Thread: More Bad Press For The Enfield
Retrieved: 06/11/2014
It looks as if the bad press is starting to spread.
"Sporting Rifle"
March 2010 Edition page 85
The article is about shooting in the rain:
"Water in your action or on your ammunition will cause elevated and variable chamber pressures. At best this will mean erratic elevation, at worst a stretched action. Lee Enfield actions are notorious for this. A No.4 shooting 7.62 ammunition is already doing a job a little beyond its design parameters.
This coupled with questionable gunsmithing and significantly undersized bores when the rifle was 'converted' from .303 gives a poor starting point in the safety stakes. Add to that an action full of rain and wet ammunition and you may be heading towards disaster.
For a ferrous alloy, such as steel used in a rifle action, as long as stresses do not exceed a particular level the fatigue life of the action can be regarded as infinite. But we do not know what level of stress that is, so we must assume that any stressing of the action beyond its design parameters is dangerous. The crucial point is that stressing the action beyond this limit has a cumulative effect, which ultimately leads to failure. The more we overstress the action the closer we come to that failure.
Dozens of times I've seen shooters shooting Long Lee Enfields and SMLE's, particularly at the Trafalgar Meeting in the pouring rain, making no effort to keep the rain off their ammunition or out of what is an even weaker action than a No4. To cap all this, when the rifle passed into civilian hands it was subject to a deliberate overload at the proof house. The fact that it didn't give way then is no guarantee it wont give way tomorrow"
There then follows a photograph of a No.4 action with the by-line:
"This post-war No.4 action is the best of the Lee Enfield bunch but if you overstress it you risk your life"
I, for one, would like some evidence of the fact that LE actions are 'notorious' for this!
If anyone else feels strongly enough to write in, the magazine is published by:
Blaze Publishing
Laurence House
Morrell Street
Leamington Spa
Warwickshire
CV32 5SZ
Email : info@blazepublishing.co.uk
Tel : 01926 339808
Edward Horton
02-08-2010
I emailed you and told you that you were conversing with "inherent weakness" Alfred AKA GunnerSam in another forum.
In this same forum "inherent weakness" Alfred said he was in contact with the British NRA and "other sources" warning them about shooting the Enfield in the rain and the .308/7.62 conversions.
Common sense by the reader is required when reading this material printed by uninformed gullible sources.
It is also my understanding that wars and conflicts are not called off due to rain.
I can also tell you the Enfield rifle was proof tested with oiled proof rounds to increase bolt thrust to seat the bolt lugs and bolt head. I can also tell you that after this proof test the Enfield rifle was checked to see if the head space had increased excessively.
Oil and water on your ammunition and in your chamber can increase the wear and head space on ANY rifle, BUT it does not cause the Enfield rifle to explode.
(Just ask your veterans who fired them under wet combat conditions)
I can also tell you that here in the U.S. there are no warning stickers on our bananas telling us that if you step on a banana peel you can slip and break you neck.
Beerhunter
02-08-2010
Where on earth do they get these people who write this scaremongering rubbish - the NRA?
Alan de Enfield
02-08-2010
My Items for Sale Originally Posted by Beerhunter Where on earth do they get these people who write this scaremongering rubbish - the NRA? The contributing author is "Chris White".
What is also a little bit 'off' is the comment about "questionable gunsmiths", I suppose he is refering to RSAF Enfield and Parker Hale and their various 7.62 No4 based rifles (L39, Enforcer, Envoy, etc etc)
No doubt there have been some 'questionable' gunsmiths and home conversions but one would expect the MOD, RSAF Enfield and Parker Hale to have enough knowledge and experience not be lumped in with the 'questionable' crowd.
Peter Laidler
02-08-2010
You could write them a letter and tell them that the UK MoD doesn't have any record (so far as their records go nowadays) of a Lee Enfield breaking due to water on the ammunition or the rifle. You could also say that Malaya had/still has its fair share of wet weather... in fact it has daily monsoons that you can set your wristwatch by. In fact, monsoons to end all monsoons, that would shove big armoured Bedford QL and RL trucks off the laterite tracks with their ferocity and the little Lee Enfields seem to have behaved admirably there.
Of course, I might have been missing something but I certainly didn't keep my rifle under a groundsheet or a poncho. Maybe the editor knows something we don't know. Maybe you could ask Chris White to contact me at the Small Arms School...
villiers
02-08-2010
Scientific literature is of one accord on the damaging effects of water. Moisture can damage the skin and brain damage caused by light rain is not unknown. It is now common knowledge that Lee Enfield rifles (especially the 7.62 adapted No.4s) can easily be disolved in water causing the bolt to evaporate. But when I lost my rifle on exercise in the late 1950s, this explanation was not accepted by the authorities and a miscarriage of justice was the inevitable result. In these enlightened times, we must congratulate Chris White and his erudite magazine Sporting Rifle on their campaign to enlighten the yet uninformed public.
bradtx
02-08-2010
Alan, Even though I think the info is either bogus or overly a CYA article, thanks for posting it.
While I wasn't the first in my area to shoot a L-E in mil-surp competition, I attended enough for other shooters to become aquainted with me and my L-Es. There was a notion that L-Es will fly apart with the least bit of encouragement. That has been corrected in my small corner of the world simply by how well I did (usually okay), nothing blew up and letting them fire my rifles afterwards.
All in all I'll pit my inferior two piece stocked, weak actioned L-Es against any mil-surp in the world, and that includes my 'overly stressed' L42A1.
Brad
PS There have been a couple of POF rounds go through the Mk.2 that made a 7.62 NATO round in the L42 feel like a .22 short and actually brought tears to my eyes without any damage whatsoever (is that one word?).
PPS Okay, there was a bit of a struggle to remove the empty cases.
PrinzEugen
02-08-2010
Trouble is it's all based on bad science. The people (person?) who believes the 7.62 action is weak (and let's face it, it could well be him who's behind the whole thing, including the NRA notice and this article) basically spend their entire time trawling for 'evidence' which backs up their viewpoint, and ignoring any which doesn't. I mean, what's more persuasive - dealers and armorers who actually have had hundreds if not thousands of these rifles through their hands and fired and tested as their daily job, or cut and paste anecdotal stuff brought together by trawling the internet, and without any attempt whatsoever to verify or conduct their own tests, then put forward as evidence to back up the argument. Science vs a 'dodgy dossier'...
me2
02-08-2010
Jeeeezzzeee! I guess a proven battle rifle with over 100 years lineage must NOT be fired in the rain! As Peter so aptly pointed out, the Malayan peninsula was about as wet as wet can be. These "experts" need to crawl back under the rock from whence they came!
spinecracker
02-08-2010
Sounds like the contributing author has a hidden agenda. I feel a letter to the editor coming on. Alan, what was the name of the article?
Alan de Enfield
02-08-2010
I fully intend to write a letter, asking for the source(s) of the information and pointing out that the "questionable gunsmiths" includer RSAF Enfiled and Parker Hale, and, with Peter's OK I'll certainly conclude with the offer for the author to discuss the situation with the UK's Senior Armourer
I'm sure we all think there is some 'agenda' behind this information, unfortunately the shooting public will take as 'gospel' whats written in a 'quality' shooting magazine.
The article is titled "Wet Weather Drill"
spinecracker
02-08-2010
Definitely a hidden agenda. The article starts off nicely enough, then becomes a vicious diatribe against the Lee Enfield. The author shows himself to be a total mammary gland on this. An email is on its way to the editor right now. The more of us write, the more chance of success (or is that too many cooks spoil the broth??). For a firearm with notorious issues and plenty of instances of life-threatening catastrophic failures, I am surprised that none of us or the British military have heard of them before.
Jollygreenslugg
02-08-2010
Good thing it hasn't rained since 1889 otherwise we'd have been in a whole world of trouble. Lucky for us, it was nice and dry on the Somme, or my great grandfather (22nd Batt, AIF) may have been in strife.
Sheesh!
spinecracker
02-08-2010
What I can't get my head round is the way the article is written. It is a harsh critique of the Enfield that is barely camouflaged by a not very good article on shooting in wet weather. By the way, Chris White, stop being such a big girl's blouse about shooting in wet weather - either stay indoors, get an umbrella or grow a pair of testicles.
spinecracker
02-08-2010
My letter to the editor, which has not been sent yet. I am not a good writer, so comments are appreciated. As Alan rightly said (and beat me to the punch), this article could easily become gospel for the general public, and I would hate that.
Dear Sirs,
I have had an opportunity to read an article entitled "Wet Weather Drill" by Chris White (March 2010 edition, page 85). The article begins innocuously enough, but quickly degenerates into a baseless diatribe regarding the Lee Enfield rifle. I would be grateful if the author of the article could enlight the readership of your publication regarding the sources of his information regarding the 'notorious' Lee Enfield action and its supposed weakness. The author does not specify in his article if his comments regarding 'questionable gunsmithing' extends to RSAF Enfield and Parker Hale, and to Lee Enfield versions such as the Envoy and Enforcer, and clarification is, I feel, necessary on this point. I would also like him to produce data indicating any failure of any .303 or 7.62 Enfield action due to water infiltration or any other cause. The fact is that, although any firearm action is potentially at risk of failing if overloaded, the article reads as though Lee Enfield actions are weaker and more prone to failure than any other rifle action. This is not the case, even when correctly converted to 7.62. The Lee Enfield design has been battle-tested in multiple environments, including the snows of Norway, the jungles of Malaysia, the deserts of Africa and the mud of the Somme. The British Army and police forces, and armed forces around the world, have successfully used the Lee Enfield, in both .303 and 7.62 configurations for decades.
