Lee Enfield No.8 Mk.1

[DanL96a1]

Ok I need some help on my very accurate but no so reliable of late Lee Enfield No.8 Mk.1, this a BSA Shirley No.8 made in 1950. The problem is that the forend seems to be causing an irregular let off, the stock when is done up tight without collar, the trigger is going all the way back without it going off!!
When the collar is added then tightened the forend has some movement up/down/left right, last night was at the range and started to group around the 8 ring on NRA 25yrd targets, This rifle normally shoots 99/98’s ex 100.
When I move the barrel up (like to test the No.4 barrel) it moves around ¼ inc and then back to the base of the foreend. This didnt happen before as there was NO movment. Any ideas or material on bedding the no.8 would be very much appreciated.
DanL96a1

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.

[Peter Laidler]

The first thing you need to do is to enforce a process of elimination. Remove the fore-end and test the rifle with the fore-end removed. If it operates properly, good, crisp 1st and 2nd pull-offs there, then it MUST be the fore-end fouling somewhere. Don't just accept that because it goes click when you squeeze the trigger that it will fire. No8's are notorious for gummed up bolts and trigger mechs. ALWAYS test with a blank.

I strip and rebuild my sons school 10x No8's every summer holidays and they're always full of waxy crud and the crappier they get, the more misfires you'll experience. No8's are a hands-on weapon and remote trouble-shooting them - if you'll excuse the pun - is difficult.

[Patrick Chadwick]

When I move the barrel up (like to test the No.4 barrel) it moves around ¼ inc and then back to the base of the foreend.

The barrel of the No. 8 is much more rigid than a No. 4 - because there is a smaller hole down the middle!
I.e. there is a much larger cross-section of metal and (although I am not going to dismantle my No. 4 and No. 8s to prove it!) the barrel is supposed to be actually HEAVIER than a No. 4. (Peter Laidler: can you confirm that?).

Yep, just checked. The No. 8 with a No. 4 buttstock weighs in on the bathroom scales at 100 gm heavier than the No. 4 - even though the No. 4 has more fore-end wood and a 1907 sling on it!

The point is, I do not think you can bend the No. 8 barrel up by anything like 1/4" with your bare hands. More like 1/16", and then only if you've had a good breakfast. You are more likely to be pushing the wood down than the barrel up.
Long waffle - brief conclusion: your fore-end wood is not firmly attached to the barreled system! The trigger guard screw needs to nip the wood a teensy bit to hold it firmly, and Peter Laidler, as our resident master armorer, will know how much "teensy" is in practical terms, and will be able to say something about torques etc.

As a plain competition shooter who expected to get 100/100 every time, and who once scored 100.8/100 as a cadet (do the names "Felden Trophy" and "Ozanne Shield" mean anything to anyone else reading this?), I know by experiment that the barreled system of a No. 8 will shoot perfectly without any fore-end wood on it at all. Because that is how they were tested last year at the RWS test facility in Fürth. BTW, I did the same with my No.1 MKV. Sorry purists, but all that band spring stuff was getting on my nerves!

OK, it's a bit awkward to hold, but quite seriously now, as Peter suggested, try removing the fore-end and shooting it with the back end of the barrel resting on a sandsack. Believe me, it will work - somewhere between quite acceptable and amazingly accurate.

This is to emphasize that the fore-end wood really is hanging on the system, and not the other way around. The wood should not touch the barrel at all. At least, that's how mine are set up, and they work excellently! No special bedding at all.

No8's are notorious for gummed up bolts and trigger mechs. ALWAYS test with a blank. I strip and rebuild my sons school 10x No8's every summer holidays and they're always full of waxy crud and the crappier they get, the more misfires you'll experience.

Sorry Peter - this may be an attack of grandfatherly "things were better in my days" - but what are they doing with those No. 8s at his school? I know that if any rifle is treated as "common user", then no-one feels responsible for caring for it. I always used the same rifle, and it did not have any waxy crud at all. Nor did any of the other No. 8s. Misfires only occurred when training with the (pre?)historic ammo in those little square boxes that looked as if it they had been swiped from a museum.

OK Danl96a1, the No. 8 is a rifle that beats all other trainers for accuracy and I recently posted a couple of targets in support of that proposition, inviting others to prove me wrong. No-one has taken up the challenge, so my claim still stands. You have such a rifle, now get in there and sort it!

End of Grandpa's rant! Remove rose-tinted spectacles. Go and make a cuppa.

Patrick

[Brian Dick]

The user handbooks have instructions for setting the triggers up too in either single or double stage. Well worth the investment. I have a couple of different dated versions if interested.

[DanL96a1]

Ok back to the workbench… I have taken off fore end and apart from the normal “water proofing”, it is in immaculate condition.. the action and bolt etc are all clean and no grease is left behind (as my RSM would have had me on janckers!!) I have test fired the rifle (with a snap cap), and the 1st stage / 2nd stage is perfect!! The pressure is correct according to the weights and measures in the books. I have downloaded the No.8 user manual form this website, and have a photocopy of the armours manual thx to 244 sig.

