The quality of steel in war production no4s

[303Guy]

Well well! Is it possible the Indians were using a stronger than original spec steel already so no changes were needed? On the internet we find circular references with no reference source so it could be hearsay/myth that's been quoted as fact as you say. There is that niggling thing my uncle told me about the 308 modified No1 that set the bolt back (not a quick process but how many shots it took I don't know - I don't think he knew). Well, there must be a way of finding out for sure.

My understanding (which is open to correction) is that proof loads were 25% above normal and three such loads should not set the bolt back measurably. That would be a little above 7.62 NATO loadings but how many shots would a rifle operating close to its strength limit withstand? I don't know. It is said the No4 is a stronger action - strong enough to handle 7.62 NATO but with a smaller safety margin than a purpose built 7.62 NATO.

We know what the original steel specification for No1's and that strength is known as is the 4140 used in No4's so we have some sort of comparison. I don't know so I can't do the comparison.

In the meantime I'm going to erase what I thought was fact until proven otherwise.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Thunderbox]

Well well! Is it possible the Indians were using a stronger than original spec steel already so no changes were needed? On the internet we find circular references with no reference source so it could be hearsay/myth that's been quoted as fact as you say. There is that niggling thing my uncle told me about the 308 modified No1 that set the bolt back (not a quick process but how many shots it took I don't know - I don't think he knew). Well, there must be a way of finding out for sure.

My understanding (which is open to correction) is that proof loads were 25% above normal and three such loads should not set the bolt back measurably. That would be a little above 7.62 NATO loadings but how many shots would a rifle operating close to its strength limit withstand? I don't know. It is said the No4 is a stronger action - strong enough to handle 7.62 NATO but with a smaller safety margin than a purpose built 7.62 NATO.

We know what the original steel specification for No1's and that strength is known as is the 4140 used in No4's so we have some sort of comparison. I don't know so I can't do the comparison.

In the meantime I'm going to erase what I thought was fact until proven otherwise.

The "stronger steel" comment originated in Edwards' book about "Indian Enfields"- but that book was written without any cooperation or data from the Indian authorities or from the Ishapore factory.


Proof loads are nowhere near the actual strength limit of the rifle. The No1 rifle is thought to be about ten times as strong as required by the the service load. The Textbook of Small Arms notes that No1s can withstand several 30T proof firings without any effects - thats more than 50% over the current .308W/7.62x51 proof test...

[Ridolpho]

This thread continues to evolve! Don't you love it when an undocumented myth (better quality steel in Ishapore 7.62 rifles) becomes entrenched in the literature. There do appear to be two documentable observations however: 1) Lithgow No. 1 rifle conversions to 7.62 were tested and not found satisfactory, terminating the program (S.A.I.S. No. 19, Skennerton and Labudda, pg. 21,22) and 2) Many thousands of 7.62 No. 1 rifles were manufactured by Ishapore. Did the Indians simply choose to accept or live with the problems found in the 1000 round test rifles at Lithgow? Has anyone out there found severe headspace problems or small cracks (as described for the Lithgow test rifles) in well used 2A/2A1 rifles?

Ridolpho