1959, 1960, 1961 or 1962 through 1968, if my off the top of my head recollection is correct ( I am of the age that when I do not have my notes in front of me that I do at times have memory errors). So at least in England the heavy barrel does not seem to have had a consistent winning streak even against a well regulated No 1 and certainly not against the No 4 rifle.

In Australia, at least in those histories I have read, the No 4 slowly replaced the SMLE HB after 1960~1961 when these rifles were first allowed. While I do not have the information at my fingertips, I seem to recall by 1968 it was the general opinion of most of the competitive shooters in NSW that the No 4 was the more consistent shooter, day in and day out. I also seem to recall that the New Zealanders were pretty much of the same opinion. Of course that knowledge is entirely from what I have read, but I have visited both countries and in talking to competitive shooters at Malabar I did not see any disagreement with that opinion.

If there is a feeling that this is not the case, I would be curious as to why. I would caution that most of the winning, well-regulated No 4 rifles were “used up” and that there might be more excellent condition SMLE HB rifles about in the land down under. Most of the No4 target rifles I have seen had well worn, cordite eroded bores. I seem to recall some years ago that it was still possible to get new HB barrels from a Sydney dealer (I bought a few) while new target quality No 4 barrels are very rare to non-existent. If you have observed better accuracy with SMLE HB rifles, that might have something to do with your observation.

[Bindi2]

The first part of my post is about the two rjfles set up to range shooting specs as at or near the end of the 303 era. Military bedding , aperture rear sights, MkVII ammo in Australia. Members of the club that i shot at were most unhappy about a member who was selected to represent australia was not allowed to use his own rifle but had to use the issued one. That rankled for along time. Having used both i still believe the H barrel was a little better over all.