Front handguard is loose - what is the best way to secure it?

[Bruce_in_Oz]

Isn't the front band meant to be retained by the ends of the two transverse pins that anchor the "endcap"?

These SHOULD have "flats" formed on one side at the tips. These flats face each other, i.e., front pin flats face rearwards, rear pin flats face forward.

Thus, the "flats" on the ends of the pins "locate" the band AND, the band stops the pins from "walking" out if the wood gets shabby.

Neat.

[SpikeDD]

[QUOTE=Bruce_in_Oz;368693]Isn't the front band meant to be retained by the ends of the two transverse pins that anchor the "endcap"?

These SHOULD have "flats" formed on one side at the tips. These flats face each other, i.e., front pin flats face rearwards, rear pin flats face forward.

Thus, the "flats" on the ends of the pins "locate" the band AND, the band stops the pins from "walking" out if the wood gets shabby.


That's exactly correct, the transverse pins "locates" the band but won't do much preventing the forward handguard from sliding "under" the band at the top as things get worn. I imagine this was the reason for introducing the "depression" into the slot in the forward handguard.

Attachment 74216

[browningautorifle]

Yes, all that's correct, but with wear to the ends of the pins too, they hardly do their job. The indent was something I saw years back, not my idea.

[Bruce_in_Oz]

My five cents worth:

Bear in mind that the front band on the No4 was originally designed, in its No1 Mk6 guise, with a HINGE at the top, and looking somewhat like a "radically stretched" SMLE outer band, complete with a suitable "gap" in which could be hung a piling swivel.

Thus, the hinge element would have neatly sat in the "groove" in the top hand-guard cap and, in conjunction with the aforementioned pins, kept it all together.

See pix here.

The MUCH more commonly seen "stretchy" band was HUGELY cheaper to make and the rest is history. Ditto the "one-piece" outer bands seen on most No4 specimens.

[browningautorifle]

originally designed, with a HINGE at the top

As mentioned in post #3...

[Peter Laidler]

If you do exactly what Spike has done, that's what Armourers have done since the year dot. It works. It CANNOT fail because the upper band is positioned between 4x flats, one at each end of the pins that hold the fore-end cap in place. Have a look and you'll see them. These should face INWARDS and the upper band fits snugly between them.

You could dolly the upper handguard cap rearwards too. This has been covered in this forum as has using the same method of dollying the fore-end cap rearwards.

It is a common problem and EASILY permanently rectified in 1 minute

[browningautorifle]

that's what Armourers have done since the year dot.

I thought so.

[SpikeDD]

In the interest of honesty, the depression in the band was not performed by me. It appears on a 1949 Longbranch that I can find little to no evidence of any use. Below, left to right, are 1944, 1945, 1949 and 1950 dated Longbranch rifles, which are all in nearly immaculate condition. I'm curious as to when the depressions in the bands were made, either something done during production because of an observed condition or later on for some reason. In any case, as Peter has stated, this modification will stop the handguard dead fast.

I'd like to also note that these are the only 2 "as issued condition" rifles I own that have this modification done.

Attachment 74265

[Peter Laidler]

We'd punch the band in only if the handguard slipped forwards during the test shoot after repair. If it stayed put, then all was well! Some handguards were machined from a solid bar of railway track (...just joking) and so thick that you couldn't punch it in, even if the h/g was loose. So you'd swop it for a thinner metal one and be done with it