Loading for the MLE action

[desky85]

Hi all I posted this question in the reloading forum. Just thought it might get a bit more interest in this forum. I am wanting to get a Shortened Range Pattern MLE going for .303 Fullbore competition that is gaining some momentum here in Australia.

I have read that the MLE action is not quite as strong as the SMLE. How much do you blokes reduce your loads for these actions?

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.

[Bindi2]

They used Mk6 and Mk7 in the day on the range.

[Simon P]

I have read that the MLE action is not quite as strong as the SMLE. How much do you blokes reduce your loads for these actions?

To be honest i dont.

[browningautorifle]

I can't imagine wanting less power and trying to compete at longer ranges. Is that what some do there?

[Ridolpho]

A great many MLM and MLE rifles were used as the basis for conversion to SMLE specs and I don't recall reading anywhere that those were removed from service or caused problems when Mk VII came along. Unless the metallurgy changed with time I would think the old ones are equal to the SMLE in strength. I have a nice, moderate 150 grain load I use in my MLE's (and a Martini Enfield). It's not a reduced load, just a starting load in my Lee manual but I can feel quite a reduction in recoil relative to, for ex, Remington-UMC FMJ loads. It's also very accurate in my No. 4's and P14's.

Ridolpho

[Roger Payne]

The only real major physical difference between the rifle body of the MLE & the SMLE is the charger bridge on the latter. It being where it is, I wouldn't have thought it would make any significant difference to the overall strength of the SMLE body. In fact there are a couple of extra (rivet) holes in the SMLE receiver not too far from the locking lug recess because of the presence of the charger bridge. I think so long as the rifle concerned is in otherwise sound condition there is no need to download unless out of preference.

[desky85]

Thanks for the replies gents. Reason in the back of my mind did tell me that there isn't a huge amount of difference between the two actions, so strength shouldn't be too different. Also that MkVII ammo would've been used through them would also make suitable for the same ammunition.

No, reduced loading for long range is not something that is in Oz. The few statements that I have heard that the older actions aren't quite as strong, is the reason I thought I'd ask the question here.

Thanks for the replies again. I do appreciate it.

[Eaglelord17]

Possibly what they were referring to when they said older actions was the No. 1 Mk. 3 actions and earlier as the No. 4 action is stronger.

[englishman_ca]

The two use separate and distinct forgings, the MLE being slightly thicker in certain areas.

The SMLE was an updated forging with material removed.

So the SMLE receiver I believe would not be as strong (or stiff) as the MLE.

I don't reduce loads in my MLE. In fact, my hand reloads have a little bit extra umph.

[mike16]

materials change from era to era and among manufacturers.

some rifles were prefered for the specific qualities stated above.

dont know if any rounds were reduced in power to accomodate weak recievers

reloading data presumes alot about the myth of weak or springy recievers.

if they all meet a minimum proof standard............