The next time anyone comments about going off thread or going off at a tangent on the forum, I'm going to remind them of this lively thread...........
Printable View
The next time anyone comments about going off thread or going off at a tangent on the forum, I'm going to remind them of this lively thread...........
It certainly explains why I feel nauseous/seasick after the first day of the military rifle matches.
I always thought it had something to do with alchohol, but I can tell the wife that it's the steel treatment now.
Thanks guys.
There is a number you can ring regarding alchoholQuote:
Originally Posted by muffett.2008
Home delivery?
Think it´s all about not having to go through all that "weak action on the No 4" again ... not being able to shoot wet ammunition etc. etc. I never used to fire wet ammunition or oil the cartridges but do it now, just to see what happens. It´s boring! BTW, the main difference between Mauser and DWM Parabellum pistols (apart from DWM´s better finish) seems to be developments in heat treatment during WWI. My DWMs definitely do suffer from brittle metal breakages.
Speaking of oiling cartridges, I don't 'oil' cartridges but I do lightly lube them to reduces case to chamber wall grip which eliminates case head separation. Been doing that for the last 35 years. A niggling question remains; although there is no immediate sign of load damage, how is early Lee Enfield steel with regard repetitive stress? What would the difference in life be between full factory pressure loads and milder loads? My theory is that light lubing actually reduces shock loading by allowing the case head to settle onto the bolt face earlier in the pressure curve but the case does still grip the chamber. Anyway, it's about modern alloy steels and earlier medium/low carbon steels which are carbonised during heat treatment.
I'd almost suspect its expotential. I will only be shooting one gun at 100m and another to a max of 600m so I'll run as light a load as I can to save barrel wear and stress, think Im allowed 6% under.
In terms of moving / lubing Id say the entire reason of the case expanding and gripping the barrel is to act a) as a pressure seal, spread the load over a greater area and not overload the bolt and its lugs, but I'd defer to others...cheaper to replace cases than bolts and face/eye balls.
btw Im in Wellington.
I'm in the big smoke. How have the quakes been affecting you? My only felt tremor was from Motutapu of all places.
Not quite on topic but aside from obvious damage from overloading or excess clearance, I'm wondering how well these old MLE actions would stand up with ageing and use - I have a few but I don't intend to load them up to full power. I do paper patching for the old bores and that has lower pressure (and higher velocity) than factory loadings but I won't be going that high anyway.
On topic, has anyone seen a No4 with bolt set-back and flaring or burring of the recoil recess face edges?
Lightly lubing the case is not different to polishing the case or having a smooth or polished chamber. I've heard of rifles being 'proofed' by oiling the cartridge and firing it. A proof load is 25% normal load while oiling is at best 10% with a 308 which is a stronger case. Light lubing does indeed spread the load over the length of the case reducing shock loading. Shock loading can produce a momentary load double or even treble the static load. That's a hammer blow. Think of excess head-space clearance - it causes bolt set back and flaring of the locking lug recess but doesn't break the action (not all the time anyway). A perfect example is firing a rifle with the butt loosely held versus pulling it in tight. The loose one will bruise (or smack the nose and/or upper lip). That's what happens when the case grips forward then suddenly releases under load versus one that grips, but settles back at lower pressure.
I have one action that has suffered the hardened surface of the locking lug recess thrust faces flaking off and burrs form on the inside edges as the bolt has set back. Pressures could not have been all that high as the bore is oversize although it may have been a large number of cordite shots fired that made it that way in which case the action is just worn out from age. However, had the head-space clearance not been excessive in the first place that damage would not have occurred. But it's an 1896 vintage and it's not the original barrel. I've seen a SMLE with excess head-space that was continued to be fired, lock the bolt with the burrs formed on the recess thrust faces (much worse than mine).
Comments about lighter loads for the older Lee Enfields interest me. Given that many MLE's (and possibly MLM's) were eventually modified to shoot Mk VII ball (upgraded CLLE's and Converted Marks of SMLE's) I had assumed factory ammo would be OK. I have used Remington FMJ in my MLE and all seemed well other than zeroing issues. I can't see the MLE action body or bolt being weaker than the SMLE so unless the steel is different or a couple of decades of additional aging make a difference I would assume in a rifle in very good condition "full" loads can be used. However, I haven't fired my very solid RIC Carbine yet and now I'm wondering.............
Ridolpho
Somewhere in the WSRA rules (Wellington Service rifle Association) it says we are allowed to run 6% lighter especially for SMLE's and Long Toms.
"Reloads are permitted but must fit the service criteria and you must
not download ammo although a 6% reduction is allowed to limit
wear and tear on older firearms and not to gain an advantage in
rapid events."
"In the case of older rifles
(i.e. SMLEs, Long Toms etc) the reducing of loads is desirable due to safety
reasons but ammunition must not, in any case, be loaded down to such a level
that the shooter gains a recoil/recovery advantage over users of as-issued ball."
Hope this helps.