Enfield No4 Chassis Project

[Blastattack]

I am designing and intend to make a stock to fit an Enfield No4, but I am having trouble understanding the mechanics of how the forestock actually mates with the receiver. I am familiar with the concept of the draws, the small angled protrusion where the magazine release and sear pivots are, and that it pushes the stock back towards the wrist. What I do not understand is the forestock is not supposed to touch the wrist, but what is preventing that from occurring? Is the front screw boss also bearing on the wood, creating tension between itself and the draws and preventing the stock from moving backward?

The intended design is a sort of chassis system where the draws can be adjusted, either up and down or fore and aft to account for differences between rifles. Is this sufficient, or do I need to make an adjustable "socket" for the receiver screw boss as well? How much clearance should there be between the rear of the forestock and the wrist socket?

The main chassis will be machined from aluminum and I intend to make the draws either from hardened steel or aluminum. What's better? Does it really matter, seeing as the originals are wood?

I've already designed a rear stock adapter, because why not go full out?

 

[Blastattack]

Behold! A stock!



Admittedly one that doesn’t fit very well (hence the topic of the thread), but miraculous that it fits at all, especially on the first attempt.

Also it’s completely unsculpted, obviously. More like an I leather brick than an actual stock, but that’s where all things start, as big square bricks, ready to be whittled into something marvelous. I’m thinking Sage EBR kind of styling? Something minimalist, but also form fitting and functional.

 

[Snider shooter]

Stock contact on the wrist you want none or full contact. You don’t want partial, such as one side making hard contact and the other with none. When I rebuild them I always try for full contact as I found accuracy to be better.

 

[Blastattack]

Interesting.

Stock contact on the wrist you want none or full contact. You don’t want partial, such as one side making hard contact and the other with none. When I rebuild them I always try for full contact as I found accuracy to be better.

Interesting. I’ll design it so the user can choose what they prefer. Bedding could also be done for the “perfect” fit. The draws in the stock will be adjustable through the magazine well, and be I intend to secure them with side bolts (to take the place of the MK2 rear screw that prevents the rear of the stock from splaying, or the MKI solid back) and through the bottom. Four bolts into hardened steel should to the trick. I’ll also make the counterbore area for the front action screw a movable piece as well. Set screw adjustable and secured into the chassis.

 

[bearhunter]

Many decades back, before composites were commonly used for making stocks, several enterprising smiths and tinkerers were "modifying" the receivers by machining the butt sockets off the No 4s and mounting them into hand inletted, wood stocks in the conventional "one piece" style.

They did this to alleviate the negative issues which are inherent to the two piece stock system incorporated in the Lee Enfield design.

These issues were still present with the one piece designs, but they weren't nearly as bad and with decent bedding composites, which were just coming into use at the time, the stock/receiver fit could be molded to a close to perfect union.

Many purists believe it's heresy to glass bed the Lee Enfield actions into their stocks, especially at the ways.

I agree with them when it applies to "collectible" rifles, but to shooter grade or "reassembled" rifles this just doesn't make good sense.

The Lee Enfield's stock design is quite finicky and needs to be "right" for all sorts of functions, including trigger/sear contact, pressure on the receiver to ensure contact with the ways, barrel harmonics, etc.

There is a misconsception out there that the Lee Enfield fore end stock must produce 4-6 pounds of contact on the barrel close the tip of the fore end. This comes from the initial military design and traditional bedding practices for field issue rifles in mass quantities.

The Australians, and maybe others went so far as to use metal shims, screwed to the ways to keep their rifles accurate as they became "worn in" so they required less maintenance in the field and at the armories.

India, took the "UK approved fore end screw" which was determined to be acceptable as a stop gap repair for a cracked fore end, until it could be replaced and just put that screw in every new stock they produced for No1, No4 and No5 rifles, as well as the rifles they had on hand, so the stocks wouldn't crack in the first place.

I like what you're doing in your pics and that should be an interesting rifle when it's finished.

However, IMHO, if you securely composite bed that fore stock, which I assume is either a mock up or a fore stock of some sort is going to be added, it should shoot to decreed accuracy standards or better.

