7.62X51 bolt head ID

Sorting through my bolt head collection for a restoration and conversion of a 5/49 [PF] #4 MK2. (F) with a 1 bolt head very low round count from the looks of it. Someone lopped off the front three inches of the barrel.

I don't recall how the 19 ton 7.62 heads were marked.Anyone have a decent photo I can reference ? I do notice there is not a reference slash under the knox form as the #4T has.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../KgTIQ9y-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../BfxSXm5-1.jpg

At the same time I'm bringing back at 1945 #4T with an O bolt head with a NOS barrel. this will be a more conventional restoration.

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

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../vn0W35z-1.jpg

Thanks for looking.

..MJ..

The 7.62mm bolt heads were simply engraved very lightly with 19T on the top visible surface of the bolthead. Just quickly looking, those extractors don't look like the factory extractors that I recognise.......

I have seen some .303 extractors modified to work with the 7.62 case and the existing ejector, especially on 7.62 target conversions. since they do not have to work that well, if they even flip the case up they are adequate for the rifle range.

Bolt head pic and rear of bolt body stamp, from my L42A1. I have an L39 that is marked exactly as the L42, but it's at the back of the gun-safe and inaccessible.

The problem with using s converted .303 extractor on a 7.62 rifle is one of geometry. There is a greater space between the bolt face of a .303 than the 7.62 and the start of primary extraction takes place later during the lifting of the bolt cycle. This is also a primary cause of hard extraction in civilian home conversions. That's why the extractors differ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smle addict

Bolt head pic and rear of bolt body stamp, from my L42A1. I have an L39 that is marked exactly as the L42, but it's at the back of the gun-safe and inaccessible.

---

Very similar on my Enforcer :

If you can find one, an extractor for the Indian 2A1 is a good place to start. Being designed to work with the 7.62 NATO sized rim, albeit originally in a No1 style bolt-head, is an advantage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

The problem with using s converted .303 extractor on a 7.62 rifle is one of geometry. There is a greater space between the bolt face of a .303 than the 7.62 and the start of primary extraction takes place later during the lifting of the bolt cycle. This is also a primary cause of hard extraction in civilian home conversions. That's why the extractors differ.

---

No doubt about that, but on the 7.62 conversions, the modified 303 extractors seem to work. Now these rifles are being used slow fire, with generally a minute between rounds if one fires UK style and maybe 30 seconds if US style. Taking them apart it seems like the main modification is to thin the top of the extractor, so that the extractor pushed the case over enough to cause it to eject with the original ejector. Not all that reliable, but sufficient to tip up the case in all cases to make the case easy to remove when shooting a prone slow fire string.

You'll need an original or repro 7.62 extractor if you intend to use a 7.62 magazine. The regular .303 extractor was retained on the majority of Canadian DCRA target rifles but those rifles as Frederick303 says were only used as single shot platforms utilizing the original .303 magazine as a loading platform. I do have one of the 200 "factory specials" that were Bisonite bedded, drilled for the P-H front scope base and equipped with an original Enfield 7.62 extractor and magazine.

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

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../8IOnBIF-1.jpg

I hope I have it covered.

It's about time you used that nice AXX Lithgow barrel, they are pretty rare these days.
I picked up a 7.62 Conversion with one of these barrels at a gun show a couple of weeks ago, took it to the Range and put up a nice 47.2 score at 500yds on a blustery day on modern targets, so I guess these old girls can still keep up.

All I have to do now is convince the new owner to keep it as is.

My apologies for digging up an old thread and perhaps a dumb question
However information on 7.62x51 conversions seems as illusive as finding the parts themselves -

I had understood the bolt heads were proofed to 19 tons but were the bolt bodies needing this proof as well?
Was this marking the bolt handle to reference a separate proof test or just the entire assembly was proofed together?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moosem14

My apologies for digging up an old thread and perhaps a dumb question
However information on 7.62x51 conversions seems as illusive as finding the parts themselves -

I had understood the bolt heads were proofed to 19 tons but were the bolt bodies needing this proof as well?
Was this marking the bolt handle to reference a separate proof test or just the entire assembly was proofed together?

---

I understand that being individual components both the head and the bolt body were prooved. (Proof tested)

See the 'ball' on the bolt body (BNP - Birmingham Nitro Proof) and also the 19T markings on the bolt head.
makes sense really otherwise someone could simply swap-out the head or the body for non- 19T versions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

I understand that being individual components both the head and the bolt body were prooved. (Proof tested)

See the 'ball' on the bolt body (BNP - Birmingham Nitro Proof) and also the 19T markings on the bolt head.
makes sense really otherwise someone could simply swap-out the head or the body for non- 19T versions.

---

As I understood it the prooving process involves the firing of proof rounds in the rifle which presumably means complete and fitted with the bolt and head as it would be used in service. So therefore wouldn't the marking of the bolt, head and barrel/body all be as a result of that single process. I can't imagine single component parts being subjected to individual prooving separate from the rest of the rifle or do I misunderstand what your're saying Alan?

I'd do the mods to the mag well in the body and fit an Enfield Pattern magazine. The Sterling mags are OK and can be adjusted to feed but ejection will never be positive as the ejector was a separate assembly. They will drop the empties out on the bench if a good extractor spring is in place. Make sure the bolt is assembled correctly on the tight side and use proper L39/L42 gauges for headspace. 1.628 Go and 1.635 No-Go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desperatedan

As I understood it the prooving process involves the firing of proof rounds in the rifle which presumably means complete and fitted with the bolt and head as it would be used in service. So therefore wouldn't the marking of the bolt, head and barrel/body all be as a result of that single process. I can't imagine single component parts being subjected to individual prooving separate from the rest of the rifle or do I misunderstand what your're saying Alan?

---

The finished rifle 'less woodwork and accessories' is test fired with a proof load (or two) and marked as being proved.
Spares (bolts, bolt heads and barrels) are tested individually.

In the civilain market changing any 'pressure bearing' component requires the whole rifle to be sent for proof. I even had my local Police force tell me that changing the woodwork required the rifle to be re-proofed.
Many conversations resulted in 'no change' in their policy. I eventually had to get a letter from the Proof-House saying that all firearms are required to be prooved with the furniture removed (due to clamp-damage).
The Police still 'stuck to their guns' until I pointed out that the wood would have to be removed to be sent for proof, the rifle returned having passed proof, refit the woodwork (and under the Police 'rules') would then have to resend it for proof. Remove wood etc etc etc.......................

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

The Police still 'stuck to their guns' until I pointed out that the wood would have to be removed to be sent for proof, the rifle returned having passed proof, refit the woodwork (and under the Police 'rules') would then have to resend it for proof. Remove wood etc etc etc.......................

---

How wonderfully British constabulary! Out of interest did they give any reason why a no pressure baring part would impact a pressure baring part, or was it just a case of ‘them’s the rules, rules is rules, never shall them rules be broke!”

I had a similar discussion when I asked for my webley .455 to be approved for human dispatch as I had approval for .38 special, answer back was along the lines of “too powerful” me “but it’s muzzle energy is significantly bellow” “ah but it’s not all about muzzle energy, .455 is .075 bigger and that must be taken into account! Any ways them’s the rules” is I kept quiet. Privilege, not a right and all that.

You sure you wanted it for 'human dispatch' Michael? My constabulary would have taken a very dim view of that for a reason to acquire......!;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Micheal Doyne

How wonderfully British constabulary! Out of interest did they give any reason why a no pressure baring part would impact a pressure baring part, or was it just a case of ‘them’s the rules, rules is rules, never shall them rules be broke!”

I had a similar discussion when I asked for my webley .455 to be approved for human dispatch as I had approval for .38 special, answer back was along the lines of “too powerful” me “but it’s muzzle energy is significantly bellow” “ah but it’s not all about muzzle energy, .455 is .075 bigger and that must be taken into account! Any ways them’s the rules” is I kept quiet. Privilege, not a right and all that.

---

If I understood that correctly, then it is plenty funny :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Micheal Doyne

How wonderfully British constabulary! Out of interest did they give any reason why a no pressure baring part would impact a pressure baring part, or was it just a case of ‘them’s the rules, rules is rules, never shall them rules be broke!”

I had a similar discussion when I asked for my webley .455 to be approved for human dispatch as I had approval for .38 special, answer back was along the lines of “too powerful” me “but it’s muzzle energy is significantly bellow” “ah but it’s not all about muzzle energy, .455 is .075 bigger and that must be taken into account! Any ways them’s the rules” is I kept quiet. Privilege, not a right and all that.

---

I had a lot of trouble with the Firearms Manager during his period 'in office'.

In addition to the 'proofing' discussions,

He refused me a 7.62 NATO rifle as my land was only approved for 'up to 303', It took a lot of explaining that a 303 was measured differently and was in fact 7.7mm when using the same method as the 7.62 ammunition. He reluctantly accepted.

Then he refused me permission to make a 'personal' import from the USA. Again he had to back down.

It was shortly after these problems, and subsequent complaints of the "Police interpreting the law rather than applying it" that he took 'early retirement' and he was replaced by two (seemingly) young ladies working a Job-Share.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

You sure you wanted it for 'human dispatch' Michael? My constabulary would have taken a very dim view of that for a reason to acquire......!;)

---

Human/humane just a auto correct away, what the difference really any way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

The finished rifle 'less woodwork and accessories' is test fired with a proof load (or two) and marked as being proved.
Spares (bolts, bolt heads and barrels) are tested individually.

In the civilain market changing any 'pressure bearing' component requires the whole rifle to be sent for proof. I even had my local Police force tell me that changing the woodwork required the rifle to be re-proofed.
Many conversations resulted in 'no change' in their policy. I eventually had to get a letter from the Proof-House saying that all firearms are required to be prooved with the furniture removed (due to clamp-damage).
The Police still 'stuck to their guns' until I pointed out that the wood would have to be removed to be sent for proof, the rifle returned having passed proof, refit the woodwork (and under the Police 'rules') would then have to resend it for proof. Remove wood etc etc etc.......................

---

Proof firing reduces the life of the parts.

Proof firing a single time can in theory be justified - proof firing repeatedly is the ultimate in stupidity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee Enfield

Proof firing reduces the life of the parts.

Proof firing a single time can in theory be justified - proof firing repeatedly is the ultimate in stupidity.

---

IMHO proving/proofing is mostly a money-mine, left over from the days before legal remedies for negligence when many guns, and probably not always the cheapest ones, were made from horseshoe nails or whatever bits of iron the "rag & bone" men etc. scrounged up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

IMHO proving/proofing is mostly a money-mine, left over from the days before legal remedies for negligence when many guns, and probably not always the cheapest ones, were made from horseshoe nails or whatever bits of iron the "rag & bone" men etc. scrounged up.

---

It does go back to well before NDT

"The Worshipful Company of Gunmakers was incorporated by Royal Charter in 1637 to promote and regulate gunmaking, a role it still fulfils today".

"It is still done as it has been since the Company was established in 1637: by firing the gun with an over-pressure charge of powder. If the gun survives undamaged, it will be safe to shoot. If it doesn’t, it is deemed unfit for sale "