reloading and the 7.62 No.4

I started to answer a question from a guy about case life of the 7.62 No.4 but the thread was locked. I have no idea why nor was I part of any dispute that may have taken place...!!!!! :-)

In the interests of helping another shooter I can tell you that I use a 7.62 No.4 for Service Rifle competition and shoot approximately 2,500 rounds every year from my 3 rifles.

I use winchester brass, sierra 155 grain matchkings and (what is known in the USA) AS Varget...or our 2208. I wont tell you the load but it is somewhere between 42 grains and 44 grains....

I full length size cases each firing, for surety of feeding and extraction...smooth bolt action etc.

I get about 3 to 4 reloads before the shiny ring appears about 1/2 inch above the case head that tells me there is an incipient head separation imminent....then I throw the case in the scrap bin... So expect 4 firings per case....full length resizing...before throw 'em away time...

Now you MAY be able to get much longer brass life by only neck sizing....but I prefer the sweet certainty of feeding and extraction that comes with the full length sized case....rapid fire is a large part of most of our service rifle shoots here in Oz. So the thing JUST HAS TO feed and eject with no hang ups or you lose matches... :-)

As a final note...i have tried the so-called 'better' brass...such as Lapua.....or the other end of the scale 'military' spec stuff.....ok they have thicker brass....but even with full length resizing I have had cases stick in the chamber and the extractor pull over....fatal in service rifle competition....no such problems with win cases so I've stuck with them.... The Lee Enfield isnt all that strong in the primary extraction department....and (experts tell me) the springing or stretching of the rear locking action tends to shorten case life.....

In the US Winchester has a reputation for having thinner walled but harder brass. In conventional bolt guns with tight chambers Winchester brass will often take higher loads than other brass without sticky extraction.
This is due to the hardness of the brass and it's greater internal capacity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiterider

I use winchester brass, sierra 155 grain matchkings and (what is known in the USA) AS Varget...or our 2208. I wont tell you the load but it is somewhere between 42 grains and 44 grains....

I full length size cases each firing, for surety of feeding and extraction...smooth bolt action etc.

---

Your load is similar to mine, 168gr SMK, Norma Cases, CCI BR-2 Primers and 43gr of Varget. I also full length size for the same reasons. :)

One thing that came up into my head is some of the hammer forged barrels (snake skin models) have tighter then normal bores, mine measures out to 0.307" not 0.308" which can squeeze the bullet, so just like any other firearm you should reduce the load if it was originally developed with a "proper" on size bore. :)

Dimitri

150-155gr, IMR4064, Rem9 1/2(usually), boxer primed L2A2 or fed. match cases. Neck sized 2/3 down the neck AND body sized with Redding die that does only the base and if req. the shoulder. Use redding competition neck sizer w. the bushings to keep from over working the brass.
The L2A2 cases are 1990 vintage Radway Green, earlier and later ones all seem to be Berdan primed.(?????)

I know nothing to do with the topic, but couldn't help it !

Can anyone tell me anything about these Lithgow conversions, I cant seem to find any info on them?

Thanks

Andy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyGC123

I know nothing to do with the topic, but couldn't help it !

Can anyone tell me anything about these Lithgow conversions, I cant seem to find any info on them?

Thanks

Andy

---

Is there something that makes you think its a Lithgow conversion ?
The photo shows a Savage.

Australia evaluated some No.4 actioned 7.62 Conversions and Savage No.4 rifles have been mentioned as being used by rifle clubs.

The only government 7.62 conversions I've seen mentioned were of No.4 T rifles or L42 type rifles that may have been purpose built. I believe Australia chose not to adopt a conversion for sniping purposes.

Whether a conversion on a Savage action would have been done by Lithgow would be hard to say.

From Savage receivers I've seen I think it would be the least suitable for conversion, at least the Mk I* models.
The rifle shown appears to be a No.4 MkI with earlier takedown method with catch.
Some Savage early versions were converted to T models.

First I heard of Savage rifles having a problem with the bolt head rotating out of the track was a short article in the American Rifleman from a member of a rifle club which I think was in Australia.
My own Savage No.4 has the begining of that problem and it seems to be a matter of the rear receiver wall having spread just a hair, enough to allow a vertical tilt of the bolt as it moves forwards if the magazine is empty or no magazine is in place. The bolt head tilting down causes the underside of the lug to touch the bottom of the track and be levered up out of the track.
Photos of other Savage actions with chipped tracks show what appears to be too much material removed around the cut out for the lefthand magazine feed lip. DP'ed magazines often show signs of the lefthand lip being worn down or damaged by contact with the bolt face.
Bending the LH lip up enough to contact the bolt as it reaches the opening in the track prevents my bolt head from rotating out of the track with an empty magazine in place.

Ireload suggested that poor stress relief may be the cause of the receiver wall spread, this sort of spread was found on some No.5 carbines after hard use.
The loose fit would not be immediately noticable if not for the Mk I* modifications opening in the track.

The AIA receivers have a beefed up bolt head lug and track, probably to prevent this sort of malfunction.

>>>I use winchester brass, sierra 155 grain matchkings and (what is known in the USA) AS Varget...or our 2208. I wont tell you the load but it is somewhere between 42 grains and 44 grains....<<<<

From my view there seems to be some very well informed loading going on here.

1. The .303 and the 7.62 Nato cases have very similar water capacities.
As you might recall from physics and especially chemistry PV = PV.
(With P = pressure and V= volume for gas.)

2. The manual data for the .308 Winchester (not talking about 7.62 Nato here) is about 10% higher than .303 data with similar bullets weights and Varget.

3. Whiterider's load is in the range of top loads for the .303 with a similar weight bullet.

His advantages are the use of more readily available 7.62 brass (AKA .308 for brass identification only), a closer fit between the chamber and the brass and a much larger selection of bullets.

Apparently from collectors I have spoken to locally, the funny looking letter in the circle indicates a Lithgow conversion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyGC123

Apparently from collectors I have spoken to locally, the funny looking letter in the circle indicates a Lithgow conversion.

---

The circular stamp near the charger guide on the left hand side receiver wall is a type of proof stamp, indicating that the action has been "crack tested".
This seems to have been done to most Australian No 4 7.62 conversions; I believe it had something to do with the safety regulations of the NRA rifle clubs at the time.

There are two variations of this stamp, one has "L" (tested by Lithgow SAF) as the third letter, the other has "S" (tested by SPORTCO, S.Aust?).

The stamp does not necessarily mean that the rifle was converted by that factory, merely that the crack testing was done there.

When I had one of my No 4's converted in 1984, I mailed off the bare receiver to SAF Lithgow for testing, back it came with the stamp, ready for rebarrelling by my local gunsmith.

>>>The circular stamp near the charger guide on the left hand side receiver wall is a type of proof stamp, indicating that the action has been "crack tested".<<<

What type of testing was done?
Liquid penetrant or magnetic particle?
What area of the receiver were they checking for cracks?
Were they looking for charger guide cracking or cracking of the load bearing rails?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ireload2

What type of testing was done?
Liquid penetrant or magnetic particle?
What area of the receiver were they checking for cracks?
Were they looking for charger guide cracking or cracking of the load bearing rails?

---

To paraphrase "Oddball" (Donald Sutherland, "Kelly's Heroes" movie)

"I only shoot them, I dunno what makes them work...."

Have no information about the details of the No 4 crack testing work.

Well to confuse the matter further, as usual, while running down information on a posted warning at Bisley against use of bullets weighing over 144 grains in converted Enfields I found that an arbitrary retained energy ruling meant to prevent use of 338 magnum rifles at some ranges were bullets could endanger populated areas if they escaped the range had also included .308 match loads of 155 grain and higher. Whether any ban is in effect I haven't found out yet.

British target shooters seldom handloaded in earlier times, but modern day UK shooters seem to do a lot more handloading, or hire others to work up loads for them.

Heres the post that started me looking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bindi2

I was in the NRA office at Bisley on Saturday and on the notice board in large print Do Not use any heavier projectile than 144gn Nato round in No4 conversions damage will result. I think that advice would extend to the Indian 2a, 2a1 as well. That Indian proof load test is the same as the current proof test used in the UK test. One dry @+ 25% one oiled @ + 25%

---

I can understand range limitations being connected to bullet weight but I cannot understand bullet weight being connected to breech pressure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ireload2

I can understand range limitations being connected to bullet weight but I cannot understand bullet weight being connected to breech pressure.

---

There is only so much room in the case below the neck.
If both .303 and .308 cases have the same volume in the powder space, and both are loaded with bullets that do not extend into the powder space, then using the same charge both will generate very nearly the same pressure levels.

The Over All Length of the .308 is shorter than that of the .303 and set to a limit. the neck is short compared with many in this class. Bullets of 144 grains don't extend below the case neck much if any.
To seat bullets heavier than 144 grains the base of the bullet will usually extend into the powder space effectively reducing case capacity.

When bullets of 175 grains are loaded in a .308 to the same velocity levels the case capacity is reduced so its like loading in a smaller case.
The .303 was designed for longer and heavier bullets of first 215 and later 175 grains and its OAL reflects that. To use 150 grain bullets to best effect in the .303 I seat them further out than intended to reduce jump to OR, at the same OAL as the standard .303 Ball.

How much difference a 150-155 grain bullet makes in pressure I couldn't say, probably not that much.

If the throat would accept a bullet seated further out, past the standard .308 OAL, the rifle being used as a single shot, then the two rounds could be loaded to basically the same pressures.

When .308 sporting ammunition is loaded using 200-220 grain bullets these extend even further into the case and greatly decrease powder space.

The 7.62 was designed to produce ballistics as near as possible to the WW1 era .30/06 150 grain Ball at circa 2700-2800 FPS, using more highly developed powders to allow this power to come in a package no larger than less powerful rounds like the 7.65X53 or the .303.
Converted WW2 era rifles were intended to use the standard Ball round with a safety margin. More recent Heavy Ball rounds were not designed to cater to this sort of converted rifle, they were meant for use in the most modern and strongest of designs, including updated Sporting Rifle designs of proven strength modified for use as Long Range Sniping Rifles.
Theres no ballistic advange to using .308 as a sniper round in these rifles, the .30/06 performs better at lower pressures, but the sniper rifles must be able to use available 7.62 Ball or delinked MG ammo in emergencies.

There was such a problem not long ago. A screw up by JAG caused open point ammo to be withdrawn, and snipers had to make do with whatever 7.62 they could find including de-linked long range MG ammo till the mix up was straightened out.

Another issue that came up in the UK was use of solid bronze or Copper bullets. These were found to be unpredictable as to ricochet and such.

My comment about bullet weight and breech pressure was based on the possibility maximum breech pressure can be reached with any bullet weight given a powder that is fast enough burning.
The US military specifications do not specify the powder charge or the powder to be used. Only the performance characteristics are governed.
Those include maximum average breach pressure and variability of velocity and pressure.

Ok that little stamp put on the left side of the action usually under the charger guide was put on by the Lithgow small arms factory after 'crack testing' the action before installing a 7.62 barrel and proofing.

As far as I am aware (and I stand corrected if a 'real' expert comes along) I recall hearing that it was a 'dye penetrant' examination of locking lug recess and shoulder...but I'm unsure if it encompased the whole action as such.

A few years ago much 'hoo hah' was put about by our National Rifle Association here in Australia about 'certain ex-military actions being not strong enough for commercial loads' of the 7.62 cartridge... Among those listed were the No.4 Lee Enfield and the M 98 Mauser.... Apparently the NRA put out this advice after information from a gunsmsith of some renown...

The advice went to say that 'only military ammunition or its equivalent and CERTAINLY NOT COMMERCIAL LOADED 308 ammo should be used in 'conversions'...

Now it should be fairly obvious to most reloaders that it takes more than just BULLET WEIGHT to constitute pressure...barrel internal dimensions, chamber cut and of course POWDER TYPE AND WEIGHT OF CHARGE all need to be taken into account. So limiting No. 4 conversions to a bullet weight of 144 grains WITHOUT ANY OTHER INFORMATION seems a bit ridiculous.

Now the strength of the No.4 action has been and will probably continue to be the subject of much argument. AS FAR AS I AM AWARE the only No.4 rifles known and documented to have suffered failure in service have been those 'cadet' rifles in the UK...and they suffered a barrel split not a failure of the action...

