It has been two months since trying it out, but the latest #4/Mk. 1 shoots several inches higher at 100 yards than my other pair of Mk. 1s.
The same ammo is used (reloaded Prvi-same bullets).

All of my #4s (four rifles) have the iron sights with ladders, and all settings at the lowest possible. Three of this 'Anglo-Saxon tribe' have four or five-groove rifling, and all have fairly bright bores with good rifling.

A few things ...

# - Do all rifles slug to the same spec?

# - Look at the stocking up on the No4 rifle that is shooting high - check the fore-end to see if there is any sign of contact in the barrel channel, between the nocks reinforce and the front sights.

# - Are the front blade sights on all No4 rifles the same height?

# - Are you shooting off a rest and under the exact same conditions you shoot the other rifles?

Tiki.

_________________
Proud Member ...
Lithgow Small Arms Rifle Club - LSARC
Sporting Shooters Association Australia - SSAA
New South Wales Rifle Association - NSWRA
R License Holder - NSW Game Council

At some point they stopped straightening barrels as they had long ago. They found that so long as the last six inches of the bore is straight the rifle will group okay and point of impact would be within reason.
No telling how this might affect variations in elevation from one barrel to another, if it does have such an effect.
With the rear sight mounted on the action body any slight practically unmeasurable cant of the fit of the barrel to receiver ring would greatly affect sight settings.

Another factor could be barrel stiffness.
Late production Savage No.4 barrels were not finish turned from just in front of the reinforce to just before the sight lugs.
This left the barrel a hair thinner in front of the reinforce compared to just past that point. In testing they found this actually improved accuracy by disrupting the flow of barrel vibrations.

If one rifle has a barrel only minutely stiffer than the other( different metal suppliers though both within printed specs ), there would be differences in barrel harmonics and differences in the point of upswing when bullet leaves muzzle.

The No.4 was found to not have as predictable a compensation factor as the SMLE barrels had.
They also had made an effort to reduce the amount of difference in point of impact when the bayonet was mounted. This was found to adversely affect group sizes but apparently was considered more important.
If I recall correctly they achieved this by added downwards pressure of the front handguard near the muzzle.

When it left the factory it was shooting to the sights with MkVII ammunition, they all were. What has happened since, who knows. If it hasn't been dic ked around with by bubba, and all the screws are tight, then it will be a bedding issue. The thing you need to work out is do you try to fix a problem you don't know, or do you adapt. If it shoots decent groups, I would change the foresight blade and bring it on to target. If it doesn't, refer to Tiki's list above and start looking for the cause.

_________________
"The more valuable input you can get, the better chance you have of sorting fact from folklore"
"I'm not saying lets go kill all the stupid people, just remove the warning labels and let the problem sort itself out"

Do you have a source for that statement?

Savage had no design authority for the rifle, and there is no record of the factory being in any way involved in modifying the barrel. Such a modification would have invariably meant that the barrel would have had to have a specific part or mark number to differentiate it from other production types.

Manufacturing variations in materials, assembly and even barrel straightness only had a tiny effect on the final sighting of the No4 rifle; the weapon was designed to allow for such variations, and the proof is in the fact that they built 4+ million units that were sighted in at +/- 0.03" or whatever the acceptance criteria was.

My first savage No.4 had one of those barrels so I looked it up to find out why. That was long before the internet so I know of no site that mentions it.
You might find the information in a copy of the American Rifleman from the 1960's, good luck.

If you ever run across one of these barrels these are signs to look for.
While the Knox Form and reinforce are finish turned that finish turning only extends about two inches past the reinforce.
Where the finished turned portion meets the rough turned portion there are rough longitudinal file marks where they tried to smooth out the raised edge of the interface.
From the interface to the shoulder ahead of the sight lugs the barrel surface is scored by fine ridges from the cutting head used in rough turning, giving an almost threaded appearance.

How many barrels were left in this condition I have no way of knowing. Only way of seeing the signs is to remove the handguards.

Manufacturing short cuts in order to meet demand were common during WW2, and normally required some official approval. Whether any such approval would be required for what amounts to a matter of detail of exterior finish of a part not normally visible is not clear.

I'd have to say, take that last answer with a grain of salt, the truth is being stretched a tad.
It sounds like this unsupported claim is just that. Any, and I repeat ANY barrel that was outside spec's, was binned....repeat...BINNED.

So how come the six groove barrels, the two groove barrels, the barrels with minor diameter not finish reamed, etc.
The British allowed a lot of leeway to subcontractors if the shortcut would prevent a bottleneck in production.
Other parts were subject to far more radical shortcuts and substitutions. The cocking pieces with neither grasping grooves nor half bent notch for example.
At one point the British took some of the rifles that used alternate parts out of circulation and had these brought back into the original standards, but these rifles still show up from time to time.

Unless you have X-ray eyes and have personally examined each and every Savage No.4 MkI* ever manufactured you might be suprized by what you find under the hood.

The use of "Fat" portions of the Barrel has also been used in more recent firearms, such as the SFW Barrel used on some Canadian clones of the AR-15/M-16. Though in that case its more to act as a heat sink it also deadens vibration near the muzzle.

