the Ishapore 2's 7.62x51

[pocketshaver]

Why did they, when the got to design the rifle, that they would have used the SMLE Mk III pattern rifle, with the sight in front of the receiver. Instead of using the superior No 4 rifle pattern with the sight on the rear of the receiver?

Even for the british, choosing the far less accurate model makes no sense.

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 never built the No4. Plus they had more No1s than anybody else, no money and a police force larger than most countries armies. Logistics I think its called. The later designed No4 is a stronger better design from the 1930s the No1 design goes way back into the late 1800s. You crawl before you walk as is the same in engineering and manufacturing.

[pocketshaver]

even if they did it to keep manufacturing easier by keeping the old machinery, they weren't smart to keep the old sight location. it was never the accurate one with the short sight plane. and the inability to use the micrometer sights.... gah

[Daan Kemp]

If you had the machining already set up, a large inventory of similar items, work force trained, metallurgy improved, etc, a huge capital outlay for an item that didn't fit in with the military's planning and relatively low production didn't make sense? Low frequency of use for the main user, ie police force, requirement of such force.

[Roger Payne]

Quite..........& the Indians may not be over impressed being referred to as 'British'!

[Alan de Enfield]

metallurgy improved,

After independence the Ishapore factory started to use an alternative steel to that specified by the UK, when they tried to use that steel in the 2A rifle it locked up solid as the action warped and they had to revert back to the original No1 Mk3 UK specified steel
Not really an 'improved steel' just using what was specified.
Proof testing was 'fudged' to ensure it passed.


Extract from “Gun Digest 33rd Anniversary 1979 Deluxe Edition”
Article Author : Mr A G Harrison
Qualification : Former ‘Proof Master’ of the ‘Rifle Factory Proof House, Ishapore, India’

From 1908 to 1950 all military bolt action rifles made at Ishapore were proof tested with a dry-round, followed with by an oiled proof round. The proof cartridge was loaded to 24 tons psi breech pressure, or 15% higher than the service pressure. In 1950 (after the departure, in 1949, of India from British control) the material for the rifle bodies was altered from an EN steel to SWES 48 steel with the recoil shoulder and cam recesses being heat treated. With this change the rifle receivers distorted when oiled proof cartridges were fired. This was discovered when hard and sometimes impossible bolt retraction was experienced. Large quantities of rifles were rejected.
To avoid rejections the authorities ordered discontinuance of the oiled proof round. Therefore from 1950 to the end of SMLE production, rifles made at Ishapore were proof tested with one dry proof only, although the specification still called for both dry and oiled proof. All bolts and bolt heads issued as spares were always proofed with a dry proof round only.

A bolt action rifle similar to the SMLE MkIII*, modified to fire the 7.62mm NATO cartridge, was produced at Ishapore, first in February 1965. The receivers were made of SWES 48 steel (as per the SMLE MkIII*) and with the NATO proof cartridge the receivers were found to distort with both the dry and oiled proof round. The material was changed back to the EN steel so now the rifles stand up better to dry and oiled proof. After passing proof the barrels are impressed with the Indian national proof stamp. The bolt handles and bolt head claws are struck with the crossed flags only.

[browningautorifle]

Extract from “Gun Digest 33rd Anniversary 1979 Deluxe Edition”

That almost makes Indian rifles sound not safe, they haven't been properly proofed.

[tr63]

So the Ishapore made rifles made in 7.62x51 all were shot loose in head space after firing a couple of hundred rounds ? The ones that I own must of not been shot since they were built as they all pass the head space gauge test !!! In plain English are they safe to use ? Did the Indian military have massive failures etc. with these in their service life and covered it up ?

[Alan de Enfield]

That almost makes Indian rifles sound not safe, they haven't been properly proofed.

The article actually shows some horrendous 'howlers' undertaken by the Ishapore proof house, one example being that some shotguns required proving and were in calibres that was not common in India so they just used the test required for the one calibre for which they had proof cartridges.

Attachment 107885

The fact that Ishapore Enfields are not regularly 'blowing-up' shows the strength of the action, and the safety factor involved in using a 24 tons PSI proof cartridge.
An 'oiled' cartridge results in a distorted / twisted action but at no risk to the person firing the rifle.

It simply means that by using an alternative steel means that it is cannot be tested in the same way as No1 MK3 rifles from other manufacturers.


It certainly points out the difference that using a wet (or oiled) cartridge has to the chamber pressures and why it is a good idea "to keep your powder dry"

The effect on accuracy of using a wet cartridge has been known since the 'early days'

[Alan de Enfield]

So the Ishapore made rifles made in 7.62x51 all were shot loose in head space after firing a couple of hundred rounds ? The ones that I own must of not been shot since they were built as they all pass the head space gauge test !!! In plain English are they safe to use ? Did the Indian military have massive failures etc. with these in their service life and covered it up ?

As a matter of interest how are you checking the Ishapore 2A / 2A1 headspace ?