So make up your own minds about the safety of the No.4 action...I've put my eyes and head where my mouth is and have used them without a problem for many many years. I dont use hot loads in them and (by measurement of the fired case in a case guage) I keep a close watch on headspace, stretching of the action and any battering of the locking lugs or recesses.

Perhaps the learned engineer Mr. Horton could advise us further on the Lithgow crack testing process. I say this with sincerity and not sarcasm.

Here are the loads I use
Its a No4 MK2 with a 26inch target barrel on it, so it looks like an enforcer, and has a scope on it.

I use 45.5 grains of 2208 (varget) with 155 HPBT projectiles in Winchester cases.
I also load ADI cases, and because they are heaver, I use 44.5 grains.

Rifle has a harris bipod on it, and last time I shot it in 2 X 1000 yard 15 round matches, it did 66 and 70 out of 75, (with a 12mph crosswind)

Quote:

---

I dont use hot loads in them and (by measurement of the fired case in a case guage) I keep a close watch on headspace, stretching of the action and any battering of the locking lugs or recesses.

---

Thats as it should be.

Quote:

---

The advice went to say that 'only military ammunition or its equivalent and CERTAINLY NOT COMMERCIAL LOADED 308 ammo should be used in 'conversions'...

---

While there are commercial loadings of the .308 that should be safe enough theres seldom anything on the box to gaurantee to what pressure these are loaded, or whether the bullet profile is suited to any particular indiveidual chambering.
A military throat may be a fairly loose fit to the Ball or equivalent bullet, but no telling if a Match rifle chamber would be cut too tight for a much heavier bullet with a different profile.

Military Ball powders seem to allow a lower pressure level for the same velocity in lighter bullet loads, but the pressure advantage seems not to extend to full power loads using heavier bullets.

The 7.62 Match Cartridges loaded with 4895 single base gave about two hundred FPS increase over the .303 at aprox the same bullet weight, but presures were a hair under ten percent higher.
The long Range Special Ball uses a Double base propellant with slight velocity advantage but at even higher pressures.

Theres only so much elasticity to any steel alloy, and metal fatigue will take its toll sooner or later, the more stress applied the sooner the frame reaches the limit of its durability.

Another thing to take into account is the maximum deviation in pressure of M118 LRSB, the working pressure is 52,000 CUP but its Max SD is 57,000 CUP. More than a few rounds like that fired in an action already stressed past design expectations by repeated use of a higher than expected pressure level and things could go south unexpectedly.

If the warning about wet chambers is correct, that a wet .303 case can crack the action body of an SMLE, then a M118 LRSB cartridge or sporting round of the same pressure range accidentally getting wet on the range or in the field could probably do the same to a No.4 receiver despite its heavier construction. Keeping your weapon and ammo dry may be no big deal on the range but every place I've ever hunted has been rained on with big drops of water splashing down from the trees for hours after the rain stops, and moving through wet brush can have you soaked to the bone even with rain gear. Snow is another way of getting wet. I've fired Sub MOA groups in driving sleet just to see if I could, range 185 yards in twilight.

Contrary to popular belief no one gives a rats patoot about whether we have accidents with milsurp rifles unless someone gets killed by their own rifle or a bystander gets injured, and even then its not going to get past the Hooterville World Guardian unless the victim is someone of note.
Gunshot wounds must be reported to the police, but injuries from a breech failure or blown cartridge base do not.
When legal action may result the facts may never be known outside of the jury box, records sealed as part of the settlement.
I've seen enough badly damaged Enfields , both No.1 and No.4, sitting in rows of trash barrels priced at 6.95 each to be stripped for spares that I have no illusions about there never being a blown Enfield action, and since these were straight from the arms dumps of some third world pesthole they weren't likely to have been blown up by someones pet reload getting double charged.

Ive seen dozens of damaged Enfields and I've never seen a blown up Spanish 93 Mauser, but I have no doubt that a Spanish Mauser can be blown up by an unsuitable cartridge.
I've never seen a 1888 Commision rifle blown up by 7.92X57S but I have no doubt that it can happen, and that there are WW2 heavy MG loadings that would damage most Model 98 rifles if very many rounds were fired.

If an accident happens to the average shooter the most you'd see would be a couple of lines on page twelve saying, old rifle blows up, no details except perhaps the alcohol level of the victims blood. No newsbreaks with hourly updates or banners running across the bottom of the screen during the state of the union address.

Those "Crack Tests" were done for good reasons, not every rifle made it through fifty to one hundred years without time and harsh conditions taking its toll.

I have Rockwell tested a number of actions and bolts most of them M98 Mausers. The recommended receiver ring hardness for a Mauser is in the low 30RC range. I have tested mostly 1909 Argentine Mausers that Bockwelled B 80 which is the approximate equivalent of rockwell C0 (zero). Early metallurgy could be all over the map.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ireload2

Liquid penetrant or magnetic particle?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiterider

As far as I am aware (and I stand corrected if a 'real' expert comes along) I recall hearing that it was a 'dye penetrant' examination of locking lug recess and shoulder...but I'm unsure if it encompased the whole action as such.

---

God I hoped not when I first read Ireload's comment. I have seen products pass the dye method only to fail horribly using magnetic particle and other more expensive methods of finding faults. :ugh: Not many mind you but enough to worry me. Still the cracking a receiver would receive I'd imagine is on the surface then into the metals core, so its not too big of a deal and dye penetrant will catch that. :thup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by srjg3432

Its a No4 MK2 with a 26inch target barrel on it, so it looks like an enforcer, and has a scope on it.

---

The later Envoy's and Enforcers may have had a set pattern for barrel length etc as I was originally told, but I am doubting that the early ones did. Just based on the fact my E2* came from the factory as a 29" barrelled rifle. If it looks like one then its good in my books. I am not a purist with military surplus arms. :)

Dimitri

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alfred

Well to confuse the matter further, as usual, while running down information on a posted warning at Bisley against use of bullets weighing over 144 grains in converted Enfields I found that an arbitrary retained energy ruling meant to prevent use of 338 magnum rifles at some ranges were bullets could endanger populated areas if they escaped the range had also included .308 match loads of 155 grain and higher. Whether any ban is in effect I haven't found out yet.

British target shooters seldom handloaded in earlier times, but modern day UK shooters seem to do a lot more handloading, or hire others to work up loads for them.

Heres the post that started me looking

---

Here is the complete message from the NRA regarding 155 Grn loads:

"Safety Warning

Enfield Rifle Actions Converted to 7.62 Calibre from .303 or made as 7.62mm

Enfield actions of the No4 and No5 type were originally designed to fire the British .303 service cartridges of the day.

Many of these actions have been subsequently converted from .303 to 7.62mm. Whilst a few selected actions may be stronger than others, most are not suitable for use in this calibre other than under certain conditions.

The 7.62mm Cartridge that they were inteded to use was the 144-grain NATO cartridge with a bullet diameter of .3075"

It is unsafe to fire these rifles with the 155 grain Radway Green cartridge or any other commercial cartridge using the 155 grain or heavier bullet which has a diameter of .3083" or larger

Firing these latter cartridges can ultimately lead to catastrophic failure of the bolt lugs and bolt body that could lead to serious injury. This risk is considerably increased if the chamber or cartridge gets wet or is oiled prior to firing.

The NRA will not accept responsibility for any accident or injury to persons or property caused by anyone using any 7.62/.308Win ammunition supplied by them in these converted actions.

The actions/rifles may fall under the following descriptions, but there may also be other names or descriptions used: SMLE Conversion, Enfield Conversion, No 4 Conversion, No 5 Conversion, Parker Hale T4 , Whitaker Special, Enfield Envoy and Enfield Enforcer.

You have been warned"

Very much written for Health & Safety reasons, and also to wash their hands if indeed there was a problem with any of the above.

I had to have the chamber of my .308 converted No. 5 re-reamed as cartridges had to be slightly forced before they´d fully enter the chamber. The chamber is still quite tight but is slowly getting better. I also had some trouble with the extractor. It turned out to be a really badly squashed extractor spring (is the only difference between a .308 extractor and the one for the .303 the ground off corner?). The rifle action is still a bit stiff ... but getting better all the time. It is noticeably more accurate than my other .303 No. 5. Both have practically new barrels.

