Inherent Weakness ?

I've seen it claimed many times that an American Gunsmith had coined the term "Inherently Weak" to describe the Lee Enfield action.

Well in my studies I've run across many complaints about the weakness of the rear lugged Enfield bolt compared to other bolt action military rifles of its day.
Such as the following.
From
Rifles and Ammunition and Rifle Shooting" 1915

Rifles and ammunition and rifle shooting - Google Books

Quote:

---

CHAPTER VII
Modern Military Rifles Critically Examined

ACTUAL war experience seems to point to the conclusion *Vi that, given a good, serviceable rifle—and all the rifles of the Great Powers and many of those of smaller Powers come into this category—the fighting value of the weapon depends more on the practical skill of the user than on any mechanical refinements which engineering or ballistic knowledge may have suggested.
As a matter of fact, the differences in effectiveness of all the best rifles are so small tHat they can easily be mastered by the human element. Good points can be nullified by lack of skill, whilst the handicap that should be introduced by a bad feature in a rifle may easily be more than made up for by highly developed aptitude on the part of the users. In one type of rifle, also, a weak or unscientific feature may be counterbalanced by another extremely good one. An instance of this may be seen in our own latest pattern short rifle. This still has the very unscientific bolt, with the lugs at the rear end of the bolt instead of close up to the base of the cartridge-case; but the slight inaccuracies brought about by this might easily be made up for on active service by the ease and rapidity with which the backsight can be adjusted with the thumb only of the left hand. The bolt is the worst to be found on any modern military rifle; the backsight is the best.

---

In fact the only references to the weaknesses of the Lee Enfield action that I've run across so far come from British and Canadian sources of the early 20th century when the LE was still a cutting edge design.

Gunsmiths here never considered the LE actions suitable for conversion to high intensity cartridges, but I don't think any British Gunsmith would either.

Also while the Lee action is lauded for its ability to shrug off mud and grit due to its loose tolerances and open design, this seems to be more due to the failure of the Ross rifle to handle the all too often poor quality of British supplied .303 ammunition of WW1.
I've never heard that either the Mausers or the Springfields were at all prone to jamming up in combat.

It was strong enough for the round it was designed to use, not every conceivable round that could be made to fit.

I don't really consider that a "weakness". Yeah, the Mauser is theoretically stronger but the L-E bolt is very, very fast. And in a manually operated rifle, that is a good thing. And it's "strong enough".

Like the Russians say, sometimes best is the enemy of good enough.

Prior to WW1, there was a vocal "anti Lee Enfield" faction - mostly civilian "experts" - who thought the Mauser was the best thing on earth. They were quite free in writing and printing rubbish in support of their beliefs. By the end of WW1, their opinions had been firmly inserted into their lower digestive tracts.... (REME expression, told to me by someone at Warminster:lol:)

Just because a source is old doesn't mean its accurate, impartial, researched or reasoned.

Fast forward a century, and you see the same sort of opinionated rubbish, this time promulgated and considerably enhanced into "well known fact" due to the internet. Just look at some of things that go on in these forums..... :rolleyes:

Analogy - apparently NASA spent millions of dollars developing a pen for space, it must write in zero gravity, upside down, and the 'right way' up.

The Russians used a pencil.

Sometimes simple is best.
Nuff said !!

Same book same chapter a bit further along.

Quote:

---

The British habit of subjecting anything British to a severe course of fault-finding has been responsible for the gradual forming of the opinion that the Empire is the worst provided for as regards small-arms of any of the Powers. In the year or eighteen months before the outbreak of war, the hint that the War Office was experimenting with a new rifle roused popular interest, and many questions were asked in Parliament and many letters written to newspapers. The burden of most of the Parliamentary answers and most of the letters was that the British Service rifle was bad, the bolt, in any case, was unscientific, and would not stand the high pressures necessary for the high velocities demanded by the most up-to- date practice; the short rifle did not shoot well.

Then came the outbreak of the Great War, and Britain had to go in with the arms she had—only to find out in a very short time that, instead of being the worst small-arm in use, the short Lee-Enfield was the best. Actual war tests proved that a "weak and unscientific" bolt may have advantages not possessed by stronger action designed on lines which meet the approval of engineers. The bolt-faction of the British rifle can be worked at very high speed, and this speed is possible without any serious sacrifice of strength or accuracy.

One of the criticisms against the British Service rifle is that the lugs which lock the bolt against the shock of discharge are placed so far back on the bolt that there are several inches of unsupported metal between the bolt-head and the lugs, and that the slightest irregularity in the seating of the lugs on the resistance shoulder and resistance grooves allows this unsupported metal to play sideways, and causes irregularities in the shooting. The body of the action is also complained about on the score that it is weak. From a mechanical point of view, both these condemnations must be supported by the critic; but a careful engineer who bears in mind how successfully the short Lee-Enfield has borne the severest test any rifle has yet been put to, may be allowed to emphasise the fact that both body and bolt of the British Service rifle are difficult and expensive to machine, and that, in the first instance, complaints as to the lack of scientific design in our rifle have come from manufacturers.

Simplicity is the outstanding feature of every detail of the British action (see Plate XXI.). The trigger mechanism is worked on two pivots, and is much less complicated than either the Mauser or the Mannlicher trigger action. In the short rifle a double pull off has been obtained in a most ingenious manner by providing two points of contact between the trigger arm and the lower arm of the sear. The first point provides a long light pressure, and the second, which takes the scear nose from the bent, provides a harder but quicker pull. The transference of the contact from one point to the other is brought about by the change in relative position of the lower sear arm and the trigger arm.

---

So despite the earlier acknowledgement that the rear locking bolt was not "scientific" the authors agree with the points made by the posters on this thread.

Acknowledging shortcomings in some areas of a design isn't the same as a blanket condemnation of the design.

Quote:

---

Just because a source is old doesn't mean its accurate, impartial, researched or reasoned.

---

And simply because a book doesn't pull any punches doesn't mean it isn't impartial, the opposite in fact.
The book appears to be very well researched in fact, and as near as I can tell its impartial. The authors dealing with facts rather than opinions driven by emotional attachments.

I think I would rather have a "weak design" Enfield bolt action than a shattering Springfield receiver caused by faulty hardening - an example of the eponymous "American Gunsmith" in action?

Good design implies fitness for the intended task, and the Enfield was not intended to be bored out to take magnum cartridges or to be used as a bench-rest rifle, but rather to launch bullets with acceptable accuracy as fast as possible in the direction of the enemy. Something which it did quite satisfactorily.

Patrick

>>>The trigger mechanism is worked on two pivots, and is much less complicated than either the Mauser or the Mannlicher trigger action.<<<

Anyone that has compared the two actions know this is pure bunk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick

I think I would rather have a "weak design" Enfield bolt action than a shattering Springfield receiver caused by faulty hardening - an example of the eponymous "American Gunsmith" in action?

Good design implies fitness for the intended task, and the Enfield was not intended to be bored out to take magnum cartridges or to be used as a bench-rest rifle, but rather to launch bullets with acceptable accuracy as fast as possible in the direction of the enemy. Something which it did quite satisfactorily.

Patrick

---

Yeah but would you rather have to go into combat against a Garand rifle with your #4. Things change. The Lee-Enfield was a design left over from the black powder era. Like many other designs, it appears the to be a case of being smart enough to make a bad idea work.

ireload2, there were many times when the Lee Enfield equipped troops went into battle against semi auto rifle equipped troops. They also came out of those conflicts quite well.
Good training and discipline under fire make up the difference. To many people think that the ability to spray a lot of bullets in the general direction of the enemy is the best policy. Not so.
IMHO a man equipped with a bolt action, being well trained in its use and confident in his ability is a far more dangerous adversary than a man equipped with a spray and pray assault rifle. Rifles, like the Lee Enfield, are also purpose designed aussault rifles and in the proper hands every bit as effective.
There are many more arguments in favor of bolt action rifles and I won't go into that here. I will also say that in the proper hands a properly trained man with a semi/full auto rifle is also extremly effective.

In the end it's all in the training.

Well GunnerSam AKA Alfred and ireload2 have the choice of also voting with their feet and moving to the Mauser forum……………….permanently

I’ll stay here with the people who enjoy the Enfield rifle, its history and not bitch about it, this is why I always say it’s impossible for an American to be an expert on the British Enfield rifle.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...nclesam2-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

Analogy - apparently NASA spent millions of dollars developing a pen for space, it must write in zero gravity, upside down, and the 'right way' up.

The Russians used a pencil.

Sometimes simple is best.
Nuff said !!

---

Sometimes you have to look a little deeper. The pen developed for space was safe and left no comtaiments floating around.
The pencil had to be sharpened, which created shavings and graphite from the lead, and also was much sharper then the pen. Not a problem you say? Have you ever been stabbed with a pencil? i have, accidently, and it hurts! And can draw blood!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gibbs505

Sometimes you have to look a little deeper. The pen developed for space was safe and left no comtaiments floating around.
The pencil had to be sharpened, which created shavings and graphite from the lead, and also was much sharper then the pen. Not a problem you say? Have you ever been stabbed with a pencil? i have, accidently, and it hurts! And can draw blood!!

---

You are bitching about a pencil in space and being stabbed with it, what would happen if someone had severe odorous flatulence with contaminates floating around and they wanted to open a hatch.

Now stop your bitching, you could always stab yourself to death with a pencil if the fecal debris and odor inside the spacecraft became too objectionable.

I have been told they now use odorless eatable felt tip markers on all manned missions into space. (They contain a large percentage of charcoal)

https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edward Horton

You are bitching about a pencil in space and being stabbed with it, what would happen if someone had severe odorous flatulence with contaminates floating around and they wanted to open a hatch.

Now stop your bitching, you could always stab yourself to death with a pencil if the fecal debris and odor inside the spacecraft became too objectionable.

I have been told they now use odorless eatable felt tip markers on all manned missions into space. (They contain a large percentage of charcoal)

https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif

---

My, my, guess I struck a nerve! I was merely pointing out that the so called 'simple' solution was not nearly as simple as it seemed at first glance.
Your example of a problem in space, is really to ridulcious to comment on. The rigiourious training along with the well documented medical oversight will have taken care of such a potential situation well before the space cowboys let the launch pad.
now back to your bitching.:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ireload2

>>>The trigger mechanism is worked on two pivots, and is much less complicated than either the Mauser or the Mannlicher trigger action.<<<

Anyone that has compared the two actions know this is pure bunk.

---

I'd have to agree with you there, and the British finally went to a trigger mechanism hung from the action body and strap rather than pivoted at the triggerguard.
The LE Trigger is fairly easy to work on once you get the hang of it though, but its also easy to screw one up beyond repair if you get ham handed.

From the book linked to earlier

Quote:

---

The stability gained by a nitro-glycerine powder was purchased at a very high cost in other directions. The hot flame of the cordite explosion is very wearing on the barrel, and rifles in which cordite is used suffer from gas cutting and erosion to an extent far in advance of the same trouble in rifles in which nitrocellulose powders are used. Service rifle users in Britain very quickly became aware of this disability. The following paragraph from "Arms and Explosives " of August, 1894, teNs its own tele :

"The War Office authorities are always informing us that cordite is making rapid strides in popularity in the Services, both for small-arm and ordnance purposes. Such a statement is practically impossible to controvert so far as the Regular branches of the Services are concerned. These have but little opportunity of preferring one powder to another, inasmuch as they are, in a vast majority of cases, bound to use Service explosives. Even here it is well known that those officers who go in at all largely for rifle-shooting very often employ their own private fancy in powders, without, however, giving such publicity to the fact as to lead the authorities to believe that they dislike cordite. It is very different with the case of the Volunteers, and the Bisley meeting affords a far better criterion of the popularity of cordite than any of the naturally prejudiced statements of War Office officials. It is, therefore, interesting to learn that where cordite had to meet with full, fair and free competition with other powders it came out very badly. Particulars have appeared in the public Press, which tally pretty accurately with our own information, as to the powder used in one of the leading M.B.L. competitions at Bisley—the Duke of Cambridge prize. Although cordite was served out gratis to the competitors, only two out of twenty-two used it. All the others seem to have preferred one or other of the various guncotton or nitro-cellulose powders now on the market. Indeed, it is claimed by the representatives of one of these that it won all the M.B.L. long-range competitions. When men of the experience of Sir Henry Halford, not to mention many others, publicly show their preference, and justify it by their success, for other powders than that officially adopted for the Services, something more Is required to convince us of its growing popularity than the asseverations of the War Office. So far as we could gather at Bisley, the feeling was that the man who respected the bore of his rifle should be very chary of subjecting it to the heat developed by cordite, and that as a shooting powder the latter was not to be relied upon."

It is certainly true that in the early stages of the development of cordite it was not as accurate as it might have been; but this unfortunate feature of cordite has now been removed to so great an extent that it can compete on equal terms with the most highly developed nitro-cellulose powders. As regards the destructive effects of cordite, recent modifications in the specification have done little or nothing to remedy the complaint. The shooting in the 1914 match rifle competition at Bisley demonstrated to admiration that, though M.D. cordite can be made to shoot with wonderful regularity, its destructive effects increase rapidly when charge and velocity are put up. Five hundred rounds of .280 cordite ammunition leave the barrel very worn and badly gas cut at the breech end.

The history of the British cartridge-case and bullet in the first few years after its adoption is interesting and instructive in that, when considered together, they indicate the growth of knowledge and the adaptation of design to cope with difficulties which presented themselves in practice.

It has often been said that the correct method of procedure is to evolve a cartridge which will give the desired results, and then produce a rifle to fire it. We believe that Major Rubin did follow this course, but he is apparently the only man who has ever done so. Certainly in 1888 the Lee-Enfield rifle was chosen first, and the cartridge evolved with much trouble and expense subsequently. In this case, there was the excuse that the main point of the Committee's deliberation was the adopting of a magazine rifle, and that it could not be expected to think of the cartridge first. Neither could it know that black powder was so soon to be tumbled from the position it had occupied for centuries, and its place taken by a more complete and less easily understood propellant—one which, whilst solving some of the Committee's difficulties, would upset a great number of their carefully worked out calculations.

The original cartridge-case was almost an exact copy of that of Colonel Rubin. It had a rimless base, and the bullet was held into the top of the case by means of a split ring,

---

It goes on to say

Quote:

---

The Ross rifle is the arm of the Canadian forces; and as it is a Canadian production is looked on with considerable affection by the sons of the Maple-leaf. It is regarded by them as being very considerably superior to the Service rifle of the Mother Country, and the consistently good shooting of the Canadian teams which have visited this country has fostered the idea. In thus praising the rifle at their own expense, the members of the team probably belittle themselves unduly, for they have to use the same cartridge as their British fellow subjects when firing at Bisley, and there is nothing in the design of the Ross rifle that could make a great deal of difference in the usually good shooting of the Mark VI. ammunition. The difference would come into play if a heavy cartridge had to be used—one which the British action would not stand up to—then the stronger bolt of the Ross rifle would give it a tremendous advantage (see Plate XXIII.).

---

The Lee action is the invention of an "American Gunsmith", James Paris Lee, chosen by the British and improved upon over the years.
The Lee action in .45-70 had been used by the US Navy since the 1870's.
The Remington Lee action of 1899 was used to some extent in .30-40 Krag caliber, but its rear locking bolt design proved to be a dead end when more powerful cartridges were considered for adoption.

The 1903 loading of the Springfield cartridge used a propellant nearly as erosive as Cordite, and the case design and loading procedure did not allow for a Card wad between propellant and bullet.
It was found that gas erosion led to the failure of even full metal jackets with the lead cores blown through.
According to a quote of J H Hardcastle the firing of the MkVII ammunition with card wad left out resulted in the barrel life being cut to one sixth that of a barrel firing the same loading with card wad.
If the Bore of an individual rifle left the factory with grooves cut to the maximum acceptable depth of .008 the card wad could be vitified and worn down enough to allow significant blowby mid way of the bore.

I haven't found any decent studies of bullet jacket damage from UK sources yet but I did find that the US Chief of Ordnance had reported on testing done when shed jackets became a problem with the 1903 cartridges.
http://books.google.com/books/downlo...ummary_r&cad=0
Another source with good photos of recovered bullets damaged by increasing levels of gas erosion.
Ordnance and gunnery: a text-book ... - Google Books

The Glazed surface of the Card served an unusual purpose. When ammunition was exposed to heat for any length of time Nitroglycerin could soak into a non glazed wad, and the wad itself became an explosive.

The .303 being an updated Black Powder cartridge, and its loading procedure being suited to placing a compressed Black Powder pellet into the case before the neck was formed, allowed for the insertion of the card during manufacture. This greatly complicated ammunition manufacture and made reloading using Cordite a very iffy proposition.

As for failures of Low Numbered 1903 actions, there were more failures of LE actions recorded in a two year period in Canada and listed in the House of Commons debates on the Ross Rifle.
These debates are another source of the claim that the rear locking bolt of the Lee resulted in a weak action, and the number of bolt head failures and listed injuries plus at least one death due to bolthead failures didn't help the rifle's image.

The well known tendency of the earlier tublar jacket bullets to shed their jacket in the bore or sometimes down range has led to some believing that only tublar jacket or mutilated Dum Dum bullets can shed their jackets in the bore. This could lead to accidents in the future as used and abused Enfields end up in the hands of younger shooters who don't know that erosion certainly can result in heat damaged and stripped jackets.

The British first looked for both a stronger action and a cartridge with better performance, this ultimately resulted in the P-14. The action was fine, but the cartridge it was originally designed for failed due to the harsh character of the propellant. That and a brilliant muzzle blast that would give away a rifleman's position.

The problem of muzzle blast remained so long as Cordite was used, resulting in the use of Mk8Z NC loaded ammo in the Bren when the gun was used in low light conditions. Brilliant muzzle blasts also gave away the position of British Night Fighters according to a recent interview with one of these pilots.

The Lee Enfield was if anything held back by the British insistence on using Cordite rather than developing existing Nitrocellulose powders.
Production bottle necks resulted in Britian having to buy ammo from the US and Canada , and this ammo had to be shipped through U-boat infested waters at great cost in lost ships and men.

BTW
The British respected the 1903 Springfield rifle enough to attempt to contract Remington to produce the rifle in .303 in the 1940's, and then bought thousands of the .30-06 rifles when this proved too difficult.

I've passed up several 03 Springfields over the years, I like the feel of the Lee Enfields better, and when a properly taylored handload is used the rifle is remarkably accurate.
I'd have to go along with the Bisley crowd and chose not to use Cordite loaded ammo, even if they began producing it again.
Awhile back I had intended to try to find some of the most recent production MkVII, but after studying what the British themselves had to say about it I figure I'm better off using only taylored handloads that come close ballistically.
No sense using up whats left of my rifle's accuracy life un necessarily. Besides mis fires can get someone killed in serious situations and hang fires can lead to accidents.

PS
http://books.google.com/books?id=6Oe...esult&resnum=1

MkVII ammunition proved to be relatively ineffective against even the primitive Body Armor and Trench Shields in use during WW1. This resulted in the use of heavy caliber sporting rifles by British Snipers when such hardened targets were encountered.
Though telescope sighted No.1 rifles were produced, the P-14 and Ross rifles seem to have put in a better showing for numbers employed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gibbs505

My, my, guess I struck a nerve! I was merely pointing out that the so called 'simple' solution was not nearly as simple as it seemed at first glance.
Your example of a problem in space, is really to ridulcious to comment on. The rigiourious training along with the well documented medical oversight will have taken care of such a potential situation well before the space cowboys let the launch pad.
now back to your bitching.:rolleyes:

---

I’m guessing but you seem to have trouble telling humor from fecal debris :yikes:

eBay.com.my: Vintage SPACE SHUTTLE Pencil Sharpener Old (item 250439280416 end time Jul 07, 2009 08:50:48 MYT)

I own (and shoot) two rifles: a Mauser 33/40 "Gebirgsjäger" and an LE No. 5 "Jungle carbine". Both load approximately the same Kemira N140 powder charge (according to the book). I hardly ever use the Mauser and I keep it mainly because it´s so beautifully (and expensively) made. Both rifles are very accurate (or I´d have got rid of it) but I practically never shoot the Mauser competitively. I always choose the Enfield ... and have now got myself another .308 Win Enfield conversion. I still prefer the .303. In my younger days, I saw action with the No. 4 & 5 and the FN. Of course times change ... and the FN was a very efficient weapon. But the Enfield was the product of a very long period of evolution which eventually made it better than all the others. I`m quite sure that "collectors" would prefer the Mauser but anyone who has ever used one in action will always stick to the Enfield.

Ireload2 has used the old rhetorical trick of forming a hypothetical question that is completely off the track of the discussion, which concerned the time leading up to the FIRST world war. So while "American Gunsmith" was shooting his mouth off, the British, being inadequately provided with Lee Enfields and aware of possible improvements, turned to American private enterprise for adequate production of the P14. Meanwhile, for three years the US authorities appear to have taken a "doesn't concern us" attitude to WW1 and Springfield was producing rifles at a rate that would have matched the later M1917 production by about 1940, if the troops could have waited long enough. They could not. So the US in it's turn had to be saved by the same private enterprise production in a brilliant piece of pragmatic planning and production ramp-up by converting the P14 to a 30-06 version and producing the M1917 in quantities that made Springfield look like a garage operation. If the British firearms planning was completely inadequate, then the US planning while the war was already engulfing the world could be described as criminal negligence on a national scale. In both countries, the officials could be described as "minutemen" because that appears to have been their major activity - writing minutes.

When someone asks a question in a forum with the intention of answering his own question one would have to wonder about the value of the question in the first place.

Some Americans actually enjoy their Enfield rifles, unfortunately a few Americans should be stabbed with dull pencils and be left floating in the vacuum of space.

On the bright side here is some useful information on the Enfield rifle from an American.

RE: Jim Sweets Competitive Rifle Shooting Book

Hello Ed

This is a popular book here in Australia. It retails for $24.06 US, working on today's exchange rate. But of course that will vary on the day the sale is processed, not be much. Postage will be approx $14.00 US. If you wish to proceed with the sale we suggest sending your credit card details in two emails, half in the first email and the other half in a second email, as we don't have a secure site for payment over the internet. We don't take Diners Club or AMAX.

Regards

Mike & Jenny
QRA
Q Store
Email: michael@qldrifle.com
Ph: (07) 3843 5377
After hours: (07) 5495 2441
Fax: (07) 3395 2777
Business hours: Thursday,Friday,Saturday, 10am - 5pm

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

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

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

I wonder why someone would call a rifle that can shot thousands of rounds and keep working great for tounsands more with the most basic maintenance "inherently weak". Others are stronger, better made etc., but that's beside the point I think.

Lou

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bearhunter

ireload2, there were many times when the Lee Enfield equipped troops went into battle against semi auto rifle equipped troops. They also came out of those conflicts quite well.
Good training and discipline under fire make up the difference. To many people think that the ability to spray a lot of bullets in the general direction of the enemy is the best policy. Not so.
IMHO a man equipped with a bolt action, being well trained in its use and confident in his ability is a far more dangerous adversary than a man equipped with a spray and pray assault rifle. Rifles, like the Lee Enfield, are also purpose designed aussault rifles and in the proper hands every bit as effective.
There are many more arguments in favor of bolt action rifles and I won't go into that here. I will also say that in the proper hands a properly trained man with a semi/full auto rifle is also extremly effective.

In the end it's all in the training.

---

I agree about training being a good thing.
But if the training is of equal quality then the higher fire power has an advantage. If a machine gun is a good thing then a semiautomatic rifle is also a good thing when the entire squad is so armed. I have talked to many people that discuss the war only in the context of the fighting in Europe.
In the Pacific the Marine rifle squads began with 2 Bars and 4 Springfields,
Then went to 2 Bars and 2 Garands, then grew larger with 3 BARs and 6 Garand Rifles. You can see the tremendous increase in firepower when the BAR LMGs were supported by Garand rifles. These squads usually included an NCO or someone with a Tommygun and a Marine with demolitions or a flame thrower.

>>>I wonder why someone would call a rifle that can shot thousands of rounds and keep working great for tounsands more with the most basic maintenance "inherently weak". Others are stronger, better made etc., but that's beside the point I think.<<<

No other rifle seems to need an array of new bolt heads to keep it in service.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick

Ireload2 has used the old rhetorical trick of forming a hypothetical question that is completely off the track of the discussion, which concerned the time leading up to the FIRST world war. So while "American Gunsmith" was shooting his mouth off, the British, being inadequately provided with Lee Enfields and aware of possible improvements, turned to American private enterprise for adequate production of the P14. Meanwhile, for three years the US authorities appear to have taken a "doesn't concern us" attitude to WW1 and Springfield was producing rifles at a rate that would have matched the later M1917 production by about 1940, if the troops could have waited long enough. They could not. So the US in it's turn had to be saved by the same private enterprise production in a brilliant piece of pragmatic planning and production ramp-up by converting the P14 to a 30-06 version and producing the M1917 in quantities that made Springfield look like a garage operation. If the British firearms planning was completely inadequate, then the US planning while the war was already engulfing the world could be described as criminal negligence on a national scale. In both countries, the officials could be described as "minutemen" because that appears to have been their major activity - writing minutes.

---

Does that mean the Brits got themselves into a war they were not prepared for and expected the US to get into the same war blindly?

Regardless it is easy to perform engineering analysis on the various bolt actions and show which ones are weak in comparison to the others as far as action strength goes. If you favorite does not fare well in this comparison it is just a trade off that you live with. Spend significant time shooting all of the battle rifles and some of your prejudices may be changed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by villiers

I own (and shoot) two rifles: a Mauser 33/40 "Gebirgsjäger" and an LE No. 5 "Jungle carbine". Both load approximately the same Kemira N140 powder charge (according to the book). I hardly ever use the Mauser and I keep it mainly because it´s so beautifully (and expensively) made. Both rifles are very accurate (or I´d have got rid of it) but I practically never shoot the Mauser competitively. I always choose the Enfield ... and have now got myself another .308 Win Enfield conversion. I still prefer the .303. In my younger days, I saw action with the No. 4 & 5 and the FN. Of course times change ... and the FN was a very efficient weapon.

---

I've also owned a Mauser Carbine, the Persian Mauser, heavier than the G33/40 but aprox same length of barrel.
I've fired several No.5 Carbines since then. I consider the No.5 to be the only Carbine of its class that is reasonably efficient with the standard issue ammunition available to its users in combat.
The Mauser Carbines when using ammo suited to the K98 or Gew98 length rifles is not at all efficient and not as accurate as No.5 Carbines I've used.
I used light loads of fast burning 4198 and 4227 with my Persian Carbine, and these were very accurate.
I gave my remaining supply of these powders to a friend who wanted to start reloading for his No.5 and the results were very promising. He achieved MOA groupings out to six hundred yards using reduced loads of fast powders.

A properly taylored handload can usually result in Sub MOA accuracy with most Military Bolt action rifles of the 20th century if they are in good condition.

The Rear locking bolt of the Enfield does present some factors that should be taken into account, and these usually are taken into account by those who wish to achieve the highest level of accuracy possible.

Quote:

---

But the Enfield was the product of a very long period of evolution which eventually made it better than all the others. I`m quite sure that "collectors" would prefer the Mauser but anyone who has ever used one in action will always stick to the Enfield.

---

The only Military rifles I now own are Enfields. I never cared for the Springfield or M1917, and lost interest in the Mausers long ago.

Quote:

---

Ireload2 has used the old rhetorical trick of forming a hypothetical question that is completely off the track of the discussion, which concerned the time leading up to the FIRST world war. So while "American Gunsmith" was shooting his mouth

---

Exactly who was this "American Gunsmith"?
Since as I've pointed out the most vocal criticism of the Enfield Rifles came from Canadian and British sources.
No doubt some "American Gunsmith" or other has criticised the Enfield, but the Criticisms certainly didn't originate in the US.
Lee Actions had been used with some success in the US long before the British adopted and adapted it to their use.
Remington built many sporting rifles on the 1899 Lee action in calibers of higher performance than the .303.

The point is that despite attempts to stir animosity between UK owners of the Enfields and US owners of the Enfields the author of the work I linked to was quite right in saying that the British had raked the rifle over the coals endlessly in the run up to WW1. Also the Canadian criticisms of the Enfield are a matter of record.

If the US military had wished to there was nothing to prevent them from using as much of the Lee design as they wanted to.
The 10 shot Detachable box magazine for example would have been a very useful addition to the Springfield 1903 rifles.


Also Europeans often forget that the US had almost no stake in the Great War. Nothing that happened in Europe was of any real interest to the vast majority of US citizens.Only continued attacks on US Shipping by German U-boats finally made our involvement necessary.

When the US finally entered the War everyone involved expected the conflict to go on for another decade. Only the Spanish Flu with its devastaing effect on the Civilian populations finally made continued hostilities impossible. The Flu killed as many in a few months as four years of warfare, and left entire armies too ill to fight and civilian populations devastated and unable to supply there men in the field.
One reason so many WW1 era rifles survived to be issued in WW2 was that by the time these were finished there were far too few healthy soldiers to carry them into combat.

Quote:

---

the British, being inadequately provided with Lee Enfields and aware of possible improvements, turned to American private enterprise for adequate production of the P14.

---

And the British nearly bankrupted Remington by cancelling the orders.
The P-14/M1917 was far easier to mass produce using US commercial manufacturing methods than the Springfield 03 or Enfield No.1. The new Nickel Steel alloy used gave it great strength. Those rifles left over at the end of WW1 were sold or given to allies and many were issued to US support troops during WW2. A gret many were sent to Britian for Homeguard use.

BTW
Contrary to popular belief the British benefitted greatly from US manufacturing techniques and automation when producing the No.1 rifles.

Much of what the British considered their own was actually bought or borrowed from "American Gunsmiths", such as the Lewisgun and the Vickers and Maxim guns. Hiram Maxim became a British Citizen after he invented and developed his machinegun design. The Vickers-Maxim MG was adopted by the US as early as 1904, chambered for the .30/03 and probably the .30/06 later on.
The US sent remaining 1904 Vickers MGs to Britian in later years.

The Lewisgun , invented by a US Army officer , had to be beefed up and redesigned to handle the more powerful .30/06 cartridges. It had worked okay with the .303 and so it was easily adopted by the British, and often used in .303 by US forces till the updated .30/06 version was perfected.
During WW2 many US .30/06 Lewisguns were sent to Britian for Homeguard use.

The Krag rifle, a Scandinavian design, was slighty less strong than the Enfield No.1, and I've never seen any Krag collector that didn't acknowledge that the single lug bolt of the Krag was a weakness of that design.

Like the Enfield, failures of a Krag action are unlikely to cause serious injury, but that doesn't make the rifle stronger than it is or perfectly safe if it blows out.
Both are suited for the cartridge and chamber pressures they were designed for, and both have very little safety margin when it comes to excessive chamber pressures. Both were subjected to the most erosive and corrosive ammunition of modern warfare, with rifles that saw a great deal of use often enough ending up with bores that can be very unsafe and cause excessive pressures even with otherwise safe ammunition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ireload2

>>>I wonder why someone would call a rifle that can shot thousands of rounds and keep working great for tounsands more with the most basic maintenance "inherently weak". Others are stronger, better made etc., but that's beside the point I think.<<<

No other rifle seems to need an array of new bolt heads to keep it in service.

---

From newly manufactured to being called "ready for the smelter", I wonder how many rounds were fired. Then I wonder how many rounds were fired through other similar rifles before they were ready for scraps too. Now that'd be data that can be compared, again before I label a smle as Inherently weak. Or, a ratio of catastrophic failures vs rounds fired, compared again with other rifles...

Changing a bolt head once in a long while, that's like changing my iridium spark plugs once or twice in the lifetime of my car's engine I think. Maintenance. Not needed in other rifles, yes. Doesn't mean it's weak. Prescribed because of design, yes. My bike has shim over buckets valve lash adjustment. Once every 5 years maybe one shim needs to be changed. My buddy's bike got adjustment screws; we fine tune that once a year. Different, but both are good...

The one weakness I see in the SMLE is obvious only on sporterized rifles. The barrel is too skinny to be used as a pry bar to help get that ATV lifted off the ground to change a flat tire :)

Just thought of something else while re-reading my text. Maybe there's some confusion between a weak point (there's always one), and a flaw (as I understand, a weakness that is so bad that it prevents usefulness). Any system has a weak link. Doesn't mean it's too weak, right?

Quote:

---

Just thought of something else while re-reading my text. Maybe there's some confusion between a weak point (there's always one), and a flaw (as I understand, a weakness that is so bad that it prevents usefulness). Any system has a weak link. Doesn't mean it's too weak, right?

---

Sounds about right to me.


The replacement bolt heads did allow action and bolt bodies to remain servicable even after significant wear to locking surfaces or set back.
Barrels could be replaced if corroded or worn. Keeping track of wear and doing the necessary repairs kept a lot of rifles servicable. Those same rifles would have been condemned if repairs were not possible at a reasonable outlay, and a great many rifles ended up downgraded to drill Purpose Only status.

Records of failures of Low Number Springfields are easy to find, Hatchers Notebook has a section on these. The only records I've found on LE failures are those listed in the Canadian House of Commons records, and they note that these failures never received any press and that the damaged rifles were always put down as repairable, even when the rifles action was destroyed. I guess as long as one numbered part remained they kept it on the books, like rebuilt commercial aircraft and George Washington's Hatchet.

http://books.google.com/books?id=iSl...esult&resnum=1

...Does that mean the Brits got themselves into a war they were not prepared for
YES
...and expected the US to get into the same war blindly?
NO, the blindness was on the part of the isolationists.
...Regardless it is easy to perform engineering analysis on the various bolt actions
AGREED
...and show which ones are weak in comparison to the others as far as action strength goes.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY WEAK? Adequate for the intended job is not weak.
...If you favorite does not fare well in this comparison
I DIDN'T MENTION ANY FAVORITE
...it is just a trade off that you live with.
NO PROBLEM.

...Spend significant time shooting all of the battle rifles and some of your prejudices may be changed.
ANOTHER rhetorical trick by suggesting the other is unqualified to comment as a result of not having fulfilled an unrealistic demand.

But have you fulfilled this demand yourself?

Are we supposed to think that you really HAVE spent significant time shooting ALL the battle rifles. Let me see, that would be Enfield No 1 No 3 No 4 No 5, Ross MKII, Mk III, P14, Gew88, Gew98 , Kar98a, Kar98b, K98k, StG43, StG44, Steyr-Mannlicher M90, M95, M95 carbine, M95/30, Springfield 03A1, 03A3, Garand, 30M1, Mle 1886, 1886/93, 1886/93/35, Mle 1892 Mousqueton, Mle 1907, 1907/15, Mle1916, MAS 36, Carcano 91, Carcano 38, Carcano 91/41, Mosin-Nagant 1891, 91/30, Tokarev, Dragunow, Simonow, Arisaka T38, T99... just for starters, out of the top of my head, without consulting any books, no claim to be a full list
Let's make it simple. Have you "spent significant time shooting" every type of rifle described in the "Collecting Classic Bolt Action Military Rifles" by Paul Scarlata?

...and some of your prejudices may be changed.
Please be so good as to specify these prejudices and I will get to work on them.

Patrick

A quick look at Hatchers Notebook and the section on breech failures of the Low Number Springfield shows that many were the result of known bad ammo, and some due to 8mm Mauser ammo getting mixed in with .30/06 and fired in a Springfield, a situation I've heard of before.
The complaints against the low numbered rifles were that the later receivers would have had the extra margin of strength to have held up under these adverse conditions.

Of the Lee Enfield rifles listed in the House of Commons debates almost all were said to have been fired using freshly manufactured ammunition loaded to British specifications and the ammo was not considered to be at fault.

I would expect that metalurgy would have been at least marginally better as time went on, later Enfields benefiting from better metal and quality control. Just as nearly every other rifle.
The Japanese rifles for example went from having a poor reputation for strength to having the reputation for being the strongest ever produced when the Maganese content of the steel used was increased. The Japanese then sold off as many of the older rifles as they could to Russia and other WW1 combatants in order to finance replacement with the stronger rifles.

If the two piece barrel once considered for the Enfield had ever gone beyond the planning stage the Enfield would probably have been as looked down on as the WW2 wartime expediant Japanese rifles that damaged the Arisaka's reputation.

I've seen a few that claimed the Lee Enfield has a perfect safety record, based on lack of published data on failures. To some its become an article of faith like the tree hugger claim that no wolf ever killed a human, though in fact there are many recorded instances of wolves killing humans before the 20th century and many recorded non fatal attacks during the 20th century plus at least one fatality. The argument then shifts to "non Rabid Wolves" on the principle that if the wolf wasn't tested for rabies then it had to be rabid, or "dog Wolf Hybrid" and that if it couldn't be proven that the wolf was pure blooded then it had to be a hybrid.
Wolf attacks are extremely rare because wolves are rare in most parts of the US, and in places where wolves are common enough people generally are armed, and there are wolves there because their most natural prey is plentiful.

I've seen nothing that would indicate that any model of Enfield, or any rifle of any type for that matter, ever had a perfect safety record.

Quote:

---

Q. You have seen the Lee-Enfield rifle. Take that (handing rifle to witness), something has gone wrong with that ?—A. Yes, the bolt is broken.

Q. Have you never 'met with any of that kind before?—A. I have met with the bolt broken, but not with service rifles.

Q. What rifle was it that you met with broken ?—A. It was the Lee-Enfield pattern.

Q. It is possible, though for the bolt to be broken off?—A. Evidently by this it is

Q. Supposing the bolt had broken off, what would be the effect, the probable effect ? —A. I should think the bolt would blow back.

Q. Undoubtedly, and would there be any danger to life?—A. Yes, the man behind the gun might be killed.

Q. As a matter of fact, there was one man killed at London camp last year that way?—A. He might be, I do not know.

Q. Do you know that a man was killed, have you ever heard that anybody was killed by the bolt being blown out?—A. No, sir, I never did. I was not in the position to know it if it happened.

(J. If the bolthead of a rifle were liable to break off, you would consider it a serious defect in the rifle?—A. I would, sir.

Q. So that if it occurred that you once had the bolthead blown off and injury occurred to you, you would be nervous with that rifle afterwards ?—A. I might naturally be nervous, but if I was satisfied that the mechanism of the rifle was all right, I would not condemn the whole rifle for it. It might be a faulty bolt.

---

http://books.google.com/books?id=FBA...sult&resnum=10

Now that you mention it Alfred I think I saw a British werewolf movie and the werewolves were all carrying Enfield’s.

The werewolves were not debated in the House of Commons because you could not claim them as an added expense and be reimbursed for their upkeep.

So this also means howling at the moon is an inherent weakness. :rolleyes:

The moral of the movie/story was to never trust a good looking Scottish girl in a tight t-shirt. :yikes:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif

https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif

This leads to the question do silver bullets and cordite cause bore erosion and was this ever debated in the House of Commons :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

This leads to the question do silver bullets and cordite cause bore erosion and was this ever debated in the House of Commons

---

Thermal/gas erosion of very type of Cordite used in rifle cartridges was debated in the British Parliment, on many occasions.
Earlier claims of the propellant's stability were questioned after several British Warships blew up at anchor with great loss of life.
In horse and buggy days ammunition wasn't likely to be stored for any length of time in a magazine that could reach temperatures of over 125 degrees, that changed as ships grew larger and more enclosed with powerful engines and powerplants.
Post WW2 testing of RAF ammunition cases showed that these cases left in direct sunlight on the Indian Northwestern Frontier could reach temperatures of 160 degrees for hours at a time.

Far as I know Silver was not used as a jacket material, but Cupro-Nickel with its silvery appearance was used by most nations till we developed the Gilding Metal jacket still in use today.

Cupro-Nickel is some nasty stuff to get rid of once its taken hold.
I had to sell off an otherwise very nice Krag due to the condition of its bore caused by corrosion under a thick layer of Cupro-Nickel fouling. I made sure the collector I sold it to had no intention of trying to fire that rifle.
This sort of metal fouling can be deceptive, on the surface the bore can look bright and shiny, but underneath corrosive salts locked into microscopic fissures continue their work at destroying the bore.

I've often wondered why the British chose to use Berdan Primers.
I recently found that due to an 1898 accident in loading crates of US Manufactured Boxer Primers onto a ship headed to India, with loss of life of those on the dock, Parliment passed a law against shipping primers with anvils already inserted. Anvils would have had to be shipped in separate crates and inserted at the ammunition factories. So Berdan Priming was a much simpler way to go.

Accidents and questions of erosion show up here and there in records of Parliment.


BTW
Britain finally paid off its WW2 debts to the United States, I ran across debates in Parliment on that as well.
One thing UK citizens don't seem to realise about the Pre WW2 years is that Britain was not just an island nation it was still an Empire with many times the Population and resources of the United States.
Same can be said of France to some extent with its active colonies.
In the 30's the US had possibly the smallest and least well equiped army of any of the modern states. Our Navy was strong but in many ways outdated.
If not for US industry the European Allies would have been up the creek when it came to war materials, especially after the early losses in France.
US Troops often had to go without as US supplies were diverted to our allies.

Some more free downloads of Books relevant to the Enfield Rifles.
"Sniping in France"
H Hesketh-Pritchard
http://www.archive.org/details/snipi...ncew00pricrich
Quite a lot on loss of accuracy due to gas erosion, and the warping of Enfield fore ends under conditions in the trenches.

And
"The Book of the Rifle"
By Thomas F Freemantle
http://books.google.com/books?id=eHQ...esult&resnum=4

T F Freemantle (Lord Cottesloe) author of "The Book of the Rifle" is described by H Hesketh-Pritchard (author of "Sniping in France") as having more knowledge of rifles and telescopic sights than any man alive in those days.

