No4Mk1 accuracy

[Brian Dick]

It's called center bedding. Common on Canadian DCRA No.4 7.62 target rifles also.

[Frederick303]

I do not mean to step in where a certain REME Captain might provide a more definitive answer, but the British tests results showed the front loading on the barrel gave the best accuracy results off of a rifle rest. Not sure off of what soldier hold tests were done, but I seem to recall the UK test results were replicated twice. That said, from a competitive shooter point of view, using either the US single point sling or the UK 2 point sling the center bedding seems to give the best results. The chief difference I noted was the degree of sling tension does not seem to have as much effect on zero or rifle zero movement as the rifle heats up.

Now this might not be that big a deal in UK shooting, as with 2 to 3 shooters at a firing point the time between shots is on the order of 1 to 2 minutes. But in US shooting, where the shooter is on his own, often times if the conditions are the same you might be shooting as fast as possible, or around 25 to 35 seconds between shots in a 22 round string (2 sighters and 20 shots for record). In shooting a number of rifles side by side, front loaded and center bedded rifles, it seems the center bedded rifles hold zero and seem to show less deviation relative to minor changes in sling tension than with the front loaded rifles.

I will say that a lot of things competitive shooters prefer are not absolutely applicable to service rifles and how they are used under service conditions.

[brent65]

I will say that a lot of things competitive shooters prefer are not absolutely applicable to service rifles and how they are used under service conditions.

Exactly, but competitive shooters will always know/figure out the best accuracy tricks and have long known that service bedding does not provide the best accuracy results, it may provide the most consistent accuracy for mass production standards or over varying and extreme conditions but it certainly doesn't provide the best accuracy obtainable.

[Frederick303]

Well.....Capt. Laidler says otherwise, he has written several times that in terms of absolute accuracy the front loaded No4 rifle did better than the center bedded. I seem to recall that Major Reynolds in his 1960 book on the Enfield says the same thing. Major Reynolds was involved with the entire adoption of the No4, so you have two first hand sources saying the same thing.

Given that the sniper rifles were hand tuned, if the center bedded method was better I suspect the UK would have gone to it. Still for competitive shooting with a sling the center bedded method seems to work about as well as any method.

[brent65]

Well.....Capt. Laidler says otherwise, he has written several times that in terms of absolute accuracy the front loaded No4 rifle did better than the center bedded. I seem to recall that Major Reynolds in his 1960 book on the Enfield says the same thing. Major Reynolds was involved with the entire adoption of the No4, so you have two first hand sources saying the same thing.

Given that the sniper rifles were hand tuned, if the center bedded method was better I suspect the UK would have gone to it. Still for competitive shooting with a sling the center bedded method seems to work about as well as any method.

Well it seems you are somewhat conflicted on the issue having read your comments on the matter in another thread, anyway its clear that your now sold on which is method best. Me personally I will stick with what works better well at least for vast majority of competitive shooters since the 60's and little ol me anyway.

[Frederick303]

Not so much sold, as willing to admit that if Capt Laidler says something, I stop and listen.

One thing is today for the most part we shoot regular single base powders in our rifles, the supply of match grade MKVII cartridges that doe not show hang fires being rather non-existent.

I have found in a long career in engineering that assuming previous generations got something wrong means you have missed one or more constraints they were operating under that made their decision rational.

[brent65]

I'm certainly not discounting Peter's opinion at all in fact I have a healthy respect for it.

That said and after reading Peter's comments in a few other threads on this topic I think Peter himself appears quick to dismiss anything other than the military standard as simply foolish endevour and if anyone gets it work its a fluke and plain lucky. By doing this I feel he discounts some very experienced and extremely competent gunsmiths of yesteryear from companies like Parker & Hale, Fultons to name a couple that both used center and mid bearing setups to great success. Gunsmiths that would arguably be as and some maybe more experienced than Peter himself when it comes to Lee Enfield's.

Then add to the discussion the extensive research that Canada did on the bedding, that again shouldn't be dismissed out of hand either I reckon some pretty smart and experience people were involved in that process and they seemed to use their results with great success. Finally we have the hundreds if not thousands of competition shooters, some extremely competent gunsmiths themselves that have used this method since the 60's to great success.

In addition I think the acceptance standard of accuracy for a No4 T is nothing special if I had a target rifle that was shooting such groups it would be left in the safe.

[CINDERS]

Be interesting to see if Percy Pavey or James Sweet had anything to do with the No.4 bedding as both were world class shooters with the 303 rifles not sure but I think Pavey won Bisley. My comp died so on a tablet until it gets repaired which I may say is painful to use......

[brent65]

I think both used No1's, I know they were both still using them as late as 1959

Percy's record

His record in senior competition in Australia is unmatched, winning numerous King's and Queen's badges. The Kings and Queens prize is the same prize event and is linked to whoever is the monarch of the day. The trophy is presented at state, national and international events.

Between 1930 and 1959, he won the Victorian prize five times (1930, 1932, 1935, 1958, 1959), the New South Wales prize twice (1931, 1952), the Queensland prize three times (1930, 1939, 1950), the South Australian prize twice (1938, 1955) and the Tasmanian prize twice (1938, 1956). In 1952 he became the first man to win a King's or Queen's prize and the Jamieson Aggregate in the same year.

In 1928 he won the Canadian Grand Aggregate and the first stage of the Governor General's Aggregate. His proudest moment was winning the coveted King's Prize at Bisley, England (where he represented Australia five times) in 1948 and was presented with this award by King George V. In 1956 he won the Scottish Championship and the Scottish Grand Aggregate. He won the Grand Aggregate, the top prize in the sport, 16 times - the only Australian to achieve this.

[Frederick303]

Brent65

Your argument is well stated and makes rethink my former opinion. Ultimately the arguments of the various tuning methods comes down to record and with at least the No1MK 3, the Fulton regulation or Martin nodal regulation both seemed to have dominated the Kings and Queens list from the 1930s to 1959 (in the UK).

That said the Canadian experiments were all done after 1963, when the 7.62 NATO service weight barrel was approved. In Canadian competition, between 1946 and 1964 all .303 rifles had to be bedded in the conventional manner. Only one deviation was made , (around 1956) to allow the visiting UK team to shoot their center bedded No4 rifles. So at least in Canadian service, the scores made are a reflection of what a carefully tuned conventional bedding job could do.

Finally the groups achieved with any of the tuned Enfield match rifles would not be all that impressive today with our CNC made match rifles. Sorry , but 2~2.25 MOA for a No1 was considered good and something approaching 1.6~1.7 MOA for a No 4 was considered very good. The Bisley target bull was never reduced below 2.5 MOA in size. It was 3 MOA at 1000 yards. Now if you compare this to the US standards, (Pre 1966) this was not small shakes. The 300 yard target was 4 MOA, the 600 yard target 3.33 moa and the 1000 yards was 3.6 MOA (until 1975 on LR target).

That said your point has validity and you could be correct.