.223 No.4 Revisiting

There was a thread (very interesting) about this some time ago. I am starting a new thread regardng some practicaliies of this. I have got hold of someone who will make and ship me a bolt head and striker. I can finagle / machine / file and deal with magazines and feeding over a long period. the sticking point is the barrel. I contacted Criterion about the possibility of threading a 223 barrel for the Enfield receiver as they clearly have the tooling there but costs seem to be crazy. Does nayone have any recommendations on teh barrel side of things. I ma in CA so west coast of USA is best.

I would just turn a barrel from blank...you could sleeve on the final few inches for the front sight if you want the service rifle profile.

I looked into this after shooting one of these rifles on Malabar range.

In the US where there are not a lot of gunsmiths used to working on the Lee-Enfield, the price becomes prohibitive, unless you are willing to do a lot of the work yourself. In particular setting up the Mini-14 magazine so it works can be a real pain unless the fellow doing the work has done one before.

it is actually a lot cheaper to make a 7.62 NATO enfield, there are more parts around and the set up issues are well documented. Down load the cartridge to around 2500 fps with a sierra 135 grain match kind and you have a fast, low recoil round that works pretty well out to 600 yards.

I am doing these conversions now. I just completed one yesterday. The barrel is as per any thread & chamber from blank job.

Whenever/usually when you get barrels factory threaded as one offs they cost heaps, and then you need to finish the chambering anyway which costs unless you can do it yourself. Far better to just buy the blank and do/pay for the installation locally.

Setting up the mini 14 mag requires the mag well to be opened up a bit to allow the mag to sit high enough for the bolt to pickup the rounds.

In terms of barrel recommendations, in the US take your pick, any of the reputable makers do good .223 barrels in a twist to suit your favored projectiles.

I was sorting out some stuff the other day and found a bolthead that I had counterbored for .223. I'll never use it, you are welcome to it. Send a PM with your mailing address.
A barrel option is to use a take-off. Compare the breech dimensions of a No. 4 with those of most sporting rifle barrels, and you will see that many can be adapted. These usually sell for C$100 or less. If you want original appearance, only "varmint" type barrels will be long enough to finish at No. 4 length. A section of salvaged No. 4 barrel can be sleeved onto a shorter barrel. This will allow an issue front sight unit to be installed. When the barrel shank is machined, remember to bring the barrel back a bit toward the boltface. You don't need the gap where the .303 rim fitted.

Sometimes you need to weigh up the time and costs, if you have time on your hands then your saving already, depending where you buy the blank from they will thread, profile and chamber but these add up, Walther will do all these but not for an individual you need someone who has a trade account with them...... but there costs for a profile are peanuts compared to quotes I,ve had, IIRC its around €50, myself I think this is worth every penny.

I have my own Lathe etc but no taper turning attachment so it does take a decade to get a decent profile, don't listen to anyone who says you just off set the tail stock......

Threading is a basic operation, a bit of practice on offcuts etc and you can produce a decent thread, as regards to the chamber its just a reaming operation, if you page down the link below you can see a thread taking shape etc. scroll down to part 5 or post #16. ( I must point out the work was secured with the tail stock when machining the thread, pics show it out of view, this was solely for taking the photo)

SMLE No1 MkV Restoration (Part's 1 thru 7)

I have no lathe so the work is being "outsourced" so i'd like to get a barrel which makes it easiest to complete and is hardest to screw up :)
Quick question - I am inclined to keep the No.4 Full wood look as opposed to going the shortened forestock 'L42 look' route, and outside of reaming out teh barrle channel I cant think of any other problems this might cause. Am i missing something obvious?

Depending on the outsourced ability, for a simple barrel just step it as in the link in my previous post, think Mauser K98 barrel....

Regarding bearing surfaces then I guess it trial and error, don't know if there is anything in the link below

Collecting and Shooting the Military Surplus Rifle - Surplusrifle.com

Ok i think I'm good to go now. Quetsion for all in the USA. Does anyone have a No.4 Mk 2 NON barrelled action and bolt set up that is in good condition ideally still with wood. I am certain that someone out there has one where the barrel was a sewer pipe and they took it down intending to re barrel or do some other project but never got round to it. Please PM me if this is you and your wife wants you to clean out your shed / basement / garage / spare room etc

Why not just place a WTB for a less than stellar example. I'd think that once completed you'd want to refinish it anyway, so this would make it look perfect.

My only worry is that a 'less than stellar' example may have been used alot and not lock up nice and tight like I want. Whereas its probable that there are little used rifles out there where negligence has killed the barrel but left the rest of it in pretty solid condition.

Always remember this with small-arms, especially when doing a barrel/calibre change, that there are 8 important sequences during the operation of a firearm. Cock, feed, load, lock, FIRE. Unlock, extract and eject. Getting it to fire is easy. It's the other 7 that are fraught with problems.

Learned the hard way at Enfield while doing the L4 project. The smaller the base rim diameter, the greater the feed problems

I am fully expecting to make many more posts on this subject Peter. and its probable that most will be asking for your advice. :madsmile:

Oh, no..............!

Coals to Newcastle?

Coals to newcastle? I will keep you psted during the project. or peter will with his commentary / abuse / advice :madsmile:

Things to consider:

STRIKER profile and protrusion:

As set-up for the .303 cartridge, the striker has VERY excess protrusion and excess diameter for the 5.56NATO / ".223". The tip profile should be "adjusted" to something akin to the AR-15 striker, otherwise there will be a LOT of weeping and wailing about punctured primers and the consequent "burning" of the striker and the face of the bolt-head .

The face of the bolt-head will need "modification" to maintain a close fit of the hole around the striker, to prevent more primer ruptures; the 5.56 cartridge runs at quite high pressure.

Magazines:

Mini-14 are close to ideal but with 3 caveats:

1. The magazine must be seated as high as possible to ensure the bolt actually scoops a cartridge from between the lips.

2. The mag must also be as far forward as possible to ensure the projectile has entered the chamber BEFORE the rim leaves the mag. lips

3. Closely associated with "2", is that the standard mag. spring force is somewhat too high for use in a bolt-action. Note how "limp" the standard Lee Enfield spring is, compared to an L1A1 or M-14. Too strong a spring and, as the rim leaves the mag lips, the back end of the cartridge will be suddenly forced upward by the following stack.

Note that the mags for the AI rifles also have, besides a different (single row) feed at the top, a somewhat "softer" spring than say, the M-14 mag.

I have thought about the "single column", "politically correct" mags for some of the "sporter" AK variants; anyone played with these?

As for ejection, spring-loaded plungers are good, but can ONLY be used if the bolt "face" has a complete "collar" like, say, the Remington 700 or has an "extension", like the lower part of the front of the M-14 bolt. The biggest issue is trying to get enough "grunt" in the tiny springs to heave out the empty. One solution is to fit TWO plungers, offset by about 90 degrees. There is at least one BOLT action sporter that has dual plunger ejectors. The axes of these plungers and spring MUST go back at such an angle so as to NOT cut out through the back of the main part of the bolt-head.

Alternately, you could fit a "rocking", spring-loaded blade ejector into the left wall of the body, just like the system on the old Lithgow-built, SMLE-actioned "Hornet" rifles.

Keep us posted.

Believe me Bruce, this rifle project will do some of the 8 important features in thread 12. It might do many of the features. But it ain't going to do ALL of them! Been there and tried it. But it never managed to DO 'em all!

I tried SA80/M-16 magazines and even cut up a TMH to use as the magazine interface......... Nope....... Wish I'd kept the TMH/rifle and deactivated it instead. Worth more than the scrap I was left with!

This is the target 8 I am aiming for : Cock, feed, load, lock, FIRE. Unlock, extract and eject. I am not too optimistic given Peter's experience but as the truck is in the shop for bpdywork for some months i have nothing to tinker regularly with so this will be my substiute.

What is the status of the Craig Whitsey 5.56 bolt head?

it willbe incoming if I gte around to sendi9ng a check. Work somewhat busy right now and I really want to get hold of the donor rifle also (this provides me an excuse to go check out gun stores and shows).

A current project amongst many other projects.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ecjorebo-1.jpg[/URL]https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...e4tiaxlk-1.jpg

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

Sht.22 Mk.IV* with chamber modified for .222 Remington.

It will be a single loader.

I'll let you know how this works out.

7.62x39 seems like a better and easier option, unless one has a rich uncle who provides 5.56x45 for free. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

7.62x39 seems like a better and easier option, unless one has a rich uncle who provides 5.56x45 for free. ;)

---

I have a junk 1921 Lithgow that was converted to a 10 shot 7.62x39 in No6 exp guise by Rob Spittles for my then 12yo son to shoot. Shot chinese surplus MOA with it! Just like shooting a .22. No wonder I am not allowed to use it in comps.:lol:
A bit like the "Tanker " project.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

7.62x39 seems like a better and easier option, unless one has a rich uncle who provides 5.56x45 for free. ;)

---

The rifle is a well beat sporter, drilled and tapped, but a genuine Mk.IV* with a full length solid .22rf barrel.

Simple task of reaming out the chamber and fitting a centerfire bolt head with the original .22 extractor. Seemed a lot easier to me than converting to 7.62 x 39.

No probs with extruding primers so far, the loads are mild.

It extracts and most times, the empty case just falls through the mag well. If it hangs on the bolt face, a nudge with the loading hand makes it drop.

I will be hand loading 45gr spitzers. I will see how the rim fire barrel stabilises the bullet and see how fast I can push them and still have accuracy.

Just doing it because I can. Not sure as to what form the finished rifle will take.

I was under the impression that 22rf barrels were of a smaller dia than 22 CF. I am aware that the Europeans have two sized barrels in 22hornet which unless you know can cause terrible pressure issues. That issue caused more than a little head scratching in the reloading room.

.22RF uses a nominal .223" groove diameter with a nominal .217" bore. The very early .22 centrefire wildcats (early Hornet, .22Lovell etc.), used .223 barrels for want of anything else. The .22 Hornet started out as a black-powder cartridge (.22WCF)many years earlier and is suspiciously similar to several European rounds of the late 19th Century. The clever chaps at Winchester simply picked up (again) on the work of wildcatters and went commercial. They had to use the rather large (.30-06 sized) Model 54 action because suddenly they had a little hot-rod that would potentially do evil things to many of the "small" actions (designed in black powder days) that were around at the time.

The other factor is twist rate. If you stick to short, light bullets, no problem. Trying to shoot any of the modern "slinky" bullets will result in VERY poor grouping because the slow twist of the "standard" Hornet will not stabilize them, especially at the sort of velocities obtainable from heavy bullets in a tiny case like the .22 Hornet or even the larger .218 Bee.

In a Lee Enfield action, I doubt you will have any problems with either the chamber pressure or the back-thrust from these minuscule cartridges.

I owned one of the Lithgow-built, SMLE-based, .22 Hornet repeaters for several years. NOT very pretty, but it shot very nice little groups. Excellent for keeping the crows off the new-born lambs on the relatives farm. The ammo I was using was Australian "Riverbrand" stuff assembled on Sako brass.

The magazines appeared to be the "Savage" design from the old Model 340, but I can't be sure. BIGGEST problem with the Lithgow Hornet was that the large exposed lead "soft-point" would occasionally snag during feeding. Being built on a SMLE action, it was quite a heavy rifle for its calibre, but very pleasant to shoot.

Update from me - I received a bolt head from a forummer here (thank you sir) and have ordered a barrel. Won't be seeing the smith who (may be) doing this work until Easter. Quick question looking for a measurement if possible. The No.4 Sight base has slots which slide over the two lugs are not machined away on the issue barrel. Can anyone please measure for me (accurately) the diameter of the barrel at this point ACROSS THE LUGS. Ie from outside of lug to outside of lug as if that was the external diameter of the barrel.
Attachment 70275

If you do not get an answer in the next 6 hours, I can take the measurement from my No.4 project rifle which is currently stripped and easy to measure. I can also sample another No.4 that I have just to verify.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...616711bb-1.jpg

Actual measurement is 0.731" on the front of the lug and it widens to 0.736" at the rear.

Does that answer your question?



Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

perfectly Thank you. Much appreciated.
charlie

Alrigty then - no.4 mk2 procured in "good to excellent condition". Haven't actually got it yet though. Quetsion which is probably a Peter one but someone else may know. Is there way to confirm that pressure is being distributed evenly between the two locking lugs when firing? Woukd uneven wear of finish be an indicator of it being slightly off kilter? Does this make a difference for accuracy?

To ascertain the equality of load between the locking lugs of the bolt and mating surfaces in the rifle, you need to go through the bolt fitting procedure where it speaks of blueing the surfaces. Yes, an uneven bolt DOES make a noticeable difference in accuracy. We have two tests for it.

Hello Peter, which part of your library has the tests in it?
Are they the same for the NOIMKIII and No4?

It's the part that relates to the correct fitting of a bolt and yes, the fitting of a bolt is identical. Maybe someone who's computer literate can resurrect it.

See link below

http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...0boltheads.pdf

Excellent information thank you.

Seems most unlikely that a Mk2 in very good condition would have uneven bolt lugs, but a glance at the bearing surfaces should give the answer: they're either polished from close and frequent contact or they're not.

Attachment 72777Quick update on this project. I procured a No.4 Mk 2 whihc i decided to keep as is. I then found another which had seen very little actual firing but was completely done as a collectors item. The muzzle are of the barrel had been left in water or something and was screwed with pitting up about half an inch up both inside and on teh exterior of the barrel, on the crown and muzzle etc. The only thing i can think of is that it had been stored muzzle down on a damp peice of fabric or carpet or something. Additionally the stock had been sanded poorly (even to the extent of sanding out serial numbers and the "L" for long buttstock, ending in there being a small divot where they used to be) and had then been varnished. I've stripped the varnish from the stock and used brass wool with Linseed Oil / Turpentine mixed 50/50 to somewhat refinish the wood and it drank a fair bit of the stuff on the exterior. The wood is completely solid, no cracks or dings anywhere. The barreled action with gunsmith to remove and machine and fit the new barrel which I got from Douglas barrels. mor ein another 6 months or so which is the next time i visit the city with the gunsmith.

I think that you were a bit rash to condemn the barrel for a bit of pitting at the muzzle. I think that you should have accuracy tested it first. Wew used to gauge barrel muzzles and if they were pitted but passed the barrel gauge test, we'd accept it, depending on the accuracy test.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

if they were pitted but passed the barrel gauge test, we'd accept it

---

I find that interesting, I'd have thought pitting would be a death knell...

I didn't condemn it because of the pitting, but I thought that it was a better rifle to change up for this project because of the stock and the muzzle condition. I also find it interesting that you wouldn't change a barrel that was pitted, but I have one that is that shoots really well so common sense I suppose. If it will hit minute of German....

I see the point BAR. But there's pitting and pitting. But if the rifle passes the muzzle gauge tests and the accuracy test then it passes! That is exactly the reason we only use 1 barrel gauge now. The .297 or 301 or whatever, must run freely and pass the standard accuracy pattern test. The days of condemning barrels simply on the say-so of the various gauges are long gone now (except on guns used for OHF for safety reasons) Clearly some deep pitting would be condemned at the 'visual' viewing stage.

Soime sewer pipes shoot like a dream. Others in seemingly new condition, pass all the gauge tests constantly fail to hit the target pattern

Hello - new member here who is looking to begin my own Lee Enfield No.4 5.56 conversion project. Little history: I fell in love with the SMLE about 8-9 years ago when I found an Indian wire-wrapped GF No.1 Mk3* that sat neglected on a local sporting-goods store for several months. After the fifth or sixth time catching my eye, I took it home with me. The LE action has been my absolute favorite ever since. About four years ago I also fell in love with the pleasure of shooting 5.56 out of AR-15's and bolt guns. But I could never find a bolt gun that felt "right" in that caliber. That gave me the idea to have a sportized Enfield converted to fire 5.56/.223 so I could have the best of ALL the worlds (milsurp wood/steel beauty, buttery action, modern ammo). The idea stayed just that for several years until I decided to finally start working on it recently. I scored a sportized/beater No.4 MK1/2 (FTR) for a great price (~$200 with shipping/fees) which should be at the LGS within a week.

On to my question: Any updates from the member here (newcastle) who was working on his .223 conversion a few months ago? This thread has already been a great resource and I am saving this information for when I start drawing up exact plans. But any updates on problems/progress would be great to hear.

zul, some serious testing has been done of 5.56mm barrels on SMLE actions with a view to replicating the "compensation" (reduced vertical dispersion of bullet strikes at long range) which was well known in the SMLE and No.4 in .303. The advantages you mention have been noticed by others.

Zul, just a word in your ears. It's called Base Rim Diameter......... It's simplicity itself to convert any centre fire rifle to fire any centre fire cartridge (within the safety parameters of course). The DIFFICULT bit is the rest of the must-haves. The UNLOAD (breech opening) UNLOCK (mechanical safety) EXTRACT, EJECT, COCK, FEED, LOAD and LOCK. Once you take all of those into account and try to fit them into the equation PLUS an action that was designed for a larg diameter base rim dia .303" cartridge, your problems become almost insurmountable.

Even the smaller diameter 7.62mm magazine conversion was a bit hit and miss until it was discovered that........ I won't bore you.......

I suspect that the reason this thread abruptly ceased some considerable time ago is because it's stalled through defeat and waning interest and............ and............ You COULD do it but only if a) you are already a very experienced mech/engineer/fitter-turner with a high degree of same as an Armourer, b) be prepared to spend at least a year and c) spend a LOT of money.

How do I know this............?

The link I posted in #8 seems the easiest way....... link below

Collecting and Shooting the Military Surplus Rifle - Surplusrifle.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Zul, just a word in your ears. It's called Base Rim Diameter......... It's simplicity itself to convert any centre fire rifle to fire any centre fire cartridge (within the safety parameters of course). The DIFFICULT bit is the rest of the must-haves. The UNLOAD (breech opening) UNLOCK (mechanical safety) EXTRACT, EJECT, COCK, FEED, LOAD and LOCK. Once you take all of those into account and try to fit them into the equation PLUS an action that was designed for a larg diameter base rim dia .303" cartridge, your problems become almost insurmountable.

Even the smaller diameter 7.62mm magazine conversion was a bit hit and miss until it was discovered that........ I won't bore you.......

I suspect that the reason this thread abruptly ceased some considerable time ago is because it's stalled through defeat and waning interest and............ and............ You COULD do it but only if a) you are already a very experienced mech/engineer/fitter-turner with a high degree of same as an Armourer, b) be prepared to spend at least a year and c) spend a LOT of money.

How do I know this............?

---

Peter, thanks for the reply. I am planning this as a long-term project - I figured it would take a year minimum to have it complete. Money isn't as big an obstacle as finding a creative and competent gunsmith/machinist (or two) to work with on the project. However I am located in a relatively large metro area that has many resources to sniff out.

Also my background is in 3D modeling and I have a basic understanding of metalwork and gunsmith process so a lot of the work (especially around the magazine) will be prototyped out with 3D printers first.

The bolt head should be easy - mill down the edge, silver solder a ring around it, drill out and fit a plunger ejector then mill out and fit an appropriately sized extractor. The magazine is going to prove to be the most troublesome aspect of the build, I think.

I have finished mock-ups. The completed rifle will have an 18" or 19" barrel and be fitted into a shortened forend. The barrel will be threaded to accept a suppressor. The top handguards and rear barrel band will remain intact but shortened, and the front fitted with a nose cap from an Ishapore 2A1 because I love those old nose caps. The stock will remain unmodified but will have either a molded kydex cheekrest, or a reproduction No.4(T) wooden cheekrest installed. There will be a very low profile scope rail permanently attached over the action in front of the sights to allow the use of a scope or red-dot. The rail will be low and forward enough to allow the use of the original aperture sights. It will look like a "modernized" (but not 'sporterized') military Lee Enfield. It won't be gaudy with plastic or quad rails or other AR-15 junk all over it. It will be classy and will pay homage to the great British rifle it came from.

My rifle arrived last week at the LGS. I have taken it home and looked it over. Bubba really did a number on it. It's dry as a bone but no rust - it came from the American Southwest and it appears to have benefited from living in a dry climate for so many years. A couple small parts on the rifle like the action screws and pins appeared to be fabricated in someone's garage after the originals were thrown away or lost. But I have already ordered replacement parts that should be here soon. I probably won't bother test firing with .303 because the barrel has been cut down in someone's garage and I plan to replace it anyway. I need to find another non-sportized No.4 MK1/2 because these rifles are so amazing!

Here is the mock-up I made. I actually made several variations - this is the one I settled on.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...69acwpng-1.jpg

Some thoughts on the breeching...
There is a gap between the bolt face and breech face of a .303 Lee Enfield. This is the space occupied by the rim of the .303 cartridge.
You do not want or need this gap in a .223 rifle. The bolt head can be lengthened (collar added), or the barrel shank can be lengthened to bring the barrel face back to the bolt face.
If the latter is done, the bolt face can be counterbored for the cartridge head recess. A new extractor would have to be made.
I would drill for the plunger ejector before doing any other bolt face work.
Accuracy International makes a superb single position feed 10 shot .223 magazine. I do not know if it is anywhere close to fitting a Lee Enfield receiver. I will check. If it can be adapted, the single position feed would avoid a lot of trouble achieving reliable feed.

"Accurate Mag" in the US make a 10 round, steel, .223 / .204 Ruger etc mag.

The trick is that, like the old Sako 75, the .223 part is an insert in a standard 7.62 / .308 "shell". this simplifies things for folks building on Remington 700, Surgeon, Savage 110 actions, etc.

Because the AM mag is set up like an AI mag, (double column tapering up to a single feed), it may be the way to fly.

Alternately, rustle up some after-market .223 mags for the old Remington 788. These are fairly simple, single column affairs and could be easily black-smithed into a larger "shell", be it a No4 or whatever. Ditto the old Tikka mags (and clones) of similar design. Regarding the "shell", the somewhat "squarer" Indian 2A1 magazine case might well be better suited for housing such inserts, and shouldn't take TOO much fiddling to lock into a No4.

Yet ANOTHER .223 mag alternative, for those living in reasonably enlightened places, is the single column 5.56 mag intended for the "politically correct" AK-based sporters.

Hello all.
The reason this stalled is because the gunsmith that was helping me out got sick and had an operations some months earlier in the year and he is the only one I know that has experience with Lee Enfields. I emailed his son to check up on condition on Friday oddly. This will probably be another 6 months or so before there is any significant movement on my end but I am still highly interested in it. However as Peter states, if it doesn't feed fire extract and eject consistently well it will just be an exercise in frustration, so I anticipate along road of tweaks and experiments.

I assume we are all thinking the same thing: insert selected .223/5.56 mag into .303 No.4 mag and braze or weld in place?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

braze or weld in place?

---

With aluminum mags? How's that going to work? Maybe a mini 14 mag would weld in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

I assume we are all thinking the same thing: insert selected .223/5.56 mag into .303 No.4 mag and braze or weld in place?

---

That is what i as thinking but the key i suspect will get getting it aligned perfectly before welding and then keeping it in EXACTLY the same position as one is welding it - we all know how finicky feeding is and the slightest wee movement will screw it up.

The AICS .223 magazine almost fits the mag. well on a No. 4 receiver. The front of the well must be opened out slightly. The magazine catch will probably work as is. The AICS magazine is .308 length. It will accept .223 cartridges with VLD bullets seated out.
I have a very indifferent receiver. Will open it out, see how this magazine will work. Somewhere I have a Sako varmint barel altered for the No. 4. Will be able to test feeding.

Took little cuts on either side of the magazine well, toward the front end, to allow the AICS magazine to come up into the receiver. The bolt will push the round forward nicely, but the tip of the bullet hits below the chamber. The magazine does not go all the way forward in the well; there is a gap of about 3/8". I think a feed ramp could be installed in this space.

Could you take many many pictures please and post them? Would the feed ramp have to be in the magazine or on the receiver?? Could it be shaped plate steel stuck down the front of the magazine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

With aluminum mags? How's that going to work? Maybe a mini 14 mag would weld in.

---

I wouldn't use aluminum mags, or if I did, I'd put an insert in the mag well instead.

But then I wouldn't bother with .223 at all. 7.62x39 using SKS-D mags: now that's an idea I like.

Most encountered .223 mags are AR, thus aluminum.

These look good: stainless steel, AR-Stoner Mag AR-15 223 Remington Anti Tilt Follower SS

hello world,
Discussion on the subject led me to start a "Lee-Enfield 5.45x39 build".
Peter"s comments drove me there.

Login

Sorry for my (non-native) English and for not posting my build here at first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magellan

5.45x39 build

---

Welcome to the forum...

This could be interesting too, the same length and twist basically.

Here are some pics of my homemade 5.45x39 mag.
It fit perfectly my spareAttachment 79042Attachment 79043Attachment 79044Attachment 79045Attachment 79041 LE receiver.

here are some pics of my homemade LE 5.45x39 extractor.

Attachment 79046Attachment 79047Attachment 79048Attachment 79049

it feeds and extracts flawlessly :dancingbanana:
But I am still working on the spring loaded ejector :crying:

Attachment 79051Attachment 79050Attachment 79052

Great pics. That gives us lots of food for thought about the conversions we'd have to do here. Appears you've built a whole new host mag body...

Here are more pics of my homebuilt 5.45x39 mag.
It hold five rounds.:)
Follower does not tilt.
Except the spring which is a section of used AR15 mag spring the whole thing is scratch built from scrap metal. (lot of filing, sheet metal folded and soft soldered)
You will notice that my cheap chinese drill press is unable to drill straight.:o

Excellent...never mind crooked holes. It seems to work fine. Lots of clear shots there...