More Bad Press For The Enfield

[Edward Horton]

NEWS FLASH

Research scientists in the United States during a year long study at the Mayo Clinic today have announced that Orange Juice causes cancer in gay rats.

[IMGw]http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/bigedp51/SkinnerRatCartoonSM-2.jpg[/IMGw]

Sorry for the bad news but I'm stuck in the house with nothing to do but read and we have 16 inches expected in the next 24 hours on top of the 18 inches we got on Friday-Saturday.

[IMGw]http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/bigedp51/more-snow-bench-1.jpg[/IMGw]


[IMGw]http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/bigedp51/snowreport.gif[/IMGw]

[Surpmil]

The article purports to be about advice to TR (Target Rifle) shooter. Now the one thing that TR shooters do NOT like is rifles that have magazines because they are inherently evil and may contaminate the Holy ground at Bisley. Especially as some of the shooters of these nasty guns insist on USING the magazines in some competitions.

If TR shooters such as the author do not point out how evil magazine rifles like Lee-Enfields are then some unscrupulous members of the NRA may even use them on Stickledown. I have personally witnessed them being used on Century rather than Short Siberia - where they rightly belong with all the other 'cowboy' guns.

There is no doubt that the people who shoot these horrible inventions do not 'know the form' and will insist on grinning and generally having good time. (You know know who I mean - LERA. At least some of the HBSA are a bit po faced and have been to 'good' schools.) Unless a stand against Lee-Enfields is made now, the NRA may find that a lot more people are using them.

Just as I suspected.

What a pathetic, parochial bunch of snobs; with nothing to be snobbish about. What sort of rifles do they think won the Queen's/King's Prize for the last 100+ years?

They might not rest so proudly on their Swings if they paid attention to this:
Target Shooter December
Go to page 8 and read "5.56mm and 7.62mm Outlawed"

"Hang together, or hang one by one". Take your pick.

[Alan de Enfield]

Target Shooter December
Go to page 8 and read "5.56mm and 7.62mm Outlawed"

.

Thats quite worrying - & even the US signing up to UN arms control.

[ireload2]

Oil or water in the chamber has the same effect on ALL rifles not just the Enfield Rifle. Our new American short "magnum" cartridges because the cases have much less surface area to grip the chamber walls are pounding these new rifles into early retirement.



Know thy rifle. And read the books and manuals on the subject before you go off half cocked and write gun articles on subjects you haven't researched.

All rifle designs are not the same. Therefore oil or water in the chamber does lead not to the same reaction in all designs. Muzzle loaders must really be dangerous since they have no brass at all. You need some background in math and physics to filter the stuff you read or you will just repeat information you BELIEVE but do not KNOW to be true. Try understanding Hooke's Law and the use of Young's Modulus.

[Badger]

Yesterday, we received a general web post from an individual under the signature block Editor Target Sports section in Sporting Rifle magazine (not to be confused with a similarly named but different on-line electronic publication called Target Shooter Magazine.

To be frank, it was a less than flattering general bashing of our site, our members and more specifically, our lack of moderation and failure to effectively censor and perhaps censure posters who expressed their opinions about their published article in this thread.

There were specific references to two emails he apparently received, which I assume came from some of our members here. In reference to them, the sender said: "We WERE going to deal with them in a well-considered and precise (though more polite way than they deserved), keeping it in-hand within the magazine. That way the major points could have been met without having to prove the failures and injuries attributed to the use of these rifles (some reaching parliamentary debate) over the years. Others have indeed, sensibly, been kept quiet. That may have to change now, thanks to these letter writers."

The sender indicated that he had no interest in addressing the matter in this thread, as he felt because of the lack of site moderation and the "blinkered" bias of our members, the issue couldn't be discussed objectively.

I was going to reprint his letter in its entirety here, but it was such an unprofessionally written mess, that I couldn't see that would contribute anything positive except to incite and inflame everyone worse than I became after reading it. I thought about just ignoring it, but after re-reading some of the veiled threats contained within it, apparently suggesting that they were taking the matter further (whatever that means), I thought that minimally I'd publish my response (also sent yesterday) for you guys to read and just leave it at that for now.

Regards,
Doug (Badger)

Our site is not a propaganda tool designed to promote one view over another, nor is it a scientific journal subject to independent peer review boards. We do have an Advisory Panel to benchmark and ensure some technical guidance as to what members are saying about various genres of collectibles, but ironically, many of them spoke out against the assumptions drawn and published within the article as well.

Our site is simply a collectors research site where members can gather and post their own opinions about any issue, both pro and con, provided they observe a simple set of rules of engagement in dealing with each other. In basic terms, we ask that they not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, anti-Semitic, discriminatory, hateful, threatening, bigoted, or otherwise violative of any laws. Other than that, they are free to express their own thoughts and we have no intention of censoring anyone who stays within the boundaries they agreed to when they originally registered to use the forums. Like any forum with over 11,000 registered members, nothing is perfect and we do have a few folks who wonder outside the envelope and are either cautioned or banned. In general however, these are a really great bunch of people, all of whom gather electronically to share their common love for a hobby that isn't too politically correct nowadays, particularly in today's liberal dominated world.

As a journalist, I'm sure you're not really advocating censorship, but rather wanting to present clarification as to what the author really meant to say, as purely a rebuttal to what many serious Enfield collectors, gunsmiths and other expert sources, who are recognized and highly published authors themselves, have been saying about the article as they understood it?

If that's the case, then I don't understand why you (or the author who feels slighted), didn't simply register and present the empirical data to show how the article has been grossly misunderstood and misrepresented (as you put it), within those postings in the Lee Enfield Collectors Forums?

You reaction seems to be highly defensive, full of emotional charged rhetoric and so disproportionate to the event, that I have to seriously wonder what the real issue is?

Since you feel that joining the site to present your case is beneath your journalistic standards and values, I'm not exactly sure how you expect us to get your viewpoint across to the members you're challenging, short of publishing your response to their postings within the same thread. I assume your general web box posting to me is your formal response and I have no problem re-publishing and adding it to the thread, but I would have thought you'd like to have expressed the concerns that offended your sensibilities, in a more direct to the audience manner.

In any event, I'd like to make a personal comment. You don't even know me, yet you are quick to draw conclusions, toss insults and make assumptions with complete abandon as to any personal reality of who I am. I found your email to us bizarre, rambling, unfocused and from someone who classifies themselves as a professional journalist and an editor, unprofessional in its own right.

Regards,
Doug

[Thunderbox]

I think he should be invited/challenged to provide the list of documented "incidents" upon which the article was based, on the basis that good journalism should provide the source material for examination.

The reference to "(some reaching parliamentary debate)" would be excellent if this pointed to a specific UK Hansard edition, etc. Unfortunately, it sounds eerily like the drivel Gunnersam/temperflash kept droning on about. In that case, he was referring to some very unspecific comments made in the Canadian parliament back in c.1890 (the speaking MP clearly knew little about rifles, but equally clearly had some sort of agenda). Those comments referred to bolt and barrel failures, but made no mention of the type of failure - or even the type of rifle.

(Given that it was Canada in c.1890, the rifles could have been Metford Mk1s, and the "failures" could simply have been things like loss of the bolt-head shroud or the cocking piece locking button - both items reported elsewhere in the Empire, and subsequently improved in later Mks).

[Alan de Enfield]

Maybe they realise that they are in the wrong, having quoted unsubstantiated 'rumours' and are trying to cover their embarrasment by bluster and threats.

It is a 'free country' and both the press and the public are allowed to think & say what they want as long as its 'correct' and 'legal'.
In this instance I believe that their statements need justifying and evidence provided, if they are unwilling or unable, and the letter to Badger is as threatening and abusive as Badger implies, then there is maybe a case for reporting this to the press complaints commision.

They, or one of their contributors, are obviously aware of this forum so maybe they will take heed of the concensus of opinion and either print a retraction or provide the evidence needed.

I, for one, would like to see the letter they sent to Badger.

[spinecracker]

I don't think that we are asking for much. The author must have researched his article, so must have access to the research mentioned in the article. If this is the case, then it should be REALLY easy to provide references and data in support of his contentions. I do this kind of thing almost every day, so I know how easy it is lol.

[Amatikulu]

It might be helpful if the article was analyzed and any contentious statements identified, so that there is no question about what people are upset about. Here's my attempt at breaking it down:

Water in your action or on your ammunition will cause elevated and variable chamber pressures. - I agree

At best this will mean erratic elevation, at worst a stretched action. - I agree

Lee Enfield actions are notorious for this. - I do not have knowledge of this to support this statement and would like to know what evidence exists.

A No4 shooting 7.62 ammunition is already doing a job a little beyond its design parameters. - this statement suprises me as these rifles are an approved conversion by the military and are proofed to a standard that one expects is sufficient to protect the shooter.

This coupled with questionable gunsmithing and significantly undersized bores when the rifle was 'converted' from .303 gives a poor starting point in the safety stakes. -I think no one would argue that all gunsmiths are created equal and bad workmanship exists in some cases.However this is common to all rifle types that gunsmiths work on. I am not aware of what determines a significantly undersized bore when converted from .303. Is the author saying that the new barrels installed were too small for the 7.62 projectile they were designed to shoot? I'd like this statement explained.

Add to that an action full of rain and wet ammunition and you may be heading towards disaster. - Rain and wet ammo are not good for any action

For a ferrous alloy, such as steel used in a rifle action, as long as stresses do not exceed a particular level the fatigue life of the action can be regarded as infinite. But we do not know what level of stress that is, so we must assume that any stressing of the action beyond its design parameters is dangerous. The crucial point is that stressing the action beyond this limit has a cumulative effect, which ultimately leads to failure. The more we overstress the action the closer we come to that failure. - seems a reasonable statement applicable to all rifle action types

Dozens of times I've seen shooters shooting Long Lee Enfields and SMLE's, particularly at the Trafalgar Meeting in the pouring rain, making no effort to keep the rain off their ammunition or out of what is an even weaker action than a No4. - I wasn't aware that the SMLE or Long lee actions were weaker than the No.4 but even accepting that they may be, the real question is are they or are they not strong enough for the cartridge they are firing. The history of these weapons will answer that

To cap all this, when the rifle passed into civilian hands it was subject to a deliberate overload at the proof house. The fact that it didn't give way then is no guarantee it wont give way tomorrow" - this is true of all actions that pass into civilian hands or are sent for proof


"This post-war No4 action is the best of the Lee Enfield bunch but if you overstress it you risk your life" - If you overstress it, this is true of all action types - no disagreement

[spinecracker]

Amatikulu, that sounds like a very fair assessment, and agrees with my concerns 100%. No one would (hopefully) disagree that proper precautions should be taken with ANY firearm, including correct maintenance, preventing overload of the chamber, keeping water and other contaminants out of the action, etc.