Happened upon an interesting No4 last weekend.

[Bindi2]

Interesting variant Lithy, You sure it has no XP marks it does look like what the Aussie snipers would have been given. Cost control you know when we have all this inventory.

[Homer]

Peter Laidler, thank you. You made me laugh a few times during this thread

[Peter Laidler]

Thanks for that Homer! Comes from my few years of teaching Physics part-time. I learned (actually I was taught....) that you have to keep the class on-side, amusing and most of all interested! The best bit of advice was that when explaining stuff, use a simple everyday analagy. Thanks again

[Son]

Just digging this back up to post an update. Fresh with the news his rifle isn't likely anything official, the owner did the only thing that anyone should do.... Take it to the range!

I wasn't able to get there, but he has sent me the pics and told me about the testing.
Three different shooters fired it off a bench at 100meters. All three said the shooting position wasn't uncomfortable at all, the eye relief not a problem. The scope set at 100(yds) produced the groups shown, all about or under 1.5". The scope was removed and replaced during the testing and returned to zero. The magazine held 5 rounds and fed them faultlessly, all commented on the smoothness of the action.


Attachment 50708Attachment 50709Attachment 50710Attachment 50711Attachment 50712Attachment 50713

[Peter Laidler]

Mmmmmmmm! If picture 2 shows a 'not a problem' eye relief Son, then all I can say is that I'm a piccolo player! Just let him lay in the prone position and try it is all I can say. I know that you'll have commented on this too, but the scope doesn't make the rifle any more or less accurate!

[Son]

Mmmmmmmm! If picture 2 shows a 'not a problem' eye relief Son, then all I can say is that I'm a piccolo player! Just let him lay in the prone position and try it is all I can say. I know that you'll have commented on this too, but the scope doesn't make the rifle any more or less accurate!

All very true, Peter. Prone could be a very different kettle of fish! Just relaying the info as it came...
I posted this to show that even though it is considered to be "cobbled up", as a unit it works. Somebody went to a fair degree of trouble to do this, and the end result is a success.

At the other end of the scale, here's one from another source which was an epic fail...

WARNING, SOME VIEWERS MAY FIND THE FOLLOWING IMAGES DISTURBING



















Attachment 50735

[tbonesmith]

That is a BEAUTY!

[lee_enfield223]

yes that's a great soldering job !!!!!!!

[gsimmons]

Please stop posting that piccy, it makes my eye twitch and my head hurt. Ta

[mudgee]

Mmmmmmmm! If picture 2 shows a 'not a problem' eye relief Son, then all I can say is that I'm a piccolo player! Just let him lay in the prone position and try it is all I can say. I know that you'll have commented on this too, but the scope doesn't make the rifle any more or less accurate!

Peter did not know you where a piccolo player but we got it in writing now, Peter as in this interesting thread a few mention that a 1900's scope is not something that would really work well due to the age, i think this scope would approximately about 95 years old. Well in your comment you say" but the scope doesn't make the rifle any more or less accurate!" and yes that is true but when you have 3 different shooters all getting around the same result the scope plays a major role. Son mentions that the scope was removed and replaced and got zero again and again it seems to me that who ever built this rifle really built it well?