Strength Of Lee Enfield Action

There are a lot of photos on the internet showing action failures of various rifles. I have yet to see a Lee Enfield receiver failure. I have seen front locking, bolt action receiver rings blown apart on Mausers and Springfields. That makes me appreciate the rear locking Enfield action that has no locking recessess in the receiver ring where escaped gas can do damage.

I started thinking about this when I started to see photos of various bolt actions with the receiver rings blown apart. Two of the surprising ones were a Swedish Mauser and a Mosin Nagant. It made me realize that receiver rings that provide locking recesses have a built in vulnerability when large amounts of gas escape for whatever reason. I thought about the Lee Enfield design and realized that it was immune from this type of damage along with any other design without receiver ring locking.

It then became apparent to me that I have never even heard of a Lee Enfield failure. I know that they are not capable of handling high pressure cartridges but all you ever hear of is stretching and flexing. I have read that Enfield receivers bend downward at the locking recesses when overloaded but I have never read about one blowing apart. I would have to say that the Lee Enfield action is pretty safe for the shooter when the worst happens.
Does anyone have knowledge about any catastropic failures of Lee Enfield receivers and bolts from overpressure rounds or reloading errors?

See this thread (click on link below):

Gallery of Dramas. Broken Enfield Parts!

Some photos of a failed bolt and action on Post #65 with discussion carrying on for several pages. (enlargements on Post #85)

But the rifle at last update was returned to firing status!

Apparently no one's broken anything lately...

Let's just hope that SAVAGESHOOTER doesn't get on to this thread, sparks would surely fly.:lol:

I've never heard of any sort of Enfield failure that didn't involve the word "hand load"......

You don't have to worry about SAVAGESHOOTER, he was known as Alfred on this site and was unable to follow our rules, so won't be back. He also goes by the name Gunnersam, Multigunner and GunNut on different forums.

I agree 1000% with T/box. In all my time working with them, I never saw a catastrophic failure with one. The two big ones were easily explained but even then, weren't catastrophic. Certainly one of them could (and I think, it was...) rebuilt following the Board of Enquiry

Here's another related thread on this subject from a few years ago ... ;)

Combining a DP Enfield, a Shooter and a Gunsmith ended up with catastrophic failure!

Regards,
Doug

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muffett.2008

Let's just hope that SAVAGESHOOTER doesn't get on to this thread, sparks would surely fly.

---

When I saw the topic this was my very first thought... Then I remembered where I was and figured I was safe :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badger

Here's another related thread on this subject from a few years ago ... ;)

Combining a DP Enfield, a Shooter and a Gunsmith ended up with catastrophic failure!

---

I just read thru that thread. "Ouch". Did anyone ever generate a check list thread for newbies? I just purchased my first Enfield. A 1916 or 1918 No.1 MK.III*, it has a silver/white 2" wide brush painted stripe around the fore stock which has my attention. I haven't found a DP stamp or ZF stamp, BER stamp anywhere on it. I have Skennerton's book on the way. I plan to take alot of photos and put it up on here in its own thread for all to enjoy before I even think to take it to the range. I purchased it from a friend who bought it from aguy who was given it by a neghbor some years ago. It is full of dust and grease. The bore was clogged with grease but cleaned up to look like a mirror. There's grease on the barrel under the top rear hand guard behind the site. The bolt, receiver,rear sight, barrel, forestock and nose cap are all the same serial number. I'm hoping it was one of those rare items that was dunked in a tub of boiling cosmoline, sold in the USA in the 50's and was forgotten and not a DP rifle, or ZF, BER etc... So far nothing jumps out as suspect other than the silver/white painted stripe. Like I said, I will got thru it with Skennerton and post it up here before I shoot it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ROCK

There are a lot of photos on the internet showing action failures of various rifles. I have yet to see a Lee Enfield receiver failure. I have seen front locking, bolt action receiver rings blown apart on Mausers and Springfields. That makes me appreciate the rear locking Enfield action that has no locking recessess in the receiver ring where escaped gas can do damage.

I started thinking about this when I started to see photos of various bolt actions with the receiver rings blown apart. Two of the surprising ones were a Swedish Mauser and a Mosin Nagant. It made me realize that receiver rings that provide locking recesses have a built in vulnerability when large amounts of gas escape for whatever reason. I thought about the Lee Enfield design and realized that it was immune from this type of damage along with any other design without receiver ring locking.

It then became apparent to me that I have never even heard of a Lee Enfield failure. I know that they are not capable of handling high pressure cartridges but all you ever hear of is stretching and flexing. I have read that Enfield receivers bend downward at the locking recesses when overloaded but I have never read about one blowing apart. I would have to say that the Lee Enfield action is pretty safe for the shooter when the worst happens.
Does anyone have knowledge about any catastropic failures of Lee Enfield receivers and bolts from overpressure rounds or reloading errors?

---

The one I examined some years ago blew the extractor and bolt head side out, and bent the rear of the action down so the bolt could not be withdrawn, and the bolt body was "dolphined" above it's "race". The post mortem indicated that the previous bullet had not left the barrel IIRC.

As to "handling gas" better than a mauser, I disagree. Within @ the last 5 years I've seen 2 people shooting No4 rifles have their glasses broken when the striker struck the lens after punching a hole into a primer. Luckily no eye damage occurred.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee Enfield

Within @ the last 5 years I've seen 2 people shooting No4 rifles have their glasses broken when the striker struck the lens after punching a hole into a primer. Luckily no eye damage occurred.

---

How does that happen, given that there is a compressed spring preventing the pin coming back much beyond "full cock"? Did the base of the bolt shear off, or the collar on the firing pin?

I've had dozens of pierced primers, and always found that the primer gas eventually escapes around the side of the pin (normally blowing gungy oil out of the bolt body!) as soon as the cocking piece reaches its limit of travel. There doesn't seem to be enough energy in a primer to cause anything outside the normal working tolerance of the bolt mechanism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee Enfield

The one I examined some years ago blew the extractor and bolt head side out, and bent the rear of the action down so the bolt could not be withdrawn, and the bolt body was "dolphined" above it's "race". The post mortem indicated that the previous bullet had not left the barrel IIRC.

As to "handling gas" better than a mauser, I disagree. Within @ the last 5 years I've seen 2 people shooting No4 rifles have their glasses broken when the striker struck the lens after punching a hole into a primer. Luckily no eye damage occurred.

---

What on earth are those people doing with them? I have been shooting Lee-Enfields for over fifty years now and, in common with other posters, have NEVER seen a catastrophic failure. Nor have ever seen a pierced primer cause that effect.

I have two articles from the 80s written by a Major Yearsley, one was on a No4 that had a barrel obstruction which caused a large hole in the barrel just behind the front sight, the second was a breeech explosion on a L1A1 SLR.

When I get home next week I will scan & post them

Speaking of damaged Enfields ...

Another old thread from a few years ago that was a really good read .... :thup:

Battle Damaged Enfields?

Damn, you forget sometimes, that we have some great content contributed by so many terrific Enfield collectors and members. :cheers:

Regards,
Doug

As a part time physics teacher and one who's conversant with Boyles laws of gas and one who's been in the Armouring game a LONG time, I would seriously question the notion that a ruptured primer would produce sufficient gas to overcome the striker spring sufficient to compress it and.... on and on..... while at the same time, always taking the line of least resistance - as a gas will always do - past the non existant gas checks and venting in every direction at every opportunity .......... and ...... Oh, save us from this please..............
I'll say no more for fear of losing my usual diplomatic touch with words.

P. O. Ackley did a study post WW2 in which he set out to evaluate strength and gas and pressure "management" of various actions.

Top of the pile was the (pre-war production) Type 38 Arisaka.

SMLEs came in at lucky number 13, ahead of the Arisaka type 99.

Lee Enfields basically "bend" when subjected to silly pressures. The right side rail stretches and the bolt ends up sticking out the side. BUT, the rear shoulders NEVER fail. If you look at one, it is obvious that there is a lot more steel holding the bolt in than in a Mauser. The other side of that is, as the stress path is much longer than in a Mauser, the stress is distributed over a greater amount of material; thus bending instead of bursting.

That said, possibly the strongest military action ever built was the M-1 Garand. Carefully designed and then carefully made from heat-treated 8620 steel, these things are incredibly tough. You might drive the bolt back so hard it cracks the thin rear wall of the receiver, or you might crack the bolt, but the lock-up will most likely never fail.

I agree that most problems come from dodgy ammo. Too much propellant, the WRONG propellant, ancient, decomposing propellant will generally do damage. Obstructions in the bore and damaged strikers and striker holes are the next cabs off the rank. Another BIG one is untrimmed brass. Who knows how many otherwise good rifles have been damaged or destroyed by the massive overpressure caused by excessive case length. READ the reloading manuals on this subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

As a part time physics teacher and one who's conversant with Boyles laws of gas and one who's been in the Armouring game a LONG time, I would seriously question the notion that a ruptured primer would produce sufficient gas to overcome the striker spring sufficient to compress it and.... on and on..... while at the same time, always taking the line of least resistance - as a gas will always do - past the non existant gas checks and venting in every direction at every opportunity .......... and ...... Oh, save us from this please..............
I'll say no more for fear of losing my usual diplomatic touch with words.

---

It is widely known to anyone that reads and reloads that gas venting through firing pin holes blows firing pin assemblies back.
As a part time physicist you should be able to calculate the gas volume that can escape through the firing pin bore during the time that same gas is propelling the bullet down the bore. Now considering that escaping gas has a much higher velocity than the bullet you should easily understand how the firing pin can be blown back.
You have the area of the firing pin spring flange being acted upon by the gas. I could calculate this pressure if you wish but I am sure you can do it too.

Errrr. I'm not a part time physicist. So if you have some fab details that I can't figure out, tell me please. What is the risk here? It's all very well people hiding behind pretend names and stuff on our internet, but if there's something we should all know then tell us rather than being a smartypants.

Oh gawd here we go again - the usual suspects are coming out of the woodwork - where's that new mod when you need him! Two similar threads in a week - these things must be cyclical.
I await with anticipation large rafts of copy and paste evidence together with diagrams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PrinzEugen

Oh gawd here we go again - the usual suspects are coming out of the woodwork - where's that new mod when you need him! Two similar threads in a week - these things must be cyclical.
I await with anticipation large rafts of copy and paste evidence together with diagrams.

---

If you take the bait and allow the ruckus to commence, I might have to finish the .300 Win Mag project that was started some time back during the last big outbreak of this silliness:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...une12002-1.jpg
A poor old No.4 action with a nickel plated M1917 barrel cobbled on. (the nut is for easy headspace adjustment- no front sight was required...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmoore

If you take the bait and allow the ruckus to commence

---

Any chance we can just not bother this time?:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tbonesmith

Any chance we can just not bother this time?:)

---

If we just let those who like to instigate go unanswered, yes!

Save a lot of bother. I'm done for now, having issued the caution, but if it goes on for some time...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tbonesmith

Any chance we can just not bother this time?

---

Well said.... :thup:

Let's not have this one deteriorate into another sandbox pi$$ing match ... ;)

Many of the usual suspects have long since moved onto other boards, where ironically they were banned from them as well. What a surprise .... :lol:

So, I guess we're not that unusual here in the level of decorum and courtesy we expect as compared to other sites.

Anyway, if there's no additional new information forthcoming on the topic, other than just one up-man-ship rhetoric, then please, let's move on ... :)

Appreciate it... :cheers:

Regards,
Doug

Here's a thought, what if there was some Noob, maybe not the sharpest of knives in the drawer fellow whom just got his 1st Lee Enfield and was trying to, I dunno, learn something or investigate a potential anomaly, and some pecker head put out some wrong info as a not so obvious joke which lead to some noob getting hurt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BubbaTheKid

Here's a thought, what if there was some Noob, maybe not the sharpest of knives in the drawer fellow whom just got his 1st Lee Enfield and was trying to, I dunno, learn something or investigate a potential anomaly, and some pecker head put out some wrong info as a not so obvious joke which lead to some noob getting hurt.

---

If you are referring to a specific post then please provide a reference.

If it's a general, non-specific comment, then you have to be aware that are plenty of conflicting views on the internet and the conclusions drawn are the responsibility of the reader.

If this thread continues to go off-topic, it will be closed.

Hey there JM. We might be able to market that thar rifle! As for broken glasses from a recoiling cocking piece, I think maybe those folks could use some marksmanship training on how to hold and shoot a rifle. I've seen quite a few case failures and have NEVER seen any kind of catostrophic failure with a LE of any description. That's in 35 years or so of reloading and shooting them. Of course, I've always been a quality not quantity reloader. Brian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stevo

If this thread continues to go off-topic, it will be closed.

---

I hope not.
I have learned a lot from this thread and am still digesting the information. I want to thank everyone who have contributed useful information.

I agree with you Rock and hope that you don't curtail this or similar thread Steveo. The thread per se is interesting with good info just so long as the pure horse manure or unsubstantiated bull-shine is kept out. I don't know hoe you keep it out, but that's a matter for you moderators!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

I agree with you Rock and hope that you don't curtail this or similar thread Steveo. The thread per se is interesting with good info just so long as the pure horse manure or unsubstantiated bull-shine is kept out. I don't know hoe you keep it out, but that's a matter for you moderators!

---

As I clearly said, Peter, the thread would be closed if it keeps going off-topic. No one here closes threads for no reason.

Relevant info is welcomed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunderbox

I've never heard of any sort of Enfield failure that didn't involve the word "hand load"......

---

I,ll second that, Think hand load involves most or all failures in any rifle, or an obstruction in the barrel, which was noted at a last club meeting on a local range, one of the lads had just finished his ten rounds, the last shot was not recorded on the target, he decided to clean the rifle behind the point and found the last bullet lodged in the barrel, very lucky and only by chance he decided to clean it.
(rifle was a No4 .303, and was using hand loads !! )

Having seen some amazing "rants" on this and other forums I can appreciate the moderators difficulties but as a new Lee Enfield collector who plans to shoot his rifles I find threads like this extremely valuable. You have to integrate all your sources of info and weight the info according to apparent veracity of source but at the end of the day I'm developing an impression that right back to the first SMLE's (and maybe MLM/MLE) there have been no significant design or metallurgy issues that one needs to consider when deciding if a particular rifle is safe to shoot. All the comments would indicate that it boils down to wear and tear on the individual rifle and use of "normal" ammo. This is, in fact, quite a compliment to the original designers and, later, the Empires ability to maintain consistancy and quality in widely separated factories. Thanks again to all the experts that take the time to respond with details to these threads.

Ridolpho

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ridolpho

Useful stuff
Having seen some amazing "rants" on this and other forums I can appreciate the moderators difficulties but as a new Lee Enfield collector who plans to shoot his rifles I find threads like this extremely valuable. You have to integrate all your sources of info and weight the info according to apparent veracity of source but at the end of the day I'm developing an impression that right back to the first SMLE's (and maybe MLM/MLE) there have been no significant design or metallurgy issues that one needs to consider when deciding if a particular rifle is safe to shoot. All the comments would indicate that it boils down to wear and tear on the individual rifle and use of "normal" ammo. This is, in fact, quite a compliment to the original designers and, later, the Empires ability to maintain consistancy and quality in widely separated factories. Thanks again to all the experts that take the time to respond with details to these threads.

Ridolpho

---

Well I can’t disagree with your point in this case and I think you’ve summed it up quite nicely. A lot of this information can be useful. It can also end up being contradicting and therefor confusing to new Enfield owners and forum members. In the end the bickering and un-supported cut & past posts in past threads are what got under my skin to the point where it seriously undermined my desire to be a mod here. Thankfully this isn’t the case anymore.
Maybe I should work on a sticky post entitled “Before you make an Enfield Action Strength post read these relevant threads” where I can post links to all these threads for newbies.

True enough No4Mk1(T). It's been endlessly debated before the threads were curtailed when it finally became clear that it was descending into entrenched side(s) posting stuff and not debating, simply stating their points with gigantic copy and paste tranches of text (well, on one side of the debate anyway). Use of the search facilities of the forum should allow those really interested in this issue to find out all they ever need to know on the subject - and a heck of a lot more.
On the issue of another sticky - I think that if this forum needs something it's not another sticky with a mere 20 already there!

Just to keep the ball rolling ... how about continuing the lengthy discussion on the eminent danger to physical and/or mental health when firing wet or oily cartridges from a Lee Enfield? If I remember correctly, that was another of those discussions that surpassed even the inane futility of the above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PrinzEugen

On the issue of another sticky - I think that if this forum needs something it's not another sticky with a mere 20 already there!

---

I agree, which is why I usually I have my forum view showing with the "sticky" thread area collapsed. In that way, I only view the new threads downward.

You can toggle the view on and off with the small little graphic arrow showing "up and down". It's located up and to the right of the forum display. By the way, this works with any area of the forums, to help a member control what he wants to see and what he doesn't want to see.

Regards,
Doug

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by villiers

Just to keep the ball rolling...

---

I'd rather it be buried in concrete, if you don't mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by villiers

Just to keep the ball rolling ... how about continuing the lengthy discussion on the eminent danger to physical and/or mental health when firing wet or oily cartridges from a Lee Enfield? If I remember correctly, that was another of those discussions that surpassed even the inane futility of the above.

---

Just in case anyone reading this thread does NOT realize it, oiled cartridges were part of how Enfield actions were proofed back in the day. Probably "not advisable" for the average person to attempt cartridge lubing in an Enfield action. While some may be comfortable with the practise or hold contrarian views, I don;t think we want new shooters thinking this is standard practise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PrinzEugen

On the issue of another sticky - I think that if this forum needs something it's not another sticky with a mere 20 already there!

---

Point well taken. I myself don’t mind the sticky area and usually scroll past it and only open the threads with a new post but I understand your point of view. Unless the majority of forum users feel they want said sticky I won’t work on it.
Thanks also to Doug for yet another great tip on how to improve our user functionality!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claven2

Just in case anyone reading this thread does NOT realize it, oiled cartridges were part of how Enfield actions were proofed back in the day. Probably "not advisable" for the average person to attempt cartridge lubing in an Enfield action. While some may be comfortable with the practise or hold contrarian views, I don;t think we want new shooters thinking this is standard practise

---

I have long held this view and feel these words bear repeating. Thanks Claven2 for your sage advice.

`Nuff sed! I certainly did NOT intend to re-start the discussion, just to point out the futility of a repeat.

Had a guy over on CGN the other day, proposed rechambering a Number 4 to 7.62x54R in order to 'take advantage' of the inexpensive surplus ammunition.

So I got out my Radio Shack $6 "brain" (my organic one being defective) and calculated out bolt thrust per round, assuming standard Service pressures and no hot loads. It came out to being a little over a Proof round for every shot. Thankfully, that dissuaded him from the conversion and he is now setting up to handload his .303s.

I have been at this just about 50 years now and the ONLY thing I have seen which approached a "catastrophic failure" with a Lee rifle involved the rifle primarily as one of the VICTIMS. It was actually a Brain Failure in which the rifle was fired WITHOUT A BOLT-HEAD IN PLACE. When the rifle was brought to me, I unscrewed the fired casing from the split bolt-shank in order to take photos. The wonderful surgeons at the James Paton Memorial Hospital in Gander managed to get ALL of the brass splinters out of the boy's eye and saved his eyesight. The Rifle was given a new Bolt, WITH a bolt-head this time, and still is being used.

But that was hardly the fault of the RIFLE.

I would put the 1910 ROSS right up there with the M-1 Garand as to strength of the action. Ross fired the 1905 action at 125,000 psi and it didn't wreck it, so he then designed the much-stronger 1910 with the 7 forward locking-lugs. Bolts were factory lapped-in on these rifles and I know of NONE which has been destroyed through having a cartridge fired in it, given that the thing was properly assembled to begin with. Considering that the first Mark III ROSS Rifles were delivered to the Canadian Militia 100 years ago this year, that is a pretty impressive record.

Hope this helps.
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunderbox

I've never heard of any sort of Enfield failure that didn't involve the word "hand load"......

---

As a novice I place my trust in my local gunsmith to once over my new acquisitions to check headspace etc..
As to hand loading I have not done any in many years but am considering getting back into the hobby as my collection grows and ammo prices spiral out of sight. I have watched several videos recently (youtube etc..)that show some pretty poor practices that could cause double charging a case. Example (loading a full tray of primed cases without transfering the loaded cases to a new tray or seating the projectile after charging. Reloading requires a great deal of orginazation and concentration to do safely. Saftey first!

I would love to know how you can put a double charge of powder in a .303 case without spillover. Unless you are doing something stupid with reduced loads and lead bullets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jrswanson1

I would love to know how you can put a double charge of powder in a .303 case without spillover. Unless you are doing something stupid with reduced loads and lead bullets.

---

I was speeking in general terms about double loading. Just an encouragement to be safe and treat the reloading process with the care and attention it deserves given the potential hazards involved.

Some people seem bent on doing stupid things with firearms.
There was a fellow who frequented the same gun shop I did who had a very nice little rifle chambered in .222 Magnum. I can't remember the brand but it was a bolt action with double set triggers and very nice full length wood. Because he thought 222 Magnum ammunition was just to darn expensive he fed this rifle a steady diet of .223 in spite of the continued warnings from the gunsmith. Predictably he had a case failure that resulted in powder burns on his left arm. Of Course he blamed the rifle.
How many others have done similar things then blamed the firearm after its inevitable failure.

I agree with jrs.. Usually not a big danger since a normal charge nearly fills the case. Real risk is in loading pistol rounds. A little dab will do you on them.

I guess it would be safe to say that catastropic failures of Enfield receivers are just about non existant. Nothing that resembles something like this.........

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...cture056-1.jpg

Another receiver that usually stays intact is the Garand type. That is if it is constructed with the correct steel and is properly heat treated. I don't think that the pictured receiver was. This one looks as if it shattered like a brittle, low number 1903 Springfield receiver.

OUT OF BATTERY EXPLOSION M14 - Sniper's Hide Forums

To spare a dear friends blushes he shall remain nameless, once in error he loaded a batch of .303 with 41 grains of Unigue rather than N140 for use in his SMLE it was a friday evening he was rushing and he was shooting with us the following day. On the morrow I was shooting next to him,the firing point was covered with a concrete floor; there was a very load bang and a cloud of dust and it could be said he emerged somewhat shaken rather than stirred. The rifle was intact but the bolt had to be opened with a sledge hammer, so draw your own conclusions as to the strength of the action.

H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MKV111Z

41 grains of Unigue rather than N140 for use in his SMLE it was a friday evening he was rushing

---

Patience, plenty of time and no distractions are the main key in handloading, I use Unique in my downloads (12 grns), but I dread to think what 41 grns would of been like, think the underpants would of suffered badly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MKV111Z

there was a very load bang and a cloud of dust and it could be said he emerged somewhat shaken rather than stirred. The rifle was intact but the bolt had to be opened with a sledge hammer, so draw your own conclusions as to the strength of the action.

---

Remaining intact after 41 grains of Unique speaks for itself. I would guess that you would have to search for the fragments of many other rifles, after the visit to the hospital.