Printable View
Brought this up previously, does anyone have an LE in .223? I found a place in the UK that would create a bolt head for me and I coudl deal with the magazine insert and feeding. The bit I couldnt cope with was the cost of a .223 barrel to be threaded for the LE receiver. Anyone actually have one that works well?
Threading a blank for the receiver isn't a problem, the extractor would be way too short I would think. Are pressures going to be OK on this conversion? I guess they would. We have about three here that would know for sure and I'm sure Mr Laidler has one in stores...
I looked at doing a .223" No4 several times, just as a project. The process of fitting a barrel, CHSing and making it shoot using a standard bolt was simplicity itself. The problems came with the other parts of the cycle, such as a reliable-ish feed, load, extract and eject. A slightly deeper clawed extractor will be required (easy to adapt a readily available 7.62mm extractor). It didn't really get past a few technical drawings and barrelling up an old barrel into a Mk2 action and shooting it. That was simple as I made an internal and external threaded collar to screw the barrel into the No4 breech. One thing I do remember was finding a .556 NATO/readily available magazine that would actually fit into the front of the existing magaxine well.
Anyway, that's as far as I got.................. If it was a school metalwork project it'd have been marked 'Peter tried, had a few ideas, bless him, but failed!'
Hi Guys,
I read something about this a while ago - try the attached link -
Collecting and Shooting the Military Surplus Rifle - Surplusrifle.com
Interesting idea!
They've been neutering No4's like that for many years.
They do come up for sale around here from time to time and I have thought of buying a No 4 conversion (for something different).. but never committed. Might just do it one day. Has anybody got one ? are they happy with them?
plenty here in oz. Happy to post pics and details but can't until Saturday or Sunday. They work. Well and are very accurate but are hard to set up to feed. One member here is an expert in building them. He may chime in soon.
I'd love a No5 in .223, the range would be right for a carbine, the recoil would be much reduced, it seems like a match made in heaven.
Just my thoughts at the time too RJ. A No5 was the aim of my project as the barrel length I was using was right too. Feeding will always be a bit of a problem due to the large diameter bolt-way/bolthead and the base rim diameter of the cartridge. Whether the bolt head will pick up the cartridge on its forward 'loading' stroke will always be at best, marginal
Like I said, Peter had a few ideas but failed the test! Mind you, he did get it to fire!
The ones built on JC'c here are great to 300m. The feeding is a bit of a stuff around but once you've got your beast settled they tend to just do the business without many hassles.
Peter Saroney at Armalon is, of course, still cutting up new No4 Mk2s to make his .223/5.56mm carbine thingys. You might be able to get a barrel from him.
Nearly every .223 conversion I've come across (mostly the above-mentioned Armalons), the owners have complained about all sorts of feeding and functioning problems. Maybe the geometry of the No4 feed-ramp to chamber is simply not optimum for a thin round?
I tried to modify my receiver body by incorporating into it the magazine well of a scrap SA80. That way I'd have ready made available magazines but the magazine housing and magazines being parallel wouldn't sit in the mag well of the No4 body
Interesting thread
Another one from surplus rifle is the .45ACP conversion have built a few of these, on scrapped/ sporterized No4 actions, good fun and cheap to run, the first one I did was from a kit from Rhineland, the rest I built, I had to go to another supplier(rhineland are back making these now) for mag adapters, and produced my own barrels from blanks.
Wish I had of bought a lot more kits from Rhineland when I built the first one, I cant even buy a barrel blank for the price I paid for the full kit.
It was after this I was looking at building an exact copy of the De-Lisle carbine, but shelved the idea, as I wanted to keep it to the original spec, and in doing this it would of been a section 5.
http://www.surplusrifle.com/reviews2...ield/index.asp
just checked out the Armalon website. They have a rifle (AL42) whihc is in .223 and looks rather splendid. However given exchange rates to import it to teh USA plus import costs woudl be ridiculous, which is a shame because they look real nice. Wonder if he'd convert a rifle I sent to him?
then it woukdn't be importing, just "returning from repair".
If you want a reduced recoil, the little Russian round is great, you can shorten up & re-chamber the 303 barrel. A mini-30 5 round mag fits flush & feeds like dream. Some work is needed to the trigger guard & forend to make it fit.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF0075-1.jpg
Been there, done that.
Well actually a bit more.
I'm the silly bugger who designed the AIA M-10 series. These were initially slated for 7.62 x 39, 7.62 Nato and 5.56 NATO. Only the first two calibres made it to production, The 5.56 was killed off by office politics.
For those not familiar with the M-10 design, there are three significant changes to the Lee Enfield system:
1. The receiver is widened and made more slab-sided so that modular adapters for different mag systems can be fitted tio a common receiver.
2. The barrel is breeched up using a Brewer collar as per a Savage 110.
3. The bolt head has a collar surrounding the face and a spring and plunger ejector.
I have not been involved in the AIA operation for some years and have no idea what they are doing currently.
However, running 5.56 on a No4 / No5 action is not rocket science. The tiny diameter of the cartridge effectively demands a collared bolt face.. I have seen quite a few that have had a a ring simply soldered on with low-temperature solder: not exactly good engineering but it prevents the degradation of the heat-treatment of the bolt head proper. More adventurous folk machine the face back slightly and solder on a "cup". This method also has the advantage of allowing a smaller diameter striker hole. This latter is important as the diameter and protrusion of the standard setup is a recipe for instant ruptured primers. Duplicate the specs for M-16 and you can't go far wrong.
Enthusiasts should be able to fabricate a functional extractor from suitable steel. Tacking a bit onto an original and carefully filing it down to achieve function will give some idea and it might actually work for a while in service, but making a new one from suitable steel is not that tricky once you have derived the dimensions.
As for an ejector, a bit of basic geometry will give you the angles and depth for the plunger hole. Plungers are a piece of cake, springs can, at a pinch, be derived from M-16 types and just use a suitably small roll-pin for retention (a la M-16). One of my dramas was getting the 7.62 NATO version ejecting consistently. A single similar plunger is marginal on the larger case. It is structural and metallurgical madness to attempt to install a stuffer spring: there isn't room. However, the simple addition of a second plunger about 90 degrees away, will solve the problem using the same dinky spring and plunger as the 5.56 version. One could opt for a Mauser-type ejector and cut slots in the bolt head and receiver sides, but I was not too thrilled about that idea.
Magazines: The best "off the shelf" mag is that for the Ruger Mini-14. M-16 / STANAG types will work but, because they are wider at the front, cannot be placed as close to the breech as the Ruger type.
HOWEVER! Do not expect either type to work reliably with their original spring tension. Go and push down the follower on a No4 or a K-98; soft, isn't it? The spring load needed to launch a stack of cartridges up the mag body in a semi-auto is vastly excessive in a bolt action. You will get round leaping in all directions and wildly excessive upwards thrust in the bottom of the bolt body; not good things. The hard-core will get new springs wound to the same form but in a lighter gauge wire, the rest will simply chop bits off the original until it works OK.
Those of you that own M-10s in 7.62 NATO may have occasional issues with feed, especially at low feed speeds. This is because the supplied mags have essentially the same spring as 10rd mags for an M-14; not exactly as I had envisaged.
Fitting of your chosen 5.56 mag is problem. Some folk cheerfully line up their Mini-14 mags (5 round capacity) in a .303mag housing and then pump silicon rubber sealant in to hold it permanently in place: crude but effective. Metalworking enthusiasts can devise their own interface without too much anguish.
Barrels will need a counterbore of dimension suitable to clear bolthead collar and the extractor as it clicks over the rim. Doing this also maintains maximum breech thread length.
Cheers
I guy in Australia named rob spittles does a great job of these
I guy in Australia named rob spittles does a great job of these
too many posts, which rifle? No 5?
I hadn't thought of it before but 7.62x39 in a No5 might be a much better idea than .223, dang, with such a similar bore, would that work with just a chamber insert and a new extractor?
BTW, Bruce in Oz, awesome job on the M-10, I'd love to have one.
I'm not sure quite how it happened but I now have two no5s with shagged barrels, they're ideal project rifles.
I've got pictures of several converted rifles. If I can find them, I'll stick 'em up.
I do object to the cutting up of standard Lee Enfields in any better than fair condition, but to anyone who might be looking to do this, contact some of the bigger milsurp dealers about a receiver with bolt and small parts to build from. May as well only start with the parts you want, rather than pay for a whole rifle and chuck half of it away.
Here's one pic of a .223 that was done by a bloke in AIHPA for shooting spec 2
RJW in NZ:
I have been watching buttons going through blanks a bit lately.
The initial run of 20 P-14 barrels is just about finished to profiled and threaded state and then we move on to SMLE and No5 barrels. No4 barrels are bit further away because of the issues of indexing and absolute headspace reference.
It is all happening on a very malnourished shoestring, but it is happening.
The biggest problem is not with the barrels but with the condition of the original bolts and receivers. Too much wear on the locking shoulders in the body and the effort of rebarreling is fairly pointless, regardless of how many No3 bolt heads you own.
However, if you have a "bitza" No5, a 7.62 x 39 rework will be a hoot. That style is where the M-10s started. Mini-30 mags work fine if you can get them. Alternately, if you have a stash of AK types, these can be used but with the reinforcing plates carefully ground off the top sides of the mag body. The controlling feature is the width of the existing mag well. I have never been keen on thinning the receiver side walls in rear locking actions. Previous notes about mag spring tension apply. Your biggest problem will be modifying the bolt head to run with the dinky rimless cartridge.
Bruce in Oz and others. Re the .223 conversion and more to the point, ejection. Why wouldn't the simple friction ejection as per the standard No4 work. I did it with a 9mm conversion to a No4 body using a shortened 9mm Sterling magazine (or was it a Sten mag......) The 9mm case base rim diameter is the same (?) as .223 Then,the deeper 7.62mm ejector pushed the spent 9mm case over towards the left inner side of the body where it tipped against the ejector and flipped it out. BUT, it would never tip out the LAST round.
On that basis, surely it'd act the same with a .556 spent case
I was waiting for someone to mention a 9mm, I was looking at knocking these out, again based on old sporterised No4,s. ( I,m in total agreement with Son on not chopping up a decent milsurp, have been asked many times regarding conversions, but refuse on the grounds its a decent rifle as is leave it that way)Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
I was not far off from the prototype, but SG had just brought out the lever release 9mm, so I shelved the idea, in fact someone asked me only recently to do one, but the initial cost of a one off build, plus my hours, and new chamber reamers etc its just not cost efective.
For anyone looking at making a .30 M1 carbine conversion, this is quite easy using an old 7.62/.308 target barrel, see link and scroll down to part 5.
Military Surplus Collectors Forums
As for the chamber reamer easy to make using a standard tapered reamer. PM me for more details.
I have been watching buttons going through blanks a bit lately.
The initial run of 20 P-14 barrels is just about finished to profiled and threaded state and then we move on to SMLE and No5 barrels. No4 barrels are bit further away because of the issues of indexing and absolute headspace reference.
I wonder how much interest there is for No1mk3 H barrels? There always seems to be enthusiasm for them.
I would guess it depends on how much. I am always interested but a complete tight arse :)
7.62x39 conversion with silencer | Trade Me
And just in time for this thread, this gent has an enfield in 762/39, his details are quite interesting, as well as the close up of the action. The bolt head is almost stock, and he's running a 10 round type 52/57 detachable mag, 40mm groups at 100 m, barrel by Lothian. Very interesting ...
Click the link : Collecting and Shooting the Military Surplus Rifle - Surplusrifle.com
Here is someone who has done it, (barrel, magazine and bolt head included) and gets 1 to 1.5 MOA accuracy.
My simple, cheap and cheerful and admittedly none-too-scientific but shootable 5.56 conversion didn't use a collared or recessed bolthead. The only thing I did was to CHS it up and do the FPP to match the old spec SA80A1 spec. It seemed to shoot without rupturing the primers and it'd extract after a fashion. I was able to screw the sightless barrel in and out to achieve accurate CHS using the gauges.
Is there any technical or scientific reason to collar (or recess) the bolt head. I'm just thinking about someone doing a home conversion and taking the keep it simple line. Technically speaking and thinking out aloud - without the test facilities handy to back this up - a SPLIT collar, silver soldered to a bolt head lacks any modicum of radial strength which indicates to me that it is redundant. That's just thinking out aloud
Any views from the other engineers.............. Bruce from Oz, JM or Breaky.............
Apparently a UK company were asked to look at developing a modification (for Cadet use) of the No4 to make it suitable for .223.
They developed a 'patented' bolt head as can be seen on the link :
5.56 No. 4
The price is not currently listed on the website but from memory (when I looked a year or so ago) the bolthead was over GBP £100 each.
I certainly never heard of any GSR (General Staff Requirement) being made to convert No4's to 5.56 for Cadets. A Cadet version/variant of the SA80 was under consideration when the SA80 was pretty well first being considered
To recess, just makes life more complicated cant see it being any advantage, the collar is just to aid ejection if you did this along with the plunger, this is just my experiance when I was building a 9mm, when building the .45ACP just left the original bolt head and made a new extractor, thing is when doing a conversion to something like .223 or .30M1 carbine, you have to think outside the box, dont look at mags available look at making a single stack mag, you only have to look at the Accuracy International AE 5 round mag as an example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Hi Bruce in Oz, How about this? Why don't we see how much interest there might be for a run of H barrels, and I set up a posting on Enfield Resource.com and have people email me with expression of interests if H barrels were to be made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz
Last year I set this up for James Sweets 1954 book and had over 100 replies to that before those names went across to his family to take what next steps they might.
Over to you, rjwnz
Any other technical views on the what I consider to be redundant collared bolthead for a 5.56mm conversion. It does seem to over complicate a very simple conversion
The actual mechanics of getting a No4 to shoot a 5.56 is simple - if you don't complicate it. But all that palaver with a bolt head seems a bit......., well, as I said, complicated to me
Just forgot to say but had a PM from non forumer that the collar was to ensure that the base of the cartridge/centre of the primer remained central to the striker in the bolthead. But it will remain central in any case UNLESS the chamber/bore is eccentric. And an eccentric bore doesn't need a collared bolthead...... it just needs a half decent fitter/turner!
Nope, I still can't see it
Is the case supposed to be pushed across the bolt face (during extraction) to the left sidewall so it can be ejected by friction?
I thought the idea of the collared bolt face was to locate the case against an ejector post/spring during extraction/ ejection. Will the smaller diameter of the 5.56 stay on a full size boltface?
It would seem that if the case is pushed to the left by the extractor then the ejection would be forced by the case hitting the ejector screw. How would headspace be set? Does a non rimmed cartridge make a difference? Peter seems to imply that if the feeding can be sorted out (this is a trial and error thing) then just having a new barrel which is chambered and fitted correctly, and with a different extractor fitted to a standard bolt head, this could be a relatively simple build.
Regarding the extractor / bolt-head thing:
Note that when the time came to build No4s in 7.62 NATO, (L-42 etc) that the engineers designed a new extractor. This has a wider and deeper claw and a slightly different shape to its arm. That is because it had to retain a smaller rim so that it was dragging at the right pressure along the LHS receiver wall until it got booted out.
The trick with 5.56 is that the case is much smaller in diameter than the original .303. Thus, you need an entirely new extractor. The problem with this dinky case is that the amount of "swing" of the extractor that is needed to push the case sideways to achieve the correct pressure on the receiver is much larger than for the .303 or 7.62. The problem becomes one of building an extractor that can produce this swing and still be able to slide up the extractor cut in the barrel without losing its grip on the case. I think you will find that you will need an extractor claw with quite a long "nose" to achieve the desired result. Not only that, but the "rim" on a 5.56 case is MUCH thinner and shallower than on a 7.62 case, thus things get much more critical.
I was once the proud owner of a Lithgow Hornet built on a SMLE action. Now there is a dinky case. Feed was variable but extraction was good. The bolthead had a slot on the LHS and a spring-loaded ejector let into the LHS wall of the receiver. Extractor was a narrow little thing but it worked. Pity about the poor feeding on such an accurate little rifle.
Those folk who have noticed they are getting very eccentric striker marks on their primers, may want to check out the looseness of fit of their bolts / boltheads. The bolthead is supposed to be supported in the small ring in the receiver, immediately at the top of the feed ramp. The pressure of the extractor on the case tends to push the bolthead to the left. If the support ring is oversized and/or the bolt head is excessively worn / undersized, this leftward movement can be surprisingly large; hence off-centre striker marks. Receivers that are worn in the "support area imediately behind the locking recesses will "float even more. Note also that when the action is cocked, the bolt tends to tilt down at the front, albeit slightly. When the action is fired, for a brief instant the bolt body is "free". All these instances of "racing fit" can contribute to eccentric striker marks and that other interesting phenomenon; bolt handle "flip". On this latter phenomenon, I have noticed that if the bolt handle is JUST clear of the exterior of the butt socket when the action is fired, the angle of the "flip is usually less. ry-firing with no dummy cartridge in place tends to produce greater "flip" than live firing. Some individuals have relieved the under-surface of their bolt handles or attached small rubber pads to that surface to alleviate the problem; all with varying degrees of success.
All of my toys are very "pre-loved", so, could any lucky owners of "mint" rifles care to let us know what sort of striker eccentricity and/ or bolt handle "flip" they have noticed?
I've noticed this on some old clapped out SMLE range rifles and wondered WHY... Cheers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz
Variable striker eccentricity but relatively central, similar bolt handle "flip" to plenty used ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz
As I said earlier, my 5.56mm No4 project only got as far as firing and extracting with a 7.62mm extractor. It extracted well enough in spite of the thicker rim of the 7.62mm over the 5.56 rim but didn't proceed to to ejecting. While on the subject of rim thickness, the extractor certainly clawed the 5.56mm rim during the primary extraction phase. ON that basis, the primary extraction operated perfectly too.
However, I did get a 9mm to extract and eject (except the the last round wouldn't eject successfully) using the left body side friction to cause ejection. What I did was modify the underside of the 7.62mm extractor so that the claw moved over the bolt face to the left more so that the repositioned tip of the claw would physically push the smaller 9mm case (but same base rim diameter as the 5.56mm case) further over to the left hand body side wall to effect ejection. This worked well and in theory SHOULD work for a 5.56mm case. I didn't do anything about the extractor spring tension.
I don't think that eccentricity of striker played any part in my feeble efforts and certainly didn't suffer with any misfires as a result of it.
Just from the 'keep it simple' engineering point of view, while there might be a case for recessed bolt heads in some instances, there isn't a need in a No4/5.56 conversion. But that's only my opinion and as I say, I'm an Armourer principally and an engineer secondly but not a gun maker or gunsmith (how I hate that cover-everything term.....)
In a particular .22 trainer of mine, the extractor claw was pulling the bolthead so far to the right that the striker (offset positioned 180deg opposite the extractor) was pulled far enough to hit well inside the rim of the cartridge, failing to fire. I measured the movement at the time to be just under a mm- pretty huge on the base of a .22LR case!
Here's a pic of the ejector in the Lithgow Hornet. It is a simple rocking pivot with a leaf spring acting on the outside to hold it in. The bolthead has an angled slot in it to allow the ejector to get into the case as the bolt is drawn back.
They feed very reliably, they extract very reliably. (as long as the feed lips and magazine catch are set right) Other than that, the only time anyone has problems, it will be the last round of five coming out of the magazine... load four and the last one gives no trouble at all... go figure....
Attachment 26001
theres a LMG and now a GPMG in the inventory that uses an ejection system similar to the hornet.
seems to work quite well
cheers
NED
Sorry to bring this back from the dead but did anyone make much progress on a .223 Lee Enfield?
Peter - did you take your work any further?
I started it in the first place and did not make any progress. Largely because I don't have anything further than the basic tool bag of a homeowner, and I have the budget of a homeowner with a wife and kids - ie pretty much nil. This doesn't mean that I wouldn't jump upon a 223 Enfield, especially a NO.4 conversion, if I found one or found someone to make one though.
303 to .223?
Heres what a fellow 'twist to open' mate did in the early '70s when the armalite had just arrived.
The barrel extension on the '16 measures 1", the No4 barrel thread is 1"x14, so he threads the ar barrel complete with extension into his No4.
Then grind the lugs off the '16 bolt head and attaches it (can't remember how, brazed, pinned whatever) into the No4 bolt body. That's the extractor/ejector/etc sorted without any great effort.
Proceeds to shoot a vast quantity of M193 as its very 'available'. Plus he had the first .223 in these parts as it was ages before the commercial .233 arrived here in the 1970s.
Anyone remember Barney W from 3 Field, he was one guy who could think from well outside the box!!!
The American Precision Shooting, May 1994 on page 69, had an article titled "Shooting Old Ugly" where a Frank Randall had a No.4 MK 2 with a 16" barrel re-barreled to .30-40 Krag. Included in the story was a .223 C#7 Lee Enfield that a "Jim Dugan" won the Canadian (?) Connaught match in August of 1991. Good article if you can find a copy.
Hrafknel
Some very interesting posts in this thread I must say; thanks to all.
A gent in this area was doing some very systematic testing of No.1's in .223 and had proved to his satisfaction that the old 'compensation' phenomenon was still present. He actually chose the No.1 over the No.4 for its greater flexibility in anticipation of this. Sadly it doesn't look like health will permit him to continue with his research.
I don't understand why no one has yet produced a conversion kit for 7.62x39mm, using a barrel with a threaded collar and a 360° extractor shoulder, a mag with the same externals as the old .303 mag and the ejector built into a new bolt head. A No.5 flash hider & sight base would be ideal. With a PH4 or No.5 type backsight suitably graduated and you're away to the races - or rather the ranges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
They are about, but I,m sure they are made in batches so not always in stock,
Rhineland arms were the first to produce the conversion with a threaded collar but was only .45 ACP, they made these for the Mauser also, Imported 3 kits for the Enfield, only sorry I didnt import more at the time, the price of the mag adapter and barrel come to around $120, I cant even get a Barrel blank for that price !!!!!
Special Interest Arms produce the conversion for the 7.62 X 39mm, looking at there site they produce a De-Lisle replica now and nice to see the barrel and Silencer produced to the original, spec. see link below.
Special Interest Arms
My mistake They did supply the 7.62 X 39mm kit but dont produce them anymore.
If anyone is interested, I'm in the process of making a .223 bolthead presently: No4 Bolthead for .223 Work in Progress
I'm sure there will be many people interested as that seems to be the most complex piece of the puzzle in terms of engineering. Magazine fit and feeding I think most could manage with the right tools and trial and error and fitting new barrel would be something that a smith would do anyway. I don't know but would the extraction of 223 require a cut out of the barrel like 303? if so I assume the barrel is fitted and indexed then removed and cut accordingly?
[QUOTE=Bruce_in_Oz;185750]Been there, done that.
Question Sir,
Dear Sir,
I am building a 7.62x39mm lee-enflield and I have need of advice in the direction of the bolt head modification:
1. take stock bolt, counter bore .100 deep and .010 of an inch over rim size and cut a groove in the bolt for an spring-loaded ejector, shorten firing pin (striker)?
2. Silver solder a .125 ring on, bore true and clean bolt face, drill for a spring and plunger, hold with roll pin through side of bolt? What type of spring and plunger assembly?
Cheer,
D.B.
Hi all many years on and I am still looking at the 223 No.4 project every now and then. Current situation is that I have a rebarrelled No.4 Mk2 in 223. The rifle was in great condition - hadn't seen much use at all BUT the barrel was toast because it had apparently not been cleaned after putting some nasty ammo through it, so no healthy Enfields were hurt in the manufacture.
We used a Douglas Barrels No.4 profile chambered blank and it was cut and threaded etc to original profile. A new front sight base had to be affixed and the rifle is now dressed back in full military furniture, it fires accurately and extracts and ejects perfectly.
Per Peter Laidlers prediction the feeding is the main issue. Initially we tried a magazine block which fitted inside the well and accepted a Ruger mini 14 10 round magazine. This is as used in the UK by Craig Whitsey, the smith who sold me the bolthead.
After many shenanigans I have dispensed with that as that mag is a double stack and both sides never fed evenly. I have got it to feed for 2 or 3 rounds with a CZ single stack 5 round magazine held by set screws inside a No.4 magazine body. The CZ mag moves after a couple of rounds so it will need to be epoxied in place for the long term. Last one I tried it moved and I epoxied it in the WRONG place - bugger!!!! At $30 per mag this will get pricey. Also if anyone has some No.4 magazine bodies they will never use I will take them off your hands.
Could an AICS .223 magazine be adapted? Double stack, single position feed, 10 shot. I have a couple for another rifle. Will see if a No. 4 adaptation would be possible.
interesting thread, having missed it first time around.
Love the idea of a buggered barrel No.5 converted to 7.62x39 :dancingbanana:
Or, a barrel liner in 7.62x25...and modified Tokarev mags...Quote:
Originally Posted by GeeRam
Here's the .223 No4 I'm running at the moment. I love it and shoot it most weekends, it gives me around MOA accuracy and just doesn't skip a beat. The pictured group was just the first rounds fired after finishing.
Tried an AICS pattern magazine. Length should be OK, width at the front is too great. Might be possible to adapt the trigger guard and magazine well.Quote:
Originally Posted by tiriaq
---------- Post added at 04:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:51 PM ----------
Shouldn't need a barrel liner - just a long chamber insert. Or the breech of the barrel cut off and made into a sleeve, with the barrel set back into it, and a new chamber cut.Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
do you mean peter sarony ?....been doin them for years
Good point, but he referred to a hooped barrel...would be the only reason to line...Quote:
Originally Posted by tiriaq
TBone sir - I don't suppose you could post a couple of pictures of the magazine arrangement and fitting that you use please? I don't want to reinvent something that has already been proven to work elsewhere
Bringing this back from the dead.
With this stupid quarantine stuff going on I'm working from home, with working from home , I'm working in my workshop, and with that I started pulling out all the projects I failed to finish 1, 2 or 3 years ago. Top of the list was the No.4 in .223 because all I had to do (all? HA!) was to get a magazine fitted so that I could add eject and feed to the pointing and shooting bit of the project.
Shout out to Craig Whitsey in the UK who pointed me at a 4 round 223 magazine from an old hunting rifle that fits inside the 303 magazine shell nicely and I now have a .223 No.4 that fires , extracts, ejects and feeds. I will post a quick video and more information when I get it out to shoot again. Having said that - the next time Peter Laidler says that something is a pain in the proverbial behind, I will listen to him.
In the meantime - any scope recommendations that look a bit Like a No. 32 that have adjustable magnification?
Would definitely love to see how you managed it. .303 gets rather spendy after a while, here in the States...
If you are going for an "insert" magazine, two good options are the single-column types from a Tikka 55 or a Remington 788. I have not had a close look at a Savage 340 ".222" mag lately, but it may be an option and like the others, there seem to be "after-market repros" currently available.
Somebody was doing a 308 Win / 7.62 NATO insert setup for No4 mags decades ago. The rest of that rifle conversion was of dubious quality (They also sold a bunch chambered for .243 Win!) but the mag system actually worked. The insert unit had a special extra back-plate that was fixed to the .303 box by a screw through the back of the .303 mag case.
By my reckoning, the most useful mag for such a conversion would be the ten-round nag for a Ruger Min-14. However, it would be advisable to reduce the spring "force" for use in a bolt-action, otherwise the spectre of rounds "popping' out of teh mag early in the feed stroke may drive you to distraction. Compare the mag spring force in a Lee Enfield to an M-14 or L1A1 mag for starters.
For folks in the US, the other other option is the mags made for the AWB era AK types that were SINGLY column, ten round types in both 7.62 x 39 and .223 / 5.56. they should easily be narrow enough to do the job. (Dint forget the spring issue).
I have thought about this for awhile reading with interest
I used the 4 shot magazine for the Savage 340 rifle. It fits inside the shell nicely, a wedge of wood underneath it and some shims on each side meant I could affix it in the correct place for the bolt to pick up the next round and I then filled the case with Epoxy for a permanent fix. I used a No.4 Extractor ground down to make a small feed ramp for the cartridges so that the pointy bit enters the chamber.
DO NOTE - if you use epoxy, for goodness sake don't forget the stick tape over the hole in the bottom of the 303 magazine or it gets very messy very quickly.
I am also interested in the conversion, do you have any photos?
I'd like to have a look too. I imagine it's like the .45 ACP mag fitted to some mag bodies but still a look is educational.Quote:
Originally Posted by newcastle
I will take some photographs and post them here. maybe later today.
Attachment 108986Attachment 108985Attachment 108984
Three pictures here showing the .223 magazine inset into the 303 magazine shell set in epoxy. One is from the side so you can see the "feed ramp" that was set into the epoxy after the fact - the ramp is actually a No.4 extractor that I ground down and stuck into a hole drilled in the epoxy.
Note the holes in the side of the magazine were from original ideas of holding a magazine inside using screws from each side before I settled on this solution.
Very nice and food for thought. Thanks for the pics.
Thanks for the photos. I definitely have some stripped receivers that could be given new life this way!
The Bolt head and firing pin I got from a 'smith in the UK called Craig Whitsey. The extractor and ejector are built into the bolt head. The barrel came from Douglas barrels in the USA. that got me a single shot in 223. The hard bit (as predicted by Peter Laidler) was the feeding of the next round from the 223 magazine. Even with what i have if i work the bolt slowly / gently the next bullet pops up and sometimes doesn't feed correctly. It works perfectly though if I use the bolt as an Enfield bolt was intended.
Quick clip of the a few rounds here as I got out to the range today. Missing the first couple as it was too long with them but you get the picture, Feeds fires, extracts, ejects, feeds, and fires again.
One shot of a target - the flyer was me. As it got warmer the groups spread a bit vertically which I suspect is scope slippage in the mounts - I didn't have any allen wrenches with me to check their tightness (lesson learned).
Can't get the movie clip to upload dammit.Attachment 110154
Is the pic on it's side? You dropped one?
Yes its on its side. One flyer.
Sorry to resurrect an old thread.
Here is my Enfield 223 conversion using a 5 rounds CZ527 magazine:
Lee-Enfield #4 223 conversion - YouTube
This is the exact thing we were asking about...feed devices. Good to see one that functions correctly.
So are you going to down load the 223 rounds to 303 pressures.
I still think I'd use something like a 340 Savage mag cobbled to fit and use 30-30 Winchester for cartridge availability. Maybe an altered #1 or #4 mag would work too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindi2
.223 extractor?
A "tweaked" extractor for the No. 2 .22RF trainers should also work; already heat-treated and blackened.
Hope to get a "faux" No5 or similar style up and running this year.
The CZ mags also come in 7.62 x 39 (if you can find them).
I had a tinker with 10-round Ruger Mini-14 mags, but the spring is designed for autos. Chopping turns off the spring is not the way to go. You need to wind a spring to the same overall design and length, but with thinner music wires
Anyone thought of doing a 6mm PPC or 6.5 Grendel on a No4 action? Same head size as 7.62 x 39.
No reason to. .223/5.56 is lower pressure than .308/7.62, which the No1 handles adequately and the No4 does fine with. Smaller case allows for thicker chamber walls as well and a smaller case head means even at higher pressures the amount of bolt thrust should be similar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindi2
Be OK in the P14/M17 action not the No4.
308 max 62k
Nato 144gn much less which is what was used in the L42 and range rifles if the action passed proof (they all didnt)
5.56x45 55k psi
303 49k psi or 45k cup.
The bolt thrust will increase in relation to pressure increases.
Sorry but your method is wrong. Thrust is measured by the operating pressure multiplied by the internal area (in square inches) of the base of the cartridge (which is then further reduced by the external area of the base which is then reduced by the surface area of the locking lugs). For the purposes of this exercise we will stick with the basic case thrust. In the case of the .223 cartridge multiply the pressure (55,000 PSI) by the internal base area (.305" diameter) which is .0767 square inches, giving a thrust figure of 4,218 PSI. The .303 at 45,000 PSI and an internal base (.385" diameter) area of .1105 square inches gives a thrust of 4,972 PSI. From these figures the .223 is well within the .303 pressure and perfectly safe in any .303 action in good condition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindi2
A bit off topic, but I made a 7.62x39 conversion too, Around a CZ527 mag again: Lee-Enfield SMLE 7.62x39 conversion - part 1 - YouTubeQuote:
Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz
---------- Post added at 08:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:36 AM ----------
And finally, not to derail this thread too far. I am now totally off-topic, but to finish with my conversions.
Here is my 7.62x25 prototype, this time around a TT33 magazine:Lee-Enfield SMLE 7.62x25 conversion - part 1 - YouTube
Woodsy you should have seen more than your share of broken bolts at the small lug.
I have a seen well known Kiwi action that was proofed for 144gn NATO that had all 3 lugs cracked from loading up 175gn projectiles just under max specs. Sorry if i am a little wary of the maths.
Oiled proof rounds increase rear thrust big time just ask the Indians about the 2A. Oiled and put away then not dried out with a proper chamber rod rag is more than likely a big factor in over pressure issues or water in the chamber.
Theory dose not always work and maths is not a perfect science. To many cases to say other wise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindi2
Not only the 2A, but also the No1 Mk3 failed proof when they changed the steel (after independance) from that originally specified by the British
Extract from “Gun Digest 33rd Anniversary 1979 Deluxe Edition”
Article Author : Mr A G Harrison
Qualification : Former ‘Proof Master’ of the ‘Rifle Factory Proof House, Ishapore, India’
From 1908 to 1950 all military bolt action rifles made at Ishapore were proof tested with a dry-round, followed with by an oiled proof round. The proof cartridge was loaded to 24 tons psi breech pressure, or 15% higher than the service pressure. In 1950 (after the departure, in 1947, of India from British control) the material for the rifle bodies was altered from an EN steel to SWES 48 steel with the recoil shoulder and cam recesses being heat treated. With this change the rifle receivers distorted when oiled proof cartridges were fired. This was discovered when hard and sometimes impossible bolt retraction was experienced. Large quantities of rifles were rejected.
To avoid rejections the authorities ordered discontinuance of the oiled proof round. Therefore from 1950 to the end of SMLE production, rifles made at Ishapore were proof tested with one dry proof only, although the specification still called for both dry and oiled proof. All bolts and bolt heads issued as spares were always proofed with a dry proof round only.
What a neat plinker that would be around here.Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan
I have seen a couple of sheared safety lugs, but certainly not a common experience. Oiled cases will certainly increase thrust, especially in a tapered case like the .303, which is why the practice is frowned upon in any firearm. The fact remains that any good condition .303 action is safe for conversion to .223. If I was going to do any such conversion I would stick with the No.4 action which has superior strength compared to the SMLE. Over the years I have successfully converted Lee Enfield actions to the following calibres; .223, 9mm Para, .45 ACP, .44 Magnum, 7.62x39, 7.62x51, .30/30, .30/40, .405, .303/22, .303/25, .303/270, without any problems.