- Location
- Southern Vancouver Island
I'm gettin' an urge to do one up in 50 AE meself to go along my LE's in 32-40 Win and 45 ACP.
Have fun with your project Blastattack. Hope she works well for ye.
Enfield No4 Chassis Project
- Thread starter Blastattack
- Start date
Have fun with your project Blastattack. Hope she works well for ye.
- Location
- Nova Scotia
I still want one in 357.I'm gettin' an urge to do one up in 50 AE meself to go along my LE's in 32-40 Win and 45 ACP.
Have fun with your project Blastattack. Hope she works well for ye.
just caught this thread.
I have an addiction to customizing non-collectable lee enfield no1 mk3 rifles, preferring sporterized Lithgows as starting platforms.
I've lost count of how many I have done now for myself , friends and few I've sold. I never get to carried away with the forstock other than to ensure proper fitment but I do perform simple bedding to ensure solid receiver contact. I remove the factory iron sights altogether and do away with the forend barrel sleep/screw as well as free float the barrels in the forestock. It's not a bench rest or target rifle concept, these become very handy hunting rfles with barrels trimmed to 19"
I like the concept of the stock adaptor for the AR type stocks and grips. I've made several stocks now for these rifles but in carbon fiber/fiberglass composite. Still a 2 piece design with all the same mounting points but a vast improvement over surplus wood.
I think the buttstock adaptor being designed here in this thread is a fantastic product in itself..... at least for us guys that like to customize these old rifles. I would purchase such an item as I lack the machines and experience operating them to make such a thing myself. A collapseable stock on my tree stand rifle would be pretty slick if you ask me. The more compact I can make the rifle , the better and something like this buttstock adaptor would accomplish that
following this project for sure.
I have an addiction to customizing non-collectable lee enfield no1 mk3 rifles, preferring sporterized Lithgows as starting platforms.
I've lost count of how many I have done now for myself , friends and few I've sold. I never get to carried away with the forstock other than to ensure proper fitment but I do perform simple bedding to ensure solid receiver contact. I remove the factory iron sights altogether and do away with the forend barrel sleep/screw as well as free float the barrels in the forestock. It's not a bench rest or target rifle concept, these become very handy hunting rfles with barrels trimmed to 19"
I like the concept of the stock adaptor for the AR type stocks and grips. I've made several stocks now for these rifles but in carbon fiber/fiberglass composite. Still a 2 piece design with all the same mounting points but a vast improvement over surplus wood.
I think the buttstock adaptor being designed here in this thread is a fantastic product in itself..... at least for us guys that like to customize these old rifles. I would purchase such an item as I lack the machines and experience operating them to make such a thing myself. A collapseable stock on my tree stand rifle would be pretty slick if you ask me. The more compact I can make the rifle , the better and something like this buttstock adaptor would accomplish that
following this project for sure.
No, they don't normally. They bed their recievers differently, because of their bolt and trigger designs which allow for more positive/stronger support in the receiver area.
fat tony
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
I suppose the two piece stock returns to the need to address cost and logistics.
It may have been inferior, but the two piece military stock keeps popping up through history here and there.
Two piece stocks have their own issues, but they can be overcome with design changes
I'll give you an example of firearms which are extremely accurate, when in VG or better condition over all.
Martini rifles, all models. Most Drillings, Lebel M1886, many lever action types and others, etc.
Ruger No1 rifles, of which I've owned many, can be hit and miss, depending on the rigidity of the fore end hanger and the quality of the barrels.
I've owned and shot several Mas36, French bolt action rifles and all of them were accurate.
The bedding areas of Lee Enfield actions are "to small" IMHO, If I were going to make any changes to an existing Lee Enfield action, I would have added a forward recoil lug.
Just for something to occupy a week end, just after retiring, I took a previously butchered No1 MkIII* action and made up a recoil lug to fit over the King Screw stud.
It was a quick and simple job, which press fit over the stud in a similar manner as the pillar, which doesn't provide any recoil protection.
The only other thing I had to do was carve out a channel in the sporter fore end I had on hand and instead of permanently attaching the "recoil lug" to the receiver, I glass bedded it into the fore end.
This may not seem like much, but I also glass bedded the ways and happily, it all worked better than I expected.
One of the reasons this barreled receiver was in the bin, was noted on the tag, "won't shoot accurately"
It most certainly wasn't turned into a "tack driver" but it did start responding to different hand loads and shot most commercial loads into 2-3 inches, some less. Most handloads shot appx +/-2 in.
