Printable View
Does anyone have any close up photos of the changes made to the #4 action when converted to 7.62 NATO? Any reasonable changes that produce a working rifle are welcome official or not.
I am interested in photos of the bolt, bolt head, bolt face view,
ejector changes, magazine changes and any modifications to the receiver.
Forum stalkers making non-relevant or derogatory posts will be reported to the moderator.:thdown:
No mechanical changes to the bolt, or bolthead. Boltheads used for 7.62 were proofed at a higher level in the UK.
The Sterling conversion system added an ejector through the left receiver wall, the L42s had an ejector built into the left rear magazine lip.
Front of receiver may be opened out a bit. Cdn. DCRA conversrions retained the .303 extractor, the Brits installed a 7.62mm one. Cdn conversions were intended to be single shot.
Don't know how much help this might be but heres some things I found when trying to figure out the best way of getting some use out of the out of spec Lithgow No.1 I've mentioned before.
This particular rifle's action had some anomalys that had me stumped when trying to use it as is before junking the badly eroded barrel.
The extractor spring had been replaced with a coil spring set up, this I later found to be a feature of some deactivated drill rifles, the weaker spring was part of a set up for keeping spring tension on the bolt head when cycling the action but not being usable for extracting fired live rounds.
The rifle would not extract that way so I installed a replacement V spring.
Then I found that the extractor held the rim of a fired .303 case too tightly for proper ejection and pushed it hard over against the grooves in the receiver wall with more force than necessary causing it to pop loose and fal back into the feed way.
The extractor looked different from those of other No.1 extractors.
I then tried cycling some dummy and some empty 7mm cases through the action, not far enough to chamber of course. The rifle fed the rimless cases perfectly and extracted and ejected them perfectly.
I checked several other case types and empty 7.62 cases. The later fit with this out of spec bolt head and extractor perfectly.
I began to suspect that the non matching bolt or at least the bolt head might have been a leftover from the failed Lithgow 7.62 experiments. Not that likely though.
Most 7.62X39 conversions, with its smaller diameter rim use a modified bolt head with silver soldered rim on the bolt face, There doesn't seem to be enough room for such a counter rim if cases like the .308 or mauser type are used. It would just interfer with ejection anyway.
You might check on whether BSA Sporters were available in rimless chamberings, I think there were a few.
At the basic level, a No4 can be converted to 7.62mm/.308 just by screwing in a barrel.Quote:
Originally Posted by tiriaq
Many, many target rifles had no other changes whatsoever - they used the existing .303 magazines and extractors (about half of all such rifles with a .303 extractor will in fact eject 7.62mm cases - and all rifles will extract the round).
As tiriaq says, its fitting of a 7.62mm magazine which may or may not require further changes. A Sterling magazine will fit any unmodified rifle, but an Enfield magazine requires the underside of the boltrails to be of such dimensions that the ejector tab on the magazine lip enters the boltway in just the right location. A few rifles can take an Enfield magazine without modification, but most require adjustment.
Forum stalkers making non-relevant or derogatory posts will be reported to the moderator.
A standard .303 magazine can probably be modified to hold and feed the 7.62 cartridge, The unmodified No.1 magazine worked fine with 7mm Mauser dummy rounds.
Probably better in the long run to fit a 2A magazine or aftermarket replacement 2A mag.
The proof marks on the L42 bolt suggest that it might be wise to have a converted Enfield re-proofed. I've seen enough damaged .303 No.4 Enfield bolt bodies that were probably subjected to similar pressure levels by use of MkVIIIZ that I would not assume that a bolt or bolt head proofed at the lower 18.5 would hold up very long to the similar higher pressure of NATO ball.
There are warnings posted on a number of manufacturers sites listing Mil surp 7.62X51 ammo types that are known to damage recent production high quality rifles that digest better quality NATO ammo with no problems.
It would be best to look into these and make a list of ammo types to avoid.
Photos of #4MK1 converted to 7.62 Nato
Would Alfreds posting be considered non-relevant and also bringing up a locked and closed thread????????????????????
Funny I don’t see any photos in Alfreds post??????????????????????????
Would you and Alfred be trying to control the subject matter at this website????????????????
This reminds me of what you two did at Gunboards all over again :eek:
The proof marks on the L42 bolt suggest that it might be wise to have a converted Enfield re-proofed. I've seen enough damaged .303 No.4 Enfield bolt bodies that were probably subjected to similar pressure levels by use of MkVIIIZ that I would not assume that a bolt or bolt head proofed at the lower 18.5 would hold up very long to the similar higher pressure of NATO ball.
There are warnings posted on a number of manufacturers sites listing Mil surp 7.62X51 ammo types that are known to damage recent production high quality rifles that digest better quality NATO ammo with no problems.
It would be best to look into these and make a list of ammo types to avoid.
Hi Alfred,
I would not shoot a converted #4 rifle with any significant amount of factory ammo. At most a few rounds to compare case head expansion. Other than that my handloads would just be starting level .303 loads in the 7.62 military cases since they are so close in capacity. I suppose if I needed a repeater I could put an insert into an old Lee-Enfield magazine that provides for a few rounds fed in straight line fashion.
An interesting conversion might be named a 7.62x56R British Match.
Just use a .308 groove diameter barrel and a chambering reamer that matches US SAAMI mfg 303 brass with maybe .002 to.003 body clearance and a very close fit at the base and shoulder.
It would look like a .303, feed like a .303, the brass would last longer than a .303, it would use .303 brass and use .308 diameter bullets.
Further more the headspace could be set up close to zero with US SAAMI brass using a modified "0" bolt head. The bolt head could be ground -.010
and be so marked. This would permit change to a modified -.005 bolt head if required before going through the normal bolt head steps. However at least the way I load a Lee-Enfield I would not expect to ever change bolt heads.
Once these changes were made brass would last longer and common bullets could be used. Sorry non-reloaders are not invited. However as surplus .303 barrels dry up this would been one way rehab rifles with worn and corroded bores and keep them shooting.
I wonder if the British military match shooters ever got scammed by a cheater using such a rifle and ammo.
Theres a 7.7X54R cartridge used in modified No.4 rifles in France. A similar cartridge was developed in Australia.
This shorter version of the .303 allowed barrels to be set back two threads, headspace brought back to proper limits if need be, and the chamber freshed out with the properly ground reamer. A tight match grade chamber was possible then.
The French used this method so they could own an Enfield military rifle in a non military caliber, the Australian version was meant to sidestep legislation against owning a military caliber rifle. Thats no longer an issue in Australia, but I've seen FN FAL styled single shot 7.7X54R rifles that were built in those days for match competitions.
Anyway I think you'll find that there are plenty of high quality .311 bullets available, not many sources for .311-312 barrels though.
I wouldn't be supprised if there were Finnish sources for match grade barrels, though many of their 7.62 X 54R rifles were rebarreled or manufactured with .310 and even .309 barrels.
I did find a company said to produce match grade barrels in every possible bore size , but its prices were a bit stiff.
I'll see if I can find their site once more.
In the 60's many custom rifle makers used surplus .30 caliber Browning MG barrels that they turned as barrel blanks.
With the numbers of full auto owners out there now days I doubt these can still be found that cheaply.
You can read Reynolds Lee Enfield book, a PDF is available on this site.
He tells a lot about the various accuracy issues with the oversized bores and undersized bullets, and the odd practice of lapping the last 14 inches of bore oversized to allow the MkVI ammo to give the same velocity from the SMLE barrel as from the Longer LE barrels, how that worked is not that clear.
I'm just pleased my 1915 MkIII has a tighter bore than most, a true .311, though I suspect that means it was rebarreled at some later date.
I've been told that in order to tighten head gap clearance by several thousandths only requires turning the barrel in a few degrees further than it is. This would be a problem with the No.1 due to the sights. and the No.4 to a lesser extent, due to the extractor cut. A widening of the extractor cut might allow the barrel to be over clocked, the lugs on the barrel can be filed on one side and shimmed on the other.
Many No.4 rifles I've examined had a visible gap between the breech of the barrel and the bulkhead of the receiver ring, so they were never properly screwed down tight to begin with.
A better conversion in .308 bore size would be the .300 Savage, the fore father of the .308. 7.62 magazines should work okay. .30-40 Krag has been suggested as well.
I like the original .303 better, and its easier to rectify headspace issues to make a .303 work at its best than to start a whole new set of problems with a conversion.