Which model No 4 best for target work?

[Richard Hare]

Gentlemen,

Been thinking about this for a while;
Which model of the No 4 L.E. is best for target work, all else being equal?

I ask, as the No 4 Mk 2 is often cited as being best, with it's hung trigger etc, yet years ago in I think Guns Review, there was an article on target shooting with the No 4, and it stated that for best work, a well set up no 4 Mk 1 was the best and most reliable.

I have been wondering if this is still regarded as true?
Thanks in advance for any light shed.

Richard.

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.

[Frederick303]

If you read some of the old gunsmithing articles it would appear that the degree of action stiffness varied between manufacturers and action to action in the WWII production. This in turn affected the degree of compensation at various ranges. As when the Bisely finals were the decisive matches, the degree of long range compensation was important. That may have some affect on which action would be best for a particular distance given standard No4 service bedding and how true the front sight will be when zeroed.

Supposedly that was one of the Fulton Tricks that made their rifles desirable, though unfortunately when Major Fulton died some years ago all those records were destroyed. I have also read that part of the Fulton tricks were how they set up the bearings on the lugs to compensate for action twist due to asymmetrical support of the bolt, which in turn depended on the action stiffness.

The only difference I have noted in observation is that with Savage No4 MK I* rifles it seems a significant number need the front sight post to be zeroed to the left of center, which might have something to do with the metal heat/treatment. That is with standard service bedding.

In the Canadian case, they allowed only the standard front loaded bedding from 1946 until the adoption of the No 4 in 7.62 around 1963. Only one exception was made for an English team that came over around 1955/56 that had some center-bedded rifles that were allowed. The Canadian had pretty good luck with Longbranch rifles, their scores at Connaught seem to be very good, though I note that most of the winning Bisley Canadian shooters pre 1962 seem to have a match tuned No1 MK III for the Bisley finals when they came over as a team to the UK.

Not a real answer, but it might explain why some folks though the WWII actions were better for target work in some way.

It might also relate to the barrels and bore size, as I recall talking to an old time shooter at Connaught two decades ago about this and he said back in the day a lot of the issues folks had with accuracy had to do with the fouling characteristics of different lots and the relationship to bore size. I do not really recall the details well enough to say anything definitive, but I seem to recall him saying the post war BSA barrels were very fine barrels.

[Richard Hare]

I do thank you Frederick, for taking the time to write such a thorough and comprehensive reply.
What you have to say is very interesting, regarding the differing rifles & barrels.

Again, thank you for your time!

Best wishes,
R.

[Beerhunter]

A No.4T sans scope ought to be the best.

The Mk.2s trigger mechanism was to make manufacture easier (less skill and time required), not to improve the trigger.

[Parashooter]

If the sole objective was easier manufacture, why did they bother converting all those Mk.1/2 and 1/3's? That exercise undoubtedly took a fair amount of skill and time. Hmmmm. . .

[vintage hunter]

not to improve the trigger.

As I understand it that is the purpose of the Mk.2 design, to improve trigger pull qualities by hanging it from the receiver where swelled woodwork doesn't affect the fit of the trigger/sear/cocking piece engagement surfaces causing inconsistent pull weights.

[Brian Dick]

Tom VH is correct. There were some problems with unseasoned wood during wartime with the remedy being the Mk.2 design. Personally, I don't see any difference in the trigger performance of the Mk.1, 1/2, 1/3 or Mk.2 but that's just my opinion having fired a few over the years. If it makes a rifle more accurate, then why weren't all the sniper rifles converted? I've had wartime rifles that were tack drivers and post war rifles that were tack drivers and vice versa!

[ssj]

If the sole objective was easier manufacture, why did they bother converting all those Mk.1/2 and 1/3's? That exercise undoubtedly took a fair amount of skill and time. Hmmmm. . .

Because that was probably not the sole objective.

Really I suggest you have to be in the mind set of the British after WW2 when they were fairly broke being in huge debt from war costs so also of the era mindset as well as being British. I talk to my parents now in their 8th decade and the insights can be interesting. (dad hated stens dangerous things but like his enfield)

a) After WW2 the cold war was just starting.
b) Work for ppl. " At the same time, they held out the prospect of a new social order that would ensure better housing, free medical services and employment for all."
c) Labour government coming into power.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwa...ction_01.shtml

So with various hot spots around the world, commie threats

Malayan Emergency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

upgrading an existing rifle when nothing else was immediately available, pretty cheap to do and keep voters employed such work until the next generation rifle could be designed makes some sense. Also conscription was still in force, cant have soldiers without guns now can we?

[ssj]

If you are contemplating target shooting a no4, Criterion are now producing match grade No4 barrels so getting a decent gun and re-barreling would seem "essential" assuming the rules allow it.

As an aside, here in NZ there was a big history of shooting no1 mk3s and no4s so there are a lot of examples about. I own and shoot 2 so far, both no4 mk2s (and a Pattern1914 that was probably used as a target gun). From what I have seen written the no4 mk2 is supposed to be about 1/4moa more accurate than the mk1. However the post ww2 barrels would have been made better than the ww2 ones on average I would think so it could be the accuracy is mostly due to the better made barrel. Now I have read that ParkerHale went into the factory and hand selected barrels for ball burnishing and fitting to its rifles so that suggests my theory might stand up.

[Peter Laidler]

Whooooooooa there....... Beerhunter is right and the points the doubters make are realistic but the fact is that the trigger was hung on the body to make manufacture AND ASSEMBLING the rifle an easier/simpler task for unskilled labour. The correct assembly of the rifle was a huge bottleneck in manufacture because if the trigger pull-off wasn't correct it had to be fully stripped again and then reassembled, tested and on and on, perhaps several times.

Why Mk1`/2's and 1/3's, Standardisation and ease of assembly at the factory again.

Brian is right (thread 7 line 2-3) in that there is little difference between the Mk1 and 1/2 variants. But that isn't the point. It's not WHEN they are both operating/functioning correctly, it's MAKING them operate/function correctly from virtually new. Adjusting a Mk2 trigger is simplicity itself. Youy can test it fully stripped on the bench. NOT so with a Mk1.

And, please, please please. for the sake of my sanity, patience and diplomacy don't tell me that you can set the trigger pull-offs correctly by tweaking or bending the trigger guard............

Go to the top of the class Beerhunter. But perhaps you should have added the words '.....and assembly by an unskilled workforce' after manufacture