No 4 Barrel Replacements

[Peter Laidler]

Regardless of any of the drawings, I can say with a degree of certainty, based on nothing more than my experience, that whoever makes replacement barrels, there will NEVER be a barrel that will interchange or be acceptable throughout the No4 body range. Because while all the new replacement barrels will be made to a plus/minus toleranced drawing, so they will be fitted to plus/minus toleranced bodies. That means you will get the variables that I mentioned in an earlier thread.

But, if I was given the task of formulating the production engineering, I'd start by (sorry chaps........) saying 'forget an extended tenon or any means whereby the owner or gunsmith can re-set his own CHS'. NEVER, never, ever allow this because once you do, you'll have a new barrel fitted and CHS'd to a totally clapped out body which in real terms would warrant a No10 bolthead! When we know that after a No3 bolthead, it indicates a worn out body. I appreciate that another nation made a No4 bolthead, but the design engineers and post war trials suggest otherwise. But just think about it......... why didn't they just go up to No10 - or 15?

Then I'd say that the breech end can remain as-is BUT, the rifle will be breeched up using the extractor slot as the visual guide and the nocks form square against the backsight axis pin as the breeching up torque limit. Spacers as per the late No4's/ L39/42.

The muzzle end is machined down to accept the foresight block band and bayonet lugs that take the form of a simply machined collar that is sweated onto the barrel and squared on a surface plate.

There it is. A barrel that will fit to any body, will detect a worn-out body, will correctly align, correctly torque up and with foresights/bayonet lugs that will align. The GOOD thing about this method is that only the serious or skilled gunsmith will be capable of fitting it. Those who are politely described as 'enthusiastic amateurs' won't manage it - hopefully

Just my views thinking out aloud. But be warned, that while there will be barrels made to drawings, there are also bodies made to drawings too. That's why we had a big rack of barrels.

[Bindi2]

I reckon the boss. head **** kicker,grumpy old man teacher has spoken and you dirty unwashed rabble had better listen up take notice and do it right or he may just come out of cyber space and kick butt. Bindi retreats to bunker with worn out Lithgow fitted with new barrel and supply of MF which is better than that RG stuff.

[Surpmil]

Might be simpler to throw out the original design and simply thread the barrel shank as per Savage 12, 110 & c. and fit a threaded collar.

More need/market for SMLE H barrels than No4 ones in my H.O. Outside contour is the same isn't it, but for the sight base?

Hammer forged would be nice and so would a chromed chamber and bore.

And why not some other calibres as well, with mags to suit?

[Peter Laidler]

Good idea Surpmill but the Lee Enfield owning fraternity can't even get anyone to gear up to reproduce the in-demand and popular 7.62mm magazines - let alone other calibres

[paulseamus]

Surpmil,

not to take away from the No 4 barrels that Centurion is organising....

Late last year I contacted Peter Sarony at Armalon in the UK.

Armalon have the ex-Parker Hale hammer forged barrel manufacuring plant.

Peter is prepared to make a batch of "L42" profile hammer forged barrels in 7.62. They would have conventional rifling (not chordial)

Peter also proposed a barrel locking mechanism to enable the setting of CHS and postioing of the extractor slot.

Cost of one or two barels is a bit pricey but the cost would come down with a larger batch.

Perhaps Armalon could also make a batch of SMLE H barrels if the demand is strong enough.

Paul

[XL39E1]

Wouldn't the best option be to use the Enfield washer system like the 7.62 barrels and have a set supplied with the barrel?

[bigduke6]

Wouldn't the best option be to use the Enfield washer system like the 7.62 barrels and have a set supplied with the barrel

It has been mentioned a few times.,

Surpmil,s idea is good I,ve used this system on a barrel for No1 Mk V, I converted and also a No4 in .45 ACP, am Just in the process of doing the same for a heavy barrel in .22 for a No4 action, dont know what it would be like in a bigger Calibre, due to the 14 TPI, but I guess there is only one way to find out.

The Locking system on the No1 MkV below, (in .30M1 carbine shoots like a dream) but not one for the purist.....

[XL39E1]

My only concern on that system is one of a problem with the woodwork, it might a little thin?

[Bruce_in_Oz]

Surpmil:

Your idea of a "Savage style" breeching system is exactly the tack I took with the AIA M-10 series. The barrels also have no extractor notch per se, but a counterbore that accepts the bolt head shroud.

The bolt head itself has a small extractor and a spring-loaded ejector plunger fitted into it and a collar that protrudes forward of the face proper to provice cartridge retention and allow clearance for the ejector.

At the front end of the barrel there is a threaded section that acts as the seat for the fully adjustable front sight assembly.

Thus, to set one up, you simply insert a bolt assembly, screw the barrel back until it stops on the "GO" gauge and then torque up the lock collar, exactly as per a Savage 110. Wind on the front sight assembly, level it, gently cinch up the clamping screws and apply the specified wicking Loctite. (I mention "gently cinch up" because if someone went "white knuckle" tight with the hex key on the high-tensile M4 cap screws, the bore could be measurably constricted at that point.)

I never got the "Mk2" mods into production as I have had no connection with AIA for quite a few years now.

[Centurion]

Just what I had in mind Bruce. Apologies to all for mixing "Americanese" with "Britishese" terminology. Us poor Canucks are always in the middle of these things!