Has the NRA's warning grown in length? I don't remember seeing the specific information re radway green and "Firing these latter cartridges can ultimately lead to catastrophic failure of the bolt lugs and bolt body that could lead to serious injury."bit before?
Anyone any thoughts re cadets not shooting the no 4???
The only thing I've come across is :
Here's 2 direct copy pastes from Capt. Laidler on the exact topic of the rifles the NRA article was written about.
1)
It was one fired without the bolt head and the other was an RAF style DP that has a big hole bored down through the top of the rear handguard, the barrel and then right through the fore-end so you can actually see right through the rifle so to speak. This large diameter hole is an inch or so in front of the knox form and is a good clue that all would not be well should the rifle be fired.
All was not well when it was fired.........................!
2)
The Board of Enquiry after the event found out what happened and it was this. The rifles that were 'live' were taken onto the firing point and a couple of other 'live - serviceable' rifles were at the back of the firing point together with a few DP rifles, used for what we call 'background activity' One of the rifles on the firing point wouldn't fire so the instructor stood behind the firer took it off him, cleared it and shouted to one of the Cadet NCO's at the rear.... 'bring me another rifle over.....' which he did.
What neither of them did was to check that the 'new' rifle was serviceable....., and in this case, it wasn't because it had a xxxxing big hole through the barrel, top to bottom. BUT, the BOLT was serviceable, unlike the bolt in the rifle that had failed to fire. Already, you can see that this isn't a good mix. As we say, it's an accident just waiting to happen. And the first round it fired WAS an accident where the Cadet lost a couple of fingers. They are still in orbit around the sun!
The Board of Enquiry established that prior to the actual shooting, half the group had sat around in a circle and started to clean the rifles and bolts while the other half had filled some Bren magazines and cleaned/oiled the bren guns. Then they changed over and the Bren filling half finished off cleaning and oiling the rifles and asembled them.
Unfortunately, due to 'lack of adult supervision', a DP bolt with a welded up bolt face and therefore no striker protrusion was placed into a service rifle. This rifle wouldn't fire. But because of this, a DP rifle went onto the firing point with a serviceable bolt and fired.
There's two threads to this story 1) think hard before you invade Russia and 2) check your rifle before you shoot it.
Anyway, humour aside, I think they saved the lads badly mangled fingers but they are badly disfigured.
After that an urgent signal went out to rapidly convert the RAF spec DP rifles to the current L59 specification that are safe. I bet you wonder how I know this don't you......................?
Mine are not the best, but they are not too bad. I can think of lots of Enfields I'd rather have but instead of constantly striving for more, sometimes it's good to be satisfied with what one has...
I have no experience shooting 7.62 in my DCRA rifle in the rain but can say shot numerous times in wet conditions using my No4 in .303 many years ago. I remember one particular shoot where the three prairie provinces (Sask. Alta. and Manitoba) competed in the heaviest rain I have ever shot in. My No 4 was literally dripping and it was impossible to keep it or the ammunition dry. The competition was for any rifle/sight/calibre and the more it rained the better the old No 4 performed. At the short ranges some of the custom rifles/calibres shone but the minute it started to literally "pour buckets" the old .303 took over and performed wonderfully. Once we shot past 300 yards the No 4 was unbeatable. The ammo was wet the gun was soaking and never a single issue. If I remember correctly it was one of the best days I ever had in competition. Until one comes apart in my hands,regardless of calibre I just won't believe these "experts" and their stories.
Last edited by enfield303t; 03-07-2010 at 01:20 PM.
The British have used an oiled proof testing cartridge since the Victorian Age which was originally “Burma Oil” which had a high paraffin content, this made the oil slicker than snot on a door knob.
Oil on a proof test cartridge doubles the force on the bolt compared to a normal standard cartridge. The United States does not use oiled proof cartridges to test civilian commercial firearms because it can damage the firearm.
This means the Enfield Rifle was built and tested to fire in the rain rather than call the war off until the sun came out.
As a side note the Australians eat vegemite and might be half nuts but they are not stupid.
It looks as if the bad press is starting to spread.... "This post-war No4 action is the best of the Lee Enfield bunch but if you overstress it you risk your life"
...
(underline mine)
This is also absurd, as the same could be said for any firearm.
As an American our proof testing system here in the U.S. appears to be far different than the requirements in the U.K. The easiest way to fight back is to know more than the “other” side and kill the opposition with facts and information.
At some point in time the proofing standards in the U.K. changed either in how high the proof pressure standard is (% above normal chamber pressure) and also how often or when the rifles were re-proofed when changing hands
You will need to study the older “Textbook of Small Arms” for proofing and testing standards for military rifles verses civilian rifles. And also any other published material you can get your hands on and bombard the opposition with facts on the Enfield Rifles strengths.
Writing letters to the editor airing your displeasure about what was written solves nothing, you need facts to discredit the authors assumptions.
Knowledge is power, so use it to defeat the opposition.
That, Ed, is why letters were written to the editor requesting the information that is being used to discredit the 7.62 Enfield. Once we know what that information is, then we can find the most effective way to combat it.
If I may make a suggestion, the Canadian members here could try and contact Jim Bullock he was on the Canadian shooting team and also pressure tested thousands of rounds of ammunition.
Mr. Bullock would be an invaluable source of information on the Enfield Rifle on the very subject we are discussing here. Oil or water in the chamber can cause the headspace to increase faster than with a dry chamber and is directly related to chamber pressure (.303 vs. 7.62)
Don’t wait for Pearl Harbor or Singapore to be attacked first again, gather information and prepare for a immediate counter attract.
Jim Bullock
“I have pressure tested thousands of rounds of ammo in many different calibers both professionally (years ago) and more recently using the facilities of the Canadian Gov't (Explosives Branch) and Expro (maker of IMR powder).”
Originally Posted by PrinzEugen
on the exact topic of the rifles the NRA article was written about.
PM
