-
Legacy Member
I've never heard of similar problems with the Metford/Enfield Rifles of the same time period.
A few differences at work:
*The .303 British round, being a rimmed case (which offers a natural seal/vent shield), does not have the same risk for gas venting.
*The M1903 design leaves part of the case rear unsupported, enhancing the potential for a case failure in the event of weak or damaged brass. (Supposedly this was later resolved by a change in the bevel angle to the chamber face on new barrels, slightly lengthening the chamber?)
*The original M1903 design has woefully inadequate ability to vent gases in the event of a case failure. One small vent hole in the right side of the receiver ring, with matching holes in the extractor and one locking lug, all of which are prone to plug up with dirt, grease, and/or cosmoline. This caused case failure gases to expand into the receiver ring and bolt body, which were obviously never designed for "outward" expansive stresses. The larger "Hatcher hole" on the left side of the receiver ring, added to very late production of new rifles, and drilled into some older receivers, was a major improvement here.
Contrast that with the Mauser 98, with two nice big vent holes in the bolt body to vent gases out through the left bolt lug channel and thumb clearance of the receiver.
-
-
12-24-2022 05:52 PM
# ADS
Friends and Sponsors
-
Advisory Panel
Originally Posted by
enbloc8
I've never heard of similar problems with the Metford/
Enfield Rifles of the same time period.
I'd find it hard to believe they kept it a secret all this time. I would think we'd have heard. Rifles destroyed on the battlefield aside...because anything can happen there. I still have trouble believing soldiers stuffed an 8mm Mauser cartridge into a .30 cal chamber and fired it, but I've read the testimony.
-
-
-
Legacy Member
Originally Posted by
Daan Kemp
I wonder if the Lee Metford and Lee
Enfield Rifles had the same kind of problems? Haven't ever seen any discussion, did I miss something?
I'm a layman, but here's my take on that: There are two reasons that defective ammo would not have the same effect on an Enfield rifle and a 1903. One is the method of headspace. The .303 headspaces on the rim, the .30-06 headspaces on the shoulder. The other is that the 1903 uses a conical breech. This leaves a significantly larger portion of the case unsupported by steel.
-
-
Legacy Member
Ammunition problems and not metallurgical? Was the steel in LE rifles better or just different?
-
-
Advisory Panel
issues iv seen over the years of working on these rifles, is how they handle a simple case head failure. they dont..
Double heat treats seem to fair much better, as do Remingtons. i have seen a SC that completely failed, it was do to handloading with Japanese surplus machine gun powder.
i would say as long as you keep an eye on headspace and only fire quality factory ammo, not old surplus and your handloads, you should be ok. though i still wouldnt recommend doing so. gloves and safety glasses added to your hearing protection is a must
-