No4 MK1 |
Post Reply | Page <1234> |
Author | |
tharruff
Groupie Joined: July 07 2020 Location: Dayton Ohio Status: Offline Points: 23 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I just looked at my Field Gauge...it is marked '303 BRIT FIELD'...no manufacturer's name. It measures 0.070.
To figure out what I 'think' that I need for a bolt head for this No 4 Mk 1 rifle, I put layers of masking tape on the face of the size '0' (0.625) bolt head until the bolt closed 'about' 75% of the way. Then I measured the dimension over the tape pieces. It measured 0.634...so THAT is why I think that a bolt head measuring 0.635 / 0.636 will work in this rifle. Apparently the masking tape was about 0.003 thick...each layer. This is the same procedure that I used to select the size for the bolt heads for the two No 1 Mk III rifles that I worked on and once I found the dimension that I 'thought' that needed and bought them, they both worked. I would be interested in trying the 0.637 bolt head in my rifle if you would be interested in selling it. If so, please send me a PM...
(also need the recoil plate and its mounting screws for a No 4 Mk 2 rifle if you might have them) |
|
Shamu
Admin Group Logo Designer / Donating Member Joined: April 25 2007 Location: MD, USA. Status: Offline Points: 17603 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Just to clarify all this, ask for a No4 Bolt head measuring 0.637" which is what you really need, no matter if it says its a # whatever the measurement is the key.
|
|
Don't shoot till you see the whites of their thighs. (Unofficial motto of the Royal Air Force)
|
|
Goosic
Senior Member Joined: September 12 2017 Location: Phoenix Arizona Status: Offline Points: 8792 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Quote [To figure out what I 'think' that I need for a bolt head for this No 4 Mk 1 rifle, I put layers of masking tape on the face of the size '0' (0.625) bolt head until the bolt closed 'about' 75% of the way.
Then I measured the dimension over the tape pieces. It measured 0.634...so THAT is why I think that a bolt head measuring 0.635 / 0.636 will work in this rifle. Apparently the masking tape was about 0.003 thick...each layer.]Quote From a machinist point if view, each layer of tape is infact a separate layer with it's own thicknesses. Regardless of the adhesive used,you still have gaps between the layers and, unlike a steel shim the tape is compression able. Both of which will give false readings. I found another #3 with a length of. 635" that is complete and is .010" over your .625". I will PM you shortly...
|
|
The Armourer
Senior Member Joined: June 23 2019 Location: Y Felinhelli Status: Offline Points: 1246 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
You haven't actually said it failed headspace, and using the incorrect (0.070" SAAMI) gauge rather than the correct 0.074" military 'Go' gauge is not helping matters. There are only 2 headspace gauges in the British military "Reject" (Go) and "High Limit" (No-Go) For maintenance purposes there are other sizes eg, after rebuild the headspace must be no more than 0.067". Thee have been many 100's (1000's ?) of Lee Enfields needlessly consigned to the great scrapheap in the sky by the use of incorrect gauges - maybe if you obtained / begged / borrowed or purchased the correct gauges you would find that it passes the specification. Retaining the existing bolt-head also means that you won't have to buy dozens of "#3" bolt heads before you get one that clocks correctly, as well as headspaces correctly. |
|
tharruff
Groupie Joined: July 07 2020 Location: Dayton Ohio Status: Offline Points: 23 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Okay...to The Armourer,
To clarify...the rifle failed headspace with the size '0' bolt head (0.625 length) and my 0.070 field gauge. The bolt closed right down. When the face of the bolt head was built up with 0.009 of masking tape the bolt closed 'about' 75% of the way. That is my rationale for seeking a bolt head that is 'about' 0.635 which in the scheme of things would 'typically' be a size 3 bolt head.
|
|
Goosic
Senior Member Joined: September 12 2017 Location: Phoenix Arizona Status: Offline Points: 8792 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
PM sent tharruff
|
|
Goosic
Senior Member Joined: September 12 2017 Location: Phoenix Arizona Status: Offline Points: 8792 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
.070" field gauge and the bolt closed. You added what you can only assume was .009" of tape to a bolthead with a length of .625". Remember there is a crush factor you are over looking regardless of how lightly you move the bolt down. Simple math would suggest a bolthead at .634" as s replacement. However, the correct headspace gauge is set at .074" a difference of .004" from your field gauge. .004" closer and you end up with a replacement bolthead of .630". Which would "typically" be, a #1 or #2 bolthead,depending heavily on which factory actually made the bolthead.
|
|
The Armourer
Senior Member Joined: June 23 2019 Location: Y Felinhelli Status: Offline Points: 1246 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
In the greater scheme of things a 0.635 bolt head could be a #0, but certainly a #1 or #2. Do not overheadspace.
