Sunday, September 17, 2006
Orphaned
The spring-powered bolt is impressive. Why American gunmakers abandoned this kind of receiver confounds me.
It would seem to me that, as a sniper weapon, one could not argue with the bolt being spring-loaded and designed to eject once the bolt was released. As such, I fail to understand how this concept got heaped on the dust pile.
Follow-up shots are far easier with this rifle than with any other bolt-action rifle I've shot. Now there may be deficiencies to this concept, but, thus far, I have failed to recognize them.
It would seem to me that, as a sniper weapon, one could not argue with the bolt being spring-loaded and designed to eject once the bolt was released. As such, I fail to understand how this concept got heaped on the dust pile.
Follow-up shots are far easier with this rifle than with any other bolt-action rifle I've shot. Now there may be deficiencies to this concept, but, thus far, I have failed to recognize them.
Comments:
<< Home
One reason for moving to a different action design is the locking lugs are at the rear--not as strong as the front locking lugs on a mauser (with a non-bearing safety lug at the rear) or most other action designs. As for the cock-on-close, maybe the baby got thrown out with the bathwater?
I don't have much experience with the SMLEs, but I agree with you: they sure are fast to cycle.
I don't have much experience with the SMLEs, but I agree with you: they sure are fast to cycle.
I'm a major fan of the cock-on-close design. My first bolt-rifle was a No. 4 Mk I, my second was an 1896 Swedish Mauser. My most recent was a 1917 Enfield. I like the fact that in a cock-on-close design, all of the effort involved in lifting the bolt goes to unlocking the action, not cocking the thing.
HOWEVER, I've got four Lee-Enfields - two No. 4s and two No. 5s. One No. 5 has stretched to the point that it is unsafe to fire - case head separation is guaranteed. One No. 4 throws bullets through the paper sideways at 50 yards - the bore is just gone due to corrosive ammunition and bad care. (Before I bought it.) The other No. 4 is only capable of about 6 MOA. The other No. 5 is good for about 4 MOA.
A couple of days ago I found a severely bubba-ized P14 Enfield that I'm having a VERY hard time not purchasing. The bore is pristine, and I can always put another stock on it.
Your No. 4 looks really nice. Is it a Lend-Lease Savage?
HOWEVER, I've got four Lee-Enfields - two No. 4s and two No. 5s. One No. 5 has stretched to the point that it is unsafe to fire - case head separation is guaranteed. One No. 4 throws bullets through the paper sideways at 50 yards - the bore is just gone due to corrosive ammunition and bad care. (Before I bought it.) The other No. 4 is only capable of about 6 MOA. The other No. 5 is good for about 4 MOA.
A couple of days ago I found a severely bubba-ized P14 Enfield that I'm having a VERY hard time not purchasing. The bore is pristine, and I can always put another stock on it.
Your No. 4 looks really nice. Is it a Lend-Lease Savage?
Kevin,
There are minimal rollmarks on this rifle. I can date it, but am not sure of the manufacturer.
I will be doing more research so, it's possible, I might find more information.
Best regards,
Benjamin
Post a Comment
There are minimal rollmarks on this rifle. I can date it, but am not sure of the manufacturer.
I will be doing more research so, it's possible, I might find more information.
Best regards,
Benjamin
<< Home