I have test fired the rifle without forend, a 5 round group at 25x indoors, and the rifle has produced good group of 3mm basically one big hole which fits in a 10 ring of a 25yrd NRA target this has been done with the help of a sand back at the front and a big oaf (me) at the back.

Patrick after closer investigation I feel that you are right more like 1/16, than ¼ but on a dark range whilst doing a rapid fire, a quick assessment was required. To explain the shotgun like results and before you say, it was not the shooter…. I will get the feeler gauges out and start to fit the foreend to the rifle, and get the medium between the two (ie trigger let off , and tight fitting foreend).

I have an Lee Enfield No.7 Mk.1 which is very accurate and in immaculate nick which Roger Payne help me with, it still keeps bunny rabbits heads down at 100 yards!! I will post pictures, I feel Peters is correct with the online diagnoses, if you would like to see this, I will get some pictures posted many thanks for all your help Ill let you know how I get on….

[Patrick Chadwick]

have test fired the rifle without forend, a 5 round group at 25x indoors, and the rifle has produced good group of 3mm basically one big hole which fits in a 10 ring of a 25yrd NRA target this has been done with the help of a sand back at the front and a big oaf (me) at the back.

Well that's a relief - the barreled system is OK. Now you just have to sort it out according to Peter's instructions! And the tip from Skiprat is a good one - I have had that effect on another rifle!

[skiprat]

just a thought ...is the trigger coming into contact with the rear of the trigger guard before firing?
I've had a couple that had inconsistent trigger pull... re profiled the trigger problem solved..

[Peter Laidler]

Dan............. a word of advice. You say that your rifle isn't going off......... what exactly isn't going off? The technicalities are important here. It's no good testing the rifle with snap caps because while it might click and 'fire' that doesn't mean that the striker and firing pin (2 different items here don't forget.....) will fire the cartridge due to a diminished force of blow. You must use blanks as these are the only thing that will truly indicate that the firing pin is striking the cap with sufficient force. Additionally, there are 8 breech bolt heads for the No8 to get correct CHS and with a short bolt head AND short FPP, you've got trouble

In short, what isn't going off

[DanL96a1]

Peter thanks for your help I have not got any blanks but have removed the heads of some rounds, and tipped away the powder, this will give me a “blank” round as a test. I have a No.5 head gauge stamped on the head of the bolt; the FPP seems to be around 2mm sticking out when fired.
When I fire the blank round there is a good mark of the firing pin indentation, on the back of the round and it then ignites the blank round correctly. I think that the bolt is not engaging the sear, this is due to the pressure of the woodwork forend... when the forend is removed then the rifle has no problems, but when the forend is applied and the wood work is done up tight, (as tight as it will go) the bolt is not engaging, as if it has a miss fire (i.e. the trigger is pulled, the rifle is cocked when the trigger is squeezed, it will not engage the sear and allow the cocking piece to move forward and allowing the rifle to fire the round).
I have the looked at the forend and the front of the forend near the sling swivel it has a cork shim, which the barrel rests on this allows a very small amount of movement upwards. This is around one thou movement which I must assume is the discharge of the round.
I have packed out the cork shim with another piece, and placed it around the front sling swivel this seems to have fixed the movement of the barrel, and when the stock is re-seated to the rifle and done up tight, this allows for the bolt to engage the sear and thus fire.
I have not tested the rifle with a round of ammunition, and group tested to see if this has fixed the problem. But with all the “dry firing” it has not failed yet... I will see if I can get it to fail? I may need to make a small adjustment to the trigger guard shim. I will let you know how i get on..

[Patrick Chadwick]

I have packed out the cork shim with another piece, and placed it around the front sling swivel this seems to have fixed the movement of the barrel, and when the stock is re-seated to the rifle and done up tight, this allows for the bolt to engage the sear and thus fire.

DanL96a1
It is surely the wood that is moving, not the barrel. It sounds to me as if the fore-end wood is not properly located in the front of the buttstock socket - if that is the correct term. Assuming that the trigger guard screw is done up correctly, by packing out around the front sling swivel you are effectively pushing the front end of the wood down so that it pivots on the trigger guard screw and the back end of the wood comes up, and then your trigger mechanism engages properly.

If I am correct, the problem is the fit of the wood at the back end*, and you are correcting for this at the front end. In the process, your are creating an upward pressure on the barrel. The barrel is no longer free-floating. I have looked at both my No. 8s. The system sits neatly in the cut-out in the wood, without any rocking, and the barrel is floating in both cases.

DanL96a1, perhaps you need to shim the wood at the back end, below*, not at the front end, on top.

Peter, does that make sense to you, or am I just confused?

Patrick



*I.e. Skiprat is basically right - the wood/guard assembly is down at the back, and is fouling the trigger mechanism