Trigger/sear fitment might give you some issues, which are often resolved with the King Screw spacer. By eliminating the full length fore end, you are creating a whole different set of parameters, but all of them can easily be rectified with some due diligence, trial and error.

 

[Blastattack]

Many decades back, before composites were commonly used for making stocks, several enterprising smiths and tinkerers were "modifying" the receivers by machining the butt sockets off the No 4s and mounting them into hand inletted, wood stocks in the conventional "one piece" style.

They did this to alleviate the negative issues which are inherent to the two piece stock system incorporated in the Lee Enfield design.

These issues were still present with the one piece designs, but they weren't nearly as bad and with decent bedding composites, which were just coming into use at the time, the stock/receiver fit could be molded to a close to perfect union.

Many purists believe it's heresy to glass bed the Lee Enfield actions into their stocks, especially at the ways.

I agree with them when it applies to "collectible" rifles, but to shooter grade or "reassembled" rifles this just doesn't make good sense.

The Lee Enfield's stock design is quite finicky and needs to be "right" for all sorts of functions, including trigger/sear contact, pressure on the receiver to ensure contact with the ways, barrel harmonics, etc.

There is a misconsception out there that the Lee Enfield fore end stock must produce 4-6 pounds of contact on the barrel close the tip of the fore end. This comes from the initial military design and traditional bedding practices for field issue rifles in mass quantities.

The Australians, and maybe others went so far as to use metal shims, screwed to the ways to keep their rifles accurate as they became "worn in" so they required less maintenance in the field and at the armories.

India, took the "UK approved fore end screw" which was determined to be acceptable as a stop gap repair for a cracked fore end, until it could be replaced and just put that screw in every new stock they produced for No1, No4 and No5 rifles, as well as the rifles they had on hand, so the stocks wouldn't crack in the first place.

I like what you're doing in your pics and that should be an interesting rifle when it's finished.

However, IMHO, if you securely composite bed that fore stock, which I assume is either a mock up or a fore stock of some sort is going to be added, it should shoot to decreed accuracy standards or better.

Trigger/sear fitment might give you some issues, which are often resolved with the King Screw spacer. By eliminating the full length fore end, you are creating a whole different set of parameters, but all of them can easily be rectified with some due diligence, trial and error.

Thank you for the info. The picture of the “forestock” is just for 3D printing and testing the inletting fit. I intend to make some version of a “full length” forestock that would securely attach. One option is to use either AR15 or Ar10 handguards , and install a tensioning pillar inside. Another option is a frame that extends from the front of the chassis and has an adjustable tension mechanism to apply upward pressure either at the mid point or closer to the front sight. Said frame can have a more traditional U shaped forend protecting it to allow for attachment of accessories, bipods etc. I’m leaning towards using an AR forend for simplicity, and less large parts for me to have made.

 

[bearhunter]

Your biggest issue to overcome, with the types of fore ends you're describing will be proper trigger/sear contact.

That will something for you to look at, seeing as you're 3-D printing the fore end.

The one thing I've always "intended" to do but never bothered with, other than thinking about it is incorporating an easily adjustable "King Screw" system to adjust the trigger/sear system, which is very functional and simple, to something which suits my personal "feel" on the trigger.

It was just never important enough or necessary to do this, once the MkII types with the hung from receiver triggers became available.

My "collectible" rifles are now sold off for "someone else" to take care of, and my rifles are all "shooter grade" types, which have been reassembled to their past military appearance. All of them have been glass bedded to originally apply ten pounds of upward fore end pressure on the barrel, then rasped down, until the rifle shoots acceptably.

I haven't shot in matches for years. My eyes just won't compete with younger eyes, either with a scope or iron sights. Such is life.

If I were attempting the project you're presently shaping out, the first issue I would have would be the suitability, because of the initial design of the Lee Enfield, to accept the type of fore end you describe, in a manner that it can't touch the barrel.

This action "flexes" a lot, even with original pressures created by Milspec 303 Brit pressure parameters. This is what causes the constant issues with wear on the ways.

