Inherent Weakness ?

[Alfred]

Interesting discussion.

I don't know why, but there is little or no discussion that I've seen, regarding the strength of rear locking semi auto rifles such as the SVT 40, SKS, FAL etc.

All of those designs lock at the bottom rear of the bolt below the axis of the bore and thus would seem to be at more of a disadvantage to the 'parallel to the bore axis', rear locking Lee.

Well I don't know about the SVT 40 but the FAL and SKS have very solid bolts with only small recesses for the firing pin. The SKS isn't considered a world beater for accuracy. The FAL works fine, I've fired several of these of different configurations. Theres not much that can give or compress about its bolt.
The FAL does seem more reliable when broken in well enough to be a bit loose, and when loose it loses some accuracy in large part due to its rear lock up.

The Enfield bolt is a long hollow tube, not a square and nearly solid block.

The Remington 788 is more easily compared to the Enfield, I had one of those when they first came out. there are significant differences but they share some weaknesses. Unless the lugs are lapped into their seats perfectly equal accuracy suffers. Some 788 rifles held up very well while owners of others have complained of lug setback and the like. The 788 has a stronger receiver with less open space at the ejector port, so theres less bullet throw or drill.
Its three rows of lugs are another stabilizing factor.
Like the Enfield its rear lock up limits the power range of cartridges suitable for the rifle.

The Winchester 1895, once chambered for .303 is another rear locking action. It worked fine in .30-40 and .303, but not so well in .30/06. The design had its limitations.

[ireload2]

I have also owned, loaded for and shot the 788 in 3 calibers and an MAS 36/51 that was basically a new rifle. The 788 in .44 mag digested any and all loads. The .30-30 would actually lock up a little with some high pressure loads (high pressure for a 30-30 but not really high pressure). The .243 would experience sticky extraction at reloading manual maximums. It did provide outstanding accuracy and one of my brothers used it for about 25 years stacking up a lot of white tails with it.
The MAS 36/51 was a huge disappointment. I did a lot of work to make brass from 7.5X55 Swiss. With loads just warm enough to seal off the case mouth and stop smoking of the brass it gave sticky extraction. Accuracy was very good. I expected it to be much stronger than a Lee-Enfield. The receiver of a MAS 36 is much more massive than a Lee-Enfield. But it behaves much the same when loaded to reasonable pressures.
I currently have an Egyptian Hakim autoloader and I load for it like any other bolt gun with just a few exceptions.
The exceptions are:
1. I check the head to shoulder length of each resized case. They are normally sized .002 short of the chamber length.
2. I cycle each round through the rifle to ensure it cycles

I have never had a misfeed or miss-fire. Every round cycles properly.
I have never had a case head separation. I oil each round lightly just to ease the load on the extractor. My gas valve is set at the lowest setting. The rifle still mangles and flings brass about 10 to 15 feet.

The Hakim has a fairly solid tilting bolt that drops at the rear to lock. The bolt is held down in the locked position by the bolt carrier. At first glance the Hakim receiver is less rigid than the Lee-Enfield. Even so the Hakim has yet to show any head separations though the die setting and case oiling may have contributed to that. At any rate I am not much concerned. I have a huge supply of US GI 30-06 brass that will keep it shooting.

Life of .303 brass is more troublesome to me because there is no inexpensive, steady supply of military boxer primed brass.

[Edward Horton]

What some of my hard headed fellow Americans do not seem to understand is our English speaking cousins do not need an American talking about “inherent weak design” or talking about how cordite powder caused the downfall of the British Empire.

What my hard headed fellow Americans do not seem to understand is how insulting it is to the British and Commonwealth nations who used the Enfield Rifle in the defense of their countries.

My Springfield 03-A3 barrel was in worse condition than any Enfield I own now and it is completely pointless to talk about cordite powder and bore erosion today after the fact. It is pointless to talk about the British Enfield action flexing when the much newer American Remington 788 action flexed and compressed with certain calibers when fired.

What is important is letting people know that oil or grease on your cartridges or in your chamber of your Enfield rifle accelerates wear and can do severe damage to your Enfield due to increased bolt thrust.

We can’t change the past but we can change what we do in the present and insulting our English speaking cousins about the Enfield rifle does not belong here in a global world wide forum.

[ireload2]

EH
Do you even believe in the first amendment?
If for some reason you do not approve of this thread, do not read it and quit trying to act as a censor.

[Alfred]

What some of my hard headed fellow Americans do not seem to understand is our English speaking cousins do not need an American talking about “inherent weak design” or talking about how cordite powder caused the downfall of the British Empire.

What my hard headed fellow Americans do not seem to understand is how insulting it is to the British and Commonwealth nations who used the Enfield Rifle in the defense of their countries.

Those intent on stirring animosity between UK and US collectors continue to make such claims while the works I've linked to prove that British Criticisms of the Lee Enfield predate any that the supposed "American Gunsmith" may have made. I have yet to find any blanket condemnation of the LE written by a US gunsmith.

My Springfield 03-A3 barrel was in worse condition than any Enfield I own now and it is completely pointless to talk about cordite powder and bore erosion today after the fact. It is pointless to talk about the British Enfield action flexing when the much newer American Remington 788 action flexed and compressed with certain calibers when fired.

The point in comparing other rear locking actions is to establish that the forces on the bolt are a recognized situation with any rear locking action.
The Remington 788 Receiver is thick and has rather small openings at the ejection port and magazine opening, This reduces the amount of flex greatly, but it remains a known factor.
Since Cordite ammo is still available, and many seem determined to use it even in rifles that still have good bores, the situation of excessive erosion hasn't disappeared.
You have a Springfield with a poor bore, and several Enfields that apparently still have decent bores, and you handload for them.
Your Springfield and the condition of its bore may prejudice you towards the Springfield, many Springfield still have pristine bores. I've seen many Enfield bores that were obviously eroded beyond the point I'd consider safe, I also have two that have safe bores, one is excellent the other worn but servicable as long as taylored handloads using a .312 bullet is used. I've examined others that were obviously unsafe, with broken away lands and heavily eroded sections midway of the bore.

What is important is letting people know that oil or grease on your cartridges or in your chamber of your Enfield rifle accelerates wear and can do severe damage to your Enfield due to increased bolt thrust.

Not an issue, I don't grease cartridges, but I don't believe that any rifleman in combat could clean his chamber with strong solvents between shots to maintain a mythical best case scenario of reduced pressure on the bolt.

We can’t change the past but we can change what we do in the present and insulting our English speaking cousins about the Enfield rifle does not belong here in a global world wide forum.

Why change the past, you either learn from history or you are doomed to repeat it.
Leftwing revisionism isn't history.

BTW
I looked into your earlier claim, aproximately ten US Citizens who joined the RAF were given an oath of alegiance to the Crown in error. This violated the laws in force at the time. They did not even find out they had violated that law till decades afterward, some having transfered to the US Airforce and served till retirement. Since the oath was given in error they were absolved and Citizenship was returned.
The Supreme Court said that such matters were up to the "Will" of the citizen, they had unknowningly renounced their citizenship, but it was not a deliberate act of will, it was a simple paperwork error.

[ireload2]

In discussing the strength of the Lee-Enfield there is a tangential matter that I have little information about. The original Remington-Lee rifles in some illustrations are shown to have had both forward locking lugs as well as the rear locking lugs. Has anyone ever owned or examined one of these rifles? I am curious if they really did have both front and rear locking lugs why was the decision made to drop the front locking lugs for the rifles the British adopted?

[villiers]

" ...why was the decision made to drop the front locking lugs for the rifles the British adopted?"

Do you think it´s because only an anal retentive tends to wear both belt and braces?

Or maybe the only reason why they did away with one set of locking lugs was to provide you with further proof that the Enfield is in many ways inadequate. I am certain that the relevant authorities would have relished your advice at the time (and, of course, changed the spike bayonet on the basis of your unfortunate escapade with the ice-pick).

[ireload2]

" ...why was the decision made to drop the front locking lugs for the rifles the British adopted?"

Do you think it´s because only an anal retentive tends to wear both belt and braces?

Or maybe the only reason why they did away with one set of locking lugs was to provide you with further proof that the Enfield is in many ways inadequate. I am certain that the relevant authorities would have relished your advice at the time (and, of course, changed the spike bayonet on the basis of your unfortunate escapade with the ice-pick).

Actually I am curious from an engineering standpoint about the real rationale and engineering decisions. These decisions are always trade offs sometimes cost vs function. If that was the case the rear locking only Lee was ham strung early on rendering it unsuitable for later developments with larger smokeless rounds. In that case the belt and suspenders approach was not as dumb as the alternative.
As time has shown the spike bayonet was consigned to the dust bin.
Sometimes they make the wrong design choices trying to save a few dollars.

[Alfred]

In discussing the strength of the Lee-Enfield there is a tangential matter that I have little information about. The original Remington-Lee rifles in some illustrations are shown to have had both forward locking lugs as well as the rear locking lugs. Has anyone ever owned or examined one of these rifles? I am curious if they really did have both front and rear locking lugs why was the decision made to drop the front locking lugs for the rifles the British adopted?

The Remington Lee 1899 model came out after the Lee actions tested by the British, long after in fact.
The Four lug design was used in Rifles of one US National Guard outfit (possibly State Guard is the proper term) in 30-40 Krag Caliber. The same action was used in 7mm Mauser chambering and many sporting cartridges.
These are fairly rare but highly sought after.

One source tells me that the extra lugs were meant more as safety lugs, but I couldn't tell you for sure.
I have examined one of the Sporting models, and it was extremely well made and had a slick and fast bolt throw.
In any case if the four lug design had been adopted the British Enfields would have had a more secure lock up, and been better suited to more powerful cartridges, with a much greater margin of strength in the event of overloads or fouled bores.

The No.4 Rifle had a blocky and more substantial left receiver wall. The styling of the No.1 receiver wall, and the thumb cut for clearance when charger loading is more suited to a front locking design. They removed more metal there than was called for, and this was to some extent corrected by the No.4 redesign.

An article on the wandering zero of the No.5 Carbine , found on this site, tells of spreading of the rear walls of the action body, this has solved one mystery for me.
The vertical tilting of some No.4 MkI* bolts and the bolthead jumping the track at the cut out, is probably due to spreadng of the rear walls. This would increase the clearance between bolt body and the rather shallow grooves that are all that guides the bolt. Too much metal removed when milling the clearance cuts for the lefthand magazine feed lip complicate the situation.
No one can deny that bolt heads jumping the track is a known issue of No.4 MkI* actions, and the recent reproductions of the No.4 manufactured as target rifles have a redesigned bolthead and track to reduce the incidence of this problem. They also have a more substantial bridge, more for use as a scope base, that may reduce tendency of the receiver walls to spread.

Its likely that action body spread was due to either firing unsuitable ammunition, or firing rifles that had excessive fouling build up.
Corroded bores due to the Primers used certainly didn't help matters, and an action that had received such abuse, and was later fitted with a replacement barrel and other parts, could be difficult to spot.

[ireload2]

I guess with Lee's death in 1904 the model 1899 rifle must have been close to the end of the line for new designs with his input.
I found the illustrated break down showing the bolt head with locking lugs.