Printable View
I don't know if the AIA new production clones are considered for discussion here. I requested information from them regarding the proofing of their rifles.
Specifically I asked if they proofed them to US SAAMI .308 Winchester standards. They answered with a long somewhat detailed discussion of their design and proofing process. I will post it here if a moderator approves.
If this is not the right place let know where to post it.
The AIA rifles are legitimate Enfield rifles in my mind and will become very collectable in their own right in time. Discussion centering around these rifles is perfectly acceptable in this forum. Feel free to post your information as long as you have the senders permission and the material is not copyrighted.
I do however need to point out that the continued 7.62mm Enfield bashing is becoming tedious. The forum mood regarding this issue has changed as evidenced by posts in some of your recent threads.
For example:
And:Quote:
There cannot be many more ways left to imply that the LE is "Inherently Weak"
Oiled cartridges
Weak action
"Expolding bolt heads"
7,62 rounds destroying the action
Cracking around the bridge
Its getting monotonous !
I have noticed a decline in Enfield help wanted and general interest posts since the Inherent Weakness thread began. I would like to see us get past this good verses bad 7.62 Enfield discussion and get back to what the forum is intended for: Forum for discussion by serious collectors of Lee Enfield arms, accessories, ammunition, and accoutrements.Quote:
Under different circumstances, I´d have taken this question seriously.
I thought that the right to chose not to participate is one of our rights. No one makes anyone read my posts. Perhaps some here do not understand they do not have the right to approve of everything that others post. I find the post that you quoted objectionable because it makes certain assumptions based on presumed motives that are in error. Perhaps those with thin skins should learn some tolerance for other's interests.
OK I agree with your post for the most part. Though I feel the quoted posts were only them expressing their right to free speech I am sorry you find them objectionable.
Now to get back on topic: Do you have the permission from the sender of the information you wish to post and is it copyrighted? I’m quit interested to know what they had to say.
Dear No4Mk1(T)
I have noted your opinion that "The AIA rifles are legitimate Enfield rifles in my mind". Unfortunately I must post a warning in this regard. It definitely applies here in Germany, so I can only warn shooters in other countries who are thinking of purchasing one of these rifles with the intention of participating in servce rifle competitions to get WRITTEN approval from their national shooting organization that the rifle is acceptable for competition BEFORE purchase.
The story behind this warning:
A friend who is not only in the same club but also in the same service rifle shooting group as myself wanted to have an Enfield, but in .308, not .303.
He inquired of a representative of the national body that organizes the service rifle competition if the AIA would be acceptable. He got a VERBAL OK and went out and purchased the rifle. As the rifle came equipped with the simple flip-up non-adjustable battle sight, he also spent a not inconsiderable sum on obtaining the correct Mk 1 screw-adjustable milled backsight for the No. 4.
When, after the usual period of adjustment, ammo tuning etc, he arrived at his first competition, the rifle was flatly rejected by the scrutineers. When he protested that Herr X had pronounced the rifle to be OK he was told "then Herr X was wrong - did he give you his approval in writing". In the meantime he has received a list of a round dozen objections to the rifle, starting off with the screw-in foresight pin instead of a blade. He now has an extremely low-mileage AIA for sale and is, understandably, not a little displeased with the national organization.
That is the full miserable story. So (sorry for shouting) I say again, get WRITTEN approval from your national shooting organization that the rifle is acceptable for service rifle competitions BEFORE purchase.
Patrick
That’s exhalant advice Patrick Chadwick. :super: When I made my comment I was referring strictly to the fact that the new Australian rifles are derivatives of the original Lee Enfield design and will be of interest to Enfield collectors.
Thanks for taking the time to bring this to our attention. :thup:
My point in the Inherent Weakness thread was that criticisms of the Enfield originated with British and Canadian sources, not the un named "American Gunsmith" so often mentioned as a way of denigrating US interest in the rifles.Quote:
I do however need to point out that the continued 7.62mm Enfield bashing is becoming tedious. The forum mood regarding this issue has changed as evidenced by posts in some of your recent threads.
For example:
Quote:
There cannot be many more ways left to imply that the LE is "Inherently Weak"
Oiled cartridges
Weak action
"Expolding bolt heads"
7,62 rounds destroying the action
Cracking around the bridge
Its getting monotonous !
And:
Quote:
Under different circumstances, I´d have taken this question seriously.
I have noticed a decline in Enfield help wanted and general interest posts since the Inherent Weakness thread began.
The manufacturers of the No.1 rifles, as well as noted British authorities on the rifle, gave their opinion that the bolt was Unscientific and weak, and the British National Rifle association has taken steps to warn of possible damage to converted No.4 rifles if cartridges using bullets weighing over 144 grains are used.
Theres no plot to defame the Enfields engineered by some nameless faceless phantom "American Gunsmith".
American manufactured .303 ammunition is loaded to very nearly the same ballistics as the MkVII cartridge, any decrease in chamber pressures while maintaining balistic efficiency is a welcome plus in any cartridge meant for any rifle.
SAAMI specs are based on the pressure of the MkVII load as measured in CUP, 45,400 according to sources dating to within years of its adoption. I found the figures in the Journal of the Franklin Institute quoting a US Ordnance officer. This translates to the 49,000 PSI Max of the SAAMI requirements for the .303.
As for the AIA rifles, I had my doubts of their being suitable for service rifle competition from the begining.
Also one should always remember that a Verbal Agreement is not worth the paper its (not) printed on.
Whether the AIA rifles are proof tested for the SAAMI maximum pressure of the .308 is important to those who are considering buying one, because if they are not they probably won't be available in the US without some sort of Waiver.
No4Mk1(T)Quote:
Originally Posted by No4Mk1(T)
I sent the email requesting the information late Sunday night CST and got the answer this AM. I expect it may take another few days to get permission if permission is granted. I am can share most of the contents but I would prefer to do so in it's entirety rather than in snippets.
Just so everyone knows I knew nothing of AIA until a week or so ago so I have no bias for or against their product.
I trust AIA rifles less then I trust a non-proofed to 308Win level No4 that was converted by bubba in his garage.
But that is just me.
Dimitri
Do you own one? Have you fired or at least examined one?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitri
Thank You for your efforts. As I said I look forward to seeing what they have to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by ireload2
And your point is now made as it was many times over in the Inherent Weakness thread. I will consider this your final epilog to that thread and leave it at that. You have your opinion and others have theirs. No more useful information can be disseminated at this point so I see no point in rehashing the issue. So for the last time lets consider the issue closed and move on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfred
My understanding (which may, of course, be erroneous) is that there is (was?) no compulsory proof by an independent proof house for rifles in the USA. But in Germany it is quite simply illegal to import and sell a rifle without having it proofed - unless it already bears a proof marks. So the AIA I referred to was, of course, proofed to CIP 308 Win. standards. And, judging as a shooter, not a collector, it is well made with a very good hardwood stock.
It is a pity that the manufacturers did not take the same care to make an accurate replica that, for instance, is taken by Pedersoli with its muzzle-loader and BPCR replicas. Quite simply, the examples I have (Mortimer flintlock, Gibbs percussion, Sharps Long Range) are so good that if you had an original that was better you would hardly dare expose such a valuable antique to everyday club shooting. So there is a market for first-class replicas, and the 3 types I have mentioned set high standards, the first two in particular being regular match winners in their disciplines. (For BPCRs there are a lot more affordable shootable rifles available).
