Sniper Ammo Selection

[jmoore]

Ya, the book thing has gotten me in trouble a few times! I know of only one really reliable book, but sometimes the translations don't live up to the original text even now!

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]

Ya, the book thing has gotten me in trouble a few times! I know of only one really reliable book, but sometimes the translations don't live up to the original text even now!

I go by the original confession of faith , only authoritative and infalable in original manuscript form in the original lanuage the inspired writer. I think this goes back to 1689. All else is subject to translation error.

[Simon]

Gents,

I'll try my best to explain here how the (F) sight functions.

First of all you need to take note of the three markings on the head of the screw and the line engraved on the top strap of the sight itself. Each of the marks spaced at 120 degrees apart equates to one inch of elevation at one hundred yards.

Now for the technical bit. The standard backsights had a slot milled along the right side to allow the installation of the special screw which is 37 T.P.I. The edge of the slider is then relieved at either side to allow the nose to protrude into the slot and engage with the thread of the screw. Therefore as you rotate the screw the elevation of the backsight changes in relation to the amout of turns. It is still possible to adjust the range quickly as with the standard sight but you now also have the ability to adjust in small accurate increments.

Hope this helps?

Cheers,
Simon.

[jmoore]

A sort of inside out SMLE rear sight that operates in the upright position.

[Bindi2]

Go to Warminster and read the bible. The GODS wrote it and some of the disciples still hang abouut there.

[Enfield trader]

rear sights I had. One Enddystone and one Winchester, sodl the Eddystone but kept the Winchester for my Winchester P-14.

These were made up in England.

I have the plans to make these somewhere but I don't think it is complete.

[Peter Laidler]

As a poor example of an author, it's worth remembering two important thinmgs about writing books and even short articles. The first thing is that NEVER, not EVER take for granted anything thet's been written previously. Two little examples of this are that the Sten fires up and left ....., or right, depending on who you talk to and that the Bren was too accurate. Both myths as it transpires. Myths soon become fact

The second and most important is that the first person who reads what you've written immediately knows more than you. That's because he knows all that you've written PLUS the tiny bit he knew before.

[PrinzEugen]

and that the Bren was too accurate. Both myths as it transpires. Myths soon become fact

I've certainly heard that one many times! I read somewhere that the enfield 7.62 action's weak - but we all know that one's a myth

[Edward Horton]

As a poor example of an author, it's worth remembering two important thinmgs about writing books and even short articles. The first thing is that NEVER, not EVER take for granted anything thet's been written previously. Two little examples of this are that the Sten fires up and left ....., or right, depending on who you talk to and that the Bren was too accurate. Both myths as it transpires. Myths soon become fact

The second and most important is that the first person who reads what you've written immediately knows more than you. That's because he knows all that you've written PLUS the tiny bit he knew before.

And some of us understand a British Enfield Armourer is a trained expert and the rest of us are just rookies trying to understand what we read in the manuals and what the Armourer tells us.

The real problems are the people who misread the books and manuals and then misquote what they misread and continue to misguide people with their massive mistaken myths.

“Inherent weakness” my Gluteus Maximus

[Alfred]

Any action can be overamped if the cartridge its chambered for is subject to being loaded at higher pressures than the loads it is intended for.
The Winchester Model 95 is a good example. In .30/06 it functioned just fine so long as loads giving pressures no higher than the original 150 grain .30/06 cartridge is used, but when the later 172 grain M1 Ball and equivalent sporting loads were used the rifles developed excessive headspace.

When the standard .30-40 Krag ammunition giving pressures of about 40,000 CUP were in use the US Krag functioned perfectly, but when they increased the chamber pressures to 43,000 CUP a significant percentage ended up with setback lugs or cracked bolts.

Every reliable source I've come across states that the 7.62 No.4 conversions were intended for use with the NATO standard Ball cartridges that generate Aprox 48,000 CUP with Max deviation of 53,000 CUP, some specialized NATO 7.62 loads generate 52,000 CUP normally with Max Deviation of 57,000 CUP.
I'd have to agree with the British NRA and the Australian NRA, some 7.62 ammunition cuts too deeply into the safety margin of the action type.

