Whats YOUR OPINION ............. ???

[dieppe42]

Thank you gentlemen for your thoughts.....when I brought this unit home and stripped it down to clean it, I was surprised to find 98% of its' original bluing still intact and only 4 tiny indents (about 1mm) in the wood. Not certain about when the front sight cover was purchased....maybe around the same time as the PH5a sight was bought ? Once our weather warms a wee bit more, we'll see what this thing can do.
BUFFDOG: I heard some gunshots a few days ago......was that YOU out there in Manitoba ?

[RJW NZ]

Wow, very nice rifle. I haven't seen a blond LB before either. Is it a two groove or 5?
You also have the rolls royce of eyepieces, a PH iris with the built in filter wheel, it just gets better and better.

[dieppe42]

A thank you to all.....I'll leave "her" as-is.............Liam

---------- Post added at 11:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:10 AM ----------

RJW-NZ ...... it's the first blonde I've come across in a LB mfg. Don't know if its' true about blondes having more fun, but we'll find out shortly. It was issued with the 5 groove barrel system. Thanks for your comment !

[Ian]

That is gorgeous wood work, I'd leave it as is. There aren't huge numbers of these rifles around, they almost form a collectible subset of their own. Take it out and get ready for a surprise. I'm learning to shoot an Alf Parker prepared rifle and I'm seeing flashes of real brilliance (usually just before I pull a shot and ruin it) involving shots in the same hole at 100 yards.

[Frederick303]

I seem to recall in one of my Canadian manuals from the early post war period that such a conversion was allowed, that is the rear action body could be drilled for one screw hole to allow use of either the No 9 (C, F, G versions) sight or the No 5a sight. So that formate was allowed in competition atr least until the late 1940s in Canandaina SR(B) competition. I am pretty sure this was allowed at least as late as 1953. I have a 1967 Connought Bible at home I can check if you like to see if such a modification was still allowed.

Given such was allowed by the rules and was set up accordign to the rules, why would one change it?

[smellie]

I'm willing to bet a whole half-dozen doughnuts from Timmy's that whoever set this rifle up had two rifles, was a VERY serious competitor, and that his other rifle was an SMLE which was set up with an identical sight.

When I was a kid, I shot with some of our local DCRA guys (including Bill Brown, who went to Bisley 6 times and captained the Canadian team). They regarded the Number 4 as a fine rifle for everything out to about 800 yards, but they felt that the advantage was with the SMLE for the longer ranges. So we would go down to the local range on the edge of town (currenly a running-track and football field for healthy people) and shoot. After 600, I would retire, a 2-groove just not competitive with the 5-groove and 6-groove barrels much past that and watch. Sure enough, when they got back to 800, the rifles on the firing-line became a mix. For 900 and beyond, it was SMLEs right across.

So I'm willing to bet that the man who owned this one shot all ranges, he had an SMLE set up the same...... and he had exactly the same adjustments and sight picture available on both rifles. This could be a morale-builder..... and morale is awfully important when you are shooting at a bull which is under 2 MOA and is better than half a mile away.

Just my 2 cents' worth.
.

[dieppe42]

Thanks for the input and "2-cents-worth" ..... I really wish I had known this chap, but everything I've heard comes second/third hand. One thing I did learn, he was a very serious shooter and maintained his rifle impeccably.

---------- Post added at 09:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:38 PM ----------

Frederick 303: if you wouldn't mind taking a boo in your "Bible", I'd appreciate knowing how late the 5a was allowed.......ta !

[David TS]

I bought a 1950 No.4 Mk1* about 6 weeks back. The original owner was a member of the DCRA back in the 60-80's and had converted this piece for target use. Rather than use the PH5c for the No.4, he utilized a PH5a rear sight that he slightly modified. With the 5a, he tapped and threaded a hole on the left side of the wrist. The rifle itself is in exquisite condition (just in the process of cleaning it), but was thinking of either leaving it "AS-IS", or changing to the 5c............what do you think ?

I had the same dilemma a few months back - I bought a nice No 4 Mk II, and subsequently bought an A J Parker Twin Zero 4/47 sight. Upon fitting the sight it was apparent the windage arm was not correct - it was far too long in that the centre of the vernier was way off centre of the bore. Concensus on here was that it was possibly a bitsa.







HOWEVER, and the moral of my story:

I took it for its first range day shortly afterwards. Now, the rifle was made in 1954, it never went into service but went into store. It was sold as surplus and ended up in the USA. It was bought by EFD rifles at auction last year, and repatriated to the UK (via that nice Mr Dick ), stripped by EFD and rebuilt. Other history unknown, other than it appears to have had little use.

I haven't shot a full bore rifle on range since my cadet days 40 years ago. I bore sighted it at 100 yards before I set out for the range. When I got there I didn't have time to zero it, nor shoot it at 300 yards, so went straight on to 600 yards with it.

The guy I shared the firing point with was an Enfield nut, and I shot the first five shots whilst he spotted for me.

With the second five shots, at 600 yards, it shot (not in this order) - a Vbull, a bull, an inner, and two outers!

So, my moral is also - if it aint broke, don't fix it. Shoot it, and if it is accurate, leave as is and enjoy

[Surpmil]

Rock Maple stock of course. Aptly named!