Inherent Weakness ?

[Alfred]

Well greasing a cartridge case is not a good idea, and for more than one reason, but fire forming using a spacer ring to hold the case firmly against the bolt face also negates any supposed benefit of the case gripping the chamber wall.

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.

[ireload2]

Where is your engineering drawing that tells us to oil or grease our Enfield ammunition?

And why didn’t you and Alfred ask this question about inherent weakness at Gunboards, the last postings by Alfred AKA gunnersam was on the 16th and ireloads2 was on the 17th in the Enfield forum at gunboards, very strange.

Your question about the other forum is none of your business. Your concern with other people's business is abnormal and I consider it a form of harassment. Do you want to stick to the subject matter here?

Where is your military specification that says the case is designed to absorb bolt thrust. You have none today and you will have none tomorrow. You will never have one.

The proofing of the M-14 National Match rifle was fully supported by military specifications and the pressures associated with the proof testing. Since governments are loathe to discard anything, you know that conversion of Lee-Enfields to 7.62 Nato was considered. However from my calculations it appears that 7.62 Nato proof testing is too severe for the #3 and that it is not recommended for the #4 rifle. With a front locking rifle the British government could have milled out the magazine opening and fitted new magazines and gone on. Except with the Lee-Enfield that weakens the rifle.


My use of oil on the brass for fire forming is mostly of my own development.
Itis not restricted to Lee-Enfield ammunition. Therefore it is the result of some thought and creativity and in the manner that I do it, it has been thoroughly tests and found to be safe with a multitude of rifles.

Do you think the Wright Brothers followed existing military specifications while testing their gliders and learning to fly. No. That is why two bicycle mechanics learned to fly before anyone else.

Actually greasing bullets is a long time tested technique that dated back to muzzle loaders. As used today it is present with cast lead and swaged bullets. Residue of the lubricated bullets gets into chambers and on brass and causes no problems.

[ireload2]

>>>We already knew that replacing bolt heads could keep a worn rifle in service, and that used bolt heads were often mix and matched between rifles to cut costs. So a prefectly good rifle might end up with a bolt head salvaged from a rifle that had been damaged by excessive pressures. That bolt head might be damaged in some way not easily visible on inspection. Unless re Proofed with the replacement bolt head theres no garantee it would hold up.
A member of another forum posted that a fresh from the Wrap FTR'ed No.4 had blow out its bolthead when test fired remotely.<<<

The nearly solid construction of the bolt head would lend it very few types of failure.
Being blown out of the rifle would likely be caused by the thin shell of the forward bolt body fracturing under compression and the lateral forces experienced due to the asymmetrical receiver under load.

[Alfred]

>>>We already knew that replacing bolt heads could keep a worn rifle in service, and that used bolt heads were often mix and matched between rifles to cut costs. So a prefectly good rifle might end up with a bolt head salvaged from a rifle that had been damaged by excessive pressures. That bolt head might be damaged in some way not easily visible on inspection. Unless re Proofed with the replacement bolt head theres no garantee it would hold up.
A member of another forum posted that a fresh from the Wrap FTR'ed No.4 had blow out its bolthead when test fired remotely.<<<

The nearly solid construction of the bolt head would lend it very few types of failure.
Being blown out of the rifle would likely be caused by the thin shell of the forward bolt body fracturing under compression and the lateral forces experienced due to the asymmetrical receiver under load.

Bolthead failures I've read of, and one posted image of a failed bolthead indicate that the most common failure was a break in the guide lug where the extractor seats in its slot.
Putting together what I remember of the expert testimony in a case of a blown bolthead causing a fatality with other reports of injuries or fatalities as well as non injurious blow outs, I strongly suspect that cord worn chambers, already a loose fit to the cartridge body due to loose headspace, resulted in the case blowing out at the side and gas being directed into the slot where the extractor rides.
A truly defective bolthead might simply shatter if brittle.

There were incidents described in the Ross Rifle debates where boltheads were said to have blown out completely, one passing through an officer's neck, barely missing the juglar vien, and another passing through a man's torso killing him. I would suspect these sheared off at the point where bolthead and bolt body meet. But theres no way to know.
The No.1 bolthead is threaded all the way to the shoulder while the later No.4 has an unthreaded portion. Could be this was an improvement to avoid a weakened area at the shoulder.

I've read that some blow up tests were run by students in canada some years back, but found no useful information, or any credible details at all. If a keyword search could be done we might find the results of that test, if it isn't just a rumor.
P O Ackely ran blow up tests on most Military actions, and one source said he had run a test on a .303 Enfield but failed to publish it along with the results of his other tests for some reason.

[louthepou]

Ed with French soldiers... I HAVE to see that!

[Edward Horton]

Ed with French soldiers... I HAVE to see that!

OK, so I lied, the French Foreign Legion wouldn’t let me take all my British Enfield books with me, so the only thing left to do is try and educate the “Dynamic Duo” as much as possible on the difference between “inherent weakness” and abuse, the lack of knowledge and just plane stupidity.

Oil or grease or water in the Enfield cartridge chamber.
When the chamber is clean, the cartridge shell expands on firing to be in intimate contact with the chamber walls, but if grease or water is present an incompressible cushion is formed between the shell and chamber such that the shock of the explosion no longer permits the shell to take up intimate contact by fully expanding to the chamber walls, further the lubricating effect on the shell adds about nine tons to the square inch extra pressure on the bolt-head, and hence the barrel vibration will vary.
Conclusions from the above:
(a) Remove oil from both bore and chamber before firing the first shot.
(b) Every precaution should be taken to keep ammunition and chamber free from water when firing in rain.
(c) If bullet grease is used care must be taken to ensure that none is wiped off on to the chamber when loading.

At this point it is interesting to compare the effects of wet cartridges on different rifles.
(i) P-14-owing to the way the bolt is locked on this rifle, wet cartridges will move the centre of the group no more than one point higher.
(ii) No.4 Rifle-Wet cartridges cause a four point change in the group centre. The extra shock is taken fairly evenly, owing to the strengthened action-body and good groups can still be formed with this rifle.
(iii) S.M.L.E.-Wet cartridges cause the centre of the group to form about five points higher. The group size cannot be relied upon to the same extent as with the No.4 rifle, as the extra shock is not distributed so evenly in the action- body and in extreme cases the action body has been known to fracture on the left hand side.
(v) S.M.L.E. with B.S.A. heavy barrel-group change will be about 12 points higher.

So go ahead and oil and grease your cartridges on your SMLE Enfield and fracture the left hand side of the action body because of EXCESS BOLT THRUST.



Stupidity is the major cause of all “inherent weakness” problems,
and all the knowledge in the world is written in books and all you have to do is read…………. RTFM.

[Alfred]

So Ed

At this point it is interesting to compare the effects of wet cartridges on different rifles.
(i) P-14-owing to the way the bolt is locked on this rifle, wet cartridges will move the centre of the group no more than one point higher.
(ii) No.4 Rifle-Wet cartridges cause a four point change in the group centre. The extra shock is taken fairly evenly, owing to the strengthened action-body and good groups can still be formed with this rifle.
(iii) S.M.L.E.-Wet cartridges cause the centre of the group to form about five points higher. The group size cannot be relied upon to the same extent as with the No.4 rifle, as the extra shock is not distributed so evenly in the action- body and in extreme cases the action body has been known to fracture on the left hand side.

You now agree that the rear locking SMLE and No. 4 Enfields are weaker than the forward locking P-14 rifle action?
So much weaker that a cartridge wet by rain can break the receiver of an SMLE rifle.
If you hadn't noticed I've disagreed with Ireload's lubrication of cartridges when fire forming from the beginning.

BTW
I think you said something earlier about Benchrest shooters not complaining about sticky extraction.

Eventually your precious cases will stretch and the brass will work-harden. Your bolt will become difficult to open and close. As soon as there is any indication of this, you can try full-length sizing using your 6PPC body-die in a proper single-stage reloading press. Some benchrest shooters like to full-length size after each firing. This ensures easy bolt opening – vital if you are to shoot quickly without upsetting the rifle on the bags. On no account attempt to recover the brass by annealing – it can be a dangerous process as it is difficult to control in a domestic environment.

A decent front locking action isn't likely to break in half from rain water on a cartridge case.

Your last post gave more evidence of an "Inherent Weakness" of the Enfield than anything ever written on the subject. I guess you are the mysterious "American Gunsmith".

Personally I'd have given the Enfield more credit than that. An action body snapping for no other reason than the cartridge getting wet is ridiculous.

[ireload2]

I fire form cases that are oiled. I never fire full power loads even with dry cartridges in a Lee-Enfield.

Ok now we know in extreme cases the left side of the body breaks. In less extreme cases the right side of the body will break. You can quote me on that.

Did the Brits call off combat due to rain?

I would like to clarify one thing about the supposedly "weak" primary extraction of the Lee-Enfield
action. It is not weak but it is hidden. The angled cut on the front surface of the small locking lug cams against an angled face in the lower interior of the action body. This provides very strong primary extraction. Due to the significant body taper of the .303 cartridge you would have to have a pretty crappy chamber - really pitted or reamed with some severe tool marks to need a lot of primary extraction. Since all the Lee-Enfields I have owned have had decent chambers I have no idea which breaks first the extractor, the extractor screw, the bolt head or the rim. I could calculate it with the magic computer program EH thinks I have, which is nothing more than "fill in the blanks" algebra.
I know one thing jerking against the thin walled threaded (meaning notched) front end of the bolt can't be good for it if you have a stuck case. Crack the bolt nose trying to pull out a stuck case and the next round may send the bolt head whizzing past your own head.
I also have to comment about the supposed super duper steel used by the Indians in their 7.62 Nato versions. Much ado about nothing. I have never measured the action body of the Indian rifle but unless they increased the cross sections of the right and left rails by about 30% they didn't accomplish much. The 788 Remington has much more massive receiver cross sections and it too will spring under a load. The problem is the length of the rails (think long rubber bands) and the modulus of elasticity. Unfortunately the modulus of elasticity of steel changes very little with the alloy.
But you do not have to take my word for it you can go look it up in several hundred places on the internet or in Machinery's Handbook if you can still read print that small. If you want a rear locking action to be really strong make it really short and really massive. The Lee-Enfield design is neither.
It works but it is what it is. Now I realize that all this is too little too late since EH has resigned to never come back to this thread. Just imagine the damage he could do if he got a hold of a copy of my magic algebra program.

[Edward Horton]

I don’t agree with anything you two have to say and I don’t care where the locking lugs are located on the Enfield Rifle, I can tell you that if you take care of your Enfield rifle the Enfield rifle will take care of you. I can also tell you if you don’t like the Enfield rifle its time for you to move to another forum.

Your endless arguing about cordite powder, inherent weakness, oiling cartridges and endless garbage postings about a rifle that YOU NEVER CARRIED IN COMBAT goes beyond reason.

Get a life you two and find another hobby you know more about, your posting here is nothing more than a stinking putrid cesspool of your own creation.

It is impossible for an American to be an expert on the Enfield rifle because we did NOT carry the Enfield rifle in defense of our country, and cutting and pasting information you find on the internet here doesn’t make you an expert on anything.


Friends, Forumers, Countrymen, lend me your Enfields
I came here to praise my Enfield not bury it
My Enfield is my friend and just to me
But Alfred and ireload2 says the Enfield has an inherent weakness
And yet Alfred and ireload2 claim to be an honorable men
The evil that men do lives after them
But here I am to speak what I do know
That some men have lost their reason

Mark Enfield Antony

[Alfred]

I fire form cases that are oiled. I never fire full power loads even with dry cartridges. In extreme cases the left side of the body breaks? In less extreme case the right side of the body will break. You can quote me on that.

Did the Brits call off combat due to rain?

Maybe theres a manual with instructions on carrying a parasol to protect the rifle from rain as you charge across no mans land.

Even if the No.4 could be relied upon to hold up to extended firing of 50,000 PSI loads, and I see no reason to believe that it would, the obvious variables in accuracy under the least of adverse weather conditions would greatly limit a 7.62 conversion as a battlerifle.

I've always had my doubts about the 2A rifles, though there are other modifications to the receiver besides the stronger alloy that increase its durability. Some may hold up just fine, but there are credible reports of at least one having blow out and causing severe injury. There are also reports of 2A rifles being damaged by firing only a few rounds of .308 ammunition.

If I had a 7.62 Enfield I'd use only taylored handloads that generated no more than 48,000 PSI. No sense taking chances.

The updated and Strengthened M10 manufactured by AIA is interesting, and shows just what had to be done to create an Enfield that would be safe enough for the 7.62 chambering under normal conditions.
Some of the absolute worst Milsurp ammo I've ever seen was 7.62 NATO. It had flat square powder flakes that was probably WW2 surplus powder from the look of it. When the propellant began to break down for no apparent reason it rotted holes in the cases and the gilding metal peeled off the steel jacketed bullets.
Bad lots of German 7.62 have been blamed for wrecking at least one M1A1 rifle, and theres no doubt that rifle action is far stronger than any Enfield action.

Till Ed posted that the SMLE could break from nothing more than a wet cartridge I had a much higher opinion of the rifles strength. Shame on Ed for revealing the Enfield's dirty little secret.

Like I've said before, one should respect the age of these old warhorses and keep pressures as low as possible while duplicating MkVII balistics. IMR 4007 SSC powder looks to be perfect for the task with pressures below 40,000 CUP for a load that exactly duplicates the MkVII with next to no erosion worries.