12/21/2021 6:40:32 PM
Reply
or ReplyNewSubject
Section 9: Military Weapons Subject: Jungle Carbine Sporter Msg# 1145476
|
||||||
Well, I don’t want to argue with you. You know more about mil-surps then I ever want to know. But, if it isn’t bedding, what is it? Sure, if you put enough effort into it, you can make them very accurate but we are talking about rack grade rifles. On free float barrels- it does make a difference. Name one modern sniper or target bolt rifle that doesn’t have a free float. |
||||||
|
||||||
For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where: The same basic design also served as a sniper rifle, from the No.4M1 (T) of WWII, to the L39 and L42 (7.62x51NATO) into the 1970s. I have a booklet in my possession of detailed instructions of how these rifles were bedded for exceptional accuracy, so the stock design, despite having handguards, is not a deal-breaker. And if you consider the rifles that have "wrap-around" handguards, as you call them, and yet were not only used as accurate sniper rifles but also were very accurate competition rifles, I think we can say this is not the issue for making accurate rifles in general. That said, we're not talking group accuracy here, we're talking consistent zero, a different kind of accuracy. The way the lightened receiver fit in the wood of the No.5 was considered problematic. So you can call that a bedding a problem. Short of bedding the receivers--and they didn't have Acraglass in those days--the problem was then considered insolvable. |