Modifying Actions, Safely

I found an Ishapore 2a1 barreled action that has been sporterized and I would like to use it for the starting point of a blasphemous project. Provided I can find a machinist to make the cuts, is this action still reasonably safe, with 308, if someone made a magazine cut off cut. It likely has not been attempted by someone after the arsenal, but it seems like a fairly simple cut for someone who knows what they are doing. To my untrained knowledge, the original cut off actions are the same as the ones without the cut. They are the same strength, within the parameters of 303.
Is it plausible that a 308 action with a cut off is still safe?
Now on the subject of woodwork, if I restock with walnut, do I need to cut my own Ishapore screw so my stock doesn't split, or can this be omitted?

Personally I would not use an Ishapore for a 308, it is (as it says on it) it is designed for the original 7.62 NATO round (144-150 grain).

The Ishapore Proof Master wrote an article some years ago about how the proof testing of the No1 Mk3, when converted to the 7.62 resulted in the action twisting and jamming the bolt, 1000's of rifles had to be rejected and scrapped. the proof test was subsequently 'modified' so that the rifle passed proof testing, but it is very marginal.

Using 308, or even 'modern' heavier 7.62 loads will put the action under extreme stress with a high chance of failure.

If you must use 308 then 'roll your own' with a 144 grain bullet and a 'light' powder load.

The 308 and 7.62 have different headspacing, and the 7.62 case is much thicker and heavier than the 308 case, using 308 cases in a 7.62 chamber can result in case failures.

IT says '7.62' on the rifle, why would you use anything else ? If you car says use 'Gas' would you fill it with Diesel ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

IT says '7.62' on the rifle, why would you use anything else ? If you car says use 'Gas' would you fill it with Diesel ?

---

You can provide some knowledge specific to the Enfield without a statement designed to make someone think it's a stupid question. It's not. Lots of guns are labeled one way and perfectly safe for the other. I'd wager countless times more "308" has been fired through commercial M14 receivers that are marked "7.62mm."

A lot of 7.62mm NATO PH T4's used 150grn and under .308 ammo with no problems.

I already exclusively buy 7.62N for other rifles, as I don't even own a commercial 308 anymore. I know the difference, but when typing on a screen the size of a brick, one tends to make short cuts.

I'm asking if my idea for the action is reasonably safe if someone could figure out how to make a cut off cut. I seem to think that it should be safe, but that's why I'm asking. The action is already sportered, and I wouldn't be ruining an otherwise original rifle.

Probably the easiest way to make the cut off slot would be with a slitting saw in a vertical mill. Ends of the cut would need to be finished. Then the hole through the boss would need to be drilled, tapped and countersunk.
Cutting this slot would do nothing to increase the strength of the receiver. Personally, I would only use somewhat reduced handloads in 7.62x51 cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chubbs

A lot of 7.62mm NATO PH T4's used 150grn and under .308 ammo with no problems.

---

I'm sure thy have, but we are talking about a No1 Mk3 Lee Enfield already modified to use a different calibe, and failing in Proof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chubbs

A lot of 7.62mm NATO PH T4's used 150grn and under .308 ammo with no problems.

---

Which was a No.4 action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeeRam

Which was a No.4 action.

---

As was the L39, the L42, the Enforcer and others.

Much stronger action than the No1 Mk3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

As was the L39, the L42, the Enforcer and others.

Much stronger action than the No1 Mk3

---

Sorry guys showing my ignorance. I just assumed it would be as strong as it used the 7.62 NATO round.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chubbs

Sorry guys showing my ignorance. I just assumed it would be as strong as it used the 7.62 NATO round.

---

No problem no one is born with all the intricacies of the Lee Enfield family in their DNA, it takes time to learn the detail.

The Australians tried to get their No1 Mk3 to function with 7.62 - it wouldn't pass the proof testing so they gave it up as a bad job.
The Indians tried to get their No1 Mk3 to function with 7.62 - it wouldn't pass the proof testing so they changed the proof test