2A1 Ishapore terrible accuracy + other problems

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bindi2

I know what the differences between the 2A and the 2A1 are. Check the action stampings they tell the story. The Indian FTR process didn't get rid of all the clues just most. The 2As came into Australia first, the game was to find out who built the action the Indians or the Brits. I haven't seen a Lithgow converted. The 2A1s were not mixed as there has been no confirmation as yet.
The No4 conversion in Australia did not have a new ejector screw hole drilled, in fact most screws were removed all together if the local Central sight was used. Some other sights used that screw hole for mounting. There was no requirement to be able to eject unfired rounds, cases ejected without the screw in place.

---

Being as I'm curious can anyone find photos of a 1963 dated or earlier Ishapore 2A which shows the location of the ejector screw? I have attached links to 2-1964 dated and 1-1965 dated Ishapore 2A actions (1 converted to pistol cartridge)

I have not been able to find a single photo of a 2A/2A1 (date visible or not) which shows an ejector screw location other than the 7.62 location rather than the .303 location.

1964- DE LISLE COMMANDO CARBINE IN 50 AE Caliber only one - Silencers Suppressed Firearms at GunBroker.com : 880566260
1964- ishapore lee-enfield 2a vs 2a1 | Snipers Hide Forum
1965- INDIAN ISHAPORE 2A RIFLE 7.62 NATO (ENFIELD SML... for sale

Here are the specs for checking headspace on the RFI 2A/2A1 in caliber 7.62.

1.633 GO
1.642 NO GO

Do not fire these rifles with anything other that 7.62 NATO ball or an equivalent as Bindi says. I'll always consider these "Barney Fife" rifles. "Here's your rifle Barn", "Here's your bullet". "please put it in your pocket! Seriously, if you want a Lee Enfield as your favorite go-to 7.62, buy a No.4 conversion. They are much stronger but remember that you're still stressing the body to the limit of it's design.

Thanks Brian. You've just put rather better than I did what I was trying to articulate in post #34. Even though the No4 action is stronger than the SMLE I stick to putting NATO 144 grain ball through my L42.............& it is what the rifle was intended to be fed.

Almost forgot. If memory serves, the test that Peter Laidler did was on 11 assorted 2A and 2A1 rifles that were at the HQ, SASC. The bodies were only tested for Rockwell hardness and all tested the same as WW1 SMLE bodies. Whether or not the 7.62 RFI bodies were made with a higher grade of steel remains to be seen but it makes good gossip I reckon.

---------- Post added at 04:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:24 PM ----------

Roger,

I have a bolt head on my desk that came from an L42A1 that a guy blew up trying to shoot M118LR, (full house loads w/175 SMK pill), duplication handloads. A very harsh lesson and he was lucky not to be hurt. It's all the proof I need that sticking to the ammo and pressures these rifles were designed for is imperative. I also have to admmit that they never cease to amaze as the rifle body itself was undamaged even though the bolt head came apart and the bolt bod cracked for almost it's entire length. I was lucky to have a few 19T bolt bodies and heads and built him a new bolt assembly, test fired it and it was fine.

Brian

Yes, I figured they would have been either in the possession of Warminster or Shrivenham, & that Peter would never in a million years have bought them himself. He wouldn't have been bothered enough to know the answer that badly!

Brian. Yes, I am not surprised re the failure with the heavy bullets. There was a decent safety margin built into these old girls for the ammunition they were intended to fire. The margin is lessened when using higher pressure ammunition, & more so when using it in bodies of an earlier & lighter design. Then add in the variables such as someone shooting hot reloads, shooting heavy projectiles, shooting in the rain, or getting an oily round in the chamber, & you're skating on thin ice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Dick

Here are the specs for checking headspace on the RFI 2A/2A1 in caliber 7.62.

1.633 GO
1.642 NO GO

---

I knew what the headspace should be and also which Mil gauges to use, (PL secured the information from the Indian Liaison Officer) but I was questioning how SUNRAY could say that the '2A rifles don't have barrel problems but have headspace problems' without knowing what the headspace should be, or what gauges to use.



But as PL said on a number of occasions "where on the taper do you take the measurement ?"


Anyone for 7.62mm CHS?
Posted By: Peter Laidler
Date: Tues 6 May 2008 11:36 am


Now for the biggie, the 7.62’s. The basic principle of headspacing hasn’t changed here but the practicalities have. Whereas before, on our rimmed .303” rifles we measured the GO NO-GO distance between the front face of the bolt and the rear face of the barrel, it’s all changed for the rimless 7.62mm NATO caliber rifles. Now we have to measure from the front face of the bolt to the cartridge seating at the neck. Well, that’s all pretty clear then ….., except that the neck is tapered so where EXACTLY on that neck do you take your GO, 1.628” and NO-GO 1.635 measurement from? Even if I told you it’d make no difference whatsoever because without the specialist measuring and more importantly, the calibration equipment, you’d still be none the wiser. The trouble with this is that you’ve got to take the word of the manufacturer of the gauge. And exactly where does HE take HIS measurement from but more importantly, WHO does he get them from. geting difficult isn't it?
Let me give you an example. My GO gauge gives you a close/GO reading of 1.628 but Bloggs & Co gauge may give you a GO reading of 1.575” for the same 7.62mm caliber. How can there be a difference of .053” between the two when they are identical? Well, it’s simple really. Our STANAG gauges are measured from one diameter around the neck while Bloggs & Co are taken from a different but larger diameter .053” further to the rear! That is really all I want to say about that.

Has anyone hereabouts gauged the throat / leade in a 2A / 2A1 barrel?

The simple expedient of extending the freebore will reduce the peak pressure and the slightly flatten the overall pressure curve.

For that matter, how tightly throated is the L-42A1? That cited example of one "blown up" by M-118 Match may be a a rabbit-hole to explore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Dick

...snip...Roger,

I have a bolt head on my desk that came from an L42A1 that a guy blew up trying to shoot M118LR, (full house loads w/175 SMK pill), duplication handloads. A very harsh lesson and he was lucky not to be hurt. It's all the proof I need that sticking to the ammo and pressures these rifles were designed for is imperative. I also have to admmit that they never cease to amaze as the rifle body itself was undamaged even though the bolt head came apart and the bolt bod cracked for almost it's entire length. I was lucky to have a few 19T bolt bodies and heads and built him a new bolt assembly, test fired it and it was fine.

Brian

---

That's impressive, I've seen a number of No4's which were over pressured and they were not fireable afterwards.

In 3 cases, I've seen the front of the bolt "dolphined" out of the action - i suppose the bolt body stayed straight, while the action bent down.

Unknown what loadings were being used but the 1 fellow claimed Canadian 7.62 ball (it was a modified DCRA 7.62).

I wonder if the scope helped in this (L42) case?

He admitted to loading it hot. Maybe he even exceeded the pressure of a M118LR but that was the load he was working towards using the 175 SMK. I think he learned his lesson.

I'm not sure about throat wear in the L42A1 but I'd guess it's fairly excessive in most rifles since they were ALL pretty well used. I've never noticed detrimental accuracy though and I've worked on a ton of them including the last ones sold in bulk which were absolutely flogged to death along with the telescopes.

---------- Post added at 04:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:03 PM ----------

A good friend of mine offered to bring his 20x bore scope here to check my two personal L42A1 rifles and possibly ones I still had for sale at the time. I passed on that idea. I didn't want to see in there. Of course, none could be as bad as what I've seen attributed to good old cordite loaded Mk.7 in .303! I do have correct plug gauges for the .303.

Of subject a bit: I've gauged several of the RTI Ethiopian SMLE's before breeching them up with the excellent RFI barrels. It's the first time I've ever seen a .310 plug run all the way through and fall out the muzzle. They shouldn't enter the breech more than .25" to be in spec. It's obvious that they didn't clean barrels in Ethiopia. I would have thought that they were worn out from shooting but the bodies and bolts were all OK. The barrels just eroded from a complete lack of maintenence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Dick

Of subject a bit: I've gauged several of the RTI Ethiopian SMLE's before breeching them up with the excellent RFI barrels. It's the first time I've ever seen a .310 plug run all the way through and fall out the muzzle.

---

:yikes:

Perhaps they were hoping they'd naturally evolve into .410 shotgun conversion through the natural passage of time :lol: