Lee Enfield - Aftermarket Sporter Stocks

[jdschwass]

Hey, I am working on restoring an old sporterized No4 back to full wood. I picked up a new wood kit that I want to fit and finish. I have been doing a ton of reading and learning about the process of bedding and fitting everything to maximize accuracy and achieve the right fit. Still waiting for the new wood to arrive in the mail.

This is my first time going through the process, but I have a couple of other No4's that are sporters, and both of them have aftermarket wood stocks. Both are beautiful walnut; one is a Boyd, and the other is a Bishop. I decided to take them apart and go through how they were bedded, and see what I might be able to do to improve accuracy, and do a little bit of tinkering before I tackle the full wood rifle.

On both aftermarket forends, I found that there were no witness marks between the draws and the recoil lugs. Firstly, the draws are cut to 90 degrees, where they should be closer to 70. Second, I had to add 1/4 of shim material before the stock would not go on. I understand if a stock is made with too much material, so that it can be custom fit. But making it with nowhere near enough material?? This is arguably a dangerous condition, and would certainly hurt accuracy, and impose the recoil on other parts of the forend.

Over the last couple of days, I milled out the Bishop stock, and installed a hardwood block. I then milled it back to near spec, and then hand chiseled out the draws until the fit is perfect. It specs out perfectly now; just need to touch up the barrel channel to get a bit more clearance; it's just touching at one spot. I have hunted deer, bears, and smaller critters with this rifle, but accuracy was only okay. Really hoping to see some improvements.

I guess I am just wondering what the thought process was for these companies making beautiful yet imo dangerous stocks for these rifles? Am I missed something?

I linked a pick below to my finished No4 Mk1 Longbranch. This one was my test rifle mentioned above before I get into the restoration.

https://imgur.com/YwptjFI


Cheers.

 

[Potashminer]

About recoil in No. 4 - not really too sure that the draws have much to do with getting the recoil pulse from chamber to your shoulder - is likely routed through the metal wrist and on into the butt?? But, I think the draws plus bearing surface under that "king screw" area - were likely pretty important to get some "up" pressure on the long stock's forearm tip - right at or behind that front sight - but with that long stock no longer there, maybe, as you found, the fit at the draws no longer so important?

Also - as I recall reading - a No. 4 had to do 5 rounds into 1" wide and 1.5" tall - at 33 yards (100 feet) - to be "good enough for government work" - so were never designed or built to be "tack drivers" - although subsequent to WWII, various target shooters did come up with accuracy improvements for them - a lot to do with the bedding, etc. - most often related to that long stock, though. Even the very "best of the best" - the "T" sniper rifles done up by Holland and Holland - had to meet only 2.5 MOA at 400 yards for 6 out of 7 shots - most would consider that today to be pretty mediocre results.

 

[jdschwass]

About recoil in No. 4 - not really too sure that the draws have much to do with getting the recoil pulse from chamber to your shoulder - is likely routed through the metal wrist and on into the butt?? But, I think the draws plus bearing surface under that "king screw" area - were likely pretty important to get some "up" pressure on the long stock's forearm tip - right at or behind that front sight - but with that long stock no longer there, maybe, as you found, the fit at the draws no longer so important?

Also - as I recall reading - a No. 4 had to do 5 rounds into 1" wide and 1.5" tall - at 33 yards (100 feet) - to be "good enough for government work" - so were never designed or built to be "tack drivers" - although subsequent to WWII, various target shooters did come up with accuracy improvements for them - a lot to do with the bedding, etc. - most often related to that long stock, though. Even the very "best of the best" - the "T" sniper rifles done up by Holland and Holland - had to meet only 2.5 MOA at 400 yards for 6 out of 7 shots - most would consider that today to be pretty mediocre results.

Thanks for the reply. I am no expert, but I been trying to research and read as much as I can, and I have to somewhat disagree. My understanding is that the draws 'draw' the forend rearward into the receiver as it compresses upwards. A proper fit requires light taps from a block of wood to separate them. Installing the kind screw should then pull the forend tighter into the barrel, while leaving it floating. The only up pressure should exist in the last few inches of barrel length. This can be adjusted by shimming the forend, but not by adjusting the draws.
I have been reading Roger Wadham's book on accurizing Lee Enfields, and this is a direct quote:

"It is crucial to both safety and accuracy that the inner recoil blocks of the forend contact
the receiver lugs evenly, fully, and that in addition they are in good condition.
Tremendous forces are exerted on these tiny areas and as seen here, opening up an older
Enfield to find crushed or broken wood here is not uncommon. It’s potentially dangerous
to shoot with, and is a must repair."

So when I read something like this, but see a stock that has no recoil blocks/draws whatsoever, I find it odd, and concerning.

With respect to accuracy, I do agree that the standards for "accurate" rifles were not up to today's expectations. But I also believe there is a lot of potential in the Lee Enfield if you are willing to work with it, and tune it up just right. That's what I am planning to do as I restore my No4 back to it's military configuration.

Thanks again.

 

[Torandir]

From what i've seen and experienced in the number of enfields i've taken part and restored now, if the fore end is lacking contact with the draws area of the receiver, you start to see cracking through the king screw hole. basically under recoil, the fore end moves back slightly, at which point the king screw behaves like a splitting axe, and cracks the fore end. This is why most ishapore refurbed rifles have that screw put through the fore end just ahead of the king screw. you can also fit the draws area using a bit of epoxy bedding if you want a nice tight fit as well, especially if they are a bit battered or worn.

 

[Potashminer]

OP - I do not think that No. 4's are like modern mauser based one piece stocks - I think that you have established in your own short forearm rifles that they did not "explode" or whatever - with nothing in contact at the draws. Then, books like Wadham's and writings by Laidler almost always talking about the same rifle, but with a full length long stock that wears hand guards, etc. It would be interesting to hear Wadham's explanation for the source of "danger" that he mentions - is apparent from what you wrote that Bishop and Boyd do not share his concern, for the short sporter stocks they produce (d). I understand there is considerable flex within a Lee Enfield action when it is fired - I suspect that is the point where the rear end of the forearm truly comes into contact with the front of the wrist - Ladler states that British Army standards allowed up to .010" clearance there - is hard to understand how the forearm can transfer recoil, when there is an "air gap" between the rear of the forearm and the butt plate. But is a "different breed of cat" - for sure - maybe you are on to something!! I do not know for sure, but I suspect is different to make it "more accurate" or less accurate, versus making it dangerous to fire. That one is interesting to me!!

 

[jdschwass]

OP - I do not think that No. 4's are like modern mauser based one piece stocks - I think that you have established in your own short forearm rifles that they did not "explode" or whatever - with nothing in contact at the draws. Then, books like Wadham's and writings by Laidler almost always talking about the same rifle, but with a full length long stock that wears hand guards, etc. It would be interesting to hear Wadham's explanation for the source of "danger" that he mentions - is apparent from what you wrote that Bishop and Boyd do not share his concern, for the short sporter stocks they produce (d). I understand there is considerable flex within a Lee Enfield action when it is fired - I suspect that is the point where the rear end of the forearm truly comes into contact with the front of the wrist - Ladler states that British Army standards allowed up to .010" clearance there - is hard to understand how the forearm can transfer recoil, when there is an "air gap" between the rear of the forearm and the butt plate. But is a "different breed of cat" - for sure - maybe you are on to something!! I do not know for sure, but I suspect is different to make it "more accurate" or less accurate, versus making it dangerous to fire. That one is interesting to me!!

ha! So we both agree there is a discontinuity here!
I am not really trying to say one thing is right or wrong, but trying to understand the basis for people's though process.
Wadham did say that a gap was acceptable at the wrist, as long as it was consistent all the way around. He also goes on to say that if you are a target shooter, you want to ensure zero gap at the wrist once the king screw is tight. This is achieved by the draws forcing the stock rearward as it is pulled together. I would also be very curious to hear his idea on the sporter stocks.

What I can say, is that my Bishop stock is far more rigid and tight fitting than it was previously, even with the barrel now free floating. Safety aside, I am sure that will be a benefit to potential accuracy.

This is great stuff though; kinda like tinkering with old cars. Fun stuff.

Appreciate your thoughts.

 

[cosmic]

Hard to imagine the fore-stock of a Lee Enfield being dangerous. I guess a loose or splitting stock could affect the trigger function? I play around quite a bit with sported LE's. One thing to note is how weakly the fore-stock is secured when the fore-stock is cut down, eg no barrel bands, etc. Adding a sling swivel to the fore-stock adds additional stress to an already weak attachment. Couple that with a king screw collar that is missing, or out of spec, and theres gonna be trouble. Avoiding a free floating barrel in favor of 3-4 pounds of pressure at the fore-end seems to help secure the fore-stock over the long term, and generate the best accuracy. I have proved this concept on several rifles, from basement put togethers to Churchills, Santa Fe's, and Parker Hales. I should point out that the factory sporters generally displayed fore-stock pressure, the ones that didnt probably left the factory in a correct state and had the fore-stock work loose over the years - easily corrected.
For your current project, I suggest you do an experiment with and without fore-stock being shimmed.

 

[jdschwass]

Hard to imagine the fore-stock of a Lee Enfield being dangerous. I guess a loose or splitting stock could affect the trigger function? I play around quite a bit with sported LE's. One thing to note is how weakly the fore-stock is secured when the fore-stock is cut down, eg no barrel bands, etc. Adding a sling swivel to the fore-stock adds additional stress to an already weak attachment. Couple that with a king screw collar that is missing, or out of spec, and theres gonna be trouble. Avoiding a free floating barrel in favor of 3-4 pounds of pressure at the fore-end seems to help secure the fore-stock over the long term, and generate the best accuracy. I have proved this concept on several rifles, from basement put togethers to Churchills, Santa Fe's, and Parker Hales. I should point out that the factory sporters generally displayed fore-stock pressure, the ones that didnt probably left the factory in a correct state and had the fore-stock work loose over the years - easily corrected.

Again, based on my reading, and not personal experience, the No1 is far more in need of the up pressure at the muzzle. The No4 has a much heavier barrel and is more easily free floated. I currently have enough contact at the end of my forend that I can't get a piece of paper in there. Maybe I will try and it out and see how it shoots before I finish floating it completely.
My Boyd stock is very much free floating. I have had it for years, and it was always the case. The Bishop stock is not free floated; however, the inside carving/machining is appalling. No care was given to making things smooth. If the intent was to have barrel contact, then they should have at least made it smooth and consistent imo. That's how I have it now.

 

[cosmic]

Well - One can debate the issue of barrel harmonics ad nausium. The salient issue with free floating the barrel is the vulnerability of the fore-stock to be "levered" while in use. Upward pressure applied externally at the fore-end creates a bending moment at the points of attachment which are very close together, resulting in relatively high stresses. If one intends to use the rifle in the field, as I do, this situation is sub-optimal. Co-incidentally, I have subjected several rifles to the pressure point trial, with and without glass bedding the draws and king screw surround, and they all shot better with the pressure point. Go figure...

 

[jdschwass]

Well - One can debate the issue of barrel harmonics ad nausium. The salient issue with free floating the barrel is the vulnerability of the fore-stock to be "levered" while in use. Upward pressure at the fore-end creates a bending moment at the points of attachment which are very close together, resulting in relatively high stresses. If one intends to use the rifle in the field, as I do, this situation is sub-optimal. Co-incidentally, I have subjected several rifles to the pressure point trial, with and without glass bedding the draws and king screw surround, and they all shot better with the pressure point. Go figure...

Out of curiosity, were those rifles set up with a full length barrel? Ad you can see in the pic, my sporter No4 is cut back. This may? reduce the amount of barrel whip that is common in these rifles.

 

[cosmic]

The factory sporters were generally cut back to 21 inches or so, with a new front sight. Most of the replacement wood came from Sile in Italy, so its common to see remarkable similarity between manufacturers. I have a Santa Fe sporter that for all intent and purposes could pass as a Parker Hale Supreme.
I have had Bishop stocked No4 rifles in the past. Bear in mind that Bishop only supplied stocks on an aftermarket basis, typically to individuals in the retail market. To ensure one size fits all, the inletting was quite generous. Somebody may have tried to "customize" your Bishop stock in the past. In comparison, the factory sporters were quite well done, with the final bedding well done at the draws, with fore-end pressure being a grind to fit affair.
So, I tend to differentiate between the home-made sporters, even though the Bishop stocks were very presentable, and the factory sporters. Have a look at a Churchill if you want to see some nice work.

 

[45ACPKING]

Out of curiosity, were those rifles set up with a full length barrel? Ad you can see in the pic, my sporter No4 is cut back. This may? reduce the amount of barrel whip that is common in these rifles.

You nailed it.
I have been playing around with no1 sporters for quite a few years now and have posted many pics of the rifles I have done up for hunting purposes. Always using rifles that were already drilled and tapped or otherwise altered and non collectable.
I favor Lithgow barrels as they are thicker and I favor them trimmed to a neat 19 inches and the barrels are free floated with zero tension. There are some real nice monte carlo walnut stocks out there such as the Bishop models. These stocks aren't going to crack or split forward of the action , at least I have never experienced that issue. I hunt with my customized no 1 MK3 lithgow and also with a BSA 1918 sporter with standard barrel. The BSA was my dad's that he bought from sears in the 60's and while it is a sporter and can't be refurbed, it would be a cardinal sin for me to modify Dad's old enfield. Took my first deer and my largest deer with that rifle.
But back to barrel tension, and admitting that I have read zero articles or books from the lee enfield pros , I do understand barrel harmonics and I do understand the value of a well bedded action. So far the rifles I have done..... well over a dozen now, have all performed very well in the field.
Here is one that a fellow CGN'er owns now.

 

[jdschwass]

You nailed it.
I have been playing around with no1 sporters for quite a few years now and have posted many pics of the rifles I have done up for hunting purposes. Always using rifles that were already drilled and tapped or otherwise altered and non collectable.
I favor Lithgow barrels as they are thicker and I favor them trimmed to a neat 19 inches and the barrels are free floated with zero tension. There are some real nice monte carlo walnut stocks out there such as the Bishop models. These stocks aren't going to crack or split forward of the action , at least I have never experienced that issue. I hunt with my customized no 1 MK3 lithgow and also with a BSA 1918 sporter with standard barrel. The BSA was my dad's that he bought from sears in the 60's and while it is a sporter and can't be refurbed, it would be a cardinal sin for me to modify Dad's old enfield. Took my first deer and my largest deer with that rifle.
But back to barrel tension, and admitting that I have read zero articles or books from the lee enfield pros , I do understand barrel harmonics and I do understand the value of a well bedded action. So far the rifles I have done..... well over a dozen now, have all performed very well in the field.
Here is one that a fellow CGN'er owns now.

Nice rifle.
Thanks for sharing your experience. The one you see in the pic was my first Lee as well. I bought it for $200 about 15 years ago as my first center fire. I shot my first deer and my first bear with it. I won't part with that one!