Why I appreciate the Lee Enfield.

[Patrick Chadwick]

You are very likely right about the rimmed case rather than the action blocking gases,

It seems that some of you guys are still overlooking something basic about the Lee Enfield chamber, although Parashooter has already posted good photos to illustrate the feature. There is a gas vent on the left side, so that the action does NOT block gas in the event of a case rupture. That is why 5th Batt on the left was getting sharp puffs of "Enfield exhaust" !

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.

[Richard Hare]

That's very interesting, Para. Never seen that experiment before.

I too have had a good number of cases come out looking like the one above, (in two pieces) and though I don't wear shooting glasses, (yes I Know I should) I've never felt the slightest bit of gas on my eyes or face.

It's still a grand rifle. :-)

B's Rangers, :-)

[Cottage Hill Bill]

I stand by to be corrected, but I believe that many of the case separations we experience with Lee-Enfields aren't complete separations at the time of firing. I believe that many times the case is stretched to just below the breaking point on the last firing and when the bolt is opened the force of extraction completes the separation. I know I've had several cases over many years come out in two pieces but with no sign of gas leakage anywhere on the case. I have had the occasional one that looked like Para's example with obvious soot marks on the case.

[Surpmil]

Looks like a classic case of overly long headspace. The case expands on firing and locks itself momentarily into the chamber wall, while the rear of the case goes backwards until it pushes the bolthead and bolt as far back as it can, or as far as the case will stretch, whichever comes first. That backward movement while the rest of the case is locked to the chamber wall causes the case to stretch right about there and voila, cracks and eventual separation, or sometimes all in one go?

We can see where the thicker base of the case has prevented it expanding and locking against the chamber wall. Naturally the "give" occurs around the point where thick meets thin and expansion meets not enough expansion.

[Richard Hare]

Surpmil,

That is a very good picture of what happens after a few reloads. (if full length re-sized,... or used in a rifle with a generous chamber,... or plain overused brass...)
I have had them blackened all the way around where they came apart. We can normally see a light coloured ring around the case where they are about to come apart, and the next reload will more or less guarantee this.

I too would like an explanation of what happened when the shooters got their glasses broken, mentioned by Lee Enfield in a previous post. I see no reason for it, unless as Sentryduty mentions above, it had something to do with "body positioning".
I can well imagine a "stock crawler" whipping the bolt back into his glasses whilst engaged in 'rapid fire', but if the striker blew back, they would be fishing more than glass out of the chaps eye.

[Surpmil]

Surpmil,

That is a very good picture of what happens after a few reloads. (if full length re-sized,... or used in a rifle with a generous chamber,... or plain overused brass...)
I have had them blackened all the way around where they came apart. We can normally see a light coloured ring around the case where they are about to come apart, and the next reload will more or less guarantee this.

I too would like an explanation of what happened when the shooters got their glasses broken, mentioned by Lee Enfield in a previous post. I see no reason for it, unless as Sentryduty mentions above, it had something to do with "body positioning".
I can well imagine a "stock crawler" whipping the bolt back into his glasses whilst engaged in 'rapid fire', but if the striker blew back, they would be fishing more than glass out of the chaps eye.

A chamber cast would be an option to see if there is a contributory defect there.

Agree that the "glasses broken by firing pin" is a hard one to explain except by a broken firing pin, but as you say, that should lead to more than broken glasses in the case of serious case failure. A long neck and a short butt?! Hard to say what broke the glasses unless there is an obvious mark from the impact on the cocking piece. A person not overly familiar with the rifle or who did not examine the bolt closely might not notice a broken firing pin, and if the tip was jammed in the bolt head that might cause a premature ignition and case failure? If it did, the broken tip and perhaps collar being driven back would allow more gas than usual down the firing pin hole? An oversize firing pin hole in the bolthead might be a contributory factor in such a case too?

[Patrick Chadwick]

I have Never had any gas in my face with these actions.

Thanks to the aforementioned gas vent!

[Richard Hare]

Patrick,

Yes, I am quite aware of the gas vent, and it is behind the rim. It works as it is meant to; That's why we don't get a face full of gas, and that's Why I started this thread, And why I appreciate this action!! :-)

Same with cows as horses as well Patrick...........the further you are away from them, the more speed they get before they hit you!

Best,
R.

[Peter Laidler]

In theory, because of the different internal shaped tapers of the bolt head and external shaped taper of the striker, a broken striker CANNOT remain solidly fixed protruding through the face of the bolt head. I say IN THEORY, guardedly. The broken tip cannot be forced into the bolt head taper because they're differently tapered as an additional little known mechanical safety. Additionally, the broken tip CANNOT be forced forwards because the collar of the striker cannot go any further forward than the tenon on the bolt head. This is a secondary mech. safety feature*.

And don't forget, if all of these features fail - and it's a BIG if....., then the fact that from a magazine feed, the cartridge slides up the face of the bolt head and would foul and prevent the closure of the bolt as soon as the rim met the protruding failed/broken striker. This was part of the mechanical safety lesson using a doctored bolt and bolt head during Mr Ayley's basics of firearms mechanisms lesson, Term 4 at Carlisle.

*Another mech safety taught at the same time is the 'fear' that if you DO close the bolt hard, with a live round in the breech, with the trigger pressed (I don't know how you would, but you've got to cover all the idiot bases.....), the cocking piece and therefore the striker will 'fire' off the short cam groove in the bolt. True. But then another well thought out mech safety feature comes into play called 'the insufficient force of blow of the striker' No matter what you do, the loading on the striker will never be sufficient to cause a round to fire.

How many of us played with and practiced these scenarios with blanks, under strict supervision with Mr Ayley and Capt Dix in the armourers test range area..............

Sorry for wandering off at a tangent as I often do. Most of you will already know all this guff but one or two won't

[muffett.2008]

I think we are straying pretty well from the original incident.
My understanding was that the failure(after several bullshit posts) was actually the bolthead.
The overlap of the bolthead rail guide was shorn off, the contact with the operators glasses was just minor shrapnel and probably a whack from his hand with the excessive recoil.
The need to belt open the bolt may well have been from binding of the damaged parts, but may also have been from the rifle being in a half cock state, caused either by the detonation or the operators stupidity.
This incident was an obvious result of stupidity(as reading the OP's posts show) the detonation of the round in the chamber was due to the powder mix used, the failure of the bolthead and the fact that the action stayed together under this stress says a lot for the inherant safety of the firearm and the protections built in to it.


WOOPS, this post is about the INCIDENT.