Looking for reloading info for either of these rifles. Where they designed for 168 grain boat tail projectiles (match grade)? Ron
Printable View
Looking for reloading info for either of these rifles. Where they designed for 168 grain boat tail projectiles (match grade)? Ron
No, the barrels were designed and optimised for 144gn NATO ball.Quote:
Originally Posted by rgg_7
In practice, on the range, most shooters seem to find that there is usually no performance advantage of using 155-170gn target ammo in 7.62mm Enfields (or those using the Enfield or PH barrel), even at 600-1000 where there should be a theoretical performance improvement. UK shooters tend to stick to 144gn military surplus ammo, given the high price of 155gn civilian match ammo.
I've tried quite a few bullet weights/powder combinations through my L42 and found that 42 grains of Reloader 15 behind 168 grain Sierra Matck Kings in RWS brass works the best. Once fired I keep the brass to the rifle and neck size only.
I'm up to 8 reloads with no sigh of case failure.
For all you UK people on the forum - the NRA shop at Bisley sell once fires RWS brass for £10/100 and I have found it to be excellent and when you compare it to around £50 - £60/100 cpmared to Lapua brass.
If looking for real accuracy relaoding is the way to go.
With the best will in the world by doing this you'll have more control over the finished article than a factory that is turning out millions of military rounds in a week.
I've found most available surplus ammo won't do near as well as 150-155gr SMKs or 150gr Nosler Ballistic Tipped ammo, new or reloaded. But there's precious little military ball ammo from the UK left in the US. The best in my stash dates from 1988-90, but I only have 2-300 rounds left of that vintage, maybe, so it gets saved for special occasions.
Hello,
has anybody practical experience with the Enforcer and such ammo ? For example Hornady 178 grs BTHP-Match, 185 grs D46 Lapua Match, 185 grs Lapua Scenar, 190 gr Norma Match, 190 grs RWS/Ruag Match ?
I would like to test my Enforcer at some 400-800 Meter-Distances. And I need therefore heavy loads to resist crosswind.
Thanks !
Greetings from a
windy Switzerland
Enfield Enforcer
"...144gn NATO ball..." 147 grains, but it's moot since they're not easy to come by. Military ball ammo isn't loaded for great accuracy by anybody anyway.
Hornady makes a 155 grain Match and ELD Match bullet. Sierra makes a 150 grain Match King too.
For the 600 plus yards, use a 168 to 600 and a 175/178 past there. The 185's and 190's work best out of a .300 Win Mag. To 1,000 yards.
The L42 action is a 303 proofed action that was upgraded proofed for the NATO 7.62 round using a 144gn projectile. This put the action at the upper limits of its strength.
Loading beyond 144gn is a disaster about to happen the heavier you go the sooner it will happen not good for a collector grade rifle.
I have a front locking target rifle that was built and proofed around the 144gn NATO. Using 175gn match loads the three BOLT lugs CRACKED. It has been repaired and is now only fed 150gn mild loads.
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
If I understand correctly, proof firing Is based on pressure and not bullet weight. I believe a high power rifle cartridge proof round develops 150% of the pressure of SAAMI maximum. The purpose of proof firing is to prove the action can safely handle standard ammunition.
If the rifle is THROATED for the lighter NATO (or thereabouts) bullet, seated to "NATO" length, you do not have much "wriggle-room".
There is no point for several reasons.
1. You cannot SAFELY get enough propellant into the case, particularly heavy-walled "Mil Spec" cases, to drive a 150(ish) gn bullet fast enough to still be supersonic at 1000m. .30-06? .30-.284? Yes 7.62 NATO? NO!.
2. Adding barrel length has its limits as well. ALL of the propellant in a NATO round is consumed by the time the bullet has traveled about 24 to 26 inches (610 -635mm) up the tube. After that it is "coasting and losing velocity. There is a current fad for 30 inch .308 barrels. The greater the length for a given profile, the more like a piece of wet spaghetti it will behave. Thus, fatter (sometimes creatively fluted), greater weight and lots of bipods on the line these days, Wheels will be the next requirement / fashion. The original barrel on my old Omark 44 looks positively anorexic by comparison to some.
3. Slinkier bullets will help velocity and accuracy retention, up to a point. Have a look at the Australian-made BJD "HBC" bullet. 155gns, like the classic SMK Palma, but it has a SECANT ogive and a very small bearing surface. GREAT bullet, but very sensitive to less-than-perfect loading dies and chambers. Ideal throat for the HBCs is quite short in comparison to that for the tangent-ogive SMK. (Because of the secant ogive, quite a few K-31 shooters use these in the short-throated 7.5 Swiss chambers on those later rifles. K-11 s have LONG throats to be able to use older ammo styles, like the GP96, and to allow a bit of freebore to keep pressures down.
4. If you are just using a dedicated, single-shot target rifle, seating options are fairly open. IF you are running from a magazine, like the L-42, (lucky bugger), the loaded ammo MUST fit and feed from the "issue" box magazine.
What you have missed is the 144 gr NATO ball cartridge has a short driving band, and the L39/L42 hammer forged Enfield barrels have a very tight bore, on the order of a .296 to .297 , with a groove diameter of .3065 to .3070. On the L1A2 ball with its average bullet diameter of .3075, that means acceptable pressure. They were proofed to take that cartridge and I assume the Canadian C21, Australian F4, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by scharfschutzen63
Now take a nice hot LR cartridge with a .3082 diameter 175 to 185 gr bullet, (designed for a true .308 bore) a longer effective driving band and the additional pressure required to swage the projectile down to .306? and you are looking at possibly excessive pressure.
On top of this the trend in recent years has been toward hot long range loads that use the 175 to 185 Gr bullets in a 7.62 NATO case, as the only way to get a good 1000 yard velocity out of them is to load on the hot side. Most chaps using this are using rifles designed for these loads, either AR10s, or 4 lug target actions. Many of the primers look noticeably flat when ejected on a hot day. On a Barnard, Musgrave or Paramount., OK.........….On a L81 or L39 or envoy or L42...no....the action will eventually fail, most likely the first time it is a wee bit misty.
For example M118LR is a pretty darned hot and is expected to be fired out of a front locking action, with a true NATO throat. The L39A1 and L42A1 chambers, if I recall have a headspace slightly shorter than the American NATO chamber print, and might have a smaller diameter neck, I do not recall at the moment. In any case it is a hot load, depended on the year and powder used.
The warning is worth considering, but if not there is always a market for your resultant spares and you get to keep the pranged action.
Finally you do not need it.
The interesting thing about these Envoys/L39/L42 rifles is how well they shoot decent lots of green and black sport 7.62 NATO, or (so I am told) better lots of German DM 41 or Austrian Patronen 58 cartridges. The Austrians used the Patronen 58 in their SSG 69 to good effect out to 700 M, or so I am told. Both are on the market now in the US of A. A lot of people assume that the last set of 7.62 innovations were game changers, they were not. The old arms with the ammunition they were designed for are capable of fine performance, unless you are doing some serious competition, where the small advantages in velocity consistency, bullet quality will have a cumulative effect. The fun of shooting these old war horses is getting the best performance out of them in the period correct method.
This is a military proof not civilian proofed rifle for one particular round in a proof up situation. You don't know what the failure rate was. There was failures in the range rifle proof programme where all rifles had to pass. SAAMI has had nothing to do with this or any input into how it was done. I suggest you read up on British proof rounds and how they are used.Quote:
Originally Posted by scharfschutzen63
Bruce in Oz velocities over 3,000fps with 155gn projectiles seem to be the norm using ADI brass. My L42 using NRAA loads is in the 2900+ bracket.
Much has been said and written about the bullet weight debate with Enfield rifles converted to 7.62mm, especially in the UK after the NRA (Bisley) decided rather erroneously that the practice of shooting a 155 gr bullet in an Enfield action could be dangerous. I should add that they have since rescinded that advice!
At the time of the NRA advice I was LERA's TR Captain and the club secretary had decided that in club guns we should stick to 144 gr ammunition, which whilst available a lot of it was found to be wanting in accuracy at the longer ranges.
I experimented with some Sierra 150gr SMK's which Fultons were selling and managed a 50 at 900 yards (my first ever) on Stickledown with a Geoff Hart converted No.4 using 44gr of N140 under the 150gr SMK.
Some research after the event has shown that a few target rifle shooters were actually using 150 gr SMK's during the 1970's when Radway Green ammunition didn't come up to scratch with the then new Raufoss 7.62mm which was being imported from Scandinavia.
That does rap it up nicely, I've had excellent results in the past with the German Surplus 7.62, which to me has the edge on RG surplus, although being a reloader always tried to match bullet weight etc to the original spec, Vhitavori N140 was my choice of powder as it covered a wide range of calibre's etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frederick303
It you're referring to the German 1980's MEN surplus I have to agree, for the price it's been wonderful value for money.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigduke6
MEN 7.62 X 51 Nato (Per 100) - ITL ShootingQuote:
Originally Posted by Strangely Brown
That's exactly the 'stuff' I been using in my L42 and Enforcers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strangely Brown
Getting a bit short now tho' down to the last few 100 rounds.
I've got a couple of 20 rd packs of MEN, must get round to trying it....Quote:
Originally Posted by Strangely Brown
Thats the stuff Mick, seemed a waste of time reloading when I've this to hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strangely Brown
Lots of discussion locally about "hot" .308 loading to succeed at 1000yd shooting.
Compressed loads of "slower-burning" propellants like AR2208, Vihtavuori N140 and IMR4064 will get your SMKs and HBCs to 2900fps in a 26 inch barrel, possibly pushing it over the "magic" line with a 28 inch tube. Of course, bullet specific throating will help.
Other factors are case capacity and primer brissance. Some folks are using 'magnum" large-rifle primers to ignite these compressed loads of slower propellants. I've been doing something similar in .223 brass for nearly two decades, but it took a few REALLY cratered primers and loose primer pockets to get the recipe right. Worth it, in the grand scheme of things? It was certainly "educational". Rupturing a primer cup with one of these "energetic" loadings will do expensive mischief to the bolt face and striker. If, after firing, your primers have flattened "muffin-tops" and cratering around the striker indent and bolt lift is a little "stiff", you are living close to the edge. The appearance of extended, "Tacticool" bolt handles on old Omarks pressed into "F Class" service is interesting.
GGG is also brilliant STANAG spec ammo, available in 5.56 and 7.62
GGG 7.62x51mm 147Gr FMJ (100Rds) | ammo-zone
Hello altogether,
many thanks - such a great engagement in this short time ! :-)
Really surprising. So many posts and so many members - and several prominent members, too. Amazing :-) An special thanks to Frederick303 and Bruce in Oz !
First of all, I intend not to shoot at 1000 yards. Because this scope is not suited for such an great distance. It allows an height adjustment for 700-800 Meters in maximum. And, of course, the Enforcer is not a military sniper rifle. It's an Police Sniper Rifle with an intended operational range of 100-200 meters resp. yards, maximum. It seems, that shots over 100 yards have been avoided. The cartridge and his long barrel, too, on the other hand should allow shots until circa 700-800 meters.
Today I know that some bullet diameters and types of powder charge are not suitable for this rifle. And of course, I intend to enjoy and keep it as long as possible. It is since 27 years part of my Enfield-Collection.
I'm glad that I didn't try some of my M118 National Match ammo.
This questions so far: this MEN ammo, what bullet weight and production code has it, please ? Here in Switzerland we have a trader with amazing good relations to military ammo, since several years. MEN Surplus .303 British, for example and MEN .308 Win. 190 grs Match and other seldom ammo. But not RG- and only a few 7,62 mm-NATO-Ammo by which I don't have any experience or near info.
First I used mainly the known Lapua Match 185 grs D46 - without knowing what I know now - it worked well so far. No visible troubles. Until one day an really old case was touched. Has anyone experience with this ammo ?
What about the Norma 190 grs Match, please ? I bought it after this Lapua case touching but didn't use it til now.
Im glad about any informations to this ammo types.
Regards from Switzerland
Enfield Enforcer
Quote:
Originally Posted by David TS
This is the original ammunition 'design criteria' issued by the Police BUT remember much development has gone into Ammunition since the early 1970's, so the phrase "any 7.62 service cartridge" may no longer be valid.
An extract from the design specification for the rifle that was to become the "Enforcer"
7.62 mm Ammunition
Any 7.62 mm Service cartridge., Ball,, Tracer, or Blank, may be fired in the Police Rifle.
It is, however, the intention to use high accuracy Service Ball ammunition as issued for use by the Service Sniper. This is identical to the high accuracy ammunition supplied by the Ministry of Defence to the National Rifle Association for use at the 1970 and 1971 Imperial Meetings at Bisley, where many new records were set up, and which resulted in reductions in the size of target scoring areas for 1972.
Enfield Enforcer
Following on regarding GGG ammunition, it is made in a purpose build factory in Lithuania, the factory constructed in 2000. It is not surplus as such, although it is STANAG spec, most of it is within a year or two old. It is top quality.
If your trader has good connections, he may well be able to source it in Switzerland.
An additional thumbs up for GGG, superb quality stuff and very consistent.
I was talking to a guy at my range who uses GGG in his L42 with excellent results.
I'm not the best shot in the world, by any stretch of the imagination, but using the MEN 7.62 I can easily group inside the 9 ring at 100m on a 50m pistol target. I just wish someone would get some of that MEN .303 and bring it into The UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enfield Enforcer
Forgive my ignorance, but what nationality is the MEN ammo?
German, I do believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Payne
Vielen dank:)
And again many interesting posts :-) And still some more celebrities :-) Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by limpetmine
Special thanks to Alan de Enfield - i haven't seen this information before. And Yes, i will consider your warning, of course.
David TS: GGG-Munition is completely new to me, it looks really attractive. I will ask my trader as soon as possible.
Roger Payne: ammo from MEN comes from Nassau, West-Germany, true. They produce primarly for authorities, Military and Police. Therefore we usually see not much from their fine quality ammo. I hope, this few pictures help. I was really surprised to find this .303 British MEN by this trader, ca. 12 years ago. Unfortunately, i - dreamer - catched much too few of this fine stuff. It was a 170 gr FMJBT in a nice orange 56-round box for approx. 60 Swiss Francs. Basically made in the Year 1988 for the rifle-reserve with Lee-Enfields in a NATO-Country - I believe for the Netherlands.
harry mac: i can imagine that. This MEN was a very accurate load, according to a test and my experience. I try to get all information and place it here. Perhaps there is a bit of this ammo left, who knows.. :-) Dreaming must be allowed !
Greetings from the"Heidiland"
Enfield Enforcer
Second pic along post #29 is the surplus I've used in the past, one example is a Enfield with a L42 barrel fitted and a PH sight, even with me behind the trigger I was punching the paper and making clover leaf,s at 100mtrs, a few were just in the same hole.......... considering the price at the time and compared to the other lads with expensive rifles with all singing and dancing telecope, plus the reloads they where using which were the result of many hours of expense regarding the amount of different powders and bullet weights etc....... it certainly brought a smile to my face, as their targets weren't what they quite expected, I should of framed mine...
The cheapest I've seen it recently was about £47 a 100, it was when I was searching for 7.62 x 39, which has doubled in price.......
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigduke6
That sounds great - to make pictures was possible, I hope ? A special equipment.. An Enfield with an L 42 barrel fitted and a PH Sight. Yes, the DNAG ammo shows often a really good performance.
In the meantime I found a picture of this .303 British-Ammo from MEN. Here:
Today I took my 1987 MAB Omark target rifle, with a 1-14 LBS barrel, pretty much state of the art for shooting 7.62 NATO ball circa 1988. Fired 3- 10 shot groups of DAG 96 A0489, prone sling supported position with a kneeling bag elbow rest .
The ammunition is NATO DM41 ball, cupronickel jacketed steel jacket, 148 grain, repackaged for commercial sale by SM Chemnitzer Sportwaffen und Munsitions Gmbh, AM2030. Date code is approximate as they range a ring through the headlamp, date found by careful examination by magnification glass.
In any case 3-10 shot groups were as follows @ 100 yards:
1.510 ", 1.640" and 1.760"
The first group is really 7 shots as I moved the sight after two spotters and then after the 3rd round. After that I did not touch the sights for any other string. The second string was primarily vertical stringing, the light was a wee bit too dark for my old eyes to use a .043" (1.1mm) rear aperture. for the last group opened it up to .046" (1.17~1.18mm) The last group was marred by the fact that the front sight lockite broke down and the sight base was moving, so the last shot was rather far to the left and the zero bubble no longer indicated the sight was true. if the last shot was omitted the group ended up at a nice respectable 1.510
Of course I need to chronograph these cartridges to know how they would do long range, but for whatever reason my experience with German DM41 or DM111 ball has always been very good in these classic UK match rifles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frederick303
Thanks Frederick303
That sounds really impressive !.. . I will have a longer look to all your information a bit later. I hope that happens soon. Unfortunately I'm in a hurry today. And my week was quite an irregular one.. .
This DM41 Ball-Ammo seems to be a really good choice for our type of rifles. Unfortunately I couldn't find such ammo here in Switzerland, at least until now. This picture may prove their quality level, too.. .
Have a nice evening !
Greetings Enfield Enforcer
Hallo,
diese seltene Federal Match Ammo ist plötzlich in der Schweiz erhältlich. Und der Preis ist erstaunlich niedrig ... Gibt es irgendwelche Erfahrungen mit dieser Munition in einem Lee-Enfield L 42 A1 oder Enforcer oder L 39 A1?
Bitte :-)
Beste Grüße
Enfield Enforcer
Hello, there was a mistake in translating my las post... Pardon me.
This rare Federal Match Ammo is suddenly available in Switzerland. And this price is amazing low ... Is there any experience - accuracy - function - with this ammo for a Lee-Enfield L 42 A1 or Enforcer or L 39 A1?
Please :-)
Many thanks !
Best greetings
Enfield Enforcer
Verwenden sie in Enforcer / L39 / L42 keine .308-Munition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enfield Enforcer
Verwenden sie nur NATO 7.62x51 147grn Munition in einem Enfield Enforcer/L39/L42.
Remember that the chambers in military 7.62 calibre are VERY different to 308 (for example there is 0.013" difference in headspace)Quote:
Originally Posted by Enfield Enforcer
7.62 can be safely used in a 308 but you should not use 308 in a 7.62.
Denken Sie daran, dass sich die Kammern im militärischen Kaliber 7.62 SEHR von 308 unterscheiden (zum Beispiel gibt es einen Unterschied von 0,013 Zoll im Kopfraum).
7.62 kann sicher in einem 308 verwendet werden, aber Sie sollten 308 nicht in einem 7.62 verwenden.
Hello
Thanks for the quick Answers, especially to Alan de Enfield for this picture.
It seems still to be a bit ambiguos to me. And complex.
Because some us the 7,62 mm NATO-Ammo, but also some .308 Win. stuff.
I have to come back to that a bit later...
Have a nice evening, all of you.
Best regards
Enfield Enforcer
Es ist sehr einfach, verwenden sie keine .308-Munition in Lee Enfield 7.62x51.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enfield Enforcer
Verwenden sie nur 7,62 x 51 NATO-Munition.
"There is a .013" difference in acceptability, between these two specifications. This is significant in that, for reloading purposes, brass will stretch more in a military chamber upon firing, thereby reducing the life of the brass and possibly promoting case head separation. But that additional length will allow a round to chamber in an incredibly dirty weapon, which is a requirement for military applications."
308 Winchester (SAAMI) Headspace 7.62 NATO (Military) Headspace
GO - 1.6300" GO - 1.6350"
NOGO - 1.6340" NOGO - 1.6405"
FIELD - 1.6380" FIELD - 1.6455"
However, it must be noted that this is the chamber specification and not the ammunition specification.
If you were foolish enough to also allow a MINUS .013" tolerance ammo the ammo, there could be tears before bed-time.
The external dimensions of the two types of ammunition are nearly identical.
The same shenanigans apply to the .223Rem vs 5.56, (be it M-193 or the MUCH later "NATO" variants
It is ALL about chamber and leade dimensions and TOLERANCES.
Those in the know will be aware of something called ".223 Wylde". This is NOT a new cartridge, but a new CHAMBER. It was designed to handle any "factory-spec" or hand-loaded equivalent of .223 and 5.56 ammo. It is NOT a super-tight "bench-rest chamber though cases fired in one will come out looking much the came as from a more "conventional" chamber. The principal difference is in the throat / leade.
Note also that Sullivan's original cartridge in the M-16 was first labeled ".222" Special". This then meant that there were THREE very different, but closely related cartridges with similar sounding names, hence the name change. It was throated for a very specific bullet, (after a lot of experimentation with weights and profiles). The military users then wanted a compatible, companion tracer round. Because of the twist-rate, this could not be much longer than the ball projectile, so, it was given a "dumpier" shape to hold a bit more of the minuscule tracer composition.
Note that this also happened with 7.62 NATO: Compare the profiles of ball and tracer projectiles.
A "dumpier" tracer bullet means that you need a longer throat. This may not always be optimal for "precision shooting" with slinky, boat-tailed ball projectiles.
A military firearm is ALWAYS built to shoot a restricted range of authorized ammo. What sort of interesting fodder "aftermarket" operators use is a different thing. I have seen too many good and sometimes rare and exotic, "military" rifles (SiG AMT and "Portuguese" AR-10, for starters), damaged or wrecked because the owner / hand-loader failed to keep reloaded brass (of any origin) within maximum overall length.
These days, we have the spectacle of the 5.56 NATO tracer bullet which, to hold a vaguely useful amount of tracer compound, is LUDICROUSLY long, The "visible" ogive is not much different from SS-109 / M855, but the bullet extends a LONG way back into the case, This, of course consume powder space, thus a whole different propellant must be used to achieve a vague facsimile of ball trajectory. It is the major reason that most "Mil-Spec' 5.56 NATO small arms have a 1:7" twist. Anything slower will not stabilize the tracer properly. Standard 62gn ball will stabilize in a 20" barrel with a 1:10" twist. In the Arctic, 1:9" may be preferable. The fast twist rate is also useful when you start chopping barrels back to dinky lengths. For any given twist-rate, lower velocities mean lower spin rates. It is spin-rate that determines aerodynamic stability. A contemporary example is the .300 Blackout, (nee "Whisper") Serious ones use a 1:8' twist. This is NOT to stabilize the 125 grain supersonic loads, but for the LONG bullets used in the sub-sonic mode.
As for pressures, If SAAMI uses Piezo transducers and the military ammo-makers use CUP, you get different numbers for the same thing. As they say in the classics, ALL UNITS matter.
Hello
Thank you. Especially to Bruce von Oz for quite informative and quick response (s).
There are simply a number of hints for the use of .308 Win. 168 grain Match ammunition. Especially the Federal "Gold Medal" Label. This is an example of my "ambiguous" view.
And here in Switzerland there is only a few 7.62 mm NATO ammunition types available. Since many years, this ammo is not as important for Military Repeaters as it is in other countries. Not enough to have a real choice. So I certainly cannot check out the accuracy potential of my rifle. As a Non-Reloader, by the way...
General complaints: Did a typical problematic problem arise when using a unsuitable .308 Win.-ammo? Was there a characteristic sign on a case, for example ?
A .308 Win.-Lapua load has been heard to pose a serious problem, years ago. What type of load was that, please ? Asked because of the relevance of the Lapua ammo-Products here.
Thank you.
Best regards
Enfield Enforcer
The trouble is, too, beside the ammo question, I don't know which is the barrel-diameter in my good old Nr 171. Amazingly and surprisingly here is the correct barrel gauge to measure hard to find. And really expensive. I have to buy one myself, i think. So i have to consider a not to powerful load as well as the barrel-diameter, too.
So, what about your ammo experience, please ? 10 voices for Federal Gold Medal 168 gr would be more precious than 2 for an here unavailable 7,62 mm-Nato-round.
Thanks !
Greetings
Enfield Enforcer
I put GGG 155grn 7.62 though my L42 barrel which seems to perform well enough.
Thanks Michael Doyne,
maybe i can find the GGG stuff here in CH. There was a type of ammo recently within a traders offerings.. . I have to visit them anyway, so let's see.
I've found until now only 3 real 7,62 mm-offerings in CH. Two of them were quite special offerings from MEN in 1995 around - which disappeared"of course" - and the 3. one is the already discribed 185 gr Lapua Sniper-Ammo. Where more concrete info is still very welcome :-) Its Box No.3 from above in the picture.
Have a nice evening altogether.
Greetings
Enfield Enforcer
Enfield Enforcer every one of those boxes in your photo is over the limit of the L42.
Micheal Doyne you are pushing the friendship as well.
This illustration was unfortunately created by someone who doesn't understand that the pressure levels quoted are in 2 different systems of measure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield
Enforcers/L42s ect are not MAG58s - sniping and target rifles are not headspaced at the high end of the chamber spectrum - what would the point be of a sniping or target rifle with excess headspace or an extra long throat?
.303 British and .308Win nominally have the same H2O case capacity (56grains of water).
.303 British 174gr MkVIIz was loaded to 2440+/-40fps
.303 British 175gr MkVIIIz was loaded to 2550+/-40 fps
MkVIII was cleared for use in rifles
Federal GM Match 175gr is loaded to a nominal 2600fps which is at the high end of the MkVIIIz velocity window.
There is no "free lunch" - 2 projectiles of the same weight loaded to the same velocity in the same case capacity are not magically dramatically higher in pressure.
I know a number of people who are running Federal GMM 168gr in their L42s and Enforcers.
personally I am running 165gr Hornady interlocks over 42gr of IMR4895... safe in my rifle ect ect.
Lee Enfield please explain to me why then No4s converted to use the NATO 7.62 144gn rounds had to be reproofed for civvie range use. The failure rate was not small.
Yes Mk8 was cleared for rifle use in an emergency only. I would not say that 2600 FPS was a moderate pressure increase over 2440 fps pressure.
I am also aware the 308 case will not show pressure signs like the 303 case does in the same actions.
I have seen a range rifle front locker bolt failure in a rifle built for 144gn NATO using moderate 175gn loads. The No4/L42 is not a heavy 308 it is a light weight 308 stop gap rear locker outfit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Enfield
I wonder if you could explain why the 303 has come into the equation ?
We are comparing 7.62 and 308, and the 7.62 cases, which are externally dimensionally the same as 308, are heavier, therefore the walls must be thicker and the volume is less. Try measuring the volume of water held by bth cases. I think you will find a difference.[COLOR="black"]
---------- Post added at 09:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:20 AM ----------
Not only did it have to be re-prooved to the 19 tonnes, but the NRA stipulated that if using the 'later' (heavier 175gr bullet) it had to be re-prooved again to 21 tonnes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindi2
The NRA had banned the use of 7.62 No4s but following an 'uprorar' amended their policy as follows :
NRA Safety Notice re No 4 7.62mm Conversions
This is the current stance of the NRA safety warning which first appeared in the Summer NRA Journal:
Safety Notice
Enfield No 4 Rifle Conversions to 7.62mm
A safety warning concerning the use of Enfield No 4 Rifle actions converted to 7.62mm was published in the Summer 2010 Journal.
After further consideration of all factors influencing safety of these conversions and consultation with the Birmingham Proof Master, the following advice must be adhered to in respect of the use of Enfield No 4 conversions:
• Owners of Enfield No 4 actioned rifles converted to 7.62mm currently proofed to 19 tons per square inch are strongly advised to have them re-proofed to the current CIP standard (requiring a minimum mean proof pressure of 5190 bar) which allows the use of CIP approved ammunition with a Maximum Average Working Pressure (MAWP) of 4150 Bar.
A d E the No4/L42/clone in Ozz dosent have to be reproofed to use heavier projectiles it is in the buyer you are on your own in this .. People just don't know and wont be told that it is not a 308. The clones are not proofed at all.
It bemuses me that we are even having this conversation. Regardless of trying to quantify just how close to the strength limits of the No4 action we are getting using hot loads &/or heavy bullets as fodder for L42's & such like, it is quite clear that we are pushing the No4 action, & if there is even the slightest chance of ending up wearing your rifle's bolt in your eye socket why are we even considering it?
Roger some of us know this limitation most don't. they don't comprehend it is a conversion not a new built rifle.
And in the US folks can just 'throw a few gun bits together' and use it with no (prooving) checks at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindi2
Which nation is correct ?
Not the U S A or OZZ.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield
And don't even mention DPs in the USA as non shooters.
:thup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindi2
It is proofed to 21 tons per cubic inch, which I was told made it ok for GGG 155?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindi2
Still well up on the original design and in front of many that failed 19t proof here in OZZQuote:
Originally Posted by Micheal Doyne
Personally I just don't get why anyone would want to use a hotter round in a rifle that's not designed for it.
It's a bit like saying that your classic car has a red line at 6,000 RPM, but if you push it to 7,000 RPM you'll get more power!
How often do you want to try that before it let's go and your sweeping up the bit's!
At least with an engine you won't be wearing the bit's in your face!
Dunno 'bout that Zed, had a car on a dyno redlining when it blew, took chunks out of the spanner leaning over the bonnet.
….but to boost Bindii's argument, here in OZ we had two types of 7.62 in service, F4 which was the standard practice round and the L2A2 which was the full blown service round.
The L2A2 round was not allowed to be used in civilian competition, as it was too hot for anything other than the M44 Omarks in the early 70's, the Lee Enfield conversions were severely stressed when using this round, as were a lot of L1A1 's that were found to be a bit soft.
So in order to maintain an even playing field on changeover and maintain a fair degree of safety, only the F4 round was allowed.
Pardon me for being confused. It seems that many countries have differently loaded military 7,62 ammunition, which must be an interesting logistical exercise for supplying the front line. Why would you use a different round in practice to what you would use in combat?
Basically the same round, the L2A2 was produced to Nato Spec's in OZ using AR2201 powder, a fast burning non temperature sensitive powder that was relatively consistant, but caused accelerated wear in Auto and Semi Auto weapons.
The AR2201 powder was used until 1979, but another powder was substituted in 1976, the round being reclassified as F4 using AR2206 Powder, a slightly slower burn rate relieving both stress on the firearms and operators, while maintaining velocity with the 144gr. projectile.
The change of powder was an immediate success in the Training Battalions , marksmanship skills jumped and the subsequent flow on to the rifle clubs was very pronounced, requiring a reduction in scoreing rings on all targets.
The reduction in chamber pressure allowed the 7.62 converted rifles back into the game where they continued in long range use until the early 80's.
Although OZ produced ammunition to Nato standards, we were very independent and industrious when it came to variations, I remember you questioning my comments about 106RCL ammunition, I did not bother to answer than, but Australia made a lot of innovative munitions that were not standard within Nato signatories, we did what we wanted when we wanted......and still do.
Ah, that explains a lot. Our lot turned out ball and tracer, that's it. If there were wear variations we on the ground never knew and just worked through whatever the store issued. Only those target shooting guys [Bisley] cared which lot numbers were more "accurate". In later years I kept informed about ammo as I was in shooting sports, but in 20 years never found any special consideration was required for any small arms.
Going back to the original question regarding ammunition for the Enforcer and the L42.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daan Kemp
These rifles were manufactured, tested and approved when the standard NATO 7.62 was 144/150 grain bullets.
NATO 7.62 has evolved over the years with all sorts of 'specials' including 'hot' rounds and long distance Sniper rounds - even the 'standard' round now has 168/175 gr bullets.
Simply using a heavier bullet can have a large impact on chanber pressures - throw powder changes into the mix and the pressures could be way more than the rifle was designed for.
Its a bit like taking your inline 4 cyliner 1800cc engine out of your family saloon and replacing it with a 6 litre V12 and wondering why things like the gear-box, clutch and brakes are starting to fail as they cannot take the strain.
All 7.62 is not the same, and is not even tested using the same methods or units.
The original 7.62 was the M80 which (particularly in the USA) been replaced by the M118 (and derivatives)
Cartridge, caliber 7.62mm, NATO, ball, special, M118 (United States): 173-grain (11.2 g) 7.62×51mm NATO full metal jacket boat-tail round specifically designed for match purposes. Produced by Lake City Army Ammunition Plant. This is an interim match round which utilized standard M80 ball brass cartridges with the 173-grain (11.2 g) full-metal jacketed ball boat-tailed (FMJBT) bullet and staked No. 34 or No. 36 primers. During this period in the early to late 1980s the performance of the round declined. Powder, primers, and brass were the same as standard ball rounds; bullets and powder charges varied in weight due to worn machinery and poor quality control. Since it could not be called "match" due to its erratic trajectory, it was renamed "special ball". Snipers used to test shoot batches of ammo, find a batch that shot well (or at least consistently), then zeroed their weapon to that batch and tried to procure as much of that ammo as possible.[42]
Linked belts of Lake City 7.62 mm M80 ball ammunition
Cartridge, caliber 7.62mm, NATO, ball, special, M118LR (United States): 175-grain (11.3 g) 7.62×51mm NATO match-grade round specifically designed for long-range sniping. It uses a 175-grain (11.3 g) Sierra Match King hollow point boat-tail bullet. Produced at Lake City Army Ammunition Plant. The propellant's noticeable muzzle flash and temperature sensitivity led to the development of the MK 316 MOD 0 for special operations use.
Most other NATO countries continue to produce 144 / 150 grain ammunition.
Eg The UK :
United Kingdom
Cartridge, ball, L42A1 (United Kingdom): 7.62×51mm ball cartridge, 155-grain (10.0 g) round
Cartridge, ball, L44A1 (United Kingdom): 7.62×51mm ball cartridge, 144-grain (9.3 g) round
Germany
Patrone AB22, 7.62mm × 51, DM41, Weichkern ("soft-core", or "ball"), (West Germany): 7.62×51mm NATO ball cartridge; Berdan primed, copper-washed steel jacket. German equivalent to U.S. 7.62×51mm M80 round. Standard service round for the G3 battle rifle. It has a 3,800-metre (4,156 yd) long dangerous space when fired between a 5° and 10° angle.[25]
Patrone AB22, 7.62mm × 51, DM111, Weichkern, (Germany): 147-grain (9.5 g) 7.62×51mm NATO ball cartridge, cupronickel-coated steel jacket. German equivalent to U.S. M80 round. In service with the German military. Known for severe fragmentation in human tissue due to its thin jacket, particularly around the cannelure.[26] It has a 4,200-metre (4,593 yd) long dangerous space when fired between a 5° and 10° angle.[27]
Extracys from Wikipedia.
Hello altogether,
a lot of reactions - thanks ! Especially to the Advisory Members and the"old members" f.e. Lee-Enfield, Alan de Enfield, Roger Payne, Daan Kemp, Gee-Ram, Bindi2 and more. Now it is getting still more complex, it contains quite a lot of factors and details.. On other sources in the Web, too.
At first for safety purpose 😊 of course :
I think we have to take it step by step, to get an usable overview: To summarize we must say - our Lee-Enfield No.4 Conversion in 7,62 mm Nato will work best with ammo within a pressure of under this 53'000 or 55'000 PSI ? Different information i saw also to that, therefore the ? Of course only with a rifle in good - checked - condition.
As second we can - or must, depending on the ammo availability - reload or give the order to reload to somebody, in my case. The goal then must be to produce loads with military brass - and of course - corresponding bullet- and powder-combinations. As explained for example in S. Redgwells good publication: Reloading of 7,62 mm military Brass: Target Loads. Of course then by always carefully loading step by step for the 27,5-inch Enfield Matchbarrel. With reduced powder charge, not the commercial loads.
And then it s h o u l d be possible to reload even with 168 or 175 gr-Bullets to reach a high crosswind resistence - and - a range of 700 Meters ca. at the same time.
Greetings Enfield Enforcer
I'm very interested to see the picture in your avatar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enfield Enforcer
It is my picture of my Enforcer No 134.
Another picture by the same window.
The limiting factors in the use of "heavier" bullets are muzzle velocity and bullet length.
7.62 NATO was developed around that 144-150gn bullet concept (including a boat-tail) in order to maintain some pretense to .30-06 performance.
It was also specified that the rifling be 1:12" twist, which was a slower twist than .30-06, but at 7.62 NAT muzzle velocities, worked fine with those bullets out of 19" (G3) to 24" (L1A1) barrels. It would stabilize LONGER bullets like tracers and some "match" bullets, bur there were and remain, practical limits.
In "service" rifles and machine-guns, overall cartridge length is absolutely limited, both "high' and "low" in order to work in ALL issued magazine rifles and machine-guns.
Setting a longer bullet back into the case reduces powder capacity. Fooling around with a different propellant can produce "interesting issues with gas systems. Remember, the whole idea was that ammo from Country "X" was to work under all service conditions, in small arms from countries A to Z.
In actual 7.62 NATO-calibre service rifles none but the most optimistic expected the boots on the ground to be expending ammo on live targets over 600 metres away. Machine-guns, on tripods, yes, Private Bloggs with his L1A1, not so much.
If you start fooling with exotic bullets and "slow" powders, you can expect "interesting things" to start happening to gas systems, etc. and then there is the issue of "sight calibration" in iron-sighted battle rifles. If your environment suddenly become "target rich" but they are over a Kilometer away, that's what mortars and quad .50's are for.
Snipers are a bit different, but MOST countries were not likely to send them into the weeds to nail targets at ludicrous distances with battle-rifle ammo. .50BMG, .408 Cheytac, .338 Lapua etc are in a whole different category. And if you have ever hefted one of those beasties, you may appreciate the utter specialization of their deployment.
Also, if you go for a "super-slinky" bullet of the "nominated" NATO weight,and maintain cartridge overall length, accounting for the loss of propellant space, can you drive it fast enough to stabilize without over-stressing the rifle?
If you cannot achieve stability at safe pressured in a 1:12" NATO-standard barrel, do you go back to the old .30-06 1:10" "standard"? Such an arrangement of new ammo and new barrels will absolutely guarantee the need to completely rewrite all the range tables and the re-calibration or replacement of ALL the sighting systems in the inventory.
The L42A1 worked, and continues to work, but only if handled correctly, maintained correctly and fed the correct ammo...Until the barrel "goes bad" or the bedding goes wonky. They are "Peak 19th Century Technology"; works of the artisans.
Modern, modular "chassis" rifles are, firstly, NEW and not "pre-loved". Their very modularity increases their versatility and minimizes "down-time". They might not look like "olde-worlde' works of art, but they are not meant to be seen and admired by anyone other than the appointed operators and maintenance crews.
It is interesting to compare the L42A1 with its Finn counterpart, the TKIV, built on century-old Mosin Nagant actions. A VERY similar concept. (Just about all phased out of active serve, now, however).
it may have been said already, and hopefully is not an insult(!), but to avoid all risk of damage to the rifle, ensure the chamber is completely free of oil & moisture and the same with the ammo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enfield Enforcer
Hello Alan de Enfield,
I'm a bit surprised to read this here... Because I'm not sure where I found this picture, originally. Therefore the same goes for the copyright-remark. It's some years ago, in any case. Sometimes we saw a copyright information resp. ban during the search, but sometimes not.
Be assured, it's not my intention to break this right. I will therefore replace my avatar with another similar picture, later. Thanks.
Best regards
Enfield Enforcer
Hello, concerning this pressure question: my Enforcer has the 19t-Proofmark. To which pressures we may load now, concrete ? I saw different infos, it is really irritating.. .
Thanks.
Best regards
Enfield Enforcer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enfield Enforcer
With 19T proof testing you should only use the original NATO 144 grain - 155grain ammunition.
If you want to use other 7.62 then you should have the rifle re-prooved to 21 tonnes.
NRA Safety Notice re No 4 7.62mm Conversions
This is the current stance of the NRA safety warning which first appeared in the Summer NRA Journal:
Safety Notice
Enfield No 4 Rifle Conversions to 7.62mm
A safety warning concerning the use of Enfield No 4 Rifle actions converted to 7.62mm was published in the Summer 2010 Journal.
After further consideration of all factors influencing safety of these conversions and consultation with the Birmingham Proof Master, the following advice must be adhered to in respect of the use of Enfield No 4 conversions:
• Owners of Enfield No 4 actioned rifles converted to 7.62mm currently proofed to 19 tons per square inch are strongly advised to have them re-proofed to the current CIP standard (requiring a minimum mean proof pressure of 5190 bar) which allows the use of CIP approved ammunition with a Maximum Average Working Pressure (MAWP) of 4150 Bar.
• Conversions retaining their original Enfield barrel or a replacement barrel as manufactured by RSAF Enfield are safe to use with commercial CIP approved ammunition, which complies with a MAWP of 4150 bar, loaded with any weight of bullet, providing they carry a valid proof mark, and are still in the same condition as when submitted for proof.
• Conversions fitted with any other make of barrel (such as Ferlach, Maddco, Krieger etc) should be checked by a competent gunsmith to determine the throat diameter of the chamber/barrel fitted before use.
• Conversions where the throat diameter is less than the CIP specification of 0.311” but not smaller than 0.3085” must not be used with ammunition which exceeds 3650 Bar MAWP when fired in a SAAMI/CIP pressure barrel.
• Conversions which have been checked and found to comply with Rule 150 may safely be used with any ammunition supplied by the NRA including the 155 grain Radway Green Cartridge, 155 grain RUAG Cartridge or any other commercial CIP Approved cartridges loaded with bullets of any weight provided that the ammunition pressure does not exceed 3650 Bar when measured in a CIP standard barrel.
• Owners of Enfield No 4 actioned rifles converted to 7.62mm who are uncertain as to the proof status of the rifle should have it checked by a competent gunsmith.
• Owners of Enfield No 4 actioned rifles in any calibre are strongly advised not to use them in wet weather or without removing all traces of oil from action and chamber prior to shooting.
• Enfield No 4 rifles which are fitted with a barrel which has a throat diameter less than 0.3085” must not be used on Bisley Ranges.
• Ammunition loaded with bullets of any weight which are of greater diameter than the throat diameter of the barrel must not under any circumstances be used on Bisley Ranges in any rifle or barrel of any manufacture.
Thanks Alan de Enfield,
I understand the meaning, of course - unfortunately there is no possibility here in Switzerland for doing this. At least as far as i know. Probably its only in Germany possible.. . If anything..
If i understand that correct, its in this case - nearly - impossible to load safe ammo with bullets heavier than 155 gr..?
I found different earlier posts, in one the try was do define this psi-pressure level of the 19t-proofed Lee-Enfields. The calculation was the following one under the Thread More Bad Press for the Enfield:
Quote Originally Posted by Edward Horton View Post
Slamfire1 and forum members
The 19 tsi for the 7.62 No.4 Enfields equals 19 x 2040 = 38,760 + 20% = 46,512 .
.
Ed - a slight mathematical error
A ton is 2240 lbs (and not 2040), so 19 X 2240 + 20% = 51072
This 51072 will be the CUP-level, I suppose ? I will have to let produce reloads - probably in any case - it would be essential to know the PSI-level, coming from this 51072-pressure-Info. As with the cases.. .
The same goes for reloading-infos. They are even under PM still really very welcome :-) It should be able to get velocity-measurements, i will mention them of course.
Surpmil: you wrote your last posting in a very kind way. ;-) Yes, i will do what you mention there - be assured.
Bindi2, Bruce of Oz: the Enforcer Serial No. 171 will not be cracked because of a too strong load :-) I don't wan't to kill my rarities. Why should I ?..
Many thanks !
Greetings
Enfield Enforcer
Is the GGG 7.62 NATO safe to use in an Enforcer?
I have bought some of this but due to lockdown haven’t had chance to use it yet! 😳
I bought it as it appeared to be correct in weight and designation so assumed (always dangerous) that it was to 7.62 NATO spec?
I use only GGG 7.62 in my Enforcer, and have been for many years.
All I would say, is NOT to use commercial .308WIN rounds in the 7.62mm chamber of the Enforcer, as it is potentially dangerous, but what has been said many times before on here, it is OK to fire 7.62mm x 51 rounds in a .308 WIN rifle.
Its all down to headspace.
Its also been remarked on here previously, check what pressure your rifle has been tested too. Its well stamped in a number of places, and will make you feel reassurred. If unsure take your rifle to a proficient gunsmith.
Hope that helps ;)
Be careful not to become confused, there are several different ways of measuring the pressures from SAAMI to NATO, to CIP to US Army and each method gives different results (as it is measured in different places)Quote:
Originally Posted by Enfield Enforcer
Then you have the problem of converting CUP to PSI which is not a simple calculation.
Attached is a table showing the different methods for SAAMI, NATO, CIP and the US Army, and a comparison table for CIP to PSI for various calibres.
These figures are for the same ammunition in the same firearm just different methods of recording pressure.
You always need to confirm that you are comparing apples with apples and NOT Apples with Bananas.
52,000 CUP with a variance in PSI of 10,000. Now throw in tight/loose bores different shape projectiles temperature sensitive powder also burn rate, new or worn chamber reamers different case manufacturer ( same load huge pressure differences shows as large velocity jump or other high pressure signs).. Just some of the things that get in the way. Then there is folk law loads.
I read some hunting Forums where loads being discussed in short barrelled hunting rifles I can not get remotely close to with a target rifle.
Thanks Gil, that puts my mind at ease 😅Quote:
Originally Posted by Gil Boyd
This pressure: if for the Enfield Enforcer it is not the NATO value of these 60,190 PSI, that would be the 62,000 PSI and 4150 bar of the .308 Win. much too close and because the 19t-proof-test is supposed to correspond to 3650 bar, what is this relationship to the 4150 bar ? How much PSI is it ultimately ? Finally, I have to be able to inform the commercial reloader of this upper limit. A new proof testing is rather unrealistic, I'm afraid.
So it should be 3,650: 4150 = 0.87951807, i.e. around 87.9% of the NATO value above. That would mean that is 0.87951807 of 60'190 bar = 52'938.1927 PSI. So around 53,000 PSI - is that right now ? I need a realiable value, here. Second best-solution ? A combination of this 55'000 PSI-Surplus Cases-Limit and 53'000 PSI System-Limit, in other words ?
Greetings
Enfield Enforcer
Blimey....................:sos:
Just keep it at .303 pressure levels and dont worry about it.
.303 max pressure:
C.I.P.= 52,939 p.s.i.
SAAMI= 49,000 p.s.i.
The majority of if not all .308 starting loads, regardless of bullet weight/powder combination, is well within if not below those parameters.
www.hodgdon.com reloading data
Havent had mine our in a while but it gets fed RG L2a2 surplus or for hunting a 150gr Hornady fbsp over 42.9gr IMR 4064 loaded into LC nato brass, which according to the above linked website developes 47,500 p.s.i..
Anyone else noticed a few irregularities in the Piezo/crusher pressure list.
Some similar CUP pressures have very different PSI pressures listed.
For example:
223 Remington: CUP 52,000 and PSI 55,000
243 Winchester: CUP 52,000 and PSI 60,000
6mm Remington: CUP 52,000 and PSI 65,000
I find it a bit odd that identical result in one system can give 10,000 PSI difference in another.
Anyway; it's a bit pointless trying to guess if a certain hand load will be similar to a lab test. Too many variables to be of any real use and no guarantee of safety. Unless you have access to the same test equipment fitted to your rifle.
For my 7.62 reloading for my L39 I keep it simple. Test velocity of NATO surplus in my rifle.
Use ogives of similar weight and keep within the velocity of the original (GGG ) surplus.
At least that way I know it should be safe to shoot for a good long while.
Finally the serious issue has been grasped by several shooter/owners. The chronograph and starting loads from the reload data sheets are your friends with several other tricks learnt from hand loading over the last 50 years. You may find very interesting chronny data on 303 cordite loads(because I could) that are difficult to replicate on a drop sheet with modern powders. DONT mix your brass large pressure/velocity spikes can and do appear. Treat the L42 gently and it will stack shots for a very long time to come
Could you expand on that please?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindi2
This is a basic for accuracy shooting. Even the same headstamp may not be the same as one lot number of brass. Sometimes hard to get same lot number though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindi2
Surpmil. I bought a Chroony in the 70s for several reasons. One being serious pressure problems I was having with a .243/303 I had built. The velocities were way higher than they should have been with way smaller chargers. Thankfully the problem was found and corrected. The next step was reloading suitable ammo for the 303 in other words matching the military load with civie components. Cordite loads roughly averaged 2440 FPS ES was wide. Easy I thought just load to that FPS and all would be good. Bad luck the loads did not match the sight marks for Mk7. Ok try some pulled Mk7 in front of my loads no joy even getting into scary territory. I could replicate the FPS with low ES but not the range setting. One thing I did find was that some recommended powders should not be. There is something with cordite and the Mk7 that is not with other components in military barrels ,heat is one. As others have found using hand loads for range use make your own drop chart. Use a chronny your rifle will be different the start load in a book may well be your maximum. I have turned OBBT Mk8 into OB Mk7 with some success.
The journey as a hunting rifle boils down to the 303 is not a varmint rifle using light projectiles ( though I do have loads) it loves 174 to 215. Tuning the mag lips for different projectiles becomes a PITA.
Mk8 was not recommended for No1Mk3 only emergency use.( The ROs did jump from a great height, ex RSMs & CSMs) That gives you absolute max which is about where the L42 using 144gn NATO is in a better action.
The L42 use is like a hunting rifle firing a few shots a day not a lot of shots every day. It was a cheap Government solution that pushed the boundaries of limitations.
Interesting Bindi2, as am not a reloader, at least not yet. So some of the combustion and pressure characteristics of cordite are not duplicable with propellants available to civilians; or not any at all?
I suppose the Textbook of S.A. 1929 has info on this; will have to look.
I couldn't imagine not reloading.
When I started reloading there was only one book here in Ozz. Cordite does not appear to have a comparable match. A lot of other military powders are not available to the hand loader but have near matches. Todays art of reloading makes me wonder why I didn't hear about blow ups back then doing some of the things we did through lack of knowledge. Most things have improved, some things will be around for another 100yrs some wont make 50yrs
I don't think there have been as many blowups as there are stories about them. I think the internet amplifies the stories.
I certainly have seen more modern rifle blowups than military rifles like no milsurps at all worn out yes.
I did hear about one incident lately at our range where an individual blew up his rifle, was his third time they said. Don't have any idea what he'd done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindi2
Amount of times you here of re-loaders being distracted on the job and forgetting where they were at!! Probable cause or head space issues :thup:
Third time?? He clearly bears a charmed life.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Payne
Definition of insanity (Albert Einstein) : "doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result"
Ye-gads, man. Must be a dyslexic reloader. Needs to take up knitting as a hobby.
Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
Have to say, thats sounds to me like stupidity three times with the same issue. Perhaps he needs to invest in a crossbow...................ah maybe not, he'll probably make an arrow out of a full grown tree, and try and shoot it :madsmile:
When I am duty Range Officer, I always check weapons before they are unpacked and also ask those that reload if they are happy with their bondook! No different to an Armourer who pulls the working parts back as he passes you your weapon out of any Military armoury and you then check that it is clear too!!
Last weekend, one of our club members who shoots with another club as well, showed us the photos from a couple of months ago at his other club of the remnants of his 7.62 Parker Hale, and the bloody hand and face shoots when it blew up on him.
Case failure from reloading brass too many time he thinks......first time he's had a problem in 40 years of re-loading he said :rolleyes:
I was supervising a young probationer a couple of years ago during a club gallery shoot and the old guy to his right had his Marlin lever action blow up on him, and it really put off the young lad (was ex-Cadet Forces) and he never came again. We were double tapping in 3 sec exposures on this detail, and the guy had clearly got distracted reloading and not put any powder in a round, and the primer fired the bullet about 6 inches down the barrel, and he didn't twig the sound change before cycling another 'good' round into the chamber and firing and blew the top of the barrel apart like a can opener.
:surrender:
Thanks everyone,
In concretizing the ammo trouble here: we receive in CH - not since a really long time - in the bulletweight until 150 gr only the really expensive Norma 150 gr Jaktmatch .308 Win. This is a hunting Match Load, I know the .30-06 Springfield-Example. A good cartridge in my Winchester M 1895 Grade I, but an Lee-Enfield Enforcer or an L42 A1 are something really different.
Earlier we had a bit of MEN .308 Win. 147 gr Mandalay-Match and MEN 7,62 mm 147 gr Sniper - but that stuff has all gone.. Already 20-25 Years ago.. I didn't use my two boxes of them until now, Collectors-Ammo..
Vintage Hunter: Thanks ! PSI- and Loading Data, that's what i really need.
30three: this differences for the 52'000 CUP-Calibers are not only a bit odd :-) , the are annoying. Therefore I'm asking - not reloading without care. I'm a bit surprised, that this still can be as unclear as it is after all this years of use. I own my Enforcer now since 28 Years and it should stay alive for as many years more as possible.. I didn't shoot it often. The test in a German Gunmagazine 1992 mentioned beside 147 gr-Ammo as well as 168 gr MEN- and Norma-Matchloads and Reloads with 168 gr SMK and Lapua 185 gr D46, too. Accuracy was from 18 mm, 21 and 27 until 52 mm for 5 Shots at 100 Meters, by the way. That means 0,708-2,047-inch-groups. Really impressive, I found
I'm in contact with the Magazine-Team, for getting as much as possible ammo-experience and reloading-tips, too..
Have all a good evening
Best regards
Enfield Enforcer
GeeRam case head separation dose not blow up rifles. I have had it with first time fired brass in generous LE chambers. It was poor quality brass made to minimum SAAMI specs. Binned that lot. Also had it in many times fired cases. Blow ups are caused by barrel obstruction, wrong powder (to much of too fast) or secondary explosion not enough powder. The bullet is the safety valve when it stops moving the next weakest part moves or the pressure builds too quickly for the valve to move enough to reduce the pressure.
Crimping will also cause case head separation when loads are on the upper end .
Running a loaded round into a body die with the wrong depth shell holder.
The list goes on.
A squib load can cause 'catastrophic failure' when the next round is fired.
I seem to remember that it is thought to be the reason for this :-
November 2019 - "I'm sure a bit of duct tape will sort it"
Click to enlarge
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ure51119-1.jpg
Perhaps he did but the man beside him didn't. There were serious injuries sustained to an onlooker. Individual offender was banished and a letter sent to surrounding clubs to warn them he would be looking to join.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Payne
A d E Perfect example of secondary explosion.