In 303 range shooting,there were about equal numbers of two and five groove barrels .........so its obvious that accuracy was equal with service ammunition.

 

Some years ago, I'd judge accuracy on rifles at a 100 meter spot, some rifles sited in at 25 meters, then hike into an off road area and we'd set up paper plates, orange shooting clays, and other targets, then hike back out and drive over to the spot to shoot across the canyon at about 550yards laser range finder verified distance. I discovered alot about accuracy of various rifles at that distance, especially characteristics associated with wind, the kinds of ammo I used....good versus cheap plinking ammo, etc. I just don't remember if I took any of my enfields there.

I did have about a 300 meter spot about 25 years ago, did shoot enfields there, ....maybe have shot two and four grooves enfields there with good service ammo probably south african .303, but we would aim at stationary orange clays, water bottles, etc,...rarely any rifle on paper to gauge high accuracy, likely did good if I remember right, but knowing "how good",..all just amateurish shooting with family and friends just to get out on the weekends and get entertained, kicking up dirt or knocking over targets,taking extra care to actually hit a target in general but not getting too serious, etc etc.

 

I think the answer is self evident (and one of the reasons that H&H did not accept many Savage made No4s for conversion to the 4T)

The Ministry of Supply specifications written by the Chief Inspector of Armament Design for the No4T called for 5-groove barrels.

He also specified "that they shall be "as issued" but chosen from those exhibiting higher than normal accuracy, had the split band foresight and the Mk1 'clicker' rear sight".

Specifications were later amended to include the addition of the front trigger guard screw swivel and the Mk2 foresight blades.

When Savage suplied rifles for conversion they were found to have 2-groove barrels and they therefore had to be substitued with British 5-groove barrels.
The other problem with Savage, and Fazakerley rifles was the lack of standardisation of the dimensions of the left hand body wall, meaning every individual rifle had to be manually ground to fit the sight pads.
The additional costs of barrel changes and milling time just made the Savage rifles uneconomic both in cost and time taken.
The only manufacture offering consistent dimensions was BSA and thus the milling machines could be set and every rifle processed without adjustment.

Hence the vast majority of 4Ts are BSA's.

 

I think the answer is self evident (and one of the reasons that H&H did not accept many Savage made No4s for conversion to the 4T)

No, it is not self evident. Just because it looks good and has a clean bore, it does not mean it was unissued. It may have had all of its furniture replaced and not correctly fitted for all you know. The 2 grove vs 4-5-6 debate has been going on in the 1903 circles for a while as well. There is more to the accuracy of the rifle than the barrel. The trigger, the ammo, the fitting of the stock, etc, etc. All have an impact.

You yourself quote documentation that shows rifles were chosen for the T program based on performence first, and then consistency of manufacture. There were many more BSA rifles that did not make it then there were rifles that did. Presence of one sight or another is also not an idicator.

Either cross your fingers that the clean rifle will shoot good enough to be a decent T clone, or do a controlled test with your candidate rifles to see which one performs best.

 

Ruger has put out some very accurate for the dollar rifles with 5 groove barrels. Where as nobody I know of is taking advantage or the potential cost savings to offer a 2 groove. I like that "self evident".

 

I had a Savage #4 with a six groove barrel............accurate or not ,I couldnt say ,dont think I ever fired it.

 

#4 s and P14s were allowed in military range shooting from about 1960 IIRC........prior to that it was only SMLEs with H barrels .........the #4 s were definitely better than SMLEs and quickly took over .

 

Many tests have been done over the years to compare the 2 groove vs 4 groove barrels and accuracy was found to be about the same with either. The 2 groove barrels were faster to produce with equivalent accuracy and also seemed to have a longer life. I believe Col Hatcher did a report. He was original skeptical about the 2 groove barrels but testing showed they were suitable for use.

As for the 5 groove I think a number of long range high end barrel makers have shown that the number of grooves makes less difference than the quality of the steel and the work done to rifle the bore. In building a lot of barrels for long range shooters I've not seen any difference in accuracy with the number of grooves. Most of my barrel have been 4 or 6 groove but a goodly number have had 5 with the "special" 5R rifling. All of them have been really good.

