NRA RE-Issues Enfield 7.62 Warning (Jan 2010)

[Alan de Enfield]

From the NRA Journal.

7.62/.308 Enfield Conversion Safety Alert

Further consideration is being given to any potential
safety issues concerning the use of .308 Win (7.62mm
x 51) factory ammunition in 7.62mm conversions of
Enfield No 4 rifles. Discussions are ongoing with the
UK Proof Authorities over a joint statement which
will be published as soon as it is available on the NRA
website and in the Journal. Pending that statement, the
Association must apply the precautionary principle,
thus the following advice remains extant:
A basic principle of Firearm Safety is that the
individual is wholly responsible for the safety
of the firearm/ammunition combination he
proposes to use. However, in competitions
where ammunition is “as issued” the NRA has
a duty to ensure that the ammunition it issues
does not create a hazard.

The Enfield No 4 action and its derivatives
were originally designed for use with the .303”
cartridge which has a lower maximum cartridge
pressure than the .308 cartridge. The actions
were produced in huge numbers by several
factories to varying standards.
These conversions are not all “factory”
conversions as barrels of many different makes
with varying internal dimensions have also been
fi tted to a number of such actions over the years.
Additionally the history of the usage of most
of these actions is not traceable. There is some
evidence of failures of these converted actions
after prolonged use which is exacerbated by the
use of cartridges contaminated by wet weather
or oil.
As the NRA is now supplying ammunition
manufactured especially to its requirement, they
are no longer prepared to allow the use of these
conversions in events where the ammunition
is provided. Nor do they condone the use of
this particular ammunition in these rifl es at
any time.
What the shooter chooses to fi re through their
rifl e upon other occasions is of course entirely
at their own risk and liability.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[RJW NZ]

Are they saying that factory conversions are acceptable?

[Thunderbox]

Same disingenuous NRA arse-covering as before. Enquiries at NRA and Proof Houses did not produce a shred of evidence to support this contention last time around. Note that the wording is still cut-and-paste from wherever they lifted it off the internet (Jersey Rifle Club c.1990s?).

The previous NRA assertion that modern ammunition was dangerous because it might be slightly larger diameter than older NATO types has been met with derision by most parties. Ironically, the main REAL issue has been target shooters building new state-of-the-art rifles with tight barrels and extremely short leads - i.e. conditions that simply do not exist in 40 year old Enfield barrels...

Its fairly irrelevant in any case: the NRA's issued target ammo (RUAG 7.62mm) now costs about 83p per round - I doubt any No4 target rifle owner is going to be blatting the stuff off in practice, let alone turning up at a top-level competition with an Envoy... (hmmm.... theres an idea for the summer...)

[bigduke6]

Ironically, the main REAL issue has been target shooters building new state-of-the-art rifles with tight barrels and extremely short leads - i.e. conditions that simply do not exist in 40 year old Enfield barrels

I had missed this one first time round but to me, TB sums it up here in the quote, I know a few Target shooters who are pushing the limits when reloading, makes me cringe every time they squeeze the trigger, more like pulling the pin on a grenade to me, I know one who,s rifle give way at Bisley, it was as TB points out, tight barrel, short lead, and a mauser type action, and home reloads which were bursting at the seams, and its always the guy next to them that comes off worst.

[Badger]

There's a similar thread and warning from the NRA with lengthy responses posted here:

Bizarre Safety Warning from the NRA (Sept 2009)

Regards,
Badger

[Peter Laidler]

That's most strange......... I have just scanned the records of ammunition safety problems in relation to the L39/42 rifles in UK Milutary service and try as I might, I can't see anything. maybe I am missing all of them. Or do yopu think the NRA want you to only use their ammo on their ranges?

Can you see it coming?

[Alan de Enfield]

That's most strange......... I have just scanned the records of ammunition safety problems in relation to the L39/42 rifles in UK Milutary service and try as I might, I can't see anything. maybe I am missing all of them. Or do yopu think the NRA want you to only use their ammo on their ranges?

Can you see it coming?

You must have missed them :

There is some
evidence of failures of these converted actions
after prolonged use which is exacerbated by the
use of cartridges contaminated by wet weather
or oil.

Although - maybe the evidence is in the 'civilian' area of operations, but reading thru' the old thread (again) no one seems to have reported or heard of any incidents.
Whilst I realise that those on this forum represent only a very small fraction of Enfield users surely someone would have picked up on such an important story.

If I'm reading it correctly then the NRA will not allow the use of THEIR ammunition, in competitions where they issue the ammunition, therefore you are excluded from entering with a 7.62 converted No4.
You can use whatever ammunition you want on 'non-issued ammunition' days.

[spinecracker]

Has anyone considered asking the NRA where they got this ethereal evidence from? And I echo RJW's question - does the NRA position statement refer to factory conversions that have gone through the proof houses as well as civilian conversions? So I cannot shoot an Envoy or Enforcer at an NRA event?

How about a postion statement from the Enfield owners at Milsurps to the NRA - "stick it up your bottom - sideways - and make sure the bayonet is attached"? (Sorry, just my little joke)

[Beerhunter]

Has anyone considered asking the NRA where they got this ethereal evidence from?

Certainly did - last time they published this. Result - silence.

As my Uni Lecturer partner keeps telling her students - references!

[PrinzEugen]

"Some" evidence eh? Just publish it then!
What's the NRA special ammo then in any case - how can you say you shouldn't use this type of ammo in a gun but don't say what it is - ie define the dangerous specifications or what you should not go beyond, backed up, of course, with evidence.(specifications)?
Perhaps the NRA should consult their health and safety lawyers about shooting at all. After all shooting bits of metal at high velocity is by its nature dangerous and allowing people to become members of an assocation which devoted to shooting is encouraging it! Surely if a member has an accident it could leave the NRA liable to being sued. The only answer is to ban anyone from becoming a member. [although why anyone who likes to shoot would become a member of an organisation more devoted to health and safety non-risks than promoting shooting is anyone's guess]. I am, of course being slightly sarcastic