Photos of #4MK1 converted to 7.62 Nato

[ireload2]

>>>I like the original .303 better, and its easier to rectify headspace issues to make a .303 work at its best than to start a whole new set of problems with a conversion.<<<
I have reloaded for 3 of these rifles and all had very nice bores. All of them gave poor case life with neck sized brass. What are the probabilities that all 3 had head space problems. Any changes I might make are just as much for the educational value as for the shooting value.

I think the .300 Savage would be almost the worst of all worlds.
The .300 Savage brass is getting hard to find and it is small at the head too.

I have no idea where anyone could find an affordable 7.62 Lee-Enfield magazine.

The Dutch were not happy with their 6.5X53R cartridge especially for their machine guns. They came up with a an 8X57R that was supposed to be an original Dutch cartridge though I have never been able to find any hard documentation of it. There are accounts of their machine guns being converted to it. The Dutch 8X57R was basically supposed to be a .303 British necked up to 8mm.


>>>Many No.4 rifles I've examined had a visible gap between the breech of the barrel and the bulkhead of the receiver ring, so they were never properly screwed down tight to begin with.<<<

My rifle has a gap at the rear of the barrel face and the receiver. They are easier to make this way since my receiver would require a c'bored breech face otherwise. In addition the gas vent hold will not have much of a function if the barrel face is solid against the receiver. The gap acts as a duct for the gas to exhaust out the vent hole.

[Alfred]

>>>I like the original .303 better, and its easier to rectify headspace issues to make a .303 work at its best than to start a whole new set of problems with a conversion.<<<
I have reloaded for 3 of these rifles and all had very nice bores. All of them gave poor case life with neck sized brass. What are the probabilities that all 3 had head space problems.

Chances of poor headspace are very high with any milsurp rifle, it goes with the territory. In the Ross debates he goes off on the LE rifles overly generous headspace and broad tolerances, comparing them to the US rifles that varied no more than .002 at the time while the LE rifles varied by as much as .01.
Of course Ross's obessession with tight chambers doomed his rifles reputation when loose tolerance British ammo was used in combat.

Any changes I might make are just as much for the educational value as for the shooting value.

I think the .300 Savage would be almost the worst of all worlds.
The .300 Savage brass is getting hard to find and it is small at the head too.

it has a short neck as well, but falls into a narrow spread of .30 cartridges suitable for these actions.

I have no idea where anyone could find an affordable 7.62 Lee-Enfield magazine.

I've seen them advertised occasionally but had no interest in them so I couldn't tell you where to find one.
There seem to be several variations with some ten rounds and other twelve round.

The Dutch were not happy with their 6.5X53R cartridge especially for their machine guns. They came up with a an 8X57R that was supposed to be an original Dutch cartridge though I have never been able to find any hard documentation of it. There are accounts of their machine guns being converted to it. The Dutch 8X57R was basically supposed to be a .303 British necked up to 8mm.

Some Dutch rifles were rebored to .303 as well, a rare conversion occasionally encountered, most were believed lost to sub attacks in transit.

Rimmed cartridges seem to have worked better in the earlier belt fed MG designs.
A few Mauser carbines were converted to .303 for use by European machinegunners armed with WW1 surplus Vickers guns. Another very rare conversion that used a slanted box magazine developed for British sporting rifles built on the Mauser actions.

BTW
I think you mentioned finding a discarded Benchrest or other target barrel and cutting it back at the breech for this project.
Thats not a bad idea at all.
Shooters that have set back, rethreaded, and rechambered barrels with eroded throats have found that the tapered bore effect from mechanical wear gives a much better bullet to bore seal all the way up, reducing variations in velocity due to blowby.
Some target shooters discard a barrel after only a few thousand rounds, set back and rechambered they can still have tens of thousands of rounds of accurate life. Often at a higher level of accuracy than when new.
You may find a rifle maker that has usable take off barrels at a price far below that of a new blank.

I had considered getting a new condition 7.65 Mauser replacement barrel, at one time these were to be found very cheap, and having it set back in this manner, but the diameter drops off just last the shoulder and theres not enough metal there to cut threads for an Enfield receiver. Bores of the 7.65 turned out to be as oversized as most Enfields.

No.4 five groove barrels I've slugged seldom exceeded .313 with most at .312.
No.1 barrels generally slugged .314, mine is the only .311 I've found so far. Reynolds wrote that barrels as tight as .310 had been among those used in tests on the effect of various bore sizes with varied bullet diameters, the .312 bullet and .310 bore gave the best results.

With headspace corrected loose fit in the chamber is greatly reduced, most of the looseness is due to the steep taper of chamber and case.

I mark the rim of each case and rotate 180 degrees on second firing. This centers the case from then on.
I neck size only about the first 2/3 of the neck, the unsized rear portion of the neck acts to center the bullet to the throat, the evenly expanded case centers the primer to the firing pin. Even with a worn two groove barrel I manage consistent Sub MOA groups. I used .312 bullets for the two groove bore, and 4320 powder.

[ireload2]

My most recent shooting was done with mostly some left over Accurate Arms 2495. It was made in China and smells like phenol (moth balls). I was using a mixture of brass with some old Herter's bullets. Not too accurate.
My previous shooting with HXP brass, 4320 and 150grn Hornadys (so old they were black) gave pretty good results though I was mostly adjusting the Redfield sight I bought several years ago. The sight mounts on a no drill side plate and is probably worth more than my rifle.
I think retired bench rest barrels are unappreciated. Many BR competitors retire the barrels after 600 to a couple thousand rounds. When retired these barrels are still shooting better than most military barrels would when new.

Before I pull the barrel off of my rifle I have some brass that I can use up.
Some of it is .444 Marlin brass. I may try some more .405 brass just for testing purposes. After that I may find a .30 caliber barrel for some experimentation.
A 7.62 chamber would leave me with a single shot or more work to make it a repeater. A tight .303 chamber in a .308 barrel would make it easy to reload and I would have a magazine rifle when I got through though it would be .303 look alike wildcat.

[Alfred]

I splurged on a PH5A for my MkIII, my Christmas present to myself.

Its in near new condition other than a botched countersink at the lower mounting slot which I had to dress up. The seller threw in a six position ajustable apeture sunshade at no extra charge. I haven't mounted it yet.

[whiterider]

They can be made up to be a very satisfactory rifle for service shooting competitions....particularly in countries where only bolt action rifles are allowed for civilians.

I've used them for many years for that purpose. Mine have Sportco (Australian) barrels, made up to replicate the 'issue' 303 profile. Its worth while finding the special extractor which is a little wider than the 303 item and bevelled. If you cant find one though by a little brazing and fiddling the 303 one can be made to work.

Magazines?? initially I had the Enfield ones, which do require some maching/relieving of the bottom of the action so they will seat high enough to feed the rounds.

Eventually though i went to the Indian magazines made for the 2 (2A????) rifle...looking like a cut down SLR (L1A1) magazine. Again, some tweaking of the mag lips but they are a much better job than the Enfield ones. Ejector screw needs to be moved about 1/2 inch forward for best results.

Clip/charger loading??? I know there was a sheet steel insert on the original L8s but I've never seen one in this country. By selecting your chargers you can find some of the 303 ones that hold the 7.62 round securely enough as long as you make sure the bases of the rounds are pressed back into the charger.

Otherwise expect to make up a lot of 'dummy' rounds (no powder or primer) and just work at it till you get the thing to feed and eject reliably....then with the right projectiles you'll have a rifle that will beat a 303 any day of the week....particularly at long range.... :-)

[villiers]

...then with the right projectiles you'll have a rifle that will beat a 303 any day of the week....particularly at long range.... :-)

Funny that ... my .303 No 5´s better at 300 metres than at shorter range. I´ve been wondering why. Been told that the bullet takes longer to stabilise from the shorter barrel. (??)

But the No 5 in .308 is definitely better. Even the mag, chargers and the ramp provide a better feed. The .303´s better at speed. Suppose because the chamber´s looser.

[Alfred]

...then with the right projectiles you'll have a rifle that will beat a 303 any day of the week....particularly at long range.... :-)

Funny that ... my .303 No 5´s better at 300 metres than at shorter range. I´ve been wondering why. Been told that the bullet takes longer to stabilise from the shorter barrel. (??)

But the No 5 in .308 is definitely better. Even the mag, chargers and the ramp provide a better feed. The .303´s better at speed. Suppose because the chamber´s looser.

Could be that the rim drags on the case body of the following round as it is stripped from the rear feed lips.

Yaw is a funny thing and the MkVII bullets weren't known for stability out of the gate, hence massive wounding effect at short range, and at extreme range were stability fades, while midway the wounds were not worse than other ball.

A friend has owned his No.5 since he was twelve. He can work the action so fast, firing from the hip, that it sounds like a greasegun. Its an unmodified .303.

The shorter flat base 150 grain Hornady shows no sign of yaw from my no.4, but some European boat tail ammo I tried keyholed every shot, though the keyholed rounds still printed a fairly tight group at one hundred yards. That was the only ammo that caused any problems. Can't remember for sure but I think the headstamp was Kraeuter, which is odd because I have a tool box with the same name printed on its lid.

[tiriaq]

.30-.303 has been done.
.30-40 Krag is also an option for a .30 calibre Lee Enfield.

[ireload2]

.30-40 Krag brass is basically headed for a dead end. So far as I know it is only available from the 2 US companies.
There are many makers of .303 ammunition. At least 4 in the US and 3 in Europe that I can think of without any research.

[ireload2]

>>>Funny that ... my .303 No 5´s better at 300 metres than at shorter range. I´ve been wondering why. Been told that the bullet takes longer to stabilise from the shorter barrel. (??)<<<

I have seen long running raging arguments where very experienced reloaders and shooters say this can't be possible. They cite the logic "Ok how do the bullets know when to start steering themselves back toward the point of aim to give a closer group. The point is the groups are not smaller but they are less MOA. Since it is not really possible to deal with logic flawed in that manner I just tell then to talk to the technicians at Sierra Bullets. One of their techs cited a specific 6.5 Sierra Matchking that can shoot smaller MOA at longer ranges. The bullet is so long that it takes a while for it to go to sleep. That usually causes the thread to come to dead end.
Of course the arguments also result in me getting called a few names because I also have a rifle that does that. It is a .25-06 that shoots smaller MOA at 200 yards than at 100 yards.