Lee Enfield chamber reaming in the Great war?

[Richard Hare]

Good morning all,
On another forum, there was some talk of the chambers of the Lee Enfield being reamed larger in the Great War, to reduce the problem of somewhat sub-standard ammunition.

I have never heard of this before, so can someone please point me in the right direction to read the details?
I had thought that the L-E chamber was always made 'generous' and that is why it was one of the Very few that could pass the "sand' and 'mud' tests.

Thank you for your time.

Richard.

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.

[Peter Laidler]

If that were the case I feel sure that in the technical information available to Armourers there would be a note to that effect. There are several precedence for this.

[muffett.2008]

I remember discussing this before, this question is often raised on the Flat Earth Forum, the only chamber improvements made to the No.1 Mk.III was to increase the rear chamber Bevel to allow easy chambering with rounds contaminated with mud/blood.
This in conjunction with a relief groove around the base of the round sorted most of the ammunition problems of the time.
The Lithgow rifles had the bolt carriageway reamed to allow more clearance, as sand was binding the close tolerance actions and the increased leadin bevel was also done.
British actions had more tolerance in the chambers than the Australian ones, this often leads to false information in regard to out of round chambers and excessive headspace. At one time it was even claimed that the oval chamber was to allow monsoon rain to drain( maybe someone can resurrect that post, always good for a laugh) such is the rubbish posted on the mighty internet.

What needs to be remembered is that this was a fire and forget rifle, no fancy reloading techniques employed on the battlefield.
The case was sufficiently strong enough with a solid rear web that ensured sufficient safety to the user under the most extreme conditions, as opposed to the light soft brass cases used by the current reloading fraternity, using often undersized brass in generous chambered Milsurps leads to all sorts of weird case deformities, hence the continuous persistance of posts regarding chambers/headspace.

Proper reloading techniques and attention to the individual requirements of each Milsurp will ensure a safe and enjoyable time with these old ladies, do your research and do not be misled by some of the interestingly stupid things you read on the internet.

[Peter Laidler]

Additionally, if oversize chambers were permitted or authorised, what would we Armourers do about the 'concentricity of striker gauge' test. That'd fail every time with a radially enlarged chamber.

Tell them that we say that they're repeating a load of old bollxxxx

[Big Ball Bag]

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=49844&page=1

[Bruce_in_Oz]

I have a suspicion that a LOT of chambers were "freshened-up" by commercial operators after the rifles left service in some dire ex-colonial outpost.

The ONLY saving grace is that, with .303 being a RIMMED cartridge, the bozos with the abrasive sticks, couldn't do much to bugger up headspace, unlike quite a few "surplus" Mausers of my acquaintance. Chamber diameter and shoulder location are of little concern to non-reloaders and "casual" shooters.

The story of the "mud-clearance" chambers is probably an extrapolation of the sad story of the Ross rifle and its "issues" in the field.

[Son]

And here it is, by popular demand, possibly the worst bit of tripe about the Lee Enfield you will ever see .... copy pasted direct from a very flat place

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++

Moderator

Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 8:31 pm
Posts: 8562
Location: Albuquerque,New Mexico
Age: 61


You posted you bought a "bolt head'. What I was hoping was that you took notice of that so called Number 1,2,3 bolt heads was the fix for a too large head spacing problem. It is not. The bolt heads were machined/filed down to fit what ever spacing problem was done by the Armorer. When these were turned back into the supply depot they were just dumped together. Unless you got a new sealed package of them, the odds of them not being the size you want is great.
The sellers really gouge the buyer on these bolt heads that solve nothing. I hate to see our members taken in like that.
The other major problem is that there are two standards of what the Head space gauge should look like. We in the USA use the SAMI specifications. The English do not. Our Head space gauges will almost always fail an English Enfield Rifle.
Yet your rifle would be very safe to fire with new ammunition or surplus ammo. At least the first time with the new brass.
The best way was to always go with a replacement bolt body and find the longest body you can. By using your original bolt head you can tune the bolt head spacing to your action. While your numbers will no longer match, at least you will have an action that won't eat your brass by stretching it to a point it fails. The base of the case will separate from the rest of the casing. This will allow high pressure gas into the action and your eyes.
If your rifle has the screw going through the stock from left to right,just in front of the trigger guard a few inches, it has been to India. They also would re-cut the chamber to a slight oval at the breech. This allowed their Monsoon rain to escape out of the rifle if it was loaded with the muzzle up. While this help prevent the splitting of the barrel when fired, it plays hell on the walls of our commercial brass. It does not seem to affect the military loaded cases as the walls are much thicker.
I hope you enjoy your new found toy. They are good shooters and fun to shoot.

_________________
Gulf of Tonkin Yacht Club '70-72
GMCM(SW) USN 68-89
1776-2012 USA RIP
President NM MILSURPS

[Peter Laidler]

Where do they find these oafs........

[Sentryduty]

Not to lend any credit to the idea that a "breech oval" was intentionally cut to drain out water, or any cuts were made to a chamber for any reason. But let's pretend in some fantasy world that there was some necessity to drain water from the chamber. There would be better ways to do it while maintaining striker location on the primer, for example the Russian SVT-40 employs a fluted chamber (For very different reasons). A properly engineered fluted chamber could act as rain gutters much better than some arbitrary grinding.

I cannot stop reading that quote over and over, somewhere between laughter and disbelief:

"If your rifle has the screw going through the stock from left to right,just in front of the trigger guard a few inches, it has been to India. They also would re-cut the chamber to a slight oval at the breech. This allowed their Monsoon rain to escape out of the rifle if it was loaded with the muzzle up. While this help prevent the splitting of the barrel when fired, it plays hell on the walls of our commercial brass."

[Richard Hare]

Peter,

Bolloxxx noted. :-)

They be not oafs though Peter, anyone who can ream an Oval hole has to be very clever!! (LOL)
Many thanks to all who have contributed to this thread.
It is as I always thought. In my O.P. I was trying to be diplomatic, and give benefit of the doubt. (but had suspicions!)

I am relieved though, that there Isn't a huge gap in my knowledge re. the L-E. :-)

This topic came up whilst discussing the Ross, and someone defending the Ross made out that the L-E suffered from the same faults. (as suggested by Bruce above)
In my mind, I had a Pile of arguments why this could not be, but thought I'd defer to the more learned on this site.


Muffet,
"Flat Earth Forum" I like that!
Thanks again chaps.

Richard.