Frank

 

If you shoot cast bullets (unjacketed) the 2 groove barrels work exceptionally well for me and others for that purpose.

 

You cant really compare ancient and modern barrels,as just about every one is made by button rifling now .........this makes any number of grooves with the same effort.............large volume production barrels are hammer forged ............the Lithgow factory forges chamber and barrel internals in one go.

 

re the 5r,

IIRC that was 'invented' by Mr Obermyer, a well respected barrel maker and High Power shooter,
all his barrels were cut, not button , rifled,

not sure if the current 5r barrels, made by various manufacturers, including Remington, are cut or button

 

Bout five years ago I accurized a 2 groove No4 at the muzzle cause an inch before the muzzle there is a slight bulge ring and bore is not as pristine shiny as a well taken care of bore, a former greek used rifle I bought cheap from allens armory originally for the parts on it along with some other project rifles, ...at 100 meters with greek hxp,... and I couldn't believe the accuracy I was getting, ..still a little skeptical what I am remembering, like I was punching holes pretty much center and near center on stationary clays with the 300 meter flip sight peep hole,...those clays are bout four inches across, not bad for a dull shine two groove bore bulge ringed and accurized muzzle,..maybe one to one and a half moa with decent ammo,...that was at least hunting grade accuracy. Probably 1.5 to 2" moa realistically, its time to do this again to verify actual accuracy,....on paper.

As far as owning "unissued" rifles, ....I did buy one No4 F five or four groove barreled rifle at a local gunshop twenty five years ago and it had paper wrapping the shop owner had just removed and offered me the paper when I bought that. I wished now I had never shot it, but at the time I was desperate and I had no No.4 that I remember at that time. I even shot some sketchy surplus ww2 ammo in it, ...but I kept it clean, always a bore swab at the range before getting home to really clean corrosive salts away,...still have that rifle.

I've probably been too overly skeptical pertaining to two groove barrels.

 

I wish I had bookmarked the page that referred to a bunch of No4 accuracy testing with different numbers of grooves. I seem to recall that one conclusion was that when throat erosion started to set in, the 2-groove rifles lost accuracy more quickly than 4- and 5-grooove examples. Of course, this was using cordite ammo. They even tried some experimental 3-groove barrels.

 

That does make alot of sense to me, thanks for that info.

 

Here is the US experience with the 1903a3. Relevant, because Cordite is no longer a factor with modern .303 ammo. For me, this again goes back to the individual rifle and not the number of grooves.

Remington’s WWII Experience With 2-Groove Rifling | Remington Society of America

 

Which is why, if you have a 2-groove Lee Enfield that has spent its life firing cordite , there is no point asking what accuracy you can expect firing NC.

Every rifle will be different depending on has it fired 1000, 5000 rounds or 10,000 rounds of cordite, how much NC has it fired since coming into civvy hands ? How has the barrel been cleaned (if at all)
etc etc.

Only the person with the rifle can work out what their specific rifle will achieve.

Starting with a brand new rifle, or a rifle that has only been used with NC for its whole life, is a very very different kettle of fish.


A "cordite barrel" firing Mk7 ammunition had a military life of some 5-6000 rounds.

An "NC barrel" that had been used with Mk8 ammunition was given a life of 10,000 rounds

 

"A "cordite barrel" firing Mk7 ammunition had a military life of some 5-6000 rounds". AND "An "NC barrel" that had been used with Mk8 ammunition was given a life of 10,000 rounds" AND the link bout two groove barrels Remington’s WWII Experience With 2-Groove Rifling | Remington Society of America are all core to what I have learned.....at this point instead of assuming accuracy I need to experience and document for myself at various distances. So, I have for instance a pristine barely used or near unissued two groove barrel rifle I suspect is accurate with decent NC ammo, like my stores of hxp greek and any high quality reloads that I will use for long range,...NEVER USING cordite ammo with that one or any of the good ones.....technically, I forget how much cordite ammo I own, probably not much anyway, luckily I never shot that much in the rifles I own. BUT I do understand ammo AND barrel characteristics much more now.

Ya know, I actually believe now I could take a pristine barrel two groove rifle and shoot it well at 600 meters/yards with decent accuracy with decent ammo(non cordite to save the bore), and probably with a no drill and tap non invasive scope mount and a long range scope.