From about 1880 onwards there are still enough good-shooting original service rifles available, although for a rifle such as the Springfield 03A3 you will hardly find one for sale here in Germany as just about every one that shoots well is in the hands of people who will keep them as long as they shoot (or live, for that matter).
Lee Enfields do not have the same rarity value, at least not as 303s. As I pointed out to my unfortunate friend, before, during, and after the event (I've stopped now, it's like kicking a man when he's down) for the round 1K he spent on the AIA + correct backsight + ammo + testing + abortive journey to competition + lost entry fee he could have got a Stirling conversion.
In short, as long as collectors (such as certain members of these forums) can afford to keep rackfuls of good service rifles in cabinets for the sheer fun of it, and until the day when an original service rifle costs 3 or 4 thousand dollars, euros or pounds, there will not be an adequate market to justify a replica that would satisfy the national shooting bodies. In particular, do not overlook the fact that the possessors of originals have an understandable interest in keeping replicas out of competition.
Feel free to disagree, but politely, please!
Patrick
PC, I agree with your assessment of the AIA situation. It is a darn good rifle that is just ahead of its time.
As for racks of rifles sitting in safes, just for the fun of it, I will agree to disagree. Granted there are a few collector/shooters that have a few dozen or more variants tucked away. The huge influx of Indian, Pakistani and Turkish surplus rifles, not to mention the as new in grease Longbranch rifles released by the Italian navy which were quickly bought up by European interests and had the bolts mated with their original rifles, are being dumped on the market anywhere from $150 to $500. Many of these rifles will still shoot very well with only minor cleanup.
The Irish contract No4 MkII rifles are a good example as well, thousands of them were dumped on the market several years ago for under $100 in the wrap. In Canada, before the insanity set in amongst the artsy fartsy crowd in parliament, there were brand new late model No4 MkI* rifles made from 1949 to 1953 being sold for under $90. They are all incredible shooters, especially if your eyes are still good enough or your glasses will allow you to use both sights properly.
These rifles, if new, some are wrapped some never were, command premium prices. From a recent gun show in Kamloops, BC Canada, I saw an Irish contract No4 MkII that was sold to a friend for $900, complete with bayonet and scabbard. The rifle will probably never smell fresh air.
The AIA rifles are fantastic rifles, beautiful, very accurate and chambered in a proven cartridge. I personally would have liked to see it offered in 303Brit as well. Some of our clubs in the area have no problem allowing it in milsurp shoots as there really isn't any advantage to the AIA, unless it just happens to be the prettiest girl at the dance.
I'm saying this because there are still thousands of brand new No4 MkI variants still in storage in many countries and many will still be released to civilians by their governments for ages to come. I would dearly love to see the warehouses of vintage arms in ex Soviet countries. I think we've just scratched the surface there. Remember back in the seventies when the first Mosins were being offered for under $20? Most of them were fair+ at best and many were so bad that when our government had an amnesty, they were dumped by the thousands. I suspect, like the Mosins being offered now, that the best is still to come. Especially with Mausers and other Axis firearms. There is even a rumor going around that there are thousands of allied rifles and militaria still in storage of all types, many of which were lend lease. We can only hope I guess as a steady supply of these surplus firearms on the market will keep our sport and interests alive and well, and within the financial reach of most people.
Now it's up to us to keep up the interest of the younger generation and not put so many rules on them as to turn them off, rather than welcome them.
Bearhunter You talk of the arms stockpiles in the ex Soviet countries. My boss was invited my the Defence people in the Ukraine to see if there was anything the UK MoD would like before the stocks were disposed of by destruction (UN rules) or sale (under strict EU rules). He was awestruck at the sheer quantities of what looked like brand new weaponry. He did have many items brought over but he couldn't even start to explain the quantities of kit, from all over Europe. As for the US Lend Lease stuff still in the green transit boxes.......... In fact I sent a couple of the actual boxes, still marked with details of 'THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, ORDNANCE DEPOT, AUGUSTA, GEORGIA. that housed 10 Thompson guns, back to the USA.
He said to me that the world would never see quantities the like of this again. And this was just ONE former Soviet Country!
Thanks Peter. I've heard similar stories. Talked to another fellow that was present at a burning to get rid of the wood. It seems that they like to invite UN types to watch or maybe select a few pieces they may be interested in for posterity and to have evidence of compliance.
I'm not much of a fan of the UN by the way so the systematic destruction of the pristine firearms doesn't surprise me in the least. It's just to bad they released the klunkers first for civilian sales.
Fact of the matter is the reason they are not importable to the US anymore is due to the State Department finding out they were made in a factory in Vietnam. And yet AIA still insists that the rifles are made in Australia. This is why I don't trust anything they claim anymore. Including the suitability of the "improved" receiver's ability to handle the 308Win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevo
Funny thing is I was dead set on buying one of their rifles till that little truth came out from the State Department.
No.4 Receivers on the other hand have been converted successfully for years and have a track record that can't be denied. ;)
Dimitri
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitri
There is another possibility - maybe the State Department was given some incorrect information.
I did read on another forum (ages ago) that it was thought that the woodwork was made in Vietnam but the 'important' (metal) parts were made in Australia.
Certainly in the UK anything with 80%+ local content is classed as "Made in Britain" (Hence Honda, Toyota cars etc are classed as British manufacture)
There is some argument about how to measure the 80%, by value, by number of parts, by weight, but I would say that if the barrel and receiver is made in Australia then by any stretch of the imagination the 'majority' of the rifle is Australian.
Maybe some of our Aussie brethren can coment on "local content" ruling or know something re AIA ?
Last time I checked, the AIA website did not claim Australian manufacture. There was a comment about international sourcing.
Australian law specifies that for something to be marked "Made in Australia", 51% of the cost of production must be incurred in Australia. The AIA rifles are not marked "Made in Australia".
Some apparently used brand new mini-gun barrels left behind in Vietnam.
Personally, I think the countries where the various parts are made/assembled/finished is irrelevant, these days.
I have never heard of anyone having a significant problem with one of these rifles.
Except in the eyes of the United States the Receiver is the firearm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield
That is the receiver, barrel and stock that have been linked to Vietnam so far. Per AIA statements and the State Departments assessment of the rifles after the first batch was imported to the US and further importation was banned.
Its nice they joined the 20th/21st century and got a website now, and its nice to see that they have been doing damage control since the last time I gave them a passing interest. However Lawrance Ordnance in Australia for the longest time was the semi-official website for AIA, they had the only webpage available for the rifles listing the AIA rifles as "Made in Australia", then came the AIA ".ca" site that also originally listed "Made in Australia" plastered all over the website.Quote:
Last time I checked, the AIA website did not claim Australian manufacture.
Both American and Canadian dealers were told that the rifles were made in Australia, now that AIA is doing damage control means little more then them trying to weasel their way out of what they originally claimed.
The AIA website still none the less cracks me up with this:
Right cause after the little incident with the first 2 US importers having a difficult time dealing with AIA once the rifles shipped, then the State Department banning imports of the rifles, someone is going to try to import them again to the US. The guys at AIA are really nuts.Quote:
Domestic U.S.A.: To be announced shortly...
As for rifles being marked "Made in Australia", the vast majority of countries require the city and state/country of the firearms manufacture to be marked on the rifle AIA's rifles are marked "Brisbane Australia" which is the equivalent in most countries as being marked "Made in Australia" per firearm laws.
Dimitri
Perhaps the "Brisbane" refers to the location of the company.
I would agree but all 3 countries (Australia, Canada and the United States) require the country or place of manufacture to be marked on the firearm for many years, just as the majority of Europe also requires the same. Hence why I am going to say if AIA would claim what you are now, its just more misdirection and misleading the purchaser of where the rifle (and in specific the receiver) was made. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by tiriaq
Dimitri
I think some of the marking statements in this thread do not represent the facts in the US. It is common practice to sub-contract both barrels and stocks out to other companies. In the case of many US manufactured rifles the markings are the location of the company and are placed on the barrel even though the barrel may have been manufactured elsewhere.
The well known Browning BPCR rifles are marked with the company's name and location on the barrel plus the statement "Made in Japan". The subcontractor and city in Japan is not marked on the rifles. If any manufacturing of the rifle is performed by the Browning Company I am not aware of it. It is a known fact the barrel blanks for these rifles are made in the US. I suspect the stock wood is imported by Japan too.
In the case of CZ USA rifles the company name and US city location is marked on the receiver but the entire rifle is made in the Czech Republic and the city is not mentioned.
Browning's guns are marked "Made in Japan" to satisfy the origin marking requirement, the US address is the importers information, a separate American law and requirement for import marking of firearms.Quote:
Originally Posted by ireload2
As for CZ USA. Er no, they are handled as new manufactured parts kit guns and are considered made (better word assembled) inside of the USA. Same reason they also comply with the 5 US Made part rule that any part kit gun needs to comply with.
Dimitri
>>>As for CZ USA. Er no, they are handled as new manufactured parts kit guns and are considered made (better word assembled) inside of the USA. Same reason they also comply with the 5 US Made part rule that any part kit gun needs to comply with.<<<
I do not think they are kit guns.
They say made in Czech Republic.
Nowhere do they said made in USA.
That is because technically they are not made in the USA. Instead they are only assembled in the USA as part kit guns with 5 "domestically" made parts, to meet the requirements for part kit guns.
To comply with 18 U.S.C. § 922(r) the following parts are used by CZ USA, the same way Americans need to do it for a parts kit gun, except this way its the factory doing it not the end-user. Magazine follower, Magazine base, Trigger, Sear, and Disconnector.
With the maximum of 10 foreign parts per 18 U.S.C. § 922(r): Receiver, Barrel, Barrel extension, Bolt, Bolt carrier, Gas piston, Buttstock, Pistol grip, Handguard and finally the Magazine body.
Dimitri
Do you have real knowledge of this or are you just regurgitating something you have read?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitri
Are you telling me that CZ has someone assembling double barrel shotguns in the US?
The CZ documentation I am looking at says it was targeted in Europe north North America.
Personal opinion- I take offence to these obominations being called either Lee Enfields or Australian as they are neither!
The only reason the receiver design was "improved" was to ensure it was less complicated to make, therefore could be produced by less skilled and less costly labour in a country where wages, conditions and quite likely quality control are minimum.
Untill someone can produce an address and pictures of a facility here in Aus that actually manufactures any parts for these rifles, I would suggest that the "manufacturers" statement that went something like components are made in several asian countries for assembly in Australia (currently trying to find the quote again) means they are contracted out to the lowest bidding supplier (which will not be in a developed nation, let alone here!)
Enfields were always made all over the place. Even in Australia!
The only changes I have made were to protect the privacy of the sender and myself. Other than that the email is posted exactly as I received it.
DEAR XXXX,
THANKS FOR YOUR ENQUIRY. FIRST, YOU REFER TO THE NO4 MK10. THIS WAS THE NOMENCLATURE GIVEN THE INTIAL 50 TOOLROOM PROTOTYPES MADE IN 2001 BY AIA. THIS WAS CHANGED TO M10 WHEN WE ACTUALLY COMMENCED COMMERCIAL MANUFACTURE. EXCEPT FOR OUR "CLONE" OF THE NO4 WHICH IS NAMED THE NO4 MK4. AS THE PROTOTYPES WERE ALL IN 7.62 X 39 M43, I ASSUME THAT IT IS THE NO4 MK4 AND OTHER 7.62 NATO MODELS THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF YOUR ENQUIRY. TAKE A LOOK AT OUR WEBSITE australianinternationalarms.com.au FOR A LOOK AT THE FULL RANGE OF OUR STANDARD AND LIMITED PRODUCTION MODELS. FOR YOUR INFORMATION, THE LETTER "A" OR "B" IN THE MODEL TYPES AND SERIAL NUMBERS DESIGNATES CALIBRE: E.G. M10-A1 IS IN 7.62 X 39 M43 CALIBRE, M10-B2 IS IN 7.62 X 51 M80 NATO CALIBRE. THE EXCEPTIONS TO THIS ARE THE NO4 MK4 MODEL AND IT'S DERIVATIVES (NO4 MK4 T AND NO4 MK4 SL), OUR FORTHCOMING LIMITED EDITIONS (JOHN PARIS LEE COMMEMORATIVE, L42, J5550 CANADIAN LIGHT RIFLE ARE THE FIRST THREE OF THE FOUR LIMITED EDITIONS), AND VARIOUS PROTOTYPES (L42 MK2, NO4 MK5). ALL OF THESE EXCEPTIONS ARE ALSO IN 7.62 X 51 M80 NATO CALIBRE.
NOW TO YOUR QUESTION: PROOFING PROOCEDURE FOR ALL OUR M10B PRODUCTS IS AS FOLLOWS:
(A) ONE 1.50 TIMES STANDARD PRESSURE "PURPLE PILL" IN 7.62 X 51 NATO TO PROOF THE BARREL IN A SPECIAL BARREL PROOF FIXTURE. THERE ARE DUAL REASONS FOR THIS BARREL PROOF: FIRST, TO PROOF THE BARREL; SECOND, TO CHECK THE INTEGRITY OF OUR HARD-CHROMING OF THE CHAMBER AND BORE. EVERY BARREL IS MAGNAFLUXED AND CRACK-TESTED AFTER THIS PROOF.
(B) TWO 1.33 TIMES STANDARD PRESSURE "BLUE PILLS" IN 7.62 X 51 NATO TO PROOF AN ASSEMBLED ACTION AND BOLT. THE FIRST OF THESE IS TO FINAL SETBACK THE BOLT LUGS INTO THEIR LOCKING RECESSES AND THE SECOND IS THE ACTUAL PROOF ROUND. THIS PROCEDURE FOLLOWS THAT OF THE ORIGINAL NO1 AND NO4 AND I AM SURE EXCEEDS THAT OF NEARLY ALL CONTEMPORARY COMMERCIAL MANUFACTURERS. AFTER PASSING POST-PROOF INSPECTION ETC., A P-IN-A-CIRCLE IS MARKED ON THE RHS OF THE FRONT OF THE RECEIVER.
(C) FOLLOWING THE ABOVE, EVERY ASSEMBLY IS THEN SHOT FOR FUNCTION AND ACCURACY FROM A SPECIAL FIXTURE USING A MINIMUM OF TEN 7.62 X 51 M80 NATO BALL ROUNDS. WE DO NOT BELIEVE IN THREE-ROUND GROUPS AS A REAL MEASURE OF ASSEMBLY ACCURACY --- ALL A THREE-ROUND GROUP CAN TELL YOU IS THAT YOU HAVE A GOOD BARREL, NOT NECESSARILLY A GOOD GUN!
NOW, AS YOU ARE I SURE YOU ARE AWARE, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN .308 WINCHESTER AND 7.62 X 51 M80 NATO. THE CASE FOR M80 IS MADE WITH GREATER THICKNESS AT THE BASE AMONG OTHER SLIGHT DIFFERENCES SO IT IS STRONGER. HENCE, LESS PROPELLANT VOLUME. HENCE, SLIGHTLY LESS PEAK PRESSURE THAN .308 WIN. IF MEMORY SERVES ME CORRECT, 55,000 PSI FOR M80 VERSUS 62,500 FOR SAAMI SPEC 150GN .308 WIN. I LEAVE IT TO YOU TO CALCULATE WHERE OUR PROOF PRESSURES (INCLUDING THE 1.50 TIMES "PURPLE PILL") FIT INTO THE PEAK PRESSURE RANGES YOU NOTED.
THE UNITS WE HAVE EXPORTED TO EUROPE HAVE ALL BEEN SUBJECT TO FURTHER PROOFING ACCORDING TO THEIR INDIVIDUAL PROOF LAWS. I UNDERSTAND ALL OF THIS IMPORT-INWARDS PROOFING WAS WITH 1.33 TIMES .308 WINCHESTER "BLUE PILLS". ONLY TWO UNITS EVER HAD PROBLEMS DUE TO THE MINIMUM HEADSPACE WE SET: THE "BLUE PILLS" USED WOULD NOT CHAMBER. USING THE BREWER BARREL LOCKING COLLAR (SAME AS SAVAGE), HEADSPACE WAS THEN ADJUSTED AND NO PROBLEM.
NOW TO USE OF .308 WINCHESTER IN THE M10B. WHILE OUR CHAMBER AND BARREL ARE MADE TO DEFINITIVE 7.62 X 51 M80 NATO DRAWINGS AND TOLERANCES (TO ALLOW HARD-CHROMING AMONG OTHER REASONS), WE WELL REALIZE MOST CIVILIAN SHOOTERS WOULD BE USING .308 WIN OR THEIR HANDLOADS IN OUR RIFLES. CONSEQUENTLY, FINAL ASSEMBLY HEADSPACING USES INCREMENTAL .308 WINCHESTER GAUGES WITH 1.630 TO 1.631 BEING ALLOWED. AGAIN, EASY TO ACHIEVE BECAUSE OF THE INFINITELY VARIABLE BREWER LOCKING COLLAR. WE HEADSPACE TIGHT FOR ACCURACY.
WHEN WE REDESIGNED THE LEE-ENFIELD NO4 ACTION, WE "WENT OVERBOARD" MAKING IT STRONGER THAN THE ORIGINAL. INSTEAD OF THE CASE-HARDENED MILD STEEL OF THE ORIGINAL, WE USE A FULL MILSPEC ALLOY STEEL TO MAKE OUR FORGINGS. YES, WE STILL DROP FORGE THE RECEIVER AND BOLT. THEY ARE NOT MADE BY JUST CNC-MILLING FROM BAR STOCK. THE FORGING PROCESS PROPERLY LINES UP THE CRYSTAL STRUCTURE IN THE METAL FOR GREATER STRENGTH.
THE RECEIVER IS 50% HEAVIER THAN THE ORIGINAL NO4 RECEIVER. FIRST, IT IS A RECTANGULAR RECEIVER COMPARED WITH THE "WAISTED" ORIGINAL. WE PUT BACK ALL THAT METAL CUT AWAY TO MAKE THE NO4 "WAISTED" AND LIGHTER. AFTER FULL STRUCTURAL STRESS PATH ANALYSIS, WE ALSO ADDED CONSIDERABLE METAL BEHIND THE LOCKING LUG RECESSES BY ELIMINATING THE LIGHTENING CUTS. WALL THICKNESS OVERALL IS GREATER THAN THE ORIGINAL. AND REMEMBER THIS IS IN PROPERLY HEAT-TREATED ORDNANCE STEEL NOT THE OROGINAL CASE-HARDENED MILD STEEL.
OUR MOST RECENT ADDITION TO FURTHER STRENGTH OF OUR M10 ACTION IS MACHINING THE RECEIVER BRIDGE INTEGRAL WITH THE RECEIVER. PREVIOUSLY, WE HAD WELDED IN THE BRIDGE (ORIGINAL NO1 HAD THIS PINNED, ORIGINAL NO4 HAD EITHER PINNED OR WELDED). OUR BRIDGE WAS ALREADY MORE SUBSTANTIAL AS WE ELIMINATED CHARGER CLIP GUIDE CUTS IN LIEU OF USING THE BRIDGE FOR OUR STEEL PICATINNY RAIL. MACHINING THE BRIDGE INTEGRAL WITH THE RECEIVER (SOMETHING THE ORIGINAL MAKERS COULD NOT DO) HAS MADE IT EVEN STRONGER.
FINALLY, WE HAVE PERFORMED A RANGE OF "TORTUE TESTS" ON OUR ACTION FROM INTENTIONALLY DEFECTIVE ROUNDS, LOOSE PRIMERS, ETC. ETC. ---- PASSED ALL WITH "FLYING COLOURS" INCLUDING THE EXTREME OF SPECIALLY PREPARED OVERLOADS (CALCULATED PEAK PRESSURE 110,000 PSI). THE TWO ACTIONS USED IN LAST TEST BLEW OUT THEIR EXTRACTORS AND HAD A MOLTEN BLOB OF BRASS ON THE BOLT HEAD FACE. AFTER CLEANING, WE FOUND THAT HEADSPACE HAD MOVED AN INCREMENT AND FULL CRACK TESTING AND GAUGING SHOWED THE BARRELS, BOLTS, AND RECEIVERS AS COMPLETELY OKAY!
I HOPE THE ABOVE ANSWERS YOUR ENQUIRY.
KEEP SHOOTING WITH BEST REGARDS,
KH
Here you go- all the answers (or rather, the questions that were avoided or skirted) There is still no definitive response to any of the enquiries-
The Mystery of Australian International Arms
You specifically mentioned rifles, the only rifles I can remember CZ USA importing is the VZ58 rifles. Rifles like handguns are covered and controlled by the State Department while the Shotguns your throwing into the mix are controlled by the Department of Commerce. So I am confused why your are adding something else to the mix.Quote:
Originally Posted by ireload2
I am not saying I know US laws in and out that is a job for a lawyer there are too many laws and clauses for everything relating to firearms, but I got a good basic knowledge of simple facts such as these, why would a Canadian know this? Because this Canadian browses American forums and he also has to deal with a lot of the State Department and Department of Commerce regulations when he is exporting from the US to Canada.
Thanks for the back up Son. :super:Quote:
Originally Posted by Son
Dimitri
Like you, Dimitri, I tell it how I see it. Perhaps one day we'll all find out, but at the moment if AIA told me the sun was going to rise in the east tommorrow, I'd be getting a second and probably third opinion! :beerchug:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitri
CZ imports a full line of sporting rifles and shotguns into the US. I think to suggest that they are assembled in the US is in error. The cost advantage that CZ USA has would be lost by assembling in the US.
Check out the CZ USA web site.
I´ve never yet looked askance at any Enfield on the basis of where it was made. Why should I start now with the AIA rifles?
I'd consider these a Lee Enfield type action rather than a Lee Enfield.Quote:
Personal opinion- I take offence to these obominations being called either Lee Enfields or Australian as they are neither!
Much in the way a Winchester Model 54 or 70 , or the P-14 for that matter, is a Mauser type action rather than a Mauser action.
Ireload2
Very interesting information on proof testing and torture tests.
Sounds like the M10 should hold up fairly well. Though if I bought one I'd still keep loads in a safe zone, to ensure that the action didn't suffer undue wear over time.
The .308 Winchester never really appealed to me as either a hunting or target round, the .30/06 can do anything the .308 can at lower pressures.
The 7.62 NATO is best in a short throw action, and the converted Enfield actions actually have room to spare. This might come in useful if the throat allows the bullet to be seated out past normal OAL so the heaviest bullets don't take up powder space. A standard LE Magazine could be altered to feed the 7.62 with extra OAL. A target rifle need not be a magazine fed repeater in any case.
FWIW, CZ-USA is a subsidiary of CZ in the Czech Republic. Marketing arm of a foreign company. They are likely going to produce their products in whatever way makes the most sense for the US market.Quote:
Originally Posted by ireload2
Are current CZ longarms stocked up in North American or European walnut?
As far as Lee Enfileds in 7.62/.308 are concerned - personally I think it would be prudent to use loads that have the approximate pressure levels of the .303.
Their VZ.58's have to be assembled in the US, their bolt action rifles and the shotguns which they are also importing due not. Military arms, of which the only one I found was the VZ.58 since this is a forum about military rifles in CZ's line up that is the one I decided to discuss. After all why would I talk about their hunting line in a military surplus forum?Quote:
Originally Posted by ireload2
Anyways VZ.58 rifles are banned from importation just like AK's are since 1989 due to them being a "non-sporting semi-automatic military pattern firearm" (which was expanded by Clinton in 1998 as well) and the reason CZ can import them is because they are done as part kits then they get assembled Stateside to comply with 922(r) which I posted earlier with US made parts. Just like anyone else can do the same thing, they are not imported as rifles but as part kits.
As for the cost advantage, alot of the stuff I buy from the CSR (machine tooling mainly) and its not that much cheaper then USA or Canadian made goods, some of CZ's bolt actions prices would buy me a very nice Remington Custom Shop M700. ;)
Dimitri
You did it as a red herring. Why would you discuss a military autoloader here that is subject to different import restrictions than a commercial bolt gun?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitri
>>>>some of CZ's bolt actions prices would buy me a very nice Remington Custom Shop M700. <<<<
Sure if you are talking about a .404 Jeffery or a .416 Rigby.
But try buying a .404 Jeffery, .416 Rigby from Remington's custom shop.
Because we are talking AIA rifles which claim to be military arms. I am trying to keep the topic on track, None the less know why Remington 798's made in Serbia are marked as such:Quote:
Originally Posted by ireload2
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...mington1-1.jpg
Its not because Remington wants that, its because its the current US law. Just as in Canada we have a similar law, and in most developed countries as well. Come August 27 or so, when I got access to my desktop, I will post the PDF files of both Canadian and American law on the marking on firearms stating the manufacturing location (even if its only the country as in the case of the picture above) needing to be marked on the firearm.
Dimitri
Quote:
Originally Posted by villiers
That's an easy one... because it's not an Enfield!
Ask them who they are paying royalties to for the use of the design...
Or even just show me where on the alleged "Enfield" action the factory name is notated in some recognisable way like every other "Enfield"...
I think you'll find they changed enough of it so they didn't have to. Not like the old days when Lee had to pay for the use of the P14 action design because Paul Mauser successfully contested it was copied from his!
I don't think Enfield had to pay Mauser for the P-14.Quote:
Originally Posted by Son
I don't see any contribution by J P Lee in the P-14 design. I think he died before it was designed.
I'm fairly sure that Springfield jumped the gun by only a few months when they built the first 1901-1903 actions, if they'd waited Mauser's applicable patents would have expired.
There was never any doubt that the extractor and magazine of the 03 were mauser types, the ejector (not a Mauser type anyway) and twin forwards lugs were not exclusive to Mauser, the only reason they went to court was to settle on the price for using those features that Mauser held patents on.
Mauser bought up patents of other European gunmakers to hedge his bets.
DWM also sued for some features of the spire point bullet and stripper clip, but they never collected.
The spitzer bullet had been experimented with in the US long before the Europeans tried it out. J H Hardcastle, designer in part of the "Swift Bullet' that led to the MkVII , wrote of the use of spire point bullets by US long range shooters in the BP days, Stripper clips were in use with hand cranked machineguns in the 1860's or 1870's. Those fed directly into the feedway instead of into a magazine.
The case was thrown out due to WW1.
Patent protections don't last forever. Also it was common practice in those days for the winner of a war to confiscate technology as reparations.
Then you'd be wrong both the United States (due to the M1903 till the US declared war in 1917) and Britain (due to the P13/P14) paid royalties to Mauser. However considering the rifles development was so close to the first World War Britian paid effectively very little to the Germans for the design.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfred
Funny thing is I think the P14 is a better rifle then the K98's I've handled. But that is just my opinion. :)
Dimitri
Well that's just plain silly. If they pass Birmingham proof, and they do, then they are up to, if not better than SAAMI specs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitri
They'd only pass Birmingham proof if they were exported to England, and that still is not a good judgment of function without it being checked for microscopic cracks.Quote:
Originally Posted by harry mac
Went back and re-read the posted reply from AIA, other then the annoying cap lock being in use I did find this gem. The best materials for recievers out there are mild steels, that is steels with under 0.4% carbon content as you want the receiver to flex in the inner core, while having the hardened case to handle the loads without shearing.Quote:
Originally Posted by ireload2
For example the M14 line of rifles use 8620 steel, its a nickle-chromemoly steel, low carbon content (a mild steel) which is case hardened and in the M14 platform handles a life of 425,000 rounds.
Only tool steel I'd trust in a firearm other then 8620 is probably S7 or similar, as they are designed to be shock proof, running a piece of metal that is all the way through hardened can cause very large problems due to the shock loading that a firearm receives.
Mind you I am still laughing at the "Mil-Spec Alloy Steel" bit, as all steels are alloys and any commercial steel has a military specification number attached to it. So really they can be using just about any steel they wish.
Even Mild Cold Rolled steel (1020) has a Mil-Spec number "MIL SPEC MIL-S-11310" ... so they are not telling you anything of value in their email.
Dimitri
I've drilled holes in enough Lee Enfield receivers to doubt that they are case hardened.
:rofl: You know why they can say "military spec steel"?
Because the country they are making the parts in is still cutting up left behind US military hardware and melting it down!
