Main screw busing correct name?

[RJW NZ]

I have to write this description about a hundred times it seems, is there a correct name to describe the short metal tube that the main screw enters though? ie collet? A bushing to me is like a bearing, its a close fit and supports a shaft, not a loose fit, so main screw bushing is not only long winded but doesn't sound right either, what was the used term originally?. thanks Rjw

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.

[gravityfan]

Fore-end Collar
Picture of ugly one at LEE ENFIELD NO.4 MK1 PART, FORE-END COLLAR | eBay

HTH

[Alan de Enfield]

In the 1945 issue of "Parts Identification List" it is designated "Collar" and under 'remarks' it says "for trigger guard screw"
The part number of this part for a No1 Mk3 is BB0676 and for a No4 is BB8579 so you could always just refer to it by part number.

[Peter Laidler]

Not many users, shooters or just tinkerers know or realise just how important this little COLLAR, screw, front trigger guard really is. Not just as a collar but it's the length that is REALLY important. Just a tad too SHORT and it's so useless that you might just as well leave it out and too LONG and any fitting of the fore-end is a complete waste of time.

That's only my view...............

[fergs]

good old numrichs has it described for the no1 mk111 as part number 30 gaurd screw bushing i dont know how acurate they are but,
where as the schematics from ian skennertons book on 303s has it as part number 29 collar steel vocab number bb0676 made of steel and 1 of
regards
fergs

[muffett.2008]

In my old trade it would have been called a crush tube. A very inaccurate description because it was really there to prevent crush and control thickness/depth.
Stratton calls it a fore end collar. 0.5 in. long by 0.37 in. diameter steel bushing.

[Alan de Enfield]

.......... Stratton calls it a fore end collar. 0.5 in. long by 0.37 in. diameter steel bushing.

Well ........ from one of Peters old 'Jouster' posts on fitting a fore-end and trigger guard ( and restated by him in a post above) the length varied and was adjusted to suit - so it is NOT a fixed length.


"...................The trigger guard should not spring at the rear or front….., NO it shouldn’t! If it was meant to, it’d be made of spring steel! Now for a little tip. The COLLAR. You MUST have a collar and spring washer. This is what WE used to do. Put the front trigger guard screw into the trigger guard and body WITHOUT the washer or collar. Reverse it (that’s anti-clockwise …..) until you hear it click over the start thread and tighten it BUT COUNT THE TURNS UNTIL IT TIGHTENS AND LOCKS. Say, that it’s 7 ¼ turns to lock. Now do this with the collar fitted if it’s now, say 6 ½ turns, shorten the collar, a smidgin at a time, until the screw tightens up at exactly 7 ¼ turns. That way, you KNOW that the screw is tight, the fore-end is tight between the trigger guard and the screw and you are not crushing the living daylights out of the fore-end. And if it feels a little loose in a years time, then you can safely turn a few thou off the collar..........."

[RJW NZ]

Thanks gents,you also found the different names in the places I was seeing the variations that were getting confusing, but now we know, collar seems to be the winner, cheers

[Bruce_in_Oz]

The thing here is that we are dealing with Lee Enfields, not Mausers. The bedding concepts are different. When a SMLE fires, the barrel and action, as a whole,accelerate rearwards. The trick is that the action also flexes and stretches FORWARD of the locking lugs. Thus one can visualise the barrel and breech ring moving minutely forwards relative to the rear section, but, in the "big picture", the fore end is effectively trying to fly forwards. On a SMLE there is a considerable mass in the fore end; a lot of it being in the nose cap. This makes things interesting.

Given that there is no big-fat recoil lug at the front of the receiver, any tendency to move must be addressed some other way. The reason for the lack of a major forward lug is probably because the rifle is a rear-locking system. There is not much point anchoring the front of the receiver if it is going to be tap-dancing around behind that point. The nice chaps who decided that Mr. Lee's nice rifle would work better in a two piece stock were probably not too worried about possible shortages of long bits of walnut, but rather, the actual mechanics of the rifle. Thus, the Lee Enfield transfers the recoil force from the rear lugs to the butt via that massive tapered socket that engages the front of the butt. Experience with the Martini would have provided plenty of research notes. A Mauser transfers its recoil thrust primarily via the panels on either side of the magazine box.

What is really holding the SMLE fore end in place is the triggerguard and its orientation. Note that the triggerguard is not parallel to the receiver. Thus it acts on the fore end as a wedge or ramp that prevents the wood sliding whilst not having to crudely crush it down hard. Wood does not have a particularly good record for withstanding point loads; think "nails". Distributing the load required for retention via a large surface area gets around this property. The L-42 added a nifty little steel plate between the front screw and the fore end. This acts as a very big washer that distributes the screw tension over a large area and thus reduces tendencies for crushing or splitting. The fact that SMLE fore ends move and are subsequently damaged can be seen in the number that one sees with the "chip" of wood between the front screw hole and the mag well hole MISSING. Excessive pressure from that front screw would contribute a lot to splitting of the wood in that area. Poor timber treatment would also contribute to this problem.

Having said all that; go with "The Book" as per Peter, on the fitting of the fore end and the tweaking of that collar.

[RJW NZ]

The thing here is that we are dealing with Lee Enfields, not Mausers. The bedding concepts are different. When a SMLE fires, the barrel and action, as a whole,accelerate rearwards. The trick is that the action also flexes and stretches FORWARD of the locking lugs. Thus one can visualise the barrel and breech ring moving minutely forwards relative to the rear section, but, in the "big picture", the fore end is effectively trying to fly forwards. On a SMLE there is a considerable mass in the fore end; a lot of it being in the nose cap. This makes things interesting.

Given that there is no big-fat recoil lug at the front of the receiver, any tendency to move must be addressed some other way. The reason for the lack of a major forward lug is probably because the rifle is a rear-locking system. There is not much point anchoring the front of the receiver if it is going to be tap-dancing around behind that point. The nice chaps who decided that Mr. Lee's nice rifle would work better in a two piece stock were probably not too worried about possible shortages of long bits of walnut, but rather, the actual mechanics of the rifle. Thus, the Lee Enfield transfers the recoil force from the rear lugs to the butt via that massive tapered socket that engages the front of the butt. Experience with the Martini would have provided plenty of research notes. A Mauser transfers its recoil thrust primarily via the panels on either side of the magazine box.

What is really holding the SMLE fore end in place is the triggerguard and its orientation. Note that the triggerguard is not parallel to the receiver. Thus it acts on the fore end as a wedge or ramp that prevents the wood sliding whilst not having to crudely crush it down hard. Wood does not have a particularly good record for withstanding point loads; think "nails". Distributing the load required for retention via a large surface area gets around this property. The L-42 added a nifty little steel plate between the front screw and the fore end. This acts as a very big washer that distributes the screw tension over a large area and thus reduces tendencies for crushing or splitting. The fact that SMLE fore ends move and are subsequently damaged can be seen in the number that one sees with the "chip" of wood between the front screw hole and the mag well hole MISSING. Excessive pressure from that front screw would contribute a lot to splitting of the wood in that area. Poor timber treatment would also contribute to this problem.

Having said all that; go with "The Book" as per Peter, on the fitting of the fore end and the tweaking of that collar.

Thanks B in Oz, now I know why those blinking no1 mk3 no gun smith scope mounts that depend on pressure little screws pointing fore and aft have never worked for me. After 2-3 shots they just pop right off and the only way for that to happen is for the receiver to stretch, something that just seems ridiculously unlikely, and the rifle was a 1918 Lithgow, something rumored to be a stiffer unit.
Now I know.
Do I now know what to do about it? No.