Just heard from the Smith. Apparently the stock was so soaked in oil that the bedding wouldn't take and they had to do the job 5x to get it to work out correctly. Pretty happy I didn't try to do that myself ..... a bit concerned about what the bill is gonna be for all that work.
LE No 4 Bedding
- Thread starter I Dont Care About You
- Start date
There are non-gunsmithing mounts for this that do nothing to the rifle that can't be easily removed with a few screws. I have one such on a No4 Mk 2. Doesn't improve the rifle's accuracy, but certainly helps me see the target better. - dan
Dan, we all know about the "no gunsmithing" mounts and you're right, they don't make the rifle more accurate. My eyes have similar issues.
No. 4 rifles have always been bedded when enhanced accuracy, stability and consistency were desired. Originally it required skill, transfer compound, chisels, scrapers, etc. Sometimes wooden inserts were glued in.
Rather than fitting the barreled action to the wood, a compound like Acraglas was being used fifty and more years ago. A bottle of whisky could be an incentive to get an armourer to glass bed a competition rifle.
The biggest advantage to use of a synthetic compound over skilled fitting of wood to metal was that the rifle might stay tuned up longer and be less sensitive to changes in humidity, etc.
No. 4s disappeared from competitive target shooting when issue ball was no longer available and quality target loads became standard. A properly tuned Lee Enfield could outshoot a more modern target rifle at long range if Issue ball were used. With target grade ammunition the reverse was true.
Anyway, the areas of the forend that contact the metal can be stabilized with bedding compound. If the original fit wasn't so good, the rifle might shoot better. If it already shot well, it might continue to shoot well for a longer period.
If the foend was so oil soaked that it took 5 tries to get the bedding compound to take, I wonder if a replacement forend might not have been a good idea.
Rather than fitting the barreled action to the wood, a compound like Acraglas was being used fifty and more years ago. A bottle of whisky could be an incentive to get an armourer to glass bed a competition rifle.
The biggest advantage to use of a synthetic compound over skilled fitting of wood to metal was that the rifle might stay tuned up longer and be less sensitive to changes in humidity, etc.
No. 4s disappeared from competitive target shooting when issue ball was no longer available and quality target loads became standard. A properly tuned Lee Enfield could outshoot a more modern target rifle at long range if Issue ball were used. With target grade ammunition the reverse was true.
Anyway, the areas of the forend that contact the metal can be stabilized with bedding compound. If the original fit wasn't so good, the rifle might shoot better. If it already shot well, it might continue to shoot well for a longer period.
If the foend was so oil soaked that it took 5 tries to get the bedding compound to take, I wonder if a replacement forend might not have been a good idea.
maple_leaf_eh
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
If the foreend was so badly soaked with oil, I doubt the gun shop attempted to draw the oil out before the workers slathered up the Bisonite.
Linseed oil on the outside is not a bad thing, but mineral oil and solvents on the inside are a problem. Whenever I've received a grubby dirty rifle, one of my first steps is to spray it with engine degreaser and scrub the fouled spots with a bristle brush under scalding hot water. Works for the metal and the wood. Be sure to reapply the machine oil because of flash rusting. It is much easier to inspect and decide when there isn't residue from 70 years of preservatives.
I take such stocks to the local car wash and blast as much of the crud away as possible, care being taken not to blow off pieces of wood in the process.
Then I switch over to the ''foaming brush'' which has a very strong, high detergent quality soap which is formulated to remove road tar that hasn't been in place for to long.
The soap at our car wash is fluorescent pink in color and it really cleans things right down to the non oil soaked wood underneath.
It takes a couple of weeks for the wood to dry enough to work on and refinish.
I've had to do a couple of stocks twice, because they were so badly soaked the oil just kept wicking out.
One of those stocks turned out well, the other was put on a dewatted display rifle and looks good but even after 5 years and several wipes, it's still to soft to be on a shooting rifle.
As tiriaq mentioned, sometimes heavily soaked stocks just can't be salvaged or brought back to usefulness.
Hopefully it all works out for you.
Trust me, this bedding job cost A LOT more than a bottle of whiskey.
I'm not building a target rifle. The rifle is what it is, which is a really nice, clean Irish Contract Mk2. I am happy for it to shoot as well as it can, with minimal work applied to it. The only reason I had the bedding done was the thing was at the Smith to have the scope mounted and having it done now saved me shipping it out and back again.
