Printable View
I have two Enfield 7.62 conversion rifles. I do not want to hurt them. Is there a brand of 7.62 ammo now available in Canada or reloads available that produce pressures in the .303 range of 45000 cup or so? They won't be fired much but I'd like to find a couple of hundred rounds.
There's nothing like that available I'm afraid. No company loads reduced charge 308s.
If you have a friend that reloads, you might ask him to load some cartridges to the lowest level listed in the manuals.
Or just shoot full power stuff. The 2A1 can handle it if it's NATO spec ;)
One's a Long Branch DCRA, the other a No 4 mk II with a CA conversion barrel. It's possible to read how they had issues with 7.62 loadings...Quote:
Originally Posted by Claven2
They didn;t have issues with 7.62 loadings in the No.4 based rifles. They had problem with .308 loadings which are sometimes higher pressure ;)
Exactly, Claven.
no issues in firing 7.62 NATO ammo in these rifles.
LI
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light Infantry
I found this interesting:
Re: best rifle ? .303 or 7.62 Enfield
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 4:00 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With all due respect, Hansvonhealing, stories about Enfield action weakness are myth, mostly originating from uninformed articles in US gun publications. Like most urban myths, there is no detectable evidence to substantiate it - and in fact the statistical evidence (c.12 million Enfields made of all types) shows that all types of Enfield actions are far stronger than their supposed design limits.
The No4 action is very strong: there are no known issues with it firing 144gn 7.62mm NATO ball at all. When target shooters moved to 155 gn bullets, and started ramping the loads up to maintain supersonic velocities at 1000 yds, the NRA took fright and required Enfield no4-actioned rifles to be proofed to 20 tonnes (up from 19T). No4 actions pass this proof with no problems. I have an Envoy with a documented 11,000 rnds of 155gn 7.62mm through it: the rifle still has good headspace on its original "0" bolthead - ie there has been no appreciable receiver stretch.
The No1 action is less substantial, and some are now over 100 years old. No1 receivers do eventually wear out, although this is usually only detectable with correct gauges. When a No1 receiver fails, the only indication is usually bolt binding as the receiver warps, and sometimes a visible crack in the region of the ejector screw. Catastrophic failure (ie bits flying off and/or shooter injury) is just about unknown - I personally do not know of a single documented example. A Canadian university destruction tested an SMLE receiver - already weakened with drilled holes - by blocking the barrel and using super-high pressure rounds. After managing to shoot off the bits of barrel that were plugged (snow, mud, then iron spikes!), the receiver eventually just bent and trapped the bolt - no catastrophic failure occurred.
A strong and persistent myth is that the Indian 2A1 version of the No1 is made of "high strength steel" to "cope with the 7.62mm round". There is actually no documented evidence of this production variation; on the contrary, examination of the receivers shows that they frequently have older, British or Indian inspection marks, which proves that they are simply the same .303 receivers as used on the concurrent .303 No1 production.
Another story originates from Australia, where military experiments were carried out in converting .303 Lithgow No1s to 7.62mm. These experiments were stopped "because the conversion was not suitable". This has been mythologised into a fact that the No1s "were not strong enough". In fact there is no published data about these tests, so it is simply not known, for example, if (a) the rifles were simply destruction-tested with proof rounds, (b) they worked ok, but the expected service life of the receiver wasn't economic for the military, or (c) it was the 1960s and they had just agreed to adopt the FAL rifle instead. It should be noted that in Australia many No1s were converted to fire magnum and other "wild-cat" hunting rounds - and there is still no folk history of "problems".
What most modern civilian shooters also overlook is that Enfields are military rifles, and they were outstandingly successful in every theatre of war - desert, arctic, jungle, rain-swept northern Europe. On much of this military service, Enfields - particularly No1s in the WW1 trenches - were fired using wet, oily or muddy ammunition. Firing ammunition in this state greatly increases the back-pressure on the bolt, as the cartridge case does not grip the chamber walls on firing (this is the principle used in proof testing weapons with oiled ammunition). Despite this abuse, there is still no known problem with the rifle actions (unlike with some Mauser actions, it should be stressed!).
http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/...0/start=0.html
I don;t disagree with anything in that article except the 2A1 comments. Those receivers have a higher content ov Vanadium, which toughens the alloy somewhat. That being said, I don't thnk any SMLE action would catastrophically fail from 7.62, but it would certainly wear out alot faster.
The 2A rifles did not use recycled NoI bodies. The ejector screw hole is further forward on the 2A and I have never examined a 2A with the ejector screw in the NoI position or evidence of the screw being moved.
2As and 2A1s are designed to use NATO ammo. 50,000 PSI. .308 loads are up to 62,000 PSI with thinner brass. Along with possible case rupture, the added power will eventually set back the bolt causing headspace problems. I reload for all mine, I use 43 grs. of Varget with a 147 gr. FMJ, or shoot NATO surplus thru them. Remington makes managed recoil ammo that should be suitable for the 2A, and 2A1. E-mail Remington and ask them the pressure to be sure, not the CUP, the PSI.
dittoQuote:
Originally Posted by green
the charger bridge is also different (though easily changeable on it's own).
I suspect the author recycled someone else's miss-information in this case.
I have a brit No4 target rifle which has been seriously weakened (to my mind) by conversion to 1 piece stock.
This rifle has been proofed to 20T in the UK.
Claven, finaly the truth is out!:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Claven2
those other tests didn't check the metallurgy. I cannot imagine why the Indian govt. would issue a rifle that blew up! If that was the case, the story would be very old news by now.
You can destroy ANYTHING (except a 6.5 Arisaka) if you try hard enough.;)
Loaded to NATO specs they are safe.
That story that's out there is about people ruining 2A1's by using commercial .308. I think that came from Dennis Groh wasn't it? He seems credible...Quote:
Originally Posted by John Sukey
Hello all,
My first post here, i realize this is an old post, but.
I recently purchased a 2A and began researching it and the 7.62 vs .308 and shooting in millsurplus rifles. There is another forum, http://p102.ezboard.com/bparallaxscu...firearmsforums, the Enfield forum. This topic has been addressed there. Check it out, follow the links and decide for yourself.
I have heard of using the Reduced loads from Remington(?) with no bad things happening. Another way to go is to reload. I just started reloading because of the 2A and living in Bush Alaska limits ammo choices.
One way is to use 303 Brit loading data with .308 components, that is what I have been doing. Reloading is good!
There is a manufacturer that makes a load very similar to 7.62x51. It is called Silver Bear and is available online and probably anywhere else. After some playing with the components (pulling bullets, weighing powder, clocking velocity etc...) I found that Silver Bear .308 win (140grFMJ) is similar to South African surplus 7.62x51.
There are many out there- Winchester makes a boxed 7.62x51 Nato. The Remington boxes that say "50% less recoil" are light enough to go through a NATO spec rifleQuote:
Originally Posted by Steve