(PS- The laugh is about the wording of the AIA statement, not anything to do with the brave souls from your country and mine who fought for a cause there side by side...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiriaq
The No1 MkIII receivers were case hardened in several places (not all over) mainly for the purpose of resisting wear or impact from moving parts. The locking lugs being one such area. In fact, the manual will tell you that the headspace check conducted with a test bolt body is to determine the amount of wear on the lugs. If a rifle fails headspace with it's own bolt, but passes with the test bolt fitted it can be repaired with replacement parts- (eg bolthead bolt body or both) If it failed both tests then the receiver was scrapped (hardened surfaces worn away or damaged/extruded) Funny thing that most don't realise- the spec for a NO-GO headspace gauge is set to fail an action (testing with the test bolt) for a worn receiver because the .004" wear is the approximate depth of the case hardening on the lugs.
All this just adds weight to Dimitri's point about tensile steels. To do the job, the receiver has to be elastic. That is, to be able to absorb certain forces and return to it's original shape. In doing that job, certain areas are subjected to impacts that would alter the shape, so they must be hardened to protect against it. Hardening the area effectively increases the surface area of the impact and reduces the effect.
I would be very concerned about the suggestion the receivers are all hardened steel... Hmmm... isn't there a lesson learned previously on the topic of receivers being too hard to the point of being brittle. What serial number early Springfields were they that were prone to cracking or shattering?
PS- (from further back) I think the Birmingham Proof Mark is alongside the factory stamp.
On WW2 Lithgow receivers you can see a slight colour difference in the areas which are selectively hardened - primarily in the locking and camming areas. I'm not sure its case hardening, I suspect it is more likely induction hardening. During the period these rifles were made, case hardening was usually done using the pack method, and I don't think that spot hardening like this would have been practical using a case hardening technique.
No. 4 receivers seem to be hardened in the same areas.
If some of the AIA rifles were made up using brand new left behind Minigun barrels, these would be absolutely first class barrels, made of superior steel, and internally chromed, of course.
Forging might or might not produce a better receiver than machining from a billet. If it is not done properly, there is a really good chance that forging could produce an inferior product. As we all know, it is possible to produce a quality receiver using precision casting technology. It doesn't really matter - any production method can produce acceptable parts, if it is done properly.
Never heard of Britian paying any royalty to Mauser for the P-14 action. Can you give further information on this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitri
Now heres an interesting development.
Turns out Mauser no longer owned the U S Patent rights for the design elements used in the Springfield 1903, he had transfered these rights to " Messers Von Lengerke & Detmold of New York".
According to the linked PDF
http://books.google.com/books?id=gN1...esult&resnum=4
"Decisions of the Comptroller of the Treasury 1905"
The legal question was whether the Chief of Ordnance over stepped his authority in committing the US to paying such a royalty to Von Lengerke & Detmold, who may have been acting as agents of Paul Mauser.
There is another case of Patent infringement that may have been conflated with the Mauser/Springfield case, that of "Russell v. United States 182 US 535" in which Russell claimed that manufacture of the Krag Jorgenson rifle in the US infringed his patents.
Earlier you posted that you might be interested in a Remington 700 custom shop rifle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitri
It is common knowledge that their receivers are made from 4140.
I believe that Ruger M77 bolts and receivers are cast from the same or a similar alloy. Care to elaborate on the contradiction with your statement above?
Maybe you might like to ask why the 700 Remington uses a through hardening steel for their receiver? This is not the early 1900s. A through hardening steel can be 32 RC or it can be 64 RC. Some can be heat treated almost anywhere in between.Quote:
Originally Posted by Son
I don't think this is correct. I believe they are replicas just as an H&R Trapdoor is a replica.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitri
I looked up the applicable Mauser patents that the US paid a royalty for use of, and found that none of them had anything to do with the bolt, receiver, magazine ,or extractor, all three were improvements of the stripper clip.
DWM claimed that their cartridge patents covered the design of the .30/06 cartridge. I suppose the rimless case and spire point.
International patent protections were still a murky issue back then. To be sure of protection you'd have to file a patent in several jurisdictions covered by international agreements.
Near as I can tell Enfield receivers are hardened to some extent, more like a sword blade , and the locking surfaces are given an extra hardening process.
The thread on Indian proof testing tells of a substitution of a non hardened steel that resulted in failures during proof firing.
The low number Springfield receivers didn't fail because of the type of hardening, but rather due to poor execution of the forging and hardening process. They did not intended that the receivers be hardened to the same extent all the way through. Overheating of the steel resulted in many receivers being brittle.Quote:
From 1908 to 1950 all military bolt action rifles made at Ishapore were proof tested with a dry proof round followed by an oiled proof round. The proof cartridge was loaded to 24 tons (2240lbs = 1 ton) psi breech presure, or 25% higher than the service pressure.
In 1950 the material for rifle bodies (they made No.1 Mark 3* rifles; my addition) was altered from an EN steel to SWES 48 steel (not heat treated) except for the recoil shoulder and cam recess in the receiver. With this change the rifle receivers distorted when oiled proof cartridges were fired. This was discovered when hard and sometimes impossible bolt retraction was experienced. Large quantities of rifles were rejected. To avoid rejections the authorities ordered discontinuance of the oiled proof. Therefore from 1950 to the end of SMLE rifle production (June 1965) rifles made at Ishapore were proof tested with one dry proof only, although the specification called for both dry and oiled proof.
A bolt action rifle similar to the SMLE Mk. III*, modified to fire the 7.62 NATO cartridge was produced at Ishapore, first in February 1965. Their receivers were made of SWES 48 steel, un-heat-treated, and with the NATO proof cartridge receivers were found to distort with the oiled or the dry proof round! The material was changed to an EN steel so now the rifles stand up better to dry and oiled proof.
Ok, I don't know why they use the steel they do... but I know why it doesn't matter a toss if they use kryptonite, cast iron or even cardboard.Quote:
Originally Posted by ireload2
The pressure bearing components- the bolt and the chamber- are locked together at the time of firing, so there is no force imparted onto the receiver at all other than the effect of recoil as it is transferred to the shooter's shoulder. Totally different for a rear locking action for example... Lee Enfield... where the pressure is restrained by the receiver from near the rear of the action where the bolt locks to the rear of the barrel where it is screwed into the action.
There are probably more firearms out there that use die cast aluminium or thin pressed mild steel sheet for their receivers than harder grades of forged steel. Maybe the Remington uses it to maintain high grade surface finishes and tight tolerences between moving parts- lengthening their servicable life and making them look pretty... nothing to do with controlling the chamber pressures.
AIA were very clever using a description like they do. It's put together to make people who have doubts about a real Lee Enfield taking full pressure 7.62 loads (and the associated stigma with rear lockers) feel better about their product... All they really did by enlarging the dimensions slightly and use of "milspec grade alloy" (gotta take your hat off to thier spin doctor!) was make it easier to machine and remove the need for heat treatment hardening of load bearing surfaces. DOUBLE WIN for them- cheaper to make with less skills required.
I still haven't found any information on the exact alloy of steel used for Enfield Lock receivers.
I figure it just about had to be at least a mild Nickel Steel, nickel steel has excellent elastic properties and would be the best choice for a rear locking action. Its best that such a receiver strecht just a hair and snap back, probably less than one ten thousandth of an inch under a normal load.
Breaking strength of the earlier LE receivers was quoted by Ross as being 85,000 Pounds, but he didn't say if this was a test to destruction cartridge or whether the figure was from a mechanical or hydraulic application of force. I'm figuring hydralic testing, not sure why but that would fit in with some things I've read of 19th century methods in testing of such metal structures, especially ordnance breech mechanisms.
