Why I appreciate the Lee Enfield.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Hare

Surpmil,

That is a very good picture of what happens after a few reloads. (if full length re-sized,... or used in a rifle with a generous chamber,... or plain overused brass...)
I have had them blackened all the way around where they came apart. We can normally see a light coloured ring around the case where they are about to come apart, and the next reload will more or less guarantee this.

I too would like an explanation of what happened when the shooters got their glasses broken, mentioned by Lee Enfield in a previous post. I see no reason for it, unless as Sentryduty mentions above, it had something to do with "body positioning".
I can well imagine a "stock crawler" whipping the bolt back into his glasses whilst engaged in 'rapid fire', but if the striker blew back, they would be fishing more than glass out of the chaps eye.

---

A chamber cast would be an option to see if there is a contributory defect there.

Agree that the "glasses broken by firing pin" is a hard one to explain except by a broken firing pin, but as you say, that should lead to more than broken glasses in the case of serious case failure. A long neck and a short butt?! Hard to say what broke the glasses unless there is an obvious mark from the impact on the cocking piece. A person not overly familiar with the rifle or who did not examine the bolt closely might not notice a broken firing pin, and if the tip was jammed in the bolt head that might cause a premature ignition and case failure? If it did, the broken tip and perhaps collar being driven back would allow more gas than usual down the firing pin hole? An oversize firing pin hole in the bolthead might be a contributory factor in such a case too?

In theory, because of the different internal shaped tapers of the bolt head and external shaped taper of the striker, a broken striker CANNOT remain solidly fixed protruding through the face of the bolt head. I say IN THEORY, guardedly. The broken tip cannot be forced into the bolt head taper because they're differently tapered as an additional little known mechanical safety. Additionally, the broken tip CANNOT be forced forwards because the collar of the striker cannot go any further forward than the tenon on the bolt head. This is a secondary mech. safety feature*.

And don't forget, if all of these features fail - and it's a BIG if....., then the fact that from a magazine feed, the cartridge slides up the face of the bolt head and would foul and prevent the closure of the bolt as soon as the rim met the protruding failed/broken striker. This was part of the mechanical safety lesson using a doctored bolt and bolt head during Mr Ayley's basics of firearms mechanisms lesson, Term 4 at Carlisle.

*Another mech safety taught at the same time is the 'fear' that if you DO close the bolt hard, with a live round in the breech, with the trigger pressed (I don't know how you would, but you've got to cover all the idiot bases.....), the cocking piece and therefore the striker will 'fire' off the short cam groove in the bolt. True. But then another well thought out mech safety feature comes into play called 'the insufficient force of blow of the striker' No matter what you do, the loading on the striker will never be sufficient to cause a round to fire.

How many of us played with and practiced these scenarios with blanks, under strict supervision with Mr Ayley and Capt Dix in the armourers test range area..............

Sorry for wandering off at a tangent as I often do. Most of you will already know all this guff but one or two won't

I think we are straying pretty well from the original incident.
My understanding was that the failure(after several bullshit posts) was actually the bolthead.
The overlap of the bolthead rail guide was shorn off, the contact with the operators glasses was just minor shrapnel and probably a whack from his hand with the excessive recoil.
The need to belt open the bolt may well have been from binding of the damaged parts, but may also have been from the rifle being in a half cock state, caused either by the detonation or the operators stupidity.
This incident was an obvious result of stupidity(as reading the OP's posts show) the detonation of the round in the chamber was due to the powder mix used, the failure of the bolthead and the fact that the action stayed together under this stress says a lot for the inherant safety of the firearm and the protections built in to it.


WOOPS, this post is about the INCIDENT.

I admit that I sidetracked the thread a bit Muffer but as none of us really know what happened - and I didn't even start to try to unravel the stupidity of it all - I thought it was a good opportunity to remind the flock of some of the lesser known mechanical safety aspects of the No1and 4/5. Obviously from the lack of response to my bit (thread 23) most forumers were well aware of these little known inbuilt safety features.

It's from my recent years (or tears.....) as a Tech Officer listening to some of the pure absolute horse sh......, er....., horse manure that gets put about when an incident occurs on the ranges, the classroom or on the training areas. Sometimes, you have to call them in ....., yes, even senior ranking soldiers too..... and mention a few home truths before the reports get forensically analysed. And that, perhaps they've 'mistakenly overlooked' something relevant or another good one was '.......been mis-worded during the transcribing of the original notes or conversation'. I bet you've been there Muffer!

Peter,

It does no harm at all to re-state the safety features and Thought put into building the L-E. Thank you for that!
Maybe not everyone knows, (There Are newcomers) but that is why I appreciate this arm so much. It's still one H--l of a rifle.

Muffet,
I never even commented in that "Incident" thread, as the incompetence & contradictions on What happened and why, made it a waste of time in my view.
As someone said," Natural selection" should take care of such antics in time. :-)