Bipod on a No. 5 0r No 4

[villiers]

Think that might well be the ultimate solution (I make my own fore-ends out of old No. 4 stocks). Are the L86/SA80 LSW bipods available anywhere?

[Sentryduty]

Chop the spike off a No4 spike bayonet and weld a Bren bipod onto it. Then, when you need a bipod, just clip the 'bayonet-type bipod' on.

Ok.......... just joking!

There is simply too much compromise in this design.
Without the spike installed how is one supposed to then roast a sausage over a fire while shooting above the POA from the prone supported position?

Either the spike must be retained, or some "Skewer, Cooking, Marksman's Mk 1**" would have to have been developed and issued to Commonwealth snipers. This cannot be the first time this has come up, who can check the pattern room for a drawing?

[villiers]

Still waiting for the old discussion to be re-started as to whether an attached bayonet could improve the accuracy of a No 5 by reducing the amplitudes

[browningautorifle]

the old discussion

Always good fun...and quite frustrating.

[Seaspriter]

Military grade bipods can be pretty expensive. Harris makes a good quality product.

For the No.4 -- mount the bipod on the old stacking swivel. Suggest the best value might be a UTG OP2 (steel) which retails at between $35-45 USD and gets good reviews
http://www.amazon.com/UTG-Tactical-B...ct_top?ie=UTF8
It comes with both a Quick Disconnect Stud Swivel and Picatinny mount.

For the No.5 -- mount the bipod on the barrel just aft of the bayonet mount. Suggest a UTG (steel) which retails between $30-45 USD and gets good reviews.
http://www.amazon.com/UTG-Reinforced...el+Mount+Bipod

If you want just one bipod that works for a No.4 & No.5, buy the mount for the No.4 (above) with a Picatinny adapter
http://www.amazon.com/Rifle-Barrel-C.../dp/B006H0QD7G which retails for about $5-10 USD.

[villiers]

Thanks all! I usually manage to get things done .... although it does take time, as I have to think it through again and again. I´ll post piccs of my No. 5 Sturmgewehr when it´s finally ready.

[Patrick Chadwick]

Well just to muddy the waters, here are a few thoughts:

I wanted to try out a style of shooting here in Mauserland that is aimed at the "mature teenagers" - small-bore target shooting, standing, with the foreend on a rest. Using my Enfield No.8, of course. Now the serious grandpas in this game use rifles with a wide, flat "benchrest-style" foreend to provide a stable base on the rest, which is a flat bar. The rounded front end of the No. 8 was very wobbly on this bar, so I cobbled up a wooden wedge glued onto a sling swivel, and tightened the band very firmly. The band tends to swivel around the wood, so you do indeed have to tighten it up very firmly indeed. In other words, it was the same idea as has been proposed for a bipod. It works for the No.8 without affecting the POI, because the barrel is free-floating, and the rifle is still resting pretty much on the same spot as if it was resting on the hand of the shooter.

But if one takes a No.4 and applies the bipod idea to the front band/nosecap, then things are different. Metal flexes, and so does wood. The preloading of the No.4 barrel against the front end of the wood is (normally, Peter?) set up for an unsupported front end, which means that the muzzle end of the wood is deflected slightly downwards, the weight of the rifle being mainly carried on the shooters supporting hand.

If the rifle is now supported at the muzzle end by a bipod, then the whole stock/barrel cantilever arrangement is disturbed. The wood will now be deflected slightly upwards (or the rifle sags a bit in the middle, whichever way you like to look at it) and the preloading of the muzzle end will be increased.

With the load-bearing point at the shooters hand, i.e. a little behind the middle band, the foreend wood could deflect downwards, i.e. sag a little, even if only a fraction of a mm. Now, with the bipod, the center of mass of the rifle is no longer supported by the shooter's hand, but can sag down. If one takes the weight of the rifle to be roughly 4 kg, then, considering the whole as a simple lever, about 2kg have been added to the upwards force at the muzzle. Certainly sufficent to disturb the whole balanced system of a carefully set up rifle.

The above thoughts are not original, but an old consideration that says if you are say, testing out ammo and resting the front on a sandbag or other support for maximum stability, then the support should be where you would normally have your hand. Ignore this, rest the rifle on the muzzle end, and you will then have a different POI. Plus, of course, possible altered group size, because you have changed the whole vibratory pattern of the rifle.

Please correct me if I'm wrong Peter, but it seems to me that a No.4 with a bipod under the muzzle would have to be "reset" for maximum accuracy.

[Peter Laidler]

I was only joking with my bayonet/bipod idea Patrick!

[villiers]

I realised that immediately I saw the last part of your post (hadn´t scrolled far enough down). Is there anywhere I can get the bipod you mentioned?????????? Using the band with the sling swivel´s going to leave too much space between the bipod plate and the stock, so think I´m going to have to assault my fore-end with vigour (as you advised)

[bigduke6]

Can't say I was a big fan of the harris Bi pod types, I had one on my "Black rifle" (AR15) but was soon removed and used my tried and tested support bag, a 58 Webbing back pack which had a block of polystyrene inside made from 2" polystyrene sheets which were cut and taped to fit the back pack.

Only problem I had is when I stored it away, as after mice had got in, the pack soon turns into a large bean bag........