The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Dougan wrote:

Sandgroper wrote: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...

Interesting. The vast majority of stuff (admittedly on the internet) I've read has said that they're not the same.

Regarding the Australian question - the Australian military only used the SMLE MkIII and used the HT versions as sniper rifles up until the 1970's. IIRC after that it was Parker Hale (forget which one at the moment). It would seem unlikely that any of the Polices Forces in Australia would use a No4 even for trials.

The Royal Australian Air Force modified several No6 rifles to 7.62NATO but all were deemed unsafe during trials - could this be what you're thinking of?

Sandgroper wrote:Regarding the Australian question - the Australian military only used the SMLE MkIII and used the HT versions as sniper rifles up until the 1970's. IIRC after that it was Parker Hale (forget which one at the moment). It would seem unlikely that any of the Polices Forces in Australia would use a No4 even for trials.

The Royal Australian Air Force modified several No6 rifles to 7.62NATO but all were deemed unsafe during trials - could this be what you're thinking of?

I'm not sure now, I'm trying to remember where I heard the Australian stuff - I was sure it was about envoys or enforcers (did the original ones have a hammered barrel?), though the No.6 looks similar (had to look No.6 up....) - I was told that some models were designed for a 145 gr RG 7.62 round, and that there had been a few fails with 155 gr .308 win, and that wet weather may have also been a factor....?

As was established in the original manufacturers' trials, Enfields (No1 actions) were easily capable of withstanding repeated 30T proof. Thus there is a huge safety margin - even over any known loading of 7.62mm or .308W. This appears to be borne out by brute statistics - no known pressure issues in 17 million .303 rifles over 100 years of multi-environment service, and no known issue in thousands of 7.62mm target conversions since the 1970s. By "known", I mean sufficient documented examples to qualify as statistically significant to the design authority. E.g. the 7.62mm Enfield had an exemplary 30-year career with the Army, latterly using 155gn ammo, and no failure incidents appear to have been recorded, let alone led to a note in EMERs or users' guides.


Regarding failures,

(1) it would be good to hear details of L39s, etc, that failed 20T proof, as this is again completely unknown to the Enfield community (and neither proof house mentioned this when I asked the specific question in the past; the only failures I know about are ringed barrels). Hard to conceive that there is some sort of critical difference between 19T and 20T proof, given the fairly loose methodology and measurement involved in the process (e.g. proof rounds or oil-dipped rounds);

(2) ditto the story behind broken bolts, etc. Over on one of the Enfield forums we have a photo gallery of broken parts, etc. Most of these are of course just minor service failures - snapped cocking pieces, etc - but there are two or so cases of broken bolts reported. In both cases, massive over-pressure from home loads appears to be the cause. A military broken bolt anecdote (ie no civilian handloads) from Peter Laidler concerns a bolt that was ludicrously over-heated by an apprentice attempting oil-blacking. That bolt presumably failed because it had been rendered brittle by the heating.


Don't mean to hijack the thread, but this is an interesting subject. Its a very modern (USA & internet-driven?) phenomena that Enfields are regarded as "weak", despite the overwhelming evidence that there is no such issue. It is very clear that nearly every story and anecdote about Enfield failure usually comes from a third-hand source, and/or invariably either does not exist or involves some sort of handloading abuse. It is very hard to find clear documented cases to examine.

From http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/REL/19494

Summary
Approximately 12 of these rifles were produced at the Lithgow factory using 1942 receivers for trials by the Royal Australian Air Force. It was found that the SMLE No I Mk III* receiver was not safe if continually used with the 7.62 mm cartridge. This was the final experimental design of the Lee Enfield series of rifles in Australia and all further work ceased with the introduction of the L1A1 SLR.

From what I understand, India changed the type of steel in their SMLEs when they manufactured the 2A and 2A1 in 7.62 NATO.

I suppose with the RAAF No6, it was intended to fail to get the SLR for the RAAF (no proof and the RAN didn't have a similar project) and India shows that the action is not weak just the steel they used previously.

Who knows for sure, either way?

Sandgroper wrote:From http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/REL/19494

Summary
Approximately 12 of these rifles were produced at the Lithgow factory using 1942 receivers for trials by the Royal Australian Air Force. It was found that the SMLE No I Mk III* receiver was not safe if continually used with the 7.62 mm cartridge. This was the final experimental design of the Lee Enfield series of rifles in Australia and all further work ceased with the introduction of the L1A1 SLR.

From what I understand, India changed the type of steel in their SMLEs when they manufactured the 2A and 2A1 in 7.62 NATO.

I suppose with the RAAF No6, it was intended to fail to get the SLR for the RAAF (no proof and the RAN didn't have a similar project) and India shows that the action is not weak just the steel they used previously.

Who knows for sure, either way?

Again, you have to be careful even with published statements.

The Australians had at least two sets of trials. None of the trials had any real design significance, as they were very small - just a few rifles - and involved hardly any research apart from continuous proof firing until the receivers (rather unsurprisingly) showed signs of strain or stretch. Indeed, one of the oft-quoted trials used "old" receivers with completely unknown service life. No attempt was made to establish a potential service life with normal rounds. Note (1) that the reports actually state that the trials "were not proceeded with", which in military terms can mean almost anything - usually means that the trial was unfunded, pointless, uneconomic, or not authorised beyond the local funding of the relevant establishment. Note (2) that Australian post-1940 No1 receivers are heat treated in a completely different way to British and Indian receivers - i.e. just spot hardening over the locking lugs - and so are not to be compared with other No1s, let alone No4s.

It is oft-quoted that the Indians used "special steel" in their 2A/1 production, but it remains an entirely undocumented statement based on an uninformed (a DA, not a factory representative) verbal comment to the US Col Edwards - the Indians have never released any data about their rifle production. The "special steel" quoted on the internet is usually just a modern engineering specification for one of the many types of steel previously used in No1 production. What can be confirmed by observation (and by Peter Laidler's tests at Shrivenham) is that contemporary (ie rifles made in the same year) Ishapore No1 MkIIIs in .303 and 2A/1s in 7.62mm have identical steel and nearly identical manufacturing processes (only the ejector screw hole is relocated on the 2A1). Maybe both rifles are made of "special steel", or maybe they are both made from the same stock that Ishapore used for all its other No1s....!

(p.s. last year Peter Laidler obtained a 7.62mm 2A1 headspace specification from the Indian military DA. Its not known whether this is an accurate spec obtained from the factory, or whether the DA just copied it from another 7.62mm weapon system, but this is the only known source data about the 2A1. Ergo, all of the preceding internet debate about 2A1 headspace is proven to be facile - as no-one was actually in a position to state waht the headpsace was supposed to be!)

Rearlugs wrote:

Sandgroper wrote:From http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/REL/19494

Summary
Approximately 12 of these rifles were produced at the Lithgow factory using 1942 receivers for trials by the Royal Australian Air Force. It was found that the SMLE No I Mk III* receiver was not safe if continually used with the 7.62 mm cartridge. This was the final experimental design of the Lee Enfield series of rifles in Australia and all further work ceased with the introduction of the L1A1 SLR.

From what I understand, India changed the type of steel in their SMLEs when they manufactured the 2A and 2A1 in 7.62 NATO.

I suppose with the RAAF No6, it was intended to fail to get the SLR for the RAAF (no proof and the RAN didn't have a similar project) and India shows that the action is not weak just the steel they used previously.

Who knows for sure, either way?

Again, you have to be careful even with published statements.

The Australians had at least two sets of trials. None of the trials had any real design significance, as they were very small - just a few rifles - and involved hardly any research apart from continuous proof firing until the receivers (rather unsurprisingly) showed signs of strain or stretch. Indeed, one of the oft-quoted trials used "old" receivers with completely unknown service life. No attempt was made to establish a potential service life with normal rounds. Note (1) that the reports actually state that the trials "were not proceeded with", which in military terms can mean almost anything - usually means that the trial was unfunded, pointless, uneconomic, or not authorised beyond the local funding of the relevant establishment. Note (2) that Australian post-1940 No1 receivers are heat treated in a completely different way to British and Indian receivers - i.e. just spot hardening over the locking lugs - and so are not to be compared with other No1s, let alone No4s.

It is oft-quoted that the Indians used "special steel" in their 2A/1 production, but it remains an entirely undocumented statement based on an uninformed (a DA, not a factory representative) verbal comment to the US Col Edwards - the Indians have never released any data about their rifle production. The "special steel" quoted on the internet is usually just a modern engineering specification for one of the many types of steel previously used in No1 production. What can be confirmed by observation (and by Peter Laidler's tests at Shrivenham) is that contemporary (ie rifles made in the same year) Ishapore No1 MkIIIs in .303 and 2A/1s in 7.62mm have identical steel and nearly identical manufacturing processes (only the ejector screw hole is relocated on the 2A1). Maybe both rifles are made of "special steel", or maybe they are both made from the same stock that Ishapore used for all its other No1s....!

(p.s. last year Peter Laidler obtained a 7.62mm 2A1 headspace specification from the Indian military DA. Its not known whether this is an accurate spec obtained from the factory, or whether the DA just copied it from another 7.62mm weapon system, but this is the only known source data about the 2A1. Ergo, all of the preceding internet debate about 2A1 headspace is proven to be facile - as no-one was actually in a position to state waht the headpsace was supposed to be!)

As I say, the evidence of fails I found (and it wasn't a lot) pointed towards home-loads and/or water ingress....

Service rifles aside - What do you (and folk on Enfield forums) think about conversions where a 30" stainless steel target barrel is added to an Enfield action?

Steve E wrote: 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.

As an aside, not all were sold off, the Royal Navy recently located 25 L39s sitting in an armoury.

Rearlugs wrote:
Again, you have to be careful even with published statements.

The Australians had at least two sets of trials. None of the trials had any real design significance, as they were very small - just a few rifles - and involved hardly any research apart from continuous proof firing until the receivers (rather unsurprisingly) showed signs of strain or stretch. Indeed, one of the oft-quoted trials used "old" receivers with completely unknown service life. No attempt was made to establish a potential service life with normal rounds. Note (1) that the reports actually state that the trials "were not proceeded with", which in military terms can mean almost anything - usually means that the trial was unfunded, pointless, uneconomic, or not authorised beyond the local funding of the relevant establishment. Note (2) that Australian post-1940 No1 receivers are heat treated in a completely different way to British and Indian receivers - i.e. just spot hardening over the locking lugs - and so are not to be compared with other No1s, let alone No4s.

It is oft-quoted that the Indians used "special steel" in their 2A/1 production, but it remains an entirely undocumented statement based on an uninformed (a DA, not a factory representative) verbal comment to the US Col Edwards - the Indians have never released any data about their rifle production. The "special steel" quoted on the internet is usually just a modern engineering specification for one of the many types of steel previously used in No1 production. What can be confirmed by observation (and by Peter Laidler's tests at Shrivenham) is that contemporary (ie rifles made in the same year) Ishapore No1 MkIIIs in .303 and 2A/1s in 7.62mm have identical steel and nearly identical manufacturing processes (only the ejector screw hole is relocated on the 2A1). Maybe both rifles are made of "special steel", or maybe they are both made from the same stock that Ishapore used for all its other No1s....!

(p.s. last year Peter Laidler obtained a 7.62mm 2A1 headspace specification from the Indian military DA. Its not known whether this is an accurate spec obtained from the factory, or whether the DA just copied it from another 7.62mm weapon system, but this is the only known source data about the 2A1. Ergo, all of the preceding internet debate about 2A1 headspace is proven to be facile - as no-one was actually in a position to state waht the headpsace was supposed to be!)

The first time I read about the different steel used in the 2A and 2A1s was from one of Ian Skennerton's books not the internet, but where he got the information from I don't know.

Interesting information about the Australian heat treatment - I didn't know that. Like I said the whole RAAF trial could have been designed to fail.

I don't know anything about the 2A1 headspace debate - I was commenting on the differences (real or otherwise) between the 7.62NATO and 308Win.

Like I said, 'Who knows for sure, either way?'

Personally, I believe in the strength of the Lee Enfield action but I also believe it's better to err on the side of caution.

Dougan wrote: Service rifles aside - What do you (and folk on Enfield forums) think about conversions where a 30" stainless steel target barrel is added to an Enfield action?

I've had a few such rifles through my stock, including the Envoy with a 30" Madco used by Rob Courtney at the 1994 Commonwealth games. I think they were just the last gasp of the Enfield target era. They are perfectly good rifles in the right hands - the above-mentioned won, IIRC, at 900x and 1000x - but I guess few serious club shooters would use one now. Obviously if you want to make optimum use of a 155gn TR round (and were capable of shooting to the difference!) then you'd probably use one of these modern barrels over the Enfield original optimised for 144gn. I personally think that the two types of Enfield 145gn 7.62mm barrels (hammer and smooth finish) were so good that they negate any advantage of 155gn barrels.


Mechanically, there is nothing wrong with them. I suppose if someone did really use a stupid and unproofed chamber/lead/bore they might cause the extractor to blow out - but as far as I know all of the target rifle "accidents" reported at Bisley in the past decade have been dedicated single-shot TR rifles and not one Enfield.

Most Enfield aficionados are now more interested in "first generation TR" and/or "factory original" target rifles (L39s, L42s, Envoys, Enforcers). The tendency is to take off civilian target barrels and replace with Enfield barrels, so that the rifle is "original".

huntervixen wrote: .............

If that's the case would wet cartridges cause more or less pressure than other Enfield marks??

Also, what effect would an oiled cartridge have...same as water...or worse?

This is the answer - a wet or oiled case will prevent it gripping the chamber walls on firing, thus placing all the rearward thrust on the bolt - a technique which used to be used when proofing rifles.

A very low load will sometimes do the same - the case slams against the boltface leaving the tell-tale ejector marks on the case-head - exactly the same as an overload does.