Enfield No4 Chassis Project

55recce said:
I admire the innovation but don't understand why. If I had a Model T Ford I would not be trying to stick a Tesla body on the chassis.
Click to expand...

A functional model T is a historic and extremely limited collectible, and there isn’t a single person in the world who would ever daily drive one. A sporterized Enfield has lost its relevant history and is no longer collectible, and many thousands of them are routinely used to this very day. Wood also degrades over time, and a lot of time has passed since these gun were new, or since parts were available for them. Adding modern equipment means the useful life can be extended when it otherwise would have ended. Also, why not? Why do people cut up classic cars to make Hot Rods? Why not. Because they can, and want to.
 
Blastattack said:
Does the cartridge come loose because of the completely flat bolt face? I figure adding a ring around the top edge at least would make it into a semi CRF type action.
Click to expand...
When I saw the video that inspired me. It was a flat bolt and functioned fine. I found out the guy was on CGN and he sent me pictures. Ejection will be your biggest issue. Then later on Roman said welded washers to the bolt cupping the case. Assumed it still functioned fine. Roman used a spring loaded wedge ejector.

Richard tried adding a AR style plunger for a ejector but the springs would get compressed and lacked the rebound to exit it from the reciever. But by that time I grinded and welded the reciever trying to make it feed, that reciever was no longer safe.

If you can prevent the round from flipping up. It will 99% of the time chamber fine. Next design I'm just doing a modified No4 mag with a ramp like a No7 mag.
 
There used to be a company in the USA that made scout rifle out of Enfields and they also had an adapter to fit ar carbine stocks. I think there was also a company in New Zealand that did something similar but I don't recall either companies name.
 
It comes loose because the extractor isn't long enough or the relief cut between the faces is too wide.

The design of the conversions was done around the 45 ACP case, and IMHO wasn't properly refined before marketing the product.

The magazines need to be closer to the breech and feed ramp.

The biggest issue is the action being out of proportion for the case.

I can see why the designers stopped where they did, they were trying to make up a kit which would work well with the least amount of modification in the average home workshop.

IMHO, they did a pretty good job.

I did see one bolt which had been ground on the underside, so it would pick up the case but allow the following case to rise about .050 behind the leading edge.

It was interesting because that's how the bolts on pistol caliber patrol rifles are designed. The mag lips on most pistol magazines don't have the right angle for perfect feed. Bolt clearance is part of the reason why, and the other reason is the wide gap between the center of the cartridge and the center of breech. It's quite a jump.
 
If I put my disassembled Remington-Lee M1879 beside my MLM I*, the differences are very small. On the Rem-Lee, the sear lugs actually were recoil lugs and fit into a recess in the one-piece stock that took the recoil. I think if I were going to try and really improve the rifle I'd go with the one-piece stock. Some think the two-piece stock for the LE originated with a desire to use up Martini blanks. I've never seen any period government explanation of why they took this route.
But, since they did, it's worth considering what was learned over the next 50 years about accuracy and functional issues. When a LE is fired the stresses tend to reduce the angle between butt and barreled action, which places a compressive stress on the forend. This isn't "recoil"-that is totally taken up by the butt-socket pressing against the butt and your shoulder. The barrels are thin and whippy and the bedding changed radically through time. Long Lees pretty much had full-length bedding of their heavier barrel. The Smle's had the inner band and, eventually, the spring-stud in the nosecap. The No. 4 was simpler, with float between reinforce and forend tip where up-pressure was definitely necessary for best accuracy. Target shooters have tried many tricks, but nothing was ever found that would dramatically improve accuracy over well set-up standard bedding. MOA accuracy is not hard to achieve. The forend acts as a long wooden spring and replacing all or part of it with much stiffer metal may not work with the barrels natural "harmonics."
Getting back to the rear end, wood is preferable for the application as it compresses enough to allow a perfect fit at the draws to be achieved. Even when using copper blocks (as the Aussies did) the metal is soft enough to form itself to the sear lugs as the forend is forced on (and then held in place by the triggerguard). To machine a hard metal for perfect fit will be interesting- and keep in mind that perfect fit at the draws must be achieved simultaneously with perfect fit at the barrel reinforce and at the forend tip.
To me, this kind of modification to a No. 4 would be like putting fuel injection on my'66 Triumph. Interesting, challenging, and possibly do-able, but completely pointless with a motor that doesn't even have oil filtration.

milsurpo
 
The design is nearly there. Im very happy with the transition between the socket and buffer sections, and the grip section, but some work needs to be done to the large block between the grip and trigger guard. I like the size and position, but it needs to more closely hug the profile of the trigger guard. I figure a bit of a curved to hug the guard and some scallops to this is out a bit. Grip to trigger height looks good to me too.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_6277.jpeg
    IMG_6277.jpeg
    208.8 KB · Views: 88
  • IMG_6276.jpeg
    IMG_6276.jpeg
    235.7 KB · Views: 89
  • IMG_6280.jpeg
    IMG_6280.jpeg
    232.3 KB · Views: 89
Could add a wedge to hug the trigger guard a little more, while keeping the machining basic for aesthetics. Or just angle back the sharp corner.
 
looks great. maybe the grip attachment portion could the thinned a bit to bring the grip closser to the trigger? looks like its a strech to get to the trigger. could just be how it looks tho
 
Beater said:
looks great. maybe the grip attachment portion could the thinned a bit to bring the grip closser to the trigger? looks like its a strech to get to the trigger. could just be how it looks tho
Click to expand...