Apart from now understanding two groove barrel bores more,...I'd bout only shoot the thousand or so small lot of ammo I have left that is cordite in either a counterbored well used rifle or something else way less than perfect,...or not at all, I mean, I aint as desperate for ammo like I was 25-30 years ago.

I think if a two groove excellent example checked out accurate then it could be turned into a No4T copy if I went that route later, but eh,...so could one of the number of decent bore multi groove No4's be a copy,...errrr, technically, the reproduction stuff is probably hard to come by now unlike in years past,...but no drill decent scope mounts with picatanny rails aren't.

 

I think if a two groove excellent example checked out accurate then it could be turned into a No4T copy if I went that route later, but eh,...so could one of the number of decent bore multi groove No4's be a copy,...errrr, technically, the reproduction stuff is probably hard to come by now unlike in years past,...but no drill decent scope mounts with picatanny rails aren't.

Years ago Shotgun News had a test of a fake No4T assembled by Century or AIM Surplus. It had a two-groove bore and shot just fine. Sub MOA? No, but better than the average rifle, for sure.

On the subject of Remington and their two-groove barrels, a couple of years back I acquired one of those Chilean 1912-61 rifles fitted with an 03A3 barrel cut back for 7.62 NATO. I have yet to shoot it, but it would seem from the article that the rifle will shoot just fine.

 

I had a two groove No4 for years as my range rifle. There was nothing wrong with the accuracy using cordite. When first acquired a former West Australian Queens winner tried it out for me as he and my Father were sceptical of the 2 groove barrels. After the first application of 10 they changed their minds.

 

There was nothing wrong with the accuracy using cordite.

That is, after all, what they were designed to be used with - the problems come 60/70 years later "when the youth of today" try and use something different and are trying for 1 MoA accuracy.

A bit like trying to run your petrol/gas car on diesel and complaining "it runs a bit lumpy and I cannot turn it off"
(Don't ask how I know !!)

 

pics from that book https://www.amazon.com/Shotgun-News-Gunsmithing-Projects-Book/dp/1934622540/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2JCBD128IPMJY&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.8d0l_TTp2rRRzbQvzC6Owj1fqE7VAIsfbTMzmPHvufbGjHj071QN20LucGBJIEps.3JH8hp2AccTfw68SPKDQSpXndDa-uLk8A_9jUDb2aLE&dib_tag=se&keywords=shotgun+news+gunsmithing+projects&qid=1745967474&sprefix=shotgun+news+gunsmithing+projects,aps,212&sr=8-1 IN CASE anyone thinks they need read /buy the book to in theory do their own No.4T conversion,....errrr, if its possible without being a pro gunsmith that is. Well, too bad I wasn't a skilled gunsmith, or I'd convert an old Malaysian used No.5 to .22lr I have with a shot out smooth bore and heavily corroded receiver,...now that would be "cool".

 

If you are going to make a faux No.4 Mk.1 (T) this information will be valuable:

Milsurps Knowledge Library - Making Up a Useable No.4 Sniper - Part 1 (by Peter Laidler)

Making Up a Useable No.4 Sniper - Part 1 (by Peter Laidler)

www.milsurps.com

Milsurps Knowledge Library - Making Up a Useable No.4 Sniper - Part 2 (by Peter Laidler)

Making Up a Useable No.4 Sniper - Part 2 (by Peter Laidler)

www.milsurps.com

Milsurps Knowledge Library - Making Up a Useable No.4 Sniper - Part 3 (by Peter Laidler)

Making Up a Useable No.4 Sniper - Part 3 (by Peter Laidler)

www.milsurps.com

Milsurps Knowledge Library - Making Up a Useable No.4 Sniper - Part 4 (by Peter Laidler)

Making Up a Useable No.4 Sniper - Part 4 (by Peter Laidler)

www.milsurps.com

 

Wow, great posting,....I mean, if I can't do something like that then its very interesting anyway,...will read thoroughly,...I mean, one never knows what they are capable of,..I fix my own guns, light gunsmithing so who knows. Very interesting set of articles though. I'd like to seriously consider if I was ever able to convert one, but ideally I am probably a "no drill and tap" scope mount fella but we'll see after I read those articles.