I know that this topic has been beat to death in other forums and you hear just as many pros as cons, but you guys are the folks I trust and respect, so here goes... Can I fire .308 in my Isaphore 2A?
Thanks
OS
Printable View
I know that this topic has been beat to death in other forums and you hear just as many pros as cons, but you guys are the folks I trust and respect, so here goes... Can I fire .308 in my Isaphore 2A?
Thanks
OS
I can't speak for anyone else, But I've been doing it for years with no problems. To be a little more specfic, I use .308 headspace guages in 7.62 chambers and have never had any problems with the finished product. Also shoot .308 in my #4 Mk1 Savage and it works well. There may be a very slight tolerance differance between the two, but as long as it head spaces within tolerance you should be just fine. When I cut a chamber for a .308 I go 0.003" over dead nuts and get very good results. HTH-SDH
Some people will tell you not to. I personally think as long as you stay with the 147 or 150gr military equivalent weighted projectile and "normal" moads developping NATO-like pressures you should be fine.
Don't go shooting Hornady Light Mags in it FOR SURE.
Ok, well I just learned from a thoughtful source that pm'd me that apparently Hornady Light mags develop the same pressure as factory .308 does.
I still personally would avoid it just in case, but I'm a huge scaredy cat!!!
I wouldn't advise it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oatmeal Savage
(Cross posted from elsewhere)
Now that the 7.62mm rifles have been in civilian hands for quite some time it will be interesting to see if any of them start to develop problems. >
__________________________________________________ _____________
>I was just looking at the Enfield web page and was noticing that Skip
>Stratton was looking for info on unsafe Ishapore 2A/2A1's that HAVE failed.
>I know a dealer posted that he
> knows of a dozen people who now have wallhangers due to modern civilian (
>re Winchester, Remington etc) 308 Winchester being used in the 2A/ A1
>
>Was it Dennis Kroh? or maybe another dealer. Or maybe Great Southern Arms.
>I'm unsure.
Yeah, Brock, it was me.
Although I do not have first-hand knowledge of catastrophic failure of the
"Ishies" I was alerted by at least a dozen of my customers over the past two
years whose first indication that "something's not right" was extractor
breakage upon firing, and wanted me to find and replace for them a new
extractor. I got tired of doing this as if replaced the extractors would
just break again with the next firing, so something else must be wrong.
When I looked at these rifles the first thing I did was a headspace-check.
In EVERY instance the headspace had increased so much that the bolt would
readily close on a mis-spec 7.62 NATO FIELD guage (which has more generous
tolerances than does a commercial .308 FIELD guage, which I also have).
Now, not all of these rifles were originally purchased from me... but the
ones that had been would not close on my NO-GO commercial guage much less a
mil-spec one when I checked them myself before putting them up for sale.
In EVERY case the shooter admitted to firing from 40-100 rounds of
commercial .308 NATO through his rifle (one guy had taken three wild boar
and a deer with his, and considered it his "lucky" gun because it was so
accurate).
I have to believe that there must be a link between these customers. I know
of three people (including myself) whose Ishie rifles are still tight as
hell but the thing is none of us have fired any commercial ammo through them
(though I have put several hundred rounds of mil-spec 7.62 NATO through my
personal arm, without any ill effects whatsoever).
This cannot all be a COINCIDENCE... there has to be a reason doesn't there?
Dennis Kroh, owner, Empire Arms, kroh@empirearms.com
PO Box 2634, Ormond Beach, FL 32175
Phone (904) 677-7314 FAX 677-7324
web-site: http://www.empirearms.com
__________________________________________________ _______________
From my reading the #1s converted to 7.62mm in Australia showed receiver stretching after very short order and eventual cracking at the charger bridge. Even welding a strap from the charger to the receiver ring did not help the stretching problem. If the 2A is made from the same stuff as the #1 wouldn't it exhibit the same rapid failure as the Australian converted rifles?
__________________________________________________ _______________________________
A few problems exist with these...
1.) They have 12 round mags which aren't legal to import.
2.) They're not safe to fire .308 commercial ammo in (even in small doses). And, they are likely at the edge of what's safe for 7.62 Nato. I had a long talk with Dennis Kroh about this (owner of Empire Arms, definetly knows his stuff and is a straight shooter).
Here's what he said...
When these first arrived on our shores they sold 20. Out of the 20, 16 developed excessive headspace issues (some after firing only a box or two of commercial .308. So, 16 became wall hangers. He is also aware of one catastrophic failure that caused a serious injury (luckily not from a rifle he sold, but at a local range). Now, to their credit AIM does say use only 7.62 NATO ammo. However, Dennis feels that even this is pushing the limit for these rifles. Contrary to what some say these were not made out of any special steel.
Even if you already have mags I would pass on these. Sometimes one's safety is worth more than a 169 dollar rifle.
3.) One more thing...these being less than 50 years of age...require an FFL 1.
From a post Dennis made...
Actually we neither buy nor sell Ishapore Enfields chambered in 7.62 NATO.
We had done so when they were first imported, but over HALF of the ones we bought and sold during that period ended up with headspace problems that relegated them to "wallhanger" status after firing as little as one box of commercial .308 Winchester ammo in them.
The first sign of trouble was that the extractor broke off and the owners wanted to know where they could obtain a replacement extractor.
Further inspection of their rifle found that the headspace of every one of the suspect rifles (though they had been previously checked by us before selling them) had been stretched beyond FIELD limits and were no longer safe to fire (it was the extreme bulging of the base of the case that caused the ejector to break).
I have personally seen one person (thank GOD he didn't buy it from us) at a local range, get severely injured in the groin after his Model 2A1 Ishapore Enfield had a intense gas-rupture and "let go" when firing it, blowing the loaded magazine under high-pressure out of the rifle and landing between his legs.
This "accident" required major hospitalization and surgery to repair his grievious and painful injury. This guy was so CLEVER that even after the extractor broke-off of his Ishapore Model 2A1 rifle (hello. . . serious WARNING SIGN there. . . ) he continued to shoot it at the range while simply knocking out the empty case after every shot by running a cleaning-rod down the barrel rather than attempt to purchase another extractor!
Little wonder that his wife forbid him from owning even a single firearm after that experience (we ended up buying every gun he owned or will ever own from her).
Nahhh. . . we won't find or sell you one of these rifles. . . we like you too much!
------------------
Denny Kroh, owner, EMPIRE ARMS
email: kroh@empirearms.com
website: http://www.empirearms.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This one made me laugh...
If you do purchase this then keep us up to date and document the head spacing carefully and don't forget to duck when you shoot it, also it may pay to put a bullet proof vest over your crotch if you plan to make more babies or at least enjoy practicing making them with the wife.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?p=332797
I have fired about 800rds of .308Win through my 2A with no problem.
I wonder if those bafoons that wrecked their guns were shooting 180 grain loads in their guns. I bet they were.
7.62 NATO is supposed to fire a 147 grain projectile. Asking a 2A1 to handle more than that is asking for trouble IMHO. I don't care what the design might be capable of, the Indians fired LOTS of NATO ammo in these and most were surplused in good, useable condition. If people are wrecking them it's because they aren't shooting the right ammo.
This may not change your minds but take a look and see what you think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62x51_mm_NATO
I personally wouldn't have a problem shooting US military 7.62 rounds in one, but the military high pressure test isn't far above SAAMI spec for .308 Winchester. I do not shoot commercial ammunition in my M1A, PERIOD, for this, gas port pressure and dimensional considerations. Same goes for any gas gun. It is probably a good idea to stick to mild, ie target handloads of moderate pressure and velocity. 180gr projectiles shouldn't be a problem if the velocity/pressure is kept to a moderate value. A chronograph can be had for the price of a rifle. Milsurp ammunition, even if NATO marked, can always be questionable if its storage history is unknown. You don't want to fire a round that's been stored at a high temperature in the past, especially if a double-based powder has been used. The sweated-out nitroglycerine doesn't so much burn as detonate.
I have a Mannlicher-Schoenauer action built in 1907 by Steyr, on which someone has built up a .308 Win sporter. The MS '03/14 is my all-time favorite military surplus rifle, so when I saw the sporter I bought it without much thought, and had put several dozen commercial loadings through it before I thought to compare chamber pressures. The action is very like the Commission '88 action and, while it may be stronger due to better steels, twenty years on, the design is the same. Frank de Haas, in his "Bolt Action Rifles" recommends against just this conversion. I would like to know who did it. The new Schoenauer magazine spool is purpose-built for the cartridge and is marked ".308". I can't imagine anyone tooling up for this thing without a large contract, military or otherwise. The barrel is marked ".308". It is two-groove, 1 in 10" and is probably a Stevens '03A3 replacement. I only use 7.62 NATO or .22 Accelerator in it now. It is more accurate than I.
I would agree about sticking to milsurp or handloading at the lower MV and light bullets instead of trying for the high end.
However, NO government issues rifles to its people that blow up! Bad for morale.
I have a 2A and a 2A1 and only shoot milsurp through them.
I reloaded for my 2a1 and used the starting loads for 308. :wave:Nice and accurate and easy on the rifle.:cool:
I have fired thousands of rounds of ammo through pressure barrels (both SAAMI and NATO spec barrels). I used to do that for a living.
Since then I have worked with an ammo company making sniper ammo for military and the police. This ammo has to be submitted to a gov't lab for pressure testing before it is licensed for sale. prior to that submission, we do a lot of our own pressure testing as part of our load development.
NATO and SAAMI specs are written using different measuring systems and test procedures - this is why the pressure limits of the tow appear to be different. The fact is that the limits are about teh same.
Both commercial and NATO develop about 54,000 to 58,000 psi. it varys from lot to lot. i have seen lots of both commercial and NAOo average 60,000 psi. Both were within spec.
The NATO ammo was causing problems. That is why I submitted it for a re-test to two different authorities. Both came back with similar results. "In spec, but just barely."
The Hornady Light magnums stuffs about 65 grains of very slow ball powder in a 308 case. I have pressure tested that ammo too, and if anyhting, it was slightly milder than other ammo.
I have two Ishies. One has fired about 1000 rounds of Canadian NATO ball. No sign of a problem. have not checked headspace, but will.
Other Ishy is almsot unused.
The reports are serious and should not be ignored. I am at a loss to understand the results and suggestion that commercial ammo is the problem.
Two theories come to mind. First, is it possible the Indian 7.62 ammo is lower presure? I have never tested it.
Is it possible that the heavier case of the NAtO round puts less bolt thrust on the bolt? I have no way to measure bolt thrust.
I could oil a batch of NATO ammo and shoot it in my newer IShy and see if I get any headspace increase. That might suggest the mechanism of the problem.
I have some 88 Commision rifles, but no MS. If action is the same as an 88 I would not shoot factory ammo in it (of any type or flavour). Why beat up a nice old rifle? Load for it and reduce charges a bit. At the top end, 5,000psi only gets you another 50 fps. Same thing happens when you reduce velocity a bit.
My club requires non magnetic ammo use on their range. I have tried to restrict my Ishapore 2A to mil.surplus ammo but so far haven't found non magnetic milsurp. Even Winchester 7.62 grabs a magnet.
Does anyone know of a 50,000psi non magnetic load?
Swagman
I have seen this argument in magazines, club newsletters and on several websites.
Being a simple lad I was quite baffled by it all. My understanding was that the US military developed the T65 which subsequently became the 7.62 Nato and was commercially released as .308 Winchester.
Obviously the commercial round was offered in a variety of bullet weights but otherwise...
I understand and accept that the military may have somewhat different standards and requirements than a commercial ammunition supplier:
- military use does not consider reloading
- military specs may well not follow SAAMI specs exactly ~ in the case of .308 Winchester I would expect that the SAAMI spec was based on the military developed loads from which the .308 descended
- military specs may well include larger chambers, smaller brass and more generous headspace than commercial guns and ammunition to allow for dirt and less than perfect ammunition being fed into the gun - the goal is to allow soldiers to shoot successfully in adverse conditions with little regard for reloading brass or benchrest accuracy
Be that as it may the cartridges are for all intents and purposes interchangeable dimensionally and have the same roots.
Being simple and confused I wrote to Remington and Winchester for their comments.
From Remington:
Thank you for contacting Remington Arms. I'm not sure what you are referring to with T65. However, the 7.62x51 and the NATO rounds are the same. The .308 and 7.62 have the same cartridge size and the military chambers are oversized like you mentioned. That said, we do not recommend shooting 7.62 in a sporting .308. The 7.62 ammo is contracted out (in many cases outside of the US) and does not have to follow SAMMI specifications. There is a common problem with excessive pressures with this ammo and that's why the military chambers are oversized. The .308 is not oversized and that's why it's best not to shoot NATO rounds in it.
From Winchester/Olin:
Information I have indicates the T-65 or 7.62Nato is interchangeable with the .308W cartridge. Personally have never had a problem firing 7.62 Nato in a variety of .308W chambered rifles.
Regards,
brian
So if anything it appears that the 7.62 Nato round may operate at higher pressure than .308 Winchester.
The NATO round is higher pressure just like its little brother the 5.56x45mm NATO is of higher pressure then the commercial 223Rem. The thing is the "leade" between the cases mouth and the start of the rifling is farther apart to allow the pressure to stop before it builds up in the chamber too much. From what I understand reading many many pages on the web and books about the differences. :)
Thats why you have chambers like the "Wedley" (not sure of the spelling though) chamber for the 223Rem/5.56mm NATO which is ment to relieve the pressure of NATO ammunition enough to not damage the rifle but at the same time provide a better "Match" chamber that will allow the rifle to be more accurate.
Its WORSE shooting NATO ammo in a commercial chambered firearm then it is to shoot commercial in a NATO chambered firearm from what I understand. Cause the rifle will allow the NATO spec ammunition to build up its pressure but will not relieve it like a NATO chamber would.
But I'm sure that shooting heavier commercial ammunition will hurt the NATO is probably true like was already mentioned. Never mind if its a gas gun like the M1A which cannot shoot alot of powders which do not match its burn rates or improper bullet weights.
Thats why AR-15's, AR-10's, M1A's etc are generally chambered to the NATO spec's and not the commercial ones. :)
Dimitri