I was referring there to the Rifle, No.1 Mk.VI, aka the No.4 Mk.I as it later became known.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield
Printable View
I was referring there to the Rifle, No.1 Mk.VI, aka the No.4 Mk.I as it later became known.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield
There are some 11 pages (A4) of notes on proof testing and accuracy, and accuracy measurement in the "Textbook of Small Arms 1929" pages 237 onwards.
This not only includes the FoM but things like pressure variations, velocity variations, hangfire time, extraction forces, 'sawdustproof' and 'casualty proof'.
With a further 14 pages on the inspection of the Mk VII rounds.
Every round manufactured was tested dimensionally (go / no go) visually checked and weighed by 1000's of ladies at the end of each ammuniton production line.
"The inspection of SAA may at first sight be expensive ,and, in any case it cannot be too strongly emphasized that the inspection of SAA must be primarily be regulated by considerations of quality and not of cost."
I was looking through my copy yesterday in relation to this 6.5 vs. 8.5 question; it's a great read. A pity there were no subsequent editions(?)
Available online now: Textbook of Small Arms 1929 [Great Britain War Office] : [Great Britain] War Office : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive Download options below the main window on the right.
"The gradual obsolescence of the arme blanche has been thought to justify the historical treatment of the sword by an admitted authority on that subject." :D Myself I would have thought that was justify its omission! :lol:
The table on p. 371 may be of some relevance; I might look into that later. Textbook of Small Arms 1929 [Great Britain War Office] : [Great Britain] War Office : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
Yes - there is some amazing 'stuff' in the book - I have the 'paper version' (proper book) as I like to flip between pages and chapters.
I did not know there were digital versions available - is there a full Pdf ?
100 years after its introduction do we still consider the Lee Enfirld Action to be of unsound design ?
In the Lee action the bolt-head does not rotate with the bolt, but the lugs are
disposed at the rear of the bolt cylinder. This is not a desirable arrangement as, on firing,
the greater part of the body and bolt are thrown into a state of tension and compression
respectively. This strain, acting on the unsymmetrical central part of the body, causes
lateral vibrations, which have to be compensated for by displacing the foresight laterally.
The unsymmetrical incidence of the strain also has a disturbing influence on the accuracy
of the rifle. The British action has, however, advantages which may compensate for the
fact that, mechanically, its design is unsound. There is no deep cylindrical portion in
front of the action body as in the continental forms, in which dirt can accumulate. The
form of the action and the shape and disposition of the bolt - lever allow of extremely rapid
fire.
Edit - found the Pdf.
I came later to the Enfield action, definitely Mauser-types are my baseline.
To my eyes the rimmed case and cordite are the primary deficiencies. Rear locking lugs are not unheard of in other rifles (SVT-40). I don't love how the extraction/ejection works, but that is because from a milsurp perspective I want to save my brass.
It got the job done.
What's the source of the quote? It reads as though it refers to the days of the Lee Enfield Mk.I and the sighting problems detected in South Africa(?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield
The tests recounted in the same TBSA 1929 remind us that where chamber wall adhesion occurs in firing without the presence of oil, grease or water to interfere there much less back pressure on bolts and bolt heads than we tend to assume. I can't find the text from TBSA at the moment, but here is an article posted by Ed Horton in 2009 that goes into some detail: Rifle Chamber Finish Friction Effects on Bolt Load and Case Head Thinning Calculations done with LS-DYNA
Chamber wall adhesion alone tends to negate the oft expressed concerns about the strength of the action and its "unequal" proportions on either side. The importance of dry and clean chambers and ammunition seems not to be as widely known as it should be however.
The flexibility and resulting "compensation" turned out to be advantageous.
Overall events have proven that J.P. Lee and his later assistants did a fine job, though it certainly took a long time to incorporate some of the later improvements. ;)
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...t2862png-1.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
The original 1929 Textbook of Small Arms - page 20
)It may not be in the various reprints) - edit : yes it is still in later editions on page 20.
Interesting that other period documents warn of the effects of firing wet cartridges, and note that the SMLE has been known to fracture on the left hand side from the additional, unequal, pressures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
And when we have oil ...............Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
Curious that the second text states that "...in extreme cases the action body has been known to fracture..." Presumably they meant to say the bolt body.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield
The test done at Enfield wherein an unthreaded barrel inserted into an unthreaded body/receiver, with what we assume was a relatively close slide in fit, fired normally with absolutely clean chamber and ammunition, but was blown out of the rifle if there was any oil on either chamber or cartridge case is detailed at the top of page 270: Textbook of Small Arms 1929 [Great Britain War Office] : [Great Britain] War Office : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
I would assume also that the barrel and body were not so close a fit to each other that the barrel itself expanded and adhered to the body during that test. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
No, I don't think so - In the past I have read reports of SMLE sidewalls fracturing.
I think the examples of fractured bolts has generally been found to be poorly cast (granulated) steel in the bolt body.