The quality of steel in war production no4s

I have actually had my sticky paws on one of the "failed" Lithgow conversions.

The reason if failed was that it was subjected to a diet of OILED proof rounds. That is a good way to seriously stress ANY action. The "blown" action had also been modified to accept FN/L1A1 magazines.

The original project was allegedly intended to produce a "second-line" rifle, with the L1A1 being general issue.

I suspect that whoever organised the oiled proof rounds had no intention of allowing a "second line" rifle into the system.

As for the materials used, I think I have posted the steel recipes from the "early" days, and 1938 here previously. I can dig them out again and let the metalurgists comment on the differences.

Is was an article of faith among target shooters that pre-1919 Lithgows were the "best" metalurgically speaking. This may have been related to the proportion of "vintage" Lithgows used as platforms for the "T" series.

The pages from the book I posted say they were carbon steel actions in lieu of the nickel-chrome steel actions. It says "the actions were degraded" . Oiling the proof cartridges would only ensure full load on the bolt face. I've never heard of oiling proof loads, only oiling regular loads to emulate proof loads.

Now if the proof loads developed the load they say and all of it was delivered to the bolt face, the fact that the rifles made from carbon steel held out as long as they did indicates that the normal nickel-chrome actions would survive service use. Remember there was one unmodified rifle in 303 which also suffered the same bolt set back as one of the 7.62 rifles, also after firing six oiled proof loads.

The reasons for these tests failing are obvious.
1. The use of substandard components in testing.
2. Heavily overproof rounds.
3. Opposition to the program from the proponents of the soon to be introduced semi-auto.

Most of us avid collectors who have indulged in serious research are aware of the myths surrounding the inherant strengths of steel in the receivers of the firearms within our collections.
Hence the time delay in mulling over each and every new query about these variables, much easier to just point the new questioner at the documentation, reading for yourself beats us trying to convince anyone with prefixed ideas, and after all, research is what it's all about.:thup:

What military would allow any bolt action rifle to be upgraded to a new calibre when the new calibre came with a new rifle in semi auto mode. NONE.
The No5 with the wandering zero myth, the Lithgow with too weak an action. The Indians proved otherwise. The no4 conversions are still on the ranges doing what they do best. The worlds armies went semi auto to keep up with the USA.
Stop being gentle Muff..

I apologize for dragging this out but it is quite interesting. Bruce in OZ- I located and read your old thread regarding materials specs for the '38 Lithgow SMLE. JMoore posts in that thread an elemental composition for the action body, as specified, that includes NI & Cr. So, is the "degraded" steel quote to be interpreted as meaning that some lower spec receivers were created to test the higher pressure chambering (seems bizarre) or simply that 1939 to 1953 steel was of lowered quality- ie "plain carbon steel" (it was wartime but that would be 415,000 rifles). Since the 7.62 program was to be a conversion program, not new construction, if the majority of available action bodies were of the "degraded" specs that would help explain termination of the effort. Finally, thanks to those out there that actually do basic or primary research and share the results with the rest of us. I can appreciate how difficult it must be to locate these old government documents. Unfortunately, for most of us, reading the available publications of true researchers is the best we can do.

Ridolpho

One (last?) thing: the very design of the LE action:

The left side of the action is a fairly substantial slab of metal into which is cut a recess containing a very small helical locking shoulder.

The right side of yej action is, by comparison, somewhat less substantial, but incorporates a very substantial shoulder which resists the thrust from a locking lug that extends along almost the entire length of the bolt body.

The actual "mating" surfaces are quite small on both sides.

Thus, if there is ANY inconsistency of bearing, the bolt will tend to twist sideways, one way or the other.

However, the very front of the bolthead SHOULD be partly contained by the rear breech ring, albeit with a small gap for the extractor slot.

IF sufficient pressure is applied, and IF anything is to "give" it will be the right side of the receiver/body. You will NEVER rip off the long lug on the bolt body and it is unlikely in the extreme that the right side bearing shoulder and its attendant metal would be sheared off. In the event of a catastrophic case failure, the brass case will rupture BUT, the venting of high-pressure gas will be mostly via the extractor slot and into the magazine. This is unlike a Mauser where a case rupture sends a large proportion of the high-pressure gas back down the left-side lug raceway. Hence the large shroud at the back of a Mauser bolt.

P. O. Ackley blew up a lot of "military" actions in an attempt to sort rumour from fact. I guess that his findings are posted somewhere on the net; if not i have his books at home somewhere.

I recall that he found that LE actions subjected to "excessive" pressure, failed by distortion of the RHS and not by exploding into fragments. Type 38 Arisakas (pre WW2 production) were almost indestructible.

I don't think anyone, anywhere has managed to find evidence of an Enfield receiver that has failed catastrophically - ie a burst with some fragmentation.

Plenty of old No1s have "died" on the range, but in their case the receiver gradually distorts until the problem is evident through bolt binding and boltheads jumping off the track. Given that old-time gunsmiths often used to "fix" these rifles by straightening them out with a cold chisel, one wonders if any Enfield has technically ever become unusable!

On the Ishapore 2A's, it seems that that Ishapore did indeed change the steel for the 2A's. From 1950 to 1965 they used a weaker grade steel which couldn't handle proof loads so they went back to the original EN steel (EN19 maybe?) That's what I gather from reading old posts and other sources.

Apparently Lee Enfield's fail catastrophically by buckling the bolt body and unlocking the bolt head from the receiver ring. Case fragments are what injure the shooter, or so I've been told. Stretching of the right side sounds reasonable to expect. It would be interesting to see photo's of such failures.

I'm interested in the strength of No4's. One hears about some being strong enough for conversion to 7.62 and other not. I wonder where that came from? Another myth or were there really poorly heat treated No4's out there?

The Lee Enfield is not a bad design for a military rifle. It has its flaws to be sure. That safety catch on the side of the receiver leaves a lot to be desired. The original bolt mounted safety was fine. It can get bumped off but not easily while the later safety was almost guaranteed to get bumped off. Then there is the likely hood of an AD if the trigger is depressed and the bolt closed onto a round rapidly as what happens when a cartridge is in front of the extractor. Never do that! In any case, the firing pin rests on the primer in that condition. There is a temptation to load the rifle with striker down then pull it onto halfcock which locks the bolt and sear - a great way to carry a gun on the ready. Wrong!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 303Guy

On the Ishapore 2A's, it seems that that Ishapore did indeed change the steel for the 2A's. From 1950 to 1965 they used a weaker grade steel which couldn't handle proof loads so they went back to the original EN steel (EN19 maybe?) That's what I gather from reading old posts and other sources.

Apparently Lee Enfield's fail catastrophically by buckling the bolt body and unlocking the bolt head from the receiver ring. Case fragments are what injure the shooter, or so I've been told. Stretching of the right side sounds reasonable to expect. It would be interesting to see photo's of such failures.

I'm interested in the strength of No4's. One hears about some being strong enough for conversion to 7.62 and other not. I wonder where that came from? Another myth or were there really poorly heat treated No4's out there?
!

---

I think you are just picking up the usual internet myths there:

- There is no information at all so far in the public domain about how Ishapore built 2A/1s, or what steel they used, or in fact anything about their post-Independence rifle production at all. The Indians simply have not released any information whatsoever, and all stories about the "steel" appear to originate from a single supposition/ guess in Edwards' original manuscript. Examination of 2A and 2A1s show (a) many of the early ones are in fact rebuilt No1s, or use recycled No1 components (eg bolt heads); (b) the receivers of 2A1s and contemporary .303 No1s from Ishapore are identical (apart from the location of the ejector screw hole) right down to the tooling marks;

- IIRC there is no documented case of any Enfield having suffered a catastrophic failure using service or normal ammunition. The few tales of shooter injuries are largely hearsay and invariably involve a handload. If you can link to an actual documented incident, I think we'd all be very interested!

- IIRC there is no record from either UK proof house of any No4 failing a 19 or 20 ton 7.62/.308 proof test, nor is there any documented case of an issue in any of the thousands of converted rifles. As described earlier, government testing indicated that eve the No1 action was easily capable of withstanding repeated 30 ton proof. I have had many, many 7.62mm Envoy, L39, Enforcer and gunsmith target conversions through my "books", and most of them appear completely unaffected by a long and hard life of shooting. The "factory" 7.62mm rifles were mostly all breached up with "0" or "00" boltheads, and you will see that most of these rifles are still tight on what appear to be those original bolt heads.

I thought (hoped) that this discussion was history.