While not a a militray no4 stock (I assume) Im left wondering.

[villiers]

So what is the inlet at the front for?

[Peter Laidler]

It's for an internally stepped hand stop rail and/or a set of stout wire legs. I suppose you could fix a bipod to it as well. Or if you shoot at the speed some of the competition target shooters seem to shoot at, you could fit some tea/coffee making kit into it too

[bigduke6]

One thing to remember the T4 name seemed to carry over on all kind of every day conversions of the no4 and have never had anything to do with PH, I,ve seen many described as T4,s but are just another average heavy barreled No4 action.

[Thunderbox]

Parker Hale made the T4, and AJ Parker made the identical "Excel" target rifle. AJP even used PH barrels marked "Parker Hale T4"!

About the only way you can tell T4 and Excels apart is that Parker Hale linished the actions and applied a new number, whereas AJP rifles retain the original No4 markings.

Actually, they're pretty good target rifles - probably easily good enough for the 90% of shooters who'd struggle to get better scores with an expensive modern TR rifle.....



(cough)..... I just happen to have a few T4s and Excels for sale this weekend at the IHAM arms fair at Bisley. Actually, they're mostly commission sales or other peoples' rifles, so I'm not peddling my own tat this time.

[Peter Laidler]

Last sentence commencing 'Excell rifles with...' and ending '...on 7.62 rifles' I'd like to know the mechanics of that statement, how a full length rear-sight retaining screw over a short screw threaded into the sight gives '......the recoil restraint essential on 7.62mm rifles.

Maybe advertising standards were a little more relaxed then or just tooooooo ambiguous to be questioned.

But these rifles go some way to asking another question. Why is it that we hear about all these san fandanglio all singing and dancing replacement trigger mechanisms, when these superb but overpriced rifles were still VERY competitive with a properly set up bog standard off the shelf mechanism

[Mk VII]

It was a piece of eyewash, and most people used the P-H equivalent with just a short screw through the left pivot and didn't seem to notice any defect.
My club has got several of these Excels, which they want to dispose of. Hardly anyone does centrefire rifle now, and those who do own their own gun.
The inletting will be for a handstop rail. I had an Anschutz rail put in my Mauser conversion.

[Peter Laidler]

Reminds me of the Sterling and Enfield blurb for their conversion of No4 to 7.62mm. They implied that fitting a new barrel could be achieved with no special tools etc etc and that the accuracy wouldn't be affected (oh no......!) and even CHS would remain the same! Quite how that would/could happen is quite beyond me

[ssj]

Parker Hale made the T4, and AJ Parker made the identical "Excel" target rifle. AJP even used PH barrels marked "Parker Hale T4"!

About the only way you can tell T4 and Excels apart is that Parker Hale linished the actions and applied a new number, whereas AJP rifles retain the original No4 markings.

Actually, they're pretty good target rifles - probably easily good enough for the 90% of shooters who'd struggle to get better scores with an expensive modern TR rifle.....



(cough)..... I just happen to have a few T4s and Excels for sale this weekend at the IHAM arms fair at Bisley. Actually, they're mostly commission sales or other peoples' rifles, so I'm not peddling my own tat this time.


https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...09734965-1.jpg

Sadly not in NZ



Oh well...

What sort of $s do they go for?

---------- Post added at 09:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 AM ----------

It was a piece of eyewash, and most people used the P-H equivalent with just a short screw through the left pivot and didn't seem to notice any defect.
My club has got several of these Excels, which they want to dispose of. Hardly anyone does centrefire rifle now, and those who do own their own gun.
The inletting will be for a handstop rail. I had an Anschutz rail put in my Mauser conversion.

Send them to NZ



---------- Post added at 09:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 AM ----------

Reminds me of the Sterling and Enfield blurb for their conversion of No4 to 7.62mm. They implied that fitting a new barrel could be achieved with no special tools etc etc and that the accuracy wouldn't be affected (oh no......!) and even CHS would remain the same! Quite how that would/could happen is quite beyond me

I odnt know how heavily the conversions were used elsewhere but a few NZers who had them said the actions tended to stretch. Since teh L42s seemed to last a long time Im left wondering what loopy 308w loads NZers were trying!

[bigduke6]

Actually, they're pretty good target rifles - probably easily good enough for the 90% of shooters who'd struggle to get better scores with an expensive modern TR rifle.....

I was going to mention your name TB in post #13, as someone who probably had a few etc. As for the above statement if we included other rifles from that era I,d say 98%.......

[Peter Laidler]

My friend bought one of these PH or AJP rifles really cheap just for the barrel which he started to turn down to fit his shot-out No5. We decided that a better option was use a chrome lined L4 barrel which we did. Another bloke in the club carried on with the No5 spec PH barrel project and is still using it.

Just a thought if you have one and don't know what to do with it