|
Battling inner Demons and need assistance |
Post Reply 
|
Page 12> |
| Author | |
Goosic 
Senior Member 
Joined: September 12 2017 Location: Phoenix Arizona Status: Offline Points: 8842 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Battling inner Demons and need assistancePosted: December 03 2020 at 8:51am |
|
That 7.62mm No4 barrel should be here tomorrow. I removed the old barrel from the Faux sniper rifle last night. I then started to feel nauseated because of where the Inner Demons are trying to lead me to. Do I cut the furniture down and make a Faux L42A1 or do I leave the furniture alone? I've already took measurements and the Dremel is locked and loaded.
I am asking for very honest opinions here. Help 🤢
|
|
 |
|
|
Shamu
Admin Group 
Logo Designer / Donating Member Joined: April 25 2007 Location: MD, USA. Status: Offline Points: 20510 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: December 03 2020 at 10:55am |
|
Do you have to open up the barrel channel for the 7.62 barrel?
|
|
|
Don't shoot till you see the whites of their thighs. (Unofficial motto of the Royal Air Force)
|
|
|
|
|
Goosic
Senior Member
Joined: September 12 2017 Location: Phoenix Arizona Status: Offline Points: 8842 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: December 03 2020 at 11:13am |
|
I will not know that definitively until the barrel arrives in the next few days.
|
|
|
|
|
Zed
Special Member
Donating Member Joined: May 01 2012 Location: France Status: Offline Points: 6460 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: December 03 2020 at 11:54am |
|
Personally, I would leave it as the No4T woodwork. Because the barrel is of the No4 type.
The 7.62 barrel for the L42/L39 types are the heavy hammer forged type. I don't think the thinner barrel will look as good if you cut the fore end back. Obviously, it's your project and this is just my own opinion. But I look forward to see the results on the range!
|
|
|
It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice!
|
|
|
|
|
Goosic
Senior Member
Joined: September 12 2017 Location: Phoenix Arizona Status: Offline Points: 8842 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: December 03 2020 at 11:59am |
|
Zed, could you measure the diameter of your L39 barrel just where it protrudes from the stock for me please? And could you, The Armourer do the same on your Enforcer?
|
|
|
|
|
Zed
Special Member
Donating Member Joined: May 01 2012 Location: France Status: Offline Points: 6460 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: December 03 2020 at 12:30pm |
|
Goosic, I'm not able to measure it at the moment; but I think it's about 7/8". The original fore ends were opened up too much close to 1"; especially the upper handguards, that are quite fragile.
|
|
|
It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice!
|
|
|
|
|
Goosic
Senior Member
Joined: September 12 2017 Location: Phoenix Arizona Status: Offline Points: 8842 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: December 03 2020 at 1:19pm |
|
I will double check the diameter when the barrel gets here.
|
|
|
|
|
britrifles
Senior Member
Joined: February 03 2018 Location: Georgia, USA Status: Offline Points: 8404 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: December 03 2020 at 1:55pm |
|
If this is indeed a 7.62 bbl for the L8 conversions, I would leave the full wood, it should shoot better that way. If it’s the heavy 4 lb target barrel, then yes, by all means, go with the free floated barrel and cutback forend.
|
|
|
|
|
A square 10
Special Member
Donating Member Joined: December 12 2006 Location: MN , USA Status: Online Points: 16998 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: December 03 2020 at 3:22pm |
|
im in the same thinking of leaving it , just my 2 cents tho
|
|
|
|
|
Goosic
Senior Member
Joined: September 12 2017 Location: Phoenix Arizona Status: Offline Points: 8842 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: December 03 2020 at 3:28pm |
|
Yeah, I have resolved to leave it alone. I was reading about the L8 conversion and the No4Mk1* rifles were designated the L8A5.
I like the sound of that. During the 1960s, the British Government and the Ministry of Defence converted a number of Lee–Enfield No. 4 rifles to 7.62×51mm NATO as part of a programme to retain the Lee–Enfield as a reserve weapon.[citation needed] The Lee–Enfield No. 4 series rifles that were converted to 7.62×51mm NATO were re-designated as the L8 series of rifles with the rifles being refitted with 7.62×51mm NATO barrels, new bolt faces and extractor claws, new rear sights and new 10-round 7.62×51mm NATO magazines that were produced by RSAF Enfield to replace the old 10-round .303 British magazines.[77] The appearance of the L8 series rifles were no different from the original No. 4 rifles, except for the new barrel (which still retained the original No.4 rifle bayonet lugs) and magazine.[78] The L8 series of rifles consisted of L8A1 rifles (converted No.4 Mk2 rifles), L8A2 rifles (converted No.4 Mk1/2 rifles), L8A3 rifles (converted No.4 Mk1/3 rifles), L8A4 rifles (converted No.4 Mk1 rifles), and L8A5 rifles (converted No.4 Mk1* rifles).
