Printable View
Ive read a few comments in my travels of google that the steel of the Savage made receivers was better quality (no defination of what that means mind). Since it looked like the comments came from Americans where everything is always better, it may well be bull....or is there some truth to this?
I would lose no sleep over this. US steel specifications would be to US SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) which are a very detailed receipt of the various components needed to make various grades of steel and outlines the physical performance specifications to be expected from this grade of steel. UK has callouts that are compatible but historically have been a little looser in definitions of ingredients and performance. UK drawings often use specifications relating to the name of the manufacturer and his definition of mild steel etc. I could never get a clear understanding of what they did if the company went out of business. Either way the job got done in an outstanding manner. Certainly standards would have to have been relaxed at times due to enemy action.
It's not just the steels.
The heat-treatment is vital in achieving the correct hardness, "springiness" etc.
Over the years I have noticed that the single component that I have seen fail catastrophically, most often, is the cocking piece on No 4s.
These mostly break just forward of the grasping portion at the rear. ALWAYS, the failed component shows a coarse crystalline stricture on the surfaces of the fracture.This clearly indicates poor heat-treatment (or VERY poor material) of the component. Poor machining can also leave "scratches" on the surface: these turn into "stress risers", ESPECIALLY after hardening, and are a good place for cracks and breaks to start.
The cocking piece is meant to be differentially hardened: The rear has to be just soft enough to run "chaser" taps through for final thread cleaning, the middle has to be tough enough to resist wear at the "safety" notches and the little safety stud on top, and the front has to be ALMOST "glass hard" to provide a robust and long-wearing surface for the engagement of the sear.To achieve all that in a component as small as the cocking piece is a challenge, more-so because it is not just a simple, flat, rectangular bar of steel.
The final thing is that the finished, heat treated component should not be warped or otherwise distorted by the process.Note that in the SMLE series, every "steel" component was made from a tightly specified "mild (low-carbon) steel or "malleable cast iron" and "alloy" steels were NOT permitted as substitutes except after testing for suitability by the government testing laboratories. This was the case even when desperate times brought about the "peddled scheme" (hundreds of small sub-contractors).
Obviously, the same should have applied to The No4, but by the late 1930s, "alloy" steels were in common use in all similar industrial processes. Not only is the material important, but the heat treating regime is CRITICAL. When the 'instructions talk about "cherry red" does that mean in a gloomy shed or an outdoor forge? The advent of controlled conditions and the magic of the pyrometer eventually tidied that issue up, but not before BILLIONS of components for all manner if things had been made.
It's not just firearms; the technology of the gunmakers made steam power and the motor industry possible. Precision boring, honing, differential heat-treatment etc all originated the the gun business, as did the idea of interchangeability. And then there was the required degree of precision and its effect on metrology.
Final catch: steel (and all iron products) AGE. The crystal structure is only partially "frozen" the last the last time it comes out of a furnace. The tendency is for the crystals INSIDE the component to GROW, very slowly over time. This is common to all iron-based alloys and is a good reason NOT to be dry or otherwise firing your three hundred year old flintlocks; the barrel probably won't burst but there is a good chance you will break the "cock" (hammer). I saw that happen to a near-mint 1700s vintage Naval pistol a few years back; not pretty, and VERY hard to repair!
Yes interesting how armaments has so often driven or been behind technological change.
regards
Your description is as good as any workshop processing lecture I have heard Bruce. And everyone out there in forumland, please read - and read again that last paragraph.
Thanks Bruce
What's the deal with Steel and corrosion Pre/Post nuclear detonation. I read somewhere steel now requires additives to keep from rusting faster??
Edit=This is what I'm talking about, steel prior to detonation is not contaminated. Doesn't pertain to no4's but kinda neat to know that even steel produced today is "Radioactive" and not as "pure" as the day before Trinity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel
Comments regarding the "aging" of steel are an eye opener. I tended to think of metals as impermeable and not subject to low temperature recrystallization. I've heard of hydrogen embrittlement, facilitated by hydrogens ability to diffuse through the lattice- is that what's happening? Now that the concept has been broached the question must be asked- is aging of gun quality steels an issue at the time scale that concerns us- ie 100 to perhaps 200 years and in barrels/ actions of breech loading high powered rifles?
Ridolpho
I thought the Swede's said they had the best steel? I guess it's all in who you talk to.
When I was being thumped to learn a passing understanding of Metalurgy as part of a mechanical engineering degree, several things are remembered with no memory of why but they do remain:
1. Only steel is considered to have an infinite life (if the iron moths stay away). I was told Aluminum has an effecive life of 40 years. Memo to those who gad about in WWII period airplanes. Interestingly, I was never exposed to how to work this information into calculations or factors of safety or how the failure mode would develop.
2. Nylon thread is stronger in tension than equivalent steel. We don't make buildings out of nylon as it sucks in shear (shear--grab material in one hand pull to you and push away with the other hand)
I miss my materials/fasteners section at Ford Motor. They always could help with problems like these.
=======Quote:
Originally Posted by breakeyp
It depends on the steel. Mild Steel will probably last a long time....fancy high tensile steels on the other hand do age. Take HY80 (if I recall that designation right) its a high grade tensile steel used for sub hulls, but over time it laminates from the pressure changes, so after say 20 years the sub cant dive as deep safely and is in fact scrap...
Really? Have you talked to a Brit lately? Spitfire, Mosquito, Lancaster, Enfield, .38-200(!), ALL the best! Or a German- K98, MG42, ME 109, steel, optics, music- all the best! Or a Frenchman- music, food, language, style- all the best. I think in fact the only nationals that are NOT braggarts are Canadians, Yanks, and Italians. Oh, and Aussies.Quote:
Originally Posted by ssj
Sorry, not meant to be a flame but I do get annoyed with stereotyping.
A lot of HY80 is used in surface ships as well. They have a projected life span of 30-40 years.
Surface ships dont dive often....not more than once anyway.
Swedes didn't quite get it right on this '96 :eek:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...elugs1vi-1.jpg[COLOR="black"]
---------- Post added at 12:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:30 AM ----------
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...elugs2vi-1.jpg
Sufficient unto the need. My LE has served me quite well throughout my well extended life and I think I´ll stick with it for what´s left of the rest. Mausers are much better made and LEs are a bit rough around the edges. But that´s life.
PS
@ bob4wd: "I think in fact the only nationals that are NOT braggarts are Canadians, Yanks, and Italians. Oh, and Aussies."
Are you really sure about that?
Bob4WD, if, speaking hypothetically, "Canadians, Yanks, and Italians. Oh, and Aussies" were to turn their hand to being "braggarts" (which of course has never happened, and never could happen...), what subjects would you recommend they should boast about? They'd have just too many choices, I expect.
I've not seen any documentation on intergranular growth in steels yet, plenty on "fatigue", which often looks like some sort of embrittlement. Would enjoy seeing studies, though, if y'all could link some. ASME, SAE, ASTM, etc. or other countries' equivalents.Quote:
Originally Posted by breakeyp
As for the degradation of aluminum alloys, it must be an environmental thing. The usual mechanism being "intergranular" corrosion. There's plenty of WWII bits at the shop which are brittle as can be. Other pieces of the same alloy are not badly degraded at all, but are from different recovery sites. As far as a 40 year life, there's 1930s DC3s still at work, and subject to FFA commercial inspections. Not to mention DC9s, B52s, etc.!
When I heard these things I was a Junior and afraid to question what I was told. They just stuck with me. I remember he was specific about short life of aluminum.
As for submarines, the diving and surfacing results in hull expansion and contractions which are the same a work hardening. The same as bending a piece of wire back and forth and it will eventually break.
I wonder how they determine metal fatigue other than looking for cracks? metals investigatins tend to be after the failure. I am under the impression that the old planes are less in number flying every year. Crashes or failed frame annuals? Not my area of expertise.
You miss the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by villiers
Not a metallurgical engineer, but my company employed one and spent many happy hours talking about steel with him (we use a lot of stampings, our engineer was a ex GM automotive engineer named Frank Mittal). We also had the 17 volume ASAI metals manuals and I have spent many an hour tracking down some factoid or in an attempt to understand some issue related to steel use.
I do not ever recall him saving that steel had an end life. When we spoke of failures the primary thing I recall was ductile (shape change) and fracture failures (broken part) both had to deal with the elastic modulus of the part being exceeded. Thus a part that is too brittle will fail as a fracture when the elastic modulus is exceeded, while if the part is sufficiently ductile it will fail in shape, rather than in a fracture.
Now as the steel ages the degree of hardness will change as I recall, depending on the heat treatment, composition and the environment it is stored in. Also corrosion will affect the strength of the steel.
In older pain carbon steel parts, the degree to which phosphorus and sulfur inclusions exceed the proscribed steel composition will have a large effect. For example many of the defective low number M1903 rifles that had fracture problems had excessive sulfur and phosphorus content, to the degree that in some cases there were noticeable inclusions within the steel grain. That would most surely affect the long term stability of the weapons steel integrity.
Certainly in order arms of the 19th century the ability of the mills to regulate the impurities was sufficiently lacking that the issues raised by folks here might result in some failures due to internal flaws induced by inclusions to grow over time. This would most certainly apply to Damascus iron barrels, with the many inclusions that they are known to contain.
In any case from what I have read about Mauser Werke and its use of low carbon steel after about 1910, as long as the steel was within the proscribed limits of the raw material, the weapons does not suffer from more than light surface corrosion and the loads fired are within the pressure envelop, you will have a service expectation far past our lifetimes based on steel life alone. The rifles will wear out 5 to10 barrels under normal service before the internal wear on the lug surfaces reduces the action to scrap.
bob4wd I think your wrong on only one point, our friends up north say they have the BEST beer and hockey players!!!
Oh, Aussies can brag about their food,,,,I just love Outback steak house!!.....;)
This is very true but 9,000 ton ships traveling at 20+ knots for hours and some times days at a time in all sorts of sea conditions will impart some severe stresses of its own.Quote:
Originally Posted by ssj
I can't argue with any of that!Quote:
Originally Posted by WarPig1976
regarding how heat treat was done in the day might be very informative if someone can expand on it. I have been told that some work was done by reading the heat colors of the part as it was heated and cooled. It it was done in batches of parts, I can see that part location during the process and how the heat was evenly distributed would affect how the heat treat proceeded. I don't know when temperatures could be read by instruments. I don't know when they started heating parts in molten sulfur baths.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelhardt
An old Esso tanker I was on (270,000 Tons DWT) you could see the whole deck flex, from the cargo control room, (to the none seafaring types) this happens on all ships and is called hogging and sagging, this is one of the main stresses on any vessel, I,m not going to copy from my Naval architecture notes mainly because I cant read my own writing, but see link below, regarding the steel etc.
I cant remember the steel used on the hulls of the Trafalger, and Trident class subs but is on the high side for yeald strength going off memory.
Strength of ships - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This was the first sub I worked on at the yard as a test and commisioning engineer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelhardt
HMS Trafalgar (S107) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I worked on all of that class, plus the hull of the first Trident and I think also the first 2400 class hull sections. So 26 years active about what I remember from the hull design criteria.
Now it quite possible surface ships have issues, but cutting out a bit and putting in new is pretty easy, on an aging pressure hull, no. It also doesnt mean that such a sub is OK one day and not the next, it means as she ages her operational depth is reduced and it was policy not to dive deep unless needed to lengthen its service life. The main thing is quietness and its passive detection capability, which was about the best in the world.
---------- Post added at 11:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:21 AM ----------
HY80 or the british equiv.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigduke6
---------- Post added at 11:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:24 AM ----------
As the hulls were made they were xray'd.Quote:
Originally Posted by breakeyp
All sorts of NDT methods. Visual, penetrant, ultrasonic, magnetic particle, eddy current, Xray, just to name a few. Aluminum has no lower stress limits at which cracks will not propagate under cyclic loads, unlike steel, so that complicates things a bit. But as far as predicting failures, experience and testing seem to be the usual methods of catching drams before it's too late. Life limits and all that.Quote:
Originally Posted by breakeyp
ETA:For powerplants, that's about it as far as approved methods go, except for Thermographic NDI (used for composites), but that's not something with which I'm familiar.
ssj, I only remember the hull sections getting x rayed after each section was welded, I worked on HMS Trenchant , HMS Talant, And HMS Vanguard, on Vanguard was mainly involved with the the missile section and the deck sections when I was in the MAS shop.Quote:
Originally Posted by ssj
When were you in Barrow ?
Cool, how is old barrow? I was so glad to leave, loved the Lake district though, I was there 83 to 86 or 87. Welds yes that is correct, should have been more specific I guess, though I thought they did a bit more, I didnt go near the xray stuff much. Ssn17 was hull sections, Vanguard was hull sections I think but might have been ssn18, or both not sure now, one curved piece of steel looked like another after a bit when testing the lifting eyes. I was on ssn16 for its launch, think it was 16, did work for 14 and 15, weapons on one, dont remember which it was 25~30 years ago. I left before they did the new huge building / hall with the lift.
I started in the training school in 86 (next to the bridge) first sub was HMS Trenchant was in propulsion and hull services from training school.
lived outside Barrow, small village (Kirkby-in-furness)and after apprenticeship went off to sea. Like you say lakes was nice, to me the Best thing about Barrow was the road out....
The next time anyone comments about going off thread or going off at a tangent on the forum, I'm going to remind them of this lively thread...........
It certainly explains why I feel nauseous/seasick after the first day of the military rifle matches.
I always thought it had something to do with alchohol, but I can tell the wife that it's the steel treatment now.
Thanks guys.
There is a number you can ring regarding alchoholQuote:
Originally Posted by muffett.2008
Home delivery?
Think it´s all about not having to go through all that "weak action on the No 4" again ... not being able to shoot wet ammunition etc. etc. I never used to fire wet ammunition or oil the cartridges but do it now, just to see what happens. It´s boring! BTW, the main difference between Mauser and DWM Parabellum pistols (apart from DWM´s better finish) seems to be developments in heat treatment during WWI. My DWMs definitely do suffer from brittle metal breakages.
Speaking of oiling cartridges, I don't 'oil' cartridges but I do lightly lube them to reduces case to chamber wall grip which eliminates case head separation. Been doing that for the last 35 years. A niggling question remains; although there is no immediate sign of load damage, how is early Lee Enfield steel with regard repetitive stress? What would the difference in life be between full factory pressure loads and milder loads? My theory is that light lubing actually reduces shock loading by allowing the case head to settle onto the bolt face earlier in the pressure curve but the case does still grip the chamber. Anyway, it's about modern alloy steels and earlier medium/low carbon steels which are carbonised during heat treatment.
I'd almost suspect its expotential. I will only be shooting one gun at 100m and another to a max of 600m so I'll run as light a load as I can to save barrel wear and stress, think Im allowed 6% under.
In terms of moving / lubing Id say the entire reason of the case expanding and gripping the barrel is to act a) as a pressure seal, spread the load over a greater area and not overload the bolt and its lugs, but I'd defer to others...cheaper to replace cases than bolts and face/eye balls.
btw Im in Wellington.
I'm in the big smoke. How have the quakes been affecting you? My only felt tremor was from Motutapu of all places.
Not quite on topic but aside from obvious damage from overloading or excess clearance, I'm wondering how well these old MLE actions would stand up with ageing and use - I have a few but I don't intend to load them up to full power. I do paper patching for the old bores and that has lower pressure (and higher velocity) than factory loadings but I won't be going that high anyway.
On topic, has anyone seen a No4 with bolt set-back and flaring or burring of the recoil recess face edges?
Lightly lubing the case is not different to polishing the case or having a smooth or polished chamber. I've heard of rifles being 'proofed' by oiling the cartridge and firing it. A proof load is 25% normal load while oiling is at best 10% with a 308 which is a stronger case. Light lubing does indeed spread the load over the length of the case reducing shock loading. Shock loading can produce a momentary load double or even treble the static load. That's a hammer blow. Think of excess head-space clearance - it causes bolt set back and flaring of the locking lug recess but doesn't break the action (not all the time anyway). A perfect example is firing a rifle with the butt loosely held versus pulling it in tight. The loose one will bruise (or smack the nose and/or upper lip). That's what happens when the case grips forward then suddenly releases under load versus one that grips, but settles back at lower pressure.
I have one action that has suffered the hardened surface of the locking lug recess thrust faces flaking off and burrs form on the inside edges as the bolt has set back. Pressures could not have been all that high as the bore is oversize although it may have been a large number of cordite shots fired that made it that way in which case the action is just worn out from age. However, had the head-space clearance not been excessive in the first place that damage would not have occurred. But it's an 1896 vintage and it's not the original barrel. I've seen a SMLE with excess head-space that was continued to be fired, lock the bolt with the burrs formed on the recess thrust faces (much worse than mine).
Comments about lighter loads for the older Lee Enfields interest me. Given that many MLE's (and possibly MLM's) were eventually modified to shoot Mk VII ball (upgraded CLLE's and Converted Marks of SMLE's) I had assumed factory ammo would be OK. I have used Remington FMJ in my MLE and all seemed well other than zeroing issues. I can't see the MLE action body or bolt being weaker than the SMLE so unless the steel is different or a couple of decades of additional aging make a difference I would assume in a rifle in very good condition "full" loads can be used. However, I haven't fired my very solid RIC Carbine yet and now I'm wondering.............
Ridolpho
Somewhere in the WSRA rules (Wellington Service rifle Association) it says we are allowed to run 6% lighter especially for SMLE's and Long Toms.
"Reloads are permitted but must fit the service criteria and you must
not download ammo although a 6% reduction is allowed to limit
wear and tear on older firearms and not to gain an advantage in
rapid events."
"In the case of older rifles
(i.e. SMLEs, Long Toms etc) the reducing of loads is desirable due to safety
reasons but ammunition must not, in any case, be loaded down to such a level
that the shooter gains a recoil/recovery advantage over users of as-issued ball."
Hope this helps.
I concur. If anything the MLE's were/are stronger. Apparently the same steel specs were adhered to. Only the Ishaporian 7.62 NATO rifle used modern alloy steel. My 1902 MLE withstood nearly 500 rounds of MkVIII machinegun ammo without disintegrating. Admittedly it was a long time ago and the steel may have aged some since then .... :rolleyes:Quote:
I can't see the MLE action body or bolt being weaker than the SMLE
Who told you that the Ishapore 7.62 No1 rifles used modern alloy steels 303 guy? Some were simply converted from their previous .303" spec and the new-build were made using exactly the same steel mix - or certainly within the permissable paramaters.
Now that you ask, I don't recall. There was a discussion somewhere where that came up. I recall it being authoritative but not the actual source. Anyway, a quick search found the following in Wikipedia.
I believe it because the No4 can handle the 308 while the No1 cannot and the only real difference in the strength of the two is in the steel. That info came from a now deceased ex-armourer/gunsmith. He told me the No1 action would develop excess headspace when chambered in 308. I don't recall the details but he said someone tried it, I think as a test. I don't think it was he but rather it was at a place where he was - not sure now.Quote:
There were other differences to the Ishapore 2A/2A1 rifles that include the use of improved steel (to handle the increased pressures of the 7.62mm NATO round), and a redesigned extractor to cope with the rimless round.
The increased pressures were negligeable. I think it was 18.5 over 19 t/Sq" proof load at the time - using the same method (someone/Tony E/Bruce in Oz...) please feel free to correct me with the loads if I'm wrong. We analysed the steel structure between them as an interesting or relevant student project and there was no discernable differences at all. I wrote up a long paper on this a couple of years ago. Common myth that has perpetuated itself I'm afraid to say.
Well well! Is it possible the Indians were using a stronger than original spec steel already so no changes were needed? On the internet we find circular references with no reference source so it could be hearsay/myth that's been quoted as fact as you say. There is that niggling thing my uncle told me about the 308 modified No1 that set the bolt back (not a quick process but how many shots it took I don't know - I don't think he knew). Well, there must be a way of finding out for sure.
My understanding (which is open to correction) is that proof loads were 25% above normal and three such loads should not set the bolt back measurably. That would be a little above 7.62 NATO loadings but how many shots would a rifle operating close to its strength limit withstand? I don't know. It is said the No4 is a stronger action - strong enough to handle 7.62 NATO but with a smaller safety margin than a purpose built 7.62 NATO.
We know what the original steel specification for No1's and that strength is known as is the 4140 used in No4's so we have some sort of comparison. I don't know so I can't do the comparison.
In the meantime I'm going to erase what I thought was fact until proven otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 303Guy
The "stronger steel" comment originated in Edwards' book about "Indian Enfields"- but that book was written without any cooperation or data from the Indian authorities or from the Ishapore factory.
Proof loads are nowhere near the actual strength limit of the rifle. The No1 rifle is thought to be about ten times as strong as required by the the service load. The Textbook of Small Arms notes that No1s can withstand several 30T proof firings without any effects - thats more than 50% over the current .308W/7.62x51 proof test...
This thread continues to evolve! Don't you love it when an undocumented myth (better quality steel in Ishapore 7.62 rifles) becomes entrenched in the literature. There do appear to be two documentable observations however: 1) Lithgow No. 1 rifle conversions to 7.62 were tested and not found satisfactory, terminating the program (S.A.I.S. No. 19, Skennerton and Labudda, pg. 21,22) and 2) Many thousands of 7.62 No. 1 rifles were manufactured by Ishapore. Did the Indians simply choose to accept or live with the problems found in the 1000 round test rifles at Lithgow? Has anyone out there found severe headspace problems or small cracks (as described for the Lithgow test rifles) in well used 2A/2A1 rifles?
Ridolpho
I really don't believe that the Lithgow project to convert SMLE's to 7.62mm was anything more than what we call a 'look-see' development. And all that welding steel on the sides etc etc to reinforce what I ask? Anyone else think that they look like an amateur effort as opposed to true factory toolroom project. The L1A1 project was already agreed, funded and well in hand and additional machinery was already on its way ex Fazakerley. Nope........ Just doesn't ring true. And we already know from hindsight that the rifle was well capable of taking the extra load. Just my view of course looking at it from the bleedin' obvious point of view.
From what ive read elsewhere the Ishapore receiver was a higher grade of steel, you are the first ive read to say no....this place is turning into a real gold mine...thanksQuote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
;]
I've found where the 7.62 NATO conversion on SMLE's were done - Lithgow Australia. The tests were done on degraded rifles in which the action bodies were replaced with plain carbon steel bodies. Note the mean proof load pressure.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...37151453-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...37151457-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...37151459-1.jpg
---------- Post added at 02:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:15 PM ----------
This is the source of those pages;
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/atta...502346&thumb=1
I 'borrowed' these from another poster on another forum (I hope he doesn't mind - I didn't ask him).
I have actually had my sticky paws on one of the "failed" Lithgow conversions.
The reason if failed was that it was subjected to a diet of OILED proof rounds. That is a good way to seriously stress ANY action. The "blown" action had also been modified to accept FN/L1A1 magazines.
The original project was allegedly intended to produce a "second-line" rifle, with the L1A1 being general issue.
I suspect that whoever organised the oiled proof rounds had no intention of allowing a "second line" rifle into the system.
As for the materials used, I think I have posted the steel recipes from the "early" days, and 1938 here previously. I can dig them out again and let the metalurgists comment on the differences.
Is was an article of faith among target shooters that pre-1919 Lithgows were the "best" metalurgically speaking. This may have been related to the proportion of "vintage" Lithgows used as platforms for the "T" series.
The pages from the book I posted say they were carbon steel actions in lieu of the nickel-chrome steel actions. It says "the actions were degraded" . Oiling the proof cartridges would only ensure full load on the bolt face. I've never heard of oiling proof loads, only oiling regular loads to emulate proof loads.
Now if the proof loads developed the load they say and all of it was delivered to the bolt face, the fact that the rifles made from carbon steel held out as long as they did indicates that the normal nickel-chrome actions would survive service use. Remember there was one unmodified rifle in 303 which also suffered the same bolt set back as one of the 7.62 rifles, also after firing six oiled proof loads.
The reasons for these tests failing are obvious.
1. The use of substandard components in testing.
2. Heavily overproof rounds.
3. Opposition to the program from the proponents of the soon to be introduced semi-auto.
Most of us avid collectors who have indulged in serious research are aware of the myths surrounding the inherant strengths of steel in the receivers of the firearms within our collections.
Hence the time delay in mulling over each and every new query about these variables, much easier to just point the new questioner at the documentation, reading for yourself beats us trying to convince anyone with prefixed ideas, and after all, research is what it's all about.:thup:
What military would allow any bolt action rifle to be upgraded to a new calibre when the new calibre came with a new rifle in semi auto mode. NONE.
The No5 with the wandering zero myth, the Lithgow with too weak an action. The Indians proved otherwise. The no4 conversions are still on the ranges doing what they do best. The worlds armies went semi auto to keep up with the USA.
Stop being gentle Muff..
I apologize for dragging this out but it is quite interesting. Bruce in OZ- I located and read your old thread regarding materials specs for the '38 Lithgow SMLE. JMoore posts in that thread an elemental composition for the action body, as specified, that includes NI & Cr. So, is the "degraded" steel quote to be interpreted as meaning that some lower spec receivers were created to test the higher pressure chambering (seems bizarre) or simply that 1939 to 1953 steel was of lowered quality- ie "plain carbon steel" (it was wartime but that would be 415,000 rifles). Since the 7.62 program was to be a conversion program, not new construction, if the majority of available action bodies were of the "degraded" specs that would help explain termination of the effort. Finally, thanks to those out there that actually do basic or primary research and share the results with the rest of us. I can appreciate how difficult it must be to locate these old government documents. Unfortunately, for most of us, reading the available publications of true researchers is the best we can do.
Ridolpho
One (last?) thing: the very design of the LE action:
The left side of the action is a fairly substantial slab of metal into which is cut a recess containing a very small helical locking shoulder.
The right side of yej action is, by comparison, somewhat less substantial, but incorporates a very substantial shoulder which resists the thrust from a locking lug that extends along almost the entire length of the bolt body.
The actual "mating" surfaces are quite small on both sides.
Thus, if there is ANY inconsistency of bearing, the bolt will tend to twist sideways, one way or the other.
However, the very front of the bolthead SHOULD be partly contained by the rear breech ring, albeit with a small gap for the extractor slot.
IF sufficient pressure is applied, and IF anything is to "give" it will be the right side of the receiver/body. You will NEVER rip off the long lug on the bolt body and it is unlikely in the extreme that the right side bearing shoulder and its attendant metal would be sheared off. In the event of a catastrophic case failure, the brass case will rupture BUT, the venting of high-pressure gas will be mostly via the extractor slot and into the magazine. This is unlike a Mauser where a case rupture sends a large proportion of the high-pressure gas back down the left-side lug raceway. Hence the large shroud at the back of a Mauser bolt.
P. O. Ackley blew up a lot of "military" actions in an attempt to sort rumour from fact. I guess that his findings are posted somewhere on the net; if not i have his books at home somewhere.
I recall that he found that LE actions subjected to "excessive" pressure, failed by distortion of the RHS and not by exploding into fragments. Type 38 Arisakas (pre WW2 production) were almost indestructible.
I don't think anyone, anywhere has managed to find evidence of an Enfield receiver that has failed catastrophically - ie a burst with some fragmentation.
Plenty of old No1s have "died" on the range, but in their case the receiver gradually distorts until the problem is evident through bolt binding and boltheads jumping off the track. Given that old-time gunsmiths often used to "fix" these rifles by straightening them out with a cold chisel, one wonders if any Enfield has technically ever become unusable!
On the Ishapore 2A's, it seems that that Ishapore did indeed change the steel for the 2A's. From 1950 to 1965 they used a weaker grade steel which couldn't handle proof loads so they went back to the original EN steel (EN19 maybe?) That's what I gather from reading old posts and other sources.
Apparently Lee Enfield's fail catastrophically by buckling the bolt body and unlocking the bolt head from the receiver ring. Case fragments are what injure the shooter, or so I've been told. Stretching of the right side sounds reasonable to expect. It would be interesting to see photo's of such failures.
I'm interested in the strength of No4's. One hears about some being strong enough for conversion to 7.62 and other not. I wonder where that came from? Another myth or were there really poorly heat treated No4's out there?
The Lee Enfield is not a bad design for a military rifle. It has its flaws to be sure. That safety catch on the side of the receiver leaves a lot to be desired. The original bolt mounted safety was fine. It can get bumped off but not easily while the later safety was almost guaranteed to get bumped off. Then there is the likely hood of an AD if the trigger is depressed and the bolt closed onto a round rapidly as what happens when a cartridge is in front of the extractor. Never do that! In any case, the firing pin rests on the primer in that condition. There is a temptation to load the rifle with striker down then pull it onto halfcock which locks the bolt and sear - a great way to carry a gun on the ready. Wrong!
Quote:
Originally Posted by 303Guy
I think you are just picking up the usual internet myths there:
- There is no information at all so far in the public domain about how Ishapore built 2A/1s, or what steel they used, or in fact anything about their post-Independence rifle production at all. The Indians simply have not released any information whatsoever, and all stories about the "steel" appear to originate from a single supposition/ guess in Edwards' original manuscript. Examination of 2A and 2A1s show (a) many of the early ones are in fact rebuilt No1s, or use recycled No1 components (eg bolt heads); (b) the receivers of 2A1s and contemporary .303 No1s from Ishapore are identical (apart from the location of the ejector screw hole) right down to the tooling marks;
- IIRC there is no documented case of any Enfield having suffered a catastrophic failure using service or normal ammunition. The few tales of shooter injuries are largely hearsay and invariably involve a handload. If you can link to an actual documented incident, I think we'd all be very interested!
- IIRC there is no record from either UK proof house of any No4 failing a 19 or 20 ton 7.62/.308 proof test, nor is there any documented case of an issue in any of the thousands of converted rifles. As described earlier, government testing indicated that eve the No1 action was easily capable of withstanding repeated 30 ton proof. I have had many, many 7.62mm Envoy, L39, Enforcer and gunsmith target conversions through my "books", and most of them appear completely unaffected by a long and hard life of shooting. The "factory" 7.62mm rifles were mostly all breached up with "0" or "00" boltheads, and you will see that most of these rifles are still tight on what appear to be those original bolt heads.
I thought (hoped) that this discussion was history.
Regarding history, about the worst failure to date shared on this forum was relayed by Claven2 in the thread:Quote:
Originally Posted by villiers
Gallery of Dramas. Broken Enfield Parts!
See Posts #65, 71, 85, 88 et. al for photos and commentary. The bolt was ruined, but apparently some time later the owner had it shooting again. (See later in the thread.) If the action isn't rendered unservicable by such an over pressure event, then I reckon there's nothing much to fret over. Unless you like filling .303 cases with Bullseye powder under a 0.320" steel bullet!