Ishapore 2A1 headspace gauge/ Measurement

I was wondering if I could determine if my 2A1 passses the 7.62 Nato max of 1.645 without buying the gauge. I did the fired shell with spent primer trick (You can see the length in the picture) but need to know how to measure for the headspace with this measurement on this rifle? I have a Forster field gauge of 1.638. Can I determine the headspace with these two lengths? Close bolt on field gauge and insert feeler gauge between rear lug and receiver? Or is this going to be too hard to determine?

This rifle is in near new shape with mirror bright bore and clean chamber. All matching except nose cap. It swallowed up a Forster field gauge, which I figured it would. Since I don't plan on putting thousands of rounds down range, I was hoping to save a buck without spending $30 for a one time use gauge. I don't want to assume it passes without checking.

The primer sure backed out didn't it? Any way you can get the barrel turned in one revolution? Recut the chamber? I guess if there was then the gauge wouldn't be a problem would it?

The primer didn't back out, I took a fired round and de-primed it. Used to spent primer and started it in the pocket, chambered the round, and this is the result. Should be the size of the chamber to the bolt face. Unless I'm doing this wrong. Just need to know how to determine the right measurement.

Take an empty aluminum beverage can, cut a little ~1/2" disk from it, measure its thickness with a good micrometer, and stick it on the back end of your 1.638" gauge with a tiny dab of grease. Most common beer cans go about .004", which will give you a 1.642" gauge. Two layers will get you to 1.646" (or 1.647" if you lay on too much grease). If you need to measure closer than that, try a different beverage or spend a few bucks for a cheap feeler gauge you can cut up - or some precision shim stock (should you want to be real fussy).

I just did that exact thing and the bolt still closed on the gauge. I think I'm somewhere around 1.650 ?? Could it have been set up wrong?? If I'm reading it right, this has a #5 bolt head.
It looks like it has hardly ever been fired. Now what, wall hanger?

You state the NATO max of 1.645 but Peter Laidler states 1.635 for Enfields in 7.62 So if its failing your 1.638 Gauge its 'had it' (although read the following)

Here are some notes from The Good Captain off the old Jouster Forum :

Anyone for 7.62mm CHS?
Posted By: Peter Laidler
Date: Tues 6 May 2008 11:36 am
Now for the biggie, the 7.62’s. The basic principle of headspacing hasn’t changed here but the practicalities have. Whereas before, on our rimmed .303” rifles we measured the GO NO-GO distance between the front face of the bolt and the rear face of the barrel, it’s all changed for the rimless 7.62mm NATO caliber rifles. Now we have to measure from the front face of the bolt to the cartridge seating at the neck. Well, that’s all pretty clear then ….., except that the neck is tapered so where EXACTLY on that neck do you take your GO, 1.628” and NO-GO 1.635 measurement from? Even if I told you it’d make no difference whatsoever because without the specialist measuring and more importantly, the calibration equipment, you’d still be none the wiser. The trouble with this is that you’ve got to take the word of the manufacturer of the gauge. And exactly where does HE take HIS measurement from but more importantly, WHO does he get them from. geting difficult isn't it?
Let me give you an example. My GO gauge gives you a close/GO reading of 1.628 but Bloggs & Co gauge may give you a GO reading of 1.575” for the same 7.62mm caliber. How can there be a difference of .053” between the two when they are identical? Well, it’s simple really. Our STANAG gauges are measured from one diameter around the neck while Bloggs & Co are taken from a different but larger diameter .053” further to the rear! That is really all I want to say about that.
The next obvious question for all you enthusiasts is where can I get a set of these gauges and the true answer is that I don’t know! The fact remains that there are MANY gauges for all manner of 7.62mm rifles and machine guns ranging from the little bolt action L8’s right through to the L- whatever it is ferocious mini gun. And there are equally MANY for different lines of repair and functions, ranging from 1.622” to 1.648”.
That just about covers the 7.62mm versions. The question of calibrating your gauges is one that needs to be looked into by ‘some friends’ on both sides of the pond. I can see already that this is about to open up a whole new can of worms...... But just hang on in there....................

Captain Laidler's specs are for the L42a1s. What the Indian specifications were have yet to be disclosed, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmoore

Captain Laidler's specs are for the L42a1s. What the Indian specifications were have yet to be disclosed, I think.

---

Correct :
What I was trying to show was even if we know what the Indian headspace measurement is/are we have no idea what their datum point is, so, unless we had actual Indian calibrated gauges it is impossible to headspace.

A question for those more knowlegable than I :
Would it be safe to assume that using the same ammunition (7.62 Nato) in what SHOULD be a similar sized chamber (NATO Spec ?) that it would be safe to use L42 gauges and L42 headspace dimensions ?

Measuring headspace on a 2A1 is a completely pointless exercise, if the manufacturer's specification is not known.

I doubt very much that 2A1s were ever intended to have the same headspace as a 7.62mm No4 target rifle - or a modern assault rifle - and that the no-go (if one actually exists) is probably well over 1.645.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

Would it be safe to assume that using the same ammunition (7.62 Nato) in what SHOULD be a similar sized chamber (NATO Spec ?) that it would be safe to use L42 gauges and L42 headspace dimensions ?

---

Not that that I'm more "knowed up", but I think Thunderbox's reply makes sense. As well, there are various headspace requirements even in the US for US weapons,- M14s run kinda sloppy, but match grade M14s and M21s are tighter, and some bolt guns are known to run tighter still. They will all still work fine with pretty much any old 7.62x51, dut it is a RELOADER's nightmare! Even chamber shapes vary a good deal between mfg's. Quite the bother.

Really, if the CHS it excessive, usually all that happens is case head separation (which prevents chambering the next round) or misfires (which is a bother). Not acceptable for a military weapon, but not generally dangerous in of itself.

Let me ask a pertinent question that noone has asked yet. Given all of the trials, tests and experiments carried out at Enfield and for over 45 years - so far - with the L8 CHS, the L39 CHS and the L42 CHS then specifying that the L96 must have the same CHS specification. Then, the Sterling No4 and 5 conversions............ both of which stuck rigidly to the tried and tested specification, can any out there tell me why would the Indian ROF converting the No1 rifles would opt for anything different................... especially when the important maths, physics and metallurgy has already been done for them?

Come on lads..............! If 1.6238 go and 1.635 no-go is good enough for pretty well every other (and certainly every other Enfield.....) bolt action rifle using 7.62mm NATO ball, why would India seriously change it to anything else.

In my limited experience, and not knowing the definitive answer, then take it from me, that if these are the known spec for everything else, then it'd be a pretty safe bet that this is the spec for that other solitary bolt action 7.62mm Enfield using NATO ball.

Now come a bit closer and listen in because I don't want everyone else to know about this opinion I have........... It's about that hoary old chestnut that ALL or certainly MOST of the Indian 7.62mm SMLE's have a greater NO-GO CHS. Could it possibly be that they have already failed the REJECT 1.635 gauge at Indian Armourers shops and Ordnance and it's these rifles that they've sold off.

As an experienced rule of thumb you should take it that the CHS for this bolt action 7.62mm NATO rifle is the same as the rest of the 7.62mm bolt action rifles. No excuses now. But I'd appreciate any alternative views - but make sure that you've got your books handy!

After spending (yet another) week gauging all my rifles (500 +) for cartridge headspace (CHS), and yet again finding all in order.
I find myself asking…. How far out can CHS. be before a rifle mechanically fails upon firing?

I have in the past, found weapons that have really quite excessive CHS (SA80 and GPMG) that had fired many many rounds with no dangerous consequences.

The simple answer to Skippy's quesation is that the weapon won't (?) fail due to excess CHS. I had a No4 that was so worn that the CHS was .018" excess at .092". However, what would happen occasionally was that there'd be a misfire. This was caused by the CHS clearance being excessive or in othger words at the HIGH end of tolerance and the percussion anvil in the cartridge being at the LOW end of its tollerance. Result. a misfire. .22" rifles are good at this too!

CHS is a wide subject but another important thing it prevents is the build up of inertia in the breech block. Think 'hammer action' for want of a better or more descriptive work. Not something that a bolt action rifle needs to worry about but think L2A1 automatic SLR. If CHS was excessive in that rifle then very quickly that action will loosen the locking shoulder in short order. Loose (and I mean loose enough to elongate the hole) locking shoulders were not a major problem with the bog standard semi auto L1A1

Out of curiosity I made a bunch of the "can" shims to see how bad this really gauges. Each slice mic'd at .004 to .0045. It took 5 shims to pass, which is approximately .022 to .0225. Added to my Field gauge of 1.638 that makes it an eye popping 1.6605. I subtracted the 7.62 Nato Max field measurement of 1.6455 and came up with .015 over. Less than Peter said one of his rifles gauged at and still was fine. If I am not mistaken, this gun has a #5 bolt head which is the biggest, correct?
I thank all of you who responded. I tried to come up with something on my own but it seemed to confuse me even more. This discussion is exactly what I was looking for. This gun looks like new, but gauges like an old tired veteran. It seems the HS on this gun is very "generous". Not one I plan on reloading for given the measurements. I just wanted to know if I can take this out and fire it without risking life or limb.

Apologies for the the repetition but which NATO firearm has 1.6455 ?

As Peter Laidler has stated all of the Enfield based 7.62 Bolt Action rifles are 1.635. That would make yours 25.5 thou over max. (assuming the Indians did use the same headspace dimensions as the other Enfields)

Could Peter be correct that all of the 'sold out of service 2A's / 2A1's are BER ?

US spec. field max is 1.645". I wouldn't begrudge the extra 0.0005" as it really doesn't have any functional importance. I believe the US and British reference datum planes are different, but likely they measure out the same on a real world gage.- or not!

ETA: Forster lists the 7.62 NATO max. dimension as 1.6455"-0.0003" for their gages. I've an older reference to 1.645" but no tolerancing, so it may be suspect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmoore

US spec. field max is 1.645". I wouldn't begrudge the extra 0.0005" as it really doesn't have any functional importance. I believe the US and British reference datum planes are different, but likely they measure out the same on a real world gage.- or not!

ETA: Forster lists the 7.62 NATO max. dimension as 1.6455"-0.0003" for their gages. I've an older reference to 1.645" but no tolerancing, so it may be suspect.

---

Ahhhhhh- that takes us back to Peter's original post on Jouster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

Could Peter be correct that all of the 'sold out of service 2A's / 2A1's are BER ?

---

I doubt it, because many of the rifles are/were in fairly mint condition.

I expect that India disposes of rifles in a decentralised manner - ie a regional or district police unit gets upgraded to AKs/L1A1/INSAS, and dumps their Enfields.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

As Peter Laidler has stated all of the Enfield based 7.62 Bolt Action rifles are 1.635.

---

Thats an assumption. The Envoy limits were actually tighter at 1.628 and 1.631, based on a datum of 0.4" at the shoulder. Why would we assume that a combat rifle - the 2A1 - should have headspace (and by implication, slower reloading) as tight as target or sniper rifles? I haven't seen the CHS figures for L8s but, as experimental rifles, I'd wager that the CHS would have been relaxed as soon as they were issued for service use - no good having stiff cartridge chambering on a combat rifle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunderbox

Thats an assumption. The Envoy limits were actually tighter at 1.628 and 1.631, based on a datum of 0.4" at the shoulder. Why would we assume that a combat rifle - the 2A1 - should have headspace (and by implication, slower reloading) as tight as target or sniper rifles? I haven't seen the CHS figures for L8s but, as experimental rifles, I'd wager that the CHS would have been relaxed as soon as they were issued for service use - no good having stiff cartridge chambering on a combat rifle.

---

I do not have the experience, background or knowledge that Peter & yourself have but I did assume that Peter's quote was correct :

".....If 1.6238 go and 1.635 no-go is good enough for pretty well every other (and certainly every other Enfield.....) bolt action rifle using 7.62mm NATO ball....."

.015 or .025 over is still over, so does that mean don't shoot this thing? If I do will the whole thing go boom in my face or will the brass just be scrap? I really enjoyed learning something from all you experts.

Oooooops if I said 1.6238 low but I meant 1.328 low. I wonder where that Envoy CHS tolerance came from Thunderbox. Can you show me as a matter of interest. I ask because given a .003" tolerance, it could be that while a No1 bolthead could give you a LOW CHS, a No2 could give you a HIGH - meaning that you might NEVER get CHS. I know it's only theoretical (or is it.......?) but food for thought.

If someone is suggesting that, say, the US spec NO-GO gauge is listed as 1.645, then send it to me and I will calibrate it and tell you EXACTLY what this gauge equates to in UK Military terms. It might be that the SAAMI or Forster spec is measured from a different diameter around the neck. Can't say fairer than that can I?

I don't agree that because something looks perfect that it IS perfect Thunderbox because they're clearly not in mint condition with CHS apparently hovering around the 1.635" area. I only say that as a good enough reason for the canny Indian Forces to dispose of them. On a 'same meat, different gravy' thread, how many owners of supposedly described as mint ex UK MIlitary L1A1's were caught with 'as new' and 'factory-mint' L1A1's found out later that they'd been sold off because the body locking lug at the rear of the body was worn out and you'd NEVER lock up the body and trigger mechanism properly. Don't laugh, I've SEEN them with my own eyes. They looked perfect but when I looked over them with an Armourers eye, guess what I found....................................

If you're a handloader and want to shoot this rifle without fixing its generous headspace, it's easy enough to treat is as a "wildcat" and custom-form cases to fit. The .022" surplus headspace isn't enough to worry about exposing the case beyond the solid web (which would be very unwise). You can form cases from .30/06 or any of several Mauser types, backing off the sizer so a sized and trimmed case chambers with a touch of resistance in the last few degrees of bolt rotation. After the first firing, be sure to set the sizer to produce the same kind of slight resistance (indicating zero cartridge end-play) - or stick to neck sizing.

As for firing it with factory ammunition, you'll be stretching each case some .025" or more (depending on cartridge head-shoulder dimensions). This is about as far as we can expect high-quality .308 Win. or 7.62 NATO brass to stretch without separating. Anything less than top-grade brass is likely to chop. This normally isn't a disaster, since the short cup remaining does a fair job of sealing the chamber - but you can expect a little gas and maybe some solid particles. Then you may have to dig out your handy "broken shell extractor" to get the front part of the case out of the chamber. Overall, not an experience you'd want to have very often.

Pcaru1, I think the "5" on your bolt head is part of an inspection stamp and not a size marking. What about fitting a longer head?

Someone's just asked me how come I'm so sure about the Indian rifle CHS spec. I have to say that I'm NOT sure. It's just that I question why every other bolt asction 7.62mm Enfield is between these two specs, why wouldn't the Indian rifle be the same.

The same answer applies regarding the question as to why they all seem to close over the 1.635 no-go gauge. Once again, I'm just using my old Armourers 'bleedin obvious' assumption that these have oversize CHS with worn bodies and were disposed of as a result.

If anyone wants an unknown 7.62mm CHS gauge calibrated, then just ask and I'll do it. But the lcalibrated length/answer will be to the UK MoD standard

I am not questioning anyone's expertise, for most here have much more knowledge than myself, and I have seen some great info be posted. But one thing I would like to know is if India released these rifles because they are all worn out, BER, or similar, why do quite a few have great bores and muzzles? This one I have has both. Mirror brite bore and gauges "0" at the muzzle. Again not to doubt anyone but curious as why other guns that would fail this bad when measuring HS would show other signs of heavy use/abuse like severe barrel wear or bad muzzles?

Would a larger bolt head like steve H. suggested work? If so, do all Enfield bolt heads swap with each other? which one to use? If not, can barrels still be had to make this gun a shooter? I did not pay a lot for this gun so a re-barrel would be economically feasable.

PCARU - It may have had a new barrel at some time (hence the good chamber & muzzle).
The headspace will be increased if the locking lugs have worn - it could be that the 'hardening' has worn thru' and every round / recoil is making it worse.

I've lost count of how many RFI 2A and 2A1 rifles I've had through my shop for fitting of long bolt heads. I'd say 90% of them regardless of condition are all out of specification. I've always fitted new, long bolt heads and adjusted them to L42A1 specification which is tight as a tick. I didn't use an SAAMI Field gauge because I know that the 7.62 NATO round is stressing the receiver to the maximum of it's capability and tighter is obviously better. We've all read before about the metallurgy and the mythology of the receivers being manufactured from higher quality steel. When properly tested, the mettalurgy was found to be exactly the same as WW1 production SMLE receivers! Remember too that the 2A and 2A1 were never intended to be front line combat rifles. Positive extraction and ejection from the magazine is modest at best and they were mostly issued to frontier territorial and police forces not the regular Indian Army. I like to refer to them as "Barney Fife" rifles. "Here's your rifle Sahib. Here's your bullet. Please put it in your pocket until you really, really need it".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Dick

I've lost count of how many RFI 2A and 2A1 rifles I've had through my shop for fitting of long bolt heads. I'd say 90% of them regardless of condition are all out of specification.

---

Isn't that most likely an indication that we are assuming the wrong specification for these rifles in the first place?

If you fit longer boltheads, and then nothing much happens after further usage - then what is supposed to have happened to them to make the go "out of specification" in the first place. To me, the circumstantial evidence is that these rifles were built with a generous headspace specification, in line with their intended role as cheap, low-usage Police rifles.

Generous headspace spec .......as cheap, low usage Police rifles.............. Like the Enforcer. Call me a sceptic Thunderbox but...........

I'll tell you all what I'll do first thing next week. I'll make a written request to the Indian Army Liaison Officer to see if he can find out for us. Wait out!

It's interesting to recall that the Indian Army were the first to place a firm order for 60,000 7.62mm L8 rifles in 1965. The order was cancelled due to a spot of bother with a neighbour along her western border. And guess what the CHS spec for these rifles was? You've got it in one!

In today's lawsuit happy society, I decided that the tighter specification of the L42 gauges was/is the ticket with these rifles. It was my decision and I don't really care what the Indian Army specification is although I tend to agree that it's probably the same as MoD specification. It'll be interesting to find out. Thunderbox may well be correct but I'm not the Army, just a small business and when working these old rifles safety is paramount. No one has ever been hurt with a rifle purchased here. I had an incident once from a consignment I sold years ago. A Demro Wasp, (read piece of crap), in .45 ACP that came apart while being fired. Anyhow, that's an unpleasant story and it scared the s--t out of me.

ON top of all that BRian and Thunderbox, it's a very interesting thread for me, purely from the technical/Armouring side. I don't know about anyone else just reading this. Comments anyone out there in forumland..........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

ON top of all that BRian and Thunderbox, it's a very interesting thread for me, purely from the technical/Armouring side. I don't know about anyone else just reading this. Comments anyone out there in forumland..........

---

I agree - in fact, a couple of days ago, I clicked "excellent" on the "rate this thread".
It would be nice to get a conclusive answer from the ILO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

ON top of all that BRian and Thunderbox, it's a very interesting thread for me, purely from the technical/Armouring side. I don't know about anyone else just reading this. Comments anyone out there in forumland..........

---

I've five of these Indian rifles- four functional (one's missing the bolt head, and, more importantly, the extractor) and none of the four pass headspace requirements. I've fired one QUITE extensively and have had no functional dramas. No reloads, though- just berdan primed milsurp ammo- mostly Portuguese ans South African.

Ran that one fast and hard at the CQB/tactical matches at Ft. Benning 7 to 12 years ago (inclusively)- sometimes with iron sights, sometimes with a reddot mounted on the rear sight bed, and once or twice with a laser strapped on the bayonet lug just for giggles in night shoots.

So my PRACTICAL interest in this situation is pretty small.
From a theoretical standpoint, I'm quite interested in the report back from the Indian liason.

i have followed this thread with interest as a collector with a 2a1. I would like to source a set of guages. I just missed out on a rifle that looked new and unused so took second best which is pretty darn good, why were these sold off. Peter your findings i await.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

. I'll make a written request to the Indian Army Liaison Officer to see if he can find out for us. Wait out!

---

I dont suppose there is any news yet ?

No news yet but the official wheels run so slowly................

I had a friend drill and tap my Ishy for a scope. He looked at a couple fired cases and said that the headspace must be good. When I asked why, he pointed out where you could see where the case sealed against the chamber and there was no residue behind this point. We put a scope on it and I went and sent several hundrud rounds at praire dogs. I used berdan primed surplus and had no problems. Was his imput a myth?
Thanks to all for all of the post and info.

Sorry I didn't mean to kill the thread.
Any info from the Indian Army on measuring the headspace?

Read answer two back. I'll tell you when the answer comes through

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

No news yet but the official wheels run so slowly................

---

I understand this absolutely, but I have to ask, in your vast experience will these wheels continue to run until there is an answer? it would be great to get an answer to this often visited topic.

pcaru1

The official paperwork has already gone in via the Military system to the Indian REME at wherever it is in India. In our own system you can just phone someone you know - it's called back scratching. But you just can'tdo this into anotherArmy.

As soon as it comes back I'll tell all

Great. Thanks.

Is there anyway to fix headspace on the 7.62 ishapores? My bolt head doesn't have any specific numbers on it to figure out what size it might be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boostedawd91

Is there anyway to fix headspace on the 7.62 ishapores? My bolt head doesn't have any specific numbers on it to figure out what size it might be.

---

How do you know you need to fix it ?
What headspace have you got and what should it be ?

Its .003 over the forester 7.62 nato field gauge specs of 1.6455.
I know there is no specs from the manufactor so nobody knows what its supposed to be but i cant imagine it's to far off our nato specs. Its pushing primers out on 308 ammo and seems to be bulging cases on 7.62 nato military ammo so its gotta be past the safe point of firing id imagine

There are a couple of other ways around this, you can use flexigauge on the base of the round to determine the total distance between base and bolt with the case resting on it's shoulders, you could use plasticene as a stopgap instead.
You could simply insert a FLS Case into the chamber, hold the case into the chamber, insert a rod into the barrel and mark it at the intersect of muzzle and rod.
Remove the extractor and insert the bolt, now push the rod down, (push the case back on to the face of the closed bolt) and mark it again,
CHECK THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TWO MARKS WITH A VERNIER.... TOTAL HEADSPACE.

Im assuming your saying use a empty case that has been full length sized? I dont have any dies for these yet. Im guessing you must use 308 winchester dies? I havent seen any 7.62 nato specific dies anywhere

It's looking like ill be sending my rifle to brian dick to have a long bolt head fitted on which should hopefully be the last repair this gun needs. To bad its gonna cost as much as i paid for the gun to fix it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boostedawd91

...... and seems to be bulging cases on 7.62 nato military ammo so its gotta be past the safe point of firing id imagine

---

Was it not you who said (on another forum) :

"i dont seem to have any brass bulging with the 7.62 nato ammo"

There seems to be a little disparity in your posts.

Yea it was a mistake by me, what i thought to be 7.62 nato ammo actually turned out to be 308 ammo which it doesn't like shooting so I just picked up some good 7.62 nato ammo im gonna shoot today and see if there is any issues with it or not.

As a rule of thumb Military ammunition seems to have about a 10% less capacity that civilain ammunition - as the outside dimensions are the same this can only mean that the Military stuff has thicker walls and is therefore stronger.

Click the link for some interesting info - make your own mind up.

7.62x51mm NATO or 308 Winchester? What's the Difference?

Yea, military cases usually have thicker cases. I shot some i believe its m80 lake city arsenal 7.62 nato ammo today and it does seem to be bulging the cases. They are about .006-.010 thicker towards the bottom after being fired than the unfired cases. Is that a big issue?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boostedawd91

They are about .006-.010 thicker towards the bottom after being fired than the unfired cases. Is that a big issue?

---

No. It's perfectly normal - and entirely within the deformation limits of decent brass. Even with the fairly tight SAAMI specs for US sporting arms, there's .011" difference between the minimum cartridge base diameter and the maximum chamber diameter.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../149yu80-1.jpg
Note tolerances of plus .002" on chamber diameter and minus .008" on cartridge body diameter.

Im probably not gonna be able to reload those cases that have expanded correct? If i shoot again they will probably expand more than the case can handle

No, they should be fine for reloading. Again, .010" expansion forward of the solid base portion is within the normal range and nothing to worry about.

Well i sent the gun down to brian at bdl limited, a enfield specialist, to have it checked out and a new bolt head fitted to tighten up the headspace. He just got back to me confirming that its way out of spec so once i get it back, ill let ya know how it shoots. Before my groups were getting worse everytime i shot it so looking forward to see how it does once it's nice and tight

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

The official paperwork has already gone in via the Military system to the Indian REME at wherever it is in India. In our own system you can just phone someone you know - it's called back scratching. But you just can'tdo this into anotherArmy.

As soon as it comes back I'll tell all

---

I don't suppose they responded yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parashooter

SAAMI specs for US sporting arms, there's .011" difference between the minimum cartridge base diameter and the maximum chamber diameter.

---

Looks like a 0.0011" rather than a 0.011" difference at the 0.200" datum plane.

But otherwise, the 0.006"- 0.010" radial expansion is nothing to worry about. There's an old thread that tests the outer limits of the safe radial expansion near the base.

---------- Post added at 12:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:42 AM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pcaru1

I don't suppose they responded yet?

---

Yes, yes they did. Page back a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Someone's just asked me how come I'm so sure about the Indian rifle CHS spec. I have to say that I'm NOT sure. It's just that I question why every other bolt asction 7.62mm Enfield is between these two specs, why wouldn't the Indian rifle be the same.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

I'll tell you all what I'll do first thing next week. I'll make a written request to the Indian Army Liaison Officer to see if he can find out for us. Wait out!

---

jmoore- This is what I was questioning about a response. It's been a while. Just wondering what the ILO will come up with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmoore

Looks like a 0.0011" rather than a 0.011" difference at the 0.200" datum plane.

---

You need to include the tolerances: -.008" cartridge, +.002" chamber.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pcaru1

jmoore- This is what I was questioning about a response. It's been a while. Just wondering what the ILO will come up with.

---

Peter came back with the answer and started a new thread 5th Jan

Ishapore 7.62mm 2A1 CHS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parashooter

You need to include the tolerances: -.008" cartridge, +.002" chamber.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

Peter came back with the answer and started a new thread 5th Jan

Ishapore 7.62mm 2A1 CHS

---

Sorry about that! Having only 15-20 minutes to wade through over 100 new posts makes for some less than stellar replies....It's easier on the weekends.

I did not know he had posted a response. I assumed (ooops) that he would reply to the original post. Thanks to everyone for the imput. Especially Peter.