Which model No 4 best for target work?

[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.

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.

[mike16]

" Personally I dont see any fifference in the trigger performance between th 1, 2, 1/2, 1/3" That exactly what they intended to standardize, the trigger pull wich was all over the place on the 1's. even those corrected in 1/2 and the 1/3 were iffy because the bracket had to be brazed on. The No 4 mark 2 had the trigger mount incorporated into the manufacturing process and had the POTENTIAL to be a better trigger but recall, It is a combat rifle . They fixed alot in the 4/2's. that trigger fix was a major fix for competative accuracy. easy to tune and stayed tuned, That III and early 4's wood caused nightmares in competition, Think of all the climactic extreams the British deffended in there colonies. Not easy to design a one size fits all rifle. but it seems to me they did in the 4/2's

Kinda funny they even developed the 4/2's with the semi auto trend since the mid to late 20's. and with the pattern 13 and 14 under thier belt and our own model of 1917 all superb bolt action designs developed by English engineers to supercede the III. and yet. all discarded to build more III's and variants of the 4's after the war.go figure! not that I'm complaining.

[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

[mrclark303]

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

Ah, tweeking the trigger guard is a really easy way of adjusting the trigger, unfortunately its a really easy way of totally screwing up your bedding too!

[Thunderbox]

I wouldn't think that there is the slightest chance of obtaining a "most accurate" rifle by making a choice based on model or manufacturer. There is no statistical evidence at all that supports any sort of correlation, let alone the data set and laboratory research that might be needed to even detect variations due to metallurgy or machining patterns.

Shooting performance of the rifle is purely down to bore condition and bedding. Again, there is no evidence that any of the well-known gunsmiths were doing anything to a No4 other than selecting a decent barrel and making sure the forend was a good fit. If there was a "secret formula", presumably we'd by now all know that "X's SRb model can reliably shoot 1/4 moa" etc. On the contrary, if you look at dozens of Fultons SRb No4s, they are a complete bag of bitsas - many are made from mixed manufacturer parts.

[Peter Laidler]

Once again, what a breath of fresh air, common sense and the bleedin obvious Thunderbox comes up with.

I'm sure Beery really means FTR and not FFR - Fitted For Radio!. But as he says, once a Mk1 had been converted to Mk1/2, it is IMMEDIATELY not the cause of a bottleneck during the assembly stage.

[Beerhunter]

You are right Peter. I did mean FTR. And what palaver those petrol-powered Truck, Rover 4X4 FFRs were. Not as bad as the Champ (yes I am that old) but so many odd parts and a 24v system to boot.

[Seaspriter]

During the production run for the No.4 Mk2, there were a number of special orders with these serial numbers:
PP1 PP43 Parker Hale 43
PF 361160 PF 361259 Parker Hale 99
PF 401087 PF 401495 No 4 (T) Rifles? 408
PF 401157 PF 404206 Parker Hale 3049
PF 405813 PF 405848 G E Fulton (Bisley) 35
PF 411229 PF 411264 G E Fulton (Bisley) 35

Would these be likely candidates to start choosing an accurate target rifle. (Several months ago one of the Parker Hale rifles with IIRC a PH5 sight sold or $475 USD.)

[Mk VII]

If you are old enough, it should be FFW.

You are right Peter. I did mean FTR. And what palaver those petrol-powered Truck, Rover 4X4 FFRs were. Not as bad as the Champ (yes I am that old) but so many odd parts and a 24v system to boot.

[Peter Laidler]

I'm bound to ask what difference would there be in these rifles to a standard Fazakerley made Army issue Mk2 rifle of the era. Fazakerley is to gun making is what King Herod is to baby-sitting circles