I would now oil the bore, perhaps with Kroil or something similar. Then dry patch out the bore right before you shoot it.

I believe much of this depends on the environmental conditions in which the rifle is stored. If humidity is above 50%, there is little hope to prevent pitting unless all fouling is removed and the bore is protected by a preserving oil or grease.

On a very good barrel, like the BSA ball burnished barrel on my Fulton No. 4, it always shot great clean. The first round out of a clean cold bore was right in the group. My sighter shots would be in the X ring, so I usually would tell the scorer verifier that I was “going for score” after my second sighter even though the vintage matches allow 5 sighters.  But, on a badly pitted barrel, I believe some amount of fouling is needed to fill in the pits and smooth the rough spots. But, once fouling builds up again, accuracy will suffer. Worse than that, corrosion can begin again under the copper and hard carbon fouling if left in the bore for extended periods. 

This much I do know. A Benchrest shooter who does not meticulously clean the bore will never win a match. I’d say the same is true for F-Class shooters. They know that a clean smooth bore is absolutely critical to maintaining accuracy. Barrels are considered to be consumables. Once a drop in accuracy is detected, the barrel gets replaced. That is certainly true for my AR Service Rifle. I have retired two barrels within one year of shooting.  The two Bartlein barrels that I carefully monitor and clean with JB about every 400 rounds are going strong after about 3000 rounds on each. 

It’s not as obvious on a typical WWII service rifle because we don’t expect sub-MOA accuracy. 

I know a few service rifle shooters who are not as particular about barrel cleaning, but I’ve also seen them shoot poorly at times and wonder what is wrong.  The winners keep their rifles in top shape and bores are kept clean. 

This barrel is every bit as good as any new production Krieger or Bartlien barrel I’ve seen. Much better than war time .303 production. 

The throat: 

About 3 inches forward of the chamber, the rest of the bore looks just like this:

The rifle is a No. 4 Mk 2 PF 212, and in pristine condition.   However, Dad’s shooting friend was struggling to get this rifle to group well. His last experiment was to completely bed the full length of the barrel in glass fiber. If only he knew that the problem everyone was struggling with in the mid 1960’s was sub-standard 7.62 NATO Ball ammo that was entirely the cause of indifferent to poor grouping.  I’ve shot this rifle at 200 and 300 yards with my standard match load (168 SMK and 40.0 gr Varget) and it shoots fantastic, even with the fully bedded forend.  

I’ve now oiled the bore well and put the rifle away.  At some point, I’ll bring it out and test it at long range (800 and 1000 yds).

In 1965, the DCRA conversion done by Long Branch cost $30.00.  That included installing a new Long Branch made 7.62 barrel, adjusting head space as required and proof testing the rifle. I think that even included shipping costs back to the member. 

I have two of these rifles, and the one I have been shooting at long range I have posted the results on the 7.62 Enfield Forum. It’s my best shooting No. 4 rifle. This second DCRA I have not shot enough to know if it’s as good or better than my primary DCRA.

What I don’t know is how the rifling was made, I suspect it is cut or broached, not likely button rifled.  Not hammer forged either.  So, it should be good for perhaps 8,000 rounds before accuracy begins to fall off.  

I guess if you are relying on the Mk 1 eyeball a shiny bore screams "job well done".  I was shocked at how back my shiny bore was when I scoped it. 

It’s interesting to see the difference in the bore condition of my two DCRA rifles that were rebarreled about the same time. Dad shot only 5 or 10 rounds thru his, yet it formed mild pitting in the grooves.  His friends rifle was shot more but that bore is pristine.  Perhaps the difference was the storage environment and not the method it was cleaned.  They lived perhaps 10 miles apart, Dads rifles were kept in the basement and no air conditioning in the house. Don’t know where his friend kept his rifle. 

I’ll bet some of us would rather not know what the bore looks like, and perhaps don’t care as long as it shoots well. Then, there are collectors and bore condition does not matter at all. 

Long story behind this, but I spun the BSA Barrel back onto my Fulton No. 4 Mk 1/3 (removing the new Criterion barrel) and shot it today. I had cleaned it well before I had put the BSA barrel away. After 40 rounds it was heavily fouled. This barrel has upwards of 10,000 rounds thru it, fired by me.  I cleaned it with Bore Tech Eliminator, and it was loaded with copper (evidenced by the blue on these patches). 

