Ishapore 2A1 1967

[jed1177]

New to this forum and have been reading the volumes on the 7.62 v.s. 308 debate regarding safe use in the 2A1. As the thread title says, I have an Ishapore 2A1 RFI from 1967 in very nice condition, all matching numbers including the bolt.

Thinking I was ahead of the game with about 100 rounds of US 7.62 Special Ball M118 ratholed away before the purchase, I made the Ishy purchase only now to see that it looks like this round with the 173 grain bullet might be a little stiff for the old girl. I read here that the standard safe round should be the 7.62 147 grain bullet (M80). Also I do not reload, so I'm only looking for factory ammunition.

I don't want to damage this piece and I'm just too handsome to finish my life with an Indian rifle bolt sticking out of my cheek! :madsmile:

Is this the general consensus (on the ammunition, not the handsome part)?

Thanks in advance!

[jmoore]

Aside from safety concerns, it seems that M118 ammo is a rather expensive way to feed a 3-4 MOA rifle. I've shot a "few" rounds out of these, w/o regard to bullet weight particularly, but by and large it's been regular old NATO ball. (US M80 ball for short range work- it's the least accurate of all the NATO spec stuff.)

Check to make sure it's in spec berfore shooting anything out of it, and then drive on. In this case, since the chambers are generally chrome lined to start, DON"T lube your ammo, or Edward Horton will get you!:D

[coppertales]

Those rifles were made to shoot that ammo. The steel in the receiver/bolt is improved over the regular Enfield to handle the higher pressure cartridge. Enjoy your rifle.....chris3

[Peter Laidler]

I was interested to read that about the different steel spec of the Indian 7.62mm 2A1's copper,because we used a few at Shrivenham during student projects and they were the same spec as previous...., or certainly within the parameters of 60's/70's steel mixing capabilitie! In fact one was clearly a conversion of an old .303" Mk3.

Any other forumers any comments on this and the steel/material?

[Amatikulu]

I posted this information last year:

I have an awful lot of reference material and while reading today I came across a paper titled "Gun Proof in India - An Historical Account." It was written by Mr. A. G. Harrison the former Proof Master at the Rifle Factory Proof House, Ishapore, India and was published in "The Gun Digest, 33rd Edition, 1979."


From 1908 to 1950 all military bolt action rifles made at Ishapore were proof tested with a dry proof round followed by an oiled proof round. The proof cartridge was loaded to 24 tons (2240lbs = 1 ton) psi breech presure, or 25% higher than the service pressure.

In 1950 the material for rifle bodies (they made No.1 Mark 3* rifles; my addition) was altered from an EN steel to SWES 48 steel (not heat treated) except for the recoil shoulder and cam recess in the receiver. With this change the rifle receivers distorted when oiled proof cartridges were fired. This was discovered when hard and sometimes impossible bolt retraction was experienced. Large quantities of rifles were rejected. To avoid rejections the authorities ordered discontinuance of the oiled proof. Therefore from 1950 to the end of SMLE rifle production (June 1965) rifles made at Ishapore were proof tested with one dry proof only, although the specification called for both dry and oiled proof.

A bolt action rifle similar to the SMLE Mk. III*, modified to fire the 7.62 NATO cartridge was produced at Ishapore, first in February 1965. Their receivers were made of SWES 48 steel, un-heat-treated, and with the NATO proof cartridge receivers were found to distort with the oiled or the dry proof round! The material was changed to an EN steel so now the rifles stand up better to dry and oiled proof.

This suggests that the type of steel used in the 2A series of rifles was changed for a short period to SWES 48 but then changed back to an EN grade similar to the older No.1 MarkIII steel

[Alan de Enfield]

.........Therefore from 1950 to the end of SMLE rifle production (June 1965) ........

1965 ?
How about a 1986 No1 Mk3 ?

http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t219/Alan_de_Enfield/1986Ishapore.jpg

[Amatikulu]

Based on the Ishapore Proof House Master having written the extract above and publishing it in 1979, I can only conclude that Ishapore ceased No.1 production in June of 1965. Whatever was made after that is not covered by the article and is subject to speculation.

[Peter Laidler]

Mmmmmmmm. I'd check the thickness of the butt socket wall thickness because 1986 seems very late. On some of the 7.62's, you can just faintly see the old markings where they've been linished clean.

[krinko]

There are hundreds (thousands?) of these. All quite uniform and all quite uniformly crude. Still, the rifles are better than the nadir of Ishapore production---the 1963-65 SMLE.
The last ones, dated 1988, include "floor sweepings" rifles----JB White got one of those----otherwise, they show no sign of being rebuilds.
-----krinko

[garra]

Interesting questions about the 2A1, I just picked up a 1968 made Carbine conversion in beautiful condition, loaded up some ammo for it but have yet to shoot it. I have seen a number of recommendations of having it checked out for head spacing, but I also have seen some conversations about variations of the gauges between 308 and the NATO round. Has there been a NATO standard established and are gauges available?

I have had to sand bag a rifle down in the past and used a string to pull the trigger, that was the method I used on my 1876 Martini.

[Edward Horton]

To this day the British military uses oiled proof rounds to test military small arms, the civilian European CIP and American SAAMI both use dry non-oiled proof cartridges for proof testing. The oiled military proof test cartridge subjects the bolt and receiver to the worst possible conditions a rifle can be subjected to under combat conditions or double the force applied by a dry cartridge.

In plain english even if the Ishapore 2A1 was proofed with a dry proof cartridge it still passed the proof testing any American or European civilian hunting rifle was ever subjected to.

If you want the honest truth civilian factory .308 ammunition is loaded to lower pressures than military ammunition. The standard 7.62 NATO ammunition is loaded to 50,000 CUP and the M118 Special Ball is loaded to the same rated pressure as the .308 at 52,000 CUP. In simple language there is less than 2,000 PSI difference in “rated” chamber pressure between the .308 and 7.62 NATO which is insignificant.

Why do I say 2,000 PSI is insignificant, please look below at the chamber pressure variations during pressure testing of 30-06 factory loaded ammunition. (Extreme variation under “PRESSURE” is 10,100 CUP or PSI)

The 30-06 ammunition below has 10,000 PSI difference between the highest and lowest cartridges fired during testing.

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/bigedp51/30-06chart-1.jpg

Below is reloading data from 1968 before the transducer method was used for measuring chamber pressure, all pressures are in CUP or copper units pressure. Pleases notice you do NOT see any pressures in the 60,000 PSI range. (Please notice the reloading manual says both .308 and 7.62 in the heading)

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/bigedp51/308-762-a-1.jpg

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/bigedp51/308-762-b-1.jpg

Below are the normal chamber pressures and proof testing pressures for the .308 and 7.62.

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/bigedp51/308proof-1.jpg

Pay close attention to the max load data for the .308 Winchester and the 168 grain bullet with IMR-4895 powder, 42.5 grains at 51,200 CUP.

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/bigedp51/168match.jpg

Below is from the U.S. Army, please notice the load is 42 grains of IMR-4895 or half a grain "LESS" than the max load for the .308 above and the chamber pressure is 50,000 CUP or 1,200 psi less the the .308. ;)

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/bigedp51/762match.jpg

Below is my 2A1, the head space is just under field max for the M14 and it has .010 head gap clearance. (a .303 Enfield could have as much as .016 at .074 max head space setting)

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/bigedp51/2A1b.jpg

I shoot both military 7.62 and commercial .308 ammunition without any problems in my 2A1 ;)

Below is the most accurate information on the .308 and 7.62 you will find anywhere.

The Truth About 308 Win and 762 NATO

http://home.comcast.net/~ehorton/The%20Truth%20About%20308%20Win%20and%20762%20NATO .pdf

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

http://www.smellysmleshooters.net/ammopressure.htm

[Alan de Enfield]

Interesting questions about the 2A1, I just picked up a 1968 made Carbine conversion in beautiful condition, loaded up some ammo for it but have yet to shoot it. I have seen a number of recommendations of having it checked out for head spacing, but I also have seen some conversations about variations of the gauges between 308 and the NATO round. Has there been a NATO standard established and are gauges available?

