That proof thing, again

Why are we here?

This site is designed to encourage the open exchange of information amongst the general military surplus collector community, thereby helping all of our members to better enjoy their chosen hobby.

This thread started well with an exchange of information.

This thread is now deteriorating with too much repetition of the same old mantras that seem to have no end - and it's not helping me to enjoy my chosen hobby :banghead:

Use the ammunition that your rifle is proofed for - inspect your rifles and maintain them - above all else enjoy them whether you simply look at them of take them out and shoot them.

I don't want to see another rebuttal to this post.

If you haven't got any new information to exchange then simply don't post - move on and make a post in which you share something new.....

I think Peter Laidler`s opinion is the only one worth listening to on this subject
Fullstop. Stuart.

Dear All...

... I cannot follow the arguments of the contributor going by the name of "Alfred".

On the one hand, he is endessly digging up "issues" regarding the Enfield No. 4. And when that has been done to death, he starts on the AIA imitation. And if we don't all appropriately shudder in horror at those deadly No. 4s, we are accused of "Chevalier attitudes towards gun safety".

And then what? He writes in the last posting that
"Years ago I got hold of some really jacked up AP rounds that had a muzzle blast so harsh I thought my Persian Mauser Carbine had exploded. From a site on the German MGs I found that this was a special high velocity heavy bullet long range AP round that was loaded to much higher pressures than would be safe for the Mauser infantry rifle."

So by his own standards, Alfred is apparently not above doing something that anyone here in Mauserland (I do not pretend to know the law in other countries) would know is not only damn foolish, but so damn foolish it is illegal.

I have always tried to post sensible replies to other postings, with book references where appropriate, but Alfred is continually mentioning accidents without any documentary backup. There may well have been such accidents, but I cannot remember having seen a single checkable reference from Alfred. Even the "sister forum" in the last posting is not explicitly named.

Alfred, it is time to put up or shut up.

To all others: I hereby apologize unreservedly for losing my usual British coolness.

Patrick

Was O.K. at the beginning but lost direction, pity. All things are said let it be good.

Regards

Gunner

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick

.

And then what? He writes in the last posting that
"Years ago I got hold of some really jacked up AP rounds that had a muzzle blast so harsh I thought my Persian Mauser Carbine had exploded. From a site on the German MGs I found that this was a special high velocity heavy bullet long range AP round that was loaded to much higher pressures than would be safe for the Mauser infantry rifle."

That happened to be my first centerfire rifle, and being new to shooting highpowers at the time, I like most anyone else would have to assume that ammunition sold as being for the 7.92X57 would be safe for a rifle chambered for that cartridge. This turns out to not always be the case.
As I went to some effort to make clear that ammo is fairly rare, it was discontinued early in WW2 due to lack of tungsten for its cores. No safety warnings were ever published about use of this ammo in rifles that I know of, especially in the early 1960's.

Quote:

So by his own standards, Alfred is apparently not above doing something that anyone here in Mauserland (I do not pretend to know the law in other countries) would know is not only damn foolish, but so damn foolish it is illegal.

There was no law against buying AP ammo in this country back then, and next to no available sources of information on milsurp ammunition, especially rare long discontinued special purpose ammunition.
Had there been any indication that the ammunition was not meant for use in rifles I would not have bought it, as it was I threw the remaining rounds in a pond after firing that single shot.
Only reason I looked up these rounds nearly fifty years later was because the subject of Krag rifles converted to 7.92 by the Germans came up on the krag forum, and a member there reported a krag rifle being blown up at his range with the only clue being that a 7.92 Mauser case head was found in the debris.
The discussion then drifted into interchangability between LMG ammo and Infantry rifle ammo, now usually taken for granted but apparently not so at one time.

Quote:

I have always tried to post sensible replies to other postings, with book references where appropriate, but Alfred is continually mentioning accidents without any documentary backup. There may well have been such accidents, but I cannot remember having seen a single checkable reference from Alfred. Even the "sister forum" in the last posting is not explicitly named.

Alfred, it is time to put up or shut up.

To all others: I hereby apologize unreservedly for losing my usual British coolness.

Patrick

"Coolness"? more like hysterical outbursts.
Thunderbox might remember the thread where a member described the bolt head failure of a fresh from the wrap No.4, he posted to that thread.
The same sort of hysteria reared its head there after I suggested that a Long Lee action rebarreled by an unknown gunsmith at an unknown date and never fired by its present owner in the 25 years that he had the rifle should be test fired remotely before firing modern ammo from the shoulder.
Others there were telling that visitor that he should go ahead and use milsurp MkVII or equivalent without testfiring first, though the rifle in question had not been proofed for MkVII , I later found that the ammo this particular action had been manufactured for was rated at 16.5 LT rather than the 19+LT of MkVII and there was no indication that the rifle had been reproofed after the rebarreling, or proofed for commercial purposes as far as I know.

In past discussions I've posted links to scientific studies and debates in the Canadian and British House of Commons, and recent US Military listings of 7.62NATO ammunition and the pressure generated by each as well as maximum allowable deviations. All such hard fact seems to be ignored along with warnings posted prominently at the British NRA offices and in their publications.

The incident of the 2A blow out and the shooter nearly losing his testicles is something I found out by looking through forums just such as this. The incident was in a reproduced Email from a dealer explaining why his company had chosen not to sell 2A rifles. I can probably find the forum and posts with the reproduced email if necessary. Might take awhile.
The thread on Indian proof difficulties with rifles made from SWES steel is likely still on this page if you want to look at it.

I have little interest in the AIA rifles, I do have an interest in the sporting rifles built on LE and SMLE actions, and the Remington Lee sporters and military contract rifles. Such rifles still sometimes show up on the local market, mainly through estate sales.
I haven't been very active in shooting or collecting for more than ten years but a few of my contacts are still around though probably not long for this world at their age. Other younger friends are fully involved with protecting us all from terrorism in far flung climes and have little time for sport shooting. I'm pleased that some of the latter learned to shoot from yours truly.

The differences in proof test equipment and procedures and variatins in these procedures during more than a century of production of rifles using a wide variety of smokeless propellants can be very confusing at times.

The recent controversy over substandard and sometimes dangerously defective military ball type ammo from far flung and often difficult to trace sources with suspect quality control and components makes insuring safe practices very important.
I've seen warnings of some of this suspect ammo being .303 MkVIIIZ and some 7.62 NATO, with sources as widely separated as eastern Europe old Soviet former states and India/Pakistan/Afghanistan area.
I have been given FMN 7.62 ammunition to break down to salvage components in the past, and found the cases eaten away from the inside out by some breakdown of its propellant. Looking over other forums I've found gun manufacturer safety warnings against use of a number of 7.62 NATO ammunition types in their rifles.
The interchangability of NATO ammo seems to be more honored in the breach of same in too many instances, and poor storage can make even well made ammo dangerous with little outwards sign of deterioration.

Peter Laidler's experiance with the LE rifles in British service can not be considered a blanket endorsement of every Enfield rifle everywhere. Many rifles given to allies may have never been properly inspected since leaving British custody. I've examined rifles that could not possibly have passed even a casual inspection, and occasionally a visitor to other forums will ask an opinion on the safety of his rifle and post an image of the bore that resembles the cargo hold of the space ship in the movie "Alien" more than a rifle bore.
Other rifles have been rebarreled by importers using take off barrels from DP'ed rifles and de-milled rifles. Some of these have shown up being poorly done, out of spec or over clocked.

I don't mind playing Devil's Advocate if it serves to remind people that not every milsurp rifle is a well tended safe queen or that not all ammunition is suitable for older rifles just because it fits the chamber.
I pay attention to reports of ammunition that has damaged rifles. I'd prefer that my rifles remain in excellent mechanical condition, rather than being subjected to un necessary wear and possible damage.

Since hand loading appears to be becoming more popular in the UK theres really no excuse for using ammunition not approved for use in those Enfields chambered for the 7.62 NATO.
Excellent results can be obtained at pressure levels well within the design safety margin.
Recent developments in propellant manufacture show great promise in delivering good ballistics at lower pressures than previous available propellants.

Interesting that sound advice should be dismissed by some as a "Platitude", especially since others here also agree that it is sound practice.

Enough is enough!

This is serving no purpose and going nowhere - Thread Closed