No4 T with a difference....

[PrinzEugen]

Interesting BigDuke - I must admit the 'hart' conversions have somewhat passed me by - were they all built using 4ts?
I suppose it's a no4 based target rifle with a more interesting past than most. I quite like it actually - seems like it would be impossible to return to its original state so it's just something to enjoy - hopefully after all that stuff they've done to it, it shoots well!

[bigduke6]

Have to admit PE I dont know the first thing about them, its just a good example of what not to do with a No4 T, and any other Milsurp, if the butt socket was there it would be looking a lot different now ! but I doubt I would of got it for the same price.

It was bought for the parts, but I will give it a run out and see how it performs , I think it may look a bit different in the future.

[rgg_7]

Does this have a heavy barrel like the L39/Envoy? Any markings on barrel? Ron

[bigduke6]

Would say its the same profile Ron, but no markings (apart from the proof marks)

[Strangely Brown]

The "slicking" of Lee Enfields by converting to use a one-piece stock seems to have gone in and out of fashion a few times.

I am only aware of Bert Whitakers "Special's" and Geoff Hart's conversions of the No.4 to a one piece furniture target conversion.
I don't doub't for a moment there are others but I have yet to come across them; if anybody has knowledge of others please contact me!

My understanding is that Geoff Hart probably converted around 30 to 35 No.4's using his own conversion plans, which taken into context is the next stage Bert Whitaker would have taken had he not died so tragically in his tent in the US whilst shooting for the British team in July 1976.

Bert was working on a trigger according to his son, Geoff Hart deceided he would use the Brindles trigger which was already in existence. John Light who was "Brindles" had a good relationship with Geoff so it was innevitable that the two would get together on the trigger and John would supply them to Geoff.

Big Duke,
I have a register of Whitaker's and have started one for Hart's, although at this stage it only contains two numbers! Any chance of a PM with it in please??

I have been promised Geoff Hart's RFD register but have been out of action for a year with a spinal problem (now fixed, but bloody painful) so hope to get back to my research in a short while.

---------- Post added at 04:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:36 PM ----------

Does this have a heavy barrel like the L39/Envoy? Any markings on barrel? Ron

Geoff was known to have used Shultz & Larsen barrels in some of his conversions, if I can get my hands on his RFD register all will become clear!

[bigduke6]

PM on the way Mick, I thought it was a shultz & Larsen barrel at first, but no mark on it unless he he bought the blanks and did the work himself ? has the brindles trigger and sight.

[Strangely Brown]

Brindles sights are uncommon to say the least; I spent a day with John Light about 2 years ago and he showed me all his experimental stuff. When I expressed my astonishment that I thought in many areas they were better than some P-H sights that had been on the market John said, "Well it's only me since dad died". I should point out that John is now in his 80's. He is also a cousin of Robin Fulton (Fulton's of Bisley).

What is a shame about that late 1970's mid 1980's period is that John made a rifle from scratch but didn't have the time to develop it, the year he showed it at Bisley he was given an order for 15 sights for South Africa.
I asked why the rifle didn't progress further, he simply said that the machining was in place for the sights and it was his bread & butter and the rifle could wait!

[bigduke6]

Thanks Mick, any idea of what his rifle was based on ?

[Strangely Brown]

It was very much his own design, the furniture appears to be off at a fairly large cant (imagine the pistol grip off to the right at about 45° degrees?) I only handled it for a few minutes and cannot remember the locking details of the bolt.
The princible opposition when John made this would have been George Swensons "Swing".

I actually found it very comfortable to hold, albiet I was standing at the time

[Bruce_in_Oz]

Here's an earlier thread on this very subject: Just how far can you modify an enfield?

I remember reading about Ellwood Epps doing one-piece stock conversions as well as reaming out for his .303 Epps cartridge, which is a bit like an "Ackley-ised" number; very similar to the "improved" .30/40 Krag. Not recommended with max loads in a SMLE, but popular conversions on P-14 actions. Epps also further wildcatted his improved case to 8mm, .338", .35" etc.

An "improved" .303 case will hold a LOT more powder and will match a .308Win.

There is, however, the perennial problem of getting the radically different case to feed from a SMLE / No4 type mag.

A 6.5 - .303/.30-40 Improved would be quite a screamer on a previously "sporterised" spare P-14 action, assuming you got it for peanuts and the barrel and stock at a discount. Or, you could just chamber it for the Dutch / Romanian rimmed version of the famous 6.5 x54 Mannlicher cartridge.

There was also a .303 ICL improved from Canada, again mostly built on P-14s or reworked M-17s and Arisakas.

If you want more grunt when rebuilding a pre-sporterised P-14 , why not just go to 7.62 x 54 Russian?