The accuracy was a surprise side effect and I wasn't expecting it. I ended up shooting at least 500 surplus rounds and another 500 handloads/commercial rounds through it.
The thing I was most concerned about was the "bedding"
There was no wiggle or flex in the fore end that would cause any issues after a thousand rounds. When the cleaning, lube, etc were done and the rifle reassembled, nothing changed accuracy wise, or in any other way. NO Surprises, no unexplained flyers over the next couple of hundred rounds.
My next-door neighbor has a son, who's now a grown man with kids of his own. I gave him that rifle when he was 12, because he loved shooting it and learning to hand load for it.
If I were going to do it again, I wouldn't make a recoil lug that fits snug over the King Screw stud. I would make it the same width and length, but with a "notch" cut out for the stud to slip in and out of more easily. I found that with the tight-fitting hole, disassembly and reassembly was more tedious than necessary.
I believe this modification can be made to any of the two-piece stock Lee Enfield variants and would be successful.
I'm at the final stages of building a No4 MkI "T" If it doesn't shoot as well as I would like, I'm going to make up a "recoil shoulder" to see if it helps. Maybe I'll just do it anyway.
I'll give you an example of firearms which are extremely accurate, when in VG or better condition over all.
Martini rifles, all models. Most Drillings, Lebel M1886, many lever action types and others, etc.
Ruger No1 rifles, of which I've owned many, can be hit and miss, depending on the rigidity of the fore end hanger and the quality of the barrels.
I've owned and shot several Mas36, French bolt action rifles and all of them were accurate.
The bedding areas of Lee Enfield actions are "to small" IMHO, If I were going to make any changes to an existing Lee Enfield action, I would have added a forward recoil lug.
Just for something to occupy a week end, just after retiring, I took a previously butchered No1 MkIII* action and made up a recoil lug to fit over the King Screw stud.
It was a quick and simple job, which press fit over the stud in a similar manner as the pillar, which doesn't provide any recoil protection.
The only other thing I had to do was carve out a channel in the sporter fore end I had on hand and instead of permanently attaching the "recoil lug" to the receiver, I glass bedded it into the fore end.
This may not seem like much, but I also glass bedded the ways and happily, it all worked better than I expected.
One of the reasons this barreled receiver was in the bin, was noted on the tag, "won't shoot accurately"
It most certainly wasn't turned into a "tack driver" but it did start responding to different hand loads and shot most commercial loads into 2-3 inches, some less. Most handloads shot appx +/-2 in.
The accuracy was a surprise side effect and I wasn't expecting it. I ended up shooting at least 500 surplus rounds and another 500 handloads/commercial rounds through it.
The thing I was most concerned about was the "bedding"
There was no wiggle or flex in the fore end that would cause any issues after a thousand rounds. When the cleaning, lube, etc were done and the rifle reassembled, nothing changed accuracy wise, or in any other way. NO Surprises, no unexplained flyers over the next couple of hundred rounds.
My next-door neighbor has a son, who's now a grown man with kids of his own. I gave him that rifle when he was 12, because he loved shooting it and learning to hand load for it.
If I were going to do it again, I wouldn't make a recoil lug that fits snug over the King Screw stud. I would make it the same width and length, but with a "notch" cut out for the stud to slip in and out of more easily. I found that with the tight-fitting hole, disassembly and reassembly was more tedious than necessary.
I believe this modification can be made to any of the two-piece stock Lee Enfield variants and would be successful.
I'm at the final stages of building a No4 MkI "T" If it doesn't shoot as well as I would like, I'm going to make up a "recoil shoulder" to see if it helps. Maybe I'll just do it anyway.
Blastattack
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Winnipeg MB
I'm learning a great deal from all this. Lots of wisdom about these rifles.
I'm refining the buttstock adapter design. I've thinned the distance between the grip and trigger a little, and am optimizing the design for easier manufacturing. I have a couple of musings though.
I have found a source for the required 7/16-14 BSW bolts, so that is fortunate. I'm considering adding features to accommodate sling swivel cups. not sure it's viable due to the space, but I'm interested in opinions.
I have many thoughts about the forend and integrated sighting system. I am considering designing a new front sight that will accept AR15 posts and hardware, and a redesigned rear sight to accommodate that. The chassis will have provision for a scope mount, that is adjustable for alignment and levelling. The functionality of the forestock will be quite similar to the one designed by Serval in South Africa. Different styling though, and I have some ideas for the various bedding solutions to make them viable.
I'm refining the buttstock adapter design. I've thinned the distance between the grip and trigger a little, and am optimizing the design for easier manufacturing. I have a couple of musings though.
I have found a source for the required 7/16-14 BSW bolts, so that is fortunate. I'm considering adding features to accommodate sling swivel cups. not sure it's viable due to the space, but I'm interested in opinions.
I have many thoughts about the forend and integrated sighting system. I am considering designing a new front sight that will accept AR15 posts and hardware, and a redesigned rear sight to accommodate that. The chassis will have provision for a scope mount, that is adjustable for alignment and levelling. The functionality of the forestock will be quite similar to the one designed by Serval in South Africa. Different styling though, and I have some ideas for the various bedding solutions to make them viable.
Blastattack
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Winnipeg MB
That was the other thing I was musing about: O-rings. Given that achieving a perfect fit between the socket and adapter is nearly impossible across all rifles, I'm considering grooving the adapter for several large and very hard O-rings. These would squish, and help stabilize the adapter in the socket.
- Location
- Nova Scotia
Will the chassi have option for a scout setup?
Blastattack
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Winnipeg MB
Yes, in theory. The intended design is to use AR15 (or AR308, but likely AR15) forends, which is fortunately quite conducive to the Enfield receiver dimensions. A scope can be mounted there. The other option is an extended scope rail, and either forgoing the AR handguard (for another type of forend that's to be designed), or flipping the handguard upside down and running the normally top rail on the bottom, leaving space for the extended rail to run along what was the bottom.
well, here is my 2 cents. i have a #4 rebarreled to 7.62x39 with a 20 inch barrel. what i would like to see is a butt socket that will use AR buffer tubes. i can put whatever stock on i want then. ok for front end id like to see a low profil AR tube to be able to be mounted to it so i can use the stock sites. very simple for me. adding a spot at the fron for a sling point cup is a good idea aswell
Blastattack
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Winnipeg MB
So here is another oddball question:
Minus the bolt head does a No. 1 bolt work in a No. 4? If not, why? If you moved over No. 4 parts, such as the cocking piece and firing pin, could it work, ignoring the bolt head?
Minus the bolt head does a No. 1 bolt work in a No. 4? If not, why? If you moved over No. 4 parts, such as the cocking piece and firing pin, could it work, ignoring the bolt head?
No, because of the "guide rib" height on the side of the No4 and No4 MkI* for starters.
Blastattack
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Winnipeg MB
I don't understand what you mean. From pictures, the bolt bodies look nearly the same.
Then you will have to look at two of them side by side to see the difference. Hard to explain pictures.
The No4 MkI doesn't have a guide rib per se', more like a ridge on the edge of the bolt guide, with a slot cut on the INSIDE, instead or on the outside.
The No1 doesn't have a "ridge" with a slot, but utilizes the side of the race, with a full length "guide" cut on the side.
Also, the bolt head guide arm is completely different on the No1 than the No4 and won't fit. They aren't interchangeable.
The No4 MkI doesn't have a guide rib per se', more like a ridge on the edge of the bolt guide, with a slot cut on the INSIDE, instead or on the outside.
The No1 doesn't have a "ridge" with a slot, but utilizes the side of the race, with a full length "guide" cut on the side.
Also, the bolt head guide arm is completely different on the No1 than the No4 and won't fit. They aren't interchangeable.
maple_leaf_eh
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Don't play with words! The shape of the bolt body is unique because the No.1 and No.4 are different designs.The bolt is all that is holding the pressure in the chamber. The striker and spring engage the sear. There is a noticeable hook on the No.1 bolt head that is not on the No.4. Whatever the designers were thinking worked for them.
But hey, free advice on the interwebs is worth everything you pay for it. But make sure your affairs are in order before firing your new discovery.
Blastattack
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Winnipeg MB
Yes, I understand that a complete bolt will not function due to the difference in heads. But ignoring the bolt heads, and all associated features with those, could the bolt bodies interchange? What are the differences between the bolt bodies that prevent using one bolt in the other gun? The reason I ask is for a pistol carbine project, I'd prefer to modify a body with a solid side rib as opposed to the hollowed-out ribs of the No. 4. No real reason beyond aesthetics, and I know that the British modified regular No.4 bolts to maker their various .22 conversions by cutting down and re-threading the front of the bolt for their extended bolt head. I would intend to do the same.
