NRA RE-Issues Enfield 7.62 Warning (Jan 2010)

From the NRA Journal.

7.62/.308 Enfield Conversion Safety Alert

Further consideration is being given to any potential
safety issues concerning the use of .308 Win (7.62mm
x 51) factory ammunition in 7.62mm conversions of
Enfield No 4 rifles. Discussions are ongoing with the
UK Proof Authorities over a joint statement which
will be published as soon as it is available on the NRA
website and in the Journal. Pending that statement, the
Association must apply the precautionary principle,
thus the following advice remains extant:
A basic principle of Firearm Safety is that the
individual is wholly responsible for the safety
of the firearm/ammunition combination he
proposes to use. However, in competitions
where ammunition is “as issued” the NRA has
a duty to ensure that the ammunition it issues
does not create a hazard.

The Enfield No 4 action and its derivatives
were originally designed for use with the .303”
cartridge which has a lower maximum cartridge
pressure than the .308 cartridge. The actions
were produced in huge numbers by several
factories to varying standards.
These conversions are not all “factory”
conversions as barrels of many different makes
with varying internal dimensions have also been
fi tted to a number of such actions over the years.
Additionally the history of the usage of most
of these actions is not traceable. There is some
evidence of failures of these converted actions
after prolonged use which is exacerbated by the
use of cartridges contaminated by wet weather
or oil.
As the NRA is now supplying ammunition
manufactured especially to its requirement, they
are no longer prepared to allow the use of these
conversions in events where the ammunition
is provided. Nor do they condone the use of
this particular ammunition in these rifl es at
any time.
What the shooter chooses to fi re through their
rifl e upon other occasions is of course entirely
at their own risk and liability.

Are they saying that factory conversions are acceptable?

Same disingenuous NRA arse-covering as before. Enquiries at NRA and Proof Houses did not produce a shred of evidence to support this contention last time around. Note that the wording is still cut-and-paste from wherever they lifted it off the internet (Jersey Rifle Club c.1990s?).

The previous NRA assertion that modern ammunition was dangerous because it might be slightly larger diameter than older NATO types has been met with derision by most parties. Ironically, the main REAL issue has been target shooters building new state-of-the-art rifles with tight barrels and extremely short leads - i.e. conditions that simply do not exist in 40 year old Enfield barrels...

Its fairly irrelevant in any case: the NRA's issued target ammo (RUAG 7.62mm) now costs about 83p per round - I doubt any No4 target rifle owner is going to be blatting the stuff off in practice, let alone turning up at a top-level competition with an Envoy... (hmmm.... theres an idea for the summer...)

There's a similar thread and warning from the NRA with lengthy responses posted here:

Bizarre Safety Warning from the NRA (Sept 2009)

Regards,
Badger

That's most strange......... I have just scanned the records of ammunition safety problems in relation to the L39/42 rifles in UK Milutary service and try as I might, I can't see anything. maybe I am missing all of them. Or do yopu think the NRA want you to only use their ammo on their ranges?

Can you see it coming?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

That's most strange......... I have just scanned the records of ammunition safety problems in relation to the L39/42 rifles in UK Milutary service and try as I might, I can't see anything. maybe I am missing all of them. Or do yopu think the NRA want you to only use their ammo on their ranges?

Can you see it coming?

---

You must have missed them :

There is some
evidence of failures of these converted actions
after prolonged use which is exacerbated by the
use of cartridges contaminated by wet weather
or oil.

Although - maybe the evidence is in the 'civilian' area of operations, but reading thru' the old thread (again) no one seems to have reported or heard of any incidents.
Whilst I realise that those on this forum represent only a very small fraction of Enfield users surely someone would have picked up on such an important story.

If I'm reading it correctly then the NRA will not allow the use of THEIR ammunition, in competitions where they issue the ammunition, therefore you are excluded from entering with a 7.62 converted No4.
You can use whatever ammunition you want on 'non-issued ammunition' days.

Has anyone considered asking the NRA where they got this ethereal evidence from? And I echo RJW's question - does the NRA position statement refer to factory conversions that have gone through the proof houses as well as civilian conversions? So I cannot shoot an Envoy or Enforcer at an NRA event?

How about a postion statement from the Enfield owners at Milsurps to the NRA - "stick it up your bottom - sideways - and make sure the bayonet is attached"? (Sorry, just my little joke)

"Some" evidence eh? Just publish it then!
What's the NRA special ammo then in any case - how can you say you shouldn't use this type of ammo in a gun but don't say what it is - ie define the dangerous specifications or what you should not go beyond, backed up, of course, with evidence.(specifications)?
Perhaps the NRA should consult their health and safety lawyers about shooting at all. After all shooting bits of metal at high velocity is by its nature dangerous and allowing people to become members of an assocation which devoted to shooting is encouraging it! Surely if a member has an accident it could leave the NRA liable to being sued. The only answer is to ban anyone from becoming a member. [although why anyone who likes to shoot would become a member of an organisation more devoted to health and safety non-risks than promoting shooting is anyone's guess]. I am, of course being slightly sarcastic :beerchug:

What about asking the Health and Safety Council/Executive about this scaremongering.

I'm going to start a scare. 'Evidence shows that crossing roads has proved to be dangerous in many cases'. That'll get them going..................

Sounds like the NRA leadership are either utterly ignorant or they have an agenda. IMO, it can't be "only NRA ammo on NRA ranges" as that has nothing to do with the type of rifle used.

Could it be, "get these bloody service/practical rifle amateurs off our ranges", while forelock tugging to Westminster by trying to help discourage 'common folk' from owning and shooting? "Shurely not?" as Private Eye would say! :lol:

Two birds with one stone, while putting your collective heads in the noose at the same time. :thup: Well done NRA! A triumph of the kind of selfish, short-sighted, petty mindedness which has taken the Great out of Britain.

Divide et impera.:rolleyes:

Does this mean that I can no longer shoot my 1941 ROF No4 7.62 conversion regulated by Fulton? What to do with a PH-50.This rifle is accurate. Gary

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spinecracker

Has anyone considered asking the NRA where they got this ethereal evidence from?

---

Certainly did - last time they published this. Result - silence.

As my Uni Lecturer partner keeps telling her students - references!

Could we clarify that it was the NRA UK that put out this warning, if that is the case?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spinecracker

Could we clarify that it was the NRA UK that put out this warning, if that is the case?

---

Click on the link :

National Rifle Association of the UK | NRA | Home Page

You will find NRA Journals on the right hand side.
Download the Winter 2009 Journal (a Pdf) Its the first one you come to.
The 'warning' is on Page 6

If its in the NRA Journal there is no doubt its a NRA warning.

Warning this warning could be coming to an NRA near YOU !!!

"Discussions are ongoing with the UK Proof Authorities over a joint statement which will be published as soon as it is available on the NRA website and in the Journal."

Translation: how can we cook something up to pretend these rifles aren't safe when they've all been proof tested to much higher pressures than 7.62mm generates...:ugh:

Sounds like fear of litigation may be part of it. If they're so concerned about wartime quality they could just ban all No4s except Mk2s or rifles made after 1948, or thereabouts.

Perhaps they're not so confident of the quality of their ammo and are afraid a few 'firecrackers' might get through that will do some damage?

Still, if they invest the profits of their ammo sales well, they should have enough to pay for liability insurance.:D

'Additionally the history of the usage of most
of these actions is not traceable.' ....

Is the shooting history of ANY fire arm truly traceable?

'There is some evidence of failures of these converted actions
after prolonged use which is exacerbated by the
use of cartridges contaminated by wet weather
or oil.'...

And this one...don't most/all fire arms come under the category of being potentially unsafe after a/ prolonged use and b/ using contaminated cartridges?

It reads like a letter a lawyer would love, as you pay his salary to spend hours and hours bickering and arguing the real meaning of sloppily written statements.

I think this is dead news now. The UK NRA journal is always about six months out of date at the time of publication, and the Winter 09 issue covered events in the first half of 2009. As far as I know, the NRA have withdrawn/gone silent on this issue after they were challenged during the summer, and they have taken down the notice that was on the noticeboard at Bisley.

The NRA have again shown a great sense of responsibility with their sage advice. Of course there have been serious sccidents. Only recently I poked myself in the eye with a loaded .308 cartridge that jumped out of its charger. It hurt!

I'm sure they'll post a notice shortly concerning the dangers of 7.62x51 chargers and their lack of positive retention vis a vis .303"SAA chargers!

Update.
I have today spoken to the NRA (shooting division) and the warning is still in force.
The notice is (or should be) still on the notice boards.

Summary is : The warning came about as a result of 'grave concerns' by both the Police and the Military after both had 'problems' and a number of incidents. (I wasn't aware that the Police were still using 7.62 No4s - Enforcers etc. I thought they'd all be sold off or scrapped)

There is a management meeting this week and this subject is on the agenda.
The results will be published in the Spring edition of the Journal, and, posted on the notice board.

The person I spoke to had no knowledge of any specific incidents, or what specific ammunition the warning referred to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

Summary is : The warning came about as a result of 'grave concerns' by both the Police and the Military after both had 'problems' and a number of incidents.

The person I spoke to had no knowledge of any specific incidents, or what specific ammunition the warning referred to.

---

I guess Peter can expertly comment as to whether the military had "grave concerns" and/or "incidents", given that 7.62mm No4s had a successful 30-year service life - and haven't been in service for about 10 years now.

Wasn't aware that the Police were in a position to have an expert opinion on any firearms ballistics matter, let alone No4 target rifles. They are not exactly prominent high-volume users, unlike the thousands of civilian and military 7.62mm No4 users. I'd also guess that there have been no Enforcers in use with the Police for at least 15 years - they might still own one or two in rural constabularies, but I bet they have long been superseded in operation use by other shiny expensive toys such as Remmy 700s and AIs...

Why would the Police and military get involved in a subject that has not affected them in at least 10 years? They don't make pronouncements on any other sort of civilian firearms ballistics. Sounds like complete drivel someone's made up. When I went to the NRA office and asked to speak to the authority behind this notice, everyone just mumbled that they didn't know who to refer me to.

Can't imagine anyone using their overpriced RUAG stuff anyway, not in these rifles. There won't be anybody using L-Es for serious competition anyway these days.

could it be the same problems as some owners of mosins and garands are running into?

7.62x51, 7.62x54 and 7.62x63 rounds that are designed for use only in MGs should not be used in bolt actions.

I just read it on some page that i accidentally stumbled across while seeking a easy way to do the berdan to boxer conversion

MG rounds have much higher pressures and should not be confused with rounds produced for small arms.

some problems such as....

garand - op rod being destroyed, gas system blow outs, cracked bolts and receivers operating parts becoming out of spec.

mosin - sticking bolts, inaccuracy

7.62x51 arms - split barrels, cracked receivers, gas system blow outs, operating parts becoming out of spec.

sounds very possible to me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mk VII

Can't imagine anyone using their overpriced RUAG stuff anyway, not in these rifles. There won't be anybody using L-Es for serious competition anyway these days.

---

Are you trying to tell me my chances of being "chaired" off Stickledown are now pretty slim!

I think Thunderbox sums up very well the likelihood of the military/police suddenly being struck with concern over 7.62 enfields decades after they went out of service. What an incredible suggestion by the NRA!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strangely Brown

Are you trying to tell me my chances of being "chaired" off Stickledown are now pretty slim!

---

I don't think I'll ever be "chaired off" a gun range, more likely chased off with a broken chair leg....

Come on, NRA - we expect unsubstantiated claims and nonsensical policies from politicians, but not from an organization that is supposed to support gun rights. If you just want to sell your stockpile of ammo to a captive audience, then say so!

You cannot spell W@nker without an N, R, or A.

Just an observation, heh.

So, I suppose my Indian 2A1 7.62mm rifle must be OK as it is not a number 4 or a conversion from .303.
Regards
Peter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterN

So, I suppose my Indian 2A1 7.62mm rifle must be OK as it is not a number 4 or a conversion from .303.
Regards
Peter.

---

yup, don't mention the existence of these this to the nra, just think what they could do with converting/remaking 303 into 7.62 let alone vague 'history of use (in India!) can't be verified', not to mention that some evil people might have used oily or wet (monsoon) cartridges in them.

For what its worth, I'm not going to bag the nra. they are one of the few groups that does something to push back against the tide of gun hysteria.:surrender:

They came within a few days of being declared insolvent and having the banks call in their loans a few years ago. Even now they haven't got much money, even to do basic maintenance of the site (which is foolish because it always catches up with you in the end). Potholed roads, primitive whiffy vandalised 'bathrooms' (in American parlance), the sort of caravan site facilities that would have been acceptable in the 1950s but look wanting now ...

The Kiwis had one (or two) conversions APPEAR to be unsafe back in the late 1990s. The range authorities (not the NZNRA) made loud noises and banned all No.4 conversions, for what appear to be quite similar excuses. It was all the rage on the old fullbore list. No proof of actual danger, just the appearance of risk. The issue was pressed back upon the authorities who reacted with typical bristlance (a made up word for bristling with resistance) and repeated the ban in the face of all suggestion to the contrary.

The Canadians it must be noted, haven't bothered to care who shoots what for at least 20 yrs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mk VII

They came within a few days of being declared insolvent and having the banks call in their loans a few years ago. Even now they haven't got much money, even to do basic maintenance of the site (which is foolish because it always catches up with you in the end). Potholed roads, primitive whiffy vandalised 'bathrooms' (in American parlance), the sort of caravan site facilities that would have been acceptable in the 1950s but look wanting now ...

---

Interesting. Are they required to publish their accounts annually under your Societies Act - if that's what it's called?

Any updates on the no4s and 7.62 ammo us Canadains are still useing em and NO problems that i heard of just lots of emts.:)mine is a L42 type target rifle 1945 LB with a heavy barrel and a L42 mag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunderbox

Ironically, the main REAL issue has been target shooters building new state-of-the-art rifles with tight barrels and extremely short leads - i.e. conditions that simply do not exist in 40 year old Enfield barrels

---

I had missed this one first time round but to me, TB sums it up here in the quote, I know a few Target shooters who are pushing the limits when reloading, makes me cringe every time they squeeze the trigger, more like pulling the pin on a grenade to me, I know one who,s rifle give way at Bisley, it was as TB points out, tight barrel, short lead, and a mauser type action, and home reloads which were bursting at the seams, and its always the guy next to them that comes off worst.

Not
Really
Against gun control

They are so in bed with the politicians here it makes me want to scream at times! Worthless in my opinion - -