Sniper Ammo Selection

[Alfred]

If a Bolt action rifle malfunctions in the described manner, Bolt binding too much to operate and the rifle losing its zero, and that rifle is a freshly issued rifle in the hands of a trained sniper, then the ammunition would almost certainly have been the cause.
I've never seen an Enfield who's bolt would not cycle no matter how dirty or clogged with grease. Thats one of the main features of the action type.

The rifle itself is not at fault, its the choice of chambering coupled with the fact that aside from the standard infantry ball there are other NATO and commercial loads that generate pressures that approach the maximum deviation of the Ball cartridge as a standard operating pressure and whos maximum deviation exceeds the maximum deviation of the ball cartridge by aprox ten percent, and heavy bullet match grade cartridges and loads with working pressures that exceed the maximum deviation of long range heavy ball by another 2K PSI .

The Winchester Model 1895 is an entirely different rifle from the 1894 , they share only a few design features, and both are limited in the pressure range they can handle, any owner of a Winchester lever action should know that.

The subject of excessive headspace development of .30/06 chambered model 95 rifles is well known, the cause is also well known, increased chamber pressures of loads other than the original standard .30/06 ammunition over a period of time will damage the action. Even the reproductions of this rifle made from modern alloys can suffer the same setback if the owner does not take into account the limitations of the action type.

I can remember attempts to chamber Winchester 94 rifles for the .308 cartridge using flat nosed bullets, if light handloads were used all was fine, but use of standard .308 ammo quickly wrecked the gun.
A lighter loaded rimmed equivalent to the .308 has been chambered for lever actions, but doesn't seem to have done very well even though steps have been taken to increase the strength of the receivers.
An analogy would be the Australian No.4 clone strengthened to better handle the .308 cartridge, by enclosing the bolt track to prevent spreading and re configuring the receivers to reduce stretching.

Perhaps in retrospect the Falklands campaign looked like a walk over, and in many ways it was, but unless many veterans are bull artists and the official records are tripe, there were a number of engagements where British troops were hard pressed and pinned by Argentine sniper fire, with effective counter sniping saving many lives.

Its my understanding that a sniper is expected to destroy his rifle to prevent it falling into enemy hands, the British made excellent use of captured German sniper rifles during WW1.
A lone sniper with a broken rifle could be over run , they wouldn't have to sweep the island of British troops in order to catch him.


The safety warnings Ed posted about SMLE receivers cracking if fired with wet cartridges already pointed out a weakness in the basic design. The No.4 is a bit stronger, so this is unlikely to happen when .303 is used, but upping the power of the cartridge eats into the safety margin, and use of the much higher pressure long range loads will eat away even more.

I agree with the NRA of Britain, Australia, and the US, use of cartridges other than the original loads the rifles was designed to handle can lead to damaging the rifle. It may not happen immediately, and some rifles may handle thousands of rounds without visible damage, but damage that is not obvious to the naked eye may end up costing an eye, or a life, or injury to bystanders.

I've asked before if there were specific instructions on what sort of ammo was to be used with the L42, and got no clear cut answer.


If the NRA Warning has been "Withdrawn" I'd like to see some confirmation of that.

[PrinzEugen]

The NRA of Great Britain has withdrawn the notice regarding the new issue 7.62mm ammunition as being possibly unsafe in No 4 actions.

It does occur to me, "Alfred" that I may have read a similiar post to yours elswhere on the internet, have we met before on a similiar discussion??

Most probably as Temperflash and GunnerSam I would have thought. Almost all postings are on this issue, and believe me there are no shortage of sources, stories and personal experience given at great length. He certainly believes he's right and I certainly don't know enough about pressures, loads etc to argue either way. All postings also seem to be made with the purpose of gathering more 'evidence' no doubt to be quoted endlessly here and elsewhere. I suppose he feels he's doing a service for safety, although I think there is the air of the religous zealot about it. Failure to agree brings more lengthy postings as, of course, anyone failing to agree is wrong (this isn't a debate you know) and putting himself and everyone else at great risk.
The problem is, of course, which happens here and on other boards, is that really interesting threads and debates get taken over with the same bl**dy subject!

[Beerhunter]

As an Infantry rifle the 7.62 conversions of the No.4 would have been a disaster in the making. I've never heard of any of the countries that held huge stocks of Enfield No.4 rifles in store considering converting them to 7.62 for issue as an infantry rifle or even as a emergency reserve arm, it just doesn't have enough of a safety margin to be safe in the hands of the average trooper under combat conditions.

The rifles are safe enough for range and hunting use, but only if the owner uses ammo that does not overly stress the action type.

I'll also side with the National Rifle associations of Britian, Australia, and the US on the issue of what sort of ammo is safe for use in the No.4 rifles.

I thought that it was 'well known' that the reason for the lack of converted 7.62 mm NATO no4s was the inability get the thing to shoot. Nothing to do with it not being strong enough. The British Cadet Forces stuck to .303 for that reason and for that reason alone.

As to the NRA's earlier pronouncement on 7.62 mm ammunition in No4 actions, I, in common with many NRA members have asked for clarification and evidence to substantiate their notice. Result - total silence.

[Alfred]

Perhaps this will explain the NRA warning

AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE EFFECTS OF TIGHT
THROAT AND BARREL DIMENSIONS ON MAXIMUM
CHAMBER PRESSURES FOR THE 308 WINCHESTER
CARTRIDGE
This investigation carried out by;
THE PRESSURE TRIALS CONSORTIUM
Chairman
Dr. Geoffrey Kolbe,
Border Barrels Ltd., Riccarton Farm, Newcastleton, Roxburghshire, TD9 0SN
Members
Mr. John Bloomfield,
National Rifle Association of Great Britain, Brookwood, Surrey, GU24 0PB
Mr. John Carmichael,
JHC Supplies, Silverthorne House, North Piddle, Worcs, WR7 4PR
Mr. Alan Gidman,
Royal Ordnance, Radway Green, Nr. Crewe, Cheshire, CW2 5PJ
Mr. Roger Hancox,
The Birmingham Gunbarrel Proof House, Banbury Street, Birmingham, B5 5RH
INTRODUCTION.
The Pressure Trials Consortium was formed to address a problem that had become generally apparent to
ammunition makers, firearms industry standards regulators and shooting organisations throughout the world.
The problem is mainly confined to those concerned with target shooting sports, but is also one faced by all
those interested in achieving the best accuracy from any given ammunition

CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS
The main conclusion of these trials is that tight barrel dimensions and in particular, tight throat dimensions
can cause significant increases in chamber pressures.
It was shown that with decreases in barrel and throat dimensions of the order of 1%, all the varieties of
ammunition tested were shown to have their sample Peak Pressure average increased well beyond the 4150
bar limit for C.I.P. approved ammunition, despite having reasonable working pressures below this limit in a
standard test barrel.
Barrels with a bore dimension of .298" and a groove dimension of .3065 are typical of a large number, if
not the majority, of barrels used in the sport of Fullbore Target Rifle shooting. Most of these barrels have
throat diameters of .3085" or less. Commercially available, C.I.P. approved ammunition could be potentially
dangerous in rifles with tight throat and barrel dimensions.

http://www.triplej.com.au/pdfpages/pressure_factors.pdf

The NRA probably figures that if you can send an email you can find the info for yourself.

An a post script
I have found info on a set of custom made Ruger No.1 falling block action rifles chambered for .303 but built on .308 barrel blanks, the owner wishing to use the available .308 match bullets.
The factory tested these rifles to be sure the tight bore would still handle standard .303 ammunition safely.
The .003 difference between .308 and the nominal .311 resulted in an increase in pressures of aprox 3,500 PSI over the standard pressure, thats around 8% increase.

[Strangely Brown]

If the NRA Warning has been "Withdrawn" I'd like to see some confirmation of that.

Perhaps this will explain the NRA warning

http://www.triplej.com.au/pdfpages/pressure_factors.pdf

The NRA probably figures that if you can send an email you can find the info for yourself.

Why not take your own advice and email the NRA?

[Alfred]

Why not take your own advice and email the NRA?

Why would I waste their time trying to confirm an internet rumour, based solely on the fact that they haven't bothered to answer other peoples questions.

Proofing of Older Firearms
Members will be aware that the use of modern
ammunition in older firearms may not always be safe.
10
An example is the use of modern 7.62mm ammunition
in a converted No 4, where the action may only have
been proofed for 19 tons psi whereas 20 tons is the
presently accepted minimum. If you are using an old
firearm please take into account the fact that it was not
designed or built to take modern loads, so act safely. In
the case of No 4 and similar type actions, you are very
strongly recommended to have the rifle re-proofed
before any further use.

Found that in their Winter 2001 journal, sounds like very good advice to me.

The PDF I linked to gives a detailed account of testing by some reputable people, or would you say that Radway Green knows less about their ammunition than you do.

It does occur to me that an older rifle manufactured with a tightbore and throat, if fired many thousands of rounds with the earlier 144 grain ball, would be worn enough that the pressure increase of using the later manufacture ammo might not cause the same pressure increase.

Reynolds contributed to an article in the American rifleman explaining the unusually long accuracy life of the FAL as then manufactured. The bore dimensions were given, and these were far tighter than the standard .308 bore dimensions, the barrels also used the Enfield pattern rifling coupled with "Neonite" propellant. Accuracy life was stated to extend to between .30,000 and in some cases 50,000 rounds, though acceptable accuracy standards were also stated to be far lower than for US rifles like the M-14.

[Strangely Brown]

"Alfred",

Thank you so much for your informative post, if you don't mind I shall not "bite" on this occaision!








.

[Edward Horton]

In the movie “Three Days of the Condor” what was Robert Redford’s CIA job title.













His job title at the CIA was a “Reader”, all he did all day long was read books looking for information the CIA "might" be able to use.


He had absolutely no practical experience in the field.

[Alfred]

"Alfred",

Thank you so much for your informative post, if you don't mind I shall not "bite" on this occaision!








.

Well if theres an increasing tendency for collectors to encourage people to ignore safety warnings then someone should at least take a few minutes to look up the sources of these warnings.
Just firing off an email that might or might not be caught in a spam filter then basing claims on the lack of a reply doesn't make much sense.

I've repeatly asked about the specified ammunition to be used in the L42 rifle but got only the most vague reply that non issue ammo was not to be used, no information on bullet weights or recommendations for match quality loads.

The NRA put out rule 150 which seems to not be specific to the Enfields but rather to all Target Rifles in 7.62.

NRA Rule 150 , Barrel and Chamber Dimensions
For the reasons given below, and since it is possible that different standards may have been used in the
last few years to test the compliance of Target Rifle chambers with Rule 150, the NRA Council have
decided that all TR chambers are to be re-checked this year. All target rifles whose chambers comply will
be marked with a green coloured ‘sticker’. Please note that the previous ‘stickers’ (blue or orange) will no
longer be valid.
All competitors should therefore have their chambers tested as soon as possible. Chambers may be
checked in the NRA Armoury or by other accredited gunsmiths. The names of accredited gunsmiths are
available from the NRA Armourer. Testing in the NRA Armoury will be free of charge unless the test round
is marked or pushed back, indicating a failure, in which case a charge of £1 will be applicable to replace the
test round and the chamber must then be rectified and re-submitted for test.
The rules on barrel and chamber dimensions for NRA Target Rifle are set out in Rule 150 of the NRA
Bible but reference must also be made to the current agreement between the NRA and UK Proof Authorities
in respect of the minimum permitted bore, groove and throat diameters on 7.62mm/.308 Target Rifles
submitted for proof.
Rule 150 Barrel states that the barrels of all Target Rifles must be suitable for firing either:
(a) the standard 7.62mm x 51 NATO military cartridge, or
(b) the .308 Winchester commercial cartridge.
The references to the .303” Mk 7, 5.56 x 45mm and .223 Remington cartridges in this rule are not relevant
as these calibres/cartridges are not permitted for use in TR during the Imperial Meeting.
The implication is that the chamber dimensions must comply with the CIP minimum chamber drawing
other than the exceptions outlined below. For all practical purposes the CIP and SAAMI drawings for
minimum chamber dimensions may be considered identical. Effectively, therefore tight chamber body
dimensions and or tight necks are not permitted.
The exceptions to this, as agreed with the Proof Authorities, are:
Minimum Bore Diameter : 0.298 inches
Minimum Groove Diameter : 0.3065 inches
Minimum Throat Diameter : 0.3085 inches
Maximum Cartridge Loaded Length : 2.800 inches
•
The restriction on bore, groove and throat diameters are not directly specified in Rule 150 but are
governed by the minimum diameters that are acceptable to the UK Proof Authorities on submission of a
target rifle for proof. In addition there is a maximum pressure restriction on the ammunition which is, of
course, outside the competitor’s control with issued ammunition.
The restriction on cartridge loaded length is specified by Rule 150 with reference to the 155 grain RG
projectile, i.e. if a cartridge loaded with this bullet to an overall length 2.800 inches is loaded into the rifle
chamber, the bullet must not be in contact with the rifling.
In practice compliance with the throat diameter / length restriction is checked using a dummy test
cartridge. If the bullet of this test cartridge is “ring marked” or pushed back into the case either the throat
diameter is too small, or the leed is too short, or both, and the rifle may not be used until the chamber has
been rectified.

I don't work for the CIA.

[Simon]

OK Enough already!!!!!

This post started out in answer to a question raised from another post regarding whether or not a specific sniper grade ammo was ever issued for use with either of the Pattern 14 sniping variants. To the best of my knowledge no such ammunition was issued until the advent of the L42.

I took the trouble of confirming with Harry Furness, a man who has indeed been there, seen it, and done it, first hand, that he had no objection to me posting a factual extract from a personal correspondence regarding how he personally went about securing ammunition for his No4(T) and what happens? It begins the long slippery descent into what can only be described as a ****ing contest.

Gentlemen, I thought we were better than that?

Cheers,
Simon.