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

How much oil are you talking about for this to happen? I got some fairly old ammo with a K98 which looked less than pristine (Tirpitz ammo was the description). I wiped the rounds with a rag that had been sprayed with a fair bit of WD40 to take some white mess off them and to generally clean them up. For this problem to happen are we talking about dripping in oil, or the smallest amount of oil?

Charlotte the flyer wrote:How much oil are you talking about for this to happen? I got some fairly old ammo with a K98 which looked less than pristine (Tirpitz ammo was the description). I wiped the rounds with a rag that had been sprayed with a fair bit of WD40 to take some white mess off them and to generally clean them up. For this problem to happen are we talking about dripping in oil, or the smallest amount of oil?

I've never deliberately oiled a case to try it but I would guess a smear would be effective.

Rearlugs wrote:

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?

...

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.

I am not aware of ANY target rifle "accidents" that involve mechanical failures at Bisley in the past decade. There was one f-class rifle a couple of years ago, which included a small element of homeload ammo and a small element of gunsmithing and according to our metallurgical analysis a large amount of questionable material. As we never received a response from the manufacturer to our questions about the materials used, we could not progress that investigation to a conclusion.

Just for everybody's information, the NRA published a revised safety notice about 9 months after the infamous "you have been warned" notice (the text of which was sub-edited by non-technical people). The text of the second notice, published in the Spring 2010 Journal (at which time I was Chairman of the Shooting Committee), is reproduced below.


SAFETY NOTICE
ENFIELD NO 4 RIFLE CONVERSIONS TO 7.62MM
A safety warning concerning the use of Enfield No 4 Rifle actions converted to 7.62mm was published in the Summer Journal.
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:
• Owners of Enfield No 4 actioned rifles converted to 7.62mm currently proofed to 19 tons per square inch are strongly advised to have them reproofed to the current CIP standard (requiring a minimum mean proof pressure of 5190 bar) which allows the use of CIP approved ammunition with a Maximum Average Working Pressure (MAWP) of 4150 Bar.
• 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 further 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 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 pressure barrel.
• Owners of Enfield No 4 actioned rifles converted to 7.62mm who are uncertain as to the proof status of the rifle should have it checked by a competent gunsmith.
• Owners of Enfield No 4 actioned rifles in any calibre are strongly advised not to use them in wet weather or without removing all traces of oil from action and chamber prior to shooting.
• Enfield No 4 rifles converted to 7.62mm calibre or any other 7.62mm calibre rifles which are fitted with a barrel which has a throat diameter less than 0.3085” must not be used on Bisley Ranges.
• Ammunition loaded with bullets of any weight which are of greater diameter than the throat diameter of the barrel must not under any circumstances be used on Bisley Ranges in any rifle or barrel of any manufacture.


Bullet points 4, 5, 6, 8 & 9 above actually apply to ANY rifle in 7.62x51 /.308 Win (see NRA rule 150). These are to do with the UK Proof Masters' agreement to use of barrels with dimensions smaller than CIP standard provided that the ammunition is correspondingly limited to pressures less than the CIP maximum (eg the RUAG 155 sold by the NRA).

Iain

Whilst most of that NRA update is common sense that should apply to any rifle, it still contains this unfounded line:


"• Owners of Enfield No 4 actioned rifles in any calibre are strongly advised not to use them in wet weather or without removing all traces of oil from action and chamber prior to shooting."


Why, after 100 years of Enfields being used in wet and oily conditions without any ill effect at all (not least at Bisley itself), is it suddenly necessary to make this statement? What exactly is the evidence that has driven this NRA concern about Enfield rifles? What is the empirical evidence that today contradicts about eighty years' of development research by the design authority, published in texts (e.g. such as the Text Book of Small Arms) that have never previously been challenged? Which modern weapons research establishment has duplicated the tens of millions of rounds of proof firing that Woolwich and Enfield used in the development of the Lee Enfield system?

My questions are of course rhetorical, because this issue goes around and around in circles without anyone ever putting up anything firmer than a tale they heard on the internet. I just find this NRA Enfield obsession peculiar - after all, Mauser and Springfields actually have a far worse record of actual catastrophic failure, but they never seem to get a warning mention!

Rearlugs wrote:Whilst most of that NRA update is common sense that should apply to any rifle, it still contains this unfounded line:


"• Owners of Enfield No 4 actioned rifles in any calibre are strongly advised not to use them in wet weather or without removing all traces of oil from action and chamber prior to shooting."


Why, after 100 years of Enfields being used in wet and oily conditions without any ill effect at all (not least at Bisley itself), is it suddenly necessary to make this statement? What exactly is the evidence that has driven this NRA concern about Enfield rifles? What is the empirical evidence that today contradicts about eighty years' of development research by the design authority, published in texts (e.g. such as the Text Book of Small Arms) that have never previously been challenged? Which modern weapons research establishment has duplicated the tens of millions of rounds of proof firing that Woolwich and Enfield used in the development of the Lee Enfield system?

My questions are of course rhetorical, because this issue goes around and around in circles without anyone ever putting up anything firmer than a tale they heard on the internet. I just find this NRA Enfield obsession peculiar - after all, Mauser and Springfields actually have a far worse record of actual catastrophic failure, but they never seem to get a warning mention!

Lugs - The statement refers to target conversions (as it says in capitals before the bullet points), and the issue over the last few years has always been about this...At no point has anyone (including the NRA) said anything about normal service rifles.......

Dougan wrote:
Lugs - The statement refers to target conversions (as it says in capitals before the bullet points), and the issue over the last few years has always been about this...At no point has anyone (including the NRA) said anything about normal service rifles.......

I guess we read things differently.To me, the bullet point itself states "Enfield No 4 actioned rifles in any calibre".

I still want to know the evidential basis for making any warning about No4s in the first place.

This really has to be urban legend, seems like it rained pretty hard for days on end in WWI, battle rifles don't just blow up from being wet.

THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT .303 SERVICE RIFLES.......

There was 'hear say' about 7.62 Envoys and Enforcers (I couldn't find any solid evidence) - but personally would still be cautious using them with 155+ gr bullets in wet weather...especially faster courses of fire (they're excellent McQueens rifles) were it makes it difficult to stop water ingress...

The real issue (which lead to the NRA warning) is about later target conversions, where a .308 target barrel (ones that are possibly on the tight side) were put on a No.4 action.....so nothing to do at all with .303 service rifles.

Dougan wrote:THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT .303 SERVICE RIFLES.......

As Rearlugs points out above, it is. Strange how that warning apparently applies to No.4 actioned rifles but not SMLEs and earlier.

I think I'll take my No.4 out in wet weather with a slightly easier mind now.

As No4s are clearly a lethal danger to their owners in wet weather, I would like to announce that, as a charitable act, I am willing to purchase any unwanted L42s, L39s, Envoys, Enforcers, DCRAs, Charnwoods, etc, for a nominal price.....