Strength Of Lee Enfield Action

[Ridolpho]

Having seen some amazing "rants" on this and other forums I can appreciate the moderators difficulties but as a new Lee Enfield collector who plans to shoot his rifles I find threads like this extremely valuable. You have to integrate all your sources of info and weight the info according to apparent veracity of source but at the end of the day I'm developing an impression that right back to the first SMLE's (and maybe MLM/MLE) there have been no significant design or metallurgy issues that one needs to consider when deciding if a particular rifle is safe to shoot. All the comments would indicate that it boils down to wear and tear on the individual rifle and use of "normal" ammo. This is, in fact, quite a compliment to the original designers and, later, the Empires ability to maintain consistancy and quality in widely separated factories. Thanks again to all the experts that take the time to respond with details to these threads.

Ridolpho

[No4Mk1(T)]

Useful stuff
Having seen some amazing "rants" on this and other forums I can appreciate the moderators difficulties but as a new Lee Enfield collector who plans to shoot his rifles I find threads like this extremely valuable. You have to integrate all your sources of info and weight the info according to apparent veracity of source but at the end of the day I'm developing an impression that right back to the first SMLE's (and maybe MLM/MLE) there have been no significant design or metallurgy issues that one needs to consider when deciding if a particular rifle is safe to shoot. All the comments would indicate that it boils down to wear and tear on the individual rifle and use of "normal" ammo. This is, in fact, quite a compliment to the original designers and, later, the Empires ability to maintain consistancy and quality in widely separated factories. Thanks again to all the experts that take the time to respond with details to these threads.

Ridolpho

Well I can’t disagree with your point in this case and I think you’ve summed it up quite nicely. A lot of this information can be useful. It can also end up being contradicting and therefor confusing to new Enfield owners and forum members. In the end the bickering and un-supported cut & past posts in past threads are what got under my skin to the point where it seriously undermined my desire to be a mod here. Thankfully this isn’t the case anymore.
Maybe I should work on a sticky post entitled “Before you make an Enfield Action Strength post read these relevant threads” where I can post links to all these threads for newbies.

[PrinzEugen]

True enough No4Mk1(T). It's been endlessly debated before the threads were curtailed when it finally became clear that it was descending into entrenched side(s) posting stuff and not debating, simply stating their points with gigantic copy and paste tranches of text (well, on one side of the debate anyway). Use of the search facilities of the forum should allow those really interested in this issue to find out all they ever need to know on the subject - and a heck of a lot more.
On the issue of another sticky - I think that if this forum needs something it's not another sticky with a mere 20 already there!

[villiers]

Just to keep the ball rolling ... how about continuing the lengthy discussion on the eminent danger to physical and/or mental health when firing wet or oily cartridges from a Lee Enfield? If I remember correctly, that was another of those discussions that surpassed even the inane futility of the above.

[Badger]

On the issue of another sticky - I think that if this forum needs something it's not another sticky with a mere 20 already there!

I agree, which is why I usually I have my forum view showing with the "sticky" thread area collapsed. In that way, I only view the new threads downward.

You can toggle the view on and off with the small little graphic arrow showing "up and down". It's located up and to the right of the forum display. By the way, this works with any area of the forums, to help a member control what he wants to see and what he doesn't want to see.

Regards,
Doug

[jmoore]

Just to keep the ball rolling...

I'd rather it be buried in concrete, if you don't mind.

[Claven2]

Just to keep the ball rolling ... how about continuing the lengthy discussion on the eminent danger to physical and/or mental health when firing wet or oily cartridges from a Lee Enfield? If I remember correctly, that was another of those discussions that surpassed even the inane futility of the above.

Just in case anyone reading this thread does NOT realize it, oiled cartridges were part of how Enfield actions were proofed back in the day. Probably "not advisable" for the average person to attempt cartridge lubing in an Enfield action. While some may be comfortable with the practise or hold contrarian views, I don;t think we want new shooters thinking this is standard practise.

[No4Mk1(T)]

On the issue of another sticky - I think that if this forum needs something it's not another sticky with a mere 20 already there!

Point well taken. I myself don’t mind the sticky area and usually scroll past it and only open the threads with a new post but I understand your point of view. Unless the majority of forum users feel they want said sticky I won’t work on it.
Thanks also to Doug for yet another great tip on how to improve our user functionality!

Just in case anyone reading this thread does NOT realize it, oiled cartridges were part of how Enfield actions were proofed back in the day. Probably "not advisable" for the average person to attempt cartridge lubing in an Enfield action. While some may be comfortable with the practise or hold contrarian views, I don;t think we want new shooters thinking this is standard practise

I have long held this view and feel these words bear repeating. Thanks Claven2 for your sage advice.

[villiers]

`Nuff sed! I certainly did NOT intend to re-start the discussion, just to point out the futility of a repeat.

[smellie]

Had a guy over on CGN the other day, proposed rechambering a Number 4 to 7.62x54R in order to 'take advantage' of the inexpensive surplus ammunition.

So I got out my Radio Shack $6 "brain" (my organic one being defective) and calculated out bolt thrust per round, assuming standard Service pressures and no hot loads. It came out to being a little over a Proof round for every shot. Thankfully, that dissuaded him from the conversion and he is now setting up to handload his .303s.

I have been at this just about 50 years now and the ONLY thing I have seen which approached a "catastrophic failure" with a Lee rifle involved the rifle primarily as one of the VICTIMS. It was actually a Brain Failure in which the rifle was fired WITHOUT A BOLT-HEAD IN PLACE. When the rifle was brought to me, I unscrewed the fired casing from the split bolt-shank in order to take photos. The wonderful surgeons at the James Paton Memorial Hospital in Gander managed to get ALL of the brass splinters out of the boy's eye and saved his eyesight. The Rifle was given a new Bolt, WITH a bolt-head this time, and still is being used.

But that was hardly the fault of the RIFLE.

I would put the 1910 ROSS right up there with the M-1 Garand as to strength of the action. Ross fired the 1905 action at 125,000 psi and it didn't wreck it, so he then designed the much-stronger 1910 with the 7 forward locking-lugs. Bolts were factory lapped-in on these rifles and I know of NONE which has been destroyed through having a cartridge fired in it, given that the thing was properly assembled to begin with. Considering that the first Mark III ROSS Rifles were delivered to the Canadian Militia 100 years ago this year, that is a pretty impressive record.

Hope this helps.
.