More Bad Press For The Enfield

[Thunderbox]

"This coupled with questionable gunsmithing and significantly undersized bores when the rifle was 'converted' from .303 gives a poor starting point in the safety stakes."

Its this phrase which for me seems to sum up the sheer fallacy of this guy's assertions:

"Undersized bores"?! The majority of 7.62mm Enfield are fitted with one of the two models of Enfield barrel. Is the author seriously suggesting that Enfield are "questionable gunsmiths" and that these barrels - which have performed flawlessly for 40+ years - are substandard in design?

Other barrels in use are Parker Hale, Swing, and other famous commercial target rifle names. Is the author suggesting that these barrels which were also widely used in mauser-actioned target rifles are also deficient?

In his article, he seems to give the impression that he believes .303 barrels were somehow bored out or relined to turn them into 7.62mm

"Questionable gunsmithing"?! The conversion of a No4 from .303 to 7.62mm is not exactly complex - its a simple modular system with components designed for the conversion purpose: barrel, breeching rings, headspace gauge. There is not a lot of scope for making a "dangerous" rifle. All UK rifles go for Proof in any case.

[Surpmil]

Badger, I really think you should print the letter you received in full here.

You don't need to worry about "inflaming" us!

"We WERE going to deal with them in a well-considered and precise (though more polite way than they deserved), keeping it in-hand within the magazine. That way the major points could have been met without having to prove the failures and injuries attributed to the use of these rifles (some reaching parliamentary debate) over the years. Others have indeed, sensibly, been kept quiet. That may have to change now, thanks to these letter writers."

This comment makes no sense at all. That is one reason why I think we should see the whole letter, out of fairness to the writer.

The editors/owners of that publication chose to publish an article claiming that the No4 rifle was unsafe in 7.62mm.

The above quotation suggests that the same editors/owners are somehow attempting to "keep quiet" information about "failures and injuries" that they claim to know of.

If their agenda is to defend the safety record of the No4 Rifle in 7.62mm, why did they publish an attack on its record in the first place?

Conversely, if they wished to attack its safety record, why did they not publish the information they claim to possess?

You hit the bullseye here Badger:

"Your reaction seems to be highly defensive, full of emotionally charged rhetoric and so disproportionate to the event, that I have to seriously wonder what the real issue is?"

[Gnr527]

As a rifle target sports shooter and owner/regular user of one of these questionable! firearms (Enforcer) I would like to see this subject resolved.
We have had the NRA vacillating over the last couple of years and now this article by Mr White.
It would be nice to see a comprehensive factual analysis with conclusion and recommendation with attendant agreement with OR withdrawal by the NRA and Mr White.
I would also like to see the full response from the magazine.
Good on you Badger - happy to help in any way.

John

[Edward Horton]

This is a Canadian website and the last time I posted these links moderators and Badger jumped all over me because bolt thrust and oil or water in the chamber was "too hot a topic to talk about.

Moderator Edit: Nonsense Ed …. You've never been censured for your content and you know that. You've received multiple infractions from four different moderators and even been banned for a month, usually for ignoring their repeated requests or warnings to cease inappropriate flaming activities. You need to reflect upon your sometimes combative style of posting sideband comments, specifically as it relates to engaging certain other members. If you can't restrain yourself in that regard, then please find another site that will tolerate these antics, if there is one that hasn't already banned you for similar unacceptable activities. You do have something to contribute, so please stay focused on constructive posts using positive communications with others and we'll get along just fine.

The Truth About 308 Win and 762 NATO - Military Surplus Collectors Forums

Why not go to one of the most knowledgeable Canadians on this subject and ask Jim Bullock about the pressure testing of the Enfield Rifle and the 7.62 NATO cartridge.

Jim Bullock

About the author:

Jim Bullock is the grandson and son of rifle shooting competitors. Jim started with a BB gun (a daisy pump) in 1950 and received his first .22 at age 10.

He has represented Canada twelve times as a member of the Canadian rifle Team as a shooter, Coach and Team Captain.
His fullbore rifle shooting started in 1960 using the Lee Enfield #4 in 303 caliber in what was known as Service Rifle (B). That was a well-tuned rifle with a Parker Hale 5C rear sight and the standard post front sight. SR (B) was deliberate (no snap, or rapid fire) at 200 to 1,000 yards. His best shot was a pair of bullseyes fired at 1,000 yards with a 26 minute wind change between shots (that is about 260 inches or about 21 feet of windchange).

He has an extensive firearm collection including a dozen or so Lee Enfields.

Is it safe to shoot 308 Winchester in a rifle chambered for 7.62 NATO?

What about 7.62 in a 308?

By Jim Bullock

http://www.smellysmleshooters.net/ammopressure.htm

Below is more information on the subject of chamber pressures and proof testing the .308/7.62 NATO.

The Truth About 308 Win and 762 NATO

http://home.comcast.net/~ehorton/The...762%20NATO.pdf

The above information on the .308/7.62 is the most accurate information anywhere on the Internet on this subject.

We can also ask Mr. Laidler if the 7.62 version of the No.4 Enfield was tested with an oiled proof test round in older military fashion or if it was tested using the European CIP method with a dry chamber for proofing.

The oiled proof round delivers twice the force to the bolt and receiver as the "dry" CIP and SAAMI methods. An oiled proof test round would have delivered over 75,000 PSI (transducer method) to the bolt and lugs and a dry proof test round would have delivered less than 38,000 PSI or bolt thrust to the bolt.

I found this about NATO proof standards for the 7.62 NATO.