Thank you. I measured a bunch of pistol-gripped guns and this is my result. The shortest distance measured between the trigger face and the backstrap curve area, with all 1st stage/takeup removed. The current setup is on the long side of these results, but I find the much shorter distances uncomfortable and my finger can wrap all the way around the triggers instead of tip pad on the trigger face. Note that the distance is identical to both the AR15 with MOE and the ACR. I would probably be comfortable shifting the grip 1/8" forward to be right in the middle. Also keep in mind that the design can't use backstrap grips to extend the trigger length, so I've moved the grip back to compensate.

Measurements are decimal representations of fractions, and accurate to +/-1/32"
FN1920
2.3​
WK180 w/ Magpul MIAD
2.33​
Bren 2 Factory
2.375​
Ruger MKII
2.4375​
CZ Shadow I
2.4375​
870 W/ MESA Adapter
2.475​
Bushmaster ACR
2.625​
AR15 w/ Magpul MOE
2.625​
Current Enfield w/ A2 Grip
2.625​
Vudoo w/ TT Flat + KRG
3.08​
 
Last edited:
I'm glad the subject of one-piece target rifle stocks was raised. Let's all admit one thing - the Lee Enfield family two-piece stock was an evolutionary deadend. No amount of voodoo magic with hornbeam plugs, or metal shims, or King Screw bedding wizardry will get past the inherent problems of two-piece stocks. If two-piece stocks worked, the benchrest guys would have gone there decades ago.

I once had a highly customized 7.62 conversion No.4 which even had the Regulated by Fultons stamp on the receiver ring. It had a hung trigger, no butt socket, two-bedding screws, No.4 stock "panels" that were bandsawed off an original stock and tastefully scabbed onto a central hardwood plank, and no magazine just a loading platform. Just about every part of that rifle had been worked over. I never shot it, but could see someone had lots of machine time invested.
 
Elwood Epps built quite a few of those rifles.

I had a very similar rifle, built by Mr Epps, while he worked in some mining camp as a machinist/mechanic.

Mr Epps sent a couple of his receivers and one complete rifle to Frank De Haas, who added the receivers to his collection and shot the rifle as a test bed for an article in one of his books, Bolt Action Rifles.

Mr De Haas books will not appeal to milsurp purists as he goes into a few details describing why or why not different milsurps are suitable for conversion to hunting rifles.

His assessments are pretty good, for the most part, and can steer the novice away from an expensive dead end project, before they start.

My book is the 1971 "revised" edition
 
bearhunter said:
It comes loose because the extractor isn't long enough or the relief cut between the faces is too wide.

The design of the conversions was done around the 45 ACP case, and IMHO wasn't properly refined before marketing the product.

The magazines need to be closer to the breech and feed ramp.

The biggest issue is the action being out of proportion for the case.

I can see why the designers stopped where they did, they were trying to make up a kit which would work well with the least amount of modification in the average home workshop.

IMHO, they did a pretty good job.

I did see one bolt which had been ground on the underside, so it would pick up the case but allow the following case to rise about .050 behind the leading edge.

It was interesting because that's how the bolts on pistol caliber patrol rifles are designed. The mag lips on most pistol magazines don't have the right angle for perfect feed. Bolt clearance is part of the reason why, and the other reason is the wide gap between the center of the cartridge and the center of breech. It's quite a jump.
Click to expand...
Yep, the fun of workin' on Lee Enfields. The Brits did the best job of sorting out the actions for use with pistol cartridges like the 45 ACP.
See Reverend Al's postings on the subject below.
Enfield no.4 conversion to 45ACP - Page 2
 
SHELL SHUCKER said:
Yep, the fun of workin' on Lee Enfields. The Brits did the best job of sorting out the actions for use with pistol cartridges like the 45 ACP.
See Reverend Al's postings on the subject below.
Enfield no.4 conversion to 45ACP - Page 2
Click to expand...
I found the 45 acp kit feeds perfect, Im even running swc. Just ejection is the issue. With 9mm it was getting the round from flipping out and wanting to chamber sideways that was the issue.
 
Years ago when Smellie (RIP) was still with us, he posted pics of a mystery LE sporter with a stock set that looked like an aluminum casting. Iirc the fit was bad, but it looked like a 1950's - 1960's artifact. Nobody could find any historical documentation on it, I think there were no foundry markings on it.

In WWII, Australia experimented with what looked like micarta or bakelite stocksets for their Lithgow SMLE's during the invasion crisis. These are obscure but well documented. So the concept of unconventional stock materials for the LE is not unknown, but up to now, seems to be a commercial and technical dead end.

I'd like to see the results, development is a lot of work.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom