Samething a bit different.

[BurtonP]

I recently purchased a matching numbers SMLE forstock, barrel and receiver (See pic below) and it came with this curiousity/monstrosity. A previous owner had partly hand-carved a 1 piece stock for a No 4,but not finished the project. In the process the No 4 had lost a couple inches off the barrel and the sides of the receiver "wrists", so it wasn't going to work as a restoration project. Never one to waste some good hardware, it got me thinking about what I could do with it.

To be continued...

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.

[BurtonP]

I've always liked the lightened Long Branch No 4s, and thought I'd try to make a facsimile. I reduced the stock and inletted the lightening cuts and replaced the foresight with a P14 version. I've still got to add the rear sling swivel, and a cross bolt when I find an appropriate one, but I'm really happy with it. I haven't lightened the receiver for obvious reasons, but the rifle is considerably lighter than a standard No 4.

I should add that I will not be trying to pass this off as the real thing, and TBH I don't think I could. There are too many differences to fool anyone with any research skills or knowledge. Just an interesting experiment for me.

[lithgow1918]

Impressive build, great use of an otherwise un-restorable action. Always found the Canadian lightweight no 4s to be fascinating.

[Bruce_in_Oz]

The original J5550 carbines have some interesting features, and some "design flaws.

The wrist of the stock is incredibly "thin" where the cut-away stump of receiver ferrule fits. To my mind, they would have been better adding a bit more "bulk to teh wrist and using the remains of teh ferule to build up a narrow "leg" likethe SKS. Being a rear-locking action, that area is where the bulk of the initial recoil is delivered.

OK, I've only ever fondled one complete specimen of these here in Oz. Not mine, unfortunately. Interestingly, it came with a spare stock which was inletted differently. Maybe there a several variations to see what worked and what didn't in common "envelope".

[BurtonP]

I'm curious how it will perform at the range - whether the stock immediately splits! The former owner neglected the draws, presumably expecting the butt to take the recoil. I'm not so confident, so will be building it up so that it has support at the draws and the stock. Any advice would be appreciated on this subject. Does anyone know how the originals were bedded?

[butlersrangers]

'BurtonP' - I imagine your project's stock will be prone to split and chip like that of an original 'smokeless-powder' Remington-Lee.

("Original Sin" - Photo of a damaged Remington-Lee stock, model 1899 in caliber .30-40, is attached. The 'two-piece' Lee-Enfield stock overcame this weakness of the Lee design).

A remedy might be a 'lug' added to the bottom of the barrel, that abuts a Mauser style stock cross-bolt, located just in front of the action.

Epoxy and a 'hidden' cross-bolt might strengthen your stock, where the rear of the altered receiver contacts wood, in front of the stock-wrist? How is the rear of your action now 'anchored' in the one piece stock?

[BurtonP]

'BurtonP' - I imagine your project's stock will be prone to split and chip like that of an original 'smokeless-powder' Remington-Lee.

("Original Sin" - Photo of a damaged Remington-Lee stock, model 1899 in caliber .30-40, is attached. The 'two-piece' Lee-Enfield stock overcame this weakness of the Lee design).

A remedy might be a 'lug' added to the bottom of the barrel, that abuts a Mauser style stock cross-bolt, located just in front of the action.

Epoxy and a 'hidden' cross-bolt might strengthen your stock, where the rear of the altered receiver contacts wood, in front of the stock-wrist? How is the rear of your action now 'anchored' in the one piece stock?

Hi butlersrangers,
Thanks for your reply. At present the action is anchored in the normal Lee Enfield way, with the wood wedged between receiver and the trigger guard. I intend to put in a cross bolt like the experimental versions which will interact somehow with the remains of the "wrist" where the butt screws in. As I mentioned earlier, I also plan to restore the draws with epoxy for added support. What it doesn't have is a vertical bolt at the rear of the trigger guard, which I believe was a feature of the experimental versions. Also, comparing my stock to pics of an original, I was constrained somewhat by the design of the stock I inherited. It ended up considerably chunkier in the potentially weak wrist, which should help.

[BurtonP]

For those of you interested in what happened to the SMLE in the first pic - it's a work in progress, but here is the 1917 BSA&Co that I completed with parts from a poor condition 1916 BSA&Co rifle. Now, do I order a repro top handguard or carve one myself?


Attachment 110592Attachment 110593Attachment 110594Attachment 110595Attachment 110596

[Surpmil]

I'm curious how it will perform at the range - whether the stock immediately splits! The former owner neglected the draws, presumably expecting the butt to take the recoil. I'm not so confident, so will be building it up so that it has support at the draws and the stock. Any advice would be appreciated on this subject. Does anyone know how the originals were bedded?

The cure for the one-piece stock was to make it out of laminated "plywood" as Long Branch experimented with later.

Perhaps the lightweight rifle project had been dropped by the time the laminated stocks were being experimented with.

[Surpmil]

Full marks for effort!