About those "stretchy" Lee Enfields

[gc1054]

Bruce,
As we know there were issues with the Krag bolts with cracked locking lugs when the USG upped the 30 Army service load for higher MV (>2000fps IIRC vs the standard 1940fps). Perhaps just a case of a lack of checking versus design specs/limits (but in the spirit of today's HALT -type testing it pointed out an issue or limit albeit not by intent!).
Not seen any info on related Krag receiver issues.

Wrt the Enfield receivers & the extendo/stretcho scenario, what wore out the bodies per Peter's comments on bolt heads? Simply thousands of bolt cycles with frictional wear and possibly lack of hardness on the rear locking surfaces in the body (again per PL notes)? Or is the "setback effect" in play too and progressive (think L1A1 locking shoulders & initial headspacing setup where setback gets accounted for)?

gc1054

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.