No. 4 (T) DP rifle

[Peter Laidler]

Nothing to do with that. The allowance was made under a special agreement in order that the front screw of the rear pad would clear the induction hardened surface of the rear locking shoulder should the hardening have extended further into the body. Moving the pads rearwards by 2.5mm or so just allowed the screw to clear. You'll also notice that this is the reason for the front screw to be slightly higher than the rear one too

There....., another little bit of useless Enfield info!

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.

[jmoore]

The allowance was made under a special agreement in order that the front screw of the rear pad would clear the induction hardened surface of the rear locking shoulder should the hardening have extended further into the body.

So that means each one had to undergo a hardness check before drilling? Aside from the potential loss of the front support for the front pad, which seems not to be a real factor, why not shift them all back?