The shop doing the work was highly recommended by people on this forum. I'm not gonna name the shop, cause I don't want to start a pissing match, and I am confident they know what they are doing. I have no idea what prep work was done or not done and I'm not gonna surmise that which I don't know. I am going to trust that they did the job properly.
My rifle was not grubby. It is a barely used Irish Contract Mk2, that is / was clean as clean can be ... at least from the outside. I didn't pull the thing apart to look at its guts and I have no idea who "unboxed" and cleaned it originally.
IDCA, very likely they tried to wipe the cosmolene out of the stock, without having to use steam, solvents, etc. Can't say as I blame them for that.
I've seen lots of people try to get away with this but it's seldom successful. Those rifles were dipped in hot cosmolene purposely so it would get into every crevice for long term storage/preservation, which wasn't always as good as it should be.
I've seen storage facilities with holes in the roof, open sides, in bunkers filled with sand etc. Most of the No4 MkII rifles we saw, when the last of them came into Canada were likely stored very well.
I helped to unwrap a couple of hundred of them from some very extreme covering, which consisted of a tagged on the butt rifle completely saturated in cosmoline and stuffed into a heavy cloth bag which bore an identical tag, then the whole thing dipped in some sort of flexible wax.
They all had a slit cut into the side so the serial numbers could be checked against the tags, for the custom's manifests.
We didn't dismantle any of the rifles but did float them for about 20 minutes in a covered oscilating tank of heated Varsol.
The Varsol had to be changed for every batch of 50 rifles that were kept separate on immersion racks.
They actually came out better than I expected and only required a very quick wipe down of the outer surfaces.
I kept a couple of those rifles for my efforts, in lieu of payment.
When I got them home, they still had a lot of cosmolene under the wood, even the bolt hole in the butt had it. It took a lot of work to wipe out as much as I could with rags and even steam but it wasn't good enough IMHO, so they got the car wash treatment.
When those internals are first wiped down, they look OK but they aren't and that's likely the cause of the bedding issues they had.
Nice rifle by the way.
Much cleaner than the rifles that were issued for field use.
I've seen lots of people try to get away with this but it's seldom successful. Those rifles were dipped in hot cosmolene purposely so it would get into every crevice for long term storage/preservation, which wasn't always as good as it should be.
I've seen storage facilities with holes in the roof, open sides, in bunkers filled with sand etc. Most of the No4 MkII rifles we saw, when the last of them came into Canada were likely stored very well.
I helped to unwrap a couple of hundred of them from some very extreme covering, which consisted of a tagged on the butt rifle completely saturated in cosmoline and stuffed into a heavy cloth bag which bore an identical tag, then the whole thing dipped in some sort of flexible wax.
They all had a slit cut into the side so the serial numbers could be checked against the tags, for the custom's manifests.
We didn't dismantle any of the rifles but did float them for about 20 minutes in a covered oscilating tank of heated Varsol.
The Varsol had to be changed for every batch of 50 rifles that were kept separate on immersion racks.
They actually came out better than I expected and only required a very quick wipe down of the outer surfaces.
I kept a couple of those rifles for my efforts, in lieu of payment.
When I got them home, they still had a lot of cosmolene under the wood, even the bolt hole in the butt had it. It took a lot of work to wipe out as much as I could with rags and even steam but it wasn't good enough IMHO, so they got the car wash treatment.
When those internals are first wiped down, they look OK but they aren't and that's likely the cause of the bedding issues they had.
Nice rifle by the way.
Much cleaner than the rifles that were issued for field use.
Very good question.
IDCAY, I didn't read that you had done a before test to compare. Did I miss that??
Yea, it is a good question and no I didn't shoot the rifle for group before it got sent off to have the scope installed, so I am just gonna have to accept that the cost of the bedding was worthwhile, without actually knowing if that is true.
I got a reproduction No4(T) cheekpiece. If that worked for the WWII snipers then I'm sure I can make it work.
That repro cheek piece will work just fine and it's not going to devalue anything now. Just make sure you fit it properly, so it isn't to close to the wrist. Likely it will need to have some wood removed on the bottom to fit snugly and it may require some to be removed from the top, to get your eye in line with the center of the scope, which has parallax up the hoop and if you don't keep your eye centered, groups will not be good.
