OK thanks guys. You're right Ed - Promags are junk; the spring is too strong and the ears aren't right. I got the original from Sarco today and it worked properly right away. Also went to the range and its pretty accurate.

I'm going to shoot one target with (3) three-shot goups - one for each bullet weight and maybe post it if illustrative. I'm sure Parashooter is right about the recoil effect but I would think that for 7-8" difference at 50 yards there would have to be some other contributing factor. I've seen twist rate and bullet length have this great an effect at 200 yards but I would also be surprised for those to have such an effect at 50 yards. This is my first experience with Enfield 2- groove rifling however and perhaps these differences are unique to it. Also I can definitley see that the front sight base is rotated slightly right from plumb/square with the rear sight. The barrel flat looks like it is correctly aligned with the rear sight however; I don't think the entir barrel is improperly clocked, just the front sight base.

Ed,
Was the Mark VII round a boat tail or was it a flat based bullet? I read forum posts somewhere that someone believed boat tail bullets were not very accurate in 2-groove barrels. I'm finding that the 174s are quite accurate and shoot closest to the sights. I shot a little again yesterday and found similar results; the 174s grouped tightly just on top of the bullseye at about 1.25" o.c., the 180s were again higher and left  but not as far this time, also a nice 1.25" 3-shot group and the 150s were way low and left, a little wild, I wound up shooting five of them just to see what was going on. I shot from the bench at 50 yards and presumably would have 3" (or nearly) accuracy at 100 yards with 174s and 180s.

Thanks. It's a shame then that almost all of the 174 FMJ ammo available is BT rather than FB. I assumed the Brits also made a good many 2-groove barrels since my Maltby has 2-grooves and it was made rather early. It's accuracy is comparable to my Krag, which has a 4-groove barrel (I think) and were generally considered to be accurate rifles. I feel like I can obtain better accuracy with the Krag v-sight than the Enfield aperature but I haven't really shot (the LE#4) enough at various ranges to be certain of that yet. It appears to have a pretty clean and smooth bore, my rifle may not have been to the front, so it may not have seen a lot of cordite. I have read about the bad effects of cordite on the bore and throat erosion etc. and I don't seem to have signs of that.

Anotehr question - my front sight moves easily in the dovetail because there is a cut across the bottom of it. I assume mine is like all others (?) but is there supposed to be something that fits into that cut to expand the dovetail to hold its setting. Mine must be all the way left in order to center 174 FMJs at 50 yards. I can be move it with just finger pressure (handy at the range but not so reliable). If I'm not actually missing a part, I could just use loc-tite I suppose... Any tips?

Ed,
Mine does not have a hole or screw in the front of the sightblock! I've seen photos of that screw before and suppose I just assumed that it was a feature of a No1 Mk3 or something. I'm not sure of the correct terms but I'll call the fixed base and ring of the front sight assembly the sight block, as I believe you have. As I was describing previously, it appears to me that the sight block is pressed onto the barrel over two lugs that are similar to the bayonet lugs (kind of like a gear would be pressed onto a shaft). Mine looks original! There is no break in the paint or any appearance of having been replaced at a later date. My impression is that the paint is original to the date of manufacture because the original stampings have paint in them but BNP, ENGLAND and proof info. at the muzzle do not have paint in them. The bayonet lugs and barrel at the muzzle have the paint well worn off of them as though from isntallation of a bayonet (guard duty?). The sight block has only two transverse holes drilled in it - one is about 1/8" diameter for the front sight guard screw, and the other is perhaps 1/16" diameter and appears to have a pin in it. I assume this is a drive pin that would have to be removed in order to remove the sight block from the barrel, which would be difficult. With the exception of lacking the windage adjustment screw, does my sight block appear different from expected/original in any other way? The front sight blade is stamped "F" and ".045". There is a manufacturer stamp on the rear face of the sight block "N67" I believe. Is this a No5 Mk1 sight block perhaps or would that be the same as the No4? Perhaps some parts were delivered to Maltby that were not correct but got used on a certain number of rifles?

Also, I was thinking I should return this to "original" and it appears I can get most everything from Liberty Tree. I noticed that there are rear top handguards that have grooves and others without. Which would be most correct for a 1942 Maltby.