Battling inner Demons and need assistance
Printed From: Enfield-Rifles.com
Category: Enfields
Forum Name: After Market Enfields
Forum Description: What have you done to that Enfield??
URL: http://www.enfield-rifles.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=10990
Printed Date: March 26 2026 at 7:10pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.07 - https://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Battling inner Demons and need assistance
Posted By: Goosic
Subject: Battling inner Demons and need assistance
Date Posted: 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 🤢
|
Replies:
Posted By: Shamu
Date 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) |
Posted By: Goosic
Date Posted: December 03 2020 at 11:13am
| I will not know that definitively until the barrel arrives in the next few days. |
Posted By: Zed
Date 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! |
Posted By: Goosic
Date 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? |
Posted By: Zed
Date 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! |
Posted By: Goosic
Date Posted: December 03 2020 at 1:19pm
| I will double check the diameter when the barrel gets here. |
Posted By: britrifles
Date 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. |
Posted By: A square 10
Date Posted: December 03 2020 at 3:22pm
| im in the same thinking of leaving it , just my 2 cents tho |
Posted By: Goosic
Date 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 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Government" rel="nofollow - British Government and the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Defence_%28United_Kingdom%29" rel="nofollow - Ministry of Defence converted a number of Lee–Enfield No. 4 rifles to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62%C3%9751mm_NATO" rel="nofollow - 7.62×51mm NATO as part of a programme to retain the Lee–Enfield as a reserve weapon.[ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed" rel="nofollow - 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 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.303_British" rel="nofollow - .303 British magazines. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee%E2%80%93Enfield#cite_note-FOOTNOTESkennerton2007255%E2%80%93259-77" rel="nofollow - [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. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee%E2%80%93Enfield#cite_note-FOOTNOTESkennerton2007255%E2%80%93260-78" rel="nofollow - [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).
|
Posted By: A square 10
Date 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 , |
Posted By: The Armourer
Date 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.
|
Posted By: britrifles
Date 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. |
Posted By: Goosic
Date 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.
|
The Armourer wrote:Posted By: Goosic
Date 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?
|
Posted By: Goosic
Date Posted: December 04 2020 at 9:16pm
|
According to Laidler, no one attempted to bed the barrel at the muzzle. |
Posted By: britrifles
Date 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. |
Posted By: Goosic
Date 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?
|
Posted By: Shamu
Date 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) |
Posted By: Shamu
Date 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) |
Posted By: britrifles
Date 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.  |
Posted By: britrifles
Date 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.
|
Posted By: A square 10
Date 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 |