Inherent Weakness ?

Looks like the forwards lugs are part of the detachable bolt head. This is similar to the lugs of the Mosin Nagant, and would preclude the rear lugs being effective as load bearing lugs, thus they'd act as safety lugs only.
Firing stresses would have been distributed in the same manner as the Mauser bolt, directly to the receiver ring. The bolt body would not be subject to compression in normal firing, and the effect of action body spring would be eliminated.
Its likely the metalurgy was of about the same level as that of the Krag.

Looking into the Low Number Springfields I've found that these remained in service with the USMC long after they were pulled from US Army use. The Marines seem to have had no problems with them. They drilled a hole in the Receiver to allow escape of gases should a case rupture, and issued orders that Low Number rifles were not to be used to launch rifle grenades.

The Metal and heat treatment were inferior, but the strength of the design prevented most of the Low Number receivers from failure despite the poor materials used.
A stronger design can't completely make up for poor materials.

Nickel Steel and more sophisticated alloys used in later production made the Springfield extremely strong, though it still had some design flaws, such as the two piece firing pin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ireload2

EH
Do you even believe in the first amendment?
If for some reason you do not approve of this thread, do not read it and quit trying to act as a censor.

---

I believe the first amendment also applies to what I have to say and the first amendment isn’t there just to protect you and Alfred.

Both Alfred and I are Americans and if Alfred wants to accomplish something let him write to the Ford Motor Company and have Ford extend the warranties on all the 3.8 liter engines that blew head gaskets due to “inherent weakness” or an American design flaw.

If there is anything wrong with the Enfield rifle then let the British decide if something is wrong with the rifle and then let the British decide if they want to recall the Enfield rifle due to “inherent weak design”.

The bottom line here is it isn’t up to an amateur American backyard shade tree armourer to decide if there is something wrong with a well proven British battle rifle.

If you want to discuss American rifles with an “inherent weakness” why don’t we talk about the Johnson rifle issued to the marines during WW II.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edward Horton

If there is anything wrong with the Enfield rifle then let the British decide if something is wrong with the rifle and then let the British decide if they want to recall the Enfield rifle due to “inherent weak design”.

---

Nobody ain't taking my Enfields, no way man, recalled or not!!! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by louthepou

Nobody ain't taking my Enfields, no way man, recalled or not!!! :D

---

That is the problem I have with this post, only Alfred thinks we should have a recall and the British and Commonwealth nations never even thought about issuing a recall on the Enfield rifle.

On top of this you can bet your bottom dollar Alfred and ireload2 will never be invited to be guest speakers at a Enfield Armourers reunion. :yikes:

You wouldn't want me there either, I don't behave well in public spaces, better stay in my rural refuge :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alfred

Looks like the forwards lugs are part of the detachable bolt head. This is similar to the lugs of the Mosin Nagant, and would preclude the rear lugs being effective as load bearing lugs, thus they'd act as safety lugs only.
Firing stresses would have been distributed in the same manner as the Mauser bolt, directly to the receiver ring. The bolt body would not be subject to compression in normal firing, and the effect of action body spring would be eliminated.
Its likely the metalurgy was of about the same level as that of the Krag.

Looking into the Low Number Springfields I've found that these remained in service with the USMC long after they were pulled from US Army use. The Marines seem to have had no problems with them. They drilled a hole in the Receiver to allow escape of gases should a case rupture, and issued orders that Low Number rifles were not to be used to launch rifle grenades.

The Metal and heat treatment were inferior, but the strength of the design prevented most of the Low Number receivers from failure despite the poor materials used.
A stronger design can't completely make up for poor materials.

Nickel Steel and more sophisticated alloys used in later production made the Springfield extremely strong, though it still had some design flaws, such as the two piece firing pin.

---

I am not much of a Springfield fan. There is an article in a Rifle magazine where a half dozen or so low number receivers were whacked with a common screw driver in some cases breaking the receivers (which were held in the other hand) into 3 or 4 large parts. I was not a fan of the multiple part firing pin either. My Remington 03A3 while crude was among the most accurate military rifles I have ever fired.

