Thread: Strength Of Lee Enfield Action
Retrieved: 06/05/2014

There are a lot of photos on the internet showing action failures of various rifles. I have yet to see a Lee Enfield receiver failure. I have seen front locking, bolt action receiver rings blown apart on Mausers and Springfields. That makes me appreciate the rear locking Enfield action that has no locking recessess in the receiver ring where escaped gas can do damage.

I started thinking about this when I started to see photos of various bolt actions with the receiver rings blown apart. Two of the surprising ones were a Swedish Mauser and a Mosin Nagant. It made me realize that receiver rings that provide locking recesses have a built in vulnerability when large amounts of gas escape for whatever reason. I thought about the Lee Enfield design and realized that it was immune from this type of damage along with any other design without receiver ring locking.

It then became apparent to me that I have never even heard of a Lee Enfield failure. I know that they are not capable of handling high pressure cartridges but all you ever hear of is stretching and flexing. I have read that Enfield receivers bend downward at the locking recesses when overloaded but I have never read about one blowing apart. I would have to say that the Lee Enfield action is pretty safe for the shooter when the worst happens.

Does anyone have knowledge about any catastropic failures of Lee Enfield receivers and bolts from overpressure rounds or reloading errors?

jmoore
04-18-2012

See this thread (click on link below):

Gallery of Dramas. Broken Enfield Parts!

Some photos of a failed bolt and action on Post #65 with discussion carrying on for several pages. (enlargements on Post #85)

But the rifle at last update was returned to firing status!

Apparently no one's broken anything lately...

Peter Laidler
04-18-2012

I agree 1000% with T/box. In all my time working with them, I never saw a catastrophic failure with one. The two big ones were easily explained but even then, weren't catastrophic. Certainly one of them could (and I think, it was...) rebuilt following the Board of Enquiry

Badger
04-18-2012

Here's another related thread on this subject from a few years ago... Combining a DP Enfield, a Shooter and a Gunsmith ended up with catastrophic failure!

BubbaTheKid
04-18-2012

I just read thru that thread. "Ouch". Did anyone ever generate a check list thread for newbies? I just purchased my first Enfield. A 1916 or 1918 No.1 MK.III*, it has a silver/white 2" wide brush painted stripe around the fore stock which has my attention. I haven't found a DP stamp or ZF stamp, BER stamp anywhere on it. I have Skennerton's book on the way. I plan to take alot of photos and put it up on here in its own thread for all to enjoy before I even think to take it to the range. I purchased it from a friend who bought it from aguy who was given it by a neghbor some years ago. It is full of dust and grease. The bore was clogged with grease but cleaned up to look like a mirror. There's grease on the barrel under the top rear hand guard behind the site. The bolt, receiver,rear sight, barrel, forestock and nose cap are all the same serial number. I'm hoping it was one of those rare items that was dunked in a tub of boiling cosmoline, sold in the USA in the 50's and was forgotten and not a DP rifle, or ZF, BER etc... So far nothing jumps out as suspect other than the silver/white painted stripe. Like I said, I will got thru it with Skennerton and post it up here before I shoot it.

Lee Enfield
04-18-2012

The one I examined some years ago blew the extractor and bolt head side out, and bent the rear of the action down so the bolt could not be withdrawn, and the bolt body was "dolphined" above it's "race". The post mortem indicated that the previous bullet had not left the barrel IIRC.

As to "handling gas" better than a mauser, I disagree. Within @ the last 5 years I've seen 2 people shooting No4 rifles have their glasses broken when the striker struck the lens after punching a hole into a primer. Luckily no eye damage occurred.

Thunderbox
04-18-2012

Originally Posted by Lee Enfield
Within @ the last 5 years I've seen 2 people shooting No4 rifles have their glasses broken when the striker struck the lens after punching a hole into a primer. Luckily no eye damage occurred.

How does that happen, given that there is a compressed spring preventing the pin coming back much beyond "full cock"? Did the base of the bolt shear off, or the collar on the firing pin?

I've had dozens of pierced primers, and always found that the primer gas eventually escapes around the side of the pin (normally blowing gungy oil out of the bolt body!) as soon as the cocking piece reaches its limit of travel. There doesn't seem to be enough energy in a primer to cause anything outside the normal working tolerance of the bolt mechanism.

Beerhunter
04-18-2012

What on earth are those people doing with them? I have been shooting Lee- Enfields for over fifty years now and, in common with other posters, have NEVER seen a catastrophic failure. Nor have ever seen a pierced primer cause that effect.

Simon P
04-18-2012

I have two articles from the 80s written by a Major Yearsley, one was on a No4 that had a barrel obstruction which caused a large hole in the barrel just behind the front sight, the second was a breeech explosion on a L1A1 SLR.

When I get home next week I will scan & post them

Badger
04-18-2012

Another old thread from a few years ago that was a really good read... Battle Damaged Enfields?

Damn, you forget sometimes, that we have some great content contributed by so many terrific Enfield collectors and members.

Peter Laidler
04-18-2012

As a part time physics teacher and one who's conversant with Boyles laws of gas and one who's been in the Armouring game a LONG time, I would seriously question the notion that a ruptured primer would produce sufficient gas to overcome the striker spring sufficient to compress it and... on and on... while at the same time, always taking the line of least resistance - as a gas will always do - past the non existant gas checks and venting in every direction at every opportunity... and... Oh, save us from this please...

I'll say no more for fear of losing my usual diplomatic touch with words.

Bruce_in_Oz
04-18-2012

P. O. Ackley did a study post WW2 in which he set out to evaluate strength and gas and pressure "management" of various actions.

Top of the pile was the (pre-war production) Type 38 Arisaka.

SMLEs came in at lucky number 13, ahead of the Arisaka type 99.

Lee Enfields basically "bend" when subjected to silly pressures. The right side rail stretches and the bolt ends up sticking out the side. BUT, the rear shoulders NEVER fail. If you look at one, it is obvious that there is a lot more steel holding the bolt in than in a Mauser. The other side of that is, as the stress path is much longer than in a Mauser, the stress is distributed over a greater amount of material; thus bending instead of bursting.

That said, possibly the strongest military action ever built was the M-1 Garand. Carefully designed and then carefully made from heat-treated 8620 steel, these things are incredibly tough. You might drive the bolt back so hard it cracks the thin rear wall of the receiver, or you might crack the bolt, but the lock-up will most likely never fail.

I agree that most problems come from dodgy ammo. Too much propellant, the WRONG propellant, ancient, decomposing propellant will generally do damage. Obstructions in the bore and damaged strikers and striker holes are the next cabs off the rank. Another BIG one is untrimmed brass. Who knows how many otherwise good rifles have been damaged or destroyed by the massive overpressure caused by excessive case length. READ the reloading manuals on this subject.

ireload2
04-18-2012

It is widely known to anyone that reads and reloads that gas venting through firing pin holes blows firing pin assemblies back.

As a part time physicist you should be able to calculate the gas volume that can escape through the firing pin bore during the time that same gas is propelling the bullet down the bore. Now considering that escaping gas has a much higher velocity than the bullet you should easily understand how the firing pin can be blown back.

You have the area of the firing pin spring flange being acted upon by the gas. I could calculate this pressure if you wish but I am sure you can do it too.

jmoore
04-19-2012

If you take the bait and allow the ruckus to commence, I might have to finish the .300 Win Mag project that was started some time back during the last big outbreak of this silliness:

A poor old No.4 action with a nickel plated M1917 barrel cobbled on. (the nut is for easy headspace adjustment- no front sight was required...)

bigduke6
04-20-2012

Originally Posted by Thunderbox
I've never heard of any sort of Enfield failure that didn't involve the word "hand load"...

I'll second that, think hand load involves most or all failures in any rifle, or an obstruction in the barrel, which was noted at a last club meeting on a local range, one of the lads had just finished his ten rounds, the last shot was not recorded on the target, he decided to clean the rifle behind the point and found the last bullet lodged in the barrel, very lucky and only by chance he decided to clean it. (rifle was a No4 .303, and was using hand loads!)

smellie
04-22-2012

Had a guy over on CGN the other day, proposed rechambering a Number 4 to 7.62x54R in order to 'take advantage' of the inexpensive surplus ammunition.

So I got out my Radio Shack $6 "brain" (my organic one being defective) and calculated out bolt thrust per round, assuming standard Service pressures and no hot loads. It came out to being a little over a Proof round for every shot. Thankfully, that dissuaded him from the conversion and he is now setting up to handload his .303s.

I have been at this just about 50 years now and the ONLY thing I have seen which approached a "catastrophic failure" with a Lee rifle involved the rifle primarily as one of the VICTIMS. It was actually a brain failure in which the rifle was fired WITHOUT A BOLT-HEAD IN PLACE. When the rifle was brought to me, I unscrewed the fired casing from the split bolt-shank in order to take photos. The wonderful surgeons at the James Paton Memorial Hospital in Gander managed to get aLL of the brass splinters out of the boy's eye and saved his eyesight. The rifle was given a new bolt, WITH a bolt-head this time, and still is being used.

But that was hardly the fault of the RIFLE.

I would put the 1910 ROSS right up there with the M-1 Garand as to strength of the action. Ross fired the 1905 action at 125,000 psi and it didn't wreck it, so he then designed the much-stronger 1910 with the 7 forward locking-lugs. Bolts were factory lapped-in on these rifles and I know of NONE which has been destroyed through having a cartridge fired in it, given that the thing was properly assembled to begin with. Considering that the first Mark III ROSS Rifles were delivered to the Canadian Militia 100 years ago this year, that is a pretty impressive record.

ROCK
04-26-2012

I guess it would be safe to say that catastropic failures of Enfield receivers are just about non existant. Nothing that resembles something like this...

Another receiver that usually stays intact is the Garand type. That is if it is constructed with the correct steel and is properly heat treated. I don't think that the pictured receiver was. This one looks as if it shattered like a brittle, low number 1903 Springfield receiver.

OUT OF BATTERY EXPLOSION M14 - Sniper's Hide Forums