No4 T specifications for the bore to side wall distance

[terryinvictoria]

I have always wondered what the bore centerline to the outside receiver wall dimension was supposed to be for the No4T.

As it was described to me a number of years ago--the rifles were put into a jig machine that indexed from the bore centerline then the milling machine would touch the receiver wall where the pads were to be installed.

The slight milling would bring the receiver side wall to bore centerline distance to be exactly what the T brackets dimensions were as far as the centerline of the scope and the pad side that was mounted to the receiver wall.

Now in light of the reproductiion scopes and brackets and pads being made and installed on regular No4 rifles that have not had the side wall machined to make it --dimensionally correct I wonder just how many people are having problems with the scope being off requiring the adjustments to be off center in the scope.

So does anyone have the dimensional measurements that tell us what the original distance was for the milling machines to cut the sidewall.

Regards
TerryinVictoria

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.

[muffett.2008]

I'd be surprised if you get an answer for this.
As every rifle is different, the dimensions will be different and no one is going to make it any easier to make up the real thing.
This way, it's the mount that's modded, easier for us to pick a fake.

[Peter Laidler]

In short, in PRODUCTION they were all different. That's why the depth of the milled slot for the front pad differs slightly fromn shallow to quite deep and to give a flat parallel toi the bore surface. Additionally it was because the........... anyway I won't go into it as it'd take pages and pages to do so. To production line the process H&H made their pads one size that isn't the Enfield size but they put them on and catered for slight differences by fitting a part machined pad to the rifle and machining the radial area at the base of the pad SPIGOT to a set collimated distance from the bore while it was set up on the rifle.

If you are serious about fitting a set of repro pads I STRONGLY suggest that you read and fully digest a series of articles I wrote some time ago. It covers all of the eventualities AND pitfalls you'll fall into otherwise. Indeed, I saw such an abortion just the other day...............

[Surpmil]

Would you be the same "TerryinVictoria" who posted in these threads: Fake Canadian No 4(T) Another fake No32 spotted...... ?

Regardless, I would suggest that anyone not able to envision the process should not attempt it as a business venture.

[jmoore]

IIRC, Peter Laidler has mentioned on this forum (but not in book form?) that the machine used to mill (a SWAG ) the pad surfaces on the receiver and (for sure) the spigot was a converted lathe. Which would have simplified the mounting of the barreled action on bore centerline, but I haven't quite satisfied myself as to the exact method of locating the bore at the rear. A dedicated tailstock attachment would be logical. But the protrusion would be considerable, and most tailstocks have a wee bit of play, so rigidity for the milling operations would likely have to have been added by supplemental clamping. A wartime shop photo or two would be most enlightening!

Alternately (and most likely), since the milled area on the receiver isn't critical to the alignment of the spigot as done at H&H, the receiver flat could have been done merely to establish a good flat for soldering purposes and would not require precise bore axis positioning. So the flat could have been done on a small mill with a simple fixture. And no real consideration for drop (offset) dimensions.

Either method could have been used, the first would be slower as multiple setups would have been required, but would have minimzed floorspace requirements. The second would be much faster, but would have required more equipment and room. (The shop space at H&H was quite small from what I understand, so spacesaving might have been a overiding factor. For which I have some sympathy!)

[terryinvictoria]

No Peter I was not thinking of building a fake.

I was just inquiring because of the story an old timer told me years ago about some indexing jigs that set up the receiver/barrel before some form of spotfacing with a milling machine to make the mounting of the associated parts for the scope bracket easier.

It was many years ago that the fellow told me the story of the machining to make the T rifle but reading your article and recalling his story it makes sense --that the indexing off the bore centerline and the machining was of the front "mounted" pad. As he said " this got everything so close it reduced a lot of fiddling" ?

I do not remember any story of how they did the rear pad. Great story lost to time I guess.
There is a great guy that worked at Longbranch here on the west coast. Next time I see him I will ask out of interest --not one of thinking of building a fau sniper" if he knew anyone that made T rifles back east.

Regards
Terry

[Ridolpho]

A replica No.4T, sadly, may be all many of us will ever have the opportunity to own given prices and availability. I noticed in a recent magazine article that two companies in the US of A are manufacturing replica Springfield Sniper rifles (both varieties) and I'm curious if any manufacturing concern has ever put out a batch of No.4T "replicas". There are vague references to such on old posts on the forum but no specifics.

Ridolpho

[terryinvictoria]

Ridolpho -there have not been any commercially advertised No4 sniper rifles manufactured that I have seen recently in North America. But with the replication of the sniper -scope, pads and bracket it is possible although I have seen in print reports that one can tell the difference between the replicated parts and the old originals. Have not seen the replicas personally others will be able to tell you.

Up to now fau #4 snipers have been done by private individuals over the years with parts bought privately. Just like some RCMP martked rifles showed up on the west coast of Canada a few decades back according to reports. There is a data base one can ask if their rifle shows up on the old RCMP list but I am not sure just how accurate the list is. It all revolves around the popularity of anything if it is worth more someone will make something up. Whether it is a Guicci handbag or a Bulova watch --whatever it is there will be a market somewhere.

As to the two companies in the USA I trhink one is Gibbs rifle -they advertised some a while back the other name I cannot remember but they have been in the recent Shotgun News magazine and they have said as has Gibbs that their rifles can be quickly be picked out as fau snipers the scope for one has new markings that identify that part as --not a real sniper scope -- or an original period scope.

Regards
Terry

[Ridolpho]

Terry: yes, the two Springfield replicas are not meant to fool anyone- they are newly assembled shootable replicas. Given the obvious widespread interest in No.4T's, and the available rifles and components, I'm surprised some small company hasn't come out with a quality replica.

Ridolpho

[Lee Enfield]

Terry: yes, the two Springfield replicas are not meant to fool anyone- they are newly assembled shootable replicas. Given the obvious widespread interest in No.4T's, and the available rifles and components, I'm surprised some small company hasn't come out with a quality replica.

Ridolpho

Century did, but I don't think anyone considers them a quality repro...