|
|
|
|
|
A square 10
Special Member
Donating Member Joined: December 12 2006 Location: MN , USA Status: Online Points: 16998 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: December 03 2020 at 4:01pm |
|
i had read that once long ago but it took your post to pull that memory from its dusty drawer ,
|
|
|
|
|
The Armourer
Senior Member
Joined: June 23 2019 Location: Y Felinhelli Status: Offline Points: 1246 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: December 04 2020 at 1:06am |
|
And of course the L8 project was quietly dropped as the barrels were 'too-whippy' and resulting in inaccuracy and 'shot-gun' like bullet spread. That's why the L39, L42 & Enforcer went for much heavier barrels. I'll hunt for some 'official' views on the L8 trials - I.m sure I have them somewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
britrifles
Senior Member
Joined: February 03 2018 Location: Georgia, USA Status: Offline Points: 8404 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: December 04 2020 at 6:46am |
|
Armourer, I’d be very interested in seeing any info you can dig up on the L8 trials.
My Dad got out of DCRA competitive shooting right at the time they were switching over to the 7.62 barrels. He never fired his DCRA conversion, but one of his DCRA friends did quite a bit. They all complained about poor grouping, particularly at short ranges. Nothing they did seemed to cure the problem (different bedding methods, welding a steel reinforcing strap to the action body, etc.). I’ve got both of these converted rifles and they shoot great with handloads.
I have several articles published in the NRA American Rifleman magazine from the 1960’s by Maj. E.G.B Reynolds on various 7.62 conversion trials for SR(b) competition shooting. The complaint was large vertical dispersion, particularly at the shorter ranges. The end result was a change in the UK NRA Rules to allow the 4 lb target barrel for SR(b) match shooting. I’m convinced that much of the problem experienced was poor quality ammunition, using “run of the mill” 147 gr NATO ball. Both of my conversions with 2 lb standard service weight barrels shoot very well, as good or better than the .303, with handloads. I think Gossic has found the same thing. Reynolds caught on to this after the heavy barrel was allowed and had additional trials run at Bisley at 200 and 900 yards using several different types of ammunition including Norwegian Raufoss match ammunition. Unfortunately, they did not test fire the standard service weight barrels with the match grade ammo, only the heavy barrels. If they had, I’m sure they would have found the rifles performed very well. |
|
|
|
|
Goosic
Senior Member
Joined: September 12 2017 Location: Phoenix Arizona Status: Offline Points: 8842 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: December 04 2020 at 6:47am |
I find it both interesting and amusing that the project was dropped because the barrels were,"too whippy." The L8 barrels are identical in shape and size as the 303 barrels yet, also have a smaller bore diameter which in comparison would make them," less whippy." I have a 2A1 barrel screwed onto a No4 reciever and that rifle is is capable of MOA groups without any noticable whip affect at all. I followed Charnwood's procedures on refitting a 2A1 barrel on a No5 reciever with the same results as my No4 as well. So much for the,"Wandering Zero" with that rifle. The Official Views expressed during the L8 series project would only benefit the historians of today's age with the knowledge of days past as to the excuse/reasoning for the dropping of said project and nothing more. I love it when I hear topics regarding an Enfield rifle that use words like,"whippy or wandering zeroes. It gives me a reason to improve upon the notated design flaw and work it to my advantage by creating an improved version that the Old School personnel at the MOD would huff and thumb their nose at. The simple irony to the,"too-whippy" reference is that Ishapore just kept cranking out 2A/2A1 rifles with those buggy whip barrels regardless. I also enjoy every aspect of your by the book procedures that you supply The Armourer. I gives me the necessary information I need to correct the mistakes made by the original creator of said procedures in some cases.
|
|
|
|
|
Goosic
Senior Member
Joined: September 12 2017 Location: Phoenix Arizona Status: Offline Points: 8842 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: December 04 2020 at 9:12pm |
Quote from one Peter Laidler 06-24-2011 concerning barrel harmonics with the L8 series. That's interesting but I suspect that there must be a lot more to it than that. I'm not a ballistician but my understanding of the trial paperwork was that the harmonics of the 7.62mm NATO round (as was then.....) was such that the disasterous accuracy might be solved if the barrels were muzzle bound. This would alleviate the problem which was that the muzzle vibrations would whip vbiolently and it was this whip that sent the bullets, well......, anywhere really. Centre beding would just exaggerate the condition..........yes?
|
|
|
|
|
Goosic
Senior Member
Joined: September 12 2017 Location: Phoenix Arizona Status: Offline Points: 8842 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: December 04 2020 at 9:16pm |
|
According to Laidler, no one attempted to bed the barrel at the muzzle.
|
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
Page 12> |
| Tweet |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
The Armourer wrote: