That proof thing, again

I have excerpted notes from a January 1969 report from RSAF Enfield of a test they carried out, firing 75 x 7.62mm NATO oiled proof rounds through a No 4 barreled action 'without any serious damage to the body'.

Notes continue: "In the course of this test, two bolts were fractured, one on the 60th and the other on the 75th round, but that 'the bolt failures were such as would be unlikely to cause injury to a firer'. The military proof pressure used at the time, was 28 tsi radial, using one dry and one oiled proof cartridge per rifle. Clearly, this 'torture test' was several orders of magnitude beyond what any No 4 rifle would ever experience in routine use."

If anyone has a copy of the full report it would make an interesting addition to the technical library.

It is also worth adding that if an Enfield bolt head is cracked due to failure/overstressing, which is not that uncommon, it can simply be replaced with another, and that the main full-length locking lug on the No 4 bolt is quite massive." Not only that, but there is a hell of a lot of metal behind the locking shoulders in the receiver.

See what happens when the dainty little lugs or shoulders on "modern" rifles with no additional safety lug, unlike a Mauser, fail.

But wait, there's more!! P. O. Ackley did a bunch of tests way back when. With a SMLE action set up for .30-40 Ackley Improved, the following results were obtained:

57gn Hi-Vel#2 - 150gn ball projectile - High pressure, Primer OK
52gn 4198 - 150gn ball projectile - Leaky primer
50gn 2400 - ditto bullet - Bolt wrecked, receiver bent.

He noted:" When this action gave way, the receiver itself bent down at the rear, allowing the front end of the bolt to come up out of the receiver ring, thus allowing the bolt to be bent and to be broken. The locking lugs themselves did not give way".

Australian XP 7.62NATO No1 rifles were subjected to similar abuse to the No4 above, (and this is with receivers "modified" to accept FAL mags). The one I got to play with in the late 1970's had stretched a bit , again, more on the right than the left but had not shattered, . Not surprisingly, the project was abandoned: I suspect that factors of "logistics" and professional pride also contributed to this abandonment.

I still don't think you're going to convince the doomsayers on this board..... LOL

Quote:

---

But wait, there's more!! P. O. Ackley did a bunch of tests way back when. With a SMLE action set up for .30-40 Ackley Improved, the following results were obtained:

57gn Hi-Vel#2 - 150gn ball projectile - High pressure, Primer OK
52gn 4198 - 150gn ball projectile - Leaky primer
50gn 2400 - ditto bullet - Bolt wrecked, receiver bent.

He noted:" When this action gave way, the receiver itself bent down at the rear, allowing the front end of the bolt to come up out of the receiver ring, thus allowing the bolt to be bent and to be broken. The locking lugs themselves did not give way".

---

I'd been looking for Ackley's tests involving the SMLE, his testing of other action types is more easily found.

Remember that the "NATO Proof Rounds" of that era generate little more pressure than the max allowable deviation of the M118 Long Range Special Ball.

Keep the pressure level of loads you chose to use within the safety margin of the action and you'd have no problems, that goes for just about any rifle and cartridge combination.

Quote:

---

'the bolt failures were such as would be unlikely to cause injury to a firer'.

---

Serious injury or death due to shattered bolt heads or blown out boltheads that I've found references to were apparently to bystanders such as an officer instructor or where a shooter tried to testfire by holding the rifle away from himself.

Quote:

---

It is also worth adding that if an Enfield bolt head is cracked due to failure/overstressing, which is not that uncommon, it can simply be replaced with another,

---

Unfortunately pieces of broken bolt heads have ended up in the internal organs or throats of those standing too close when they gave way.

Quote:

---

and that the main full-length locking lug on the No 4 bolt is quite massive." Not only that, but there is a hell of a lot of metal behind the locking shoulders in the receiver.

---

Yet those massive ribs can be assumed to have bent and/or broken along with the rest of the bolt body.

Quote:

---

I suspect that factors of "logistics" and professional pride also contributed to this abandonment.

---

The only supposedly official reason I've heard of was that the rifles would have had too short a service life to be worth the effort and expense of conversion.
If a rifle has to be babied to insure that it won't fail in combat thats not a good sign.
Battle rifles are expected to continue to operate under the worst conditions with no more maintenance than a beleagured trooper can give it when he himself is short of the basic necessities of life.

Quote:

---

I still don't think you're going to convince the doomsayers on this board

---

Chevalier attitudes towards gun safety don't help the sport.

I expect that the gentleman who required reconstructive surgery to repair his crushed and torn genitals after the magazine of his 2A rifle blew out would have done better to have limited his shooting to ammunition that generated pressures no higher than the rifle was designed to handle.

So, all that hot air and the end result is a platitude:

"Keep the pressure level of loads you chose to use within the safety margin of the action and you'd have no problems, that goes for just about any rifle and cartridge combination."

Loss of containment of powder gases, with associated fragments of brass, etc. is a real safety concern. Bolts seldom get blown out. It is the catasrophic case failure that can do harm.
Some actions like the Remington 700 will protect the shooter. Others won't.

Yes. Use appropriate, quality ammunition in a rifle in good condition, and unfortunate incidents are unlikely.

In all of my service, albeit very limited and sheltered, from 1963 to date, I never saw a breech explosion in a small-arm but had one 'doctored' as an explanation and heard of two at close hand and those two were explained in detail on the Joiuster site.

I would assume from that, that the trusty old bolt action Enfields, their Brens, GPMG's and pistols are pretty safe...................

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by villiers

So, all that hot air and the end result is a platitude:

"Keep the pressure level of loads you chose to use within the safety margin of the action and you'd have no problems, that goes for just about any rifle and cartridge combination."

---

Platitude?
Hot air?
How about ignoring basic gun safety and ending up with a face full of "hot air" at temperatures that can melt steel?

I take safety seriously, some who read these forums may be entirely new to the shooting sports or hand loading.
Some new guy may see claims that lead him to believe that his WW1 SMLE can safely handle loads of 62,000 psi, and maybe even get away with it for a few test shots , then have a Kodiak moment on YouTube that sets back the sport by decades.

Quote:

---

tiriaq writes

Loss of containment of powder gases, with associated fragments of brass, etc. is a real safety concern. Bolts seldom get blown out. It is the catasrophic case failure that can do harm.

---

And bolt body compression or warpage under excessive pressure can lead to the case being blown out. In the few recorded instances of bolt head failure I've been able to find the pattern of destruction leads me to believe that the ruptured case allows some of that "hot air" to blast into the cut out for the extractor sending the extractor at high velocity out to the right hand side.

Quote:

---

Some actions like the Remington 700 will protect the shooter. Others won't.

---

The Lee actions seem fail in a manner unlikely to directly endanger the shooter, but bystanders bleed also.

Quote:

---

Yes. Use appropriate, quality ammunition in a rifle in good condition, and unfortunate incidents are unlikely.

---

I hope the repitition of "platitudes" doesn't upset Villiers or Thunderbox too much.
I wouldn't subject even a high number Springfield of WW1 or shortly afterwards vintage and metalurgy to the highest acceptable pressures of some sporting .30/06 ammunition available today. Those actions given the dual heat treatment were considered the strongest ever made at the time, but age and hard use can take its toll even on steel.

We can assume that the Spanish model 93 rifles converted to 7.62 were proof tested at the time of conversion, but I would not suggest feeding one of these a steady diet of M118 LRSB or the hottest of .308 loads either.
The Model 95 actions converted to 7.62 at least have a safety lug, but that doesn't make them a stronger action, just less likely that the bolt would blow out if a round generating excessive pressure due to any of a number of factors were to over stress the action, or age and metal fatigue finally caught up with it.

Those Indian No.1 .303 and possibly some 2A 7.62 rifles manufactured from SWES steel up until the mid sixties were never even properly proof tested for the .303 and 7.62 NATO ball available at the time much less the hottest long range loads of today.

Here we go again, weak actions, exploding bolts etc. etc.


Use what the Rifle is designed / proofed for and you wont have any problems. If its a 303 use Mk7 type ammo or load to Mk7 specifications. Its been proofed to that.
If its a 7.62 then use standard mil spec 7.62 or load to that specification. Its been proofed to that.

If PL has 50 years of experience (and 10s of thousands Enfield rifles) under his belt and has never seen / heard of a failure (except the two that were fired without bolt heads) I reckon its "fit for purpose".

If you want, you can break anything - put a V8 engine in a Mini and the next weakest link in the 'chain' (gearbox ?) will blow up.

If you want 50 cal performance, buy a 50 cal !!!!

Give it a rest, already. At least if you're gonna continue, go blow some stuff up! With Pictures! I've some barreled actions you can have (through an FFL). Just pay shipping. No1 Mk III's, that is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

Here we go again, weak actions, exploding bolts etc. etc.


Use what the Rifle is designed / proofed for and you wont have any problems. If its a 303 use Mk7 type ammo or load to Mk7 specifications. Its been proofed to that.
If its a 7.62 then use standard mil spec 7.62 or load to that specification. Its been proofed to that.

If PL has 50 years of experience (and 10s of thousands Enfield rifles) under his belt and has never seen / heard of a failure (except the two that were fired without bolt heads) I reckon its "fit for purpose".

---

A member of a sister site had just such a bolt head failure with a fresh from the wrap FTR'ed No.4 not so long ago. I remember he got a bit hot under the collar at blyth dismissals and the term "catastrophic failure" being tossed around. Had the rifle not be test fired remotely rather than from the shoulder things might not have gone so well.
Mr Laidler was not present when that rifle lost its bolt head. I expect that many action failures go unreported especially if they happened in combat where the victim might well die from exsanguination or shock without prompt aid or spend years in a prison camp should he survive.
The record of LE action failures in the Canadian house of commons debates includes a comment on these incidents having never been reported in the news papers.
Aside from use as a Sniper rifle I've seen no mention of converted No.4 rifles being used in combat. From the state of some Indian rifles I've seen I suspect that many 2A ended up being chopped up for parts long ago, with the best examples surviving to end up pulling light duty or as trainers.

As for Proof tested to 7.62 specs some 7.62 ammunition max deviation including M118 LR special ball exceeds the maximum allowable pressure set by the MOD for 7.62 ball and is very close to proof test pressures used by the MOD.

Quote:

---

If you want, you can break anything - put a V8 engine in a Mini and the next weakest link in the 'chain' (gearbox ?) will blow up.

If you want 50 cal performance, buy a 50 cal !!!!

---

The point is that the gentleman whose manhood almost ended up as a medical curiousity exhibit in a jar somewhere would have profited by advice on what pressure levels would be safe for his rifle.

If I owned the finest J P Sauer Mauser sporting rifle of the 1930's I'd baby it with loads of less than maximum pressures.
I very nearly bought one of these dirt cheap some years ago, for 1/10 its present value. It was in an odd caliber or I'd have snatched it up, should have anyway. The rifle looked so modern that I'd thought it was a recent import, I later found it was a very old rifle with a stock especially designed to appeal to US shooters.
Even a rifle in such great condition as that one, and of proven strength and safety, deserved to be fed ammunition that would not cause excessive stress or wear.

There are early M98 style Mauser sporting rifles that were not intended for use with the higher pressure 7.92X57 ammunition thats available today. They may handle the hottest loads, and then again they might not.
The action type actually appeared in sporter form as early as 1896 with minor differences in contruction of the cocking piece and firing pin.

Just because a cartridge will fit the chamber is no gaurantee that the action was intended to use the hottest available loadings of that cartridge.
Recently I was discussing German LMG cartridges and their use in the K98. Years ago I got hold of some really jacked up AP rounds that had a muzzle blast so harsh I thought my Persian Mauser Carbine had exploded.
From a site on the German MGs I found that this was a special high velocity heavy bullet long range AP round that was loaded to much higher pressures than would be safe for the Mauser infantry rifle. The round was discontinued early in WW2 due to shortage of Tungsten for its extra heavy core so its seldom encountered. Problems might arise if a Mauser owner assumed that because later AP ammo for LMG use is considered safe in the rifles that all such LMG ammo is safe in the rifles.

A couple of months back I looked over a thread on another forum in which a young shooter described the appearance of fired cases from his No.1 rifle with cut off plate slot.
The base was cocked at an angle and cases cracked or separated on first firing.
The rifle looked normal at casual inspection.
It never occured to me at the time but I now suspect that his receiver was already cracked either below or above the cut off slot. Though there are other possibilities. In any event I'd consider that rifle unsafe to fire.

If an SMLE receiver can be cracked by firing a rain wet ball cartridge on the range, as a recently posted warning stated plainly enough, then its pretty obvious that the safety margin of the receivers had been compromised in some way that didn't show up in proof testing.

Standard 7.62 NATO ball is not a house afire hot load, but some other 7.62 NATO ammunition is loaded to pressures in excess of those of the MkVIIIZ already known to be unwise for extended use in the No.4 rifles and possibly dangerous in the SMLE.
Use of MkVIIIZ in the Infantry rifles was a case of emergency use only when ammo was in short supply. I don't think that sort of warning should go unheeded.

I'd be interested to know the pressure level of the .30-40 IMP loads that broke P O Ackley's SMLE action. The 30-40 Imp was designed to give .308 level ballistics from the rimmed cartridge and actions suited to rimmed cartridges.

Why are we here?

This site is designed to encourage the open exchange of information amongst the general military surplus collector community, thereby helping all of our members to better enjoy their chosen hobby.

This thread started well with an exchange of information.

This thread is now deteriorating with too much repetition of the same old mantras that seem to have no end - and it's not helping me to enjoy my chosen hobby :banghead:

Use the ammunition that your rifle is proofed for - inspect your rifles and maintain them - above all else enjoy them whether you simply look at them of take them out and shoot them.

I don't want to see another rebuttal to this post.

If you haven't got any new information to exchange then simply don't post - move on and make a post in which you share something new.....

I think Peter Laidler`s opinion is the only one worth listening to on this subject
Fullstop. Stuart.

... I cannot follow the arguments of the contributor going by the name of "Alfred".

On the one hand, he is endessly digging up "issues" regarding the Enfield No. 4. And when that has been done to death, he starts on the AIA imitation. And if we don't all appropriately shudder in horror at those deadly No. 4s, we are accused of "Chevalier attitudes towards gun safety".

And then what? He writes in the last posting that
"Years ago I got hold of some really jacked up AP rounds that had a muzzle blast so harsh I thought my Persian Mauser Carbine had exploded. From a site on the German MGs I found that this was a special high velocity heavy bullet long range AP round that was loaded to much higher pressures than would be safe for the Mauser infantry rifle."

So by his own standards, Alfred is apparently not above doing something that anyone here in Mauserland (I do not pretend to know the law in other countries) would know is not only damn foolish, but so damn foolish it is illegal.

I have always tried to post sensible replies to other postings, with book references where appropriate, but Alfred is continually mentioning accidents without any documentary backup. There may well have been such accidents, but I cannot remember having seen a single checkable reference from Alfred. Even the "sister forum" in the last posting is not explicitly named.

Alfred, it is time to put up or shut up.

To all others: I hereby apologize unreservedly for losing my usual British coolness.

Patrick

Was O.K. at the beginning but lost direction, pity. All things are said let it be good.

Regards

Gunner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick

.

And then what? He writes in the last posting that
"Years ago I got hold of some really jacked up AP rounds that had a muzzle blast so harsh I thought my Persian Mauser Carbine had exploded. From a site on the German MGs I found that this was a special high velocity heavy bullet long range AP round that was loaded to much higher pressures than would be safe for the Mauser infantry rifle."

---

That happened to be my first centerfire rifle, and being new to shooting highpowers at the time, I like most anyone else would have to assume that ammunition sold as being for the 7.92X57 would be safe for a rifle chambered for that cartridge. This turns out to not always be the case.
As I went to some effort to make clear that ammo is fairly rare, it was discontinued early in WW2 due to lack of tungsten for its cores. No safety warnings were ever published about use of this ammo in rifles that I know of, especially in the early 1960's.

Quote:

---

So by his own standards, Alfred is apparently not above doing something that anyone here in Mauserland (I do not pretend to know the law in other countries) would know is not only damn foolish, but so damn foolish it is illegal.

---

There was no law against buying AP ammo in this country back then, and next to no available sources of information on milsurp ammunition, especially rare long discontinued special purpose ammunition.
Had there been any indication that the ammunition was not meant for use in rifles I would not have bought it, as it was I threw the remaining rounds in a pond after firing that single shot.
Only reason I looked up these rounds nearly fifty years later was because the subject of Krag rifles converted to 7.92 by the Germans came up on the krag forum, and a member there reported a krag rifle being blown up at his range with the only clue being that a 7.92 Mauser case head was found in the debris.
The discussion then drifted into interchangability between LMG ammo and Infantry rifle ammo, now usually taken for granted but apparently not so at one time.

Quote:

---

I have always tried to post sensible replies to other postings, with book references where appropriate, but Alfred is continually mentioning accidents without any documentary backup. There may well have been such accidents, but I cannot remember having seen a single checkable reference from Alfred. Even the "sister forum" in the last posting is not explicitly named.

Alfred, it is time to put up or shut up.

To all others: I hereby apologize unreservedly for losing my usual British coolness.

Patrick

---

"Coolness"? more like hysterical outbursts.
Thunderbox might remember the thread where a member described the bolt head failure of a fresh from the wrap No.4, he posted to that thread.
The same sort of hysteria reared its head there after I suggested that a Long Lee action rebarreled by an unknown gunsmith at an unknown date and never fired by its present owner in the 25 years that he had the rifle should be test fired remotely before firing modern ammo from the shoulder.
Others there were telling that visitor that he should go ahead and use milsurp MkVII or equivalent without testfiring first, though the rifle in question had not been proofed for MkVII , I later found that the ammo this particular action had been manufactured for was rated at 16.5 LT rather than the 19+LT of MkVII and there was no indication that the rifle had been reproofed after the rebarreling, or proofed for commercial purposes as far as I know.

In past discussions I've posted links to scientific studies and debates in the Canadian and British House of Commons, and recent US Military listings of 7.62NATO ammunition and the pressure generated by each as well as maximum allowable deviations. All such hard fact seems to be ignored along with warnings posted prominently at the British NRA offices and in their publications.

The incident of the 2A blow out and the shooter nearly losing his testicles is something I found out by looking through forums just such as this. The incident was in a reproduced Email from a dealer explaining why his company had chosen not to sell 2A rifles. I can probably find the forum and posts with the reproduced email if necessary. Might take awhile.
The thread on Indian proof difficulties with rifles made from SWES steel is likely still on this page if you want to look at it.

I have little interest in the AIA rifles, I do have an interest in the sporting rifles built on LE and SMLE actions, and the Remington Lee sporters and military contract rifles. Such rifles still sometimes show up on the local market, mainly through estate sales.
I haven't been very active in shooting or collecting for more than ten years but a few of my contacts are still around though probably not long for this world at their age. Other younger friends are fully involved with protecting us all from terrorism in far flung climes and have little time for sport shooting. I'm pleased that some of the latter learned to shoot from yours truly.

The differences in proof test equipment and procedures and variatins in these procedures during more than a century of production of rifles using a wide variety of smokeless propellants can be very confusing at times.

The recent controversy over substandard and sometimes dangerously defective military ball type ammo from far flung and often difficult to trace sources with suspect quality control and components makes insuring safe practices very important.
I've seen warnings of some of this suspect ammo being .303 MkVIIIZ and some 7.62 NATO, with sources as widely separated as eastern Europe old Soviet former states and India/Pakistan/Afghanistan area.
I have been given FMN 7.62 ammunition to break down to salvage components in the past, and found the cases eaten away from the inside out by some breakdown of its propellant. Looking over other forums I've found gun manufacturer safety warnings against use of a number of 7.62 NATO ammunition types in their rifles.
The interchangability of NATO ammo seems to be more honored in the breach of same in too many instances, and poor storage can make even well made ammo dangerous with little outwards sign of deterioration.

Peter Laidler's experiance with the LE rifles in British service can not be considered a blanket endorsement of every Enfield rifle everywhere. Many rifles given to allies may have never been properly inspected since leaving British custody. I've examined rifles that could not possibly have passed even a casual inspection, and occasionally a visitor to other forums will ask an opinion on the safety of his rifle and post an image of the bore that resembles the cargo hold of the space ship in the movie "Alien" more than a rifle bore.
Other rifles have been rebarreled by importers using take off barrels from DP'ed rifles and de-milled rifles. Some of these have shown up being poorly done, out of spec or over clocked.

I don't mind playing Devil's Advocate if it serves to remind people that not every milsurp rifle is a well tended safe queen or that not all ammunition is suitable for older rifles just because it fits the chamber.
I pay attention to reports of ammunition that has damaged rifles. I'd prefer that my rifles remain in excellent mechanical condition, rather than being subjected to un necessary wear and possible damage.

Since hand loading appears to be becoming more popular in the UK theres really no excuse for using ammunition not approved for use in those Enfields chambered for the 7.62 NATO.
Excellent results can be obtained at pressure levels well within the design safety margin.
Recent developments in propellant manufacture show great promise in delivering good ballistics at lower pressures than previous available propellants.

Interesting that sound advice should be dismissed by some as a "Platitude", especially since others here also agree that it is sound practice.

Enough is enough!

This is serving no purpose and going nowhere - Thread Closed