making a usuable 4T, I need help!please

[Lou Cypher]

Why not go with a Fultons ones when you think of the time & effort to shag around with the Accumounts ones you would probably be streets ahead with a set of them is the bracket an Accumount as well Lou if it is one wonders how accurately that would be manufactured like your trying to put together a system that has untold errors which is going to eat up untold time & effort to get right if you can get it right at all.

In the current case, I thought about asking a front pad not drilled in order to fit it in place. But I guess that finally, I'm building up a look like 4T, not a perfect replica (I would have bought an original bracket and pads). So I will make a rear pad adapted to my rifle, from far, it will look like a 4 T, from a close sight, it will be definitely a scoped Lee Enfield, but I hope accurate enough for shooting at 200m.

---------- Post added at 10:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:47 AM ----------

While the Fulton’s mounts are pretty good, I’ve had this situation arise with them too, although to a lesser extent. I think the mistake is to expect these to fit out of the box given the range of variation on the bodies and brackets you may be fitting too.

I'm really surprised, even if you spend 120 GBP, you still get a chance to get the same error than with the Accumounts pads?

[Roger Payne]

I think what T bone is saying is that no matter how accurately machined the pads are there is some variation in the machining of the mating surfaces of the brackets & from receiver to receiver.

[ArtioZen]

Just thinking around the box - not necessarily out of it. In the making of the No4T sniper stories one of the first operations described at H&H was to run a mill over the right receiver wall to achieve some kind of standard datum - some rifles show almost no material off, some partial removal of "No4mk1" marks, others complete removal of it. I would assume that the receiver skim process was left set up at H&H and each new rifle simply run through it for expediency of a standard. Am not reading this step being accounted for / allowed for in these modern day conversion stories..perhaps this contributes to some of the cause to the front pad fit and relative alititude/attitude of the rear pads as observed. I wonder if this milled "datum" is anywhere in the drawings or other documents?..must be reference the bore / chamber axis as an assumption..

Just the Friday eve thoughts of a tired ex Engineer..bungabunga!

[CINDERS]

I think somewhere some one made a jig to hold the action square and horizontal to do machining actions on it like milling/drilling but that was a long time ago either way its a big call to build one as it was not a small item by any stretch.

[Peter Laidler]

If everyone just followed the simple instructions wot I writ a couple of years ago there woul;dn't be this discussion. Loads of others seemed to do so and are happily plugging away on the ranges. Once you have drilled the holes in the body, you're left with what you've got.

Reminds me of my friend who was restoring an old ex Triumph police car back in the 80's. There was a hole in the roof and a couple on the big compound curved boot lid that he wanted welded up. Everyone told him that it was a fraught task - and to just use low heat, tin the underside and then put tinned copper plates in place, a dash of heat and there'd be no distortion. But his pal said that he could MIG the holes up, which he did. He never got the buckled roof straight nor the boot lid. He did eventually solve the boot lid buckled curvature by buying a new one!

[Surpmil]

I would assume the rifle was set up in a jig for that process which held it from a control surface such as the bolt way, bore or even chamber perhaps. The cutter would be run down to the preset depth and what was taken off was taken off, or not. The point of the jig would be to ensure that when the pad was fitted it's relationship to the bore was relatively constant and the subsequently machined contact surfaces of the pad were even and centered. There is very little 'meat' on the front pad and misalignment when machining the actual pad mating surfaces could for example produce a 'shoulder' with an uneven or insufficient bearing. Presumably the angled cut on top of the left receiver ('body") wall was done at the same time as the side wall and the jig rotated the necessary angle so that that surface was also consistent.

[Lou Cypher]

As Fas as I understood, when I read Mr Laidler's book, the front pad was fitted to the body, than the spigot was milled (page 32 .303 N°4 (T) Sniper rifle), no other kind of work is mentionned.

[harry mac]

Hi gents,
Finally, after 5 years of long wait, I started to fit a repro bracket with a n°32 MkI.
I read, read again, and drunk a lot of whisky as described in the nice documentation written by Mr Laidler. I'm sticking to any step described, and everything was going well until the fitting of the rear pad. When I aim a DAP at 250 yards through the barrel and set the drum to 250 yards on the scope, the grat on the DAP, my rear pad is positioned as follow ... https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...25_small-1.jpg
I measured the pad, the bracket, the size shows some minor differences with the blueprint, but not at a point to get so much gap. What did I not do? what should I do to correct this, if possible..
Thank you

Surely, when bore-sighting the rifle, the scope range scale should be set on zero, no matter how far away the DAP is? Bore-sighting merely makes sure the optical centre of the field of view and the axis of the bore are aligned.
If you set the scope at 250 and align it with the bore, when you actually come to engage a target at 250 your bullet will strike the ground well short, or the target really low.