Krags have their fans but I am not a fan of the US version. I suspect the metallurgy of the Danish and Norwegian version are better.
Digging through a box of stuff at a gun show I found a couple of prizes. One was a like new Wilson 25-06 inline seater that I bought. I also found a US Krag bolt with no locking lug. The bolt had suffered a brittle failure breaking off the lugh about .060 deep into the bolt dia. I should have bought it for the paper weight value.

I am not so sure the Remington-Lee would have had the aborted metallurgy of the Krag. The Krag was a government arsenal goat roping.

Your first amendment rights do not get to define my first amendment rights.
If you seek to deny my rights maybe your rights should be limited.
There is no international boundary on discussion of military rifles especially in the case of the Lee-Enfield whose designer appears to have been a naturalized American. Tt appears his last design changed the rifles mechanism somewhat so he also found room for improvement.

I suspect the people of the UK can speak for themselves without having a mouth piece do it for them.

Talk all you want about the Johnson.

If I were afraid of criticism of a particular rifle I certainly wouldn't care to own one.

Theres no recall of obsolete arms that haven't been manufactured or serviced by the original manufacturer for many decades. There are steps one can take to prevent excess wear and tear on a rifle when replacement parts are becoming harder to find, and when the receiver its self can not be effectively repaired if overstressed.
The spreading of the receiver walls is something I hadn't heard of till reading of it on this site, that article was written by a British Army Armorer, and I would figure its just another of many honest apraisals of the action type.
It solved a mystery for me, and explained why so many Enfields seem to have far more play between bolt body and receiver than they should.

Unrealistic pandering to national pride and stirring animosity between UK and US collectors is counterproductive.

It seems like any discussion of the technical aspects of the Enfield is answered By "Well Rooseveldt was a Wuss" or something of that sort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ireload2

Your first amendment rights do not get to define my first amendment rights.
If you seek to deny my rights maybe your rights should be limited.
There is no international boundary on discussion of military rifles especially in the case of the Lee-Enfield whose designer appears to have been a naturalized American. Tt appears his last design changed the rifles mechanism somewhat so he also found room for improvement.

I suspect the people of the UK can speak for themselves without having a mouth piece do it for them.

Talk all you want about the Johnson.

---

No one but a moderator can restrict what you have to say in a posting and I have not stopped or restricted anything you or anyone else wanted to say or did say in any posting.

This forum is located in Canada so our American first amendment rights do not apply here and you are going to have to settle for a constitutional monarchy headed by Queen Elizabeth with the Enfield rifle as part of their heritage. :D

I do not think or believe that Albert is accomplishing anything in this thread nor is he doing anything remotely related to spreading American good will to our English speaking cousins in regards to the Enfield rifle.

It amazes me that Albert does not see his posting as a source of irritation to the countries that carried the Enfield rifle in battle, you could even say his posting is a little like spitting on another countries flag.

So as an American I’m voicing my opinion and letting others know I do NOT share Albert’s opinions on the Enfield rifle in any way, just as I do not share your opinion on greasing and oil cartridge cases when the books and manuals tell you not to do it.

If different views and opinions get under your skin to the degree that you are showing now in this forum it might be time for you to find another hobby or at least pick another rifle to insult.

Ed Horton
An American and proud owner of Enfield rifles.:thup:

(I also collect Enfield manuals and read them) ;)

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...augefile-1.jpg

>>>The spreading of the receiver walls <<<
This is a concern that I have never heard before.
It is possible to see how it can occur over time. The right receiver rail is weaker than the left and will strain (stretch) more under firing forces. The description of a blown up LE that I have read indicated that the bolt was forced upward and to the right. I believe in that case the bolt was bent. Bending the bolt would put huge side loads on the walls of the receiver bolt passage.
Derelict barreled actions show up from time to time at local guns shows.
It appears that one of these would make a good sample for determining the failure mode of a Lee-Enfield receiver and bolt. Such an example could have the diameter of the bolt bore measured before any tests and then again after testing to see what effects destructive tests made.
If anyone knows of existing photos of a damaged Lee-Enfield bolt and receiver I would like to see them. I have seen Mausers, Carcanos, Contenders, Arisaka that suffered over pressure failures. I would like to see the damage for a Lee-Enfield.

There is no international boundary on discussion of military rifles .