Bizarre Safety Warning from the NRA

I opened my NRA journal that arrived in the post today, only to find the most bizarre safety warning i have seen in ages.
On page 9 the NRA has issued a warning against using Enfield no4 7.62mm conversions to fire 155 RG ammo ???
and issues the warning against ALL 7.62mm conversions including envoys, enforcers, parker hale T4's and the like. Now this rifle in various guises has been around for 40 + years so why the problem now, or is it the health and safety nutters at work again !!!
comments gentlemen?

I have whacked off an email asking for the source of this.

The nub of the warning is of course that the regular 7.62 mm NATO (L44A1?) is OK but the L42A1 is not.

They are saying that the rifle was designed to fire the 144gr surplus ammo
with a bullet dia. of .3075 and that the newer 155 gr Radway has a diameter of .3083, never thought this difference would be an issue, and why now ! many years after the 155gr went into production.
But i am in no way an expert on bullet diameters, 'If it fit's i'll fire it' !!!!!!!

I very much want them to justify this as, as far as I am aware, this is completely unsupported by any evidence/ incidence/ Proof advisory/ common sense/ etc at all. The UK NRA have minimal dealings or interest in "1st generation" Enfield-based anyway - they certainly do not carry out any sort of research or technical investigation.

I suspect that this has simply been picked up as a ***-end off the internet by one or two unqualified characters in the NSC, and taken as wisdom...

I have an Envoy where the previous owner has provided a log-book showing 9,000+ rnds of 155gn ammo through it. The rifle is still tight on its original "0" bolthead....

On another thread on this forum someone commented that the warning was posted up on the notice board at Bisley a week or two ago.

Jumping on the bandwagon ??

I'm using military stuff which is 0.306" Bullet weight not known. - should I panic ?

The cartons are marked :

AB22
20 PATRONE
7.62mmx51 DM111
Weichern
Los MEN93B0009

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

On another thread on this forum someone commented that the warning was posted up on the notice board at Bisley a week or two ago.

Jumping on the bandwagon ??

I'm using military stuff which is 0.306" Bullet weight not known. - should I panic ?

The cartons are marked :

AB22
20 PATRONE
7.62mmx51 DM111
Weichern
Los MEN93B0009

---

I checked with a UK target shooter on another forum and he wrote back that the warning had been up for at least six months.

There were other warnings about use of heavier bullets that were not based on the rifle used mentioned on the UK NRA sites. These were due to damage to backstops and increased range in case of a AD that might endanger built up areas beyond the end of the range.
It started with .338 rifles and the Joules limitation included a number of 7.62 and .308 loads using bullets heavier than 144 grains.

So it appears that they are more worried about what happens at the target end instead of what happens to the rifle?

Well the shooter I'd asked about this copied down the info from his issue of the NRA journal

Quote:

---

"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"

---

He went on to say he believed it to be more or less , paraphrased in my words, a insurance liability dodge. As long as theres a possibility of damage or injury then on your own head be it.

This warning seems to have been posted at NRA headquarters long before the recent discussions on these boards came about.

PS
While looking over the NRA site I found they also are banning solid bronze or copper alloy bullets, due to un predictable ricochet factors.
This would be bullets such as the Barnes or the old French Ball D.

Civilization is encroaching on the old rifle ranges just as longer ranging bullets are coming into their own.
Same problem around here these days.

I received a scanned copy of the notice this morning. I have pulled the pdf apart and attach the text in its entirety:

"Safety Warning

Enfield Rifle Actions Converted to 7.62 Calibre from .303 or made as 7.62 mm. Enfield actions of the No 4 and No 5 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 7.62 mm. 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 7.62 mm Cartridge that they were intended 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 cartridges 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 /.308 Win ammunition supplied by them in these converted actions.

The actions / rifles involved 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."

Interestingly, but probably unsurprisingly, there is no date on the received document nor any authorization information.

I suspect that these folk are unaware, and do not wish to be aware, of a few interesting points:

Bullet diameter is a lot less important in pressure matters (within reason) that bullet weight. One of my No4s has a .300"/.308", 1:10 twist barrel, I built it to shoot 155gn Palmas out of .303 cases. However, it is throated to accept standard 174gn Mk7 ball so that if I ever part with it, there will be no issues with this ammo. Yes, it works quite well with Mk7 ball: with no sign of excessive pressure, such as hard extraction, high recoil or case damage.

I only shoot my 155gn target handloads in it for 2 reasons: good Mk7 ball is like hens teeth and I get better groups with the Palmas, even with the odd throat.

On a similar note, I once tried an interesting experiment with a Mod 38 Carcano carbine. This was to fire a standard steel-cored 7.62x39 round out of the unmodified 6.5x52 chamber and barrel. The barreled action was lashed to an old car tyre, the round clipped under the extractor and the fun initiated via a long string.

BORING!! The bullet hit the backstop about 25 yards away. The action opened normally. The steel case had considerably less taper than previously and there was no sign if excess pressure on the locking surfaces. The steel-cored, steel-jacketed bullet had jumped the gap to the chamber neck, been squeezed down a bit and exited, probably not quite intact, in the usual manner. That action was subsequently rebarreled to 7.62x39 as a single-shot kids training rifle and is still in use twenty years later.

Getting the recipe wrong with bullet weights and propellant types and loads is a whole different matter, however.

I suspect that there is also a lot of confusion about chamber pressure and effective back thrust on the bolt. If you build a No4 up in 5.56NATO and run long range, heavy bullet loads, you can be cheerfully operating at significantly higher pressures without it being very obvious or, in fact, in any way dangerous. (The usual caveats about firing pin diameter and protrusion still apply).

Maybe the real problem is that the larger diameter bullets are actually performing exceptionally well in .3075" spec barrels. (See all the work that the Finns did on the relationship between bullet and bore diameter).

so is my '66 2a1 gonna blow up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goo

so is my '66 2a1 gonna blow up?

---

I wouldn't feed it any M118 Long Range Special Ball, or any of the heavier loads using bullets that are long enough to take away effective case capacity, such as 200 and 220 grain bullets.

M118 LRSB already exceeds UK maximum pressure for 7.62 Ball at its normal working pressure of 52,000 CUP and has a maximum deviation of 57,000 CUP which is pushing proof test loads for modern UK 7.62 rifles.

Using a loading that generates more than the design pressure limits may not blow up a rifle in good condition, but will cause excessive wear.

PS

Quote:

---

On a similar note, I once tried an interesting experiment with a Mod 38 Carcano carbine. This was to fire a standard steel-cored 7.62x39 round out of the unmodified 6.5x52 chamber and barrel. The barreled action was lashed to an old car tyre, the round clipped under the extractor and the fun initiated via a long string.

BORING!! The bullet hit the backstop about 25 yards away. The action opened normally. The steel case had considerably less taper than previously and there was no sign if excess pressure on the locking surfaces. The steel-cored, steel-jacketed bullet had jumped the gap to the chamber neck, been squeezed down a bit and exited, probably not quite intact, in the usual manner. That action was subsequently rebarreled to 7.62x39 as a single-shot kids training rifle and is still in use twenty years later.

---

I wouldn't be puttng any .30 AP rounds down a 6.5 bore. Most Soviet era AP isn't really AP its just mild steel core with a layer of lead between core and jacket.
I've found some 7.62X54 that had cores easily scratched with a file and others in the same mixed headstamp lot that were harder than a file.
I've found these steel core bullets work fine in my two groove Savage bore.

I can see a Soviet steel core bullet squeezing the lead layer out the open base leaving the core in the jacket. I'd like to see that bullet.

With the difference in case length I'd expect a large portion of the propellant gases exited before the bullet reached OR.

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

The British NRA sells ammo 7.62 ammo to shooters that may use it in rifles of unknown pedigree. It appears they are taking steps to avoid liability. Their other choice would be to stop supplying the ammo.

I am still awaiting a reply to my email asking for the source of this.

BTW in the same issue, Martin Farnan's resignation is dealt with - or rather it isn't.

FWIW, when the RG 155gr ammunition was standard at Bisley for the APM, competitor's rifles were gauged, to be sure the chambers would accept it. Not unusual for target rifles to have custom chambers to maximize performance with specific ammunition, and other ammunition might not be a proper fit. Interference in the throat/leade could be a problem. There were shooters at Bisley running reamers into their chambers before they could shoot.
In the days when service ball was standard for competition, it was a common practice to install a barrel bored somewhat tighter than .30 standard, to give more accurate performance with the NATO bullet. Some Cdn. shooters even used chambers cut so that the bullet was seated into the rifling a bit, to improve concentricity. NATO ball would often not shoot to target standards when fired through a .300/.308 bore. Tight bored barrels are available for .308 target rifles.
IIRC, concerns about 7.62 Enfields surfaced in either Austarlia or NZ some years ago.
In the days when 7.62 Lee Enfield based target rifles were used, it was considered good practice to make sure ammunition did not go into the chamber wet. This could result in a flyer, because the setback of the case caused a change in the barrel vibration pattern.
Is it a good idea to shoot 7.62 Enfields with NATO equivalent ammuntion? Is it a good idea to use .308 ammuntion? Is there a real safety issue? I don't know. I have fired my 7.62 Lee Enfield based target rifle with a standard .308 target load - 155SMK, Winchester brass, Fed. GM primer, 46gr Varget. Nothing untoward happened. Does that mean nothing unfortunate will never happen? I don't know.
A lot of the Indian 2A rifles have been sold in the US. They are not common in Canada. I would expect that a lot of these rifles have been shot a lot with 7.62 and .308 ammunition. Has anyone ever heard of any mishap with one of these rifles?

The proof load is +25% dry and +25% oiled, when those rifles were proofed the 144gn nato round was it. What the UK NRA is sayiny those rifles have not been proofed for any other weight projectiles

Well the way I see it as far as Commercial sporting /hunting ammunition in .308 Winchester goes is that the short cased round is liked for the short actions and bolt throw of rifles designed to make the best of the cartridge.

They wanted to duplicate .30/06 balistics while having a Mauser type bolt action rifle that was handier for follow up shots.
The Enfields already have a short throw and fast follow up, the shorter round is un necessary.
The expectation was that advances in propellant technology would allow this without greatly increasing chamber pressures. Up to a point this worked out.
With bullets up to 150-155 grain pressures can be kept to no more than the MkVIIIZ range of pressure.
As bullet weights go up the restriction of over all length results in bullets being seated so as to take up room in the case body and reduce effective case capacity. This increases pressures in relation to performance.

I couldn't tell you the chamber pressure for any particular .308 cartridge you might buy at a gunshop. Theres only the reloading manuals to give a hint, and variations in pressure from one round to another when the cartridge is pushing the limits of its case capacity can be high.

As long as .303 brass is available I'll stick to .303 over any converted 7.62 rifle. The OAL of the .303 allows more leeway, using the best of the modern propellants you can get excellent performance while remaining within the original design pressure range.

The .308 loads that seem to perform best at long range are a 175 grain bullet at around 2,450 to 2,650 , a near ballistic duplicate of the .303 MkVII and MkVIIIZ loads.

Some heavier bullets are used these days, and the price paid is usually a greatly increased chamber pressure, its a diminishing return situation.

I haven't tried bullets heavier than 180 beyond some experiments on light loaded 215 grain bullets for a friend.
The .303 seems to have enough margin to handle heavy bullets at reasonable velocities, after all it started out using bullets of over 200 grains.

I have a feeling that if .311-.312 boat tail match quality bullets of 200+ gr were loaded to Max .303 pressures of 49,000 PSI using the best modern propellants it would mop the floor with the .308 at long range, all else being equal.

If I want a .30/06 I'll buy a .30/06, rather than try to match .30/06 balistics with the .308.

The .303 and 7.62 cases are almost identical in case capacity.
If a 7.62 barrel is throated to take advantage of the magazine length of a Lee-Enfield it can be loaded to the same velocities at the same pressures with the same projectiles. The real advantage of the 7.62 is the great number of high quality bullets manufactured in that diameter and the more commonly available and less expensive brass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ireload2

The .303 and 7.62 cases are almost identical in case capacity.
If a 7.62 barrel is throated to take advantage of the magazine length of a Lee-Enfield it can be loaded to the same velocities at the same pressures with the same projectiles. The real advantage of the 7.62 is the great number of high quality bullets manufactured in that diameter and the more commonly available and less expensive brass.

---

There yah go.
I've experimented with seeing how well the standard .303 magazines will feed dummy 7X57 cartridges. These feed just fine without alterations of the mags I tried them in.
The shorter standard OAL 7.62 if set back to the rear of the mag would need to have forwards feed lips fabricated and brazed or silver soldered to the mag body at a point where they engaged the bullet body in the same manner as the regular lips engage the bullets of the longer cases. A much longer bullet set to aprox 3 inch OAL would probably feed from an unaltered mag.

A throat cut to allow the bullets to be set out that far would compromise accuracy with the standard 7.62, but not by much. Some rifles were quite accurate with significant freebore.

A bull barrel or stepped barrel threaded to allow the barrel to be set back and torqued with a collar would allow the barrel to be re chambered to eliminate throat erosion and the barrel could last until mechanical erosion wore the rifling down all the way to the muzzle.
Start off with a 28 inch tube and it should last till set back to 25 in or so. From what I've read on the subject worn barrels set back in this manner are generally more accurate than when new.


I had considered having a 7X57 Mauser replacement barrel turned to fit the Enfield receiver, but a book on the Mauser barrel profiles showed these were too small to rethread ahead of the shoulder.
If I'd found a cheap barrel to experiment with I'd have first chambered it for 7X30 Waters, a .280 using the .30-30 casing. Then later chambering for 7X57.

A 7X57 conversion would also allow a great range of quality match grade bullets.

The slow but steady increase in interest in reloading the .303 made such a conversion un necessary. Quality components are available now, so long as the bore of an individual Enfield isn't too large in the Major diameter to take advantage of the .311 bullets.

A .310 bore would be a good compromise, allowing any likely .303 bullet size and not too large for the .308 bullets to remain useful.

I've been away a while on business, and i thought i'd try and get an update.
someone at the NRA (won't mention who, to protect them).
said the NRA were about to issue a withdrawl of the safety warning, following a mountain of complaints ...... and the threat of legal action.
we will wait and see.:slap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by enforsore

I've been away a while on business, and i thought i'd try and get an update.
someone at the NRA (won't mention who, to protect them).
said the NRA were about to issue a withdrawl of the safety warning, following a mountain of complaints ...... and the threat of legal action.
we will wait and see.:slap:

---

I think their like a rudder less ship without Martin Farnham there at the moment; love him or hate him Martin does (or did) speak a lot of sense, in fact since his departure he has been seen shooting Service Rifle with a No4!

I can't find any sign of it on the NRA website and I would have thought they'd put something like this up there. I thought the most likely spot would be here http://www.nra.org.uk/common/asp/con...ite=NRA&type=3 but nothing. Perhaps this ludicrous doctrine's already been discredited and removed. Doesn't say much about the NRA (I'm not a member) if they'd put something like this out without doing their research first. I'd certainly think twice about joining now - I thought it was an organisation dedicated to supporting shooters, not stopping them for no good reason.

To bump this thread - has there been any movement on this - has the legal threat transpired etc?

here in Australia the warning was issued a fair while ago
here is the link at our national office put out. differs in reasoning slightly from others.
www.nraa.com.au/news/samr.pdf

cheers
ned

Is that your Army number trooper? Mine was 1200xx

Talk of forcing the NRA to retract a safety warning sounds like a lot of balderdash, if not would someone explain the legality of such an action.
What harm could a litigant claim has been done by warning against use of ammunition not intended for a converted WW2 era rifle?

It may upset some carefully constructed fantasies, but thats about it.

Both the British NRA and the Australian NRA agree with me. My thoughts on the subject were extremely unpopular, but the truth often is unpopular.

BTW
I've continued to find incidents of injury and the occasional fatality from blown out Enfield actions, these have become uncommon in recent decades because people took such safety warnings to heart, and responsible ammunition manufacturers voluntarily re called .303 ammunition in the 1960's not because of any defect that would have affected its use in a rifle in good condition, but because Enfield bores damaged by Cordite erosion required much sturdier bullet jackets than rifles not subjected to high levels of thermal erosion coupled with corrosive primers.
The oversized bores so common to wartime production enfields greatly increased those problems.
Contary to popular belief some Enfield blow outs involved breaking away of parts of the rear receiver wall.

Also on the NRA site on the Enfield drill rifles its stated that no accidents involving trying to fire blanks or live rounds in the drill rifles are known.
http://www.rifleman.org.uk/L59A1_and_A2_DP_Rifles.htm

So I'm begining to believe that the Picatinny Arsenal Warning sent to the US NRA was right on time.

Hopefully rifles with badly eroded bores will have been broken down for parts by now, but rifles being sold off from estates and other sources these days may have never been properly inspected, especially those from stores of Third World users.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Is that your Army number trooper? Mine was 1200xx

---

yeah certainly was Peter
west aussie number after the mil districts
first stint with 3RAR the armys parachute battalion.
second stint was 2CAV taking me overseas
cheers
NED

Last weekend I was talking to one who was a volunteer range officer at the Bisley Meeting [matches], who said he had been told to keep a lookout for anyone in the Meeting trying to shoot a L-E conversion with the issue ammo and remove them from the line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mk VII

Last weekend I was talking to one who was a volunteer range officer at the Bisley Meeting [matches], who said he had been told to keep a lookout for anyone in the Meeting trying to shoot a L-E conversion with the issue ammo and remove them from the line.

---

Interesting!
I wonder if this was the same meeting that we both competed in; I did do a stint as RO in the afternoon but didn't recieve any instuctions regarding the above, in fact I was shooting home loads with a 150 Grn Sierra Match King and did wonder if the debate was going to be raised by anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strangely Brown

Interesting!
I wonder if this was the same meeting that we both competed in; I did do a stint as RO in the afternoon but didn't recieve any instuctions regarding the above, in fact I was shooting home loads with a 150 Grn Sierra Match King and did wonder if the debate was going to be raised by anyone.

---

I was in the range office last week, and they couldn't produce anyone to explain the notice (which has been removed from the external noticeboard, but a copy remains indoors). The who should be in a position to know excused himself as "too busy to talk".

A chap in the well-known establishment not far away said something like "its a load of rowlocks" .......

I can't wait to see the letters page in the next NRA Journal, assuming they print what's been sent in, it should make interesting reading.
The last time I was in the range office it was staffed to capacity with 5 people there, three of them were eating bacon rolls and I was ignored by all of them!

I honestly don't know how that organisation stumbles on. It's teetered on the edge of bankruptcy several times. Sometimes I think the sooner it goes bust and its place is taken by one that is actually prepared to fight for gun ownership, the better.

Since the indians were shooting 7.62 nato in their conversion of the #1mk3, I see this as a tempest in a teacup!

Indian 7.62 Ball is rated at aproximately 48,000 CUP-50,000 PSI, little higher if any than Mk8z.
Nato Standardized infantry Ball (STANAG) of the era was locked into that pressure range. Contrary to popular belief modern Long Range loads for Sniper Rifles or Machine Guns is not held to a lower pressure range to be suitable for use in converted WW2 bolt actions.
Some Modern Long Range 7.62 can even stress rugged auto weapons of the 60's and their descendents.

There are lists of 7.62 NATO ammunition known to damage even recently manufactured rifles, to be found on various manufacturers websites.

PS
The 2A is not a Conversion.