I'd early seen the argument that there are no documented cases of an Enfield rifle blowing up when using service ammunition, after quite a bit of work I found dozens of recorded cases, in the most unlikely sources, the records of the Canadian House of Commons and the British Parliment.
In discussions on the safety of the 7.62 Conversions on another board a member of this board recounted an accident they had witnessed with a bystander injured, the injuries in that case were minor though a friend of mine died of a similar injury to the neck involving a different type gun many years ago. No neck wound is minor in my book, I've seen a man bleed out from a neck wound, it wasn't pretty at all.

In one of the accidents listed in the Canadian records an officer standing near the shooter was struck by a broken bolt head that passed completly through his neck just missing the juglar vein.
In an account of an accident investigated by James Crossman a hunter died when a blown blothead resulted in the extractor entering his abdomen, another account of the same case told that the Vena Cava was severed, death followed quickly.

Firearms accidents are rare, seldom given any press to speak of unless fatal, and if litigation is involved records may be sealed for generations.

There is at least one known case of a serious injury involving a 7.62 2A rifle when .308 commercial ammunition was used. Escaping gas propelling the magazine into the shooter's groin, damaging the family jewels.

If I ran across a nice looking 7.62 Enfield for sale and the owner told me he knew the rifle was safe because he'd fired hundreds of rounds of M118 Special Ball through it, I walk away from it regardless of how good the deal looked on the surface.
Spotting that sort of abuse in a Mauser type action is easier, at least if you know where to look. Overamped actions with front locking will show set back of the locking surfaces. Due to the distance between bolt head and locking lugs of the Enfield the stress is taken up by the side rails and bolt body so the hardened locking surfaces aren't as likely to set back.
I've seen a rippled bolt body, never occured to me at the time that this was a sign of excessive pressures or a weak bolt.
A member of this forum has mentioned a 7.62 suffering damage when fired in wet weather, and a British Sniper had to abandon his L42 during a heated battle of the Falklands campaign when firing in cold wet weather resulted in the bolt binding so badly he could no longer operate the action, he finished the battle with a captured Argentine FAL.

The main reason fire arms accidents are rare is that most shooters take heed of safety warnings.
These collectors forums are the only places I've seen where posters are constantly encouraging others to ignore safety warnings from reputable shooters organizations like the National Rifle Associations of Britian, Australia, and America.

Another problem is legend taking the place of fact.
The tidbit about Enfields being designed to fire muddy cartridges, and that they functioned flawlessly in the trenches despite rain and mud for example.
A small dash of fact with a heaping helping of myth.
The manual of Musketry gives clear instructions on the necessity of keeping mud out of the action and chamber of the Enfield, with the notation that a great many rifles had been rendered unseviceable because of firing with muddy ammo.
As a side note it also gives instruction on cleaning ammo and wiping it down with a oily cloth, so theres no doubt that they recognized that it was not possible to use only dry fresh ammo in a chamber completely free of oil under combat conditions. A target shooter can keep his rifle free of oil and use only fresh clean ammo, but the rifleman in the field can't do that very often.
As an Infantry rifle the 7.62 conversions of the No.4 would have been a disaster in the making. I've never heard of any of the countries that held huge stocks of Enfield No.4 rifles in store considering converting them to 7.62 for issue as an infantry rifle or even as a emergency reserve arm, it just doesn't have enough of a safety margin to be safe in the hands of the average trooper under combat conditions.

The rifles are safe enough for range and hunting use, but only if the owner uses ammo that does not overly stress the action type.
The poor quality of some 7.62 ammunition is another factor, some of this stuff isn't safe for any rifle, and some was never intended to be used in infantry rifles to begin with.

The main "inherent weakness" is in the mind of the collector who puts mythology over practicallity, and encourages unsafe practices.

I'll stick to the opinions of the expert riflemen and inventors who were closely associated with the development of the Enfield Rifles and its ammunition.
I'll also side with the National Rifle associations of Britian, australia, and the US on the issue of what sort of ammo is safe for use in the No.4 rifles.