Inherent Weakness ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alfred

13,000 PSI is a lot more than 4% of 49,000 PSI.

The 7.62 NATO chambered rifles would be safest if used only with taylored handloads that did not exceed the 49,000 PSI Maximum SAAMI specs for the .303.

---

Alfred,

CIP lists using the piezo method 53,000PSI for the 303 British or for the copper crusher method 46,000CUP. Not too far off from the normal working pressures of 7.62x51mm NATO ammunition.

Since we know that all NATO standard ball ammunition is to balistically preform the same, we know the ~150gr loadings all run at about 50,000PSI (or atleast should run at that pressure to make sure it will work in any infantry arms in use by member countries), whether you want to take CIP's number for the 303 British which puts 7.62mm NATO ammunition in the safe zone or you want to use SAAMI's number which puts it 2% lower then NATO ball, its still too little to care about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ireload2

And yes Winchester IS the final design authority for the .308 Win cartridge.
SAAMI is the standardizing body but Winchester OWNS the design.

---

SAAMI is a bunch of ammunition manufacturers that self-regulated so the government wouldnt do it for them.

And the 308Win just like the 7.62x51mm NATO is owned by no one. US law prohibits the government from owning anything. Whatever they create as its a public "work" and since the military developed the 7.62x51mm NATO first, any and all claim that Olin owns the 308Win is obserd as Olin copied the military's new ammunition and sold it with their own name. But due to the prior "work" cause, even if a patent could have protected Olin and gave them legitimate ownership of the round, the prior work clause would have made the military's original public work be considered the first leaving Olin with no protection.

Alan, Ed,

One of you two wouldn't happen to have a dimensional drawing for the No4 receiver would you?

Dimitri

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick

Gentlemen,
I for one, am getting tired of an endless argument based on dubious figures.
Some of the values presented appear to be downright wrong. I don't know this SAAMI guy, but I am on good terms with Mr CIP. And here are the CIP figures for 303 British and 308 Win (no mention of NATO 7.62x51 to be found)
............303 British ... 308 Win
Pmax 3650 bar ... 4150 bar
PK .... 4198 bar ... 4773 bar
PE .... 4560 bar ... 5190 bar
The 308 Win values are a touch under 14% higher than the 303 British values.
I do not understand where the huge differences mentioned by some forum members have been taken from. And on this side of the Atlantic we are a bit puzzled by this arcane differentiation between 308 Win and 7.62x51 Nato. I suspect that there is some very doubtful information being thrown into this argument.

Nevertheless, a 14% increase may be considered to be a non-trivial increase in the stress on an Enfield No. 4 system. This increased stress will cause increased strain which may well reduce satisfactory operational life. That is in no way an "inherent weakness" of the original design for the 303 cartridge, long, long before the 308 was developed.

The bad, because unscientific, phrase throughout this saga is "inherent weakness". A rifle design that is too weak to fulfil its specified task with satisfactory performance, reliability and adequate operational life may well be said to have an inherent (design or manufacture) weakness that must be corrected for the design to be satisfactory. Early Springfield '03 receivers with faulty hardening certainly had an inherent manufacturing weakness. It was accordingly investigated and corrected.

Gentlemen, you are arguing round in endless circles and will never agree, because you are arguing from incompatible data. Couldn't you just agree to differ, politely?

Patrick

---

Patrick Chadwick

What you and many others need to understand is that at the Gunboards forum I stated we had too many American experts who coined the phrase inherent weakness when referring to the Enfield rifle.

Alfred aka GunnerSam and ireload decided to bring the argument here to this forum with the Inherent Weakness posting. The first bit of wisdom from Alfred aka GunnerSam at Gunboards was how cordite powder caused the downfall of the British Empire and the Enfield rifle has been going down hill ever since according to him.

I personally don’t mind all the incorrect information the are both are giving out because I know how they have endeared themselves to so many people here and have established a cult like following with their views on the Enfield rifle.

My inherent weakness is my mothers Scottish temper but I make up for it with my charming wit and good looks.

Do we have any McVitty’s in the house, that are good at sharpening a Claymore ?

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...06/fight-1.jpg

[QUOTE=Dimitri;60831 Alan, Ed,

One of you two wouldn't happen to have a dimensional drawing for the No4 receiver would you?

Dimitri[/QUOTE]

Nope - sorry - but if you find one I could do with a copy to go in my increasingly thickening Enfield file.

>>>What you and many others need to understand is that at the Gunboards forum I stated we had too many American experts <<<

What country do you live in?
The Lee-Enfield is an American design. They were made in the US by Savage.
What is your problem?

>>>And the 308Win just like the 7.62x51mm NATO is owned by no one. US law prohibits the government from owning anything. Whatever they create as its a public "work" and since the military developed the 7.62x51mm NATO first, any and all claim that Olin owns the 308Win is obserd as Olin copied the military's new ammunition and sold it with their own name. But due to the prior "work" cause, even if a patent could have protected Olin and gave them legitimate ownership of the round, the prior work clause would have made the military's original public work be considered the first leaving Olin with no protection.<<<

The .308 Winchester was designed and released by Winchester(Olin).
They "own it". You do not understand the concept ownership of a design. If the design has a problem it is the responsibility of the company that originally designed it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

Nope - sorry - but if you find one I could do with a copy to go in my increasingly thickening Enfield file.

---

If you want to make calculations on the strength of the Lee-Enfield receiver it takes only about 15-20 minutes to measure the cross section dimensions with a set of calipers and a micrometer.
The bolt can be measured in 5 minutes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ireload2

What country do you live in?
The Lee-Enfield is an American design. They were made in the US by Savage.
What is your problem?

---

James Paris Lee was a Scottish and a Canadian before he went to the US :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ireload2

>>>What you and many others need to understand is that at the Gunboards forum I stated we had too many American experts <<<

What country do you live in?
The Lee-Enfield is an American design. They were made in the US by Savage.
What is your problem?

---

Ireload

My problem is when I think of the Lee Enfield rifle I think of the British Empire, Earl gray tea, marmite and vegemite, The Beatles, Spitfires and Hurricanes, and British gentlemen.

When I read posts like yours I want to rub Preparation H on my monitor screen and watch you disappear.

Some people abuse the privilege of being an ugly American.

Lee-Enfield

The Lee-Enfield bolt-action, magazine-fed, repeating rifle was the main firearm used by the military forces of the British Empire/Commonwealth during the first half of the 20th century. It was the British Army's standard rifle from its official adoption in 1895 until 1957. The Lee-Enfield used the .303 British cartridge and in Australia and New Zealand the rifle became known simply as the "303". It was also used by the military forces of Canada, India, and South Africa, among others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ireload2

>>>What you and many others need to understand is that at the Gunboards forum I stated we had too many American experts <<<

What country do you live in?
The Lee-Enfield is an American design. They were made in the US by Savage.
What is your problem?

---

The action is a modified form of the Lee design, the barrel is a pure Enfield design. The #4 Mk I was a pure Enfield development which was manufactured by Savage, amongst others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

Nope - sorry - but if you find one I could do with a copy to go in my increasingly thickening Enfield file.

---

Will do, but it will be in the future when I get easy access to a CMM machine, when I will reverse engineer the No.4 action cause CMM prices range from 80 to 120$ a hour and its alittle too expensive. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ireload2

The .308 Winchester was designed and released by Winchester(Olin).
They "own it". You do not understand the concept ownership of a design. If the design has a problem it is the responsibility of the company that originally designed it.

---

No Olin got a sneak peak and jumped it into the civilian market. They did not create or develop it first, they simply stole it into the market. Considering the US Military can't own a design, even if the Military wanted to they could have not stopped Olin.

And we all know how much Olin/Winchester likes to rip off the military, 2 out of the 3 times it went bankrupt was due to the military taking back the illegally gained profits the company got during both World Wars.

As for a design being the responsibility of the original designers that is not the case, once the designer is done with it, if others copy it they cannot be held liable for a copy, only the designs they produced themselves.

You seem to lack knowledge of patent law and other various laws that protect designers to their rights of a new "design".

Dimitri