If you use the fore end area that is in contact with the ways as a base to mount your "cage" type shroud, you're going to exert influences on the ways, which means they need to be very "solid" or they will wear faster than you're used to.

This was expected over a century back, when the Lee Enfield rifles first came onto the markets. People understood it was an issue and the steps necessary to "fix" the issues. They either accepted it or bought other designs, which required less finicky maintenance.

People today are not accustomed to the issues created by such things, and apply what they know or think they know to that old tec.

Like I said, I like what you're doing, but you need to find ways to apply new tec to old tec designs in a reliable/functioning manner.

To do that, you need to understand how the original designers came up with what they did and understand why they modified their original designs.

I can see your modification being very reliable and functional, both on the range and in the field. Good on you.

 

[Blastattack]

Thank you for the praise and information. The 3D printing is strictly for prototyping. The final product will be machined from aluminum, with some machined steel inserts such as the draws area and the king screw socket/counterbore.

Your biggest issue to overcome, with the types of fore ends you're describing will be proper trigger/sear contact.

That will something for you to look at, seeing as you're 3-D printing the fore end.

The one thing I've always "intended" to do but never bothered with, other than thinking about it is incorporating an easily adjustable "King Screw" system to adjust the trigger/sear system, which is very functional and simple, to something which suits my personal "feel" on the trigger.

It was just never important enough or necessary to do this, once the MkII types with the hung from receiver triggers became available.

My "collectible" rifles are now sold off for "someone else" to take care of, and my rifles are all "shooter grade" types, which have been reassembled to their past military appearance. All of them have been glass bedded to originally apply ten pounds of upward fore end pressure on the barrel, then rasped down, until the rifle shoots acceptably.

I haven't shot in matches for years. My eyes just won't compete with younger eyes, either with a scope or iron sights. Such is life.

If I were attempting the project you're presently shaping out, the first issue I would have would be the suitability, because of the initial design of the Lee Enfield, to accept the type of fore end you describe, in a manner that it can't touch the barrel.

This action "flexes" a lot, even with original pressures created by Milspec 303 Brit pressure parameters. This is what causes the constant issues with wear on the ways.

If you use the fore end area that is in contact with the ways as a base to mount your "cage" type shroud, you're going to exert influences on the ways, which means they need to be very "solid" or they will wear faster than you're used to.

This was expected over a century back, when the Lee Enfield rifles first came onto the markets. People understood it was an issue and the steps necessary to "fix" the issues. They either accepted it or bought other designs, which required less finicky maintenance.

People today are not accustomed to the issues created by such things, and apply what they know or think they know to that old tec.

Like I said, I like what you're doing, but you need to find ways to apply new tec to old tec designs in a reliable/functioning manner.

To do that, you need to understand how the original designers came up with what they did and understand why they modified their original designs.

I can see your modification being very reliable and functional, both on the range and in the field. Good on you.

 

[hollowedpoint]

I’m keeping an eye on this, I grew up on ole 303’s and wouldn’t mind to make the older folks gasp! Lol

 

[bearhunter]

I’m keeping an eye on this, I grew up on ole 303’s and wouldn’t mind to make the older folks gasp! Lol

You might make some of the "purist" types gasp, but most of us "old folks" grew up with several different variants of Lee Enfield rifles and made all sorts of alterations to them to make them more appropriate for hunting, in the eyes of people who stated "those rifles were built for war, not hunting"

I've seen them cut down to make very powerful but very nice handguns, "trapper" style rifles with 12 inch barrels, beautiful new stocks, modified receivers to make them fit one piece, conventional stocks and all sorts of "BUBBA" just because everyone tinkered with everything, to make it "better".

I really like to see people doing this such as what the OP is describing. Who knows how it will work out.

The thing about these rifles is they usually work very well when bore conditions and dimensions are EXC.

Most tinkerers are stuck with what they have on hand and don't bother to make sure they have something to work with, which will be able to perform in the manner required.

