Accurising No. 4 Mk 1/2 converted to .22 No 9

[Gnr527]

My ersatz No. 9 is a great rifle to shoot but generally manages 3/4 - 1 inch groups at 25yds. Typically 6 or 7 shots in 3/8 inch with 3 flyers.
Whilst acknowledging that my marksmanship is undoubtably partially to blame I am equally sure that the rifles accuracy has room for improvement.
So, with the help of Rogers 'Complete Book on Lee Enfield Accurizing' and this forums database/library I intend giving it the (full!) accurising treatment.

An initial check indicates the barrel channel could well need some slight easing and the downforce at the foreend is too high at just over 10lbs but before I start any experimenting and adjusting there are so many individual checks/corrections possible that I am unsure as to the order in which to deal with them.

All advice and/or comments gratefully received.

John

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.

[newcastle]

Not sure that the forces involved in igniting a 22LR cartridge are enough to warrant the full accurizing treatment. I'm guessing but i'm thinking that the tightness of action bolt, and barrel itself have more to do with the accuracy of a 22. Peter is the expert here though I'm betting he's long asleep by now as its' 5pm PST.

[Peter Laidler]

An RAF Armourer, a real, old time 50's era one as opposed to a bomb jockey type, told me that the old No4 criteria didn't apply with their No7 rifles. On those, the barrel was required to fit correctly at the breech but just lay centrally on the muzzle bearing with the minium lift of about a half pound or less lift. There is minimum vibration through the heavy barrel.

One other problem with a sleeved barrel and that's the quality of the method of fixing the insert barrel. It should be soft soldered completely through. This was (apparently, so I've been told.....) the cause of its lack of accuracy with the L1A1 sub calibre insert. It was just a reasonably good fit as opposed to being fixed solid

[Gnr527]

You're probably right Newcastle but I'm a compulsive tinkerer and looking on this as an education.
Parker Hale's '54 Catalogue refers to 'All-In' first quality Parkerifling to produce groups within 2inches at 100yds and 'Standard' second quality Parkerifling to produce 1/2inch test groups at 25 yards to be sure of 3inch groups at 100yards or better.
Parker Hale's emphasis does appear to be on work to the barrel but the lengths smallbore target shooters go to tune their rifles cover all aspects of the rifle and the lighter bullet needs less to send it astray.
Finally I'm not trying to turn my military training rifle into a Bleiker - just an interesting exercise.

John

[Gnr527]

Peter
Do you mean the barrel foreend uplift force should only be in the order of half a pound?

John

[Peter Laidler]

That's the gospel to Trevor Axxxxx the RAF Armourer whizz kid who we used to liaise with when we were getting/dealing with the RAF Cadet No7 rifles. I can't see the N9 or a sleeved No4 being any different harmonically. The No8 has to lay flat - or did until it was relaxed so that it could be floated out for ease of maintenance

I wonder if anyone has ever considered a removeable sub calibre insert for a No4. Should be a doddle........!

[Frank LE]

Checked the pressure on my No9 and found that it lays centrally on the muzzle bearing with half a pound. My rifle shoots the 1/2 inch group when I do also my part.

[bigduke6]

John,

Is the barrel a Parkerifling one or solid barrel ? or just a re-lined barrel ?

[Gnr527]

Geoff

Not Parkerifled but sleeved by A J Parker. Parker Hale stamped muzzle end 'Parkerifled' - A J Parker didnt but stamped the knox form 'AJP' in a circle. Otherwise very similar.
There didnt seem to be much love lost (or contact?) between Parker Hale and A J Parker. It would be interesting to know where the two firms got their sleeving inserts from and if there was any co-operation at all on this aspect of their businesses.

Regards

John