Printable View
Good morning all,
On another forum, there was some talk of the chambers of the Lee Enfield being reamed larger in the Great War, to reduce the problem of somewhat sub-standard ammunition.
I have never heard of this before, so can someone please point me in the right direction to read the details?
I had thought that the L-E chamber was always made 'generous' and that is why it was one of the Very few that could pass the "sand' and 'mud' tests.
Thank you for your time.
Richard.
If that were the case I feel sure that in the technical information available to Armourers there would be a note to that effect. There are several precedence for this.
I remember discussing this before, this question is often raised on the Flat Earth Forum, the only chamber improvements made to the No.1 Mk.III was to increase the rear chamber Bevel to allow easy chambering with rounds contaminated with mud/blood.
This in conjunction with a relief groove around the base of the round sorted most of the ammunition problems of the time.
The Lithgow rifles had the bolt carriageway reamed to allow more clearance, as sand was binding the close tolerance actions and the increased leadin bevel was also done.
British actions had more tolerance in the chambers than the Australian ones, this often leads to false information in regard to out of round chambers and excessive headspace. At one time it was even claimed that the oval chamber was to allow monsoon rain to drain( maybe someone can resurrect that post, always good for a laugh) such is the rubbish posted on the mighty internet.
What needs to be remembered is that this was a fire and forget rifle, no fancy reloading techniques employed on the battlefield.
The case was sufficiently strong enough with a solid rear web that ensured sufficient safety to the user under the most extreme conditions, as opposed to the light soft brass cases used by the current reloading fraternity, using often undersized brass in generous chambered Milsurps leads to all sorts of weird case deformities, hence the continuous persistance of posts regarding chambers/headspace.
Proper reloading techniques and attention to the individual requirements of each Milsurp will ensure a safe and enjoyable time with these old ladies, do your research and do not be misled by some of the interestingly stupid things you read on the internet.
Additionally, if oversize chambers were permitted or authorised, what would we Armourers do about the 'concentricity of striker gauge' test. That'd fail every time with a radially enlarged chamber.
Tell them that we say that they're repeating a load of old bollxxxx
I have a suspicion that a LOT of chambers were "freshened-up" by commercial operators after the rifles left service in some dire ex-colonial outpost.
The ONLY saving grace is that, with .303 being a RIMMED cartridge, the bozos with the abrasive sticks, couldn't do much to bugger up headspace, unlike quite a few "surplus" Mausers of my acquaintance. Chamber diameter and shoulder location are of little concern to non-reloaders and "casual" shooters.
The story of the "mud-clearance" chambers is probably an extrapolation of the sad story of the Ross rifle and its "issues" in the field.
And here it is, by popular demand, possibly the worst bit of tripe about the Lee Enfield you will ever see :yikes:.... copy pasted direct from a very flat place :madsmile:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++
Moderator
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 8:31 pm
Posts: 8562
Location: Albuquerque,New Mexico
Age: 61
You posted you bought a "bolt head'. What I was hoping was that you took notice of that so called Number 1,2,3 bolt heads was the fix for a too large head spacing problem. It is not. The bolt heads were machined/filed down to fit what ever spacing problem was done by the Armorer. When these were turned back into the supply depot they were just dumped together. Unless you got a new sealed package of them, the odds of them not being the size you want is great.
The sellers really gouge the buyer on these bolt heads that solve nothing. I hate to see our members taken in like that.
The other major problem is that there are two standards of what the Head space gauge should look like. We in the USA use the SAMI specifications. The English do not. Our Head space gauges will almost always fail an English Enfield rifle.
Yet your rifle would be very safe to fire with new ammunition or surplus ammo. At least the first time with the new brass.
The best way was to always go with a replacement bolt body and find the longest body you can. By using your original bolt head you can tune the bolt head spacing to your action. While your numbers will no longer match, at least you will have an action that won't eat your brass by stretching it to a point it fails. The base of the case will separate from the rest of the casing. This will allow high pressure gas into the action and your eyes.
If your rifle has the screw going through the stock from left to right,just in front of the trigger guard a few inches, it has been to India. They also would re-cut the chamber to a slight oval at the breech. This allowed their Monsoon rain to escape out of the rifle if it was loaded with the muzzle up. While this help prevent the splitting of the barrel when fired, it plays hell on the walls of our commercial brass. It does not seem to affect the military loaded cases as the walls are much thicker.
I hope you enjoy your new found toy. They are good shooters and fun to shoot.
_________________
Gulf of Tonkin Yacht Club '70-72
GMCM(SW) USN 68-89
1776-2012 USA RIP
President NM MILSURPS
Where do they find these oafs........
Not to lend any credit to the idea that a "breech oval" was intentionally cut to drain out water, or any cuts were made to a chamber for any reason. But let's pretend in some fantasy world that there was some necessity to drain water from the chamber. There would be better ways to do it while maintaining striker location on the primer, for example the Russian SVT-40 employs a fluted chamber (For very different reasons). A properly engineered fluted chamber could act as rain gutters much better than some arbitrary grinding.
I cannot stop reading that quote over and over, somewhere between laughter and disbelief:
"If your rifle has the screw going through the stock from left to right,just in front of the trigger guard a few inches, it has been to India. They also would re-cut the chamber to a slight oval at the breech. This allowed their Monsoon rain to escape out of the rifle if it was loaded with the muzzle up. While this help prevent the splitting of the barrel when fired, it plays hell on the walls of our commercial brass."
Peter,
Bolloxxx noted. :-)
They be not oafs though Peter, anyone who can ream an Oval hole has to be very clever!! (LOL)
Many thanks to all who have contributed to this thread.
It is as I always thought. In my O.P. I was trying to be diplomatic, and give benefit of the doubt. (but had suspicions!)
I am relieved though, that there Isn't a huge gap in my knowledge re. the L-E. :-)
This topic came up whilst discussing the Ross, and someone defending the Ross made out that the L-E suffered from the same faults. (as suggested by Bruce above)
In my mind, I had a Pile of arguments why this could not be, but thought I'd defer to the more learned on this site.
Muffet,
"Flat Earth Forum" I like that!
Thanks again chaps.
Richard.
My understanding was/is that in 1915 the tolerances were changed due (mainly) to experience in Palestine.Quote:
Originally Posted by muffett.2008
Supposedly the original SMLE bolt diameter minimum (-) was changed to become the standard, the standard dia was changed to be the max (+) diameter acceptable tolerance.
At the same time the standard bolt race diameter was changed to be the minimum (-), and the max (+) was changed to be the standard diameter.
This is supposed to be the reason why pre-1916 SMLE actions were preferred as the donors for the Australian HT program during WW2 (because they are toleranced tighter, not because they "Flexed better").
Here is another quote from the same forum and the same "moderator". I was reminded of this one from the comments above about how clever you have to be to ream a chamber into an oval shape.... well, here is another magical myth of machining wonder!
.303 Military brass has a very thick web in the casing which when fired in an Enfield rifle with excessive head spacing may not show any signs of case stretching. When the shooter tries a commercial loaded round and sees a bright band or an " hour glass" shape just in front of the rim, they assume that the brass is somehow faulty. Not true. It is your rifle. Any time you see a stretch mark or the case fails and parts in two just in front of the rim, its caused by excessive play. 8 of of 10 ten times it is excessive head spacing. The other causes are a too long chamber where the case is " blown out" to fill the shoulder area, or the chamber is out of round, drilled off center. Beleave it or not, this is not uncommon with these rifles. You gather up 10 Enfields and you will see fired cases from a couple of these rifles that show and off center / out of round chamber.
Why? You need to understand that these rifles were made in the time leading up to, or during a time of war. The British Army needed many,many rifles and needed then quickly added to the armories. Quality suffered as a result. The rifles were well used and showed up in all sorts of places after the wars. How and what was done to them is any ones guess.
Years ago I had a chance to spend some time in England. I met a fellow who was a British Army Armorer. He and I talked over beers about rifles and all sorts of WWI and WWII weapons in general. I brought up the topic of head spacing in the Enfield rifles. He told me that they were taught to " To provide enough head spacing as to allow the soldier to carry a dry pair of socks" in these rifles. The reason being war time production of ammunition and the very different climates these rifles were to be used in. I asked him how they adjusted the head spacing, did they use the numbered bolt heads for the No4 rifles, or the varying length No1 type bolt heads to adjust the head spacing?. If they could get them,yes. But the number they needed was not always available out in the field. 95% of the time the bolt body was shortened
Well me old Son,
I don't often sit here with my mouth open, but that's what you had me doing when I was finished reading this!!
Still am for that matter.
It's the sort of thing that brings on a response of dead silence or "eh??" :confused:
R.
p.203 of The Ross Rifle Story reproduces (rather poorly) a blueprint (yes, a real 'blueprint') showing 'Lee-Enfield Chamber' ("original size RSAF plan No.3066") as .459 at the entry and 'Lee-Enfield Enlarged' as .462 at the entry. A note at the bottom says "New Lee-Enfield slightly larger than Lee-Enfield enlarged but not as large as Ross". The text states this as dating from prior to mid-1911.
Ross, in a letter to Carson dated Aug. 1916 gives the dimensions of the L-E chamber at that time as:
base of large cone .462
small end of large cone .404
large end of neck .343
small end of neck .339
these figures appear to be the same as those in the 'Lee-Enfield Enlarged' quoted above although the reproduction makes it somewhat doubtful to be certain.
Another drawing of an experimental RSAF SMLE chamber, dwg. no. R.O.208 of 2/5/16, is shown, marked 'enlarged chamber' so they were playing about with dimensions as late as then. Unfortunately the figures do not reproduce well and the gauging points may not be the same.
A chamber dwg, stated as being the rifle chamber, is reproduced on p.250 of the 1929 Textbook of Small Arms and gives:
base of large cone .462
small end of large cone .404
large end of neck .345
small end of neck .341
By those numbers, we are looking at "variations" in the realm of 3 thou. or less, about what you would expect from reamer wear on a large "RUSH-JOB".
Has anyone run a set of bore gauges, (the dinky, adjustable ones that look like a rod with hard steel balls that can be adjusted in and out by twisting the end of the handle), in a "mint' SMLE chamber lately? Might need to do some number-crunching due to the serious taper on the "large cone".
The only "mint" barrels I have here are a couple of Lithgow "heavies", circa late 1950s, still in their sealed packaging.
B i O a question. Any H barrel i have had or had anything to do with has all ways been a small or tight chamber. This also applies to Ts. So were these cut with worn out reamers or in the case of the Ts selected because they were more accurate than new reamer cut barrels.
Peter your input as well please.
You do find SMLEs where there is very excessive shoulder space in the chamber, but nothing to suggest that the entire chamber has been relieved. In the most extreme case I've had so far, the case shoulder would fireform a good 1/8" forward, removing half of the neck of the case. It looked very odd! It looked a bit like a .303 Epps, but with with standard .303 taper and shoulder shape. That rifle was perfectly tight for headspace, however, and had a good lead and bore. No other sign of distress or distortion on the cartridge case.
Presumably, if chambers had been altered, there'd be both some sort of printed field instruction, and an official indicator mark on the rifle to show that the work had been done?
Just to make things more interesting:
SMLE (and previous Lee Enfields) had their chambers formed, not by running in a slinky Clymer or PT&G one-piece reamer, but by a series of operations involving the use of what appear to have been "D" reamers.
Because of the limitations of these rather rudimentary tools, the chambers were cut in stages, with the neck AND the "leade" (throat) being cut LAST, using specialised reamers and gauges.
By the 1920s, one would hope this had changed, although, to the end, apparently, the final chambering operation was the firing of a "special" proof cartridge to "set up" the barrel / body "fitting" and the mating of the bolt lugs and the locking shoulders in the body..
One has to ask:
1. What were the other "Majors" using in their factories at the time?
2. Did this caper continue on into the No4 series?
Given this method, is it any wonder that HM Ordnance opted for a rimmed case; at least this would have provided SOME fine control over breeching.
In the previous Snider and Martini Henry rifles, the service ammo had a case made from a steel "base washer" and a rolled brass foil body to contain the powder and bullet and provide some semblance of a "seal" on firing. This ammo was not as flimsy as it sounds, but would work in almost any "appropriate" chamber, cut by whatever method, as long as the bullet could enter the throat / leade. Only a short hop from rolled paper cartridges of just a couple of years before.
The Martini Henry went into service with such "composite"ammo at about the same time several other countries were fielding rifles with smaller bores, and cartridges with one-piece, deep-drawn brass cases. As they say in the classics: "What were they thinking?
Also bear in mind that serving alongside the Martinis, was the Gatling gun, with a "proper", deep-drawn cased .45 calibre cartridge, different from and NOT interchangeable with the rifle ammo. There is NO way the antique, rolled-brass cartridges would have stood up to the stresses of being fed, fired and extracted through a Gatling, at almost any rate of fire. There was enough of a problem conducting sustained fire from a Martini Henry, especially once black-powder fouling started to build up.
.303 Mil . I asked him how they ad. If they could get them,yes. But the number they needed was not always available out in the field. 95% of the time the bolt body was shortened[/QUOTE]
Surely not, the threads still remain in the same place, and what about overturn.
My understanding is the bolt head face is ground/stoned to give the correct head space not the bolt body.
Surely not, the threads still remain in the same place, and what about overturn.[/QUOTE]Quote:
Originally Posted by mike1967
I argued that (among other points) at the time, and got howled down. They could not get it through their heads that all you were doing was removing the load bearing surface and making the threads take the pressure of firing transferred through to the locking lugs. It does not matter what you do to the face of the bolt body, unless you remove enough for the head to go on another turn, it will always be in the same place once it is in the boltway.
That was one part of the hand fitting the No1 rifle needed to be set up.... selecting a bolt head that either provided the correct headspace, or was long enough to stone down the face to get the correct headspace. The No4 rifle used "sized" bolt heads to give a selection but as has been proven, these were more just an indicator rather than a true size range.
Of interest on this point, when the Aust Army re introduced the No1 MkIII* HT sniper rifle into service as an interim measure in the 1970's, the parts list included a selection of measured bolt heads to provide a quick and easy fix for headspace.
Attachment 69509
Never seen that chart, thanks for sharing.
The input from the knowing on this forum v. the enthusiastic amateurs on the other forums is patently clear in this thread. Thanks Son and Bruce and others.....
Can you just imagine giving your out of spec rifle to some of these clowns to fix.......? It's mind boggling!
I found this chart quite valuable so I took the liberty of quickly transcribing it and reposting as a crisp document format for all to keep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Son
Interesting there is no number "8" 0.638" bolt head in the selection.
Just a couple of points. Were these Oz bolt head size variables actually NEW production? Or were they just old production, sifted and sorted to give the sizes illustrated? As a matter of interest are these numbered No1 bolt head sizes readily available in Oz? I ask this because if so then it may well be that these sizes (or similar.....) were already in use in India in order to CHS their 7.62mm No1's. Beats ages on the bench stoning, trying, stoning, trying etc etc for ages to get correct CHS with a tray full of assorted bolt heads.
As I often remind forumers, something similar applied to Bren barrel nuts. It might have size 4 on the barrel nut but after a few years use on a Bren, the size 4 and measurements relating to it didn't relate to any known criteria that ACTUALLY applied to a size 4 barrel nut! It just became another barrel nut that you tried ad-infinitum. Same as Bren and L1A1 locking shoulders, No4 bolt heads, breeching up washer sizes etc etc. And just as bad, SA80 breeching up washer sizes were just as variable!
is there any writing on the "re-introduction of teh HT snipers in the 1970s'" I am intrugued???
I have never seen or heard of a size marked No1 bolt head anywhere. Not to say they didn't get out, but realistically they were supporting a couple of hundred rifles max with a thousand more in store and were only an interim measure at that point. so they probably wasnt a whole lot done. I think that they would have been sorted from stores by that stage as the factory was in production of the FN, but have seen no writings on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
If a HT does not have a number on the bolt head (once again, can't recall ever seeing one) it would mean it never needed re headspacing in service after the re introduction. The majority of these rifles were in store by then in a fit to function state, and never saw the light of day until they were sold off.
More later, after work....
1929 Textbook of Small Arms
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...standard-2.jpg
The same forum that brought you the 'how to bed a No5' thread that i know you just love!Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...2/No5bed-1.jpg
Mind boggling.................... Credit card and coke cans...........
Look you blokes just leave that forum alone! Even though I'm not aloud to post there anymore, I still get a great deal of entertainment from it!
That table is lifted from the "EMEI" WPN D117, Issue 1, Sep '76.
Note that date!!
This document is part of the "workshop" paperwork for the SMLE sniper rifles STILL in service in the mid 1970s.
The "HT" rifles were eventually replaced by the Parker-Hale M-82, starting in late 1978. The P-H M-82 units were then replaced by the Accuracy International in 1999.
You forgot the traditional Formica.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
I had a couple of boxes of ten each, new old stock SMLE "long" bolt heads that all measured .640. They were British manufacture and coded M621 so I'm guessing WWII replacements. I still had to select fit for over/under turn and stone down the faces to bring into MoD spec when fitting them to remedy headspace issues. Many were used on RFI 2A and 2A1 rifles which were almost always out of spec. I've never seen numbered SMLE bolt heads either. If I had $10 for every phone call from a confused LE owner who's been reading that sort of crap on the internet, I'd be a very rich man. That's why this is the ONLY forum I even bother to frequent.
It is worth pointing out that striker protrusion is set by the relationship between the TOTAL length of the bolt head and the distance from the tip to the "collar" on the striker.
ALL SMLE components are made from various grades of "Carbon" steel. ""Alloy" steels could ONLY be used by a maker upon approval of samples of the material submitted to the demi-gods at Ordnance / War Dept.
The taper on the striker forward of the collar is a fairly close match to the interior of the bolt head.
The trick is to select and fit a bolt head to a bolt body before fooling around with other parts.
If the new bolthead achieves headspace within tolerances, fine.
Do not try fitting a new bolthead with the bolt body "internals" in place ; it's a a bit tricky to "adjust" the bolt body with the striker in the way. Furthermore, leave the extractor off the bolthead whilst fitting; you get a greater degree of "feel" as the bolthead closes on the headspace gauge; no pressure from the extractor sliding up its little ramp.
BEFORE you go to the drama of re-fitting the striker, spring and cocking piece, check the striker protrusion by inserting it into the bolthead and gauging it.
If the striker spring looks shabby (pitted) and/or is below length, replace it; there must still be millions of these things out there; most users baulk at the prospect of changing them. The EXACT same spring is used in the SMLE AND the No4.
The spring specs are:
OAL: 3.3" -3.375"
OD .363"
ID .252"
32 coils of No. 18 SWG
Ends ground to length. NOT CLOSED
Strip ONCE, Assemble ONCE. This is especially important regarding the fit of the cocking piece to the striker. There is a 0.001" tolerance on the diameter dimension of the respective bearing surfaces on the striker and inside the cocking piece. It is effectively an interference fit of those parallel surfaces if assembled correctly.
Mike, as much of the document as I have is posted at the bottom of the MKL entry on the HT rifles here...Quote:
Originally Posted by mike1967
Milsurps Knowledge Library - 1917/1945 No.1 MkIII* H.T. Sniper Rifle (Short Bracket)
Further from before....
I found that the myth of oversize and out of round chambers came from an early reaction to handloading commercial brass.
We can all accept that the chamber in the Lee Enfield rifle was designed to be "generous" in comparison to the ammunition specs no matter if you feel it was to allow for so many different makers of ammo around the world or the ability of the rifle to continue to cycle flawlessly in the most adverse of battlefield conditions. This trait is what lead to it becoming known as the most reliable battle rifle ever.
(Apologies for going back to basics here, but you will see where it takes us...)
The design of the cartridge being rimmed allowed it to be headspaced at the rim and that meant there was no need for any other tight tolerances in the chamber.
A rimless cartridge is dependent on the shoulder seating on a corresponding part at the front of the chamber, so the critical measurement area is the whole length of the cartridge/ chamber. There is no room for "battlefield debris". This characteristic meant that handloading rimless cases did not involve a great deal of case manipulation.
Here is a pic of an unfired .303 case and a fired case. If a rimless cartridge was fired with this much space in front of the shoulder probably would not have gone off... the striker would have pushed if forward into the chamber and then not marked the primer deep enough.
Attachment 69538
The eventual drying up of surplus ammunition meant that shooters had to reload to keep going. When you stick a commercial cartridge into a LE chamber, a few things happen... Firstly, they are most often thinner in the rim and usually smaller diameter at the base of the case. They most likely had shorter projectiles in them and so the round would sit at the bottom of the chamber... nothing to locate it centrally.
On firing, the striker would stake the primer where it sits and then the case expands out to the chamber. Because the primer is impaled on the striker with the case sitting at the bottom of the chamber, the top of the case would expand out to the chamber and the bottom could not.
Looking at the primer strikes you will see the majority are well off center. Some with softer primer cups will actually show an extruded side to the strike where the expanding case has moved up ward in the chamber and made a lip on the primer strike indent which will be toward the centre of the base.
Attachment 69539
Bottom line is, the need to use inferior made undersized commercial cases left the handloader with a distorted once fired case that he could not explain the shape of. Naturally people like the ones on the flat earth forum have done nothing to help the situation making up all sorts of crap to make themselves look like the x-spurts....
The simple truth is these rifles were never made to re use the brass. They did what they were made for very well, but if you need to apply modern reloading techniques to keep using your rifle, then there are a few tricks you can apply to maximise case life. When it all boils down, all the kafuffle came about over case life anyway.