2A1 Ishapore terrible accuracy + other problems

[mrclark303]

How do you check the headspace ?
Remember these are 7.62 (not 308 Win) and there are 12 different 7.62 NATO headspace gauges for GO and 12 for NO-GO for different firearms and different reasons. Which one do you take ?

What should the 2A headspace be and whereabouts on the neck should it be measured ?

On the subject of Ethiopia, RTI were selling 'bargain basement' Ishapore rifles that they appear to have sourced from a 'scrap heap' in Ethiopia

I was wondering the same thing re head spacing. I have to say (rightly or wrongly) I've always had my doubts about the strength of the 2A1 action and 7.62x51.

I know the steel is changed, but still, dimensionally, it's a No1 and the somewhat
slim sidewalls of the action body would trouble me, I have my doubts...

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.

[Alan de Enfield]

I was wondering the same thing re head spacing. I have to say (rightly or wrongly) I've always had my doubts about the strength of the 2A1 action and 7.62x51.

I know the steel is changed, but still, dimensionally, it's a No1 and the somewhat
slim sidewalls of the action body would trouble me, I have my doubts...

I'm afraid you have 'fallen for' the internet rumour that if repeated enough times becomes fact.

The steel is NOT a better grade, it is exactly that as specified for the No1 Mk3.
In fact Peter Laidler bought a dozen 2A / 2A1 and had them tested, several were found to actually be No1 Mk3 and the original markings could be seen under the microscope.

There was an interesting article (some years ago) from the ProofMaster of the Ishapore rifle factory and a section of the article dealt specifically with Lee Enfields.


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 originally specified 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.



You could say that the 2A / 2A1 were a better steel than the Ishapore No1 Mk3's, but that is only because the Indians changed the specification of the steel used on the No1 Mk3.
The 2A / 2A1 steel used is the same steel as originally specified for the No1 Mk3 ans is the same as that used by all other No1 Mk3 manufacturers.

[Lee Enfield]

I'm afraid you have 'fallen for' the internet rumour that if repeated enough times becomes fact.

The steel is NOT a better grade, it is exactly that as specified for the No1 Mk3.
In fact Peter Laidler bought a dozen 2A / 2A1 and had them tested, several were found to actually be No1 Mk3 and the original markings could be seen under the microscope.
...snip...

I'm sorry, but this story cannot be true - there are structural differences between a 2A/2A1 action and a No1 action - and yes, when PL made the assertion that 2A/2A1 actions were merely converted No1 .303 actions, I called him on it.

The easiest structural difference to see is that the ejector screw is moved forward approx. 1/4" on the 2A/2A1 action.
the second one is that there is a relief cut on the inside of the action to assist the cartridge base running into the ejector screw.

If .303 No1 receivers were "converted" into 2A/2A1 actions, it would be very plain to see, and there would be 2 ejector screw threaded holes in the action - similar to the Sterling 7.62 No4 conversion

[Alan de Enfield]

I'm sorry, but this story cannot be true - there are structural differences between a 2A/2A1 action and a No1 action - and yes, when PL made the assertion that 2A/2A1 actions were merely converted No1 .303 actions, I called him on it.

The easiest structural difference to see is that the ejector screw is moved forward approx. 1/4" on the 2A/2A1 action.
the second one is that there is a relief cut on the inside of the action to assist the cartridge base running into the ejector screw.

If .303 No1 receivers were "converted" into 2A/2A1 actions, it would be very plain to see, and there would be 2 ejector screw threaded holes in the action - similar to the Sterling 7.62 No4 conversion

If we accept that PL was mistaken with regard to the re-use of No1 Mk3 bodies, do you accept that the steel used and the revised testing is as reported by the Proof Master ?