Considering the power of main battle cartridges of the period and up till post WW2 times, the actions of every sucessful bolt action rifle were remarkably lightweight.
The No.5 always seemed an odd duck to me, they couldn't have saved much weight from lightening the receiver, lighter wood or a composite stock and slimmer barrel would have done much more without weakening the receiver.
No its not, 4140 is heat treated the same way as the 8620. You first "through" harden the steel, but due to the low carbon content (0.40% hence the 4140) case harden the outside for a tough durable surface.Quote:
Originally Posted by ireload2
The inner core of 4140 once supposedly through hardened gives you a core of 35-40 Rockwell "C" scale, getting it to 45 or higher is practically impossible. Instead the core is heat treated to make it tougher but still retain elasticity, cause without that, the receiver will want to shatter instead of flex under the pressure of the fired round. Then the surface is hardened though "case hardening" which can be done with plain Carbon packing, Nitrogen based methods or a few other methods, to give you a hard outer shell of 55-65 Rockwell C to allow the receiver to last with little wear and tear from repeated firings.
They don't. Read my reply above. Through hardened steels are actually tool steels, with a high 0.50-0.95% carbon content that will allow the heat treatment into the core. All other steels will not do that 4140 is still just a mild steel.Quote:
Originally Posted by ireload2
Dimitri
That's exactly my point. They have been exported to The UK and are up to UK proof standards. If the rifles are strong enough to pass UK proof then there is no issue with their strength. As far as I'm aware UK proof standards are more stringent than SAAMI.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitri
That is where your wrong, a proof load can be passed with a rifle of questionable manufacture that would not hold up after repeated firings.Quote:
Originally Posted by harry mac
Its like a weight lifter, a weight lifter can max out with 500 pounds and do it a couple of times without showing signs of not being able to, just as a rifle can handle a couple of proof loads, but when that same weight lifter does sets, he may only be able to do 250 pounds 15 times before having to stop.
Metal fatigue is the issue, not necessarily the rifle passing the proof testing. Especially when materials of questionable origin are used. Most military and commercial arms continue to use the same few materials as they always have because the arms designers know they work and will hold up in the long term with little to no metal fatigue from repeated firings, as well as can handle the pressures generated with proof loads.
Dimitri
As far as the amount of flex in a Lee Enfield action is concerned, I suspect it is a lot more than a ten thousandth. Set up a rifle with minimum headspace, neck size to substantially reduce fireforming, and cases will still have a shorter lifespan than if used in a front locking rifle.
Cases stretch in a Remington 788 rifle because of bolt compression, not receiver flex.
But rear locking actions do have characteristics not observed in front locking ones.
A Remington 700 receiver is heat treated, but I've not seen one that was "through hardened" or carburized. They can be drilled or machined without difficulty - for sight mounting holes, blueprinting, etc.
The AIA rifles obviously withstand industry standard or proofhouse testing. Prooftesting does not mean that a firearm will not fail at a later date.
Many owners report them to be perfectly satisfactory rifles.
Everyone's cup of tea? Obviously not. Certainly the product of a rather atypical company. Long term future? Who knows?
What I am trying to get at is why is the strength of these actions being called into question? As far as I'm aware there hasn't been a case of one failing during use. Your point about metal fatigue is valid, but can be said of any object which is made from metal and has seen heavy or prolonged use.
DimitriQuote:
Originally Posted by Dimitri
I suggest you read more before you post. 4140 is a direct hardening chrome moly steel. When quenched the hardness goes all the way through. Once it is heat treated and tempered it is used as is with out carburization. There is no need to case hardened. If you Rockwell test a Remington 700 receiver you will find it is only about 40-44 RC and that is plenty hard enough for the application. I have 40XBR Remingtons and the receivers of those rifles are machined after HT so they will remain straight. If you are not going to post accurate information here why post at all?
SonQuote:
Originally Posted by Son
All you are doing is spinning your own tale without facts.
A Remington 700 action by design takes the full force of firing just as any other action two lug front locking action. The forces are taken over very short sections of high strength steel. All of these forces are absorbed by the relatively large sections of the receiver ring and the front lock lugs. These components are short and and are not subject to much stretching.
Rear locking actions have long sections subjected to the firing forces and subsequently stretch. It is not a stigma it is real. It is simply physics.
Because of the layout of the action it is a little quicker to operate but you pay a penalty in rigidity. When reloading cartridge cases you see a big difference in case life and the efforts required to COPE with the forces that cause case head separations.
Rather than spin the situation yourself why don't you find out what steel is used by AIA and the dimensions used by their receiver. Then analyze the receiver and find out what the difference is. I can tell you right now that the steel used will not affect how much the action flexes. That is governed by the modulus of elasticity (AKA Young modulus). Young modulus is about the same for ALL common steels. What does affect the flex is the cross section thickness of the receiver. The flex is reduced directly in proportion to the change in receiver cross section area.
The M700 receiver is through hardened it is just not extremely hard and does not need to be. 1898/09 Argentine Mausers that are so popular for building custom rifle are usually about Rockwell B80 (~C0 that is Rockwell C Zero)Quote:
Originally Posted by tiriaq
and are too soft for hard use with a lot of high pressure cartridges. later M98 receivers are often carburized to C32 to about .010 deep. The M700 is about C44 all the way through. It is much tougher than ANY Mauser 98 except maybe a cast Mauser clone that is cast from 4140.
The following are my results for the bolt compression and receiver stretch for a #4 Lee Enfield action.
..............................Receiver.......Bolt. .............Total Deflection
..PSI.........................Stretch......Compres sion....Receiver+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
100000...................... 0.0032.......0.0123..........0.0154
105000...................... 0.0033.......0.0129..........0.0162
110000...................... 0.0035.......0.0135..........0.0170
115000...................... 0.0036.......0.0141..........0.0178
120000...................... 0.0038.......0.0147..........0.0185
My No.4 is fitted with a no. 3 bolt head and new condition bolt body, and I set the lugs and seats nicely with an accidental overload early on in my handloading for this rifle.Quote:
Originally Posted by tiriaq
I'd substituted a pulled Mk VII 174 gr bullet for a 150 grain bullet with the fairly modest charge I normally use for the 150 , which should have been no more than a safe max load for a 180 grain. Whatever the reason that load swelled the primer pocket and near erased the headstamp. I'm much more careful now, and there was no damage to the rifle.
Group size shrank to half that of groups fired before setting the lugs in their seats.
Head gap with a S&B case with rim of .063 was less than .004, gap is of course several thousandths more when thin rim commercial cases are used, but I never again lost a case to stretching or cracking.
My loads for the no.4 run at 46,000 to 48,000 PSI, near max by SAAMI standards.
I neck size only, and to insure ease in loading in the field I use each fired case as a snap cap for dry firing practice, this sort of micro sizes the case body to the chamber.
I rotate each case 180 degrees at second firing, this eliminates any unequal swelling of the case body, from second firing onward each case is a perfectly centered fit to the chamber.
I figure that in part the shorter case life some experiance despite relatively tight headspace is due to several factors working together. Centering the case body to the chamber leaves little leeway for these factors to overwork the case.
I once owned a 788, not a bad rifle but too generic for me at the time.
From what was known of the action then case life problems were put down to the inability to get a good even bearing of its rows of multiple lugs.
Those who used this action in competition prefer to lap the lugs for even bearing, and this seems to do the trick for them.
Normally a three lugged bolt acts like a tripod and even bearing is natural, but when there are rows of three lugs only three lugs will bear naturally, the rest will not bear until pressure sets the three bearing lugs back, this results in springing of the three bearing lugs till they wear into place or are set back in the seats. Lapping the lugs hastens the wearing in process.
Three substantial lugs will perform better than multiple rows of three lugs with less meat to each lug.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitri
When this topic was previously discussed and I pointed out that my rifle had been proofed in the UK AND in Germany, I `phoned the Federal German proofing authority and was assured that proofing standards in the EU are NOT limited to proof firing the weapon. The action is removed from the stock and inspected for material damage, headspace is checked and the weapon inspected thoroughly. Proof houses in Germany and the UK have been doing their job for hundreds of years. They are government agengies and would be liable for any damage caused by their negligence.
So why should I heed the impotent bleating of self appointed "experts" who cast doubt on the reliability of an item that has not only been thoroughly proof tested, but has further stood the test of two World Wars?
I think you're conflating the previous discussion of WW2 era No.4 actions in 7.62 NATO with this No.4 styled but not actually No.4 or Enfield M10 action and its differing metalurgy and manufacturing techniques.Quote:
Originally Posted by villiers
The basic Lee design elements remain, but this is not a No.4 any more than a No.4 is a Lee Metford.
A rear locking action is more subject to metal fatigue if for no other reason than much more of the receiver's structure is subjected to stress under pressure.
The receiver ring is highly unlikely to fail, because unlike front locking actions the receiver ring serves only to secure the barrel to the rails of the receiver.
The only real question as far as the M10 is concerned is how durable the alloy used in its construction is to repeated stress of firing the more intense .308 loadings or the highest pressure 7.62 loadings such as M118 Long Range Special Ball.
Proof testing eliminates the defective rifles, but doesn't predict the effect of continued use, and can't forsee abnormal conditions that a rifle might be subjected to. An example of such abnormal conditions came up on a long range brench rest forum recently. Ammunition loaded to maximum safe pressures where temperatures hovered around 60 degrees proved to be a dangerous overload when the shooter went to a match where temperatures approached 90 degrees.
A reported failure of a No.4 rifle using a European MkVIIIZ type ammunition suggested that the ammo had been developed for use in low temperatures and higher ambient temperatures resulted in excessive pressures.
A quoted reference to extra hot loaded MkVIIIZ ammunition in use in a desert environment told of extreme high pressures with the primers so flattened as to looked "painted on".
My opinion on the converted No.4 rifles proofed to the 19 T mark is that they should be safe enough with ammunition that generates pressures no higher than standard Ball Ammo, around 48,000 CUP which is equivalent to MkVIIIZ.
The question of whether the M10 action is strong enough for extended use of higher pressure loads like the M118 LRSB or the hottest commercial .308 ammunition will be answered with time and use by owners of these rifles.
As for casting doubt on the reliability of the Lee Enfield type action, no action type has a perfect safety record, The Ross debates provided numerous examples of LE action failures, and the warnings that SMLE action bodies can crack if a wet cartridge is fired indicate that theres always been concerns about the safety margin of the SMLE at least. The No.4 receiver and metalurgy are stronger than that of the No.1 in most cases, but the bolt itself is marginally stronger at best.
A rifle can last for generations if not abused by loads that exceed its design limitations. No sense letting emotional attachment or pride over ride common sense in chosing the best ammunition.
I wouldn't subject a 1893 Mauser to the highest pressure 7MM ammunition available today, I wouldn't subject a high number Springfield to the hottest possible .30/06 loads either.
>>>They are government agengies and would be liable for any damage caused by their negligence.<<<
Just because the agency has fulfilled the requirement to proof a rifle does not mean they have any further liability. All they do is prove the rifle is not an immediate threat for catastrophic failure.
There is one case that I know of where the proof house struck the proof mark and cracked the receiver of an expensive rifle. The manufacturer had to pay for the replacement receiver. The damage was never noticed by the proof house or by the manufacturer. The odd thing is the rifle design was one which has the locking shoulders in the barrel extension. The receiver does not bear any load from firing. Yet the proof house had to stamp the receiver and they stamped it near the edge cracking it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ireload2
I got a better idea- dispute this...
FACT
The AIA line of rifles are not Lee Enfields and therefore have no real place being discussed here other than perhaps a cursory mention as a passing oddity. They deserve even less space than the factory bubba jobs from Navy Arms, Gibbs, and other rifle chop-shops who at least started with genuine Lee Enfields. And before anyone gets all hot and bothered about the supply of milsurp rifles drying up, these chop shops were operating when the rifles were a dime a dozen- they were a fact of life then, but no longer get made now.
BUT AIA admit to using up supplies of genuine No4 spare parts to suppliment their production, and then have the hide to say their product is desirable because the genuine No4's are getting harder to come by. PLEASE! They are helping to create the shortfall of available milsurp rifles that they are advertising as being an alternative to.
Bottom line- pay many hundreds of dollars for a rifle that will never be a Lee Enfield- possibly not permitted in competition and at best a poor excuse for a target rifle anyway- it will decrease in value from the time you fork over your hard earned cash.
May as well buy a better made and more accurate remchester for the same or less money and get real service and parts back up to boot!
Other option- spend the same or less dollars on a good No4, treat it with care and use it well knowing you are not likely to wear it out and it will increase in value.
Another variation of this option- Buy two good No4's. Use one for many years in surplus rifle competition while the value of the other goes beyond what you spent on the two to start with. Your shooting rifle effectively becomes a freeby over time.
(NOTE# no metalurgists brains were sucked dry in the preparation of this posting)
Remember these- a real No4!
Its got to be one or the other Tiriaq, but because of the lower carbon content of 4140 it does not get "through hardened" to the same Rc as you'd get a tool steel to.Quote:
Originally Posted by tiriaq
There is and there isn't, case hardening the outer surfaces of the receiver and bolt would allow the rifle to have a much higher life span, but wouldn't effect the operation of the rifle at the user level. However for Remington and many other rifle/action manufactures its a cost-benefit decision as the user of the rifle will probably never notice the difference in a bolt action hunting rifle.Quote:
Originally Posted by ireload2
One I am not a expert, just someone who went to college for Tool and Die (machining) and did the job long enough to know the properties of materials and know how to work within their limits. Two, to claim that the AIA rifle stood the test of 2 World Wars is plainly false. The No.1, the No.4 and No.5 all worked admirably well in 2 world wars, with the No.1 serving as a front line firearm in both, but the AIA other then a resemblance of the rifles, is not the same rifle.Quote:
Originally Posted by villiers
Dimitri
AIA rifles are accepted in all forms of Service Rifle Comp in Australia.
As a work rifle the No5 is the best in .303. There is nothing in Australia in any calibre to match it. AIAs M10B2 and B3 gave us a replacement operating 10 shot box in 308 in a slick action. I now see that there has been a move by some manufactures to list bigger magazines for tactical rifles but not work rifles.The quality of the steel used will show in the time the rifles give service no different to any others. Even front lockers with supposed high quality steel have failed with little use.