I load Privi Partizan cases: Sierra 10,9 g HPBT with 39.0 grains of Vita N 140. I only neck size and use a neck trimmer and the cases seem to be everlasting. Now that I also only neck size .303 cases, they last a lot longer too and I haven´t had any of the tell-tale signs around the base that I used to get regularly. Comparing the two, the .303 action is a lot smoother and faster but the .308 is definitely more accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strangely Brown

Firing these latter cartridges can ultimately lead to catastrophic failure of the bolt lugs and bolt body that could lead to serious injury. This risk is considerably increased if the chamber or cartridge gets wet or is oiled prior to firing.

---

I wait to see the NRA produce the evidence of this - I assume they haven't simply regurgitated something they read on the internet.....

AFAIK, not one such incident of bolt lug failure has been unequivocally documented - certainly never the main lug! Indeed, the very scant number of known incidents relate to fracturing of the extractor housing part (only) of No4 boltheads, or the distortion of receivers in No1s. These seem to be sacrificial parts of the respective models in extreme circumstances.

The point about bullet diameter also seems dubious in the extreme. Are the NRA seriously implying that ALL 144gn NATO-spec ammo is .3075" or less?! The NATO spec is actually fairly flexible, with some variation in bullet weight, dimension, velocity, etc - to say nothing of the manufacturing variations in barrels as well.

"It is unsafe to fire these rifles with the 155 grain Radway Green cartridge or any other commercial cartridge using the 155 grain or heavier bullet which has a diameter of .3083" or larger"

I take it that the NRA "Safety Warning" was not a blanket denunciation of the No 4/5 .308 conversion but rather a warning against re-loading with unsuitable charges and/or bullet weights.

This would certainly apply to any other type of hand gun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunderbox

I wait to see the NRA produce the evidence of this - I assume they haven't simply regurgitated something they read on the internet.....

AFAIK, not one such incident of bolt lug failure has been unequivocally documented - certainly never the main lug! Indeed, the very scant number of known incidents relate to fracturing of the extractor housing part (only) of No4 boltheads, or the distortion of receivers in No1s. These seem to be sacrificial parts of the respective models in extreme circumstances.

The point about bullet diameter also seems dubious in the extreme. Are the NRA seriously implying that ALL 144gn NATO-spec ammo is .3075" or less?! The NATO spec is actually fairly flexible, with some variation in bullet weight, dimension, velocity, etc - to say nothing of the manufacturing variations in barrels as well.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by villiers

"It is unsafe to fire these rifles with the 155 grain Radway Green cartridge or any other commercial cartridge using the 155 grain or heavier bullet which has a diameter of .3083" or larger"

I take it that the NRA "Safety Warning" was not a blanket denunciation of the No 4/5 .308 conversion but rather a warning against re-loading with unsuitable charges and/or bullet weights.

This would certainly apply to any other type of hand gun.

---

As usual I think the NRA are shooting themselves in the foot with a warning about a senario that could happen, but hasn't yet and isnt likely to!

As TR Captain of a Lee Enfield organisation that uses Bisley Ranges I find myself in the position of having to enforce some of the rules that come out of the front office at Bisley; although since this debate has raged I have been in contact with a couple of shooters who were unaware of the differances in 7·62mm ammunition regarding bullet weights!
(protecting the ignorant?)

Perhaps this notice is something of a wake up call to some of the uniniacated.
Before this happened our organisation had actually banned the use of 155 Grn ammunition from club guns, persumably because of a lack of understanding amongest some members regarding wet whether skills and the like.

It should be noted though that 155 Grn is not actually banned from Bisley in No4 conversions, simply that the NRA (and one assumes their insurances agency) do not want to hear about future claims regarding No 4 recievers and 155 Grn Palma ammunition being used together.

For my part I am reloading with 150 Grn Sierra bullets over 40.4 Grns of VihtaVouri for all three of my 7·62mm No 4 conversions, it's too early to say how the loads will go in three differant rifles, over distances from 300 yards to 1000 yards, but its always something I can report back with at a later date.