Why I appreciate the Lee Enfield.

Evening Gents,

Something today made me appreciate the Lee Enfield a bit more!

I had just finished checking over an old neighbours P 17, and tried out a few shots on target to make sure it worked correctly.

The only rounds I had were one old .30-03, and 5 newer 150 gr loads.
Two of the newer rounds had a patch of corrosion on the cases, one on the neck and one near the rim. These patches were small and white, but you could fee where they had eaten into the brass to some degree.
Thought I'd fire them off anyhow;
All went well until the last round, which gave me a smart blast of gas in my face.
I thought I'd hit myself in the eye with my hand for a start.
On extracting the case, it was the one with the verdigris near the base, and it had opened a small crack, maybe 1/4" long running towards the neck.

My own fault for firing off iffy ammo But! Anyone who has reloaded lots of .303 for the No 1 Mk 111 and the No 4 rifles, will have had complete head separation more than a time or two. I know I have had it happen a good few times over the years, and (Here's my point)
I have Never had any gas in my face with these actions.
It impressed upon me once again, how well designed the Lee Enfield action is.

All the best,
Richard.

Richard - The 'gas seal' in the event of a complete head separation is more a virtue of the rimmed .303 cartridge case than the Lee-Enfield action design.

There is a similar benefit shown by the .30-40 'Army' cartridge in the U.S. Krag-Jorgensen.

When I was a kid my first real hunting rifle was a customized 1903 Springfield. My Grandfather did the reloading for me as he was the expert back then. When hunting one day the firing pin punctured the primer and a jet of hot gas went into my shooting eye. It hurt so bad I was positive I'd been blinded. I got myself back to my camp so my parents could look my eye over and we went immediately to the doctors. A piece of powder had penetrated the top layer of my cornea but was easily removed by the doctor. I wore a patch for what seemed weeks until it healed but I could feel the scar every time I blinked for years thereafter. It finally felt normal but only after a long, long time. Fortunately, my vision returned to normal after a time. Since then I NEVER shoot without shooting glasses. I recall that my rifle retained the mushroom firing pin knob at the back that was supposed to help prevent this from happening. Oh, and I began to reload for myself after that incident.

As for Lee Enfields and Krags...I shoot them both and never feel under gunned, especially with my No. 4 Mk 2. Just tested it this last weekend at 200 yards using the battle sight and ladder sight both and was left very impressed with how they compared. It may not be a very pretty rifle, but it is a very elegant design from an engineering, mechanical and ergonomic point of view.

Keith

I once had the misfortune of being to the left of a guy whos cases were spltting at the neck, it was like being hit by a mini sandstorm, he had no idea it was happening until i stopped him & we looked at his cases

Wonder if the chamber was damaged in the process of that 5thBatt as those gasses would have been like a mini plasma cutter depends on how many rounds he let go whilst suffering that condition.

Hello Butlersrangers, Fancy meeting you here. :)

You are very likely right about the rimmed case rather than the action blocking gases, and whether by happy coincidence or design, the fact remains it's a wonderful combination and very nice to know that it works so well!

Keith,
I too never feel under-gunned with the .303, and think you hit on a key point when you mentioned Ergonomic!

All the best,
Richard.

ButlersRangers,

In the above I wasn't meaning to come over sarky, I was just surprised to "meet" you here after we have shared discussions on arms of an earlier period in another forum for a long while. (Brit. Mil. Forums)
Had no idea we shared an interest in the Lee Enfiled as well!

I apologise for not putting it in a clearer manner.

Best regards,
Richard. (Pukka B. in t'other forum)

Richard/Pukka, your knowledge and contributions are always enjoyed. I'm 'bilingual' now!

It's not just the rimmed case that helps prevent gas reaching the firer. Unlike Mauser types, the Lee, Krag, and others have no left lug raceway serving as a gas conduit from breech toward eyeball. Consequently, gas from a failed case is vented only at the front of the receiver. Here's a demonstration -

This case had been reloaded with heavy loads enough times so it was stretched near breaking.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../117z9ck-1.jpg

I loaded it with a 180-grain bullet and 40 grains of 4895 - a reasonably stiff charge about 2 grains under "maximum" - and fired it in a much-abused Savage No.4 with a clean sheet of typing paper wrapped around the receiver.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../29fw5ft-1.jpg

When I opened the bolt, the separated head extracted. (The front piece of the case fell out when I turned the rifle muzzle-up.)

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../11ayg6q-1.jpg

The sooty paper shows where some gas escaped. No rips or holes, just a little soot - and only where the bolt head meets the receiver ring. Had I been shooting from the shoulder and wearing glasses, I probably wouldn't have felt the leak at all.

That's very interesting, Para. Never seen that experiment before.

I too have had a good number of cases come out looking like the one above, (in two pieces) and though I don't wear shooting glasses, (yes I Know I should) I've never felt the slightest bit of gas on my eyes or face.

