Bizarre Safety Warning from the NRA

[Alfred]

so is my '66 2a1 gonna blow up?

I wouldn't feed it any M118 Long Range Special Ball, or any of the heavier loads using bullets that are long enough to take away effective case capacity, such as 200 and 220 grain bullets.

M118 LRSB already exceeds UK maximum pressure for 7.62 Ball at its normal working pressure of 52,000 CUP and has a maximum deviation of 57,000 CUP which is pushing proof test loads for modern UK 7.62 rifles.

Using a loading that generates more than the design pressure limits may not blow up a rifle in good condition, but will cause excessive wear.

PS

On a similar note, I once tried an interesting experiment with a Mod 38 Carcano carbine. This was to fire a standard steel-cored 7.62x39 round out of the unmodified 6.5x52 chamber and barrel. The barreled action was lashed to an old car tyre, the round clipped under the extractor and the fun initiated via a long string.

BORING!! The bullet hit the backstop about 25 yards away. The action opened normally. The steel case had considerably less taper than previously and there was no sign if excess pressure on the locking surfaces. The steel-cored, steel-jacketed bullet had jumped the gap to the chamber neck, been squeezed down a bit and exited, probably not quite intact, in the usual manner. That action was subsequently rebarreled to 7.62x39 as a single-shot kids training rifle and is still in use twenty years later.

I wouldn't be puttng any .30 AP rounds down a 6.5 bore. Most Soviet era AP isn't really AP its just mild steel core with a layer of lead between core and jacket.
I've found some 7.62X54 that had cores easily scratched with a file and others in the same mixed headstamp lot that were harder than a file.
I've found these steel core bullets work fine in my two groove Savage bore.

I can see a Soviet steel core bullet squeezing the lead layer out the open base leaving the core in the jacket. I'd like to see that bullet.

With the difference in case length I'd expect a large portion of the propellant gases exited before the bullet reached OR.

[ireload2]

Blah, blah, blah
>>>>The NRA will not accept responsibility for any accident or injury to persons or property caused by anyone using any 7.62 /.308 Win ammunition supplied by them in these converted actions.<<<<
Blah, blah, blah

The British NRA sells ammo 7.62 ammo to shooters that may use it in rifles of unknown pedigree. It appears they are taking steps to avoid liability. Their other choice would be to stop supplying the ammo.

[Beerhunter]

I am still awaiting a reply to my email asking for the source of this.

BTW in the same issue, Martin Farnan's resignation is dealt with - or rather it isn't.

[tiriaq]

FWIW, when the RG 155gr ammunition was standard at Bisley for the APM, competitor's rifles were gauged, to be sure the chambers would accept it. Not unusual for target rifles to have custom chambers to maximize performance with specific ammunition, and other ammunition might not be a proper fit. Interference in the throat/leade could be a problem. There were shooters at Bisley running reamers into their chambers before they could shoot.
In the days when service ball was standard for competition, it was a common practice to install a barrel bored somewhat tighter than .30 standard, to give more accurate performance with the NATO bullet. Some Cdn. shooters even used chambers cut so that the bullet was seated into the rifling a bit, to improve concentricity. NATO ball would often not shoot to target standards when fired through a .300/.308 bore. Tight bored barrels are available for .308 target rifles.
IIRC, concerns about 7.62 Enfields surfaced in either Austarlia or NZ some years ago.
In the days when 7.62 Lee Enfield based target rifles were used, it was considered good practice to make sure ammunition did not go into the chamber wet. This could result in a flyer, because the setback of the case caused a change in the barrel vibration pattern.
Is it a good idea to shoot 7.62 Enfields with NATO equivalent ammuntion? Is it a good idea to use .308 ammuntion? Is there a real safety issue? I don't know. I have fired my 7.62 Lee Enfield based target rifle with a standard .308 target load - 155SMK, Winchester brass, Fed. GM primer, 46gr Varget. Nothing untoward happened. Does that mean nothing unfortunate will never happen? I don't know.
A lot of the Indian 2A rifles have been sold in the US. They are not common in Canada. I would expect that a lot of these rifles have been shot a lot with 7.62 and .308 ammunition. Has anyone ever heard of any mishap with one of these rifles?

[Bindi2]

The proof load is +25% dry and +25% oiled, when those rifles were proofed the 144gn nato round was it. What the UK NRA is sayiny those rifles have not been proofed for any other weight projectiles

[Alfred]

Well the way I see it as far as Commercial sporting /hunting ammunition in .308 Winchester goes is that the short cased round is liked for the short actions and bolt throw of rifles designed to make the best of the cartridge.

They wanted to duplicate .30/06 balistics while having a Mauser type bolt action rifle that was handier for follow up shots.
The Enfields already have a short throw and fast follow up, the shorter round is un necessary.
The expectation was that advances in propellant technology would allow this without greatly increasing chamber pressures. Up to a point this worked out.
With bullets up to 150-155 grain pressures can be kept to no more than the MkVIIIZ range of pressure.
As bullet weights go up the restriction of over all length results in bullets being seated so as to take up room in the case body and reduce effective case capacity. This increases pressures in relation to performance.

I couldn't tell you the chamber pressure for any particular .308 cartridge you might buy at a gunshop. Theres only the reloading manuals to give a hint, and variations in pressure from one round to another when the cartridge is pushing the limits of its case capacity can be high.

As long as .303 brass is available I'll stick to .303 over any converted 7.62 rifle. The OAL of the .303 allows more leeway, using the best of the modern propellants you can get excellent performance while remaining within the original design pressure range.

The .308 loads that seem to perform best at long range are a 175 grain bullet at around 2,450 to 2,650 , a near ballistic duplicate of the .303 MkVII and MkVIIIZ loads.

Some heavier bullets are used these days, and the price paid is usually a greatly increased chamber pressure, its a diminishing return situation.

I haven't tried bullets heavier than 180 beyond some experiments on light loaded 215 grain bullets for a friend.
The .303 seems to have enough margin to handle heavy bullets at reasonable velocities, after all it started out using bullets of over 200 grains.

I have a feeling that if .311-.312 boat tail match quality bullets of 200+ gr were loaded to Max .303 pressures of 49,000 PSI using the best modern propellants it would mop the floor with the .308 at long range, all else being equal.

If I want a .30/06 I'll buy a .30/06, rather than try to match .30/06 balistics with the .308.

[ireload2]

The .303 and 7.62 cases are almost identical in case capacity.
If a 7.62 barrel is throated to take advantage of the magazine length of a Lee-Enfield it can be loaded to the same velocities at the same pressures with the same projectiles. The real advantage of the 7.62 is the great number of high quality bullets manufactured in that diameter and the more commonly available and less expensive brass.

[Alfred]

The .303 and 7.62 cases are almost identical in case capacity.
If a 7.62 barrel is throated to take advantage of the magazine length of a Lee-Enfield it can be loaded to the same velocities at the same pressures with the same projectiles. The real advantage of the 7.62 is the great number of high quality bullets manufactured in that diameter and the more commonly available and less expensive brass.

There yah go.
I've experimented with seeing how well the standard .303 magazines will feed dummy 7X57 cartridges. These feed just fine without alterations of the mags I tried them in.
The shorter standard OAL 7.62 if set back to the rear of the mag would need to have forwards feed lips fabricated and brazed or silver soldered to the mag body at a point where they engaged the bullet body in the same manner as the regular lips engage the bullets of the longer cases. A much longer bullet set to aprox 3 inch OAL would probably feed from an unaltered mag.

A throat cut to allow the bullets to be set out that far would compromise accuracy with the standard 7.62, but not by much. Some rifles were quite accurate with significant freebore.

A bull barrel or stepped barrel threaded to allow the barrel to be set back and torqued with a collar would allow the barrel to be re chambered to eliminate throat erosion and the barrel could last until mechanical erosion wore the rifling down all the way to the muzzle.
Start off with a 28 inch tube and it should last till set back to 25 in or so. From what I've read on the subject worn barrels set back in this manner are generally more accurate than when new.


I had considered having a 7X57 Mauser replacement barrel turned to fit the Enfield receiver, but a book on the Mauser barrel profiles showed these were too small to rethread ahead of the shoulder.
If I'd found a cheap barrel to experiment with I'd have first chambered it for 7X30 Waters, a .280 using the .30-30 casing. Then later chambering for 7X57.

A 7X57 conversion would also allow a great range of quality match grade bullets.

The slow but steady increase in interest in reloading the .303 made such a conversion un necessary. Quality components are available now, so long as the bore of an individual Enfield isn't too large in the Major diameter to take advantage of the .311 bullets.

A .310 bore would be a good compromise, allowing any likely .303 bullet size and not too large for the .308 bullets to remain useful.

[enforsore]

I've been away a while on business, and i thought i'd try and get an update.
someone at the NRA (won't mention who, to protect them).
said the NRA were about to issue a withdrawl of the safety warning, following a mountain of complaints ...... and the threat of legal action.
we will wait and see.

[Strangely Brown]

I've been away a while on business, and i thought i'd try and get an update.
someone at the NRA (won't mention who, to protect them).
said the NRA were about to issue a withdrawl of the safety warning, following a mountain of complaints ...... and the threat of legal action.
we will wait and see.

I think their like a rudder less ship without Martin Farnham there at the moment; love him or hate him Martin does (or did) speak a lot of sense, in fact since his departure he has been seen shooting Service Rifle with a No4!