I've been studying the rifle and its ammunition starting from the ground up, and paying attention to the words of those most familar with every aspect of it from its inception.
When recently published claims don't jibe with known scientific facts I'll accept the words of those who used the rifle extensively in the most horrific conditions of WW1.

These are calculated values for the bolt compression and the stretch of the
receiver at the PSI shown for a #4 Mk1 Lee-Enfield.
The PSI shown is acting in a .450 diameter case with .030 thick walls at the base. So the PSI is acting on the area of a .390 case head ID.


.................Receiver........Bolt............. .Total Deflection***
PSI............Stretch.....Compression.......Recei ver + Bolt
30000....... 0.0009.......0.0037...............0.0046
35000....... 0.0011.......0.0043...............0.0054
40000....... 0.0013.......0.0049...............0.0062
41440....... 0.0013.......0.0051...............0.0064
45000....... 0.0014.......0.0055...............0.0069
50000....... 0.0016.......0.0061...............0.0077
55000....... 0.0017.......0.0068...............0.0085
60000....... 0.0019.......0.0074...............0.0093
65000....... 0.0020.......0.0080...............0.0100
70000....... 0.0022.......0.0086...............0.0108
75000....... 0.0024.......0.0092...............0.0116
80000....... 0.0025.......0.0098...............0.0124
85000....... 0.0027.......0.0104...............0.0131
90000....... 0.0028.......0.0111...............0.0139
95000....... 0.0030.......0.0117...............0.0147

>>>But have you fulfilled this demand yourself?<<<

To my own satisfaction. How about yourself?
Tried any GEW 88s, KAR 88s, Dutch M95 Carbines or rifles, M91 Carcanos, Japanese Type I, Japanese Type 38, Mausers from M91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 98, 1898/09, Turkish types, Persians, Egyptians, pumps, bolts, autoloaders, single shots of several types, lever guns of multiple designs and none of this includes handguns or shotguns. How about it?

In the Canadian debates its stated that the breaking point of the LE Reciever was "well known" to be 85,000 PSI. How this was established it doesn't say.
It could be that this was tested by some hydraulic means rather than test firing. If so the 85,000 PSI figure would be more likely correct than a figure taken by base crusher measurements.

Cartridge brass is often said to fail at 85,000 PSI using modern methods of measurement, with earlier CUP pressures given as 65,000 to 70,000 CUP.

Garand receivers were tested to destruction, though the receivers did in fact survive the testing, at pressures up to 120,000 PSI using cases especially made to hold up to that pressure level. Even when one locking lug broke off the tests were completed with the surviving lug without further damage.

Springfield bolts were tested to determine how much mass was necessary in the lugs themselves. the bolts held up with much of the lugs cut away. The figures are in Hatchers Notebook.

The lefthand lug of the Enfield bolt is small compared to that of most rifles in its class. The righthand guide rib/lug is sturdy, but the bolt body itself is hollow and rather thin walled.
The rear locking lug action allows great compressive force on the weakest portion of the bolt body.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alfred

In the Canadian debates its stated that the breaking point of the LE Reciever was "well known" to be 85,000 PSI. How this was established it doesn't say.
It could be that this was tested by some hydraulic means rather than test firing. If so the 85,000 PSI figure would be more likely correct than a figure taken by base crusher measurements.

Cartridge brass is often said to fail at 85,000 PSI using modern methods of measurement, with earlier CUP pressures given as 65,000 to 70,000 CUP.

Garand receivers were tested to destruction, though the receivers did in fact survive the testing, at pressures up to 120,000 PSI using cases especially made to hold up to that pressure level. Even when one locking lug broke off the tests were completed with the surviving lug without further damage.

Springfield bolts were tested to determine how much mass was necessary in the lugs themselves. the bolts held up with much of the lugs cut away. The figures are in Hatchers Notebook.

The lefthand lug of the Enfield bolt is small compared to that of most rifles in its class. The righthand guide rib/lug is sturdy, but the bolt body itself is hollow and rather thin walled.
The rear locking lug action allows great compressive force on the weakest portion of the bolt body.

---

... or read the Koran backwards?

I'm begining to wonder why there almost no interest in the mechanical proprties and metalurgy of the Enfield Rifles among Collectors of the Enfield Rifles.

Seems like collectors of other firearms go to great lengths to learn as much as possible about how the guns were made, and steps taken to overcome early difficulties with the design.

Since the Lee Enfields were for the most part manufactured using Pratt and Whitney Gauges and Mass Production techniques developed by Colt and other US Gunmakers, and the Basic action design was a development of a design by a US Citizen who's bolt action rifles were in use by the US military long before the British ever tested it, its likely that technical knowledge of the rifles can be found among the records of US manufacturers such as Pratt & Whitney or Savage about as easily as the strangely sparse published data from UK sources.

Surely a few UK members have books on the subject with information that would be useful.
The Metalurgy of the M1917 was easy to find, most likely because the US Military always kept detailed records on such things, and made them available for study by prospective manufacturers and designers of the future.
So far I've found little in UK sources on metalurgy and next to none on manufacturing techniques employed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alfred

I'm begining to wonder why there almost no interest in the mechanical proprties and metalurgy of the Enfield Rifles among Collectors of the Enfield Rifles.

Seems like collectors of other firearms go to great lengths to learn as much as possible about how the guns were made, and steps taken to overcome early difficulties with the design.

Since the Lee Enfields were for the most part manufactured using Pratt and Whitney Gauges and Mass Production techniques developed by Colt and other US Gunmakers, and the Basic action design was a development of a design by a US Citizen who's bolt action rifles were in use by the US military long before the British ever tested it, its likely that technical knowledge of the rifles can be found among the records of US manufacturers such as Pratt & Whitney or Savage about as easily as the strangely sparse published data from UK sources.

Surely a few UK members have books on the subject with information that would be useful.
The Metalurgy of the M1917 was easy to find, most likely because the US Military always kept detailed records on such things, and made them available for study by prospective manufacturers and designers of the future.
So far I've found little in UK sources on metalurgy and next to none on manufacturing techniques employed.

---

Maybe I'm in the minority but "It Is What It Is", they were not designed for any weird and wonderful magnum load, they work as designed, they shoot more accurately than I can, they saved the Free World on two major occasions (and many other smaller skirmishes since) and I see no reason to get as Anal as the "Garand collectors" and others.

Enjoy them for what they are.

Your forgetting the werewolf became extinct in Briton because they greased and oiled their ammunition and the rifles blew up killing them *all. (Due to excessive bolt compression)

*Does not count the Americans bitten by werewolves in France and who fly back to London.

We should also conceder all the money loaned to Briton by American bankers and how patriotic the banks were in demanding we become in evolved in the war so the bankers could be paid back.

Please note even to this day bankers still get paid bonuses at the tax payers expense.

It must be an inherent weakness in our patriotic banking system. :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

Maybe I'm in the minority but "It Is What It Is", they were not designed for any weird and wonderful magnum load, they work as designed, they shoot more accurately than I can, they saved the Free World on two major occasions (and many other smaller skirmishes since) and I see no reason to get as Anal as the "Garand collectors" and others.

Enjoy them for what they are.

---

"saved the Free World", I guess there was no need for all those bombers and warships then.
The Enfield did its job well but I don't think any one could seriously claim that it , or any infantry rifle, was the deciding factor in 20th century warfare.

"It is what it is", well the metal it was made of and the techniques used in its manufacture are what made it what it is.
I can shoot more accurately than all but the best examples of the Enfields would allow, and with taylored handloads I've been able to wring out an amazing level of accuracy from my rifles.
Hesketh-Pritchard was an expert marksman and could shoot better than the rifles he was issued would allow for. He wrote that the accuracy life of the bore depended on erosion, and that the rifles used for sniping had a peak accuracy life of as little as 500 rounds , with 600-1000 being the norm. This led to his limiting attempts at headshots to 400 yards rather than the 600 normally considered likely. He figured that each and every shot fired must be made to count because potential accuracy life was so short.
There was plenty of ammo, but bores were worn out quickly by the service ammunition.

Bores were worn out by the erosive properties of the cordite propellent. Something that would have happened to any barrel, note the erosion in british sporting rifles, inculding those made with german steel!

This had little to do with the metalurgy of the barrels and was solved with new propellents.

If we wish we can study inherent weak designs even further, below are the Technical Service bulletins issued for the German Mercedes E430 and the American Ford Taurus. Technical Service bulletins are issued for manufacturing defects that need to be repaired on these individual automobiles to make them 100% serviceable.

Below the German Mercedes E430 has two TSBs listed under QTY in the first column for the years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif


Below the American Ford Taurus for the same four model years has 648 TSBs listed for manufacturing defects under QTY.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif

In hindsight the Ford Taurus is an inherent weak design compared to the Mercedes, and it is also my understanding that in the Mercedes online forums the American Ford Taurus and many other American cars are criticized and held in contempt compared to the much “superior” German designs.

Last we have the TSBs listed for the British Rolls Royce which has ZERO (0) Technical Service bulletins issued from 1992 to 2006 for this fine British automobile.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif

When I handle my Enfield rifles I never think of an inherent weak design because I have the Rolls Royce of bolt action rifles in my hands. :thup:

Please note the American P-51 fighter did not become great fighter until a British designed Rolls Royce engine was put “under the bonnet”. ;)

https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif

Research and development by Rolls Royce based on experience learnt with the R series of racing engines in the early 30s paved the way for the legendary line of smaller Merlin engines that powered many allied aircraft during WWII, including the Supermarine Spitfire, North American P51 Mustang, Hawker Hurricane, D.H. Mosquito and the Avro Lancaster heavy bomber.

I love it when Ed is in a good mood :D

Thanks Ed, that was a refreshing post :)

Lou

deleted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by louthepou

I love it when Ed is in a good mood :D

Thanks Ed, that was a refreshing post :)

Lou

---

I’m always in a good mood until some anti-Enfield Commie Pinko Pervert puts me in a bad mood.:banghead:

Some Americans watch too many John Wayne war movies and forget that we had three other beaches besides Omaha and Utah and that people other than Americans were fighting on Sword, Juno and Gold beach heads. :clap:

Or else they watch John Wayne in Flying Leathernecks and forget that Canada had the fourth largest Air Force in WWII.:thup:

Some people forget that the Americans serving in the Canadian military were forced to return home by our isolationist American Government or loose their American citizenship, and some of these Americans were labeled as subversive by our own FBI for their pro-war/anti-German sentiment. :eek:

And then these American knuckle heads want to come into an Enfield forum and talk about “inherent weak design”.

I have a great idea, lets talk about the American Sherman tank verses the German Panther and Tiger tanks and “inherent weak design”. :rolleyes:

Or lets talk about how the British improved the Sherman tank (Firefly) by mounting the Quick Firing 17 pounder on the Sherman tank. The 17 pounder was the most powerful British tank gun of the war, and one of the most powerful of any nationality, being able to penetrate more armour than the Tigers 88 mm, the Panther tank's 75 mm , and the M26 Pershing's 90 mm gun. :clap:

Sherman Firefly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The British did improve the Enfield rifle………….and they called it the No.4 :super:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gibbs505

Bores were worn out by the erosive properties of the cordite propellent. Something that would have happened to any barrel, note the erosion in british sporting rifles, inculding those made with german steel!

This had little to do with the metalurgy of the barrels and was solved with new propellents.

---

I don't think the propellant problem was ever really solved. I've looked into the proposed improved forms of Cordite and found that they were abandoned due to loss of stability in storage or inability to adapt existing extrusion machinery to the texture of the propellant.
Cordite MD and MDT seem to be as far as they got in a usable propellant. Nitro-Cellulose single base powders were used to some extent, but Cordite remained in common use.

The levels of erosion were moderated by the Card Wad, without which bore eroded far too quickly for combat use.

Since Nickel Steels had been developed by British Inventors, and the M1917 is known to have been constructed of a high nickel steel , I would expect that the British would have used it for Enfield Rifles. I haven't seen anything that would confirm this though, and British rifles that show wear to the finish don't look like worn M1917 rifles.

The first modern stainless steels were the result of a failed experiment towards producing a rifle barrel that could stand up to Cordite Erosion, and some experimental Stainless Steel barrels were made for Lithgow rifles.

I haven't seen any credible claims of Enfield Barrels maintaining any high degree of accuracy if fired with Cordite.
I would expect that Enfield barrels fired only with MkVIIz NC loaded cartridges would have a very long barrel life.
Tests of FN FAL barrels made by Enfield using Enfield pattern rifling suggested that the rifling pattern could at least triple the useful barrel life of rifles chambered for 7.62 NATO. So long as only single base powders ( British Neonite similar to IMR) were used at least.

I have refurbed a No1Mk3* that had non-existent to almost-non-existent rifling for the first two or three inches after the chamber, and by the time it got to mid-barrel, the rifling is almost decent. I'd say Cordite is probably to blame... Amazingly the rifle still hit paper at 100 yards. Ok the grouping was far from perfect. Still, I hit somewhere in the vicinity of where I was aiming.

Anyways good thing nitro-cellulose came around.

Lou

If I use the wrong brand of American charcoal briquettes in my Smith and Wesson 500 Bar-B-Q I get excessive bore and throat erosion, the Sodium nitrate in some brands of charcoal briquettes raises the peak flame temperature to excessive levels.

I prefer the cooler burning British charcoal for that perfectly grilled werewolf steak done to perfection. ;)

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../06/BBQa-1.jpg

Cologne Panther

Destroyers of the Tigers and Panthers

>>>Omaha and Utah and that people other than Americans were fighting on Sword, Juno and Gold beach heads. <<<

So what other amphibious assault was underway on this date in 1944?

How about Blue Beach 1 & 2, Yellow Beach 1,2,3 Green Beach 1,2,3 and Red Beach 1,2,3?

Americans serving in the Canadian Armed Forces never took an Oath of alegance to Canada, and they retained their American Citizenship.
Any American Citizen serving with the British or Canadian Forces could transfer to the US Armed Forces voluntarily at any time. This deal between the US and Canada had been struck during the First World War and remained in effect through WW2.
Many chose to return to the US when Japan Attacked Pearl Harbor but thousands remained in the RCAF and RAF and other allied forces.


Some US Citizens who were Communists, like some UK citizens, joined the allied armies solely because Germany had attacked Russia and they felt they could best serve the Soviet Cause by fighting in the US or UK Armed Forces, Howard Zinn, a noted detractor of all things American, was one of these, its likely some here are familar with Zinn's diatribes.

Quote:

---

Military service in foreign countries usually does not cause loss of citizenship since an intention to relinquish citizenship normally is lacking. In adjudicating loss of nationality cases, the Department has established an administrative presumption that a person serving in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities against the United States does not have the intention to relinquish citizenship. Voluntary service in the armed forces of a state engaged in hostilities against the United States could be viewed as indicative of an intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship.

---

Quote:

---

The Court stated that "expatriation depends on the will of the citizen rather than on the will of Congress and its assessment of his conduct." The Court also indicated that a person's intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship may be shown by statements or actions.

---

http://www.travel.state.gov/law/citi...nship_780.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alfred

"saved the Free World", I guess there was no need for all those bombers and warships then.
The Enfield did its job well but I don't think any one could seriously claim that it , or any infantry rifle, was the deciding factor in 20th century warfare.

.

---

OK maybe a slight exageration but :

The young Marine was weary
And he sought a little rest
With his helmet for a pillow
And his rifle on his chest.

He has seen the gunships fire.
He had heard the cannons roar.
He had seen the Navy’s power
As he made his way ashore.

Then he thought about his rifle
And he found it rather small,
With the gunships and the cannons
It was nothing much at all.

The efforts of a rifleman
Meant little, it would seem.
Then, as he slipped to slumber,
He dreamed himself a dream.

The man who stood beside him
Held a musket in his hand
And close around his neck he wore
A heavy leather band.

“When I was on Old Ironsides”
The apparition said
“There were cannonballs and cutlasses
Wherever danger led.

There were pistols too, and daggers
At every fighter’s side
When the ships would come together
On the rolling, heaving, tide

But when it came to boarding,
With the battle fury hot
It was rifles, always rifles
That made the telling shot.”

The apparition faded
And standing in its place
Beneath a shallow helmet
He saw another face.

“When we were in the trenches
In the Wood they call Marine
There were mortars, tanks, and cannons,
More than I had ever seen.

But when the final charge was made
To push the Germans back
It was rifles, always rifles
At the point of the attack.”

The face changed only slightly
And the helmet stayed the same
But the island that he spoke of
Had a more familiar name.

“They hit us very early
On the day the war begun.
On the wings of all their bombers
We could see the Rising Sun.

Our pilots and our gunners
Who fought and fell at Wake
Wrote a story full of glory
That time can never shake.

But when the enemy drew near
To make his final reach
It was rifles, always rifles
That met him on the beach.”

There next appeared a shadow
In a swirl of stinging snow
And it breathed a fierce defiance
And its eyes were all aglow.

“In ‘Fifty at the Chosin
When the big guns couldn’t talk
And the First Marine Division
Took a fighting, freezing walk,

When all the world, except the Corps
Had counted us as gone
It was rifles, always rifles
That let us carry on.”

The scene was changed to summer
And the face was hard and lean
And the tired eyes were fired
With the light that says “Marine”

“At Khe Sahn when they shelled us
We were wrapped in rolling smoke
And the thought of our survival
Was a grim and ghastly joke.

But when the waves came swarming in
To finish the assault
It was rifles, always rifles
That called the final halt.”

There next appeared a general
As solid as a tank
With three stars on his collar
To signify his rank.

His stature and demeanor
Were the military type
And in his hand he carried
A stubby little pipe.

His jaw was squarely chiseled
His eyes were clear and keen
And his bearing left no question.
He was all Marine’s Marine.

“The message they’re conveying”
The burly General said
“Is that through our troubled history
The rifles always led.

We’ve had cannons, tanks, and mortars
We’ve had weapons by the score,
We’ve had battleships and fighter planes
To complement the Corps.

We’ve a most impressive arsenal.
That’s obviously true,
But the final thrust for victory
Has always been with you.

It was rifles, always rifles
When the Corps was sorely pressed
And the rifle that you carry
Must meet the final test.

So sling that rifle proudly,
For everything we do
With mortars, tanks, and cannons
Is just an aid to you.”

The young Marine awakened
And put the dream aside,
Though now he clutched his rifle
With a certain touch of pride.

And then he chanced to notice
That lying near his hand
Was a stubby little pipe
And a heavy leather band.

~ R.A. Gannon ~
Sergeant of Marines

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by louthepou

I have refurbed a No1Mk3* that had non-existent to almost-non-existent rifling for the first two or three inches after the chamber, and by the time it got to mid-barrel, the rifling is almost decent. I'd say Cordite is probably to blame... Amazingly the rifle still hit paper at 100 yards. Ok the grouping was far from perfect. Still, I hit somewhere in the vicinity of where I was aiming.

Anyways good thing nitro-cellulose came around.

Lou

---

My 1915 No.1 MkIII has an excellent bore with the bevel of the short cone sharply defined and no sign of erosion. Theres no marking to indicate an FTR but I suspect it may have been rebarreled at some point. The Barrel bears the same number as the receiver , bolt, and Magazine. The Rear sight is a replacement I recently installed, the original numbered sight was broken. I still have the old sight and hope to repair it one day.

The rear sight does not look to have been deliberately disabled and the serial number range is about a year before the first MkIII* specifcation came out, so I'm thinking the rifle may have been returned for repairs shortly after leaving the factory and not been fired much if any.
I picked up a PH5a at a very reasonable price, aside from a poorly done countersink that I dressed up a bit so it doesn't show the sight looks almost new, and probably never was used. Theres no visible wear, and the seller threw in a six position sun shade/eye piece free of charge.

If a bore is badly eroded one may as well feed it Cordite, if any MkVII of decent quality is still to be found, but if the bore has not yet become eroded using NC propellants only will greatly increase its remaining accuracy life.

Till I found out just how damaging Cordite is to the bore I had intended to try to obtain some of the most recently manufactured MkVII. Looks like no one has manufactured Cordite in quantity since the 60's.
If Indian Manufacture MkVIIz was available commercially I'd try to stock up on it. They still manufacture MkVIIz, though apparently they don't sell it to civilians or even issue it to LEO over there.

The new IMR 4007 SSC powder looks promising, Loads that duplicate the balistics of the MkVII generate less that 40,000 CUP using that powder.

I picked up some H4895 and some 174 Grain Match King projectiles, the 4007 isn't available locally yet. H4895 seems to work well in cartridges of this class, with reasonable pressures.
I like IMR 4320 for the 150 grain Hornady,picked up a fresh can of it when I got the other stuff. The flat base .312 bullet seems better suited to close range shooting, less yaw to be overcome I suppose. Sub MOA out to three hundred yards is the norm with this load from my Savage No.4.

Interesting discussion.

I don't know why, but there is little or no discussion that I've seen, regarding the strength of rear locking semi auto rifles such as the SVT 40, SKS, FAL etc.

All of those designs lock at the bottom rear of the bolt below the axis of the bore and thus would seem to be at more of a disadvantage to the 'parallel to the bore axis', rear locking Lee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ROCK

Interesting discussion.

I don't know why, but there is little or no discussion that I've seen, regarding the strength of rear locking semi auto rifles such as the SVT 40, SKS, FAL etc.

All of those designs lock at the bottom rear of the bolt below the axis of the bore and thus would seem to be at more of a disadvantage to the 'parallel to the bore axis', rear locking Lee.

---

Well I don't know about the SVT 40 but the FAL and SKS have very solid bolts with only small recesses for the firing pin. The SKS isn't considered a world beater for accuracy. The FAL works fine, I've fired several of these of different configurations. Theres not much that can give or compress about its bolt.
The FAL does seem more reliable when broken in well enough to be a bit loose, and when loose it loses some accuracy in large part due to its rear lock up.

The Enfield bolt is a long hollow tube, not a square and nearly solid block.

The Remington 788 is more easily compared to the Enfield, I had one of those when they first came out. there are significant differences but they share some weaknesses. Unless the lugs are lapped into their seats perfectly equal accuracy suffers. Some 788 rifles held up very well while owners of others have complained of lug setback and the like. The 788 has a stronger receiver with less open space at the ejector port, so theres less bullet throw or drill.
Its three rows of lugs are another stabilizing factor.
Like the Enfield its rear lock up limits the power range of cartridges suitable for the rifle.

The Winchester 1895, once chambered for .303 is another rear locking action. It worked fine in .30-40 and .303, but not so well in .30/06. The design had its limitations.

I have also owned, loaded for and shot the 788 in 3 calibers and an MAS 36/51 that was basically a new rifle. The 788 in .44 mag digested any and all loads. The .30-30 would actually lock up a little with some high pressure loads (high pressure for a 30-30 but not really high pressure). The .243 would experience sticky extraction at reloading manual maximums. It did provide outstanding accuracy and one of my brothers used it for about 25 years stacking up a lot of white tails with it.
The MAS 36/51 was a huge disappointment. I did a lot of work to make brass from 7.5X55 Swiss. With loads just warm enough to seal off the case mouth and stop smoking of the brass it gave sticky extraction. Accuracy was very good. I expected it to be much stronger than a Lee-Enfield. The receiver of a MAS 36 is much more massive than a Lee-Enfield. But it behaves much the same when loaded to reasonable pressures.
I currently have an Egyptian Hakim autoloader and I load for it like any other bolt gun with just a few exceptions.
The exceptions are:
1. I check the head to shoulder length of each resized case. They are normally sized .002 short of the chamber length.
2. I cycle each round through the rifle to ensure it cycles

I have never had a misfeed or miss-fire. Every round cycles properly.
I have never had a case head separation. I oil each round lightly just to ease the load on the extractor. My gas valve is set at the lowest setting. The rifle still mangles and flings brass about 10 to 15 feet.

The Hakim has a fairly solid tilting bolt that drops at the rear to lock. The bolt is held down in the locked position by the bolt carrier. At first glance the Hakim receiver is less rigid than the Lee-Enfield. Even so the Hakim has yet to show any head separations though the die setting and case oiling may have contributed to that. At any rate I am not much concerned. I have a huge supply of US GI 30-06 brass that will keep it shooting.

Life of .303 brass is more troublesome to me because there is no inexpensive, steady supply of military boxer primed brass.

What some of my hard headed fellow Americans do not seem to understand is our English speaking cousins do not need an American talking about “inherent weak design” or talking about how cordite powder caused the downfall of the British Empire.

What my hard headed fellow Americans do not seem to understand is how insulting it is to the British and Commonwealth nations who used the Enfield rifle in the defense of their countries.

My Springfield 03-A3 barrel was in worse condition than any Enfield I own now and it is completely pointless to talk about cordite powder and bore erosion today after the fact. It is pointless to talk about the British Enfield action flexing when the much newer American Remington 788 action flexed and compressed with certain calibers when fired.

What is important is letting people know that oil or grease on your cartridges or in your chamber of your Enfield rifle accelerates wear and can do severe damage to your Enfield due to increased bolt thrust.

We can’t change the past but we can change what we do in the present and insulting our English speaking cousins about the Enfield rifle does not belong here in a global world wide forum. ;)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edward Horton

What some of my hard headed fellow Americans do not seem to understand is our English speaking cousins do not need an American talking about “inherent weak design” or talking about how cordite powder caused the downfall of the British Empire.

What my hard headed fellow Americans do not seem to understand is how insulting it is to the British and Commonwealth nations who used the Enfield rifle in the defense of their countries.

---

Those intent on stirring animosity between UK and US collectors continue to make such claims while the works I've linked to prove that British Criticisms of the Lee Enfield predate any that the supposed "American Gunsmith" may have made. I have yet to find any blanket condemnation of the LE written by a US gunsmith.

Quote:

---

My Springfield 03-A3 barrel was in worse condition than any Enfield I own now and it is completely pointless to talk about cordite powder and bore erosion today after the fact. It is pointless to talk about the British Enfield action flexing when the much newer American Remington 788 action flexed and compressed with certain calibers when fired.

---

The point in comparing other rear locking actions is to establish that the forces on the bolt are a recognized situation with any rear locking action.
The Remington 788 Receiver is thick and has rather small openings at the ejection port and magazine opening, This reduces the amount of flex greatly, but it remains a known factor.
Since Cordite ammo is still available, and many seem determined to use it even in rifles that still have good bores, the situation of excessive erosion hasn't disappeared.
You have a Springfield with a poor bore, and several Enfields that apparently still have decent bores, and you handload for them.
Your Springfield and the condition of its bore may prejudice you towards the Springfield, many Springfield still have pristine bores. I've seen many Enfield bores that were obviously eroded beyond the point I'd consider safe, I also have two that have safe bores, one is excellent the other worn but servicable as long as taylored handloads using a .312 bullet is used. I've examined others that were obviously unsafe, with broken away lands and heavily eroded sections midway of the bore.

Quote:

---

What is important is letting people know that oil or grease on your cartridges or in your chamber of your Enfield rifle accelerates wear and can do severe damage to your Enfield due to increased bolt thrust.

---

Not an issue, I don't grease cartridges, but I don't believe that any rifleman in combat could clean his chamber with strong solvents between shots to maintain a mythical best case scenario of reduced pressure on the bolt.

Quote:

---

We can’t change the past but we can change what we do in the present and insulting our English speaking cousins about the Enfield rifle does not belong here in a global world wide forum. ;)

---

Why change the past, you either learn from history or you are doomed to repeat it.
Leftwing revisionism isn't history.

BTW
I looked into your earlier claim, aproximately ten US Citizens who joined the RAF were given an oath of alegiance to the Crown in error. This violated the laws in force at the time. They did not even find out they had violated that law till decades afterward, some having transfered to the US Airforce and served till retirement. Since the oath was given in error they were absolved and Citizenship was returned.
The Supreme Court said that such matters were up to the "Will" of the citizen, they had unknowningly renounced their citizenship, but it was not a deliberate act of will, it was a simple paperwork error.

In discussing the strength of the Lee-Enfield there is a tangential matter that I have little information about. The original Remington-Lee rifles in some illustrations are shown to have had both forward locking lugs as well as the rear locking lugs. Has anyone ever owned or examined one of these rifles? I am curious if they really did have both front and rear locking lugs why was the decision made to drop the front locking lugs for the rifles the British adopted?

" ...why was the decision made to drop the front locking lugs for the rifles the British adopted?"

Do you think it´s because only an anal retentive tends to wear both belt and braces?

Or maybe the only reason why they did away with one set of locking lugs was to provide you with further proof that the Enfield is in many ways inadequate. I am certain that the relevant authorities would have relished your advice at the time (and, of course, changed the spike bayonet on the basis of your unfortunate escapade with the ice-pick).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by villiers

" ...why was the decision made to drop the front locking lugs for the rifles the British adopted?"

Do you think it´s because only an anal retentive tends to wear both belt and braces?

Or maybe the only reason why they did away with one set of locking lugs was to provide you with further proof that the Enfield is in many ways inadequate. I am certain that the relevant authorities would have relished your advice at the time (and, of course, changed the spike bayonet on the basis of your unfortunate escapade with the ice-pick).

---

Actually I am curious from an engineering standpoint about the real rationale and engineering decisions. These decisions are always trade offs sometimes cost vs function. If that was the case the rear locking only Lee was ham strung early on rendering it unsuitable for later developments with larger smokeless rounds. In that case the belt and suspenders approach was not as dumb as the alternative.
As time has shown the spike bayonet was consigned to the dust bin.
Sometimes they make the wrong design choices trying to save a few dollars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ireload2

In discussing the strength of the Lee-Enfield there is a tangential matter that I have little information about. The original Remington-Lee rifles in some illustrations are shown to have had both forward locking lugs as well as the rear locking lugs. Has anyone ever owned or examined one of these rifles? I am curious if they really did have both front and rear locking lugs why was the decision made to drop the front locking lugs for the rifles the British adopted?

---

The Remington Lee 1899 model came out after the Lee actions tested by the British, long after in fact.
The Four lug design was used in Rifles of one US National Guard outfit (possibly State Guard is the proper term) in 30-40 Krag Caliber. The same action was used in 7mm Mauser chambering and many sporting cartridges.
These are fairly rare but highly sought after.

One source tells me that the extra lugs were meant more as safety lugs, but I couldn't tell you for sure.
I have examined one of the Sporting models, and it was extremely well made and had a slick and fast bolt throw.
In any case if the four lug design had been adopted the British Enfields would have had a more secure lock up, and been better suited to more powerful cartridges, with a much greater margin of strength in the event of overloads or fouled bores.

The No.4 Rifle had a blocky and more substantial left receiver wall. The styling of the No.1 receiver wall, and the thumb cut for clearance when charger loading is more suited to a front locking design. They removed more metal there than was called for, and this was to some extent corrected by the No.4 redesign.

An article on the wandering zero of the No.5 Carbine , found on this site, tells of spreading of the rear walls of the action body, this has solved one mystery for me.
The vertical tilting of some No.4 MkI* bolts and the bolthead jumping the track at the cut out, is probably due to spreadng of the rear walls. This would increase the clearance between bolt body and the rather shallow grooves that are all that guides the bolt. Too much metal removed when milling the clearance cuts for the lefthand magazine feed lip complicate the situation.
No one can deny that bolt heads jumping the track is a known issue of No.4 MkI* actions, and the recent reproductions of the No.4 manufactured as target rifles have a redesigned bolthead and track to reduce the incidence of this problem. They also have a more substantial bridge, more for use as a scope base, that may reduce tendency of the receiver walls to spread.

Its likely that action body spread was due to either firing unsuitable ammunition, or firing rifles that had excessive fouling build up.
Corroded bores due to the Primers used certainly didn't help matters, and an action that had received such abuse, and was later fitted with a replacement barrel and other parts, could be difficult to spot.

I guess with Lee's death in 1904 the model 1899 rifle must have been close to the end of the line for new designs with his input.
I found the illustrated break down showing the bolt head with locking lugs.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...on201899-1.jpg

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 .

I believe Mr. Laidler commented on how action spread in No. 5 rifles would shear the rear sight axis pin's retaining cross pin (thinggy).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmoore

I believe Mr. Laidler commented on how action spread in No. 5 rifles would shear the rear sight axis pin's retaining cross pin (thinggy).

---

Posted By: Peter Laidler
Date: Sat 26 Jul 2008 6:13 am
In Response To: No.5 Wandering Zero: Peter Laidler opinion? (milprileb)
Hi Milpreb and others. Yes, the little No5 rifle. As I said, we still had some in Malaya in the mid 60’s plus I’d say, a thousand or so+ that came through our huge Base Workshops in Singapore where from Australia, New Zealand, Malaya, Hong Kong Vietnam and occasionally Fiji Armourers would regularly congregate for various reasons. And a week or so exploring the bustling sights and sounds of night-time Singapore was probably top of the list. But being a young, celibate, church-going, teetotal young lad, I stayed in and knitted scarves and darned socks for the needy. But I digress.
I have to confess that until I was in New Zealand in 1967, I didn’t know that in early 1949 the No5 was on the cusp of being introduced as the standard service rifle to replace the No4. I read this while reading an old, little document in the workshop bosses office, ASM Leo Francis ( ….remember him Kim?). The document was about the sale of and introduction into New Zealand of the .22” No8 rifle. The document was aimed at Australia too but I never saw a No8 when I was there, except for an odd-ball owned by ASM Clive Connors at Bandiana. He was another RAEME Armourer …., who’d probably ‘liberated’ it when he was somewhere. I did get him some spares sent over in the freight from Malaya, consisting of 1 complete and another all-but complete rifle but I digress again. The document in Leo’s office at Ngaruawahia went on to say that the No5 was introduced into British Army service and will eventually supplant the No2 rifle and various others throughout. ‘Throughout’ probably meant the other odds and sods such as the No7’s and No9’s plus the little ex US lend lease Mossbergs that you could still see occasionally. It was correct because the No8 did replace them eventually although the RAF Cadets at Abingdon did still have a couple of No7’s in 1982. But the No8 was the norm.
Oh, yes. The document said that the No8 rifle had been developed in look, style, feel and weight as a direct result of the forthcoming decision to adopt the No5 rifle as the standard arm throughout the Army. I asked Jock Annandale about it in conversation and he’d obviously heard and read this and commented to me that while it was a laudable idea, the No5 had many problems and while it might be OK in the jungle and as a short range close quarter weapon, it was definitely NOT a rifle for long ranges we’d expect in Europe. This was because once it got hot, its zero went. It was as simple as that. And as you all know, once you start to follow your zero over the target, it’s time to stop for the day. That’s because YOU are following the zero and generally, your eyes are going and you’re tired. But when it’s the RIFLE that’s causing it……………. And the No5 RIFLE did. He also told me, in words that Warrant Officers are apt to use when a silly suggestion is made, that the notion that the whole of the Commonwealth was going to change, when they were knee deep in perfectly good, almost new No4’s was pure , er ….., horse, er ……, manure!
I asked the other Armourers in Malaya, especially the LEP (locally enlisted) Chinese and Malays (known as MOR’s …, Malayan Other Ranks) and they all knew about the rifles going off zero but in the short ranges that they were used, it was academic. So in Malaya they stayed. You could always tell the high mileage rifles, apart from the shot-out barrels because the backsight axis pin retaining pin (longest name of a part on the rifle. The PIN, retaining, pin axis backsight) was always sheared where the bodies had expanded at the rear and sheared it. So, if at the moment of firing/and max pressure/load the body spreads at the rear, especially during a gun battle, I suppose it would upset the balance between the locking lugs, bolt and cartridge seating on the bolt face.
I think I mentioned earlier that when we were doing the big Crown Agents FTR programme, it was priced (so I was told) that if 70 came in, 70 went out and if some were ZF’d (scrap) then they’d be replaced from our ANZUK (I think this was Aust, NZ and UK stockholdings) mobilization stores from the huge …., and I mean HUGE Ordnance stockpiles close by at Johore Bahru. So we would cannibalise No5’s and if necessary, send them out with No4 bodies.
I don’t think it was the kick that made them wander off because we would fire hundreds every day in just shorts and boots. No shirts, hats or ear defenders. During this shooting the boss of the Ordnance Stores depot, a nice bloke called WO1 Arnold, (we all called him ‘Sir’ to be polite), used to bring his son down for days during the school holidays, especially on Bren days and son, age about 15 or so used to load the magazines and shoot the rifles/Brens for function testing first then we got him used to shooting the accuracy tests at the special Armourers target screen. He was quite good too and always mixed in. But we were only a couple of years older than him anyway. His mum was always nice to us, so was dad really, and used to bring a load of bottles of cold Frazer and Neave orange juice and home made things to scoff for break. We had some Brens with front grips that you could use as heavy SMG’s, fired from well tucked back in the waist during jungle patrolling and we’d let him fire these at the targets from very close range. God, I shudder at the thought now. If I saw someone doing it now I’d go ballistic …., let alone allow a young lad to do it! The Small Arms shop 2i/c S/Sgt Beady and the AQMS Dick Shepherd used to think it was a bit of a punishment to be sent on the range for the day because the No5’s used to jump about a bit and crack but when there were a few of us there, we were out of the way
Oh, yes. Back to No5’s. Some of them just wouldn’t zero so they’d be examined and if necessary, re-barreled or just stripped for spares or scrapped. some were as good as gold. I never did get to the bottom of why they had a wandering zero problem. Just theories but they certainly did. Whether YOURS has or not is a bit academic but while I don’t think it had a bad name, it certainly wasn’t a myth.

Yep thats the article.

Quote:

---

You could always tell the high mileage rifles, apart from the shot-out barrels because the backsight axis pin retaining pin (longest name of a part on the rifle. The PIN, retaining, pin axis backsight) was always sheared where the bodies had expanded at the rear and sheared it. So, if at the moment of firing/and max pressure/load the body spreads at the rear, especially during a gun battle, I suppose it would upset the balance between the locking lugs, bolt and cartridge seating on the bolt face.

---

Sounds reasonable.
The Enfields were so often described as having loose tolerences so as to operate in muddy and sandy conditions that side play in the bolt track wouldn't raise any flags.

I wonder if spread receiver walls could be tweaked back into original specs in a heavy vise without compromising the strength of the metal?

If the LE receiver had significant residual internal stresses from the forging, machining and heat treatment processes the cyclical loading from repeated firing may have served to relieve some of the stress and cause the receivers to spread. A simple test might have been to braze, rivet or tig weld a heavier bridge across the rear of the receiver. If the receiver is about to be scrapped it could do no harm, unless of course it was not specified in some manual as an approved repair procedure.

>>I wonder if spread receiver walls could be tweaked back into original specs in a heavy vise without compromising the strength of the metal?<<

There are limits but for mild cases there would have been no problems.
In fact I would not be surprised if some accuracy shop out there is not using this method to cheat a little bit to improve the guidance of the bolt. I am not talking about just putting it back to the max of original specs but putting it back to minimum clearance or even tighter.

I have a Redfield receiver sight that is mounted with a cross screw through the rear sight ears. Added tension on this dinky screw can change the bolt slop in the receiver.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ireload2

If the LE receiver had significant residual internal stresses from the forging, machining and heat treatment processes the cyclical loading from repeated firing may have served to relieve some of the stress and cause the receivers to spread.

---

That sounds like a distinct possibility, with the problem being worse with the No.5 receivers for some reason, perhaps a shortcut in production.
The vertical play of worn Savage No.4 MkI* bolts and chipping way of the track due to boltheads rotating out of the track may also have been caused by a manufacturing shortcut, insufficient stress relief.

I'll look up the details on the redesigned No.4 Receivers now manufactured for 7.62 NATO caliber target rifles.
Their bridge is different, more for use as a convenient scope base than anything else.

I may try squeezing my Savage receiver with clamps or a bench vise later on, to see if that takes the slop out. The Bolt body is a new condition replacement and locks up tight as a hatband so the slack must be in the receiver walls rather than the bolt.

Bending the lefthand mag lip up far enough that the bolthead contacts it on the forwards stroke has eliminated the tendency to rotate out of the track, but thats only a temporary fix at best.

The problem would likely never be noticable with the No.1 since its bolthead hooks over a male rail and the earlier No.4 non * bolthead that hooks into and under the female rail might show undue wear at that point if loose fitted but theres no cut out in the rail to rotate out of as in the No.4 MkI*.

PS
Its very common for DP marked magazines to have the lefthand feed lip worn down, apparently by contact with the bolthead as it goes forward. Could be that many of the DP marked rifles that shoow little obvious wear were DP'ed due to spreading of the action body.

I've seen it mentioned that replacement bolts were available that were several thousandths larger in diameter, to take up wear to the receiver tracks. Its likely that the looseness these oversize bolts were used to repair came from action body spreading rather than actual wear to the tracks of the receiver wall.

A split bridge has always been considered a weak point in those front locking designs that have them, Mannlicher and Mosin Nagant for example.

>>>A split bridge has always been considered a weak point in those front locking designs that have them, Mannlicher and Mosin Nagant for example.<<<

The GEW 1888 is know for having thin receiver walls over the lug race ways at the rear of the receiver. The rifles are sometimes found without a bolt and with a bolt is tried the receiver has been closed up by bending of the receiver. In these cases the receiver has to be spread to accept a bolt.

Does anyone know the approximate tensile and yield strength of the steel used in the #4 receivers? It appears that the right receiver rail has a rather low cross section and could easily be over loaded.

As far as a #4Mk1* rotating the bolt head out of the take down slot there are probably several ways to add a little friction to the threads so the bolt head is not as likely to turn at the wrong time.

>>>Its very common for DP marked magazines to have the lefthand feed lip worn down, apparently by contact with the bolthead as it goes forward. Could be that many of the DP marked rifles that shoow little obvious wear were DP'ed due to spreading of the action body.<<<

The old #1Mk111* (Lithgow 1918) that I once had was badly chewed up on the right receiver rail. Apparently the guys in OZ did not break the edge of the bolt heads. The side load from the extractor caused the sharp edge of the bolt head to shave away the receiver rail.

Page 176 of this book preview
The Springfield 1903 rifles: the ... - Google Books

Has a nice photo of the extremely rare .303 caliber Remington 1903 springfield prototype.

The butt stock has the classic Enfield grip and the Floor Plate appears to be deepened for the clearance necessary for the rimmed cartridge.

Another source tells that Remington cancelled out on this idea, saying that they felt they should only manufacture rifles chambered for the US .30/06 in case they were called on to supply arms for our own forces.
The same source says that Remington was approached to manufacture No.4 MkI rifles first.
The British did buy many of the Remington manufactured 1903 rifles in .30/06, Many were sent to New Zealand for use as training rifles till enough No.4 rifles could be produced.
Some UK sources I've found tell of US Rifles with Springfield stamped on the receiver ring, being issued for Home Guard or Irish LDF training. But its not known if these were in fact 1903 rifles.

At the risk of another explosion from Mr Horton, I do believe he wishes that George III had hanged Washington and the continental congress. (disperse ye rebels)

Do You actualy want me to believe that the casualties on Gold, Juno, and Sword beaches were far higher than those on Omaha and Utah? Do You think the commonwealth could have succesfuly have managed June 6,1944 WITHOUT America's participation? Do you think the RAF could have done for the luftwaffe all by itself? Do you think Britain could have held out against the U-boats without us?

Now just a bit on the 03 Springfield, WE fought World War One with low number springfields!!!

Now before you get your knickers in a twist, I own British rifles going from the Short Land Pattern Musket, through P58 Enfields, Sniders, Martini's, Long Lees, SMLE's, No4's in all their configurations, an L1A1 and even an airsoft version of the SA80
I collect British Uniforms, medals, badges, books, and prints., so I could hardly be calleed an Anglophobe. HOWEVER I DO NOT get hysterical over every BLOODY IMAGINED slight of the U.K.:rolleyes:

Ed, most times you are helpful but other times you are bloody OVERBEARING

Oh by the way, a basic design that served from `1891 to the 1970's must have had SOME good points. That's longer than most other country's service rifles.;) and for that matter, longer than some countries have exsisted.

And the difference between John Sukey being overbearing and Ed being overbearing is the side we are supporting, and the winner of the popularity contests is…………………

A. Neutral Americans.
B. Spiteful Americans who bring up sensitive subjects.
C. Americans who are willing to fight alongside our British allies.
D. Latecomers to the discussion with nothing constructive to say.
E. Armchair commandos who refight wars they never took part in.
F. Who gives a rats A$$ what John Sukey thinks.

Hmm, I'm a bit of a bastard in here. I think I'm somewhat a little bit of a "D". I'm a bit of a "non-F" too, but there's no mention of this item in the list.

G. Canucks who are able to find bits and pieces of useful information in this Epic Thread? :D

Lou

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../1879Lee-1.jpg


https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...n1902new-1.jpg

Lou

I keep asking myself why is it we have so many American experts on a British and Commonwealth rifle, it baffles me no end.

It is one of the reasons I tracked down 90% of the Enfield manuals you see in the forums now so we would have the correct information.

So Lou here is some useful information that has NOTHING to do with imaginary experts, arm chair commandos or insulting our English speaking cousins.

I would like to thank Tom Ready in the U.K. for supplying me with so much information on the Enfield rifle.
(I didn’t get the information by spitting on the British flag)

Please note the order of sequence of these ACI messages
(If the enfield ain’t broke don’t take it apart for yearly inspections in combat areas unless necessary)

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...6/Page10-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...6/Page11-1.jpg

Odd choice of words in that document, British guns hadn't been Browned since the days of the muzzle Loaders.
By 1940 rifles would have been Blued or Parkerized.
Pickled steel went out with beaver hats.

If a manual doesn't deal with a particular aspect of a rifle design then its of no use in looking into that aspect of the design.
Instructions on painting barrels can't tell you anything about the strength of the barrel or what alloy of steel it was made of.

Military documents are often superseded by up revisions or completely new documents. Unless you have current active access to the controlling authority you have no idea if the document in question is still approved or active. Notice that ACI 88 of 1940 was canceled by ACI 1848 of 1940 illustrating that military documents are not static and change if needed.
Since a significant number of years have passed it is likely that the document has seen further revision.

I am still trying to figure out what the tensile and yield strength of the steel used to manufacture the #4 receiver. Do any of you experts know?

Ireload2,
I was pleased to see that someone has made an effort to calculate what the compression in an Enfield bolt might be. Even if your calculations cannot be exact, I also reckon that an approximate calculation is still a lot better than none.

As you are obviously aware, the mechanical parameters of steel can vary enormously, depending on steel composition, hardening techniques, cooling/tempering profile etc etc etc - including any forging or forming process. So "typical" values for modern steels may be misleading, as the "state of the art" has surely moved on over the last 65 years.

I am not a metallurgist, but I do have a book on the heat treatment of steel from 1944. If you know the composition of the steel used for the Enfield bolts (and once again, an approximation is better than nothing) and the heat treatment appliied, then I could dig through the book and see if there are any close matches. At least they would be typical values from the right period!

Patrick

Hi Patrick,
I have engineering reference books for steels. I just don't know which steel to use. The calculations for the stretch and compression are very simple and only require the modulus of elasticity which is basically the same for all steels. The calculations are so simple any one that disputes them could easily makes the same calculations and provide his own results for discussion.

I have calculated the average load/sq in for the #4 receiver. Since I do not know what steel is used I do not know if the loads approach the yield point of the steels. With very high test pressures it appears that the right receiver rail can approach yield stresses. That occurs at 85ksi and higher. However that is based on an assumption of the steel used. Without knowing the tensile and yield strengths of the alloy any results will remain disputed.

My measurements for the area of the right wall give .1582 Sq inches.
The area of the left wall is .2838 sq inches.
Both receiver walls added have a total area of .442 sq inches.
This data can be used to determine the stress in the steel per sq inch.
From the stress calculation your result can be compared to the physical properties of the steel at various chamber pressures.
From comparing the areas of the two rails you can see the tendency of the #4 receiver to bend with each shot. Since there are two locking lugs if you assume you apply the same load to each rail the right rail will stretch almost twice as far as the left rail. When this happens the receiver bends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Sukey

Do You think the commonwealth could have succesfuly have managed June 6,1944 WITHOUT America's participation? Do you think the RAF could have done for the luftwaffe all by itself? Do you think Britain could have held out against the U-boats without us?

---

In all fairness, the 3rd Canadian Division at Juno beach (2nd highest casualties suffered that day by the way) were the closest to getting all of their objectives on D-Day getting off the beach within hours of landing with a force of 15,000 men, only losing their final objective due to the infantry not being able to move up as fast as the tank column did to capture it (the Caen–Bayeux highway) with the final line drawn at 10km's inside of France from the beaches, and as for Utah was that not a disaster, considering they landed in the wrong beach. ;)

The British were the first to successfully employ a RADAR net, and the Spitfire fighters to take out German Air Force bombers, their technique over time improved, which made the Germans produce the V-1 and V-2 rockets with greater urgency to continue the scare tactics against British Civilians.

As for the U-Boats, I do believe the British were the ones to develop the methods to fight the U-Boats the most successfully, with advance RADAR detection, better weapons to combat the enemy subs, and were the ones who were dealing with the U-boats for 2 and a half years before the US joined the "war effort".

Dimitri

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alfred

Odd choice of words in that document, British guns hadn't been Browned since the days of the muzzle Loaders.
By 1940 rifles would have been Blued or Parkerized.
Pickled steel went out with beaver hats.

---

Alfred

It is not an “odd choice of words” Alfred, it is YOUR “inherent weakness” in researching the subject matter on the Enfield rifle. Color, colour, “browning” is blueing in British English just like “stoving” means oven baked or heated. If you read the documents I have placed on the internet on the Enfield rifle the terminology would not be foreign to you.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ARMOURERS (1931)
Part 1
CHAPTER III

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

17. The re-browning of small arms and machine-guns will be carried out in accordance with the instructions contained in Parts II and III, Appendix I, and Equipment Regulations, Part I.


APPENDICES

APPENDIX I

Browning Mixture and Process

(See Part I, Chapter III.)

Mixture

The following quantity is sufficient for 50 rifles. One- third of this quantity will be sufficient for 50 bayonets and scabbards:—

Rain or soft water . . . . . . 12 oz.
Blue stone . . . . . . . . . . 1/16 ,,
Nitric acid . . . . . . . 1¼ ,,
Tincture of steel . . . . . . 3½ ,,
Spirits of wine . . . . . . 2 ,,
,, ,, nitre . . . . .3 ,,

Note.— For the first coat only, take 2 oz. of the mixture and add ¼ oz. of nitric acid.

The above-mentioned ingredients will be mixed by the armourer in the order shown, directly they are received. They must not be kept in separate bottles, as danger from fire is likely to arise from the nitric acid if it is spilt before being mixed with the other ingredients.

If the armourer has a larger quantity of ingredients than he actually requires for the arms he has to brown, he will at once return the surplus to the quartermaster’s store.

Ingredients for browning mixture should be measured byfluid measure as follows:

60 minims = 1 dram.
8 drams = 1 oz.
20 oz. = 1 pint.

Process
1st Day.
Boil components in strong soda water for hour (1½ lb. of soda to one gallon of water) to remove the grease. Wipe down with clean wet cloths to remove soda (inside of barrels to be wiped out with rod and wet jute). When barrels and components are cold, coat with the mixture, rubbing the first coat well in. Stand in a dry place for 3 to 4 hours, then coat cold with the mixture, and stand in the drying room for the night.

2nd Day.
Boil components in clean water for 20 minutes and, when cold, scratch off. Coat cold with the mixture and stand them in a dry place for to 4 hours. Then again coat cold and stand them in the drying room for the night.

3rd Day.
Repeat as for the 2nd Day.

4th Day.
Boil in clean water for 20 minutes. When cold, scratch off and oil.

Note.—Materials for less than one quart of the mixture will not be supplied to home stations, nor for less than a gallon to stations abroad.

P.S. You would look good in a beaver hat or do you still wear your coonskin hat. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ireload2

Hi Patrick,
I have engineering reference books for steels. I just don't know which steel to use. The calculations for the stretch and compression are very simple and only require the modulus of elasticity which is basically the same for all steels. The calculations are so simple any one that disputes them could easily makes the same calculations and provide his own results for discussion.

I have calculated the average load/sq in for the #4 receiver. Since I do not know what steel is used I do not know if the loads approach the yield point of the steels. With very high test pressures it appears that the right receiver rail can approach yield stresses. That occurs at 85ksi and higher. However that is based on an assumption of the steel used. Without knowing the tensile and yield strengths of the alloy any results will remain disputed.

My measurements for the area of the right wall give .1582 Sq inches.
The area of the left wall is .2838 sq inches.
Both receiver walls added have a total area of .442 sq inches.
This data can be used to determine the stress in the steel per sq inch.
From the stress calculation your result can be compared to the physical properties of the steel at various chamber pressures.
From comparing the areas of the two rails you can see the tendency of the #4 receiver to bend with each shot. Since there are two locking lugs if you assume you apply the same load to each rail the right rail will stretch almost twice as far as the left rail. When this happens the receiver bends.

---

The *spreading of the receiver or action on the Enfield is most likely caused by excess bolt thrust causing the action to spread apart. If you put a small screw through the No.4 where the rear sight retaining pin goes and tighten a nut on the end of the screw you can bind the bolt or cause the action to close up.(*Newtons third law)

It's the same in German. "Brünierung" is the word for bluing, derived from "braun", regardless of whether the actual color is blue, black or even (rarely) actually brown.

Patrick

Below is a South African PMP surplus .303 case fired in my 1943 Maltby with the headspace set at approximately .067, after firing the case thinned and stretched in the web area by .005 (five thousands).

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...IMGP5206-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...IMGP5203-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...IMGP5204-1.jpg

Your chart on the estimated pressure or force on the bolt face mean nothing because the case is designed to grip the chamber walls and NOT deliver the full force of discharge to the bolt face. Simply put the case acts like a shock absorber and cuts the force in half delivered to the bolt face.

If the cartridge or chamber has water, bore solvents, oil or grease in the chamber THEN the full pressure or force is exerted on the bolt face.

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

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

This is NOT an inherent weakness it is called abuse.

About all I've found out so far is that locking surfaces were heated with copper electrodes.
This solved another minor mystery for me.
My 1915 bolt has traces of what appear to be copper fused to the surface near the locking surfaces. These spatters were polished away before finishing but remain visible even now. This also suggests that this bolt was probably never refinished, and since bluing was nearly completely intact when the previous owner bought this rifle its likely it saw almost no wear or use in combat during the WW1 era or afterwards.

I've been told that the same method was used to harden the locking surfaces of the receiver. A Lithgow action I have showed a very distinct difference in reaction to cold bluing solutions, the area over the locking recess of the left receiver wall turned black immediately while the rest of the receiver barely changed color at all. Same for a wedge shaped section at the right hand locking surface. I never tried bluing the bolt of that action.
I had suspected that this Lithgow action was a rewelded drill rifle due to the difference in the way the metal reacted at these spots. I'm still not sure that it isn't. The metal of the receiver at the righthand locking surface looked bulged out like it was metal added there, and the circular spot over the left recess was domed outwards. Both sides showed deep marring from application of a wire wheel with the less hardened metal deeply scarred and traces of what looked to be brass wire still hung up in grooves behind the righthand surface. I smoothed all that down long ago so I can't post any pictures of what it looked like.
The rest of the metal of this receiver seemed far softer than it should be, and the front of the receiver ring had been mutilated during the process of having a barrel put on long ago, whether the original barrel or a replacement. A new condition replacement barrel would not clock in at all.
The extractor spring had been replaced with a small diameter coil spring, which I've found was used with deactivated drill purpose only rifles, so the bolt head and probably the the non matching bolt body almost certainly came from a DP'ed rifle.
I gave up on restoring this rifle, and kept the action for use in a .410 conversion project. I wouldn't trust it with a .303 chambering. It should be okay for .410 pressures or less intense sporting cartridges like the .32 Winchester special.

An entry in Skennerton's book dealing with Lithgow rifles converted to 7.62 NATO was posted on another site. It made an ambiguous remark about the actions used being "degraded" by use of Carbon steel rather than Chrome-Nickel Steel.
I had thought that Lithgow rifles used a Nickel Steel Alloy, if so the test rifles may have been late WW2 or Post WW2 receivers made with a lesser strength but far cheaper alloy. If steel supplies were unable to keep up with production substitution of a lower grade steel would explain the apparent weakness of this particular late WW2 production receiver, and why it ended up being DP'ed if thats what happened.
Though the receiver bears all ten inspection marks the track for the sear is milled far off center, and shouldn't have passed inspection for that reason alone.

Alot of people have posted of finding DP only rifles that looked to be in perfect condition, and its usually assumed these were downgraded to Drill Purpose only through Obsolescence, but its not unlikely that rifles accepted and later found to have been from lots that had constructed from substandard materials due to wartime shortages would have been pulled from service and deactivated.
Substandard wood shows up fairly often, and I've seen a few metal parts such as sears that failed due to poor heat treatment.
Attrition should have resulted in most substandard rifles being DP'ed or destroyed decades ago, but one shouldn't take anything for granted where safety is concerned. I testfire remotely every rifle I buy, including modern production rifles. A rifle that passed proof generation ago may have been rebarreled or had force matched replacement bolts and such installed without the seller's knowledge.
According to a book I have on buying and selling surplus rifles (printed in the 1960's) British Surplus rifles were often sold by the pound at scrap metal prices after WW1 and WW2.
British Surplus ammunition was also sold by the pound to scrap dealers, the propellants were broken down chemically as the basis for furniture finishes and high strength glues, the brass either reloaded, or more often melted down as scrap metal. The author of that book, George Herter, said most attempts to salvage cases and propellants proved unproductive and FMJ bullets had little value to reloaders at the time.

While I'm sure there are isolated instances of very high quality Milsurp ammunition that had been stored under perfect conditions remaining safe enough to use today, I figure its false economy to subject a valued antique rifle to any but the best ammunition, and taylored handloads will give the best accuracy with any centerfire rifle whether milsurp or of the best quality modern production.


Heres some info on the reproduction No.4 based rifles

Quote:

---

Features Standard on All M10 Rifles

Heavily reinforced forged steel receiver:

All AIA M10 rifles feature a forged ordnance steel receiver built much thicker than the original Lee Enfield's to withstand heavy use with modern military spec 7.62x51mm ball ammunition.



Easily accommodates most rifle optics with optional weaver rail:

Another big improvement over surplus Lee Enfield rifles is the strengthening and thickening of the receiver bridge which, along with the receiver ring, is drilled and tapped for use with an optional steel weaver scope base.

---

Quote:

---

Central to the new rifle's design is its heavily reinforced forged ordnance steel receiver, recessed, thickened, and fully enclosed bolt head, and 'Canadian Long Branch' type strengthened locking lugs with anti-chip bevel, enhancements

---

Marstar Canada: Australian International Arms Index Page

Skennerton had this to say

Quote:

---

Like WW2 British and WW1 peddled scheme Lee-Enfields, components are sourced from a number of countries. This has also changed over the past 7 years as new technology and suppliers come on line. Over the past 7 years, some parts have been made in Vietnam, just as some parts originated from England and the United States. Original some surplus small parts such as springs and screws were utilized, but these were found to be inferior to new made components.

---

The Mystery of Australian International Arms

So Wartime parts aren't always up to snuff, and its likely parts made long after the wars by third world user governments or private concerns may be even less able to stand up to hard use.

I'd read that at least one British operation during WW2 was set up to use p parts that were significantly out of spec, and required hand fitting or other time consuming repairs to be serviceable. Retired Enfield employees ran the show and the operation served to train prospective employees that were as yet underaged and inexperianced in gunmaking.
Rifles they turned out were sevicable, but parts interchangability had pretty much been sacrificed. The rifles never went to the front, because if damaged standard replacement parts were unlikely to fit.

What follows is of little use to the milsurp only user/collector, but fits in with the reproduction miltary style rifle idea.

The A-10 is an interesting development, long ago I'd thought on ways the No.5 action could be manufactured in updated form for sporting rifles.
My idea had been actions proportioned for the .30-30 Winchester and similar sized cartridges, the 7X30 Waters for example.
A shorter receiver and some sort of added safety lug, more for product liability concerns than anything else, and the stock much like the Jungle Carbine with an effective streamlined muzzle brake rather than the flash hider.
The idea being for a rifle that had the features of a military carbine that would be of benefit for rifle used in the rough country around here. One often has to negotiated cliffs and climb trees to get a shot, and fording streams is also common enough. There are still areas here where modern man has yet to tread.

I came up with my own Scope base design, and made one for myself and a few for friends to test the concept. Its extremely stable and sturdy. I'd come up with the idea when examining the bulky designs used for early No.1 sniper rifles of various types, and the mounting of the T rifles.
Its semi permanent, but can be removed and the holes filled in, should restoration be desired. These rifles were pre Bubb'ed so preserving the original configuration wasn't an issue at the time.
Charger loading is unaffected with the scope dismounted.
I can alter the design so that no drilling and tapping need be done, and the mount could then be easily reversed without leaving any holes to be filled in.
At least for British style No.4 receivers. I found that the charger bridge of these were secured with screws, the heads having been ground flat after they were dogged down. Savage Receivers have the bridge brazed into place, so require more work. Not something of interest to the collector, but it would be usable for a new production rifle based on the No.4-No.5 action designs.
The A-10 modified bridge resembles my design, but it not quite the same.

>>>Your chart on the estimated pressure or force on the bolt face mean nothing because the case is designed to grip the chamber walls and NOT deliver the full force of discharge to the bolt face. Simply put the case acts like a shock absorber and cuts the force in half delivered to the bolt face.<<<

Sorry, the case is not designed to absorb the thrust to the bolt. That it has to in the case of many rifle actions is a throwback to the black powder era's low pressures. You cannot find a design drawing that says that or provides the test specifications that would be used to test for it.

Did users of Lee-Enfields call off battle when it was raining?

If a proof load developing 75,000 PSI is fired in a #4 the stress on the right rail is about 65,000 psi due to it small cross section area. This probably matches or exceeds the yield strength of the steel used for the #4 receiver. This will result in permanent stretching of the right rail and deformation of the receiver even though the barrel will still be is perfect condition.
I expect that somewhere in the range of another 10,000 PSI (85,000 PSI) to break the right rail.
If it has some sort of stress concentrating notch, dent or divot from handling or manufacturing it could fail at a lower value.

The US M-14 National Match rifle is proof fired with cartridges that meet specification MIL-C-46477B.
Prior to proofing the assembled rifle, the barrel shall have already been proofed with the same proof cartridges. The assembled rifle is proofed after the barrel installed.

MIL-C-46477B requires the cartridges to be conditioned to 68°F to 72°F when being tested for compliance to the standard. The standard requires the PROOF cartridges develop 67,000 PSI ±2500 PSI. It appears that these proof loads would give you indeterminate results with a #4 action proofed with NATO proof cartridges. Operating pressure of 7.62 NATO service ammunition is given to be 50,000 PSI.

This information is just provided as information to suggest that conversions to 7.62 NATO is not such a good idea. It is even worse to convert such a rifle to .308 Winchester and use commercial ammunition in it. The minimum .308 Win proof pressure is 83,000 PSI and the maximum .308 proof pressure is 89,000 PSI. Maximum operating pressure of the .308 Win commercial ammunition is 62,000 PSI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ireload2

>>>Your chart on the estimated pressure or force on the bolt face mean nothing because the case is designed to grip the chamber walls and NOT deliver the full force of discharge to the bolt face. Simply put the case acts like a shock absorber and cuts the force in half delivered to the bolt face.<<<

Sorry, the case is not designed to absorb the thrust to the bolt. That it has to in the case of many rifle actions is a throwback to the black powder era's low pressures. You cannot find a design drawing that says that or provides the test specifications that would be used to test for it.

---

Where do you get your Bovine Scat? Bovine Scat = BS

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

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

Quote:

---

P.S. You would look good in a beaver hat or do you still wear your coonskin hat.

---

I once owned a Coonskin cap, had my photo taken with Fess Parker in fact. Wish I knew what happened to the photo, I did find another I was given at the time, an official news release photo from the premiere of "Davy Crockett".

Browning is an inaccurate term for Bluing, Browning of steel is an entirely different process, its also known as Pickeled steel and its why the British musket was called the "Brown Bess".

The formula may come in handy.

Ireload
I looked up the ability of Nickel Steels to recover from stretching forces awhile back, I'm still figuring that Nickel was used in the Enfield receivers, though I haven't found any confirmation yet. Significant Nickel content would help the receiver recover its original dimensions without plastic deformation, at least up to a point.
I'll find those specs again, I'm pretty sure this is why they chose Nickel steel for the P-14 and M1917.

Proof testing an action is to establish margin of safety in worse case scenarios, not whether it will hold up to standard loads indefinitely. Metal fatigue of many thousands of standard pressure rounds might well damage a receiver more than the occasional excessive pressure round. And bore conditions can cause excessive pressures with otherwise safe loadings.

The British sources that do mention damage to receivers almost always say something about the rifle getting hot from extended firing. The MkVII round did cause cook offs in locked breech MGs so its possible under extended rapid fire sessions they could heat a rifle receiver enough to cause expansion of the side rails with increase of headspace, or unequal expansion and resulting unequal forces on locking surfaces.

Quote:

---

I expect that somewhere in the range of another 10,000 PSI (85,000 PSI) to break the right rail.

---

That coincides with the 85,000 PSI breaking point of the LE receivers quoted in the Canadian House of Commons records. They also stated that pressure of the MKVI load was 16.5 Tons, the later MkVII is listed in Ed's manuals as 19 Tons or more. British Proof marks on No.1 Receivers usually are for 18.5 Tons, so the MkVII was pushing the safe limits of the design.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alfred

IThe British sources that do mention damage to receivers almost always say something about the rifle getting hot from extended firing. The MkVII round did cause cook offs in locked breech MGs so its possible under extended rapid fire sessions they could heat a rifle receiver enough to cause expansion of the side rails with increase of headspace, or unequal expansion and resulting unequal forces on locking surfaces.


That coincides with the 85,000 PSI breaking point of the LE receivers quoted in the Canadian House of Commons records. They also stated that pressure of the MKVI load was 16.5 Tons, the later MkVII is listed in Ed's manuals as 19 Tons or more. British Proof marks on No.1 Receivers usually are for 18.5 Tons, so the MkVII was pushing the safe limits of the design.

---

You are again mixing outdated 1914-1918 WWI information on ammunition for the No.1 with the updated Mk.VII cartridge which was 18.5 to 19 tsi, the Mk.VII charge of cordite remained the same from 1936 to 1945. The Mk.VII cartridge is not an inherent weak design and served the British and Commonwealth extremely well during WWII.
See below.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...9/06/001-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...6/216ab1-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../06/217c-1.jpg

It appears that changes or upgraded modifications to the type cordite actually reduced the charge weight after 1936.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...5/Img001-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...Pam112a1-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alfred

They also stated that pressure of the MKVI load was 16.5 Tons, the later MkVII is listed in Ed's manuals as 19 Tons or more. British Proof marks on No.1 Receivers usually are for 18.5 Tons, so the MkVII was pushing the safe limits of the design.

---

British proof marks are safe working pressures not the pressure the rifle was proof at. The difference would still be safe for a great deal of rounds and the average solider wouldn't A) know the pressure difference and B) fire enough rounds to damage the receiver.

Things like the replaceable bolt heads on the Enfield were not put there to cover up a "weakness" but instead allow the rifles to remain in service far longer then any other rifle design.

Bolt suffering from setback and increased headspace? Replace the bolt head and see if it will print on target well enough (ie somewhat of a useable bore) if it will shoot minute of man no need to send it back for Armory Repair/FTR in the middle of a war.

If the bolt is suffering from setback and a new barrel is needed then the different bolt heads will allow the armorers to install a barrel with a properly done head space then using the different bolt heads allows the armorer to make up for the bolt set back.

Dimitri

Ed's last reply had nothing to do with what he was supposedly replying to.

His previously quoted pressure figures for the MkVII were 19 Tons or more and he pretty much repeated that, Pressures for the MkVI have always been quoted as lower than those of the Mark VII. Ed's reply made no sense.

The Q series of Proof test cartridges were listed at pressures exceeding 20 Tons, far in excess of 20 Tons in fact.


Now as for the Cartridge case absorbing Bolt Thrust, if so Ed's repeated postings of methods of fire forming the .303 case would result in effective zero headspace, in which case there would be next to no portion of the bolt thrust relieved by the case gripping the chamber walls, The case already resting against the bolt face. Fire forming using a spacer ring as Ed suggests would negate any effect that the case gripping the chamber wall might have had.


We already knew that replacing bolt heads could keep a worn rifle in service, and that used bolt heads were often mix and matched between rifles to cut costs. So a prefectly good rifle might end up with a bolt head salvaged from a rifle that had been damaged by excessive pressures. That bolt head might be damaged in some way not easily visible on inspection. Unless re Proofed with the replacement bolt head theres no garantee it would hold up.
A member of another forum posted that a fresh from the Wrap FTR'ed No.4 had blow out its bolthead when test fired remotely. So my own habit of test firing seems to be the wise move, at least if sending a rifle in for re proof is not feasible.

Many of the rifles on the market today came from third world user governments, and may have never been properly inspected since leaving the factory, if then.