I would be grateful if Chris White was given an opportunity to publish in your magazine the data he used in compiling his article or, failing that, you print a retraction of his ludicrous claims.
Surpmil
02-08-2010
Who exactly is this "Chris White"?
Definitely a little campaign under way here... but who's behind it?
Notice the obvious borrowing from the NRA pablum.
Waiting for the next "spontaneous" effusion.
Son
02-09-2010
Gentlemen, I have also drafted a letter to the editor. I will leave it posted here for 24 hours seeking comment and input from any and all before I send it on.
Hook in guys- I need to get this right!
-------------------------------------
Dear Sir,
I'm saddened to see a publication like Sporting Rifle being used to further an agenda of someone who seems to be bent on discrediting one of Great Britian's truly great icons, the Lee Enfield rifle.
The article named above started out as in informative "personal experience" piece about how best to cope with wet conditions on the range. If he had continued in this vein, the author Chris White would have made a positive contribution to the factors taken into account by shooters heading out for a day at the range. But this is just a set-up. Instead he moves to a point he seems to have picked up on from a statement made by the NRA in the US recently and ends up putting out a very negative message.
The NRA accused the Lee Enfield of being dangerous and banned it from certain NRA events. In expanding on the NRA's unsubstantiated claims of "failures... after prolonged use which is exacerbated by the use of cartridges contaminated by wet weather or oil" Mr White has conveniently shown that it often rains in England where Lee Enfields are often used on ranges and so they must be becoming dangerous.
In recognizing his attempt to put fear of failure and injury into the minds of the men and women who proudly use their firearms week in and week out at their local clubs and representative events, I have to ask the question... what has he got to gain?
Mr White's article is sensationalism in it's worst form. It is not only unsubstantiated in itself, but is also nothing more than a plagiarized idea from another unsubstantiated piece from the US, as well as being an attack an icon of British and Commonwealth history.
Your magazine really needs to ask Mr White to either put up the evidence to back his story- the rifle deserves this at least (evidence that the NRA in the US cannot even provide) or print a retraction of his comments.
I can inform you that that the UK MoD doesn't have any record of a Lee Enfield breaking due to water on the ammunition or the rifle. Perhaps Mr White needs to speak to someone who actually knows the topic, not rely on an NRA release.
I have copied the NRA statement below for you to form your own opinion. Even if you see their point, you will also see the second half of Mr White's article is nothing but a tale built around this...
words fail me...
7.62/.308 Enfield Conversion Safety Alert
Further consideration is being given to any potential safety issues concerning the use of .308 Win (7.62mm x 51) factory ammunition in 7.62mm conversions of Enfield No.4 rifles. Discussions are ongoing with the UK Proof Authorities over a joint statement which will be published as soon as it is available on the NRA website and in the Journal. Pending that statement, the Association must apply the precautionary principle, thus the following advice remains extant: A basic principle of Firearm Safety is that the individual is wholly responsible for the safety of the firearm/ammunition combination he proposes to use. However, in competitions where ammunition is "as issued" the NRA has a duty to ensure that the ammunition it issues does not create a hazard.
The Enfield No.4 action and its derivatives were originally designed for use with the .303" cartridge which has a lower maximum cartridge pressure than the .308 cartridge. The actions were produced in huge numbers by several factories to varying standards. These conversions are not all "factory" conversions as barrels of many different makes with varying internal dimensions have also been fitted to a number of such actions over the years. Additionally the history of the usage of most of these actions is not traceable. There is some evidence of failures of these converted actions after prolonged use which is exacerbated by the use of cartridges contaminated by wet weather or oil. As the NRA is now supplying ammunition manufactured especially to its requirement, they are no longer prepared to allow the use of these conversions in events where the ammunition is provided. Nor do they condone the use of this particular ammunition in these rifles at any time. What the shooter chooses to fire through their rifle upon other occasions is of course entirely at their own risk and liability."
Alan de Enfield
02-09-2010
Son - I think maybe you are getting the magazines 'mixed up'.
The magazine in question is "Sporting Rifle" (Not Target Shooter) and Whilst I have been taking the magazine there have been no articles on the Enfield Sniper rifles.
Apart from that - great letter.
Beerhunter
02-09-2010
The article purports to be about advice to TR (Target Rifle) shooter. Now the one thing that TR shooters do NOT like is rifles that have magazines because they are inherently evil and may contaminate the Holy ground at Bisley. Especially as some of the shooters of these nasty guns insist on USING the magazines in some competitions.
If TR shooters such as the author do not point out how evil magazine rifles like Lee-Enfields are then some unscrupulous members of the NRA may even use them on Stickledown. I have personally witnessed them being used on Century rather than Short Siberia - where they rightly belong with all the other 'cowboy' guns.
There is no doubt that the people who shoot these horrible inventions do not 'know the form' and will insist on grinning and generally having good time. (You know know who I mean - LERA. At least some of the HBSA are a bit po faced and have been to 'good' schools.) Unless a stand against Lee-Enfields is made now, the NRA may find that a lot more people are using them.
Mk VII
02-09-2010
They DO shoot high when they get wet (usually about five minutes high) and it is a fair criticism of a rifle which can reasonably expect to be used in a variety of weather. And the author is referring to the 7.62 ones, so knock off all this stuff about the Somme. A combination of oily cartridge plus strong rain WILL run up pressures and people who think they can repeatedly develop something approaching proof pressure without consequences are fooling themselves.
Geez, anyone would think someone had just spat on the flag. Lighten up.
Thunderbox
02-09-2010
Geez, anyone would think someone had just spat on the flag. Lighten up.
Yes, but there is no evidence that oil and/or rain cause a pressure to develop that is anywhere near the elastic limit of the action.
There is not the slightest evidence that, in 40 or so years of 7.62mm Enfield use, there exists any kind of problem related to the use of the round. Show me a "stretched action" - I haven't yet found anyone in the gun trade who can.
Sorry, but publications and the UK NRA should not be perpetuating internet myth without providing some evidence in support.
Strangely Brown
02-09-2010
I agree with MkVII on this one; rain will up the pressure and it's only sensible house keeping to keep ammunition as dry as possible, I have shot at Bisley in pouring rain next to another club who were using converted No4's and not taking the slighest interest in keeping ammunition dry, and that is not a comfortable feeling!
LERA's take on this is that club 7.62mm converted No 4's will only be used with 144 Grn ammunition, and as TR Captain I believe that this is a sensible course to take. I have reloaded 150 Grn Sierra Match Kings for No 4 actions but would not (my choice) use 155 Grn bullets.
We have to be accountable for our actions when sharing range space with other people, however it does not mean that I agree entirely with the NRA statement which I think was badly researched and worded.
Beerhunter
02-09-2010
Originally Posted by Strangely Brown
I agree with MkVII on this one; rain will up the pressure and it's only
sensible house keeping to keep ammunition as dry as possible.
I agree as well and I even try to keep my .303 dry, for accuracy reasons. It is the hysteria that I object to.
Strangely Brown
02-09-2010
A wet or oily chamber and or cartridge does NOT increase chamber pressure, oil or water in the chamber prevents the cartridge case from gripping the chamber walls and increases rearward "bolt thrust" or force on the bolt.
The highest the "bolt thrust" can be is equal to is the chamber pressure of the fired cartridge. On the .308/7.62 cartridge this is 50,000 CUP or 60,000 PSI.
Below is from Jim Sweets book "Competitive Rifle Shooting" first printed in 1946 and these pressures were from laboratory testing, the pressures listed are for the .303 cartridge.
Item "a" should always be done before shooting.
In simple terms if "ALL" your fired ammunition is oily or wet the life expectancy of your rifles action is cut in half. The first indications you will see from repeated shooting of oiled or wet cartridges is a increase in rifle head space.
As the head space increases on the rifle from excess bolt thrust the pounding the bolt lug recesses in the receiver, bolt lugs, bolt body and bolt head increases dramatical. AFTER your rifles maximum head space has occurred the possibility of the action body stretching and cracks and fractures occurring increases.
Oil or water in the chamber has the same effect on ALL rifles not just the Enfield rifle. Our new American short "magnum" cartridges because the cases have much less surface area to grip the chamber walls are pounding these new rifles into early retirement.
englishman_ca
02-09-2010
Sounds like another perpetuated urban myth. A wet cartridge might possibly exert more thrust back onto the breech face due an inability of the cartridge case to grip the chamber wall on expanding. Sounds feasible, but so does using the magazine cut off for making dumdum bullets or snapping the firing pin off in the little hole in the charger bridge.
I have no hard evidence to prove either way, but sounds like a bunch of claptrap to me. Maybe just a CYA. I do get peeved when I hear the same old story going around again and again with a different twist. Maybe this concerns only 7.62 conversions, but I have never heard of any failures due to wet ammo!? I sometimes wonder where myths start and comes from.
I hunt. I hunt Ontario in the fall. I hunt in the rain and in saturated wet brush. Often I have water literaly dripping off me and out of the action. I make it a point to carry with the muzzle down to let water drain out. Ever notice the hole in the bottom of an SMLE mag? It is a drain hole!!!
I asked my Dad, he was a cavalry sniper with the Black Watch, Royal Navy when the commie Germans invaded Pearl Harbour. He was the first one into the Reichstag and almost caught Hitler the morning that he slipped out the back door and escaped to Brazilwith Stalin in his Zeplin. He did take and keep Hitler's AK47 as souvenir and brought it home duffle cut in his lunch box. After the war, he traded it with a buddy for one of those $50 Jeeps in the crate, but he did keep the leather sling, which I saw, it still had the initials A.H. written on the back.
Dad said that the Lee Enfield was great for house clearing, all you had to do was wet it, cock it on a loaded round and then throw the gun into the room with the safety off and let it hit the floor, apparantly it worked beter than a grenade. He said that both the SMLE and the Ross, were susceptable to wet and mud. Only way to clear them quickly in battle was to urinate into the action. A smart soldier kept his fly open and fourby in the butt trap to use as a hanky to dry each round, otherwise the bolt would come flying out the back of the receiver and get lost in the mud. The rifle would then be useless, which is the main reason for the issue of bayonets.
Badger
02-11-2010
Yesterday, we received a general web post from an individual under the signature block Editor Target Sports section in Sporting Rifle magazine (not to be confused with a similarly named but different on-line electronic publication called Target Shooter Magazine.
To be frank, it was a less than flattering general bashing of our site, our members and more specifically, our lack of moderation and failure to effectively censor and perhaps censure posters who expressed their opinions about their published article in this thread.
There were specific references to two emails he apparently received, which I assume came from some of our members here. In reference to them, the sender said: "We WERE going to deal with them in a well-considered and precise (though more polite way than they deserved), keeping it in-hand within the magazine. That way the major points could have been met without having to prove the failures and injuries attributed to the use of these rifles (some reaching parliamentary debate) over the years. Others have indeed, sensibly, been kept quiet. That may have to change now, thanks to these letter writers."
The sender indicated that he had no interest in addressing the matter in this thread, as he felt because of the lack of site moderation and the "blinkered" bias of our members, the issue couldn't be discussed objectively.
I was going to reprint his letter in its entirety here, but it was such an unprofessionally written mess, that I couldn't see that would contribute anything positive except to incite and inflame everyone worse than I became after reading it. I thought about just ignoring it, but after re-reading some of the veiled threats contained within it, apparently suggesting that they were taking the matter further (whatever that means), I thought that minimally I'd publish my response (also sent yesterday) for you guys to read and just leave it at that for now.
Regards,
Doug (Badger)
Our site is not a propaganda tool designed to promote one view over another, nor is it a scientific journal subject to independent peer review boards. We do have an Advisory Panelto benchmark and ensure some technical guidance as to what members are saying about various genres of collectibles, but ironically, many of them spoke out against the assumptions drawn and published within the article as well.Our site is simply a collectors research site where members can gather and post their own opinions about any issue, both pro and con, provided they observe a simple set of rules of engagement in dealing with each other. In basic terms, we ask that they not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, anti-Semitic, discriminatory, hateful, threatening, bigoted, or otherwise violative of any laws. Other than that, they are free to express their own thoughts and we have no intention of censoring anyone who stays within the boundaries they agreed to when they originally registered to use the forums. Like any forum with over 11,000 registered members, nothing is perfect and we do have a few folks who wonder outside the envelope and are either cautioned or banned. In general however, these are a really great bunch of people, all of whom gather electronically to share their common love for a hobby that isn't too politically correct nowadays, particularly in today's liberal dominated world.
As a journalist, I'm sure you're not really advocating censorship, but rather wanting to present clarification as to what the author really meant to say, as purely a rebuttal to what many serious Enfield collectors, gunsmiths and other expert sources, who are recognized and highly published authors themselves, have been saying about the article as they understood it?
If that's the case, then I don't understand why you (or the author who feels slighted), didn't simply register and present the empirical data to show how the article has been grossly misunderstood and misrepresented (as you put it), within those postings in the Lee Enfield Collectors Forums?
You reaction seems to be highly defensive, full of emotional charged rhetoric and so disproportionate to the event, that I have to seriously wonder what the real issue is?
Since you feel that joining the site to present your case is beneath your journalistic standards and values, I'm not exactly sure how you expect us to get your viewpoint across to the members you're challenging, short of publishing your response to their postings within the same thread. I assume your general web box posting to me is your formal response and I have no problem re-publishing and adding it to the thread, but I would have thought you'd like to have expressed the concerns that offended your sensibilities, in a more direct to the audience manner.
In any event, I'd like to make a personal comment. You don't even know me, yet you are quick to draw conclusions, toss insults and make assumptions with complete abandon as to any personal reality of who I am. I found your email to us bizarre, rambling, unfocused and from someone who classifies themselves as a professional journalist and an editor, unprofessional in its own right.
I think he should be invited/challenged to provide the list of documented "incidents" upon which the article was based, on the basis that good journalism should provide the source material for examination.
The reference to "(some reaching parliamentary debate)" would be excellent if this pointed to a specific UK Hansard edition, etc. Unfortunately, it sounds eerily like the drivel Gunnersam/temperflash kept droning on about. In that case, he was referring to some very unspecific comments made in the Canadian parliament back in c.1890 (the speaking MP clearly knew little about rifles, but equally clearly had some sort of agenda). Those comments referred to bolt and barrel failures, but made no mention of the type of failure - or even the type of rifle.
(Given that it was Canada in c.1890, the rifles could have been Metford Mk1s, and the "failures" could simply have been things like loss of the bolt-head shroud or the cocking piece locking button - both items reported elsewhere in the Empire, and subsequently improved in later Mks).
Alan de Enfield
02-11-2010
Maybe they realise that they are in the wrong, having quoted unsubstantiated 'rumours' and are trying to cover their embarrasment by bluster and threats.
It is a 'free country' and both the press and the public are allowed to think and say what they want as long as its 'correct' and 'legal'.
In this instance I believe that their statements need justifying and evidence provided, if they are unwilling or unable, and the letter to Badger is as threatening and abusive as Badger implies, then there is maybe a case for reporting this to the press complaints commision.
They, or one of their contributors, are obviously aware of this forum so maybe they will take heed of the concensus of opinion and either print a retraction or provide the evidence needed.
I, for one, would like to see the letter they sent to Badger.
spinecracker
02-11-2010
I don't think that we are asking for much. The author must have researched his article, so must have access to the research mentioned in the article. If this is the case, then it should be REALLY easy to provide references and data in support of his contentions. I do this kind of thing almost every day, so I know how easy it is lol.
Amatikulu
02-11-2010
It might be helpful if the article was analyzed and any contentious statements identified, so that there is no question about what people are upset about. Here's my attempt at breaking it down:
Water in your action or on your ammunition will cause elevated and variable
chamber pressures.
- I agree.
At best this will mean erratic elevation, at worst a stretched action.
- I agree.
Lee Enfield actions are notorious for this.
- I do not have knowledge of this to support this statement and would like to
know what evidence exists.
A No.4 shooting 7.62 ammunition is already doing a job a little beyond its
design parameters.
- this statement suprises me as these rifles are an approved conversion by the
military and are proofed to a standard that one expects is sufficient to
protect the shooter.
This coupled with questionable gunsmithing and significantly undersized
bores when the rifle was 'converted' from .303 gives a poor starting point in
the safety stakes.
- I think no one would argue that all gunsmiths are created equal and bad
workmanship exists in some cases. However this is common to all rifle types
that gunsmiths work on. I am not aware of what determines a significantly
undersized bore when converted from .303. Is the author saying that the new
barrels installed were too small for the 7.62 projectile they were designed to
shoot? I'd like this statement explained.
Add to that an action full of rain and wet ammunition and you may be
heading towards disaster.
- Rain and wet ammo are not good for any action.
For a ferrous alloy, such as steel used in a rifle action, as long as
stresses do not exceed a particular level the fatigue life of the action can
be regarded as infinite. But we do not know what level of stress that is, so
we must assume that any stressing of the action beyond its design parameters
is dangerous. The crucial point is that stressing the action beyond this limit
has a cumulative effect, which ultimately leads to failure. The more we
overstress the action the closer we come to that failure.
- seems a reasonable statement applicable to all rifle action types.
Dozens of times I've seen shooters shooting Long Lee Enfields and SMLE's,
particularly at the Trafalgar Meeting in the pouring rain, making no effort to
keep the rain off their ammunition or out of what is an even weaker action
than a No4.
- I wasn't aware that the SMLE or Long lee actions were weaker than the No.4
but even accepting that they may be, the real question is are they or are they
not strong enough for the cartridge they are firing. The history of these
weapons will answer that.
To cap all this, when the rifle passed into civilian hands it was subject
to a deliberate overload at the proof house. The fact that it didn't give way
then is no guarantee it won't give way tomorrow."
- this is true of all actions that pass into civilian hands or are sent for
proof.
"This post-war No.4 action is the best of the Lee Enfield bunch but if you
overstress it you risk your life."
- If you overstress it, this is true of all action types - no disagreement.
spinecracker
02-11-2010
Amatikulu, that sounds like a very fair assessment, and agrees with my concerns 100%. No one would (hopefully) disagree that proper precautions should be taken with ANY firearm, including correct maintenance, preventing overload of the chamber, keeping water and other contaminants out of the action, etc.
Thunderbox
02-11-2010
"This coupled with questionable gunsmithing and significantly undersized bores when the rifle was 'converted' from .303 gives a poor starting point in the safety stakes."
Its this phrase which for me seems to sum up the sheer fallacy of this guy's assertions:
"Undersized bores"?! The majority of 7.62mm Enfield are fitted with one of the two models of Enfield barrel. Is the author seriously suggesting that Enfield are "questionable gunsmiths" and that these barrels - which have performed flawlessly for 40+ years - are substandard in design?
Other barrels in use are Parker Hale, Swing, and other famous commercial target rifle names. Is the author suggesting that these barrels which were also widely used in mauser-actioned target rifles are also deficient?
In his article, he seems to give the impression that he believes .303 barrels were somehow bored out or relined to turn them into 7.62mm
"Questionable gunsmithing"?! The conversion of a No4 from .303 to 7.62mm is not exactly complex - its a simple modular system with components designed for the conversion purpose: barrel, breeching rings, headspace gauge. There is not a lot of scope for making a "dangerous" rifle. All UK rifles go for Proof in any case.
Surpmil
02-11-2010
Badger, I really think you should print the letter you received in full here.
You don't need to worry about "inflaming" us!
"We WERE going to deal with them in a well-considered and precise (though more polite way than they deserved), keeping it in-hand within the magazine. That way the major points could have been met without having to prove the failures and injuries attributed to the use of these rifles (some reaching parliamentary debate) over the years. Others have indeed, sensibly, been kept quiet. That may have to change now, thanks to these letter writers."
This comment makes no sense at all. That is one reason why I think we should see the whole letter, out of fairness to the writer.
The editors/owners of that publication chose to publish an article claiming that the No.4 rifle was unsafe in 7.62mm.
The above quotation suggests that the same editors/owners are somehow attempting to "keep quiet" information about "failures and injuries" that they claim to know of.
If their agenda is to defend the safety record of the No.4 Rifle in 7.62mm, why did they publish an attack on its record in the first place?
Conversely, if they wished to attack its safety record, why did they not publish the information they claim to possess?
You hit the bullseye here Badger:
"Your reaction seems to be highly defensive, full of emotionally charged rhetoric and so disproportionate to the event, that I have to seriously wonder what the real issue is?"
Gnr527
02-11-2010
As a rifle target sports shooter and owner/regular user of one of these questionable! firearms (Enforcer) I would like to see this subject resolved.
We have had the NRA vacillating over the last couple of years and now this article by Mr White.
It would be nice to see a comprehensive factual analysis with conclusion and recommendation with attendant agreement with OR withdrawal by the NRA and Mr White.
I would also like to see the full response from the magazine.
Good on you Badger - happy to help in any way.
Edward Horton
02-11-2010
[link]The Truth About 308 Win and 762 NATO - Military Surplus Collectors Forums
Why not go to one of the most knowledgeable Canadians on this subject and ask Jim Bullock about the pressure testing of the Enfield rifle and the 7.62 NATO cartridge.
Jim Bullock
About the author:
Jim Bullock is the grandson and son of rifle shooting competitors. Jim started with a BB gun (a daisy pump) in 1950 and received his first .22 at age 10.
He has represented Canada twelve times as a member of the Canadian rifle Team as a shooter, Coach and Team Captain.
His fullbore rifle shooting started in 1960 using the Lee Enfield #4 in 303 caliber in what was known as Service Rifle (B). That was a well-tuned rifle with a Parker Hale 5C rear sight and the standard post front sight. SR (B) was deliberate (no snap, or rapid fire) at 200 to 1,000 yards. His best shot was a pair of bullseyes fired at 1,000 yards with a 26 minute wind change between shots (that is about 260 inches or about 21 feet of windchange).
He has an extensive firearm collection including a dozen or so Lee Enfields.
Is it safe to shoot 308 Winchester in a rifle chambered for 7.62 NATO?
What about 7.62 in a 308?
By Jim Bullock
Below is more information on the subject of chamber pressures and proof testing the .308/7.62 NATO.
The Truth About 308 Win and 762 NATO
The above information on the .308/7.62 is the most accurate information anywhere on the Internet on this subject.
We can also ask Mr. Laidler if the 7.62 version of the No.4 Enfield was tested with an oiled proof test round in older military fashion or if it was tested using the European CIP method with a dry chamber for proofing.
The oiled proof round delivers twice the force to the bolt and receiver as the "dry" CIP and SAAMI methods. An oiled proof test round would have delivered over 75,000 PSI (transducer method) to the bolt and lugs and a dry proof test round would have delivered less than 38,000 PSI or bolt thrust to the bolt.
I found this about NATO proof standards for the 7.62 NATO.
The minimum proof and performance requirements for small arms ammunition of NATO calibres are covered in STANAGs as follows:
7.62 mm. STANAG 2310 and NATO Manual of Proof and Inspection AC/225 (LG/3- SG/1) D/9.
Each weapon and component considered vulnerable to the effects of a rapid change in pressure, for example barrels, breech blocks and bolts, will be tested by firing one dry round at a corrected minimum of 25% over pressure and one oiled round at a corrected minimum of 25% over pressure. 25% over pressure means 25% in excess of the Service Pressure (Pmax). The Service Pressure is defined as the mean pressure generated by the Service Cartridge at a temperature of 21°C. Such a high pressure proof is conducted with both the weapon and ammunition conditioned to an ambient temperature of 21 deg C.
Oiled proof test rounds are not used by CIP or the SAAMI, this means military 7.62 Enfields were deliberately over stressed to simulate higher forces such as water on the ammunition or firearm used under wartime combat conditions.
In short this means the military Enfield's were built to withstand the rigors of being fired in the rain and the authors opinion who wrote this article is nothing more than a "wet dream".
ireload2
02-13-2010
An oiled proof test round would have delivered over 75,000 PSI (transducer method) to the bolt and lugs and a dry proof test round would have delivered less than 38,000 PSI or bolt thrust to the bolt.
You have pounds force and pounds per square inch confused.
No4Mk1(T)
02-14-2010
Originally Posted by Edward Horton
I found this about NATO proof standards for the 7.62 NATO.
Where did you find this Ed? Can you post a link for us please?
http://www.milsurps.com/imagehosting...649860e02e.jpg
Edward Horton
02-14-2010
NATO EPVAT testing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
10.2 Proof Policy
10.2.1 The Gun Barrel Proof Act of 1868 prescribes a statutory requirement for all firearms up to 51 mm (2 in) calibre to be proofed. The UK has now also joined the Commission Internationale Permanente (CIP) for the Proof of Small Arms. The MOD is exempt from the CIP agreement, but has to show that it is as good as, or better than, this procedure for all UK military Small Arms (SA). In general the CIP proofing involves firing two dry rounds at 25% over pressure, but the MOD policy is to fire two rounds as defined in clause 8.2.2 in Def Stan 05-101 Part 1. 10.2.2 Proof testing needs to be carried out on every weapon or no proof mark will be applied. A sample of weapons being tested is not acceptable, each individual weapon, including spares and barrel attachments, (e.g. Suppressors) shall be proof tested.
http://www.dstan.mod.uk/data/05/101/02000100.pdf
8.2.2 Each weapon and component considered vulnerable to the effects of a rapid change in pressure, for example barrels, breech blocks and bolts, will be tested by firing one dry round at a corrected1 minimum of 25% over pressure and one oiled round at a corrected minimum of 25% over pressure. 25% over pressure means 25% in excess of the Service Pressure (Pmax). The Service Pressure is defined as the mean pressure generated by the Service Cartridge at a temperature of 21oC. Such a high pressure proof is conducted with both the weapon and ammunition conditioned to an ambient temperature of 21oC.
http://www.dstan.mod.uk/data/05/101/01000100.pdf
Please note these are NOT my opinions or guesswork they come straight from a BritishMOD publication.
No4Mk1(T)
I collect Enfield books and manuals, I also post the most accurate information I can find. Jim Bullock shot the Enfield rifle in Canadian National Matches and was also involved in ballistic testing of the 7.62 and .308 Winchester.
Jim Bollock's comments on the 7.62 and .308 chamber pressures are the most accurate anywhere on the Internet along with the other link I posted on the subject.
I found your comments below to be a little disturbing and I did not post the information below to be "part of the problem".
The writer of the "Sporting Rifle" article is "all wet" and "part of the problem" and he is starting a urban legend myth about the Enfield rifle. The author is not aware of how much more strenuous military proof and testing standards are and how far they exceed CIP or SAAMI standards.
Alan de Enfield
02-16-2010
Well - after a few days to sit back and 'calm down' I eventually sent my letter to the magazine at the end of last week.
I took the lead from Amatikulu and broke it down into 'bite-size chunks' which can hopefully be simply explained / justified, or, as in my closing statement:
"If he cannot, [provide empirical evidence] then I would ask that an admission of error be published".
Rather than send the letter to the "Target Section Editor" I sent the letter to the 'overall editor' (editor in chief ?) of the magzine but apparently he is away in Africa shooting Buffalo at the moment.
Hopefully we will see some response in the near future.
C'mon guys - get the fingers on the keyboard and let them know what the Enfield world feels about the article.
Alan de Enfield
03-06-2010
We Have A Reply
The new issue is out - the letter page has 3 letters from forum members (you can see part of my letter in the scan below)
With the Ok from the other letter writers (RJW & Spinecracker) I''ll happily scan & post their submissions.
The response from the author is purely regurgitating the NRA warnings - how are we going to get that one sorted out?
Any volunteers who use / shoot at Bisley?
Anyway - here is the response:
jmoore
03-06-2010
Locking lug surface area as stated above is not hugely relavent to the overall strength of an action (w/in reason). Differences in locking lug shear area, however, do have a marked influence as regard to catastrophic failures. Guess what that long RH lug brings to the table. The LH lug isn't particularly undersized either.
If you work at it, its possible to "grenade" any firearm action. Seems that I've heard of plenty more Mauser derivatives letting go over the years than Lee types.
spinecracker
03-06-2010
Alan, I already posted my letter on this thread before sending it to the publisher, so it is all yours to repost it.
bigduke6
03-06-2010
Originally Posted by jmoore
Locking lug surface area as stated above is not hugely relavent to the
overall strength of an action (w/in reason). Differences in locking lug shear
area, however, do have a marked influence as regard to catastrophic failures.
Guess what that long RH lug brings to the table. The LH lug isn't particularly
undersized either.
If you work at it, its possible to "grenade" any firearm action. Seems that I've heard of plenty more Mauser derivatives letting go over the years than Lee types.
I know there was a "Mauser" type action, which recently suffered catastrophic failure at a FTR or similar chamionship shoot, at Bisley.
Think its still under investigation but to my knowledge the paticular make of action in question has been banned until the results of the failure are published.
Surpmil
03-06-2010
Transcribed to facilitate analysis and comment:
In reference to Mr. Fox's email and other letters of complaint regarding my article "Wet weather drill" in the March edition of Sporting Rifle, the main thrust of my article was directed at keeping water out of the action to prevent destroying the rifle's grouping capacity. Since I happened to have the photograph of one of my No.4's actions to hand, and since No.4 safety is a hot topic, I thought I was being responsible in informing the readership. Given the storm of protest this has unleashed I wonder why I bothered.
Mr. Fox and others seem to think I am down on Lee actions. Not a bit of it. I happen to own 27 of them, all of which I shoot. I love my Lees as much as I love my Triumph Vitesse, but the former will be shot in a drizzle and never a downpour. They are too precious, and so am I.
Of course, Lee actions are not weaker than all other actions, but they are less desirable than the other two commonly encountered in this country. It is the very fact that some have seen hard service in the past and, since we simply do not know what stresses these (or any other old rifle) has been subject to, that (sic) we need to be careful.
The reason a No.4 is weaker than a P14 is related to its rear lock-up as opposed to the latter's front-locking bolt. Total surface area of the locking lugs on the No.4 is about 0.12 sq.in., whereas the P14's is about 0.137 sq.in. The No.4 barrel tenon is .687inx.997in. compared to the P14's .720in.x1.125in.
Have I had any potential safety problems with any of mine? Yes, My SMLE MkV, which was rebarreled by a reputable gunsmith 25 years ago, has despite my caution, got stretched headspace. No, Mr. Fox, it hasn't blown up yet, but I don't intend to put it to the test!
Those of us with long memories, going back to the days when the No.4 was the approved cadet rifle, will know that the MOD placed an embargo on cadets shooting No.4s (and those were .303s) which came close (sic) to the NRA banning the use of No.4s at Bisley. The NRA issued the following:
Safety warning:
Enfield rifle actions converted to 7.62 calibre from .303 or made as 7.62mm.
Enfield actions of the No.4 and No.5 type were originally designed to fire the British .303 service cartridge of the day.
Many of these actions have been subsequently converted from .303 to 7.62mm. While a few selected actions may be stronger than others, [obvious nonsense: all No.4 Mk2s are stronger than MkIs] most are not suitable for use in this calibre with a bullet diameter of .3075 inches.
It is unsafe to fire these rifles with the 155 grain Radway Green cartridge or any other commercial cartridges using the 155 grain or heavier bullet which has a diameter of .3083 inches or larger.
Firing these latter cartridges can ultimately lead to catastrophic failure of the bolt lugs and bolt body that could lead to serious injury. This risk is considerably increased if the chamber or cartridge gets wet or is oiled prior to firing.
The NRA will not accept responsibility for any accident or injury to persons or property caused by anyone using 7.62mm/.308 Win ammunition supplied by them in these converted actions.
The actions/rifles involved may fall under the following descriptions, but there may also be other names or descriptions, but there may also be other names or descriptions used: SMLE Conversion, Enfield Conversion, No.4 Conversion, Parker Hale 14, Whitaker Special, Enfield Envoy and Enfield Enforcer.
"You have been warned."
Please note - RSAF Enfield and Parker Hale are specifically included.
By calling my article ludicrous Mr. Fox merely insults me. I do not want to be laid next to the guy who fills the air with bits off a shattered Lee Enfield bolt. Equally, I do not want to see anyone hurt or indeed Lee Enfields or civilian shooters banned from MOD ranges.
Regards,
Chris White.
PrinzEugen
03-07-2010
Has the NRA's warning grown in length? I don't remember seeing the specific information re Radway Green and "Firing these latter cartridges can ultimately lead to catastrophic failure of the bolt lugs and bolt body that could lead to serious injury." bit before?
Anyone any thoughts re: cadets not shooting the No.4?
Alan de Enfield
03-07-2010
Originally Posted by PrinzEugen I don't remember seeing the specific information re Radway Green
The only thing I've come across is:
Here's 2 direct copy pastes from Capt. Laidler on the exact topic of the rifles the NRA article was written about.
1) It was one fired without the bolt head and the other was an RAF style DP that has a big hole bored down through the top of the rear handguard, the barrel and then right through the fore-end so you can actually see right through the rifle so to speak. This large diameter hole is an inch or so in front of the knox form and is a good clue that all would not be well should the rifle be fired.
All was not well when it was fired...!
2) The Board of Enquiry after the event found out what happened and it was this. The rifles that were 'live' were taken onto the firing point and a couple of other 'live - serviceable' rifles were at the back of the firing point together with a few DP rifles, used for what we call 'background activity' One of the rifles on the firing point wouldn't fire so the instructor stood behind the firer took it off him, cleared it and shouted to one of the Cadet NCO's at the rear... 'bring me another rifle over...' which he did.
What neither of them did was to check that the 'new' rifle was serviceable... and in this case, it wasn't because it had a xxxxing big hole through the barrel, top to bottom. BUT, the BOLT was serviceable, unlike the bolt in the rifle that had failed to fire. Already, you can see that this isn't a good mix. As we say, it's an accident just waiting to happen. And the first round it fired WAS an accident where the Cadet lost a couple of fingers. They are still in orbit around the sun!
The Board of Enquiry established that prior to the actual shooting, half the group had sat around in a circle and started to clean the rifles and bolts while the other half had filled some Bren magazines and cleaned/oiled the bren guns. Then they changed over and the Bren filling half finished off cleaning and oiling the rifles and asembled them.
Unfortunately, due to 'lack of adult supervision', a DP bolt with a welded up bolt face and therefore no striker protrusion was placed into a service rifle. This rifle wouldn't fire. But because of this, a DP rifle went onto the firing point with a serviceable bolt and fired.
There's two threads to this story 1) think hard before you invade Russia and 2) check your rifle before you shoot it.
Anyway, humour aside, I think they saved the lads badly mangled fingers but they are badly disfigured.
After that an urgent signal went out to rapidly convert the RAF spec DP rifles to the current L59 specification that are safe. I bet you wonder how I know this don't you...?
enfield303t
03-07-2010
I have no experience shooting 7.62 in my DCRA rifle in the rain but can say shot numerous times in wet conditions using my No.4 in .303 many years ago. I remember one particular shoot where the three prairie provinces (Sask. Alta. and Manitoba) competed in the heaviest rain I have ever shot in. My No.4 was literally dripping and it was impossible to keep it or the ammunition dry. The competition was for any rifle/sight/calibre and the more it rained the better the old No 4 performed. At the short ranges some of the custom rifles/calibres shone but the minute it started to literally "pour buckets" the old .303 took over and performed wonderfully. Once we shot past 300 yards the No.4 was unbeatable. The ammo was wet the gun was soaking and never a single issue. If I remember correctly it was one of the best days I ever had in competition. Until one comes apart in my hands,regardless of calibre I just won't believe these "experts" and their stories.
Edward Horton
03-07-2010
The British have used an oiled proof testing cartridge since the Victorian Age which was originally "Burma Oil" which had a high paraffin content, this made the oil slicker than snot on a door knob.
Oil on a proof test cartridge doubles the force on the bolt compared to a normal standard cartridge. The United States does not use oiled proof cartridges to test civilian commercial firearms because it can damage the firearm.
This means the Enfield rifle was built and tested to fire in the rain rather than call the war off until the sun came out.
British Proof Testing References
Edward Horton
03-08-2010
As an American our proof testing system here in the U.S. appears to be far different than the requirements in the U.K. The easiest way to fight back is to know more than the "other" side and kill the opposition with facts and information.
At some point in time the proofing standards in the U.K. changed either in how high the proof pressure standard is (% above normal chamber pressure) and also how often or when the rifles were re-proofed when changing hands.
You will need to study the older "Textbook of Small Arms" for proofing and testing standards for military rifles versus civilian rifles. And also any other published material you can get your hands on and bombard the opposition with facts on the Enfield rifles strengths.
Writing letters to the editor airing your displeasure about what was written solves nothing, you need facts to discredit the authors assumptions.
Knowledge is power, so use it to defeat the opposition.
spinecracker
03-09-2010
That, Ed, is why letters were written to the editor requesting the information that is being used to discredit the 7.62 Enfield. Once we know what that information is, then we can find the most effective way to combat it.
Edward Horton
03-09-2010
If I may make a suggestion, the Canadian members here could try and contact Jim Bullock he was on the Canadian shooting team and also pressure tested thousands of rounds of ammunition.
Mr. Bullock would be an invaluable source of information on the Enfield rifle on the very subject we are discussing here. Oil or water in the chamber can cause the headspace to increase faster than with a dry chamber and is directly related to chamber pressure (.303 vs. 7.62)
Don't wait for Pearl Harbor or Singapore to be attacked first again, gather information and prepare for a immediate counter attract.
Jim Bullock
"I have pressure tested thousands of rounds of ammo in many different calibers both professionally (years ago) and more recently using the facilities of the Canadian Gov't (Explosives Branch) and Expro (maker of IMR powder)."
http://www.smellysmleshooters.net/ammopressure.htm
LINK 404
coppertales
03-11-2010
First and foremost...
it is the shooters responsibility to inspect their rifle before firing. I always pull the bolt and look down the bore before shooting any of my milsurp rifles.
I have good faith in the SMLE action with respect to strength. Back in the early 60s, I attended Trinidad Jr. College and some of the gunnies were going to blow up an Enfield. They packed a round with powder and remotely touched it off. Nothing happened and the bolt worked just fine. They then rechambered the gun to 300 Win mag. Off to the boonies to see what happened. Nothing. The bolt worked just fine. I think the reduced bullet diameter may have been a factor. Back to the bench. They packed the cartridge with powder and back to the boonies. Bang, nothing happened. The bolt worked just fine ejecting the spent cartridge. They then plugged the bore and touched a full case of powder off and that froze up the action. No spectacular kaboom. Since then, I don't worry about the strength of Enfield rifles...
Surpmil
03-11-2010
So if the RAF accident was due to carelessness and ignorance, as it seems to have been, why did the MoD issue a "Safety Warning" over an incident that apparently had nothing to do with the inherent safety of No.4s?
(But does demonstrate the inadvisability of making "drill rifles" which can chamber a round, and taking such rifles to a range where live firing with the same type of rifle is going on.)
And why is Mr. White quoting this "warning" in a journal?
Has he perhaps never read the report?
powdermonkey72
03-11-2010
He should get an invite to join mulsurps.com! He'd be very popular! Poor ignorant banana smoking air rifle pirate... no offence to air rifle enthusiasts, I have a nice little Diana in .177 myself.
Stargazer
03-12-2010
Bullocks! A military rifle that must not be fired in the rain??
Alan de Enfield
03-23-2010
I plan to write back in response to Mr White's "riposte" in the April issue of the magazine.
I will be using the information provided by Peter Laidler, and the up-to-date information from 'strangely'.
Here is my proposed letter :
Dear Sir,
In the letter pages of the April issue, Mr Chris White issued a "Riposte" in response to the several letters concerning his article "Wet Weather Drill" (March issue).
Yet again Mr. White is perpetuating internet rumours and myths without taking the trouble to actually investigate and substantiate his comments.
His two main arguments seem to revolve around:
a) The MOD placing an embargo on cadets shooting No.4s.
b) the NRA issued Safety warning
Having investigated both of these statements it is now clear that they are both gross misinterpretations of fact, so what is the actual truth behind them?
a)The rumour of the MOD "banning" the use of No.4 Lee Enfield has come about as a result of a cadet being injured by an "Exploding: rifle. The facts are as follows :
"The Board of Enquiry after the event found out what happened and it was this. The rifles that were 'live' were taken onto the firing point and a couple of other 'live - serviceable' rifles were at the back of the firing point together with a few DP rifles, used for what is called 'background activity' One of the rifles on the firing point wouldn't fire so the instructor stood behind the firer took it off him, cleared it and shouted to one of the Cadet NCO's at the rear... 'bring me another rifle over...' which he did.
What neither of them did was to check that the 'new' rifle was serviceable... and in this case, it wasn't because it had a big hole through the barrel, top to bottom. BUT, the BOLT was serviceable, unlike the bolt in the rifle that had failed to fire, The first round it fired resulted in the accident where the Cadet lost a couple of fingers.
The Board of Enquiry established that prior to the actual shooting, half the group had sat around in a circle and started to clean the rifles and bolts while the other half had filled some Bren magazines and cleaned/oiled the Bren guns. Then they changed over and the Bren filling half finished off cleaning and oiling the rifles and assembled them.
Unfortunately, due to 'lack of adult supervision', a DP bolt with a welded up bolt face and therefore no striker protrusion was placed into a service rifle. This rifle wouldn't fire. But because of this, a DP rifle went onto the firing point with a serviceable bolt and fired.
As you can see the failure was not due to the rifle, but due to a massive failure of safety rules and supervision.
b) the NRA Safety warning. Indeed the NRA did issue such a warning, but (unlike Mr White) have actually undertaken investigations and have now withdrawn the warning. The comments now published in the "Journal" say:
* After further consideration of all factors influencing safety of these conversions and consultation with the Birmingham Proof Master, the following advice must be adhered to in respect of the use of Enfield No.4 conversions:
* Conversions retaining their original Enfield barrel or a replacement barrel as manufactured by RSAF Enfield are safe to use with commercial CIP approved ammunition, which complies with a MAWP of 4150 bar, loaded with any weight of bullet, providing they carry a valid proof mark, and are still in the same condition as when submitted for proof.
* Conversions fitted with any other make of barrel, (such as Ferlach, Maddco, Krieger etc) should be checked by a competent gunsmith to determine the throat diameter of the chamber/barrel fitted before use.
* Conversions, where the throat diameter is less than the CIP specification of 0.311" but not smaller than 0.3085" must not be used with ammunition which exceeds 3650 Bar MAWP when fired in a SAAMI/CIP pressure barrel.
* Conversions which have been checked and found to comply with Rule 150 may safely be used with any ammunition supplied by the NRA including the 155 grain Radway Green Cartridge, 155 grain RUAG Cartridge or any other commercial CIP Approved cartridges loaded with bullets of any weight provided that the ammunition pressure does not exceed 3650 Bar when measured in a CIP standard barrel."
Surely it is now time to put this argument "to bed" and for Mr White to stand up and admit he has been proliferating unsubstantiated rumours.
Yours faithfully
Surpmil
03-24-2010
Excellent. Slight amendments suggested in bold.
Without having seen the latest NRA Journal, it's my impression that the NRA have not "withdrawn their warning" so much as reworded it to be bafflegab with a technical flavour designed to confuse and impress the uninitiated, which will most definitely leave the average reader with the impression that there is some safety problem with No.4 conversions to 7.62mm.
I wouldn't give the latest effusion any credibility by even mentioning it, let alone quoting it.
Since when did throat diameter suddenly assume such significance in these conversions?
Have any of these writers actually cited a single instance of a failure to support their assertions? Mr. White might be asked to since he mentioned knowing of several.
Patrick Chadwick
03-24-2010
308 WIN dimensions
Gentlemen, I have been following this thread most carefully, and I thoroughly agree that if one is to fight successfully against half-truths, one needs the whole truth. And there is a lot of unnecessary correspondence generated by imprecise documentation (for instance, I have never seen an official drawing of the 303 chamber and cartridge, with maximum and minimum tolerances, as as must have been used for manufacturing Enfield rifles).
There is, however, one major difficulty in the dimensional discussion in that the CIP dimensions are all in metric units, and correspondents/NRA are happily quoting inch dimensions that do not seem to match the CIP mm dimensions. I do not claim to be in possession of the truth, but I do take the trouble to present sources that other correspondents can check. Any CIP figures quoted in the following are published values, taken from the RUAG Ammotec reloading manual, are included in German legislation, and match CIP data. I am aware that there may be other values to which I do not have access. If others have such figures they should please publish them with proper authentication (i.e source reference or copy of original data sheet or drawing):
The relevant example for this discussion is the so-called throat diameter. So- called, because the throat is not a point, but more properly a transition cone that starts (typically) just in front of the cartridge mouth and ends where the full rifling depth has been developed.
CIP data sheets do not use the word throat, but define the diameter at the "Commencement of Rifling", and I think this is what correspondents mean when they refer to throat diameter. CIP also defines the transition cone angle and the length of the cone, but in chamberings with a pronounced freebore it is often not clear where this diameter is actually measured. As a result, I have sometimes found it difficult to reconcile the diameter, length and angle figures. To be fair to CIP, these diameters are footnoted as "Check for safety reasons". And, basically, cartridge diameters are given as MAXIMUM and chamber diameters as MIMIMUM. A most unsatisfactory state of affairs from an enginneering viewpoint, as I have not yet discovered any tolerances, apart from the dubious "delta L".
Reference has been made to "the throat diameter is less than the CIP specification of 0.311" but not smaller than 0.3085". With regard to the above, I doubt there is such a specification value. The CIP dimension for "Commencement of Rifllng" is given as 7.87 mm MINIMUM. As the inch has been defined for decades as 25.4 mm PRECISELY, this converts to 0.3098425"
It is reasonable to approximate this to 0.0310, but not 0.311" or 0.3085". So please, where do those figures come from?
I apologize if this all seems a bit picky, but it is just engineering nonsense to produce figures out of a hat and then construct safety-relevant arguments from them.
In particular, a "Commencement of Rifllng" diameter of LESS than 0.310" (or 0.3098", if you can really measure it) would be UNSAFE in ANY type of .308 Win rifle. Like the DP blow-up analyzed by Peter Laidler, it seems that there are axe-grinders at work here who are determined to force false conclusions.
Summarizing: I am unable to find a source for the figures quoted by the NRA. Expressing it non-scientifically, they should put up or shut up.
slamfire1
03-24-2010
Conversions retaining their original Enfield barrel or a replacement barrel as manufactured by RSAF Enfield are safe to use with commercial CIP approved ammunition, which complies with a MAWP of 4150 bar, loaded with any weight of bullet, providing they carry a valid proof mark, and are still in the same condition as when submitted for proof.
4150 bar = 60K psia
Conversions which have been checked and found to comply with Rule 150 may safely be used with any ammunition supplied by the NRA including the 155 grain Radway Green Cartridge, 155 grain RUAG Cartridge or any other commercial CIP Approved cartridges loaded with bullets of any weight provided that the ammunition pressure does not exceed 3650 Bar when measured in a CIP standard barrel".
3560 bar = 53K psai
I don't see supporting design information on the No.4 actions. These actions were designed to carry the load of a 303 British cartridge, plus a safety margin.
What are the maximum and min pressures for a 303 Brit?
Anyone know whether the designers calculated 303 bolt load based on rim size, or the internal diameter of the case?
Patrick Chadwick
03-24-2010
3650 bar is the Pmax as per CIP for a .303 chambering.
4150 bar is the Pmax as per CIP for a .308 WIN chambering.
Edward Horton
03-24-2010
Slamfire1 and forum members
The .303 Enfield is stamped with 18.5 Ton or 18.5 tsi which equals approximately 37,740 CUP or copper units pressure by American testing standards. Because the British used a different method of proofing with oiled proof cartridges and the base crusher method the pressure readings are different than American standards.
To convert the British pressure figures to American testing standards you must add approximately 20%
.303 British 18.5 = 37,740 CUP + 20% = 45,288 CUP (18 or 18.5????)
The normal rated .303 chamber pressure is 45,000 CUP or 49,000 PSI.
The 19 tsi for the 7.62 No.4 Enfields equals 19 x 2040 = 38,760 + 20% = 46,512 and "below" the 50,000 CUP or 60,000 PSI transducer method rating of the 7.62 NATO cartridge. (This might be why they are requesting the rifles be re- proofed) What is needed is more information on the older testing methods and procedures to know where we stand.
What is needed now is the actual pressure rating written in Tons or tsi for the proof pressure testing cartridge for the 7.62 under the older proof methods. This is because the British military used oil proof rounds to test their small arms and a oil round delivers twice the force to the bolt and action than the present dry CIP cartridge method.
If someone would furnish the older data on what the tsi rating was for a 7.62 proofing round, a correlation between the old and new pressures of proof testing could be made. Again the British military proofing standards exceed present day civilian CIP standards and CIP does not use oiled proofing cartridges.
Again 19 tsi only equals 45,512 CUP BUT there are conflicting tsi figures being written to add further to this or my confusion on WHAT were the actual pressures. Please read below (19.07tsi to 20.71 tsi for the .303 and 22.3 tsi for the 7.62 NATO?) Normal operating pressure and NOT proof pressure.
Alan de Enfield
03-25-2010
Ed - a slight mathematical error
A ton is 2240 lbs (and not 2040), so 19 X 2240 + 20% = 51072
ireload2
03-25-2010
This is because the British military used oil proof rounds to test their small arms and a oil round delivers twice the force to the bolt and action than the present dry CIP cartridge method.
Not according to the laws of physics.
jmoore
03-26-2010
All right you people, so who over in England is going to run a 300 Winchester Magnum reamer into either a barrel and screw it onto a No.4 action that's well used? Then see how long it lasts. Do Dye Penetrant exams of the bare receiver and bolt every 10 round for the first 100 and every 100 for the first 1000 rounds. Really!
I've broken out some books looking at "fatigue life" including:
The American Society for Metals- "Metals Handbook" Vol. 1 Properties and Selections of Metals 8th Ed. (yah, its a little old) Chapter on "The Seletion of Steel for Fatgue Resistance" seems pertinent.
"Large Fatigue Testing Machine and Their Result-1957" An excellent early publication by the American Society for Testing and Materials
"Symposium on Fatgue of Aircraft Structures-1962" also ASTM
Looking for my 1963 publication that's the most useful- I've carefully put it in a safe place that I can't remember...
So, now I could use material and heat treat specs for the No.4 to make cross ref to US specs.
Next an action to slice up and measure cross sections- got plenty of SMLE actions spare, but no No.4s.
BTW, I think further proofing requirements would be a miserable idea on existing weapons, its only to show that there's GROSS faults w/the weapon as constructed, not a periodic "safety" tool! As these actions are not failing in a few cycles (less than 100 to 1000), "Microcracking" or "fatigue" is the suspected culprit. Small cracks may be easily found using NDT procedures such as "dye penetrant" or "magnetic particle" testing. These procedures DON'T harm the weapon and WILL show any dramas if performed by trained individuals.
We might try and round up a reamer here and set up a test rig, but it won't help ya'll over there...
Surpmil
03-26-2010
Whose tune are we dancing to?
While as a layman I can't argue metallurgy with engineers, and the theories certainly sound convincing, where is the actual evidence in the form of failures?
It's now over 50 years since the last No.4s were built (excepting Pakistan) and most of those in circulation are of WWII vintage, some have fired tens of thousands of rounds of 7.62mm since then. Have any blown up? Has anyone lost their sight or fingers from a No.4 (or No.1) blowing up due to metal fatigue from this theorized prolonged over-stressing?
Again, where is the evidence, or are we to believe that someday a No4 will fracture from protracted metal fatigue?
I'm inclined to think that "someday" would have arrived by now, if it is ever going to.
Of course we all know, or should know, how delighted certain groups would be, if they could condemn as unsafe the most common rifles in the British Commonwealth (yes, it does still exist!)
I really wonder if we should be playing into their hands?
Let them do their own testing and gather the "evidence" I say.
If this "metal fatigue" concept had any validity in this case, I think we can be sure it would have been dragged out by the NRA, instead of the highly tenous, contentious and contradictory stuff they've managed to assemble so far.
There's always email for the "theoretical discussions"
"Loose lips sink ships."
slamfire1
03-26-2010
There is a margin of safety designed into actions, but because these are man portable, don't assume there is a lot of margin, because margin means weight.
I suspect that margin is why No.4 could be chambered in 308 NATO. I also suspect that no one ever assumed that these actions would be in continuous service for 60 years after date of conversion.
I don't have the material data nor the load data to base a stress analysis of the Lee Enfield, but I am going to assume that it was designed for an infinite cycle of standard pressure 303 cartridges. However the 308 cartridge operates at a higher pressure. Given enough cycles, it is reasonable to assume that it will fail structurally.
Now does the inclusion of water make it worse? Are the responses just denial or it is dangerous to shoot a Lee Enfield in the rain?
jmoore
03-26-2010
"Fatigue" engineering really didn't get off the ground until the post WWII era. When they designed this action there were only basic notions of the whole design concept.
slamfire1
03-26-2010
Originally Posted by jmoore
"Fatigue" engineering really didn't get off the ground until the post WWII
era.
Perhaps you are thinking of fatique, aluminum and the DeHavilland Comet?
Not being in school at the time I am not certain pre WWII design practices. However, I am looking at my 1941 edition of Modern Metallurgy for Engineers, on page 152 is a very nice S-N curve for carbon steels, and it is dated 1921. On page 153 is the relation of enruance limit to tensile strength and brinell hardness, and that is dated 1929.
At least for carbon steels, fatigue lifetime was well defined and understood.
I don't know the design practices of British Small arms designers. They might have designed the bolt for a certain number of rounds in a 20 year lifetime and added a bit of margin. I would have designed the bolt for an infinite loading cycle, but that is me.
jmoore
03-26-2010
This is the subject of considerable discussion on several threads/forums and we seem to be burying ourselves under a welter of information!
cant we take it one step at a time and take Alan and Surpmils advice and throw the ball back into 'their' court
'where is the actual evidence in the form of failures?'
Surpmil
03-26-2010
1. The more tapered .303 case presumably puts more pressure on the bolt and receiver than the more parallel-sided 7.62mm case?
2. The commercial and military 7.62mm barrels are presumably built strongly enough to contain indefinitely(?), the pressures generated by the standard 7.62mm loading of their day*, without the support of the receiver ring they may be screwed into which obviously vary widely in strength? Is that not standard design practice? (*About the same as current loadings I assume?)
3. If that is the case, the strength of the receiver into which they are screwed is presumably not an important factor in containing, indefinitely(?) those pressures...
4. ...except of course the rearward pressure on the boltface and body and by extension on the body/receiver lugs.
5. So, we have 7.62mm barrels in No.4s, built of superior steels to the wartime .303 barrels, often of larger dimensions (albeit outside the chamber area) and firing a cartridge that generates what, 15-20% more pressure than MkVII .303? How much of that "extra" pressure on the bolt is simply absorbed by the greater case adhesion in the more parallel sided 7.62mm case?
6. If as Ed says, considerably greater pressures are generated by reduced
case adhesion, can we determine the numbers in these equations?
(I could be wildly off on some of this, so feel free to correct me - I'm just
using what seem logical deductions to me!)
ireload2
03-27-2010
1. The more tapered .303 case presumably puts more pressure on the bolt and receiver than the more parallel-sided 7.62mm case?
Why do you presume that?
Next an action to slice up and measure cross sections
This is not necessary.
Measure it with calipers. Where you have difficulty measure small rectangle and triangles and add their areas. It should take you a whopping 30 minutes.
If you have doubts measure to your best ability. Use an added 10% if you like. Use -10% too. The real number should fall between those values. This is not magic. It is engineering. Close counts like horseshoes, hand grenades and thermonuclear devices.
jmoore
03-27-2010
I reckon having the best data available is rather better than guessing or making more assumptions than absolutely necessary. Plus, load paths aren't always at 90 degrees to the bore axis. I don't expect IMMEDIATE results here, but somebody's got to actually "get their hands dirty" and DO something!
Funding, of course, is always part of the situation, I understand we're not the "government" w/ "unlimited" resources.
But never mind me, I don't know nuttin'!
ireload2
03-27-2010
I reckon having the best data available is rather better than guessing or making more assumptions than absolutely necessary.P> You can't always wait until you have perfect information. It hurts nothing to write out the equation and plug in the numbers. If you don't like the answer double check your work.
jmoore
03-27-2010
What I want to do is iniate a low cycle "fatigue" failure by rechambering a barreled action to either 300Win Mag or 300WSM. If that doesn't achieve the desired effect, then I think there's no point worrying about any 7.62x51 load.
Quick and fairly cheap. A remote firing test rig is no drama.
Surpmil
03-27-2010
Why do you presume that?
I should rephrase that to say "given an equal case contact area and charge".
I understood it was generally recognized that the more steeply a case tapered, the less adhesion to the chamber walls. Is that not correct?
Edward Horton
03-27-2010
Surpmil, you are 100% correct and didn't "presume" anything
.303 Improved Epps
The 303 British suffers from "droopy shoulders". Good in its day, the shallow angle was designed to help in loading and placement of the long stranded propellant "cordite", within the case. While good for factory production then, it's a real problem for the reloader today.
Any cartridge with shallow shoulders is more prone to case stretching, case wall thinning and thickening around the neck. Maximum loads fired from these cases accelerate the process.
Canadian gunsmith Ellwood Epps saw the problem and corrected it. He knew that steeply angled shoulders helped modern spherical and extruded powders burn more within the case and less up the barrel. His solution was to increase the shoulder angle to 35 degrees from 16. At the same time, he decreased the body taper by over 50 thou. The resulting improved cartridge showed a 15 % velocity enhancement over the standard 303 British when fired from the P-14.
After consulting with PO Ackley, Mr Epps reformed the cases with minimal body taper and sharply angled shoulders. Reduced body taper lessens the rearward pressure effects on the bolt and lugs (bolt thrust). Sharp shoulder angles inhibit forward brass flow, which reduces the need to trim cases as often.
Originally, the improvements were made to increase brass life, not to produce a higher velocity round. Mr Epps knew that reshaping the case into a more efficient design would yield this secondary benefit, but considered improved case life to be the most important factor.
Alan de Enfield
04-03-2010
The letter which I wrote (see below) either didn't get there in time for this issue or was disregarded in favour of the following.
It appears we have a 'new contibutor' - who seems to know a thing or two about Savage rifles:
From May 2010 issue (which arrived today)
Surpmil
04-03-2010
And what is "Rule 150" again?
Mk VII
04-04-2010
Defines the specification for TR rifle.
Strangely Brown
04-04-2010
Rule 150 as defined in the 2010 Bisley Bible.
The 2010 Bisley Bible is available online for the first time here:
[LINK] National Rifle Association of the UK | NRA | News | All TR = Target Rifle
150 Any bolt-action rifle which, in the opinion of the Shooting Committee, is of conventional design and safe. All rifles must also conform to the following:
General: The rifle or all its component parts must be readily available in quantity.
Weight: Maximum 6.5kg (14.32lbs) as used including all attachments except the sling.
Barrel and Chamber: Suitable for firing any of:
a the standard 7.62 x 51mm NATO military cartridge
58 FIREARMS, AMMUNITION, EQUIPMENT and TARGETS
b the .308" Winchester commercial cartridge
c the .303" British Mk VII military cartridge
d the standard 5.56 x 45mm NATO military cartridge
e the .223" Remington commercial cartridge
Note: (a) and (b) are not necessarily the same, and (d) and (e) are not the same.
Attention is drawn to Appendix V.
Bore and Chamber Dimensions: The dimensions must not be less than either CIP or SAAMI minimum chamber drawings (whichever is the smaller) other than in (a) and (b) above where the following concessions are permitted:
the bore diameter must not be less than 0.298".
the groove diameter must not be less than 0.3065".
the throat diameter must not be less than either the bullet diameter or
0.3085", whichever is the greater.
the minimum throat length may also be reduced but only to such an extent that the bullet of the cartridge in use is not in contact with the rifling. See Appendix V Para 7f.
If reduced bore or groove diameters as above are used, only ammunition developing an average max pressure less than 3650 Bar under CIP test conditions may be used. NRA ammunition "as issued"will satisfy this limit.
Pull of trigger: Minimum 1.5kg (3.307lbs). Set triggers and 'release' triggers are not allowed.
Stock and Butt: May be shaped so as to be comfortable to the firer. A thumb hole for the trigger hand is permitted. Adjustable butt plates without hooks are permitted. The depth of the butt plate curvature shall not exceed 20mm (0.79") at its deepest point. A hand stop is permitted.
Magazine: If fitted shall not be used except as a loading platform for single rounds.
Muzzle brakes: Not allowed.
Sling: Must conform to Para 209.
Backsight: A variable dioptre eye piece or single correcting lens may be used (but see Paras 206 and 207). One or more optically flat filters may also be used in front of or in rear of the aperture. A flexible disc or eyecup may be used. In addition a piece of fl at material or a blinder may be fitted to the backsight to restrict the vision of the disengaged eye.
Foresight: Any type which may contain a single clear or coloured magnifying lens which has a minimum focal length of 2 metres (0.5 dioptre) but see Paras 206 and 207. It may also contain optically flat clear or coloured element(s). Spirit levels: It is permitted to attach spirit levels or other level indicators to the rifle.
FIREARMS, AMMUNITION, EQUIPMENT and TARGETS 59
Overseas competitors. Where reciprocal agreement has been reached, overseas competitors may use, in competition, target rifles which conform to their home country's Governing Body's rules, during their first three months in the United Kingdom, provided that they conform to the maximum weight, chamber dimensions, minimum trigger pull and sight specifications given above. Out of competition only the minimum trigger weight condition must be complied with.
Telescopic sights are not permitted. The rifles must be suitable for use with any ammunition supplied by the NRA (see Appendix V).
Dimitri
04-06-2010
Originally Posted by Edward Horton
Oil and water on your ammunition and in your chamber can increase the wear
and head space on ANY rifle, BUT it does not cause the Enfield rifle to
explode. (Just ask your veterans who fired them under wet combat conditions)
The L42 rifles were used for a number of years and I doubt anyone issued one had them explode. So I doubt there is any proof the magazine could give.
Originally Posted by jmoore
If you work at it, its possible to "grenade" any firearm action. Seems that
I've heard of plenty more Mauser derivatives letting go over the years than
Lee types.
Camp Perry over the years has had many Mauser actions go as competitors attempted to get 300 Win Mag velocities out of the 30-06. Per Gale McMillan.
Originally Posted by Edward Horton
If I may make a suggestion, the Canadian members here could try and contact
Jim Bullock he was on the Canadian shooting team and also pressure tested
thousands of rounds of ammunition.
I purchased my Envoy (E20) from him. Only thing he told me to worry about is that the rifle bore is slightly undersized and I should back the powder down by one grain. Otherwise he didn't tell me anything else like worrying about rain.
Edward Horton
04-06-2010
I have a small collection of 12 Enfield rifles and I'm Pro-Enfield and do NOT think the Enfield rifle has ANY inherent weaknesses.
On the other side of the coin I'm anti-oiling or greasing cartridge cases because it increases bolt thrust.
The Enfield rifle was proof tested with an oiled cartridge and then checked with a .067 head space gauge. If the bolt closed on this .067 head space gauge the rifle failed proof testing due to excessive bolt lug and bolt head set back. (a oiled proof cartridge exerts more bolt thrust than a dry proof cartridge)
The Australians when testing .303 Enfields converted to 7.62 NATO used a .303 Enfield as a "control" for the 7.62 testing. The control .303 Enfield fired six .303 proof test rounds and the headspace increased by .010.
Water, oil or grease in the chamber or on the ammunition increases bolt thrust and the wear and tear or serviceability of your Enfield rifle. The issued Enfield rifles were inspected four times per year, three mini-visual inspections and one complete tear down inspection.
We know the Armourers replaced bolt heads and bolt bodies during these inspections and dry firing doesn't cause excess bolt thrust.
If shooting and bolt thrust causes increased head space, then oil or water on your ammunition or in your chamber and the added bolt thrust isn't going to make your Enfield last longer.
Surpmil
04-07-2010
Originally Posted by Edward Horton
...The Enfield rifle was proof tested with an oiled cartridge and then
checked with a .067 head space gauge. If the bolt closed on this .067 head
space gauge the rifle failed proof testing due to excessive bolt lug and bolt
head set back. (a oiled proof cartridge exerts more bolt thrust than a dry
proof cartridge)
I have a little difficulty with this. Is it being claimed that every No.4 rifle sent for proof had a bolt head fitted that just closed over the .064 gauge? I rather doubt it. Perhaps a feeler gauge was used with the existing bolt head and the .064 guage and if "set back" of more than .003" occured, THEN the rifle failed proof?
Originally Posted by Edward Horton
The Australians when testing .303 Enfield's converted to 7.62 NATO used a
.303 enfield as a "control" for the 7.62 testing. The control .303 Enfield
fired six .303 proof test rounds and the headspace increased by .010.
I'm afraid I'm a bit sceptical about tests like this as well. Official "tests" have a funny way of producing the result that the authorities want, or that 'interested parties' want. (I've cited a few examples elsewhere concerning Canadian-produced equipment) We've been told here by informed parties, that the Indian No.1 Rifles in 7.62mm are built of the same steel that UK and Australian No.1 Rifles were built of. Of course, we've also been told that 'better' steel was used, but the weight of authority lies with the former opinion if I remember the parties involved.
Originally Posted by Edward Horton
We know the Armourers replaced bolt heads and bolt bodies during these
inspections and dry firing doesn't cause excess bolt thrust.
If shooting and bolt thrust causes increased head space, then oil or water on your ammunition or in your chamber and the added bolt thrust isn't going to make your Enfield last longer.
Perhaps it's not your intention to suggest that bolthead and bodies were replaced on a regular, or even annual basis, but that's how it reads to me. Just thought I'd mention that.
Edward Horton
04-07-2010
Would you believe a book printed by the British War Office?
I looked for a good while but could find the section on proof testing the Enfield rifle BUT it is in this book. You should read this book that way you wont have a problem when I quote from it.
Page 360 of The Textbook of Small Arms.
From Jim Sweet's "Competitive Rifle Shooting" first published in 1946.