It's still a grand rifle. :-)

B's Rangers, :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parashooter

It's not just the rimmed case that helps prevent gas reaching the firer. Unlike Mauser types, the Lee, Krag, and others have no left lug raceway serving as a gas conduit from breech toward eyeball. Consequently, gas from a failed case is vented only at the front of the receiver. Here's a demonstration -

This case had been reloaded with heavy loads enough times so it was stretched near breaking.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../117z9ck-1.jpg

I loaded it with a 180-grain bullet and 40 grains of 4895 - a reasonably stiff charge about 2 grains under "maximum" - and fired it in a much-abused Savage No.4 with a clean sheet of typing paper wrapped around the receiver.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../29fw5ft-1.jpg

When I opened the bolt, the separated head extracted. (The front piece of the case fell out when I turned the rifle muzzle-up.)

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../11ayg6q-1.jpg

The sooty paper shows where some gas escaped. No rips or holes, just a little soot - and only where the bolt head meets the receiver ring. Had I been shooting from the shoulder and wearing glasses, I probably wouldn't have felt the leak at all.

---

Having said that, I've seen 2 people have their glasses shatter after the striker came back with enough force to hit their glasses lense.

Both incidents occurred with No4 rifles.

It's not a pleasant thing to pick glass fragments out of a friend's eye.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee Enfield

I've seen 2 people have their glasses shatter after the striker came back with enough force to hit their glasses lens. Both incidents occurred with No4 rifles.

---

Any idea what caused this? Knowing the cause could prevent a big accident.

I stand by to be corrected, but I believe that many of the case separations we experience with Lee-Enfields aren't complete separations at the time of firing. I believe that many times the case is stretched to just below the breaking point on the last firing and when the bolt is opened the force of extraction completes the separation. I know I've had several cases over many years come out in two pieces but with no sign of gas leakage anywhere on the case. I have had the occasional one that looked like Para's example with obvious soot marks on the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seaspriter

Originally Posted by Lee Enfield
I've seen 2 people have their glasses shatter after the striker came back with enough force to hit their glasses lens. Both incidents occurred with No4 rifles.
Any idea what caused this? Knowing the cause could prevent a big accident.

---

Accidents are never a good thing and I hope each of your friends recovered fully.

But I too would like to learn more.

What was the believed cause of the issue?
Did the striker physically separate from the rifle, or was this a body positioning issue?
Were any parts of the rifle permanently damaged, and if so which ones?

Anything else that could be shared would be valuable knowledge/

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../117z9ck-1.jpg

Looks like a classic case of overly long headspace. The case expands on firing and locks itself momentarily into the chamber wall, while the rear of the case goes backwards until it pushes the bolthead and bolt as far back as it can, or as far as the case will stretch, whichever comes first. That backward movement while the rest of the case is locked to the chamber wall causes the case to stretch right about there and voila, cracks and eventual separation, or sometimes all in one go?

We can see where the thicker base of the case has prevented it expanding and locking against the chamber wall. Naturally the "give" occurs around the point where thick meets thin and expansion meets not enough expansion.

Surpmil,

That is a very good picture of what happens after a few reloads. (if full length re-sized,... or used in a rifle with a generous chamber,... or plain overused brass...)
I have had them blackened all the way around where they came apart. We can normally see a light coloured ring around the case where they are about to come apart, and the next reload will more or less guarantee this.

I too would like an explanation of what happened when the shooters got their glasses broken, mentioned by Lee Enfield in a previous post. I see no reason for it, unless as Sentryduty mentions above, it had something to do with "body positioning".
I can well imagine a "stock crawler" whipping the bolt back into his glasses whilst engaged in 'rapid fire', but if the striker blew back, they would be fishing more than glass out of the chaps eye.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Hare

You are very likely right about the rimmed case rather than the action blocking gases,

---

It seems that some of you guys are still overlooking something basic about the Lee Enfield chamber, although Parashooter has already posted good photos to illustrate the feature. There is a gas vent on the left side, so that the action does NOT block gas in the event of a case rupture. That is why 5th Batt on the left was getting sharp puffs of "Enfield exhaust" !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee Enfield

Having said that, I've seen 2 people have their glasses shatter after the striker came back with enough force to hit their glasses lense.

---

What hit them was presumably the cocking piece. It could hardly have been the striker, unless the bolt assembly completely disintegrated. I have seen such an incident, caused simply by the shooter being afraid of recoil and thus holding the rifle too far forwards and too loosely. Anyone who has ever held up a horse's hind leg for the farrier will know that the trick is to hold the leg folded up tight against your shoulder, so that it can't get up speed. Hold it tight and it can push strongly, but can't strike. Hold it loosely, and it can really wallop. Same applies to rifles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Hare

I have Never had any gas in my face with these actions.

---

Thanks to the aforementioned gas vent!

Patrick,

Yes, I am quite aware of the gas vent, and it is behind the rim. It works as it is meant to; That's why we don't get a face full of gas, and that's Why I started this thread, And why I appreciate this action!! :-)

Same with cows as horses as well Patrick...........the further you are away from them, the more speed they get before they hit you!

Best,
R.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Hare

Surpmil,

That is a very good picture of what happens after a few reloads. (if full length re-sized,... or used in a rifle with a generous chamber,... or plain overused brass...)
I have had them blackened all the way around where they came apart. We can normally see a light coloured ring around the case where they are about to come apart, and the next reload will more or less guarantee this.

I too would like an explanation of what happened when the shooters got their glasses broken, mentioned by Lee Enfield in a previous post. I see no reason for it, unless as Sentryduty mentions above, it had something to do with "body positioning".
I can well imagine a "stock crawler" whipping the bolt back into his glasses whilst engaged in 'rapid fire', but if the striker blew back, they would be fishing more than glass out of the chaps eye.

---

A chamber cast would be an option to see if there is a contributory defect there.

Agree that the "glasses broken by firing pin" is a hard one to explain except by a broken firing pin, but as you say, that should lead to more than broken glasses in the case of serious case failure. A long neck and a short butt?! Hard to say what broke the glasses unless there is an obvious mark from the impact on the cocking piece. A person not overly familiar with the rifle or who did not examine the bolt closely might not notice a broken firing pin, and if the tip was jammed in the bolt head that might cause a premature ignition and case failure? If it did, the broken tip and perhaps collar being driven back would allow more gas than usual down the firing pin hole? An oversize firing pin hole in the bolthead might be a contributory factor in such a case too?

In theory, because of the different internal shaped tapers of the bolt head and external shaped taper of the striker, a broken striker CANNOT remain solidly fixed protruding through the face of the bolt head. I say IN THEORY, guardedly. The broken tip cannot be forced into the bolt head taper because they're differently tapered as an additional little known mechanical safety. Additionally, the broken tip CANNOT be forced forwards because the collar of the striker cannot go any further forward than the tenon on the bolt head. This is a secondary mech. safety feature*.

And don't forget, if all of these features fail - and it's a BIG if....., then the fact that from a magazine feed, the cartridge slides up the face of the bolt head and would foul and prevent the closure of the bolt as soon as the rim met the protruding failed/broken striker. This was part of the mechanical safety lesson using a doctored bolt and bolt head during Mr Ayley's basics of firearms mechanisms lesson, Term 4 at Carlisle.

*Another mech safety taught at the same time is the 'fear' that if you DO close the bolt hard, with a live round in the breech, with the trigger pressed (I don't know how you would, but you've got to cover all the idiot bases.....), the cocking piece and therefore the striker will 'fire' off the short cam groove in the bolt. True. But then another well thought out mech safety feature comes into play called 'the insufficient force of blow of the striker' No matter what you do, the loading on the striker will never be sufficient to cause a round to fire.

How many of us played with and practiced these scenarios with blanks, under strict supervision with Mr Ayley and Capt Dix in the armourers test range area..............

Sorry for wandering off at a tangent as I often do. Most of you will already know all this guff but one or two won't

I think we are straying pretty well from the original incident.
My understanding was that the failure(after several bullshit posts) was actually the bolthead.
The overlap of the bolthead rail guide was shorn off, the contact with the operators glasses was just minor shrapnel and probably a whack from his hand with the excessive recoil.
The need to belt open the bolt may well have been from binding of the damaged parts, but may also have been from the rifle being in a half cock state, caused either by the detonation or the operators stupidity.
This incident was an obvious result of stupidity(as reading the OP's posts show) the detonation of the round in the chamber was due to the powder mix used, the failure of the bolthead and the fact that the action stayed together under this stress says a lot for the inherant safety of the firearm and the protections built in to it.


WOOPS, this post is about the INCIDENT.

I admit that I sidetracked the thread a bit Muffer but as none of us really know what happened - and I didn't even start to try to unravel the stupidity of it all - I thought it was a good opportunity to remind the flock of some of the lesser known mechanical safety aspects of the No1and 4/5. Obviously from the lack of response to my bit (thread 23) most forumers were well aware of these little known inbuilt safety features.

It's from my recent years (or tears.....) as a Tech Officer listening to some of the pure absolute horse sh......, er....., horse manure that gets put about when an incident occurs on the ranges, the classroom or on the training areas. Sometimes, you have to call them in ....., yes, even senior ranking soldiers too..... and mention a few home truths before the reports get forensically analysed. And that, perhaps they've 'mistakenly overlooked' something relevant or another good one was '.......been mis-worded during the transcribing of the original notes or conversation'. I bet you've been there Muffer!

Peter,

It does no harm at all to re-state the safety features and Thought put into building the L-E. Thank you for that!
Maybe not everyone knows, (There Are newcomers) but that is why I appreciate this arm so much. It's still one H--l of a rifle.

Muffet,
I never even commented in that "Incident" thread, as the incompetence & contradictions on What happened and why, made it a waste of time in my view.
As someone said," Natural selection" should take care of such antics in time. :-)