Battling inner Demons and need assistance

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

   I don’t know why he said that.  It’s just not true.  Perhaps the MOD did only limited trials as they knew that the future was the self loading rifle.  
The Canadian DCRA and UK NRA did extensive trials for improving the shooting of their 7.62 Conversions for Service Rifle match shooting.  Many bedding methods were tried, including standard No. 4 stocking with the bearing at the muzzle.  The most successful was determined to be with the barrel bearing at the middle “Center” band.  An article published in the “The Canadian Marksman” dated March 1965 gave the results.  
By 1967, the DCRA had well established the 7.62 conversions with standard service weight barrel as highly satisfactory for service rifle shooting.  The Palma Match was revived that year with the US, Britian and Canada competing with the DCRA Converted No. 4 (at that time, the match was shot with the rifles and ammunition provided by the host nation).  Special selected 150 gr NATO ball ammunition produced by CIL was used.  It is note in an October 1967 American Rifleman article that the US Palma team was complementary of the fine accuracy of these “Center” bedded rifles.   Incidentally, Canada won the match that year.

Reynolds published an article in the January 1969 American Rifleman giving the results at 200 and 900 yard shooting 7 different 7.62 rifles,  7.62 mm rifles including the P14 and No. 4 conversions (done by Fulton, Enfield and Australia). Three different types of ammunition was used, Radway Green, Canadian DAQ and Norwegian Raufoss; all 144 gr 7.62 NATO loads. While the RG ammunition did rather poorly (about 3.5 to 5 MOA 10 shot groups), the DAQ and Raufoss ammunition did quite well, 2 to 3 MOA.  All of this is was shooting prone with a target type aperture rear sight.  

What is very noteworthy is that the No. 4 conversions with a Long Branch made standard service weight barrels did almost as good as the heavy barreled Norwegian Kongsbergs.  There was a marginal improvement in accuracy of the No. 4 rifles fitted with the heavy Kongsberg barrel.  The results were right in front of their face that the real problem was the ammunition, not the barrel weight or stocking up methods.  

Here are the average scores at 200 yards:  

An October 1969 article by Reynolds showed that the welded reinforcing strap gave only a slight improvement in accuracy over the standard actions when both are fitted with a heavy barrel.  In fact, the standard actions (not reinforced) did better than the reinforced actions at 900 yards.  This trial again showed the large improvement of Norwegian Raufoss ammunition over British Service cartridges.  

So, my conclusion from reading the historical record and from my own shooting experience, the No. 4 rifle with a standard service weight 7.62 barrel would have made a fine Service Rifle.  They just needed to get the ammunition up to snuff for competition use.  

I think Gossic has found the same, and has improved on this considerably with his own accurizing techniques. 

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
britrifles Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: February 03 2018 Location: Georgia, USA Status: Offline Points: 8404	Post Options Post Reply Quote britrifles Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: December 05 2020 at 1:45pm
	I don’t know why he said that. It’s just not true. Perhaps the MOD did only limited trials as they knew that the future was the self loading rifle. The Canadian DCRA and UK NRA did extensive trials for improving the shooting of their 7.62 Conversions for Service Rifle match shooting. Many bedding methods were tried, including standard No. 4 stocking with the bearing at the muzzle. The most successful was determined to be with the barrel bearing at the middle “Center” band. An article published in the “The Canadian Marksman” dated March 1965 gave the results. By 1967, the DCRA had well established the 7.62 conversions with standard service weight barrel as highly satisfactory for service rifle shooting. The Palma Match was revived that year with the US, Britian and Canada competing with the DCRA Converted No. 4 (at that time, the match was shot with the rifles and ammunition provided by the host nation). Special selected 150 gr NATO ball ammunition produced by CIL was used. It is note in an October 1967 American Rifleman article that the US Palma team was complementary of the fine accuracy of these “Center” bedded rifles. Incidentally, Canada won the match that year. Reynolds published an article in the January 1969 American Rifleman giving the results at 200 and 900 yard shooting 7 different 7.62 rifles, 7.62 mm rifles including the P14 and No. 4 conversions (done by Fulton, Enfield and Australia). Three different types of ammunition was used, Radway Green, Canadian DAQ and Norwegian Raufoss; all 144 gr 7.62 NATO loads. While the RG ammunition did rather poorly (about 3.5 to 5 MOA 10 shot groups), the DAQ and Raufoss ammunition did quite well, 2 to 3 MOA. All of this is was shooting prone with a target type aperture rear sight. What is very noteworthy is that the No. 4 conversions with a Long Branch made standard service weight barrels did almost as good as the heavy barreled Norwegian Kongsbergs. There was a marginal improvement in accuracy of the No. 4 rifles fitted with the heavy Kongsberg barrel. The results were right in front of their face that the real problem was the ammunition, not the barrel weight or stocking up methods. Here are the average scores at 200 yards: An October 1969 article by Reynolds showed that the welded reinforcing strap gave only a slight improvement in accuracy over the standard actions when both are fitted with a heavy barrel. In fact, the standard actions (not reinforced) did better than the reinforced actions at 900 yards. This trial again showed the large improvement of Norwegian Raufoss ammunition over British Service cartridges. So, my conclusion from reading the historical record and from my own shooting experience, the No. 4 rifle with a standard service weight 7.62 barrel would have made a fine Service Rifle. They just needed to get the ammunition up to snuff for competition use. I think Gossic has found the same, and has improved on this considerably with his own accurizing techniques.