 

[Blastattack]

No pictures for now, but another prototype of the buttstock adapter has come off the printer. The last one had excellent fit, but I was not happy with the angle and height of it. There is a delicate balance of all the dimensions at play in order to achieve the desired goals, and be able to install the adapter. The last adapter had a 5 degree downward tilt, to offer better access to the attachment bolt. Some changes have allowed me to make stock line parallel to the bore, while still permitting easy access to the bolt. I know realize I measured the socket angle incorrectly, and the current prototype actually tilts ever-so-slightly upwards. Beneficial for cheekslap during recoil, but not the most appealing engineering solution. Parallel is more universal. The stock height to sight height seems perfect for me, but I will alter it to be identical to the AR 15. I would rather people need a cheek riser or have their head up slightly than not being able to get low enough to use the sights.. Use of a scope will still likely require an elevated cheek rest, but I imagine the majority of stock adapters will end up on iron sight only rifles.

 

[bearhunter]

The main point of "customizing" a firearm is to make it preferentially suitable for the person shooting it. Not anyone else.

If the slight "upward" angle suits your style of shooting and handles recoil better, leave it alone.

That's why shotgunners get their stocks warped or have adjustable risers, stock extensions installed.

 

[OkayShooter]

Nice. I'd be interested in the stock adapter. The 45 and 9mm Lee would liked this.

 

[Blastattack]

Nice. I'd be interested in the stock adapter. The 45 and 9mm Lee would liked this.

I’ll let everyone know when that is happening. I figured there would be some neat applications for it.

9mm Lee? Very cool. I’ve been wanting to do that too, which is one reason for this project. Using 1911 magazines? I want to use Colt AR9 10 rounders, if possible.

 

[OkayShooter]

I’ll let everyone know when that is happening. I figured there would be some neat applications for it.

9mm Lee? Very cool. I’ve been wanting to do that too, which is one reason for this project. Using 1911 magazines? I want to use Colt AR9 10 rounders, if possible.

Yeah I originally wanted to use an AR FF tube on it, with a M4 stock and pistol grip.

Getting it to feed from 9mm mags was hard and I gave up, picked up a 45acp one and it functions way better.

Uzi mags we thought, so it could be top loaded and not worry about feed angles. But theyre a bit fat and was even longer distance for the bullet to travel to chamber.

 

[R711]

If you can find one, the South African govt/market sold a R4/5 stock adapter for the No.4. It was made because farmers were getting raided and killed. It was a short run as they decided that civilians could own the semi-auto L4/5 rifles. I know one of the stocks made it into Canada as it was up for auction a couple of years ago

 

[Blastattack]

Yeah I originally wanted to use an AR FF tube on it, with a M4 stock and pistol grip.

Getting it to feed from 9mm mags was hard and I gave up, picked up a 45acp one and it functions way better.

Uzi mags we thought, so it could be top loaded and not worry about feed angles. But theyre a bit fat and was even longer distance for the bullet to travel to chamber.

If I did a 9mm, or other conversion, it would likely involve shortening the bolt and making a new bolt head, similar to those found on some of the British rimfire conversions. An involved project, but a very cool one.

 

[OkayShooter]

If I did a 9mm, or other conversion, it would likely involve shortening the bolt and making a new bolt head, similar to those found on some of the British rimfire conversions. An involved project, but a very cool one.

Alot of the problem I seen in testing was the 9mm would flip up out of the bolt head, before it chambered, so it would try and chamber sideways.. So a sleeve over could prevent it.

As even a flat plate inside the reciever the bolt would guide it into the chamber.

A CGNer successfully made a 9mm Lee work without mod to the bolt length.

If when I get the Lee 9mm back from getting a new reciever, I may try my 1911 adapter with it and over head sleeve.

 

[55recce]

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.

 

[Blastattack]

Alot of the problem I seen in testing was the 9mm would flip up out of the bolt head, before it chambered, so it would try and chamber sideways.. So a sleeve over could prevent it.

As even a flat plate inside the reciever the bolt would guide it into the chamber.

A CGNer successfully made a 9mm Lee work without mod to the bolt length.

If when I get the Lee 9mm back from getting a new reciever, I may try my 1911 adapter with it and over head sleeve.

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.