l42A1

[Peter Laidler]

Exactly David! I wouldn't agree that you can learn or master any task by perseverance. Accurately setting up a bolt is an art learned after being taught as apprentices after being taught the reasons for each of the 6 associated functions. But mastered by being shown by someone who's done it a zillion times and knows exactly what to look for. Or what about bolt heads, or Bren locking shoulders - or L1A1 locking shoulders........ or barrel nuts......., who glibly just think that it's a straightforward swop. Nope......., most people didn't have the remotest idea that while there might be numbers on them but in real life, they're pretty well meaningless.

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]

Accurately setting up a bolt is an art learned after being taught as apprentices after being taught the reasons for each of the 6 associated functions

Did not mean to imply we hobbyist were masters of the craft, simply that it could be done if one was willing to work slowly and, as my father would have said, "make haste slowly".

The first time I set up a lee Enfield bolt was in the 1990s, on the advise of an old timer from the Australian Army who had gotten is REME rating around 1956, and used to post on the old Gun and Knife forum from the mid 1990s. Somewhere in the copious notes I have from that period I am sure I still have his procedure for set up of the SMLE bolt. Back then brand new Australian SMLE Bolt bodies, new BSA 1956 SMLE Bolt bodies and both Long branch and Fazakerly No 4 bolt bodies could be purchased cheaply. For the most case I did not find it all that difficult, though in truth generally I did not have to do much fitting to get good lug contact with on both sides. Later on when trying to fit used bolt bodies to incomplete SMLE rifles which were very cheap, I found it to be much more of a chore and resorted to selectively fitting used bolts till one could be found that fit with just a wee bit if stoning. Barrels were available and cheap as well, there were cases of BSA commercial No 4 barrels for 25 dollars and SA rather rough SMLE barrels for the same sum.

Now because material was so cheap and plentiful from the late 1980s through around 2008, and several articles form the period talked about Fulton techniques (such as in precision shooting Arthur Clarke's articles) that used different engagement of the two lugs to get a dead zero with the sights at true mechanical zero, I did play with that and noted that the degree of adjustment, at least with Savage actions was distinctly different than with Fazerkerly actions. A Savage with equal lug engagement would always have the front sight too the left of center viewed from the action body, at least on every mid-war action I worked on. Same for bedding, having a 50 M range in my back yard it was possible to make adjustments and see what the group would do at 25 and 50 M. Same was true of the various UK bedding techniques, which I know you are not exactly all that convinced of the utility of same, but nonetheless the amount of printed material available was astonishing.

In any case I do think the Enfield Rifle was a tinkers delight back then, with more material available than on any other non US design out there, and could be transformed into a rather reliable range/match rifle with time, a willingness to make slow adjustments, a healthy supply of dense walnut or ebony insert material, rubberized engine gasket material, animal glue, small wood pegs, an occasional small spring, fine graphite dust and a 50 dollar No5 or TZ sight, which is what one could expect to pay in the late 1990s when we yanks discovered them on Ebay.

Alas those days are gone, parts are not all that easy to find anymore nor are sporters a cheap and unwanted. One of many reasons the young chaps have no mechanical interest, it simply is not practical or cost effective