You are not really giving the rifle a 'fair crack of the whip, firstly you test it with the wrong gauge and then use compressible tape which allows it to close 'about' 75%. Why do you think 'about 75%' is the correct figure for the test ? The correct test is for the bolt to not close at all, 99% closed is a pass, 100% closed is a fail. Inventing your own specifications / standards is not really very professional, or very informative. There is a standard why not actually work to it ? I posted earlier the method for closing the bolt and the 'pressure' required, if you actually use the correct gauge and correct method and then see if it fails. I'll say no more on the subject.
|
|
Goosic
Senior Member Joined: September 12 2017 Location: Phoenix Arizona Status: Offline Points: 8792 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I have a No4MkI* with a #0 bolthead with a measured length of .6285". I also own a .070" field gauge and a .074" NoGo gauge. The second photo will show the bolt completely closed on the .070" The last photo will show the bolt handle just past the halfway point of being closed with the .074" gauge. The difference of a mere .004" shows up greatly and can be very misleading if you use the wrong measuring equipment. You will also notice that my #0 is .0035" larger then the posted .625"...
|
|
britrifles
Senior Member Joined: February 03 2018 Location: Atlanta, GA Status: Offline Points: 6539 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I’d suggest before you give up on the bolt head you already have, get a .074 Field Gage. You could also consider using 0.003 or 0.004 steel shim stock between bolt head and gage. As long as the bolt does not close on the Field gage, the headspace is acceptable. Remember, scrupulously clean bolt head, chamber and gage, then use very light finger pressure on the bolt handle as you close the bolt.
Having said all that, I prefer headspace to be a bit tighter because I shot a lot and reload. But thats another subject.... |
|
Jonnybravo
Groupie Joined: July 16 2020 Location: NY Status: Offline Points: 21 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
he!!o everyone....I’d like to thank everyone that has taken an interest in my project and thanks for all the great information! I’m prior military and have always had an interest in getting an Enfield. I held off for many years because I could never figure out which version to get. Now I never thought in a million years I would find one in the trash and have it turn out to be the one I would favor the most too!
I’m planning on getting the original stock pieces and I have a bayonet for it. I would like to put a finish on it but not sure which way to go on that. I have access to get it plated in black satin zinc. It’s very close to the finish of the magazine. The zinc would offer corrosion protection too. Anyone have a thought on my black zinc option? Would I get all metal parts plated the same color(ie:bolt and bayonet)?
|
|
Thanks,
Dave |
|
Goosic
Senior Member Joined: September 12 2017 Location: Phoenix Arizona Status: Offline Points: 8792 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
My only two cents here will be for you to avoid adding any finish to the bolt. Zinc plating just like chrome plating adds material. Added metal finish on the bolt could have negative effects in way of functionality.
You said you have a bayonet. Does the rifle barrel still have the bayonet lugs? If the bayonet lugs are missing and the barrel is not 24.5",getting a full stock set would not be advisable...
|
|
britrifles
Senior Member Joined: February 03 2018 Location: Atlanta, GA Status: Offline Points: 6539 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
It appears in the photos that the original phosphate is still intact. There may be something available that is close to the black enamel that was used as the top coat finish.
The rifle I just refinished already had almost all the paint removed and areas of the phosphate sanded off. I completely stripped the old finish and refinished with Birchwood Casey Perma Blue and I am very happy with the results. |
|
Jonnybravo
Groupie Joined: July 16 2020 Location: NY Status: Offline Points: 21 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
So are these pictures of your refinished job or are you showing the phosphate finish? I’ve done cold bluing that has lasted 30+ years.....is there anything that allows for a black phosphate looking finish?
|
|
Thanks,
Dave |
|
Jonnybravo
Groupie Joined: July 16 2020 Location: NY Status: Offline Points: 21 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
just found this....
Duracoat Firearm Finish - Can Only - Matte Black https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01IE79SBW/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_wudgFb9YAK0DP Any thoughts or experience with this? Seems like it might be the solution.
|
|
Thanks,
Dave |
|
Jonnybravo
Groupie Joined: July 16 2020 Location: NY Status: Offline Points: 21 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Thanks,
Dave |
|
Post Reply | Page <1234> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |