Lee Enfield chamber reaming in the Great war?

[Richard Hare]

Peter,

Bolloxxx noted. :-)

They be not oafs though Peter, anyone who can ream an Oval hole has to be very clever!! (LOL)
Many thanks to all who have contributed to this thread.
It is as I always thought. In my O.P. I was trying to be diplomatic, and give benefit of the doubt. (but had suspicions!)

I am relieved though, that there Isn't a huge gap in my knowledge re. the L-E. :-)

This topic came up whilst discussing the Ross, and someone defending the Ross made out that the L-E suffered from the same faults. (as suggested by Bruce above)
In my mind, I had a Pile of arguments why this could not be, but thought I'd defer to the more learned on this site.


Muffet,
"Flat Earth Forum" I like that!
Thanks again chaps.

Richard.

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.

[Son]

Here is another quote from the same forum and the same "moderator". I was reminded of this one from the comments above about how clever you have to be to ream a chamber into an oval shape.... well, here is another magical myth of machining wonder!

.303 Military brass has a very thick web in the casing which when fired in an Enfield rifle with excessive head spacing may not show any signs of case stretching. When the shooter tries a commercial loaded round and sees a bright band or an " hour glass" shape just in front of the rim, they assume that the brass is somehow faulty. Not true. It is your rifle. Any time you see a stretch mark or the case fails and parts in two just in front of the rim, its caused by excessive play. 8 of of 10 ten times it is excessive head spacing. The other causes are a too long chamber where the case is " blown out" to fill the shoulder area, or the chamber is out of round, drilled off center. Beleave it or not, this is not uncommon with these rifles. You gather up 10 Enfields and you will see fired cases from a couple of these rifles that show and off center / out of round chamber.
Why? You need to understand that these rifles were made in the time leading up to, or during a time of war. The British Army needed many,many rifles and needed then quickly added to the armories. Quality suffered as a result. The rifles were well used and showed up in all sorts of places after the wars. How and what was done to them is any ones guess.
Years ago I had a chance to spend some time in England. I met a fellow who was a British Army Armorer. He and I talked over beers about rifles and all sorts of WWI and WWII weapons in general. I brought up the topic of head spacing in the Enfield Rifles. He told me that they were taught to " To provide enough head spacing as to allow the soldier to carry a dry pair of socks" in these rifles. The reason being war time production of ammunition and the very different climates these rifles were to be used in. I asked him how they adjusted the head spacing, did they use the numbered bolt heads for the No4 rifles, or the varying length No1 type bolt heads to adjust the head spacing?. If they could get them,yes. But the number they needed was not always available out in the field. 95% of the time the bolt body was shortened

[Richard Hare]

Well me old Son,

I don't often sit here with my mouth open, but that's what you had me doing when I was finished reading this!!
Still am for that matter.

It's the sort of thing that brings on a response of dead silence or "eh??"

R.

[mike1967]

.303 Mil . I asked him how they ad. If they could get them,yes. But the number they needed was not always available out in the field. 95% of the time the bolt body was shortened[/QUOTE]

Surely not, the threads still remain in the same place, and what about overturn.

[Bindi2]

My understanding is the bolt head face is ground/stoned to give the correct head space not the bolt body.

[Son]

.303 Mil . I asked him how they ad. If they could get them,yes. But the number they needed was not always available out in the field. 95% of the time the bolt body was shortened

Surely not, the threads still remain in the same place, and what about overturn.[/QUOTE]

I argued that (among other points) at the time, and got howled down. They could not get it through their heads that all you were doing was removing the load bearing surface and making the threads take the pressure of firing transferred through to the locking lugs. It does not matter what you do to the face of the bolt body, unless you remove enough for the head to go on another turn, it will always be in the same place once it is in the boltway.
That was one part of the hand fitting the No1 rifle needed to be set up.... selecting a bolt head that either provided the correct headspace, or was long enough to stone down the face to get the correct headspace. The No4 rifle used "sized" bolt heads to give a selection but as has been proven, these were more just an indicator rather than a true size range.
Of interest on this point, when the Aust Army re introduced the No1 MkIII* HT sniper rifle into service as an interim measure in the 1970's, the parts list included a selection of measured bolt heads to provide a quick and easy fix for headspace.

Attachment 69509

[Sentryduty]

Of interest on this point, when the Aust Army re introduced the No1 MkIII* HT sniper rifle into service as an interim measure in the 1970's, the parts list included a selection of measured bolt heads to provide a quick and easy fix for headspace.

I found this chart quite valuable so I took the liberty of quickly transcribing it and reposting as a crisp document format for all to keep.

Interesting there is no number "8" 0.638" bolt head in the selection.

[Mk VII]

p.203 of The Ross Rifle Story reproduces (rather poorly) a blueprint (yes, a real 'blueprint') showing 'Lee-Enfield Chamber' ("original size RSAF plan No.3066") as .459 at the entry and 'Lee-Enfield Enlarged' as .462 at the entry. A note at the bottom says "New Lee-Enfield slightly larger than Lee-Enfield enlarged but not as large as Ross". The text states this as dating from prior to mid-1911.

Ross, in a letter to Carson dated Aug. 1916 gives the dimensions of the L-E chamber at that time as:

base of large cone .462
small end of large cone .404
large end of neck .343
small end of neck .339

these figures appear to be the same as those in the 'Lee-Enfield Enlarged' quoted above although the reproduction makes it somewhat doubtful to be certain.

Another drawing of an experimental RSAF SMLE chamber, dwg. no. R.O.208 of 2/5/16, is shown, marked 'enlarged chamber' so they were playing about with dimensions as late as then. Unfortunately the figures do not reproduce well and the gauging points may not be the same.

A chamber dwg, stated as being the rifle chamber, is reproduced on p.250 of the 1929 Textbook of Small Arms and gives:

base of large cone .462
small end of large cone .404
large end of neck .345
small end of neck .341

[Bruce_in_Oz]

By those numbers, we are looking at "variations" in the realm of 3 thou. or less, about what you would expect from reamer wear on a large "RUSH-JOB".

Has anyone run a set of bore gauges, (the dinky, adjustable ones that look like a rod with hard steel balls that can be adjusted in and out by twisting the end of the handle), in a "mint' SMLE chamber lately? Might need to do some number-crunching due to the serious taper on the "large cone".

The only "mint" barrels I have here are a couple of Lithgow "heavies", circa late 1950s, still in their sealed packaging.

[Bindi2]

B i O a question. Any H barrel i have had or had anything to do with has all ways been a small or tight chamber. This also applies to Ts. So were these cut with worn out reamers or in the case of the Ts selected because they were more accurate than new reamer cut barrels.
Peter your input as well please.