I was refering to the substantive parts of Ed's posts, which are considerable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strangely Brown
"All the world's a little qu--r* except for me and thee...";)
(* it comes out as all asterisks otherwise!)
Printable View
I was refering to the substantive parts of Ed's posts, which are considerable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strangely Brown
"All the world's a little qu--r* except for me and thee...";)
(* it comes out as all asterisks otherwise!)
Ed chose to make yet another bad decision in a series of them that's spanned at least three different other large gun site boards, where he's been previously banned. He posted a long winded self serving diatribe within this thread, berating by specific name a few regular members, before he started in on the insulting our site's moderation staff once again. :rolleyes:
As a result, another one of his inflammatory over-the-top posts was completely deleted (again!), he received yet another infraction for inappropriate behaviour, plus I sent him a personal email to step back and get a grip on himself. :slap:
In addition, the last of his personal antagonists here has been warned to stop the nonsense of setting him off, or lame positioning posts to inflame both him and the rest of the general membership for sport. :nono:
We have 11,000+ registered members and I have a stressful work career. I don't have the time, nor do I want our moderators spending a disproportionate amount of their personal time playing sandbox monitor to a very few amount of folks, who try to make the site all about them and not about the hobby. :thdown:
Enough said … let's move on. :cheers:
Regards,
Badger
Well - after a few days to sit back and 'calm down' I eventually sent my letter to the magazine at the end of last week.
I took the lead from Amatikulu and broke it down into 'bite-size chunks' which can hopefully be simply explained / justified, or, as in my closing statement :
"If he cannot, [provide empirical evidence] then I would ask that an admission of error be published".
Rather than send the letter to the "Target Section Editor" I sent the letter to the 'overall editor' (editor in chief ?) of the magzine but apparently he is away in Africa shooting Buffalo at the moment.
Hopefully we will see some response in the near future.
C'mon guys - get the fingers on the keyboard and let them know what the Enfield world feels about the article.
The new issue is out - the letter page has 3 letters from forum members (you can see part of my letter in the scan below)
With the Ok from the other letter writers (RJW & Spinecracker) I''ll happily scan & post their submissions.
The response from the author is purely regurgitating the NRA warnings - how are we going to get that one sorted out ?
Any volunteers who use / shoot at Bisley ?
Anyway - here is the response :
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...nds22003-1.jpg
Locking lug surface area as stated above is not hugely relavent to the overall strength of an action (w/in reason). Differences in locking lug shear area, however, do have a marked influence as regard to catastrophic failures. Guess what that long RH lug brings to the table. The LH lug isn't particularly undersized either.
If you work at it, its possible to "grenade" any firearm action. Seems that I've heard of plenty more Mauser derivatives letting go over the years than Lee types.
Alan, I already posted my letter on this thread before sending it to the publisher, so it is all yours to repost it.
I know there was a "mauser " type action, which recently suffered catastrophic failure at a FTR or similar chamionship shoot, at Bisley.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmoore
Think its still under investigation but to my knowledge the paticular make of action in question has been banned until the results of the failure are published.
Ed,Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward Horton
I'm sure I've seen stickers on my bananas from Giant in Camp Hill warning me that it's dangerous to eat bananas in the rain especially if you throw the peels on the ground?"
Transcribed to facilitate analysis and comment:
Quote:
In reference to Mr. Fox’s email and other letters of complaint regarding my article “Wet weather drill” in the March edition of Sporting Rifle, the main thrust of my article was directed at keeping water out of the action to prevent destroying the rifle’s grouping capacity. Since I happened to have the photograph of one of my No.4's actions to hand, and since No.4 safety is a hot topic, I thought I was being responsible in informing the readership. Given the storm of protest this has unleashed I wonder why I bothered.
Mr. Fox and others seem to think I am down on Lee actions. Not a bit of it. I happen to own 27 of them, all of which I shoot. I love my Lees as much as I love my Triumph Vitesse, but the former will be shot in a drizzle and never a downpour. They are too precious, and so am I.
Of course, Lee actions are not weaker than all other actions, but they are less desirable than the other two commonly encountered in this country. It is the very fact that some have seen hard service in the past and, since we simply do not know what stresses these (or any other old rifle) has been subject to, that (sic) we need to be careful.
The reason a No4 is weaker than a P14 is related to its rear lock-up as opposed to the latter’s front-locking bolt. Total surface area of the locking lugs on the No.4 is about 0.12 sq.in., whereas the P14's is about 0.137 sq.in. The No.4 barrel tenon is .687inx.997in. compared to the P14's .720in.x1.125in.
Have I had any potential safety problems with any of mine? Yes, My SMLE MkV, which was rebarreled by a reputable gunsmith 25 years ago, has despite my caution, got stretched headspace. No, Mr. Fox, it hasn’t blown up yet, but I don’t intend to put it to the test!
Those of us with long memories, going back to the days when the No.4 was the approved cadet rifle, will know that the MOD placed an embargo on cadets shooting No.4s (and those were .303s) which came close (sic) to the NRA banning the use of No.4s at Bisley. The NRA issued the following:
Safety warning:
Enfield rifle actions converted to 7.62 calibre from .303 or made as 7.62mm.
Enfield actions of the No.4 and No.5 type were originally designed to fire the British .303 service cartridge of the day.
Many of these actions have been subsequently converted from .303 to 7.62mm. While a few selected actions may be stronger than others, [obvious nonsense: all No4 Mk2s are stronger than MkIs] most are not suitable for use in this calibre with a bullet diameter of .3075 inches.
It is unsafe to fire these rifles with the 155 grain Radway Green cartridge or any other commercial cartridges using the 155 grain or heavier bullet which has a diameter of .3083 inches or larger.
Firing these latter cartridges can ultimately lead to catastrophic failure of the bolt lugs and bolt body that could lead to serious injury. This risk is considerably increased if the chamber or cartridge gets wet or is oiled prior to firing.
The NRA will not accept responsibility for any accident or injury to persons or property caused by anyone using 7.62mm/.308Win ammunition supplied by them in these converted actions.
The actions/rifles involved may fall under the following descriptions, but there may also be other names or descriptions, but there may also be other names or descriptions used: SMLE Conversion, Enfield Conversion, No.4 Conversion, Parker Hale 14, Whitaker Special, Enfield Envoy and Enfield Enforcer.
“You have been warned.”
Please note - RSAF Enfield and Parker Hale are specifically included.
By calling my article ludicrous Mr. Fox merely insults me. I do not want to be laid next to the guy who fills the air with bits off a shattered Lee Enfield bolt. Equally, I do not want to see anyone hurt or indeed Lee Enfields or civilian shooters banned from MOD ranges.
Regards,
Chris White.
Has the NRA's warning grown in length? I don't remember seeing the specific information re radway green and "Firing these latter cartridges can ultimately lead to catastrophic failure of the bolt lugs and bolt body that could lead to serious injury."bit before?
Anyone any thoughts re cadets not shooting the no 4???