Inherent Weakness ?

Gentlemen, just for once I am going to jump in and claim superior knowledge, as the one-time holder of 13 patents and engineering advisor to the patent office of a very large international corporation.

There is nothing novel in the sense of patentability in making yet another cartridge distinguished only by mechanical dimensions from a lot of other cartridges, and, in fact, derived from the 30-06 + 300 Savage. So the 308 could, at most, have been judged under the aspect of copyright.

At this point, I shall not utter any ill-judged opinions with rude personal comments, as seems to be the norm for this thread, but make a lengthy quote from the Sierra Rifle Reloading Manual, on the assumption that Sierra, judging by the proved performance of their bullets, actually knows something about cartridges and internal ballistics.

"Shortly after the end of World War I, the U.S. Ordnance Corps bagan looking for a smaller cartridge to replace the.30-06 Springfield. With typical government efficiency, the quest was still underway near the end of the Second World War. By 1944, engineers at Frankford Arsenal had begun to experiment with the .300 Savage case. .... After a long series of modifications, a revised cartridge case designated as the T65E3 was adopted as the NATO standard on December 15, 1953.....
.... While the military trials were still in progress, Winchester introduced the cartridge to the sporting public as the .308 Winchester...."

1) Sierra makes no distinction between the NATO cartridge and .308 Win.
2) Neither does CIP.
3) Winchester offered the public a cartridge that was already undergoing military trials, the culmination of many years of development. Development not exclusively by Winchester or anyone else.
4) The 7.62x51 NATO was derived by a normal process of development by those "skilled in the art" - a fundamental phrase for judging novelty in the sense of patentability. Not patentable.
5) Copyright would seem to be invalidated by the prior work undertaken by the military and those acting on their behalf.
6) Please all stop talking BS.
7) Sorry, apologies to all. The bad-mannered style of this forum is infectious.

Patrick

Looking into the pressure levels of various recommended loadings of the .308 you'll find that pressure levels increase greatly as heavier and longer bullets are used. Many loadings that come near to duplicating the most common British military loads for 7.62 NATO are very close in pressure levels to the .303, but others that employ heavier bullets far exceed those pressure levels.

The .308 has a short neck and overall length was always a major factor of the design. The heavier and longer bullets extend into the case and take up space reducing effective case capacity. When the arm is magazine fed you can't increase OAL so the reduction in capacity is something you can't get around so long as bullets of conventional construction are used.
The majority of Infantry rifle 7.62 uses bullets of less than 150 grains and seats aproximately even with the bottom of the neck leaving the case capacity at is greatest, while bullets heavier than 150 can extend into the case reducing effective capacity.
Match loadings of the 7.62 are generally 169-175 grain projectiles loaded to only 200 FPS higher than the .303 MkVII of the same bullet weight, with pressures only a bit in excess of maximum safe levels for the .303, but some .308 sporting ammunition is not intended for game in the same weight class as human beings, the .308 is used for Moose and Bear in this country and top end loads generate pressures greatly in excess of the maximum safe limits for the .303 rifles and 7.62X51 conversions of those rifles, and very likely to levels unsafe for numerous other rifle types converted to 7.62 NATO.

The .303 can of course take Moose and Bear, but the .308 loads for game in this class far exceed the performance of the hottest .303 loads.

Even the mild US Match grade 7.62 exceeds the pressure levels of MkVIIIZ ammunition and the British did not consider it wise to use MkVIIIZ ammunition in the No.4 rifle, and potentially dangerous to use in the SMLE rifles.
An analology would be use of +P .38 special ammunition in a antique .38 special. It might well digest many rounds without obvious damage but the metalurgy was generally not up to such pressures and the top straps were seldom as sturdy. Some revolvers had enough margin for error built in that +p might never cause a problem, and the .38-44 revolvers built on heavier frames were in fact intended for the hottest loads available before the .357 came along.
Ability to digest standard pressure .38 Special ammunition does not mean a revolver can be expected to digest .38 +P, and the ability of one example of a particular revolver to handle +P without obvious damage does not mean that every other revolver of that type can do the same.

I've seen No.4 rifles in good condition fail to extract commonly available .303 freshly manufactured S&B FMJ 180 grain bullet ammunition, the casing swollen and stuck firmly in the chamber. This happened only occasionally, on the hottest days of that summer, with the other cartridges from the same boxes behaving normally. Nothing about the appearance of this ammunition gave any indication that it had degraded in any way. The ammo was most likely well within specifications, but there are always variations in pressure from one round to another with some ammunition varying several thousand pounds. Add to this the effects of heat, it was 99 degrees F here yesterday, and temperatures of 100+ are common in summer. Temperatures of 130+ degrees have been recorded in Iraq in recent years.

I looked up some available information on the L42 in service and found one British sniper quoted as saying his L42 jammed in action so badly that he discarded it and used an FAL instead.
When a Enfield jams its almost certainly a failure to extract, so I suspect the ammunition he was issued was at fault.
The rifle has a great reputation so long as the 144 grain ammunition is used, but not so great when 155 grain bullets or heavier are used. Its unlikely that more recent heavy bullet long range 7.62 Ammunition would work reliably in the L42, so thats probably why that rifle jammed.


If a No.4 converted to 7.62 were used with the hottest heavy bullet Moose and Bear loads which even milder reloading manuals list at 59,000+ PSI then it would be subjected to pressures near those of proof testing for .303 rifles at every shot. No rifle is expected to handle proof test ammo for more than a very few shots without damage, and British Proof laws do make allowances for rifles damaged during proof to be repaired and re submitted.



Now as for the SMLE's reputation for withstanding the mud of the trenches. If you study the book I linked to early on in this thread , and Reynolds "Lee Enfield" you'll find that theres no claim that it was safe to fire muddy cartridges, only that should the action become muddied it was far easier to remove the bolt and clean out the mud than with some other designs. The split bridge and short bearing surfaces of the rear receiver, plus all the open spaces under it gave mud a place to go where it wouldn't interfere with functioning of the action. A tiny amount of grit clinging to a cartridge case after a swift wiping off would not prevent chambering.
Firing a dirty or muddy cartridge in an Enfield was certainly no safer than it would have been in much stronger actions.
Firing a cartridge simply wet by rain could cause excessive pressures a great shift in POI and possible fracturing of the receiver. I've never heard of a wet cartridge fracturing a Mauser or Springfield receiver. That might happen with a thick coating of grease but not likely that a little rain would destroy either of those rifles even at their much higher operating pressures.

The ability of the SMLE to continue operating under rough conditions depended more on its open design and easily removable magazine. The magazine if clogged with mudd from reloading with muddy hands, could be rapidly removed and if necessary replaced with a clean one salvaged from a battlefield pick up.
The orignal Lee design had called for spare magazines to be carried in bandoleers. Charger loading made it cheaper to issue only one magazine, so the only advantage of the quick detachable box magazine was rapid replacement if necessary, and ease of cleaning.

The Enfield bolt can not be rapidly field stripped without tools, in this respect it was inferior to the Mauser.

I've seen nothing that indicates that jamming or failure to extract was at all a problem with the Mauser or the Springfield under the conditions of the trenches. Some other contemporary European rifles may not have faired so well.

It would appear that as far as functioning is concerned the Enfield was not remarkably better than the Springfield or Mausers.
It was not as strong and in general less accurate with shorter effective range.
While the Windage adjustable rear sight was superior to the sights of contemporary rifles, that feature was dispensed with by the MkIII* as a production shortcut, so Wartime production SMLE rifles did not benefit from earlier superiority of the sights.

The ten round capacity was the Enfields greatest advantage, and while I've found that the Krag was every bit as fast to operate, the Krag was already obsolete and saw almost no combat during WW2.
So capacity and speed of operation are solidly on the side of the Enfield when WW1 battle rifles are compared.
Power, penetration, range, and accuracy are solidly on the side of the Mauser and Springfield.
Durability of the stocks seems to have varied greatly with the SMLE, with Hesketh-Pritchard saying warped fore ends were very common in the trenches.
Whether Mauser or Springfield stocks had problems of warping is impossible to say, but changes in bedding caused far less accuracy problems for those rifles.

Before WW1 the British had already begun to look for a replacement for the SMLE, the first experiments were actually done with US Springfield rifles, so while there are elements of the Mauser design in the Springfield those same elements were carried over into the P-14 from the Springfield.

The P-14 was considered superior to the Scoped SMLE rifles for sniping, and even sporting rifles had to be pressed into service to make up for the SMLE's shart comings in both long range accuracy and lack of penetration of the service ammunition.

Testing of WW1 era body armor and sniper shields showed that MkVII ammunition was the least effective of any service ammunition against even those primitive breastplates and shields.

The No.4 rifles are marginally stronger but that has no effect on the strength of the SMLE rifles, and comparasions to the P-14 show that the improvements of the No.4 did not completely eliminate the shortcomings of the rear locking action and split bridge receiver.

The complaints of the "Unscientific Bolt" and weaknesses of the SMLE came from British and Canadian sources, not from any mythical "American Gunsmith". Though no doubt at least some have repeated the well founded criticisms of the Enfield.


Besides racks full of badly abused Enfields on sale here in the 80's I well remember the trash cans full of badly damaged Enfields that were to be found at discount stores, priced at a few dollars each to be used as decorator items or stripped for spare parts.
Millions of Enfields were produced, and hundreds of thousands if not millions are probably still around in good condition, but millions were also worn out or damaged by use with unsuitable ammunition.

I've had to repeat myself alot here because some don't seem to get the point.
I don't have a mountain of images that I can post with misleading and spurious claims or cherry picked manual entries to misrepresent either.

Another analogy to the L8 and L42 7.62 conversions just came to mind.

I recently ran across an old magazine add for the Winchester Model 95 lever action chambered in .303 British that said that the Winchester proof firings met all the requirement of British Proof law and the Winchester proof marks were honored in Britian, at that time period at least.

The Winchester 1895 was also chambered for the .30/06, and undoubtably proof tested for that chambering. Yet its common knowledge that later loadings of the .30/06 were considered unsafe in the Winchester Model 95.
The rifles in this caliber developed excessive headspace when later higher pressure loadings were used, as long as low end /06 loads were used there was no problem. I don't think there was any problem with .303 sporting ammunition or military ammunition, but I suspect use of MkVIIZ might not have been a good idea.

This rifle came out as a reproduction some years ago, and the repros were manufactured of modern high quality steel, but I don't think they were recomended for conversion to any modern high pressure loads.
Some custom rifles in calibers like .270 did show up, built on the repro actions.
But any strength gained by use of better metalurgy for the repro has no effect on the strength of the original model 95.
The fact that some Model 95 rifles never developed excess headspace does not change the fact that others did.

Patrick Chadwick

There is much confusion about the .308/7.62 here in the U.S. due to the changeover from the copper crusher method to the transducer method and over 75% of the information printed on the internet is incorrect concerning .308/7.62 pressures.

The 7.62 and .308 are one in the same just as the military and civilian 30-06 are the same and interchangeable, the problem here is you must understand that the copper crusher method is converted to pounds per square inch and the transducer method is also pounds per square inch.

The copper crusher method is written as CUP and the transducer method is written as PSI to denote or separate the two methods, the problem that confuses many people is the fact that the U.S. military has always used “PSI” after the readings in the manuals but the readings in the manuals are copper crusher readings.

This leads people to think that there is 10,000 pounds difference between the .308 and 7.62 which is false, if the 7.62 was rated at 50,000 PSI (transducer method) the 7.62 would has the same operating pressure as the .303 British.

Please study the pressure chart below, 50,000 PSI = 46,000 CUP the same pressure the .303 British is rated at, the U.S. military 7.62 readings are 50,000 CUP and the .308 Win is rated at 52,000 CUP or 60,000 PSI using the transducer method.

The other problem you will find is arguing with ireload2 and Alfred is pointless, if you say black they will say white and the arguing never ends, the whole idea behind this “Inherent weakness” posting is to stir up trouble and controversy.

Alfred hasn’t reloaded since the 1980s and is just repeating what he reads on the internet and is “cherry picking” all the bad or controversial information he finds. Alfred is an American and was never involved with actual testing of the Enfield rifle and reading information on the internet does NOT make anyone an expert on anything.

The Australians proved the No.1 could be modified to handle the 7.62, and the Ishapore 2A1 is the result of this, and the British proved the No.4 could handle the pressure of the 7.62. Alfred is one person and his opinions and guesswork does not outweigh the British and Commonwealth nations decisions.

This posting on “Inherent weakness” is a farce and an insult to any country that used the Enfield rifle.

http://www.6mmbr.citymaker.com/f/Sierra308Win.pdf

Removed the handguard and took photos:-

(Have deleted weapon number)
British proof marks on barrel and receiver,
German proof marks on barrel,
German registration proofed for 308Win.
Can´t show the whole the Charnwood stamp as is covered by the Parker Hale.

`Phoned German proof house and was told not to waste their time as .308 is SAME as 7.62 NATO. All 7.62 NATO converted Enfields were proofed before sale in Germany.

Two major European proof houses have recently tested the Enfield conversion. It was passed for use by the Armed Forces. And now you expect me to believe that the design is "inherently weak"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by villiers

Removed the handguard and took photos:-

(Have deleted weapon number)
British proof marks on barrel and receiver,
German proof marks on barrel,
German registration proofed for 308Win.
Can´t show the whole the Charnwood stamp as is covered by the Parker Hale.

`Phoned German proof house and was told not to waste their time as .308 is SAME as 7.62 NATO. All 7.62 NATO converted Enfields were proofed before sale in Germany.

Two major European proof houses have recently tested the Enfield conversion. It was passed for use by the Armed Forces. And now you expect me to believe that the design is "inherently weak"?

---

Game, Set & Match I believe !!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alfred

The .303 can of course take Moose and Bear,

---

Yes it can and has in Canada for over 100 years. Killing "power" is a myth, its the ability of the shooter that will make or break shot and result in a clean kill or a wounded animal.

Countries consider the 7.62x51mm NATO and the 308Win one and the same, military loads for them are safe in the No4 action, and they have been used for a great many years safely. This argument is simply bashing the rifle action of choice for more of the world for a longer period of time then any other rifle. Its been proven in the real world that the No4 can handle the pressures generated by the NATO loadings.

Even the 168gr Sierra's I loaded up for my Envoy are safe for the action.

Dimitri

Villiers has no documentation showing that the 7.62x51 and the .308 are the same. A phone call is only hearsay.
I can simply point you to google and say go investigate the matter yourself.
The 7.62X51 is clearly considered a different cartridge than the .308 Winchester. They use different headspace gauges and they are proofed to different pressure standards.

So you don't have to believe me or anyone else here investigate for yourself.

Ed says

Quote:

---

The Australians proved the No.1 could be modified to handle the 7.62, and the Ishapore 2A1 is the result of this

---

You do know that the Lithgow experiments were a failure don't you?
You've basically told anyone reading your posts that it would be perfectly okay to rebarrel any No.1 rifle to 7.62 NATO and fire the hottest .308 loads in it.
What you should have said was that the Australians proved that the Lithgow No.1 rifles can not be safely converted to 7.62 NATO and that because of that failure a redesigned No.1 styled action manufactured of superior steel alloy was built as a stop gap 7.62 by the Indian government since their own No.1 rifles could not be expected to handle even low end 7.62 NATO ammunition.

You've pointed out at least one "inherent weakness" of the No.1 receiver yourself, the weaker lefthand wall.

The fact remains no one would load .303 ammunition for use in either the No.1 or the No.4 to pressure levels of 62,000 PSI. Not in a No.4 in brand spanking new condition much less the average condition No.4.

Warnings that .308 Winchester and 7.62 NATO were not interchangable go back at least to the early seventies. I don't consider one phone call to a German office to change that. Dimensionally the cases are about the same, if not you couldn't chamber one round in a rifle chambered for the other.

The maximum pressure allowable for .308 Winchester far exceeds the safe maximum pressure of the .303, theres no dispute about that.

If you wish to fire max pressure .308 ammunition (59,000-62,000 PSI) in your own rifle then its on your own head, but if you encourage others to do so after taking the above facts under consideration then it is depraved indifference.

BTW
I have reloaded in recent years, I simply haven't reloaded much .303 since the late eighties. I still have plenty of ammo and don't need to load any just yet.

One thing I definitely won't be doing is to overload any of my rifles based on the illogical progressions found here.

Quoted from Chadwick
"Winchester introduced the cartridge to the sporting public as the .308 Winchester...."

This means that the design of the cartridge as released to the public as the .308 Winchester is "owned" by Winchester (Olin).
If a design change is made to the .308 Win who do you think had to make that change to make it official?

Anyone know what an ECO is?
That is an Engineering Change Order.
That is the document that is signed by the responsible engineering parties to change a drawing or specification. To change the .308 Winchester specifications only the design engineering authority at Winchester (Olin) can make that change.

Would anyone here want to say the 5.56mm is the same cartridge is the same as the .223 Remington? If not why not, if so why so?