Inherent Weakness ?

[Dimitri]

Simply put the design was adequately strong for the intended purpose.

That is the point me and Ed are trying to make nothing more.

No one has produced credentials showing degrees in Metallurgy and the engineering of firearms which I would consider as the minimum required to make a post in this thread and speak with authority.

I went to college for Tool and Die, and learned both in school and at work about the properties of metal, heat treatment and the selection of proper materials for the job and the abilities for metals to withstand excessive forces that they were not designed to do if that counts.

I say the 4% or so difference in pressure between the No.4 chambered in 303 British and the 308Win is not enough to worry about it. Actually its so trivial that if I was to mention this to anyone I know with decades of experience working with the properties of materials that they'd tell me I'm a idiot. Not a personal insult to anyone, just a fact. No design is within 4% of breaking or failing.

Now I ask again , would any here load .303 ammunition to 62,000 PSI and sell it as safe for use in No.4 rifles?

No one would, that is being stupid, look at your reloading manuals I doubt any 308Win max load will reach 55,000PSI. Now look at that same reloading manual where the Winchester Short/Super Short Mags and the Ultra Mags are listed as 62,000PSI loads.

Dimitri

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.

[Alfred]

That is the point me and Ed are trying to make nothing more.



I went to college for Tool and Die, and learned both in school and at work about the properties of metal, heat treatment and the selection of proper materials for the job and the abilities for metals to withstand excessive forces that they were not designed to do if that counts.

I say the 4% or so difference in pressure between the No.4 chambered in 303 British and the 308Win is not enough to worry about it. Actually its so trivial that if I was to mention this to anyone I know with decades of experience working with the properties of materials that they'd tell me I'm a idiot. Not a personal insult to anyone, just a fact. No design is within 4% of breaking or failing.

13,000 PSI is a lot more than 4% of 49,000 PSI.

No one would, that is being stupid, look at your reloading manuals I doubt any 308Win max load will reach 55,000PSI. Now look at that same reloading manual where the Winchester Short/Super Short Mags and the Ultra Mags are listed as 62,000PSI loads.

Dimitri

Reloading manuals are suggested safe loads, they don't mean that no factory ammo can exceed those suggested loads. As Ed's post above shows pressures can vary by thousands of PSI within the same lot.
One can load a cartridge to as low a pressure as they wish.
55,000 PSI is over ten percent higher than any loading deemed safe for the .303. Also loads tested with one brand of cases can generate much higher pressures if a different case with smaller case capacity is used.

The 7.62 NATO chambered rifles would be safest if used only with taylored handloads that did not exceed the 49,000 PSI Maximum SAAMI specs for the .303.

[Dimitri]

13,000 PSI is a lot more than 4% of 49,000 PSI.

The 7.62 NATO chambered rifles would be safest if used only with taylored handloads that did not exceed the 49,000 PSI Maximum SAAMI specs for the .303.

Alfred,

CIP lists using the piezo method 53,000PSI for the 303 British or for the copper crusher method 46,000CUP. Not too far off from the normal working pressures of 7.62x51mm NATO ammunition.

Since we know that all NATO standard ball ammunition is to balistically preform the same, we know the ~150gr loadings all run at about 50,000PSI (or atleast should run at that pressure to make sure it will work in any infantry arms in use by member countries), whether you want to take CIP's number for the 303 British which puts 7.62mm NATO ammunition in the safe zone or you want to use SAAMI's number which puts it 2% lower then NATO ball, its still too little to care about.

And yes Winchester IS the final design authority for the .308 Win cartridge.
SAAMI is the standardizing body but Winchester OWNS the design.

SAAMI is a bunch of ammunition manufacturers that self-regulated so the government wouldnt do it for them.

And the 308Win just like the 7.62x51mm NATO is owned by no one. US law prohibits the government from owning anything. Whatever they create as its a public "work" and since the military developed the 7.62x51mm NATO first, any and all claim that Olin owns the 308Win is obserd as Olin copied the military's new ammunition and sold it with their own name. But due to the prior "work" cause, even if a patent could have protected Olin and gave them legitimate ownership of the round, the prior work clause would have made the military's original public work be considered the first leaving Olin with no protection.

Alan, Ed,

One of you two wouldn't happen to have a dimensional drawing for the No4 receiver would you?

Dimitri

[Alan de Enfield]

[QUOTE=Dimitri;60831 Alan, Ed,

One of you two wouldn't happen to have a dimensional drawing for the No4 receiver would you?

Dimitri[/QUOTE]

Nope - sorry - but if you find one I could do with a copy to go in my increasingly thickening Enfield file.

[ireload2]

Nope - sorry - but if you find one I could do with a copy to go in my increasingly thickening Enfield file.

If you want to make calculations on the strength of the Lee-Enfield receiver it takes only about 15-20 minutes to measure the cross section dimensions with a set of calipers and a micrometer.
The bolt can be measured in 5 minutes.

[Dimitri]

Nope - sorry - but if you find one I could do with a copy to go in my increasingly thickening Enfield file.

Will do, but it will be in the future when I get easy access to a CMM machine, when I will reverse engineer the No.4 action cause CMM prices range from 80 to 120$ a hour and its alittle too expensive.

The .308 Winchester was designed and released by Winchester(Olin).
They "own it". You do not understand the concept ownership of a design. If the design has a problem it is the responsibility of the company that originally designed it.

No Olin got a sneak peak and jumped it into the civilian market. They did not create or develop it first, they simply stole it into the market. Considering the US Military can't own a design, even if the Military wanted to they could have not stopped Olin.

And we all know how much Olin/Winchester likes to rip off the military, 2 out of the 3 times it went bankrupt was due to the military taking back the illegally gained profits the company got during both World Wars.

As for a design being the responsibility of the original designers that is not the case, once the designer is done with it, if others copy it they cannot be held liable for a copy, only the designs they produced themselves.

You seem to lack knowledge of patent law and other various laws that protect designers to their rights of a new "design".

Dimitri