I still have my Savage No.4, though due to heavy pitting I filed and polished the barrel a bit. I removed no more than necessary, not even trying to get to the bottom of the worst pits, and the barrel retains its odd profile.
I've compared this barrel to a British made five groove barrel and the difference in thickness is obvious to the eye.
This barrel has proven to be uncommonly accurate, and far less affected by bullet throw due to body flex. Three shot groups of S&B .303 FMJ print with 1/2" horizontal spread at three hundred yards, and 3" vertical spread, a solid one MOA shooter with factory ammo.

They were extremely unlikely to cull a otherwise serviceable rifle due to a cosmetic factor of a part not even visible unless taken apart for servicing or refurbs.
The rough turned barrels are mud ugly but as the testing proved they were if anything the better for the slight increase in wall thickness along the mid barrel.

Ask around you may even know someone who has a Savage barrel like mine, and looked up why it looks as it does.

I have read in the past that you can take three barrels made one behind the other on the same equipment and of the same steel and each will have different characteristics even though they measure the same dimensionally. They measured differences in velocity and point of impact. This is bound to happen especially if the bullet in each barrel has different barrel time and there will differences in the fundamental vibration frequency of each barrel. I would not worry about it. Only someone with OCD would expect each barrel to be the same.
Additionally everything else being the same there is the varied composite nature of wood in the stock to consider plus individual differences in the bedding and tension on the barrel. Too many variables to consider.

Very true.

As for Muffets supposed bining of parts that varied from specification or sealed pattern.
The following is from Reynolds The Lee Enfield Rifle, page 156-157.



Nope, small chance they gave a rat's patoot what the barrel looked like under the fore arm.
If the rifle worked at all they let a lot of small stuff slide.

There seems to be an assumption that if you quote a reference you should be believed, in some cases this is the case.
Assuming that the quote or reference is accurate and directly applies to the article or item in question.
However I notice a lot of unsubstantiated quotes, claims and statements that are invariably suspect and have difficulty standing up under scrutiny.
A case in example, Savage shooters last quoting Reynolds book pages 156-157 and using it in reference to barrels, the problem is these pages refer to minor body parts,(see last paragraph page 156....".The many war time modifications embodied in the No.4 Rifle were largely alternative designs of component parts to meet the requirements of various manufacturers.").... the paragraph then goes on about individual components e.g upper and lower bands, foresight blades etc.
Barrels don't get a mention until page 158 and only about 2,4,5 and 6 groove, nickleing and accuracy tests.
Are you starting to get the picture?
No leeway was allowed in any pressure bearing component without comprehensive testing and if approved would be advised by a revised 'List of Changes' direct from the approving authority in England.
Random statements or comments that are questionable are often overlooked or let slip by some of us, sometimes it is just too much trouble to offer a correction, other forum members will usually jump in and offer other options that gradually sort the problem, without the input of an accurate one line answer that sorts the problem, but does little to add to the ongoing continuity of the thread or forum.
However, if the inaccuracies are continuous and begin to stretch credibility, the situation should be corrected.
Please utilise the research and archive facilities of this and other forums, the information is already there, it also makes very interesting reading, a good personal reference library of your own will also help.
If this thread had not gone off on such a tangent about bent barrels, the solutions offered would have been expounded upon and the OP would be off to the range to enjoy his shooting.
Have a nice day.

That's pretty well said muffet2008.

Would pictures of the barrel satisfy you? If YOUR claims are correct, then his barrel could not exist, as it would have been binned, right? So if he isn't simply lying about his barrel, wouldn't that make your statement incorrect, regardless of the substantiation?

Speaking of unsubstantiated claims...where is your proof that out of spec barrels, that were within spec internally, were binned? And where is your spec for the exterior barrel finish, for that matter?



Not really. Your point is pointless, as he wasn't talking about the possible changes to specs for the barrel, he was simply giving an example of the fact that the military was FAR more interested in putting guns in hands, as evidenced by the fact that they didn't bin the bad mags, and so they may ALSO have been willing to overlook any small changes in barrel exterior finish that did not affect the fit of the wood, nor the ability of the gun to send lead downrange accurately.



Substantiation? Regardless, I am pretty sure the folks on the floor would look at the thing, assess the time needed to get a spec change approved, compare that to the need to get guns out to the troops, then decide that MORE material would not negatively impact pressure standards, and give the OK to proceed without waiting for top level authorization.

Not saying that IS the way it happened...just saying that there is a possibility, and no one has shown any proof that my story isn't just as valid as anyone's.




Cool! Assuming you have already done so, as you seem to know all the answers..could you save us all some time, and just provide a link to them?
I'd love to see them, but I am going to be busy shooting my rifles.

_________________
Bubba really ticks me off...
and I sure wish he would give me the OEM stock for my 7mm Spanish Mauser...

I reread the title of the original post. Every one has gotten off track as has been said. I think Tikkirocker basically addressed the question. Remember that these rifles are over 60 years old and no one knows what they have been through or who cleaned them. The sight may not have been properly regulated to begin with or could have been changed.

The original author Laufer has not responded to any of this so I would like to hear from him.


On a related issue (here I go muddling things up) I don't know about the legacy of the article and it addresses moa not regulation, but it has some interesting data (?)
http://www.allaboutenfields.co.nz/links ... /articles/
The article was called "chasing lee enfield accuracy".

Wow Laufer
You just ask why your No 4 shoots high and you get all of this.

I love this forum

_________________
"The government, belongs to the people . Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." Abraham Lincoln