Enfield-Rifles.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Enfields > Enfield Gunsmithing
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - No.4 and No.1 barrels?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

No.4 and No.1 barrels?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Message
Cookie Monster View Drop Down
Special Member
Special Member
Avatar

Joined: January 22 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7510
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cookie Monster Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 07 2009 at 9:04pm
yes there is a few smokey I will find you an address and send it to you,
Back to Top
SW28fan View Drop Down
Special Member
Special Member
Avatar
Donating Member

Joined: July 02 2007
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2951
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SW28fan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 13 2009 at 11:17am
Have a Nice Day
If already having a nice day please disregard
Back to Top
ikesdad View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: May 10 2007
Location: Western Slope
Status: Offline
Points: 393
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ikesdad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 28 2009 at 12:42pm
I think I will add to the questions regarding barrels........
 
Are the contours the same for both the #1  &  #4 ?
Pro Deo et Patria
Back to Top
Cookie Monster View Drop Down
Special Member
Special Member
Avatar

Joined: January 22 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7510
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cookie Monster Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 28 2009 at 1:16pm
No two completely different rifle barrels
Back to Top
Tony View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Moderator

Joined: April 18 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 3256
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tony Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 28 2009 at 3:16pm
The threads are the same thats the only similarity.
Rottie (PitBulls dad.)


“If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons

Born free taxed to death!!!

Back to Top
Lithgow View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: October 25 2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1417
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lithgow Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 29 2009 at 7:26pm
I think the heavy target barrel for the No1 is close to the same contour but would have to check to be sure
Back to Top
LE Owner View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: December 04 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 1047
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote LE Owner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 28 2009 at 3:08am
Originally posted by Tony Tony wrote:

The threads are the same thats the only similarity.
Not sure but I think theres a difference of a few thousandths between the outside diameters, at least there is between No.4 and No. 1 Barrel shanks I've miked. This could be due to a slight flattening of the edges of the threads of the No.4 barrels whether deliberately or on purpose. The barrels were takeoffs so theres that to consider.
The fit is still pretty good, within limits at least. 
I set back a No.4 barrel to fit it to a Lithgow receiver I have that had a damaged ring face, regular No.1 barrels wouldn't clock in without a gap, they bottomed out but left a visible gap at the ring shoulder interface.
 
I set this project aside years ago ,but hope to finish it this summer..
 
I filed away the undercut crush fit area of the Savage takeoff barrel and filed the breech enough that it would rotate far enough that when cranked down the extractor slot will line up. before alteration it would clock in hand tight with the extractor cut 180 degrees off.
 
Before I go further I'll have the undercut turned in the shoulder for proper crush fit. Then if I decide to leave it a .303 I'll have to freshen the chamber with a finishing reamer. I am considering having this old barrel bored out to .410, for use as a small game getter since I already have several .303 and other centerfire hunting rifles.
The two groove savage bore is still in good shape, but these are often hard to find a good load for and this bore slugs at .316 , which is one reason a gunsmith gave it to me to expeiment with, that and it wouldn't headspace on the action he'd got it for even with No.3 bolthead.
 
While smoothing out the damaged receiver ring I took the oportunity to grind the bulkhead interface slightly as well, when its finally clocked in the breech will seat a few thou further in, that should improve headspace.
 
The 7.7X54R conversions done in France and Australia required setting the brrel back by two threads.
If fitting a No. 4 to a No.1 action the oportunity to greatly improve headspace can be a plus.
Rather than shaving the breech of the no.4 barrel it would be better to grind the bulkhead inside the ring first, then if headspace is too tight the bolthead face can be polished a bit or a shorter bolthead used. That would mean no need to freshen the chamber.
Wish I'd thought of that first, if I had the project would have been finished long ago.  
 
Originally posted by Lithgow Lithgow wrote:

I think the heavy target barrel for the No1 is close to the same contour but would have to check to be sure
 
the HT barrels are based on cut down Long Lee barrels once used for target rifles, those later barrels were purpose made but I think by using older long Lee machinery or templates.
If so the Knox form of the HT barrel should look like that of a Long Lee or Lee Metford barrel.
Back to Top
Lithgow View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: October 25 2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1417
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lithgow Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 28 2009 at 5:42am
I am not sure whether they were made on the same machinery but I do know Lithgow Small Arms made long lee barrels and heavy smle barrels. The knox form is different altogether on both barrels.
Thread on both No1 and No4 barrels is the same and is I am fairly sure 1"x14 whitworth. 
Back to Top
LE Owner View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: December 04 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 1047
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote LE Owner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 28 2009 at 9:28am
Originally posted by Lithgow Lithgow wrote:

I am not sure whether they were made on the same machinery but I do know Lithgow Small Arms made long lee barrels and heavy smle barrels. The knox form is different altogether on both barrels.
Thread on both No1 and No4 barrels is the same and is I am fairly sure 1"x14 whitworth. 
Thats where you get into the differences between nominal sizes and actual measurements.
My Barrel shank drawings PDF lists the Lee Enfield threads as outside diameter .997.
A 1" shank would be tough to fit into a 1" hole too much drag. The threads have a few thousands leeway otherwise you couldn't get anti seize paste into the threads and you'd never get the barrel off later on without ruining the receiver.
 
Then theres the old "Enfield Inch" problem, though its not really that much difference, perhaps a few tenths od thousandths difference between the old Enlish gunmakers inch and the US standardized inch.
Pratt & Whitney made the measurement gauges and machinery for Lithgow during most of its production, and had to calibrate everything to match the Enfield Inch. I remember they kept a precisely machined block of metal that was exactly an Enfield inch, and all gauge design work had to conform to that block.
 
The Savage Barrels more than likely conformed to the US standard Inch, if not the slight differences in diameter could have been due to worn machinery, or one barrel being at the top end of manufacturing tolerance and the other being at the lower end.
The 1X14 Whitworth thread is seldom used here and a 1X14 standard pipe thread is also used here. I tried the fit of a US 1X14 threaded pipe extension in the receiver , Thinking on putting together a diamond disc adapter for grinding the bulkhead evenly, it screwed right in.
For many years replacement barrels for the Mauser rifles which had Whitworth threads were made using the more common V thread with a slightly different angle to the V, the barrels still screwed in properly.
 
The barrel I took off this lithgow Receiver was extremely hard to take off, itmay have bulged at the shank due to excessive pressure or substandard steel or a stuck bullet, if so the ring may have expanded a couple of thou.
Also the Savage No.4 barrel had no relief cut at the breech of the shank or at the shoulder end, the No.1 barrels had cuts turned in both places.
I hand filed the relief cuts in the No.4 shank otherwie it wouldn't turn in properly.
 
I believe you are correct about the HT SMLE shank, there were SMLE rifles rebarreled with cut down Long Lee barrels for use as range rifles, along with Long Lees cutdown and balanced to mimic the SMLE for practice. The Military HT barrel is a different proposition, though related due to experiance with the heavy target barrels.
Back to Top
Lithgow View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: October 25 2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1417
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lithgow Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 28 2009 at 4:02pm
I beleive the heavy smle barrel that was used by the military is identical to the target version.
Back to Top
LE Owner View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: December 04 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 1047
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote LE Owner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 28 2009 at 10:41pm
Originally posted by Lithgow Lithgow wrote:

I beleive the heavy smle barrel that was used by the military is identical to the target version.
Most if not all now used for target rifles probably are, but the fitting of modified Long Lee barrels earlier on led to creating the heavy HT barrel.
 
I have seen images of a SMLE action with one of the cutdown LLE barrels in place.
Its likely that superior consistency of such modified SMLE and the earlier Cut down LLE rifles used as range rifles resulted in development of a heavier profile barrel for the SMLE, and likely was carried over in the No.4 rifles.
 
There was a similar cutdown LLE with fixed 600 yard sight tested as a cheap to modify Militia type rifle for volunteer companies. I don't think they adopted it.
 
I've noticed that images of HT barreled SMLE rifles often show the front sight blade set near to the centerline, to the shooters right of the centerline of a standard offset front sight base.
I suspect that a thicker barrel reduces the throw to the left from the flexing of the action body. Reduced power target loads would likely also offset the normal throw.
 
The No.4 has a more substantial receiver wall and much heavier profile, though I have seen a few No.4 rifles with barrels near as slim as a No.1 barrel, these features seem to near negate the effect of bullet drill.
 
 
PS
When looking for a No.4 barrel you may find some Savage late production barrels which were partly unfinished on the outside. There'll be rough turning marks from about three inches in front of the Knox form, looking almost as if threaded and usually with rough linear file marks where a finished and unfinished meet ,the Knox form itself being finish turned and polished. The barrel at that point will look thicker as if bulged.
These were allowed to be used in this state to speed up production.
A test firing to determine effect on accuracy showed these rough finish barrels to be noticably more accurate than those completely finished.
The theory was that the barrel first being slimmed down ahead of the Knox form then increasing slightly in diameter worked to alter the harmonics, giving a damping effect..
 
So if you run across one of those barrels it will likely be best to not try to turn and polish it, unless you leave the slightly bulged appearance intact. Finish turning can recduce its accuracy.
Back to Top
Lithgow View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: October 25 2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1417
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lithgow Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 29 2009 at 5:20am
I am not sure what went on in England but here in Australia I have not seen or heard of the practise of fitting long lee barrels to smle's.
The heavy smle barrels were manufactured from about 1935 and I am sure that they were first used by the Australians.
There may have been some shooters who turned down their own long barrels and fitted them to smle's.
My Grandfather was still using the long lee in competition in the late 20's and I think into the 30's.
You are correct in stating that they heavy barrel and long barrel are nearly the same profile.
I have seen many barrels both standard and heavy that the front sight is offset.
Target loads were standard issue ball ammo and never reduced. This continued up until about the late 80's or early 90's.
Back to Top
LE Owner View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: December 04 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 1047
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote LE Owner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 29 2009 at 1:15pm
Originally posted by Lithgow Lithgow wrote:

I have seen many barrels both standard and heavy that the front sight is offset.
Target loads were standard issue ball ammo and never reduced. This continued up until about the late 80's or early 90's.
There were special lighter loaded cartridges used for practice in areas where the full power cartridge could pose a safety problem if a shot went over a berm.
Here in the US the record for range at which a known stray shot killed a man was held by the .303. with a bullet going 935 yards to strike the unsuspecting victim. In that case the shooter was unfamilar with the Enfield sights and didn't recognise that most of the front blade had been broken off. Due to the broken blade his effective elevation was far higher than he realized. With the rear sight set for three hundred the rifle was angled for much greater range.
 
Besides those lighter loads, still fairly stout, there were gallery practice loads for indoor shooting.
Could be those with the blade closest to the bore centerline had been sighted in for lighter loads.
 
I've seen Enfields with the front blade drifted far to one side or another of the already offset front sight base, the amount of drill or throw appears to vary with the ammunition used, and the shooters tolerance for recoil.
I recently ran across notes on the early problems with thermal sensitivity of Cordite, probably MkI.
The source said that when rifles were sighted in England then sent to India they had to be resighted with some fitted with an offset rear sight as a field expediant, and later on the charge weight was adjusted for the effect of higher chamber pressures caused by long exposure to high temperatures. Civilian gunmakers found they had the same problems with maximum loads for sporting rifles which were safe when tested in England then causing damage to rifles in the tropics.
Tropical loads were then worked up for sale in those hot climes.
 
When experimenting with fairly light starter loads with the 225 grain  bullet I found that one SMLE I tried these in printed more than a foot to the right at one hundred yards. The lighter loads not stretching the receiver at all or the bullet leaving the barrel on the back swing of the vibration. The last being more likely considering how far off they printed.
Unfortunately I only had a few of these old bullets to try out so no way to know for sure.
 
PS
Modern short range practice loads in 7.62 NATO, 5.56, and 7.62X39 ,often use a plastic bullet at a very high velocity, the energy at close range being comparable to the .357 pistol and capable of penetrating a auto fender. The light bullet loses velocity very quickly and can't travel far.
Ammo like this has also been used for guarding offices and such, the ammo does cycle a gas operated action. Its extremely lethal at CQB ranges but won't retain lethal energy if it were to penetrate an office door or interior wall.
The Soviet short range ammo I've seen had an aluminum jacket filled with plastic or resin, the US ammo of this sort has a plastic bullet and case body cast in one piece with a metal base for extraction, the bullet breaks free of the plastic case on firing. Not sure but the metal base may be reusable.
 
PS
I've read that Australian troops still used the MkVI ammunition throughout WW1 and till WW2 or shortly before.
The MkVI fired in an Enfield could have a different amount of throw than the MkVII.
 
Also I suspect that one reason some SMLE actions were fitted with cut down surplus or take off barrels was the reverse taper lapping of the SMLE MkI bore. A replacement barrel without the reverse taper was aproved in 1917, probably still with the MkVI sized short cone rather than upgraded to HV ,but a civilian owner of a MkI might not have had access to these, since apparently not that many SMLE Mk I still in service got fitted with the new barrels.
 
Since the Long Lees had a steel clearing rod before the pull through became the standard cleaning method, there were probably plenty of take off barrels that were in good condition except for muzzle wear from the steel rods. Cutting away the damaged muzzle end would salvage an otherwise unusable barrel.
Barrels with worn muzzles were probaly dirt cheap and easily available.
 
I ran across a site several years back which had photos of a Collection of Long Lees converted to Range Rifle configuration for shooting clubs. These were mostly the work of a single civilian gunsmith partly on contract to local governments. I don't remember the details but I think most were for use in New Zealand.
Of course New Zealand is independent of Australia, but to US citizens they are often taken to be the same country.
 
I've always found it odd that Canada was not licensed to manufacture the SMLE rifles yet Australia was.
 
 
BTW
Have you ever run across a good analysis of the steel used for the Lithgow Rifles?
I'd heard it was a Chrome nickel steel, and Australia has Nickel bearing Iron ores and Limonite Nickel ore in quantity.
The steel of my Lithgow polished up with the same tint as our nickel steel alloy 5 cent coins, and seems to be highly rust resistent. It also seems to have the sort of sticky feel when parts move across each other, a common complaint lodged by old school US Ordnance officers against use of nickel steel for the M1917 and later Sprinfgfield rifles.
Nickel Steel would be the perfect choice for the SMLE, it has a very high resistence to permanent deformation if stretched, so its highly unlikely to break under pressure.
Yet according to Skenerton the Chrome Nickel steel proved inadequate when Lithgows were rebarreled to 7.62 NATO. ( EDITED to make this correction, Skenerton had said that Carbon Steel was substituted for Chrome Nickel Steel in the rifles converted to 7.62)
Had the testing been limited to NATO or M80 Ball at 48,000 CUP the rifles might have fared better.
But insuring that such a conversion won't be subjected to much higher pressure MG ammo would be difficult if used during wartime, and apparently use of Mk8z in the Lithgow was prohibited, or at least discouraged.
 
I've also read that during the closing years of WW2 lithgow no longer made the rifles, the work being farmed out to various subcontractors and a company that built agricultural machery, with no previous gunmaking experiance. Could be that wartime shortages prevented the use of the best metal, which would have been diverted to other more important weaponry.
Back to Top
Lithgow View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: October 25 2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1417
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lithgow Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 29 2009 at 4:29pm
The first MkVII ammo was used in the rifle clubs in Western Australia in 1922.
My Grandfather was a railway man and when the first case came in to his club he and a mate shortened their long barrels to the smle length before the weekend shoot and shot very well. So well that their scores were far better than the rest of the field.
I think you will find that the rifles were still built at Lithgow but some parts were farmed out to contractors and they also had "feeder" factories making the various components.
The last Lithgows were built in 1953 and that was a small run to keep the skills up.
There was a gap in production but I am not sure when it started.
Back to Top
LE Owner View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: December 04 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 1047
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote LE Owner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 30 2009 at 7:36am
Originally posted by Lithgow Lithgow wrote:

The first MkVII ammo was used in the rifle clubs in Western Australia in 1922.
My Grandfather was a railway man and when the first case came in to his club he and a mate shortened their long barrels to the smle length before the weekend shoot and shot very well. So well that their scores were far better than the rest of the field.
Interesting, I'd like to hear more that you learned from your Granpa about target shooting in those days.
Quote
I think you will find that the rifles were still built at Lithgow but some parts were farmed out to contractors and they also had "feeder" factories making the various components.
The last Lithgows were built in 1953 and that was a small run to keep the skills up.
There was a gap in production but I am not sure when it started.
I had the impression that there was some assembly of parts made by subcontractors but that the main faclities were tied up in manufacturing other weapons, machineguns and the like.
 
Have any 1953 marked actions shown up, or were these last rifles assembled on old stock action bodies?
I have read that action bodies were forged and machined in runs, with those not needed at the time stored for later use, or to replace damaged action bodies. They kept quite a few handy so as to avoid a bottle neck in production in wartime. Also I suspect to keep the skills of workmen  honed.
Back to Top
Lithgow View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: October 25 2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1417
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lithgow Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 30 2009 at 1:29pm
I think they actually made the rifles in 1953 to keep the knowledge and skills. I beleive only 1000 were made and yes they do show up from time to time but command a premium price.
from 1901 until the late 80's rifle shooting in Australia was overseen by the Army.
Until the 1960's and perhaps 70's the 303 was still used.
All ammo until the late  80's or early 90's was supplied by the Army and the club captain would alot each shooter his rounds for the days shoot.
The rifles had to be in military configuration with the exception of the sights.
My father was an armourer for the local club and used to buy chests of 8 rifles from the army at a price of 1 pound each and turn them into target rifles and sell them to members. I still have an empty rifle chest.
These rifles did not have sold out of service marks as they were technically still the army rifles, each member signed an oath to defend the country when they joined the club. I signed it in 1976.
Grandad was a member of the 1948 Australian rifle team that went to England. He brought back a No4 Mk1/2 regulated by Fultons which my father still has. The No4 was virtually unseen at that time and the team showed up back here with what was called "the new rifle".
My father was also a State shooter but gave up at his peak.
I joined the rifle club in 1976 but was only in it for a couple of years and took up pistol shooting instead.
 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.04
Copyright ©2001-2021 Web Wiz Ltd.