Here is what the bore looked like AFTER cleaning with Eliminator:

About 1 inch forward of the chamber. Note the significant firecracking. Also heavy carbon in the grooves that Eliminator did not remove. 

10 inches down the bore. The rest of the bore looks like this, no corrosion pitting.  

When barrels get this rough, fouling builds very quickly. Interesting enough, the first five shots I fired today grouped within 1 MOA. 10 shot groups then opened up to 2 to 3 MOA (shot prone in sling with Mk 1 service issue back sight). 

When I got the rifle, the BSA barrel was new as installed by Fultons. I did not understand the importance of barrel break in nor did I have a borescope. All I used to clean the bore was Hoppes 9 for the first several thousand rounds.  I could see copper building up at the muzzle, so bought the Outers Foul Out system that removed the copper. Later I learned about Sweets copper solvent, and used that. 

My DCRA 7.62 was an entirely different story. It only had about 10 rounds fired when I got the rifle, but I understood the importance of barrel break in and copper removal. This barrel now has about 2200 rounds thru it and it remains quite clean and very little copper in the bore. Routine cleaning with Hoppes 9 is sufficient with occasional cleaning with JB.

Rule of thumb:

If it British made MkVII its guaranteed corrosive primed & Errosive cordite.

A "z"suffix" is nitro powder, but may still be corrosive primed.

Canadian is a mix and match as mentioned.

South African "303" is corrosive & errosive.

South African "R1M3Z" is not.

Doesn’t look like it took much carbon out by the looks of the patches, but it did when looking with the borescope.

 While I am all for keeping your rifle clean and the bore unobstructed with unnecessary carbon and copper. I learned that a well worn rifle barrel is best left alone. In some instances, overcleaning the rifling on a well used and worn barrel can significantly reduce the accuracy...

The problem with rough or neglected bores is that it begins to strip copper off in lumps. Then accuracy goes to crap. The best approach I believe is to keep a new barrel clean, don’t let it build up with carbon and copper. Proper break in really helps with easy cleaning. Different problem if you’re trying to get an old shot out barrel to shoot decent. 

Living in a very dry climate like Goosic does removes the environmental factors that can destroy a barrel that is not kept clean of fouling.  Not cleaning barrels in humid environments (like southern Ontario or the UK where home air conditioning is not that common) is asking for trouble. 

That's another thing I like about the M-Pro, you can leave the bore cleaner in permanently,like Hoppes #9.

Its a long slow steady form of deep cleaning with no physical scrubbing.

I agree, it here is no need to clean to bare steel every time, I think that is overdoing it unless your shooting bench rest.  My regular routine with good barrels is to just clean with Hoppes 9 letting soak overnight.  

Badly pitted barrels that quickly build up fouling you have to figure out what works best. The slow soak method with Hoppes might be best as it will leave some amount of copper and carbon in the bore. 

I’m curious why you think the TZ sight is superior to the 5C?

I see 9 shots on the target, do you not include all the shots when determining the size of the group? Those 9 look to have grouped in under 2 MOA which is exceptional for a No. 4 with factory ammo. 

Shimming the mount is pretty normal.

Theres no "gauging requirement" on the side wall of the receiver!

I agree the TZ is a bit nicer.

That's the result of the infamous "Enfield Inch"

Bullet spin drift is fairly insignificant out to 1000 yards (about 1 MOA at 1000x).  Beyond that, it begins to take a significant effect.

By the way, you will get significant lateral aiming errors if you cant the rifle to one side or the other, especially at long range. The trick is to hold the rifle the same way every shot, to within +/- a few degrees.  Easier to do with a scope, but can be done with irons too. 

It really wasn't.

If you don't shim it for vertical (& horizontal) alignment as you make elevation or windage adjustments you'll also be applying a little of the opposite adjustment also because of the canting.

Look back at the history & you'll se the PH5 series stared out with the PH5A, with the SMLE mount, which had the "long dog leg" to mount to the early bolt-mounted safety mounting holes. The instructions even say to "heat & bend, or shim" to fit to an non-gauged area (the butt socket). That was in turn a development of the earlier No9 series!

The 5C was essentially a 5A with a different mounting bracket for the No4 series, & carried the "shim to fit" legacy from its parent version. Its also why "matching" sight arms & bases are a big deal This was Victorian era hand-fitting of precision parts, like the dovetail between arm & base, not modern "plug & Play"

There were a lot of "legacy" features in the development of the series. That was a big part of the fascination with those older target sights!