I have a new to me BSA Model E in 303, these are based on a "customised" P14 Action.

As built both these actions utilise a bottom metal that has a “rocker” built into it, there is a bend just ahead of the trigger guard bow that the action screws pull down against the bottom bed. My Model E has the belly taken out of the bottom metal but not the bedding rocker.

Having this rocker seems to be completely at odds with current thinking on bedding, and while my rifle shoots OK I’m curious now as to wether or not ‘Smiths doing custom work on these actions remove the belly as well as the rocker for these bottom metals??

Do the “new manufacture” bottom metals from the likes of Duane still have the rocker ??

Thanks

Pic please; I am well familiar with P14s but don't know what you are talking about.

Rocker? You mean the bend in front of the box. To get a smooth stock belly and use the old guard is not so easy. You can;t just straignten it out. You have to cut it off completeley then weld it back on. If you don't the spacing of the stock bolts get screwed up.

When I make a stock from scratch I eliminate the frame completely. I make a catch that works like a M-700 bolt release. I hinge the floorplate like a M-70.

On second thought, leave it alone. : )

Yeah, if you mean the bend in front of the box, it is hard to fix that by welding; I cut it off and make a new front piece, flat. I have eliminated the frame sometimes too.

Its not the "belly" at the front I'm looking at, A pic will explain, I have one coming but misplaced my camera cable . . . .

Ok, if you mean that angle on the TG frame, I don't do anything; I leave it as is. You know you can easily fit an 03 Springfield bottom assembly to an Enfield if you want a one piece mag box.

To answer the second part of your question, Duane Wiebe's bottom metal for these does have the slight bend to it. It aligns the rear guard screw and starts the sweep of the grip. The rear guard screw is angled on the Enfields if you were not already aware.

As DPCD mentions, the Springfield is an easy fit and works really well with standard length cartridges. Also allows you more slimming of the stock around the action sides and guard.

Jeremy

I had a copy of the Williams book on converting military rifles once and recall that they had some trick of turning the metal upside down to smooth out the profile.

But why don't people embrace the fore end profile and the dogleg bolt handle? No one complains about the deep magazines of the big CZs or famous British sporting rifles, so why obsess about the poor old Enfield. That bolt handle not only adds interest for the eye but puts the knob in exactly the right place. The only bits I would get rid of would be the ears and the 'Smelly' butt shape.

That trick is for the front end but there are easier ways to do it.

quote:

Originally posted by farbedo:
As DPCD mentions, the Springfield is an easy fit and works really well with standard length cartridges.

Isn't the hole spacing different? Can you please describe what is involved in this? Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
But why don't people embrace the fore end profile and the dogleg bolt handle? No one complains about the deep magazines of the big CZs or famous British sporting rifles, so why obsess about the poor old Enfield. That bolt handle not only adds interest for the eye but puts the knob in exactly the right place.

Here are a couple of examples of what can be done with the P14 action, bolt handle and magazine.

No, the hole spacing on Enfields and Springfields is essentially the same; only the Enfield rear angles back some. It is very easy to fit an 03 to one. Here is how; Screw it on. You will see that the angle of the rear guard screw needs to angle back; file the hole in the guard to allow this. You are done, except the military trigger is slightly wider than an 03, so thin the trigger or widen the TG slot.

"Angling" the screw in like that looks like a recipe for cross threading...

The original is angled; you are just duplicating the same angle as it was with the Enfield TG.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
The original is angled; you are just duplicating the same angle as it was with the Enfield TG.

The Enfield TG hole spacing is about a half a screw width longer than the Springfield and Mauser. I believe that if you tried to duplicate the photo above with an Enfield TG you would find that the angle is actually 90 degrees. The shorter length of the Springfield TG is what creates the angle you see above. I am not at home right now or I would set it up this way and take a photo.

I will take one for you; it ain't 90 degrees. Please go and read some old PO Ackley gunsmithing books and you will see that that was common practice 50 years ago. You are right about the 03 screw spacing being a bit shorter; about .1 inch. That is why you have to alter the rear screw angle and sometimes the head recess.

Interesting, thanks. I didn't expect that...

So I guess a Mauser TG could work as well?

A 98 guard would work too but the rear screw hole is about 1/4 inch too short so you would have to definitely re-cut the head seat for it; maybe weld it up first. And the mag box would be very short for a P14/17. So, that would not be worth the work to make it fit.

Isn't the 1903 and Mauser hole spacing the same though?

The 03 rear screw is angled and the Mauser is 90 degrees which makes a bit of difference.

I like the rifle in your upper pics, xausa. The bare metal in front of the safety on the other one just reminds me of what's been lost.

The P13 really was the most advanced, long-range military design. It had the size and strength for magnum cartridges, cock-on-closing for when things got hot, the best safety and a bolt handle that did not need to be altered for a scope.

By bringing the handle back then down again it gave a more-secure grip for extraction than a banana curve would have done. Remington made interesting use of the dogleg, taking it forward on their M600.