Closed Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 221

Thread: Inherent Weakness ?

Click here to increase the font size Click here to reduce the font size

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Advisory Panel Patrick Chadwick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last On
    06-25-2023 @ 06:36 AM
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,032
    Local Date
    04-30-2025
    Local Time
    03:26 PM
    I think I would rather have a "weak design" Enfield bolt action than a shattering Springfield receiver caused by faulty hardening - an example of the eponymous "American Gunsmith" in action?

    Good design implies fitness for the intended task, and the Enfield was not intended to be bored out to take magnum cartridges or to be used as a bench-rest rifle, but rather to launch bullets with acceptable accuracy as fast as possible in the direction of the enemy. Something which it did quite satisfactorily.

    Patrick
    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.

  2. #2
    Legacy Member ireload2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Last On
    @
    Location
    not Canada
    Posts
    450
    Local Date
    04-30-2025
    Local Time
    08:26 AM
    >>>The trigger mechanism is worked on two pivots, and is much less complicated than either the Mauser or the Mannlicher trigger action.<<<

    Anyone that has compared the two actions know this is pure bunk.

  3. Avoid Ads - Become a Contributing Member - Click HERE
  4. #3
    Banned Alfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last On
    10-29-2009 @ 09:18 PM
    Posts
    309
    Local Date
    04-30-2025
    Local Time
    09:26 AM
    Thread Starter
    Quote Originally Posted by ireload2 View Post
    >>>The trigger mechanism is worked on two pivots, and is much less complicated than either the Mauser or the Mannlicher trigger action.<<<

    Anyone that has compared the two actions know this is pure bunk.
    I'd have to agree with you there, and the Britishicon finally went to a trigger mechanism hung from the action body and strap rather than pivoted at the triggerguard.
    The LE Trigger is fairly easy to work on once you get the hang of it though, but its also easy to screw one up beyond repair if you get ham handed.

    From the book linked to earlier
    The stability gained by a nitro-glycerine powder was purchased at a very high cost in other directions. The hot flame of the cordite explosion is very wearing on the barrel, and rifles in which cordite is used suffer from gas cutting and erosion to an extent far in advance of the same trouble in rifles in which nitrocellulose powders are used. Service rifle users in Britain very quickly became aware of this disability. The following paragraph from "Arms and Explosives " of August, 1894, teNs its own tele :

    "The War Office authorities are always informing us that cordite is making rapid strides in popularity in the Services, both for small-arm and ordnance purposes. Such a statement is practically impossible to controvert so far as the Regular branches of the Services are concerned. These have but little opportunity of preferring one powder to another, inasmuch as they are, in a vast majority of cases, bound to use Service explosives. Even here it is well known that those officers who go in at all largely for rifle-shooting very often employ their own private fancy in powders, without, however, giving such publicity to the fact as to lead the authorities to believe that they dislike cordite. It is very different with the case of the Volunteers, and the Bisley meeting affords a far better criterion of the popularity of cordite than any of the naturally prejudiced statements of War Office officials. It is, therefore, interesting to learn that where cordite had to meet with full, fair and free competition with other powders it came out very badly. Particulars have appeared in the public Press, which tally pretty accurately with our own information, as to the powder used in one of the leading M.B.L. competitions at Bisley—the Duke of Cambridge prize. Although cordite was served out gratis to the competitors, only two out of twenty-two used it. All the others seem to have preferred one or other of the various guncotton or nitro-cellulose powders now on the market. Indeed, it is claimed by the representatives of one of these that it won all the M.B.L. long-range competitions. When men of the experience of Sir Henry Halford, not to mention many others, publicly show their preference, and justify it by their success, for other powders than that officially adopted for the Services, something more Is required to convince us of its growing popularity than the asseverations of the War Office. So far as we could gather at Bisley, the feeling was that the man who respected the bore of his rifle should be very chary of subjecting it to the heat developed by cordite, and that as a shooting powder the latter was not to be relied upon."

    It is certainly true that in the early stages of the development of cordite it was not as accurate as it might have been; but this unfortunate feature of cordite has now been removed to so great an extent that it can compete on equal terms with the most highly developed nitro-cellulose powders. As regards the destructive effects of cordite, recent modifications in the specification have done little or nothing to remedy the complaint. The shooting in the 1914 match rifle competition at Bisley demonstrated to admiration that, though M.D. cordite can be made to shoot with wonderful regularity, its destructive effects increase rapidly when charge and velocity are put up. Five hundred rounds of .280 cordite ammunition leave the barrel very worn and badly gas cut at the breech end.

    The history of the British cartridge-case and bullet in the first few years after its adoption is interesting and instructive in that, when considered together, they indicate the growth of knowledge and the adaptation of design to cope with difficulties which presented themselves in practice.

    It has often been said that the correct method of procedure is to evolve a cartridge which will give the desired results, and then produce a rifle to fire it. We believe that Major Rubin did follow this course, but he is apparently the only man who has ever done so. Certainly in 1888 the Lee-Enfield rifle was chosen first, and the cartridge evolved with much trouble and expense subsequently. In this case, there was the excuse that the main point of the Committee's deliberation was the adopting of a magazine rifle, and that it could not be expected to think of the cartridge first. Neither could it know that black powder was so soon to be tumbled from the position it had occupied for centuries, and its place taken by a more complete and less easily understood propellant—one which, whilst solving some of the Committee's difficulties, would upset a great number of their carefully worked out calculations.

    The original cartridge-case was almost an exact copy of that of Colonel Rubin. It had a rimless base, and the bullet was held into the top of the case by means of a split ring,
    It goes on to say

    The Ross rifle is the arm of the Canadian forces; and as it is a Canadian production is looked on with considerable affection by the sons of the Maple-leaf. It is regarded by them as being very considerably superior to the Service rifle of the Mother Country, and the consistently good shooting of the Canadian teams which have visited this country has fostered the idea. In thus praising the rifle at their own expense, the members of the team probably belittle themselves unduly, for they have to use the same cartridge as their British fellow subjects when firing at Bisley, and there is nothing in the design of the Ross rifle that could make a great deal of difference in the usually good shooting of the Mark VI. ammunition. The difference would come into play if a heavy cartridge had to be used—one which the British action would not stand up to—then the stronger bolt of the Ross rifle would give it a tremendous advantage (see Plate XXIII.).


    The Lee action is the invention of an "American Gunsmith", James Paris Lee, chosen by the British and improved upon over the years.
    The Lee action in .45-70 had been used by the US Navy since the 1870's.
    The Remington Lee action of 1899 was used to some extent in .30-40 Kragicon caliber, but its rear locking bolt design proved to be a dead end when more powerful cartridges were considered for adoption.

    The 1903 loading of the Springfield cartridge used a propellant nearly as erosive as Cordite, and the case design and loading procedure did not allow for a Card wad between propellant and bullet.
    It was found that gas erosion led to the failure of even full metal jackets with the lead cores blown through.
    According to a quote of J H Hardcastle the firing of the MkVII ammunition with card wad left out resulted in the barrel life being cut to one sixth that of a barrel firing the same loading with card wad.
    If the Bore of an individual rifle left the factory with grooves cut to the maximum acceptable depth of .008 the card wad could be vitified and worn down enough to allow significant blowby mid way of the bore.

    I haven't found any decent studies of bullet jacket damage from UK sources yet but I did find that the US Chief of Ordnance had reported on testing done when shed jackets became a problem with the 1903 cartridges.
    http://books.google.com/books/downlo...ummary_r&cad=0
    Another source with good photos of recovered bullets damaged by increasing levels of gas erosion.
    Ordnance and gunnery: a text-book ... - Google Books

    The Glazed surface of the Card served an unusual purpose. When ammunition was exposed to heat for any length of time Nitroglycerin could soak into a non glazed wad, and the wad itself became an explosive.

    The .303 being an updated Black Powder cartridge, and its loading procedure being suited to placing a compressed Black Powder pellet into the case before the neck was formed, allowed for the insertion of the card during manufacture. This greatly complicated ammunition manufacture and made reloading using Cordite a very iffy proposition.

    As for failures of Low Numbered 1903 actions, there were more failures of LE actions recorded in a two year period in Canadaicon and listed in the House of Commons debates on the Ross Rifle.
    These debates are another source of the claim that the rear locking bolt of the Lee resulted in a weak action, and the number of bolt head failures and listed injuries plus at least one death due to bolthead failures didn't help the rifle's image.

    The well known tendency of the earlier tublar jacket bullets to shed their jacket in the bore or sometimes down range has led to some believing that only tublar jacket or mutilated Dum Dum bullets can shed their jackets in the bore. This could lead to accidents in the future as used and abused Enfields end up in the hands of younger shooters who don't know that erosion certainly can result in heat damaged and stripped jackets.

    The British first looked for both a stronger action and a cartridge with better performance, this ultimately resulted in the P-14. The action was fine, but the cartridge it was originally designed for failed due to the harsh character of the propellant. That and a brilliant muzzle blast that would give away a rifleman's position.

    The problem of muzzle blast remained so long as Cordite was used, resulting in the use of Mk8Z NC loaded ammo in the Bren when the gun was used in low light conditions. Brilliant muzzle blasts also gave away the position of British Night Fighters according to a recent interview with one of these pilots.

    The Lee Enfield was if anything held back by the British insistence on using Cordite rather than developing existing Nitrocellulose powders.
    Production bottle necks resulted in Britian having to buy ammo from the US and Canada , and this ammo had to be shipped through U-boat infested waters at great cost in lost ships and men.

    BTW
    The British respected the 1903 Springfield rifle enough to attempt to contract Remington to produce the rifle in .303 in the 1940's, and then bought thousands of the .30-06 rifles when this proved too difficult.

    I've passed up several 03 Springfields over the years, I like the feel of the Lee Enfields better, and when a properly taylored handload is used the rifle is remarkably accurate.
    I'd have to go along with the Bisley crowd and chose not to use Cordite loaded ammo, even if they began producing it again.
    Awhile back I had intended to try to find some of the most recent production MkVII, but after studying what the British themselves had to say about it I figure I'm better off using only taylored handloads that come close ballistically.
    No sense using up whats left of my rifle's accuracy life un necessarily. Besides mis fires can get someone killed in serious situations and hang fires can lead to accidents.

    PS
    http://books.google.com/books?id=6Oe...esult&resnum=1

    MkVII ammunition proved to be relatively ineffective against even the primitive Body Armor and Trench Shields in use during WW1. This resulted in the use of heavy caliber sporting rifles by British Snipers when such hardened targets were encountered.
    Though telescope sighted No.1 rifles were produced, the P-14 and Ross rifles seem to have put in a better showing for numbers employed.
    Last edited by Alfred; 06-17-2009 at 01:46 AM.

  5. #4
    Legacy Member ireload2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Last On
    @
    Location
    not Canada
    Posts
    450
    Local Date
    04-30-2025
    Local Time
    08:26 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick View Post
    I think I would rather have a "weak design" Enfield bolt action than a shattering Springfield receiver caused by faulty hardening - an example of the eponymous "American Gunsmith" in action?

    Good design implies fitness for the intended task, and the Enfield was not intended to be bored out to take magnum cartridges or to be used as a bench-rest rifle, but rather to launch bullets with acceptable accuracy as fast as possible in the direction of the enemy. Something which it did quite satisfactorily.

    Patrick
    Yeah but would you rather have to go into combat against a Garandicon rifle with your #4. Things change. The Lee-Enfield was a design left over from the black powder era. Like many other designs, it appears the to be a case of being smart enough to make a bad idea work.

  6. #5
    Banned Edward Horton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Last On
    09-10-2011 @ 01:42 PM
    Location
    Harrisburg, PA USA
    Age
    74
    Posts
    935
    Local Date
    04-30-2025
    Local Time
    09:26 AM
    Well GunnerSam AKA Alfred and ireload2 have the choice of also voting with their feet and moving to the Mauser forum……………….permanently

    I’ll stay here with the people who enjoy the Enfield Rifleicon, its history and not bitch about it, this is why I always say it’s impossible for an American to be an expert on the Britishicon Enfield rifle.


  7. #6
    Moderator
    (Lee Enfield Forums)
    Jollygreenslugg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last On
    07-08-2024 @ 06:02 AM
    Location
    Country New South Wales, Australia
    Age
    53
    Posts
    96
    Real Name
    Matt Austin
    Local Date
    04-30-2025
    Local Time
    11:26 PM
    Boys, lets please not make this about personalities.

    If we stick to information only without letting our personal thoughts about the posters themselves show, all will be fine. Once we start making judgements about posters in our own posters, things go downhill fast.

    Please keep this in mind.

    Cheers,
    Matt

  8. #7
    Banned Alfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last On
    10-29-2009 @ 09:18 PM
    Posts
    309
    Local Date
    04-30-2025
    Local Time
    09:26 AM
    Thread Starter
    Quote Originally Posted by Jollygreenslugg View Post
    Boys, lets please not make this about personalities.

    If we stick to information only without letting our personal thoughts about the posters themselves show, all will be fine. Once we start making judgements about posters in our own posters, things go downhill fast.

    Please keep this in mind.

    Cheers,
    Matt
    Just remember that if some visitor to this forum stuffs a 220 grain max load in an L8 or similar conversion and blows out the bolthead, possibly killing or guesomely injuring himself or a bystander, that I and Ireload did what we could to prevent it.
    Same goes if a reloader actually believes that either the SMLE or the No.4 in .303 can be safely loaded beyond SAAMI maximum specs because some converted No.4 rifles which probably haven't been exposed to such max pressures so far haven't blown up yet or if any have they didn't make national news.

  9. #8
    Banned Edward Horton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Last On
    09-10-2011 @ 01:42 PM
    Location
    Harrisburg, PA USA
    Age
    74
    Posts
    935
    Local Date
    04-30-2025
    Local Time
    09:26 AM
    The real question here is why are you Alfred and ireload2 acting like a tag team and starting trouble here in this forum and for what purpose?

    The only thing I’m guilty of is arguing with people who don’t know what they are talking about like yourself Alfred and your comments here about 220 grain bullets when they are not loaded in standard military ammunition.

    The No.4 Enfield Rifleicon was approved to shoot the 7.62 NATO round by the Britishicon military and doesn’t need your OK or your approval for anything.

    Your living in a delusional world where you actually think that what you have to say about a British and Commonwealth rifle actually matters or means something.

    As for stalking you, you are out of your mind, I just happened to be in a forum where a guy named Alfred was calling “someone” a jerk because I disagreed with you about double base powders. Alfred was looking for answers he didn’t know and was told the same thing I told him at Gunboards and I sent the links to a moderator here to prove it. You can ask Jollygreenslugg because the links were sent to him and many other people.

    Did you notice Sprog stated at Gunboards that he thought I had been set up for being banned, so I wonder what you and ireload2 are doing here together now. And why ireload2 is sending emails to you about what was said at Gunboards because you have been banned until the end of the month.

    The really strange part is ireload2 was not banned at Gunboards but has only made one posting in the Enfield forum at Gunboards and spends all his time here with Alfred stirring up trouble and looking for arguments.



    Below is when ireload2 started making trouble here, he reopened a thread that had been closed for a month just to start an argument and restart a war all that started at Gunboards when he tried to hijack my thread on using o-rings to fire form cases.


Closed Thread

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts