Nose Cap Fitting Question

[Bruce_in_Oz]

Interesting photo!

Let me toss these thoughts out there:

It would seem to make sense that the inner band should be at a "natural" NODE.

Thus, the barrel forward of this node would be "free" to vibrate. Having the muzzle tightly constrained by the front of the nosecap would affect the frequency and amplitude of this vibration. What was needed was consistency. Hence, upward pressure from the plunger and the two bearing points in the nosecap, as provided by the additional cutout

A "free-floated" barrel does not just vibrate in the vertical plane. The barrel also STRETCHES, BULGES and TWISTS, albeit to a fairly small degree. Thus the trick was to constrain the modes in which the barrel could vibrate in such a way that any vibration produced consistent results. It didn't matter too much where the muzzle was pointed at the time of bullet departure, a slong as it was more-or-less the same from shot to shot. Without some degree of consistency, grouping would be "interesting" and sight adjustments a complete lottery. As it was, the front sight base on a SMLE has a built-in lateral offset of fifteen thou. before you start fiddling with the blade. The "ears" on the nosecap are similarly offset. This offset is a "gross" compensation for the performance of the rifle/bullet combination in the real world.

Wood has an annoying propensity to take interesting "excursions" as moisture content changes, hence the "system" took considerable pains to get the finished woodwork as stable as possible.

Firstly the wood used for the basic "flitches" that were fed into the profilers, routers etc., was subject to painstaking selection and seasoning, often for many years.

Secondly, it would seem obvious that the rifle had to be tuned to strictly standardised ammo, not the other way around as in "sporting" practice. One million mass produced rifles had to perfrom to spec with ammo produced by the billions.

This doesn't just apply to Lee Enfields. The Swiss went through the same drama with their 1911 model rifles and carbines, introduced the same year that the fabulous GP-11 cartridge arrived. Thus, the "new" Swiss rifles had to work with both "old" and "new" ammo, for decades, perhaps. Like SMLEs for many years, they were "long" throated to accept the older ammo. Interestingly, the K-31 has a short throat (well, at least the ones I have examiined) that is exclusively for GP-11 ammo with its secant-ogive bullet.

Another interesting thing about the Swiss K-11 is that it has a small, adjustable collar around the barrel, inside the fore-end, right near the front. This is apperently both a "bearing" and a a "tuning" device. It appears to be made from "Nickel-Silver" or similar material.

In related trivia, when the Swedes introduced the AG-42 / (B) gas-operated rifle in the early '40s, the rear sight had a reversible range drum: one scale for the old round-nosed bullet and one for "spitzer" projectiles. The two different bullt shapes are clearly marked on the drim assembly. The barrels were throated to accept ALL types of service ammo.

[Peter Laidler]

Just a couple of points, all pretty well non contentious. Early lesson during basic projectile properties was that the projectile doesn't care a fart about what's happed where it's BEEN. It's only concern is where it's going to pass because that is what is going to affect it. I wish I'd learned the exact phraseology as it made so much more sense. The next bit was that the barrel is nothing more (?) than a simple tuning fork. Not sure that I'd necessarily agree with that because it is a tad more complicated but that's how I learned it for exams! And how true BinO is when he repeats again and again the fact that the barrel don't only vibrate in one plane.......... It's vibrating in ALL planes and this is further complicated by the fact that while all the wood ain't the same, nor are the steel properties.

The only people who would REALLY and truly understand the greater technicalities of a barrel are music graduates because it's really all about vibration and harmonics. And while we're on about really truly great harmonics, sad day for the loss of Phil Everly. Want to hear some great harmonics, listen to a little known/played number. So Sad by Don and Phil Everly

[Son]

Maybe the couple of points I was trying to make were swallowed up and went unnoticed. Bruce in Oz's statement about the inner band and the barrel and the barrels relationship to the foreend at that point was incorect.

"Then, further back, there SHOULD be a band around the barrel. This band should have a screw and spring pulling it DOWNWARDS, but NOT holding it tight against the barrel channel in the fore-end channel".

My main aim was to point out respectfully, with documentation, the barrel is supposed to have heavy bearing on the foreend either side of the inner band recess and the band does not have to make contact on a correctly bedded barrel. I understand there are complexities in the harmonics, but as Bruce said so well, the whole purpose isn't to stop the vibrations, but to ensure their effect is exactly repeated at every firing. The vast majority of accuracy attaining rifles these days have heavy fluted barrels, fully floating. Speaks volumes for the experiences of weapon designers over the last century trying so many weird and wonderful ways to make them shoot.

As for the "interesting pic", I would expect to find similar marks in the vast majority of SMLE foreends. Here's three that were easy to hand for a pic. Two from the forties and one WW1 vintage

Attachment 48587

[Ridolpho]

Thanks BruceIO and Son for a very interesting discussion. Over the last couple of days (with the temp hovering around minus 20-25C) I've been doing some aimless interweb searches and stumbled upon an individuals efforts to build a finite element model of a bolt action rifle (generic). For this particular model he reaches the conclusion that: "recoil and forced deformations are much more important than the natural vibration modes in determining where the barrel is pointing when the bullet exits the muzzle". In other words the barrel (and entire rifle) undergoe deformation during the firing not entirely related to how it vibrates post bullet leaving the muzzle. Anyone ever see an attempt to model the SMLE in this way? It would be interesting as our favorite gun does have some unique characteristics. The website, incidentally, is "varmintAl.com".

