Inherent Weakness ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ireload2

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.

---

You are still stuck with that American mindset, NATO proofs to CIP specifications hence the different pressures compared to SAAMI which I know you know and love. As well CIP considers both one and the same.

Excessive headspace in military weapons is preferred so they do not have to be as clean when firing them in the battlefield which when combined with thick military cases is safe. This is especially important in semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons. Look how much machine gun brass expands when fired in chambers that are at almost at NATO Field Reject to aid in the reliability.

Dimitri

What our “internet experts” ireload2 and Albert both fail to realize is the military 30-06 chamber pressure and headspace requirements were also different compared to the commercial 30-06 loadings to the same extent as the .308/7.62 are to each other and no one ever complained about pressures and headspace on the 30-06.

What is also missing here is the fact that my last three postings at Gunboards were locked or deleted by the moderators due do Albert and ireload2 constant arguing with everything I said.

What is missing here is the fact that that moderator started a sticky at Gunboards to keep the arguing about chamber pressures and reloading separate from the rest of the forum because of these two "experts".

What is missing here is Albert and I were banned from Gunboards for excessive arguing and ireload2 got away without a scratch and then they both came here to stir up even more trouble. Albert and ireload2 are nothing more than a pair of tag team trouble makers who love the attention they receive.

What is missing here is I caught Albert in another forum asking questions about these very same subjects that he has been shoving down our throats. Albert looks his answers up online or asks other people questions in other forums and then comes back to argue these very same subjects in our forums.

Why would anyone who enjoys shooting and collecting the Enfield rifle come into an international Enfield forum and start a thread on the Enfield rifle call “Inherent weakness”, the answer is simple Alfred and ireload2 came here to this forum to start trouble and start another argument.

It is quite clear Alfred and ireload2 do NOT know what they are talking about and are nothing more than two attention seeking trolls.

What Edward Horton fails to realize in his appeals to censor, trash and denigrate other posters is:

The .30-06 was released by the US Government before commercial release by US manufacturers. As it was adopted by American manufacturers it was identified as .30-06 Govt. or .30-06 US Govt. or .30-06 Springfield. It has never been .30-06 Winchester or .30-06 Remington.
However there have been US commercial manufacturers that have manufactured ammunition that has been identified as .30-06 Springfield that
does not actually meet the original standard of the .30-06 Government loads.
For example nowhere is there a US government standard that says you can shoot .30-06 Accelerator ammo in a Garand rifle, a BAR or a Browning machine gun. That is because the Accelerator does not meet the standards of the US government .30-06 cartridge.

The .308 Win was released to the public ahead of the 7.62X51 released by the US govt. To Winchester's regret the US government changed the specifications between the time Winchester decided to release the .308 and the time the .308 was actually released. So the .308 is a different cartridge from an engineering stand point then the 7.62X51 and always will be.
The commercial rifles sold in the US by Winchester are marked .308 Winchester. The Remington and Ruger commerical rifles are marked .308 Winchester.
If there are any .308 Accelerator loads out there you can be assured they are not considered 7.62X51 approved loads by a government because they will not function properly in the standard weapons. Same goes for 200 grain .308 Winchester loads. Load them into your favorite machine guns or auto loader and fire several thousands rounds and see if it is battered by the slower burning powder charges used. The .308 200grain loads are not 7.62 Nato or 7.62X51 loads.

EH you are always welcome to look up the standard engineering formula use to determine deflection under a load and show your own calculations for the for any receiver under stresses of firing.

That formula is part of the branch of engineering science that is used to analyze bridges, buildings, airplane components. You put in your values, you get a result, if you don't like the result you know something needs to be changed.
As an example substandard quality wire was supplied for the Brooklyn Bridge and was discovered before it was finished.

Quote
Washington Roebling specified a tested wire strength of 160 ksi (twice that of iron), and required that the wire be galvanized, to resist corrosion by the salt air. Unfortunately, much of the wire that was actually used was not to specifications. The wire contractor had been substituting weaker (and cheaper) Bessemer steel for the desired crucible-cast kind. While justifiably outraged at the scam, Roebling had initially designed the cable to be six times stronger than necessary. He calculated that the condemned wire was still five times stronger than it had to be, and there was no need to remove the strands already in place.

The four cables support a dead weight (the deck and suspenders) of 13,240 kips--3,410 kips per cable. Each cable has an ultimate strength of 24,600 kips, but the maximum load on a single cable rarely exceeds 6,000 kips. This gives us a present-day factor of safety of about four.

Here are more of the antics of the dynamic duo Alfred and ireload2 in our sister forum.
It never ends with these two clowns.

Cases and Enfields and lube - Oh my! - Military Surplus Collectors Forums

If the 7.62 NATO is exactly the same cartridge as the .308 Winchester then I'd like to see the NATO specifications for a 220 grain bullet loading for the 7.62 NATO along with its interchangability markings.

Not a Palma match 190 grain hand loaded on a M118 case or any of the "Blue Pill" match loads, those would probably take a L42 apart at the seams within a few shots.
Not LMG loads for AFVs , something you can be expected to fire in the infantry rifles converted to 7.62 from WW2 era rifles.

Just an Infantry rifle aproved 220 grain bulleted 7.62 NATO load with all its relevant specifications.

An over the counter .303 load that is known generate 62,000 PSI?
Not likely either.

7.62X51 is the metric designation of the .308 Winchester, just as 7.62X51R is the metric designation of the 30-30 Winchester. Having the same metric designation does not mean the Nato cartridge and the Winchester cartridge have the same maximum pressure specifications.

The .30/06 had no dimensional changes between the time the Winchester Model 95 was first chambered for that round and the time when chamber pressures became too much for that rifle.
There was no dimensional change between the 40,000 CUP loading of the .30-40 Krag and the 43,000 CUP loading that proved to be too much for the Krag rifles. Some Krags handled the higher pressure just fine, others suffered damage.

Pre 1898 Mauser rifles that were unsafe with the 7.92X57s were kept in service for many years by continuing the manufacture of the earlier 8mm loadings. The 8mm could be fired safely in 7.92X57s rifles, with some loss of accuracy due to the smaller bullet diameter, but not the other way around.
Some 1888 Commision rifle owners have fired 7.92X57 in their rifles without incident, more by luck than anything else, and bores that when miked proved oversized and closer to the S size of .323. Others have blown their rifles up trying this.
Each fits the chamber of the other, but they are not the same cartridge.

A few months back I ran across a posting about a Enfield rifle found abandoned. The rifle had been sporterized and bore a 8mm Mauser barrel. Possibly one of the Turk capture rifles which they rebored or rebarreled to 8mm. Whatever it once was it was blown up, by a cartridge that is generally loaded no heavier than the mildest of 7.62 Nato.

I ask questions, so what?
When members of one forum have no idea of the effects of gas blowby on bullet jackets then if I want answers I find another forum where I might find them.
If I want the straight skinny on the performance of propellants I vist a forum where reloading is the major subject of discussion.

Ed your internet stalking has not gone un noticed.
I checked on your status at one forum and they have said you returned under four different usernames and IP addys since they last banned you.
I remember that when I first visited that forum they said you had been banned from numerous forums, and I remember you being banned from at least one other forum I still visit.

Its too bad your ego gets in the way so often. You might have something of value to say now and then but with the continous misrepresentations such as the Swedish Mauser image on this thread, and blatant pandering to American bashing, theres really no credibility to your postings.

The fact remains that your continous claims that some "American Gunsmith" started any talk of "inherent weaknesses" of the Enfield was proven false in the very first post on this thread. You've provided incontrovertable proof that the SMLE was not only weaker than the P-14 but weaker than the No.4, and possibly dangerously weak in the lefthand receiver wall.

That selected No.4 receivers have been converted to 7.62 does not in any way prove that the SMLE is any stronger than it actually is, nor does it prove that even the best No.4 type action can hold up to max pressure .308 loads of 62,000 PSI on a regular basis, or even that it could hold up to the pressures of some of 7.62 NATO ammunition that is on the market.

You've constantly posted about excessiveheadspace and stretched cases, but seem to have no problem with Nato chambers that leave excessive headspace for commercial .308 cases, even though some Winchester .308 match cases are of a semi balloon head design that could be extremely dangerous when headspace exceeds factory specs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edward Horton

Here are more of the antics of the dynamic duo Alfred and ireload2 in our sister forum.
It never ends with these two clowns.

Cases and Enfields and lube - Oh my! - Military Surplus Collectors Forums

---

I would like to introduce EH to the law from England but actually this is the law everywhere. It was however named after the Englishman that proposed it so you need to be introduced to Mr Robert Hooke and his law. Once introduced to Hooke's Law you should be able to analyze the elastic properties of a #4 or most any other action that you can measure. As the equation shows the Greek letter for delta δ = change in length (elongation or compression) can be calculated using very basic math and the value for Young's modulus for steel.

Hooke's law

Boys, lets please not make this about personalities.

If we stick to information only without letting our personal thoughts about the posters themselves show, all will be fine. Once we start making judgements about posters in our own posters, things go downhill fast.

Please keep this in mind.

Cheers,
Matt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edward Horton

Here are more of the antics of the dynamic duo Alfred and ireload2 in our sister forum.
It never ends with these two clowns.

Cases and Enfields and lube - Oh my! - Military Surplus Collectors Forums

---

All about Ed thread comes around again.

Quote:

---

Just for the conspiracy theorists, it was the decision of the Boss to remove all of Ed's recent posts since he has openly and blatantly broken many rules concerning the acceptable use of Gunboards. His 4 accounts have been banned for now, as will be anyone's who does similar violations.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jollygreenslugg

Boys, lets please not make this about personalities.

If we stick to information only without letting our personal thoughts about the posters themselves show, all will be fine. Once we start making judgements about posters in our own posters, things go downhill fast.

Please keep this in mind.

Cheers,
Matt

---

Just remember that if some visitor to this forum stuffs a 220 grain max load in an L8 or similar conversion and blows out the bolthead, possibly killing or guesomely injuring himself or a bystander, that I and Ireload did what we could to prevent it.
Same goes if a reloader actually believes that either the SMLE or the No.4 in .303 can be safely loaded beyond SAAMI maximum specs because some converted No.4 rifles which probably haven't been exposed to such max pressures so far haven't blown up yet or if any have they didn't make national news.

The real question here is why are you Alfred and ireload2 acting like a tag team and starting trouble here in this forum and for what purpose?

The only thing I’m guilty of is arguing with people who don’t know what they are talking about like yourself Alfred and your comments here about 220 grain bullets when they are not loaded in standard military ammunition.

The No.4 Enfield rifle was approved to shoot the 7.62 NATO round by the British military and doesn’t need your OK or your approval for anything.

Your living in a delusional world where you actually think that what you have to say about a British and Commonwealth rifle actually matters or means something.

As for stalking you, you are out of your mind, I just happened to be in a forum where a guy named Alfred was calling “someone” a jerk because I disagreed with you about double base powders. Alfred was looking for answers he didn’t know and was told the same thing I told him at Gunboards and I sent the links to a moderator here to prove it. You can ask Jollygreenslugg because the links were sent to him and many other people.

Did you notice Sprog stated at Gunboards that he thought I had been set up for being banned, so I wonder what you and ireload2 are doing here together now. And why ireload2 is sending emails to you about what was said at Gunboards because you have been banned until the end of the month.

The really strange part is ireload2 was not banned at Gunboards but has only made one posting in the Enfield forum at Gunboards and spends all his time here with Alfred stirring up trouble and looking for arguments.

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

Below is when ireload2 started making trouble here, he reopened a thread that had been closed for a month just to start an argument and restart a war all that started at Gunboards when he tried to hijack my thread on using o-rings to fire form cases.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif