Printable View
I have an No 1 marked EY that closes on a no-go and has just a slight resistance on a field gauge. I believe that means it is unsafe to shoot.
I see a .22 lr conversion drop in kit on gunbroker for a No1 with barrel liner and bolt. Would that be a choice for this gun, to make it a .22lr?
First, you will have to tell us the SIZE or rim thickness of the gauges you are using. The terms no-go and field have no real meaning in the technical world.
Gauges are from Okie Headspace Gauges
no go 0.0655
field .074
I have the same set and while my No.4's all "pass" my 1918 No.1 will close on that "No-go" and can be made to close on the "field" with some force, however under normal pressure it will just barely not close. I suspect the headspace is approaching the .074 threshold on that rifle. In the interest of safety I fired a number Winchester factory loads with a lanyard, all of the cases were in good condition and bolt operation was smooth. I proceeded with 30 more fired from the shoulder and had no issues.
I am certain you will have some professional feedback from Peter, however based on reviewing the specifications in the Skinnerton book, I am not certain the Okie gauges are the best fit for judging LE actions.
I have actually become interested in .22 WWII trainers, so wonder if even if it is not safe to shoot .303's what about a .22 kit for it?
I can't comment on the sub calibre adaptor but your okie gauges you mention do not match anything in the world that I inhabit I'm afraid to say...... All the books, pamphlets, heresay, your mates expert opinion etc etc do not overrule the Armourers bible
The GO gauge, over which the bolt WILL/MUST close for your No1 rifle is .064"
The NO-GO gauge over which the bolt will NOT close is .074" There are no other gauges of any consequence. And the acid test of whether the bolt is 'closed' or 'nearly closed' in regards to the .074" gauge depends on another important test.
I am in a meeting right now but will go upstairs with the .074 gauge and try it again. I think it will just close on it but don't remember exactly.
My question I guess if it is not safe to shoot .303 through it, how about .22 lr with a kit that is a bore liner and separate bolt?
Is there an explainer on the test you mention above I could read, or could you elaborate if there isn't one already written, I am rather keen to learn as much as I can. Expert knowledge is getting very rare and local gunsmiths are more scope fitters and Remington Model 700 bolt polishers, a Lee-Enfield is not something many of them know much about. Case in point illustrated by the Ishapore rifle discussion here a few days ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
About the Okie gauges, I was at first a little dismayed when my No.1 "failed' the No-go guage, then I flipped open the Skinnerton book to read on the original standards and see if I could learn what the next course of action might be for that rifle. It was then that I discovered exactly what Peter had posted above, the 0.065 gauge is meaningless to Lee-Enfield rifles.
All very good discussion here.
OK
I am back downstairs, my gun room is cold. Anyhow, the No 1 will not close on a .074 gauge. I could probably force it but it will not close.
I am still concerned it is marked EY, exactly what does that mean?
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...xj1gjpds-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...6cuyrysc-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...wsmq0w9o-1.jpg
Mates, correct me if I'm off base, but I thought EY meant at some stage in the rifles life it was for Emergency Use Only, which could be due many reasons, such as barrel wear etc. Still functioning and safe for limited shooting, but not battle service ready.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Cartwright
FWIT, I recently sold a DP'd Long Branch with a bulge at the end of the barrel to a gent who is boring out the barrel, inserting a .22LR sleeve with conversion kit.
You are pretty well on the nail with that Seaspriter. In UK service when the last EY rifles were inspected, repaired and rebuilt for War Reserve, the only mechanical difference between an EY rifle and the standard rifle was a relaxation in some trivial criteria and the fact that the barrel viewing and bore gauge criteria were slightly reduced. CHS remained the same
PeterQuote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
So it won't close on a .074 gauge then it is safe to shoot?
Yes, according to the headspace check it it is safe to shoot in that regard.
Back to your point about getting interested in .22 trainers... if you did buy an aftermarket sub caliber kit and installed it on your rifle, all you would have is an ex functional .303 with an aftermarket sub caliber kit. I would suggest it's true value would drop well below the sum of the two items.
As a collector and shooter I can understand the attraction to the trainers, but it is the genuine military .22 models, not bodged up old clunkers. I know of plenty who have gone down the road of spending lots of money (albeit a little at a time) trying to make silk purses out of sow's ears when they could have bought the real thing for less than their total expenditure if they had been patient.
...just my 2c...
Son I think you are correct. I have 4 US Trainers M2 513-T 42M(b) 44US and a Enfield I got from SOG that looking at the barrel it looks like it is not an insert but an entire barrel. I had posted it here some time back. I guess that will be enough I will stay away from the kits.
I agree with Son. I feel that an EY rifle is another of the authorised and accepted official variants of the rifle and collectable in its own right. We don't know if it is still wire wrapped but if it isn't, I'd re-wrap it and that way you'll have a valuable variant of the breed. You won't win any shooting prizes as the barrels were gauged to a lower standard but still a valuable rifle.
The ones we had in War Reserve up to the early 70's were stamped EY in the usual places and marked with a yellow EY on both sides of the butt
Another issue judging from the photographs is the forend looks like it has the cursed split. It looks like the right hand side is well proud of the reciever and its started to migrate off the brass reinforcing pin. Could be because of the camera angle and flash but you might want to check it out before you shoot it again.
I had a .22 kit and I agree with the advice from Son. I later sold the kit for less than I paid.
I don't see any indication that it was ever wire-wrapped. I picked this one out of the 4 they had because I had a .303 round with me and I tried it in each muzzle and this was tightest one. It also had the best looking bore.
the photos I am adding and I can take more, what is the "cursed split"
---------- Post added at 07:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:04 AM ----------
What is the split? I can take more pics - also sounds like there are not THAT many EY's and as was said it does have an interesting history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smellymarkfive
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...c6o3akab-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...xj1gjpds-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...5qvkrrab-1.jpg
Regarding the potential crack comment, some later Ishapore forends seem to be thicker than their earlier counterparts and stand well proud of the cheek. From your side shot it appears the rifle has the usual "Ishapore Screw" as opposed to the more substantial cross-bolt seen on many dedicated Ishapore Grenade Launcher rifles. I'd be happy to have that one in my collection as is and, when you get it to the range, you may find it's reasonably accurate in-spite of the EY status.
Ridolpho
If you take the forend off ( which you should always do before taking the butt stock off) there is a metal plate called the keeper plate that the butt bolt fits into. Often the receiver end of the forend can split there because that's a weak spot, and sometimes if anyone tried to take the butt off before the forend a turn of the butt bolt can cause the end to split as it distorts the keeper plate. The brass pin that goes through the rear of the forend was to reinforce and prevent that split from happening.