The minimum proof and performance requirements for small arms ammunition of NATO calibres are covered in STANAGs as follows:

7.62 mm. STANAG 2310 and NATO Manual of Proof and Inspection AC/225 (LG/3-SG/1) D/9.

Each weapon and component considered vulnerable to the effects of a rapid change in pressure, for example barrels, breech blocks and bolts, will be tested by firing one dry round at a corrected minimum of 25% over pressure and one oiled round at a corrected minimum of 25% over pressure. 25% over pressure means 25% in excess of the Service Pressure (Pmax). The Service Pressure is defined as the mean pressure generated by the Service Cartridge at a temperature of 21°C. Such a high pressure proof is conducted with both the weapon and ammunition conditioned to an ambient temperature of 21°C.

Oiled proof test rounds are not used by CIP or the SAAMI, this means military 7.62 Enfields were deliberately over stressed to simulate higher forces such as water on the ammunition or firearm used under wartime combat conditions.

In short this means the military Enfield's were built to withstand the rigors of being fired in the rain and the authors opinion who wrote this article is nothing more than a "wet dream".

[ireload2]

>>>An oiled proof test round would have delivered over 75,000 PSI (transducer method) to the bolt and lugs and a dry proof test round would have delivered less than 38,000 PSI or bolt thrust to the bolt.<<<

You have pounds force and pounds per square inch confused.

[No4Mk1(T)]

I found this about NATO proof standards for the 7.62 NATO.

The minimum proof and performance requirements for small arms ammunition of NATO calibres are covered in STANAGs as follows:

7.62 mm. STANAG 2310 and NATO Manual of Proof and Inspection AC/225 (LG/3-SG/1) D/9.

Each weapon and component considered vulnerable to the effects of a rapid change in pressure, for example barrels, breech blocks and bolts, will be tested by firing one dry round at a corrected minimum of 25% over pressure and one oiled round at a corrected minimum of 25% over pressure. 25% over pressure means 25% in excess of the Service Pressure (Pmax). The Service Pressure is defined as the mean pressure generated by the Service Cartridge at a temperature of 21°C. Such a high pressure proof is conducted with both the weapon and ammunition conditioned to an ambient temperature of 21°C.[/COLOR]

Where did you find this Ed? Can you post a link for us please?

[Edward Horton]

NATO EPVAT testing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



10.2 Proof Policy
10.2.1 The Gun Barrel Proof Act of 1868 prescribes a statutory requirement for all firearms up to 51 mm (2 in) calibre to be proofed. The UK has now also joined the Commission Internationale Permanente (CIP) for the Proof of Small Arms. The MOD is exempt from the CIP agreement, but has to show that it is as good as, or better than, this procedure for all UK military Small Arms (SA). In general the CIP proofing involves firing two dry rounds at 25% over pressure, but the MOD policy is to fire two rounds as defined in clause 8.2.2 in Def Stan 05-101 Part 1. 10.2.2 Proof testing needs to be carried out on every weapon or no proof mark will be applied. A sample of weapons being tested is not acceptable, each individual weapon, including spares and barrel attachments, (e.g. Suppressors) shall be proof tested.
http://www.dstan.mod.uk/data/05/101/02000100.pdf


8.2.2 Each weapon and component considered vulnerable to the effects of a rapid change in pressure, for example barrels, breech blocks and bolts, will be tested by firing one dry round at a corrected1 minimum of 25% over pressure and one oiled round at a corrected minimum of 25% over pressure. 25% over pressure means 25% in excess of the Service Pressure (Pmax). The Service Pressure is defined as the mean pressure generated by the Service Cartridge at a temperature of 21oC. Such a high pressure proof is conducted with both the weapon and ammunition conditioned to an ambient temperature of 21oC.
http://www.dstan.mod.uk/data/05/101/01000100.pdf

Please note these are NOT my opinions or guesswork they come straight from a British MOD publication.



No4Mk1(T)

I collect Enfield books and manuals, I also post the most accurate information I can find. Jim Bullock shot the Enfield Rifle in Canadian National Matches and was also involved in ballistic testing of the 7.62 and .308 Winchester.

Jim Bollock's comments on the 7.62 and .308 chamber pressures are the most accurate anywhere on the Internet along with the other link I posted on the subject.

I found your comments below to be a little disturbing and I did not post the information below to be "part of the problem".

The writer of the "Sporting Rifle" article is "all wet" and "part of the problem" and he is starting a urban legend myth about the Enfield rifle. The author is not aware of how much more strenuous military proof and testing standards are and how far they exceed CIP or SAAMI standards.

I hope you now understand a little better about the type facts that I post and also remember I have NEVER told anyone to use beer cans and credit cards to bed an Enfield rifle or use masking tape to check head space or blamed the Enfield rifle for having an "Inherent Weakness".

Moderator Edit: Removed unnecessary pic which served only to once again bait moderators. Ed, stop this unacceptable self righteous posting style. Consider this your last warning. .... Badger

[No4Mk1(T)]

Ed...... All I asked for was a link to the proof testing information you posted. Please note further along in my comments you were kind enough to re-post where I said I would not accept cut and past copies of information with out references to their sources. Posts with out such supporting information are meaningless. Thank you for providing the requested information and staying on topic.

[Surpmil]

Ed, your Freud is showing! It's "Jim Bullock" isn't it?

Don't make Badger ban you, eh? We'll miss your contributions.

[Strangely Brown]

Don't make Badger ban you, eh? We'll miss your contributions.

I wont!








.