I have had to sand bag a rifle down in the past and used a string to pull the trigger, that was the method I used on my 1876 Martini.

The 308 & the 7.62 ROUND are to all intents and purposes identical, the CHAMBERS differ read this article :

http://home.comcast.net/~ehorton/The%20Truth%20About%20308%20Win%20and%20762%20NATO .pdf

[jonnyc]

Yeah...sanity!!!
I am so sick of this question...oft repeated on the many sites I frequent.

[Edward Horton]

Yeah...sanity!!!
I am so sick of this question...oft repeated on the many sites I frequent.

sanity!!!

Did our 30-06 M1917 Enfield's and 03 Springfield's blow up when we shot commercial 30-06 ammunition in them............NO

This myth started because people do not understand that the older 50,000 CUP (Copper units pressure method) is equal to the newer 60,000 PSI (transducer method)

Will your tires blow up if the manual in the glove box calls for 32 PSI and you put 220 kPa in them? :rolleyes:

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/bigedp51/IMGP3024.jpg

[Peter Laidler]

What's strange is thet the roll-engraved RFI logo and Ashok differ considerably between AD-E's rifle and Krinko's.

I wouldn't mind betting that some of these latecomers have been linished clean. I wonder if a variation on the magnaflux test would highlight any abnormality in the steel structure to show previous distortion..............

[Edward Horton]

What's strange is thet the roll-engraved RFI logo and Ashok differ considerably between AD-E's rifle and Krinko's.

I wouldn't mind betting that some of these latecomers have been linished clean. I wonder if a variation on the magnaflux test would highlight any abnormality in the steel structure to show previous distortion..............

Mr. Laidler

Are you insinuating that Alan de Enfield (AD-E) is............fruity?

"An ade is a beverage made from diluted fruit juice and sweetener, sometimes with carbonated water. An ade is generally a combination of fruit juice, sugar and water"

Ade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ade)

I consider Alan de Enfield's and your postings here in the U.S. as foreign aid or reverse lend lease information :thup:
(even though my spies got hold of all your British manuals) ;)

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/bigedp51/gaugefile.jpg

[Pattern14]

Alan de Enfield,
The post by Peter Laidler forced me into the gun safe to take a look at my Ishapore stamps.
The Ashoka on your picture of your No1 Mk 3 butt socket looks squat and crudely stamped. The one on my Rifle 7.62mm 2A1 1967 is more elongated and much more detailed. Apparently, Indian stamps were not too consistant which surprises me since I thought these rifles were all produced at Ishapore Rifle Factory outside Calcutta and would have had a consistant "official" Ashoka stamp even though the dates of your's and my rifle are 19 years apart.

regards, George

[jonnyc]

Hey Ed, I was agreeing with you!

[Edward Horton]

Hey Ed, I was agreeing with you!


I know, my message was for all the other readers to keep the insanity from spreading :thup:

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/bigedp51/AustralianSMLEVari-2.jpg

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/bigedp51/AustralianSMLEVari-3.jpg

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/bigedp51/AustralianSMLEVari-3a.jpg

[Alan de Enfield]

Alan de Enfield,
The post by Peter Laidler forced me into the gun safe to take a look at my Ishapore stamps.
The Ashoka on your picture of your No1 Mk 3 butt socket looks squat and crudely stamped. The one on my Rifle 7.62mm 2A1 1967 is more elongated and much more detailed. Apparently, Indian stamps were not too consistant which surprises me since I thought these rifles were all produced at Ishapore Rifle Factory outside Calcutta and would have had a consistant "official" Ashoka stamp even though the dates of your's and my rifle are 19 years apart.

regards, George

Unfortunately its not my rifle, the owner was posting on another forum about his 'late' 303 Ishapore and I asked him if I could keep & use the photo as it was the latest one I'd seen.

Just a guess, but maybe the 2A production line got 'new' stamps whilst the old 303 production line got the 'old, worn out' stamps.

[Peter Laidler]

Hey Ed, I think your comparison using the car tyre pressures as a likje-for-like comparison is pure GOLD. I'm going to use that next time we get bogged down in small-arms trivia technicalities at work

A priceless comparison. Thanks for that