Inherent Weakness ?

[villiers]

Proofed for .308 Win or proofed for 7.62 NATO. There is a big difference.
What proof marks are stamped on the rifle?

Why would you mention a G33/40 in this thread?

Why? Because the Mauser is a very similar, bolt action rifle that obviously does not suffer from your "Inherent Weakness". And I re-load for both with similar powder charges.

My .308 converted LE No. 5 is proofed for .308 Win. The otherwise unmarked receiver was proofed in Britain (where it was clearly used regularly) and again in Germany.

As Laidler correctly observed, the pin holding the rear sight bolt was damaged (I bent it ... and then lost it while fitting a Parker Hale rear sight).

But strangely enough, the rifle has neither shown any sign of "Wandering Zero" ... nor your dreaded " Inherent Weakness" syndrome .

I asked for your advice, as I am forced to respect your superior knowledge in all things ballistic (although NOT in regards to statistics or military history).

Please let me know what measures I should take to ensure that both rifles conform to your latest health and safety requirement.

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]

Why? Because the Mauser is a very similar, bolt action rifle that obviously does not suffer from your "Inherent Weakness". And I re-load for both with similar powder charges.

"Very similar"?
Not much similarity in locking lug placement or methods of construction, or heat treatment methods, very different in all these major points. Not at all like the Commision 1888 model discussed earlier, ans not of the same bore size, so downloaded ammo was not needed. It also wasn't even around when US manufacturers began producing 8mm sporting ammo.

US cartridge companies haven't "downloaded " ammo for the Lee Enfields, velocity and energy levels closely match those of the MKVII, they have endevorered to develop propellants that produce this power level with the least pressure possible.

My .308 converted LE No. 5 is proofed for .308 Win. The otherwise unmarked receiver was proofed in Britain (where it was clearly used regularly) and again in Germany.

As Laidler correctly observed, the pin holding the rear sight bolt was damaged (I bent it ... and then lost it while fitting a Parker Hale rear sight).

But strangely enough, the rifle has neither shown any sign of "Wandering Zero" ... nor your dreaded " Inherent Weakness" syndrome .

Best check the fit of the bolt to the rear receiver tracks, since the bent pin is a warning sign. It may have spread the receiver when proofed or at a later date after many rounds had been fired. Since you got it used the receiver may have been put in a vise to press it back to shape by a previous owner, or a new oversized bolt body fitted and numbered to the rifle.

Some sources state that only the replacement bolthead of the 7.62 NATO conversion kits was proofed. Since the kits available here in the 90's were meant to be sent out to end users rather than installed by the manufacturer it would appear nothing was done about insuring bolt bodies or receivers were re proofed.
Your modified No.5 would have required re-proof in order to be sold.

I asked for your advice, as I am forced to respect your superior knowledge in all things ballistic (although NOT in regards to statistics or military history).

Please let me know what measures I should take to ensure that both rifles conform to your latest health and safety requirement.

Would you handload .303 cartridges to 62,000 PSI? and if you did so would you sell these loads to the owner of a No.4 rifle that you had never seen and knew nothing about?

The G 33/40 is an interesting variant. If I remember correctly the barrel shank is smaller diameter than other large ring actions.

Some 7.92 rifles were made with large ring barrels fitted to small ring receivers, a very dangerous combination. Others, some of the Turk Mausers I believe, used small ring sized barrels with very thick walled large ring sized receiver rings.

The 7.92 has always been loaded to higher pressure levels than US manufacture 7.62 NATO.
I once got ahold of some unknown source 8mm Mauser military ammo that threw a muzzle blast like a cannon and spun me around 180 degrees. There was a long lived and extremely bright tracer or incendiary flare that came out of the bank behind the taget, so bright I had after images and can't remember if it was green or purple. That ammo didn't cause any noticable damage to my 98 actioned Persian Mauser, but I have no doubt it would have turned a 1888 into a pipe bomb, and probably done the same to some other non 98 type actions.

the SAAMI specifications are there for a reason. Just because someone owns a particular individual specimen of a rifle that has digested ammo of pressures higher than it was designed for without coming apart does not mean that each and every rifle of that type, even if in very good condition, would stand up to repeated use with ammo that exceeds the recommended pressure levels.
Variations in manufacture can result in ammunition exceeding its cataloged pressure level by several thousand PSI in some cases.
Awhile back I reposted a warning on .303 ammunition bearing a headstamp that was much like that found on Privi Partizan ammunition. the warning stated that the bullets were much heavier (possibly 196 grains)than those normally found in MkVIIIZ ammunition and resembled bullets from Soviet machinegun loads. One well used No.4 rifle blew out its bolthead with this ammo, a second No.4 in excellent condition handled it okay. The difference between the two rifles was only the amount of wear of each individual rifle. The warning went on to say that this ammo could spring the receiver of a No.1 rifle.
One member then claimed the warning was false because they had pulled a bullet from Privi Partizan and it was a 175 grain bullet, he seemed convinced that no other loadings had ever borne the same headstamp.
Later a vistor to that forum asked why his No.4 was having very difficult extraction, the ammo had the same headstamp but a different brand name and a 150 grain bullet.

I've also found postings about very poor quality ammunition bearing the same headstamp being sold in the 80's

Every so often the subject of POF ammunition comes up. Some who say they have never had a problem with POF act offended when others tell of the common hangfires and misfires with this ammo.
Besides variations in manufacture over the years, investigations into arms dealers supplying Afghan Mujahadin during their fight against the Soviets revealed that much of the .303 ammunition they supplied was black market crapola that looked good on the outside but was loaded on reclaimed scrap cases and with a wide variety of propellants. A hangfire from ammo that may have come from such a source ripped up the hand of a shooter when it detonated as he tried to eject it. Images have been available of the hand undergoing treatment and damage to the rifle.
Just because a cartridge bears a familar headstamp is no guarantee that it hasn't been remanufactured or loaded using blemed cases sold off as scrap metal.

This sort of thing is the main reason I use only handloads. If I load the cartridge myself I'll know exactly what is in it.
Accuracy is more important than a few extra fps, and milder loads are usually more accurate.

BTW
light loads of 4198 proved highly accurate in the short barrel of my Persian Mauser carbine. I got these loads from an article on handloading for the G 33/40. If I still have that book I'll look up the exact charge weight. The faster powder gave less muzzle blast and made better use of the short barrel.
I gave my remaining 4198 to a friend to use with loads for his No.5 Carbine, he had very good results.


Also theres a lack of logical progression that sometimes leads to accidents, I see it more often these days.
One person owns a No.4 converted to 7.62 and has had no problems so far, so that leads someone to believe that any No.4 can be converted and be perfectly safe with 7.62, then someone with a 7.62 says he has used .308 in his rifle, without any indication of the loading used so its assumed that any .308 ammo is safe in any converted rifle. Before long we have people beliving that maximum pressure levels for the .308 are perfectly okay for any No.4 and by extension that the same applies to the SMLE or the LE rifles as well.
The designers didn't think that way, they knew there were safe limits that shouldn't be exceeded.

[ireload2]

See page 8986

Squabbling about Lee-Enfields VS Ross rifles

[Edward Horton]

The proof pressure requirements between the .308 and 7.62 NATO are the same, does someone have the wrong information……….AGAIN

There is LESS than 2,000 psi difference between the two rounds

Military 7.62 50,000 cup (proof pressure 67,500) Note: Some 7.62 military is 52,000 cup
Civilian .308 52,000 cup (proof pressure 67,600)

In the attached photos below the pressures are listed as “PSI” BUT they are in copper units pressure pounds per square inch, ALL military manuals are listed as PSI back to the time when Christ was a Corporal (CUP-PSI and NOT transducer PSI)

NOTE: You can shoot .308 and 7.62 interchangeably, they will NOT damage a 2A1 or 7.62 No.4, there is less the 2,000 PSI difference, which is the same difference between military 30-06 ammunition and commercial 30-06 ammunition and we never complained or damaged shooting commercial 30-06 ammunition in our Springfield 03s.

[ireload2]

The proof pressure requirements between the .308 and 7.62 NATO are the same, does someone have the wrong information……….AGAIN

There is LESS than 2,000 psi difference between the two rounds

Military 7.62 50,000 cup (proof pressure 67,500) Note: Some 7.62 military is 52,000 cup
Civilian .308 52,000 cup (proof pressure 67,600)

In the attached photos below the pressures are listed as “PSI” BUT they are in copper units pressure pounds per square inch, ALL military manuals are listed as PSI back to the time when Christ was a Corporal (CUP-PSI and NOT transducer PSI)

NOTE: You can shoot .308 and 7.62 interchangeably, they will NOT damage a 2A1 or 7.62 No.4, there is less the 2,000 PSI difference, which is the same difference between military 30-06 ammunition and commercial 30-06 ammunition and we never complained or damaged shooting commercial 30-06 ammunition in our Springfield 03s.

EH you are wrong about the proof pressure of the .308 Win.
Read this and admit you are wrong


.308 Winchester
MAP: 62,000 psi
MPSM: 66,000 psi
Minimum Proof Pressure: 83,000 psi
Maximum Proof Pressure: 89,000 psi


7.62 x 51mm NATO
Maximum: 50,000 psi
Proof pressure: 67,500 psi

[ireload2]

deleted

[Edward Horton]

Ireload2

Sorry YOU are wrong AGAIN ireload2, do you think I single source the material I put on the internet, do you think I believe 10% of the BS that is written on the internet by anyone with two fingers and a computer.

I worked 34 years at a military depot and the last 25 years were as a Master Level Inspector and the tech library was in the room next to me, over half my life has been devoted to manuals and Quality Control and I can’t believe how many times you have been wrong in these forums and have stepped in your own fecal debris.

YOU do not know the difference between CUP (copper units pressure) and the transducer PSI method of measuring chamber pressures and what the actual differences are.

CUP reads as PSI and the transducer method reads as PSI, BOTH readings are PSI and the Army NEVER changed the way the manuals are written which are “copper units pressure” (CUP) reading in pounds per square inch.

I’m going to be very nice and explain this very slowly……….

Figures are rounded off
50,000 CUP = 60,000 PSI
52,000 CUP = 62,000 PSI



1968 Lyman reloading manual BEFORE the transducer PSI method, please note the IMR-4895 data for the .308 Winchester (42.5 grains at 51,200 CUP)



Army TM on ammunition for the 7.62 Match round (42.0 grains of IMR-4895 at 50,000 CUP) please note there is only one half grain of powder and 1,200 PSI difference between the military match load and the Lyman load for the same weight bullet.



Now how in the hell does half a grain of powder raise the chamber pressure 10,000 pounds by your bassakwards logic meat head.

Take your computer software for guesstimating bolt thrust and pressures and stick it in your ear and then go back to Varmint Al’s and re-read the sections on polishing chambers and the bolt thrust generated, THEN you will understand your computer program figures are off because of friction and the case gripping the chamber walls. On top of this Varmint Al’s muti-purpose $200.00 dollar software program would never compare to what we used at military depots.

And start cross checking and triple checking your information before you post information from garbage websites.


P.S. Please remember I told you I was never wrong and your not holding up well under pressure

[ireload2]

Ireload2

Sorry YOU are wrong AGAIN ireload2, do you think I single source the material I put on the internet, do you think I believe 10% of the BS that is written on the internet by anyone with two fingers and a computer.

I worked 34 years at a military depot and the last 25 years were as a Master Level Inspector and the tech library was in the room next to me, over half my life has been devoted to manuals and Quality Control and I can’t believe how many times you have been wrong in these forums and have stepped in your own fecal debris.

YOU do not know the difference between CUP (copper units pressure) and the transducer PSI method of measuring chamber pressures and what the actual differences are.

CUP reads as PSI and the transducer method reads as PSI, BOTH readings are PSI and the Army NEVER changed the way the manuals are written which are “copper units pressure” (CUP) reading in pounds per square inch.

I’m going to be very nice and explain this very slowly……….

Figures are rounded off
50,000 CUP = 60,000 PSI
52,000 CUP = 62,000 PSI



1968 Lyman reloading manual BEFORE the transducer PSI method, please note the IMR-4895 data for the .308 Winchester (42.5 grains at 51,200 CUP)



Army TM on ammunition for the 7.62 Match round (42.0 grains of IMR-4895 at 50,000 CUP) please note there is only one half grain of powder and 1,200 PSI difference between the military match load and the Lyman load for the same weight bullet.



Now how in the hell does half a grain of powder raise the chamber pressure 10,000 pounds by your bassakwards logic meat head.

Take your computer software for guesstimating bolt thrust and pressures and stick it in your ear and then go back to Varmint Al’s and re-read the sections on polishing chambers and the bolt thrust generated, THEN you will understand your computer program figures are off because of friction and the case gripping the chamber walls. On top of this Varmint Al’s muti-purpose $200.00 dollar software program would never compare to what we used at military depots.

And start cross checking and triple checking your information before you post information from garbage websites.


P.S. Please remember I told you I was never wrong and your not holding up well under pressure

Please go back an review your intentionally misleading data.

SAAMI proof for .308 Win is min 83,000 max 89,000 PSI

All you listed is for the 308 data is operating pressure data from a loading manual. Nowhere did you list industry based proof load pressures for the .308.

The key word is PROOF as in proof load pressures in PSI.
As in PROOF pressures for the .308 and PROOF they came from a SAAMI industry source in PSI. The source site that I listed used SAAMI as the source of the data.


Proof Loads

For rifles, SAAMI recommends a proof load between 33 and 44 percent over the nominal rating, and the CIP today requires 25 percent over their rating (an older standard called for 30% over). While SAAMI requires only a single proof firing, the CIP wants two firings, except in long guns designed for low pressure cartridges (under 26 ksi), where only a single proof cartridge need be fired.

For handguns, the CIP uses 30 percent over, while SAAMI varies the proof load with the rated pressure. For cartridges rated over 20 ksi, SAAMI uses the same overloads as with rifles, but low pressure cartridges have a higher overload, with those rated under 15 ksi having a minimum of 44% over.

To conduct a proper proof, one would ideally need precise gauges to verify no stressed part has yielded (ie., taken a permanent deformation) in the slightest. If no yielding occurs at the proof pressure, then the gun should have an adequate fatigue life at normal operating pressures. In practice, visual inspections are permitted.

Interestingly, the same percentage overload is used with both piezo and crusher ratings at SAAMI. Above, it was noted there is evidence that crusher's underestimation of pressure grows ever worse as the true pressure rises. One curious side effect is that rifles proofed with crushers may well be proofed to a higher standard than those proofed with piezo.


ED you have not addressed the proof pressures of the 7.62 VS the .308 at all.
Is this intentional?

[villiers]

Best check the fit of the bolt to the rear receiver tracks, since the bent pin is a warning sign. It may have spread the receiver when proofed or at a later date after many rounds had been fired. Since you got it used the receiver may have been put in a vise to press it back to shape by a previous owner, or a new oversized bolt body fitted and numbered to the rifle.

Some sources state that only the replacement bolthead of the 7.62 NATO conversion kits was proofed. Since the kits available here in the 90's were meant to be sent out to end users rather than installed by the manufacturer it would appear nothing was done about insuring bolt bodies or receivers were re proofed.
Your modified No.5 would have required re-proof in order to be sold.


I think you fell for that one. The pin holding the rear sight bolt was perfectly ok until I removed ... and then lost it (of course, some previous owner could possibly have installed a new pin each time he fired it). I have never yet met anyone who has tightened the rear of a Lee Enfield action in a vise. Any rifle that survivies two World Wars is bound to collect similar mythology propounded by the usual wierdos.

If independent proof houses in two different countries test a weapon and declare it safe for civilian use, I would presume that there is a reasonable safety margin. A rifle action could be accidentally destroyed by an error with re-loaded ammunition. Is this possibly the basis for your "inherent weakness" theory?

Please contact the British and German proof authorities if you still wish to persuade them of your theories. Until that happens, I would suggest that you have not been able to provide satifactory or adequate proof and that your postings are misleading at best.

[villiers]

"Show us a photo of your proof marks?
I can stamp .308 Winchester on a rifle in 3 different font sizes.
You said your rifle was proofed in two countries.
I would like to see the difference.
In other words after numerous posts, suddenly saying that you have a #5 proofed to .308 Winchester standards does provid proof of anything.
If you have photos fine otherwise what you say is not documented."

This is getting more and more irrational. I posted pictures of the Charnwood .308 Win some time ago. It was proofed by Charnwood in the UK when the rifle was made. The rifle could not have been sold without proof mnarks. It was imported from the UK through a German gunsmith who was required to send it to be proofed again here in Germany. Both proof marks are on the rifle that was also originally marked (by Charnwood) with the calibre (required by law in European countries). I do not doubt that you can (and maybe even do) mark rifles in whatever calibre you fancy. This is illegal here and would almost certainly lead to loss of licence. As you assert that you are not averse to marking a firearm with any calibre you fancy, I can now understand why many foreign proof marks are not accepted in Europe.

Please understand that this has gone far enough and I take your demands for photographic evidence of the legality of weapons in my posession as an impertinence.