Enfields in wet weather

[Gaz]

So in short, keep the action and ammo dry (as you would for other rifles) and there's little risk of these catastrophic failures I've heard of? Sounds sensible to me. Cheers.

[Rearlugs]

IIRC no documented example of an Enfield suffering a dangerous catastrophic failure is known to exist - at least that didn't involve a handload and/or an idiot...

Shooting wet or oiled ammunition has no discernible effect on the safety or serviceability of the rifle - and that is based on military observation of 100 years of service and millions of rifles. Oiled ammunition was actually considered as a standard at one point, as it was found that the oil was squeezed forward on firing, assisting a tight gas seal around the bullet as it entered the lead - significantly improving accuracy.

As a .303 case expands against the chamber in a wave fashion forwards and backwards from a point just forward of the primer orifice, most water/oil on the case walls is thought to be squeezed out, thus minimising any extra thrust on the bolt due to lack of adhesion between case and chamber.

Proof for .303 was set at 18 tons psi, which equated to oiled ammunition (c.12 tons) plus a hefty margin on top. Dry .303 ammunition only produces a pressure of about 8-9 tons. In trials, it was found that the No1 action could easily withstand repeated 30 ton proof shots - in fact with rimmed .303 it was stronger than contemporary Mauser actions firing rimless ammunition (Text Book of Small Arms, "strength of actions").

[Dougan]

Most of the 'talk' about Enfields blowing up isn't about service rifles...which as has already been said were designed to cope with a bit of rain and mud...

There have apparently been a few problems with envoys/enforcers, which I was told were originally meant to use a 145 gr bullet - there is evidence of a few wet weather fails in Australia, where enforcers were being used by the police.

The main problem is with Enfield conversions; where a modern .308 target barrel has been put on an original No.4 action - If the barrel is a little 'tight' (as they can be for TR), then shooting .308 target ammo can generate pressures higher than were originally intended for the action...the NRA had quite a lot of discussion about this issue a few years back, and suggested that tight barreled conversions, hot loads, wet weather or a combination of these factors could lead to problems...

...and there is some evidence - I've seen the after-effects of two fails...one where the bolt had 'sprung', so was bent and jammed solid in the action...and another where the bolt had actually broken in 2 pieces; which is quite dangerous...

I had a conversion with a tight target barrel on it - the bullet on a Ruag round was only just off the lands, so I kept it spotlessly clean and never shot in the rain...it shot very well at 600 and 900...but in the end I got fed up of worrying about it (especially as I was getting round to reloading for it), and traded it in....

[Rearlugs]

There have apparently been a few problems with envoys/enforcers, which I was told were originally meant to use a 145 gr bullet - there is evidence of a few wet weather fails in Australia, where enforcers were being used by the police.

The main problem is with Enfield conversions; where a modern .308 target barrel has been put on an original No.4 action - If the barrel is a little 'tight' (as they can be for TR), then shooting .308 target ammo can generate pressures higher than were originally intended for the action...the NRA had quite a lot of discussion about this issue a few years back, and suggested that tight barreled conversions, hot loads, wet weather or a combination of these factors could lead to problems...
.

It would be good to track down a source for the Australian incidents, as these are otherwise entirely unknown to the global Enfield collecting & research community.

As the NRA "No4 notice" appears to have been based on entirely fabricated facts (ie the Police, Military and proof houses have never issued warnings about 7.62mm Enfields), one must assume that the NRA had some sort of other agenda. The matter now seems to have been quietly swept under the carpet...


7.62mm Enfields currently undergo the same 20T 7.62mm/.308W proof test as all other rifles of the same calibre. No problems have been reported to date. There were huge bore diameter variations in normal military .303 production, but no resulting issues were noted in EMERs or other official texts.

[dromia]

It would be good to track down a source for the Australian incidents, as these are otherwise entirely unknown to the global Enfield collecting & research community.

As the NRA "No4 notice" appears to have been based on entirely fabricated facts (ie the Police, Military and proof houses have never issued warnings about 7.62mm Enfields), one must assume that the NRA had some sort of other agenda. The matter now seems to have been quietly swept under the carpet...


7.62mm Enfields currently undergo the same 20T 7.62mm/.308W proof test as all other rifles of the same calibre. No problems have been reported to date. There were huge bore diameter variations in normal military .303 production, but no resulting issues were noted in EMERs or other official texts.

Concur, from my limited knowledge of Enfields but I have been shooting and collecting them for forty years. I also have never seen an actual accident reported that was due to a rifle, as opposed to an ammunition, failure.

As has been said calibre proof testing is just that regardless of the action.

I would also like to see the evidence for this as it is bandied about a lot but I have yet to see it substantiated. Any one care to point us in the right direction?

The dynamic of mythical "facts"?

[Dougan]

As an owner of one of the said 'problem rifles' I looked into the issue seriously when the NRA made their statement - I couldn't find any evidence of the 'Australian police' fails, but saw with my own eyes the bolts and actions of 2 failed Enfields at a reputable gunsmiths...

When the NRA changed from RG to RUAG I had some head-space problems (and I don't believe that all 7.62 x 51 is exactly the same as .308 win...but that's another matter...) - So I had the head of the bolt changed, the chamber checked, and the rifle reproofed...and was told all was fine - a few months later I was shooting a comp, when a cease-fire was called...when I went to eject the live round, the bullet pulled and dumped powder all in the mag (not good)...which meant the bullet was in the lands...

After all my inquiries (and personal experience of the type of rifle), I came to the conclusion that the NRA were covering their arse, as they issue the ammunition at meetings, which puts them in liability - That said, I have to agree that there was something to it...I felt that my own rifle was pushing the capabilities of the action (60 years old, well used and 2 rear locking lugs closed on a tight 30" target barrel), and that hot loads and/or water in the chamber would push it too far...

...I'm quite happy to put 15 of my home loads a minute down my SMLE though...

[Steve E]

The Only 'Failed' No4 actions that I have seen were L39s and No4 7.62 conversions that failed proof. In the early 1990s the RAF along with the Army and Navy sold off all of their L39s and No4 conversions that had been used as target rifles because they were no longer supported by the base repair organisations. All of the rifles had the military proof of 19T for 7.62 x 51 NATO. Before the rifles could be disposed of they all had to have the newer and more relevant proof of 20T for .308 Win. I was involved in taking all of the RAF rifles that had been submitted for disposal, to the Birmingham Proof House. When I returned to collect the rifles several had failed proof, some in a most catastrophic way. Actions were bulged and distorted and in some cases the small lug on the bolt had sheared off. Some of the rifles that failed were brand new L39s that had never been fired. Moral out there, if you have an L39 or No4 conversion that has a 19T proof on it, get it reproofed to the correct 20T. If you are unlucky it may fail but rather it fail at the proof house than on the range.
I do know of a No4 7.62 conversion that failed at Bisley a few years ago and was investigated by the NRA. The owner had alledgedly only used homeloads with cast lead bullets, but it failed on the firing point. Never heard what the outcome was though. Rumour had it that it was metal fatigue but no findings were ever published.

[dromia]

What was deemed to be the cause of the failures you saw?

[Sandgroper]

Reading this it seems to go back to the question is 7.62 NATO and 308Win the same round? From what I've read is that although dimensionally they are the same - they are not in regards to pressure and chamber. The 7.62NATO is loaded to lower pressures and the chamber is roomier with a longer leade compared to 308Win.

http://www.303british.com/id36.html

http://how-i-did-it.org/762vs308/chamber.html

For me, I didn't risk 308Win ammunition in my 7.62 Ishapore.

[Dougan]

Reading this it seems to go back to the question is 7.62 NATO and 308Win the same round? From what I've read is that although dimensionally they are the same

Every one says they're the same, but when I changed to .308 win I had to change the bolt head (giving 6 thou more head-space) to be able to close the bolt properly...