Printable View
>>>But have you fulfilled this demand yourself?<<<
To my own satisfaction. How about yourself?
Tried any GEW 88s, KAR 88s, Dutch M95 Carbines or rifles, M91 Carcanos, Japanese Type I, Japanese Type 38, Mausers from M91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 98, 1898/09, Turkish types, Persians, Egyptians, pumps, bolts, autoloaders, single shots of several types, lever guns of multiple designs and none of this includes handguns or shotguns. How about it?
In the Canadian debates its stated that the breaking point of the LE Reciever was "well known" to be 85,000 PSI. How this was established it doesn't say.
It could be that this was tested by some hydraulic means rather than test firing. If so the 85,000 PSI figure would be more likely correct than a figure taken by base crusher measurements.
Cartridge brass is often said to fail at 85,000 PSI using modern methods of measurement, with earlier CUP pressures given as 65,000 to 70,000 CUP.
Garand receivers were tested to destruction, though the receivers did in fact survive the testing, at pressures up to 120,000 PSI using cases especially made to hold up to that pressure level. Even when one locking lug broke off the tests were completed with the surviving lug without further damage.
Springfield bolts were tested to determine how much mass was necessary in the lugs themselves. the bolts held up with much of the lugs cut away. The figures are in Hatchers Notebook.
The lefthand lug of the Enfield bolt is small compared to that of most rifles in its class. The righthand guide rib/lug is sturdy, but the bolt body itself is hollow and rather thin walled.
The rear locking lug action allows great compressive force on the weakest portion of the bolt body.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfred
... or read the Koran backwards?
I'm begining to wonder why there almost no interest in the mechanical proprties and metalurgy of the Enfield Rifles among Collectors of the Enfield Rifles.
Seems like collectors of other firearms go to great lengths to learn as much as possible about how the guns were made, and steps taken to overcome early difficulties with the design.
Since the Lee Enfields were for the most part manufactured using Pratt and Whitney Gauges and Mass Production techniques developed by Colt and other US Gunmakers, and the Basic action design was a development of a design by a US Citizen who's bolt action rifles were in use by the US military long before the British ever tested it, its likely that technical knowledge of the rifles can be found among the records of US manufacturers such as Pratt & Whitney or Savage about as easily as the strangely sparse published data from UK sources.
Surely a few UK members have books on the subject with information that would be useful.
The Metalurgy of the M1917 was easy to find, most likely because the US Military always kept detailed records on such things, and made them available for study by prospective manufacturers and designers of the future.
So far I've found little in UK sources on metalurgy and next to none on manufacturing techniques employed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfred
Maybe I'm in the minority but "It Is What It Is", they were not designed for any weird and wonderful magnum load, they work as designed, they shoot more accurately than I can, they saved the Free World on two major occasions (and many other smaller skirmishes since) and I see no reason to get as Anal as the "Garand collectors" and others.
Enjoy them for what they are.
Your forgetting the werewolf became extinct in Briton because they greased and oiled their ammunition and the rifles blew up killing them *all. (Due to excessive bolt compression)
*Does not count the Americans bitten by werewolves in France and who fly back to London.
We should also conceder all the money loaned to Briton by American bankers and how patriotic the banks were in demanding we become in evolved in the war so the bankers could be paid back.
Please note even to this day bankers still get paid bonuses at the tax payers expense.
It must be an inherent weakness in our patriotic banking system. :eek:
"saved the Free World", I guess there was no need for all those bombers and warships then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield
The Enfield did its job well but I don't think any one could seriously claim that it , or any infantry rifle, was the deciding factor in 20th century warfare.
"It is what it is", well the metal it was made of and the techniques used in its manufacture are what made it what it is.
I can shoot more accurately than all but the best examples of the Enfields would allow, and with taylored handloads I've been able to wring out an amazing level of accuracy from my rifles.
Hesketh-Pritchard was an expert marksman and could shoot better than the rifles he was issued would allow for. He wrote that the accuracy life of the bore depended on erosion, and that the rifles used for sniping had a peak accuracy life of as little as 500 rounds , with 600-1000 being the norm. This led to his limiting attempts at headshots to 400 yards rather than the 600 normally considered likely. He figured that each and every shot fired must be made to count because potential accuracy life was so short.
There was plenty of ammo, but bores were worn out quickly by the service ammunition.
Bores were worn out by the erosive properties of the cordite propellent. Something that would have happened to any barrel, note the erosion in british sporting rifles, inculding those made with german steel!
This had little to do with the metalurgy of the barrels and was solved with new propellents.
If we wish we can study inherent weak designs even further, below are the Technical Service bulletins issued for the German Mercedes E430 and the American Ford Taurus. Technical Service bulletins are issued for manufacturing defects that need to be repaired on these individual automobiles to make them 100% serviceable.
Below the German Mercedes E430 has two TSBs listed under QTY in the first column for the years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif
Below the American Ford Taurus for the same four model years has 648 TSBs listed for manufacturing defects under QTY.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif
In hindsight the Ford Taurus is an inherent weak design compared to the Mercedes, and it is also my understanding that in the Mercedes online forums the American Ford Taurus and many other American cars are criticized and held in contempt compared to the much “superior” German designs.
Last we have the TSBs listed for the British Rolls Royce which has ZERO (0) Technical Service bulletins issued from 1992 to 2006 for this fine British automobile.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif
When I handle my Enfield rifles I never think of an inherent weak design because I have the Rolls Royce of bolt action rifles in my hands. :thup:
Please note the American P-51 fighter did not become great fighter until a British designed Rolls Royce engine was put “under the bonnet”. ;)
https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif
Research and development by Rolls Royce based on experience learnt with the R series of racing engines in the early 30s paved the way for the legendary line of smaller Merlin engines that powered many allied aircraft during WWII, including the Supermarine Spitfire, North American P51 Mustang, Hawker Hurricane, D.H. Mosquito and the Avro Lancaster heavy bomber.
I love it when Ed is in a good mood :D
Thanks Ed, that was a refreshing post :)
Lou