Thanks for posting the pics Zippy7.

I have a little difficulty in interpreting these two drawings.
Pic without bullet: case length 2.22"
Pic with bullet: case length 2.222"
Fairly closely the same, and plausible if the pic without bullet represents the maximum case dimensions.

The shoulder angle is 16.6 in both cases, but:
Pic without bullet: base-shoulder 1.786", neck length 0.304, shoulder 0.393"
Pic with bullet: base-shoulder 1.790", neck length 0.332", shoulder 0.401"
If the pic without bullet represents the maximum cartridge, and the pic with bullet is the minimum chamber, then I am worried by the max neck diameter being 0.339" and the minimum chamber (at the neck) being 0.338". And the 0.304" neck length seems plain wrong. Perhaps someone could help me with the interpretation of these drawings?

I am not being just picky here. There has been such a lot of heated discussion of Enfield cartridges in the past on this and the old CMPicon forum, in the course of which a couple of contributors managed to get themselves banned, that I feel it is important to be sure that any data presented are correct (as far, of course, as the contributor can judge).

This requires stating the source of such information and, if possible, the date of the drawing. I suspect that the maximum dimensions may have altered over the decades. All I know for certain is that the base-shoulder distance on my arsenal-mint (i.e. banged around in storage, but otherwise apparently unused) examples of a No. 1 MKV and No.4Mk2 do not match in this respect, and in both case the shoulder is much, much deeper than on cartridges formed in modern sizing dies. I live with this by segregating the cases for the two rifles and neck-sizing only (yes, I even have two sizing dies, for this very reason).

So I too would like to know what the "real" Britishicon standards were, at a given time. But from official drawings - if anyone has such.

Patrick