Goosic Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: September 12 2017 Location: Phoenix Arizona Status: Offline Points: 8842	Post Options Post Reply Quote Goosic Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: December 05 2020 at 2:11pm
	britrifles. I have no doubt that the accuracy issues the L8 series rifles were experiencing at the time had everything to do with the ammunition used at the time of the testing combined with a lack of commitment to proper bedding techniques. The main concern I have is that most of what I have been reading indicates that the Canadian Arsenal barrels that did not have bayonet lugs were being used with a very minimal improvement over the standard 303 barrels. This did not list the 7.62mm barrels with the bayonet lugs that had a 4 groove right hand twist. What direction of twist is your DCRA barrel and how many grooves does it have?

Shamu Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Admin Group Logo Designer / Donating Member Joined: April 25 2007 Location: MD, USA. Status: Offline Points: 20510	Post Options Post Reply Quote Shamu Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: December 05 2020 at 3:01pm
	IMO Center Bedding a Lee Enfield is a last resort only. Demonstrating how it works is easily done if you are a guitar player (or know one). Have them demonstrate the use of a "Capo"! Substitute "barrel" for "string"!
	Don't shoot till you see the whites of their thighs. (Unofficial motto of the Royal Air Force)

Shamu Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Admin Group Logo Designer / Donating Member Joined: April 25 2007 Location: MD, USA. Status: Offline Points: 20510	Post Options Post Reply Quote Shamu Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: December 05 2020 at 3:15pm
	Now lets "center bed" that puppy! Imagine each changed chord or note as a set of barrel harmonics.
	Don't shoot till you see the whites of their thighs. (Unofficial motto of the Royal Air Force)

britrifles Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: February 03 2018 Location: Georgia, USA Status: Offline Points: 8404	Post Options Post Reply Quote britrifles Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: December 05 2020 at 5:07pm
	Goosic, The 1967 UK NRA No. 4 trials at Bisley were done with 4 different barrels: Long Branch, Enfield (both of No. 4 Service weight and length) and Kongsberg and Enfield (both 4 lbs, 28 inches). It states the Kongsberg barrels were 4 groove, 1:12 LH twist. It does not state the twist rate and number of grooves of the other barrels. The Long Branch 7.62 barrels are 4 groove, 1:12 RH twist, standard service weight and length with no bayonet lugs. The lands are much narrower than Enfield .303 5 groove rifling. Here are the No. 4 UK NRA trials results with the 4 lb barrels reported in the Oct 1969 American Rifeman.

britrifles Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: February 03 2018 Location: Georgia, USA Status: Offline Points: 8404	Post Options Post Reply Quote britrifles Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: December 05 2020 at 5:55pm
	Shamu, The guitar string analogy is a good one. A bullet traveling down the bore under 45,000 lbs per sq inch of pressure certainly does cause it to vibrate. Imagine smacking the breach with a sledge hammer. The standard No. 4 stocking method with pressure at the muzzle would make the barrel vibrate primarily in the first harmonic (like the guitar string, but also with the other overtones as shown. Without the muzzle bearing, the barrel would vibrate in a cantilever first mode bending with large displacements at the muzzle. This is why free floating light weight barrels are generally not very accurate. Some experimenting was done No. 4 7.62 barrels bedded at three locations: the reinforce, at the “center” band and also at the muzzle. Some DCRA testing 1964/65 showed this to be an improvement over the standard center bedding method (at the reinforce and center band) or standard muzzle bearing method. The down side to muzzle bearing only is that the rifles zero is prone to changing with heat and humidity, particularly if the rifle sits on the damp ground on one side and the other is exposed to direct sun. The wood will quickly warp and push the barrel over with it with enough to move you off the target at long range. A free floating heavy barrel eliminates this problem. There is not much that hadn’t been tried before.

A square 10 Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Special Member Donating Member Joined: December 12 2006 Location: MN , USA Status: Offline Points: 16998	Post Options Post Reply Quote A square 10 Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: December 05 2020 at 7:47pm
	while i o longer even pretend to play guitar i agree this to be a good reference for what you are trying to accomplish in this instance , changing the harmonics of the barrel , but you will not hear the difference - you will see it on target .......hopefully