I've never had a No4 MKII, other than a few that were bubbaed that shot poorly.
The No4 MKII are likely the cream of the last of the Lee Enfield models made for military purposes.
The Australian AIA versions all shot very well but of course, they were built for the civilian markets and they had some definite changes that were quite good.
Many of us have built something that we just had to have and damn the cost.
At least you didn't start out with a clunker and try to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.
If you wait long enough and have an itch to sell it, you will very likely recoup your overall costs.
I saw a couple of No4 MKI ''faux" snipers, that looked very good on the outside.
I didn't bother to handle them, they were priced over $3000 and my interest waned instantly at that price.
Whatever, shoot it, because that's what you built it for and have fun.
I bought the Mk2 specifically because it was the last of the last and produced during peacetime, hopefully made to a better standard and not worn out from use or abuse.
I sent the cheekpiece off to the Smith to be mounted along w the scope. Once again, I'm making the assumption he knows what he's doing, cause I certainly don't, when it comes to LE rifles.
This wasn't a "damn the cost" build. I was offered a real No32 scope, at twice the price of the repro, but I just wanted something that I could shoot and also looked the part. As a hobby machinist, I realized there was no chance I'd get the scope pads mounted correctly, and while I have done bedding, the LE bedding job is complicated and fussy, so I decided to just pay for that rather than struggle with it. I prob could have saved a bunch on the Smith work but then I could have screwed it up in a hundred ways too.
I didn't do it for the investment but you are probably correct as I do see some repro's listed for considerably more than the ca. $3K this rifle is gonna cost me. While I am sure it would be possible to build a repro No4 T for less, it wouldn't be a ton less. It would also be possible to spend a ton more on a No4 T repro.
I sent the cheekpiece off to the Smith to be mounted along w the scope. Once again, I'm making the assumption he knows what he's doing, cause I certainly don't, when it comes to LE rifles.
This wasn't a "damn the cost" build. I was offered a real No32 scope, at twice the price of the repro, but I just wanted something that I could shoot and also looked the part. As a hobby machinist, I realized there was no chance I'd get the scope pads mounted correctly, and while I have done bedding, the LE bedding job is complicated and fussy, so I decided to just pay for that rather than struggle with it. I prob could have saved a bunch on the Smith work but then I could have screwed it up in a hundred ways too.
I didn't do it for the investment but you are probably correct as I do see some repro's listed for considerably more than the ca. $3K this rifle is gonna cost me. While I am sure it would be possible to build a repro No4 T for less, it wouldn't be a ton less. It would also be possible to spend a ton more on a No4 T repro.
Heard from the Smith, my No4 is heading home tomorrow. Can't hardly wait. Like most projects, this one took longer and cost more than I thought it would. However I am assured it has all been put together properly .... surely a hell of a lot better than if I had tried to do the work. I'd have screwed it up for sure.
It's not rocket science. However it does require a certain amount of patience and the ability to put up with taking the time to do it right.
Back in the day, they had jigs to locate where the holes were to be drilled for the pads. You can do something similar by screwing on the pads to your scope base and holding them against the receiver to locate the holes. Then, if you want to sweat them on by tinning ???????
It's something that requires practice on ''something else" before attempting the job on a rifle.
I've seen some really nice firearms made very ugly by bubba.
Good on you for knowing and admitting your limitations. Saves a lot of time/money in the long run.
I think for the original rifles, they milled the sides of the action to be straight and aligned with each other. I am told one of my pads was way out and had to be laser welded to build up thickness and then milled down to size. That kind of determination requires specialized knowledge and experience to get right.
I look at it this way: Five years from now I will barely remember the money I spent to get the job done right. But had I tried to save money and screwed it up, I'd remember that for the next 20 years or more.
I look at it this way: Five years from now I will barely remember the money I spent to get the job done right. But had I tried to save money and screwed it up, I'd remember that for the next 20 years or more.
This is true, but the holes were drilled and tapped first, then pads screwed down so the scope/bracket assembly could be colimated and if necessary, the flat side was milled the amount required for a simple zero set up for the scope horizontal turret. Not all of the receivers needed to be milled.
It's not a difficult job, just needs to be done right, just like most things we attempt in life.