[230Ball]

I gather the key barrel support points are (from the muzzle), nose cap (where it contacts the muzzle), forend stud, inner band, and knox form. On my particular example there are voids in the wood surrounding the knox form. Should I add bedding compound to fully support the knox form, or am I overthinking this?
BTW, thanks for answering my newbie inquiries. I am awed by your expertise!

[tbonesmith]

How does it shoot as it is?

[230Ball]

Honestly T-Bone, she hasn't been to the range yet with me. I'm taking advantage of the cooler temperatures here to ensure the rifle's up to spec, given its age. Is it taking too much of chance putting a few rounds through it "as is"? Chamber and bore look great, as well as the rest of the wood-meets-metal part. The only thing I'm waiting on now is the no-go headspace gauge. (BTW, I've ordered the Okie disc-type gauge, vice the standard. Good or bad choice?)

[tbonesmith]

I would definitely shoot it as is before trying to improve the bedding. With these rifles you can't improve on "correct". The problem with adjusting the bedding is that unless you are an expert you will invariably do more harm than good. I think that everyone will attest to the generalisation that original is always better. There are exceptions, but if your rifle is anything like original condition then you are best to ensure that accuracy is a complete disaster before trying to improve it.

No1's are notoriously difficult to get right, and while there are many who can quote the written specifications there are very, very few who can reliably replicate factory bedding.

My suggestion is shoot it first and if it shoots reasonably well leave it be. If it is a complete disaster have a further look at it.

[Patrick Chadwick]

nor are the steel properties.

Example: both my Enfield Nr.8s were tested by RWS in Fürth. Very, very carefully. Barrelled systems held in a lead clamp to exclude everything except unhindered barrel vibration. Although the serial numbers only differ by 805 (i.e. probably manufactured within a couple of weeks of each other), the ammo that produced the best results was different for each rifle. Not just a different batch, but a different type. RWS reckoned it was a result of tiny differences in the steel affecting the magnitude of the harmonics.

And the best result: all shots touching a 3mm circle at 50 meters.*

all the wood ain't the same

Having read this thread with great interest, I now hope that I will be able to get better performance from my MKV, which up to now has been a disappointment. My thanks to all contributors.

But it all confirms my opinion that soaking stocks, attacking the wood with oven cleaner (= caustic soda or equivalent), putting them in the washing machine, drying in the sun etc is A BIG MISTAKE if you want to have an accurate rifle. A century or so of wood stabilization gone in minutes for the sake of prettying up the rifle!

*No B-S. I have posted the groups in the past.

[Bruce_in_Oz]

But WAIT: There's more!!

From specification S.A. 462P (1938):

"37. Stock, fore-end, "B". - Will be viewed in the finished stage. It will be gauged for size and figure, position of nose-cap; also for barrel; body; plate, keeper, stock-bolt; guard and sight protector seating; and inner band and fore-end stud and spring recesses. It will then be examined to see that the barrel groove is free from the barrel seating under the reinforce to approximately .5-inch to the rear of the inner band recess, and that the barrel groove is cut in line with the barrel hole in nose-cap from the inner band recess. The quality and condition of the wood will also be examined. The fore-end must be soaked in linseed oil for half-an-hour"

"41. Rifle, assembled. - Will be examined for fitting of butt, fore end, nose-cap, band, hand-guards and bayonet, and to see that the numbers on the bolt, body, nose-cap, fore-end, barrel, and sight leaf coincide; also that all components are marked with the examiner's mark, and that the proof mark is on the barrel, body, bolt and bolt-head. The barrel must be free in the fore-end, as described in paragraph 37. It is essential that the barrel should bear lightly against the upper portion of the hole in the nose-cap. .............etc., etc."

The Spec for the Mk1 SMLE is a little different, as one would expect for a rifle built around Mk6 ammo.

"42. Stock, Fore-end: ....Blah, blah, etc.....It will then be examined to ensure that the barrel groove is freed throughout, excepting at the barrel seating under the knoxform (sic) and about .5 inch in rear and front of the inner band recess."

Nowhere can I see a reference to the bearing on the nose-cap, HOWEVER, I just dug out and de-greased the one specimen of a Mk1 type nose-cap that I own. It has the "secondary" cut at the top of the muzzle hole as per a Mk111*. Was it made that way, or subjected to "upgrade" during conversion to one of the "multiple star" upgraded models? The serial number was ground off the bayonet boss a LONG time ago by a "previous owner". It is marked with what appears to be a King's Crown over "01" and "E".

Given that:

1. The "Mk. 1" pattern was not even sealed until 1902.
2. It was then "reintroduced" with minor changes in September 1903, and
3. Queen Victoria died in January 1901....

What did it this nose-cap come off? One of the trials rifles?

Do any of the owners of specimens of the multitude of .22RF conversions have rifles with Mk 1 style nose-caps?

Now, if someone had a stash of "work books" from the assembly departments of factories, we would have a more comprehensive picture.

Cheers,
Bruce