Lee Enfield n°4(T) and Bipod

[Peter Laidler]

Gosh, have I said something wrong or something that's been misinterperted or misunderstood?
I mean that if the bipod on the rifle at the start of this thread is the one shown in your thread 17 or as described by GF in thread 16, then the manufacturer has made a good try at a rifle bipod, it clips on and would certainly steady the rifle. That's the good try

But the fact that he was clearly asleep during his harmonics lesson at school shows here because while the bipod was a good try, his subsequent theory was poor, in that he'd never hit the same place on the zeroing screen twice (that's if he even hit the screen the first time!)

As for the RPK connection, well, that has the same idea of a bipod on the end of the tuning fork vibrating barrel. Have you ever tried to fire a group with one? When asked why on earth the bipod was there, The great man himself turned to Lt Col Tug Wilson and said through his interpreter daughter '.....In Russia, I am a Captain. When the Generals tell me that they want my rifle to be a machine gun, I give them a machine gun...............' There was a bit more to this conversation that was recorded for posterity but that's the gist of it.

[Frederick303]

I recall the US bipod; it was issued for a short while with the M16A1. It had its own pouch which clipped onto your belt using the normal eye holes as well. The diameter of the hole created when it was placed on the rifle was too small for use on the M16A2, by that time it was gone anyway.

In any case I recall training to use one of these around the fall of 1982 or early spring of 1983. It was only used in full automatic from the prone position. It was used in conjunction with the old canvas or nylon M1 sling. You formed a loop in the sling behind the front sling swivel. The loop was formed by when you clipped the end buckle and the rear swivel clip remained on the rear sling swivel. You used your left, (or non firing hand) to pull back and slightly down on this loop. Your firing hand, buttstock/shoulder and stockweld remained the same. The bipod was just rested on the ground, you did not dig it in or rest the weight of the weapon on it like you would with an M60.

In ay case when you configured the rifle in this way you could use the M16A1 as an automatic rifle and shoot fairly good shaped roundish groups. One did not fire long burst, just short 2 to 4 shot bursts at individual targets. Once you had a some practice it was not all that hard to get good hits out on the field fire course, how far out I do not recall.

There was a bit of an art to it as if you used the wrong tension you would see a significant zero shift with the light M16 barrel. The key was the tension on the sling and really only using the bipod as sort of a shake stabilizer. If you pulled down too hard your group really moved. How practical it would have been if you were in real combat I have no idea, but it was one of the more memorable and happy training sessions on the range. I do not have any idea how widely it was issued or when.

I do not think it survived into the M16A2 period. Certainly the M1 sling did not, around that time the silent (and cheap) black sling became standard as well.

[Norton1]

I also recall the clip on bipod - I was the Asst Platoon Sgt of a Mechanized Infantry outfit in the late 70s - early 80s - they were junk as I recall. We returned them to supply as fast as they gave them to us. Cheap little stamped out things that bent at the slightest provocation. And yes you could kit something with them if you took your time. Unfortunately time is something most grunts being shot at don't have. At the time we were going back and forth to Noriegaville (also known as Da Nang South by us old guys).

[Roger Payne]

Going back to Warren's point about the degree of corrosion on the scope adjusting tool; yes, I'd concur. It does not really look corroded enough to have been buried in a French ditch for over half a century. I just got back from spending much of the last week field walking on The Somme. OK I know the stuff over there has been buried near enough a century now, but I've done a fair amount of mucking about in Normandy, at Dunkirk etc., & unless there was very little oxygen in a rather chalky alkaline soil, I think the deterioration would be much worse. Just my .02c.

ATB

[jmoore]

I find that the adjusting tool is suspiciously weathered to a degree not unlike the rifle itself, at least in the photo above. If it remained unfound for all those many extra years, it ought to be in much worse shape, no?

Going back to Warren's point about the degree of corrosion on the scope adjusting tool; yes, I'd concur. It does not really look corroded enough to have been buried in a French ditch for over half a century. I just got back from spending much of the last week field walking on The Somme. OK I know the stuff over there has been buried near enough a century now, but I've done a fair amount of mucking about in Normandy, at Dunkirk etc., & unless there was very little oxygen in a rather chalky alkaline soil, I think the deterioration would be much worse. Just my .02c.

ATB

I don't think Warren would like it getting us confused!

[Kev G]

Thanks for the picture of the bipod Warren.
The bipod legs are from the 1950's Czech made UK Vz59 Universal MG !
Have you any more pics that show a side view to see if the legs have a swage running up the leg ?
I will post some pics in a bit for comparison.

ATB KG

[Kev G]

Will try and do a better pic later (flash hider has been removed for clarity) when the sun comes up a bit but I think they are one of the same with a modified head ?

The bipod feet in the original pic also show them central to the legs the same as the Vz59.

ATB KG

[Warren]

Hey guy I think you nailed it!!!
I'll pass this on to the owner. He will be thrilled. Sort of helps my theory it was not original to the rifle or even the period they had hoped. I know that our friends at WWA made up some years ago, but I think he used Bren bipods. Do you have the DDE number on it by the way? I have a copy of the DDE here somewhere but don't have the time to look in 2000 files, plus I still have over 5000 plates on microfilm to read on the Bren alone.
I'll contact the owner and try to get some more photo's as the ones I got originally were horrible and I forwarded this last one without even looking closely at it. I'll send you what else I have in photo' on this thing via personal email, but I think you nailed it.

[jmoore]

As for the rifle itself, it seems to me that the rear sight axis pin and the visible end of the front scope attach screw are a bit shiny. Something to examine more closely at any rate.

[Kev G]

Just for reference a picture of the Vz59 MG the bipod on the 4T looks to have been gleaned from.



ATB KG