Modifying/removing LE charger bridges

[ovenpaa]

I have seen a couple of pictures recently of Lee Enfields with the charger bridge completely removed. To my mind this effectively weakens the rear of the receiver is this not the case?

Does anyone have a view on this?

[dromia]

Historically the charger bridge was an addition to the the Lee Enfield brought in on the Long Lee development.

[Sandgroper]

Have they been removed or are early Lee Enfields/Metfords without the charger bridge?



http://www.rifleman.org.uk/The_Rifle_Sh ... nfield.htm

Adam beat me to it!

[Gaz]

IIRC some of the later wartime production No.4/5 bodies had the charger bridge fitted as a separate assembly. I'm currently browsing via my phone so can't look up the reference materials.

[dromia]

On No1 rifles and some early No4s the charger bridge was a separate forging riveted or screwed into place. On later No4s and 5s it was brazed/welded into place.

[ovenpaa]

So in theory it is OK to modify or remove a charger bridge however it would have to go back for proof afterwards.

[Watcher]

My only thought would be to wonder whether the charger guide made any difference to the rigidity of the action and therefore its accuracy? Bearing in mind that both the No 1 and No 4 were always intended to have a charger guide and therefore it played in integral part in the structure of the gun and therefore its recoil characteristics. I'm no expert so this is just a thought.

[Gaz]

I have read of Enfields in America whose charger bridges "sprung" out after overfilled handloads strained the action body. This suggests that the fixing of the charger bridge does play a part in the recoil characteristics. Doesn't the bridge sit more or less directly above the locking lugs, i.e. at the point of greatest flex upon firing?

[Rearlugs]

The charger bridge is not necessary for the structural integrity of the Enfield action - Long Lees are perfectly ok (and accurate) without them. Clearly the bridge on a No4/5 action provides a slightly stringer bridge across the action than on the riveted No1 item (although the bit in the middle is still a separate welded or brazed piece), but any contribution to "stiffness" would be pure speculation.

I don't think a rifle would require a re-proof after removal of the bridge, as it could be demonstrated that the bridge is not a structural part of the receiver.