Inherent Weakness ?

[ireload2]

In discussing the strength of the Lee-Enfield there is a tangential matter that I have little information about. The original Remington-Lee rifles in some illustrations are shown to have had both forward locking lugs as well as the rear locking lugs. Has anyone ever owned or examined one of these rifles? I am curious if they really did have both front and rear locking lugs why was the decision made to drop the front locking lugs for the rifles the British adopted?

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]

In discussing the strength of the Lee-Enfield there is a tangential matter that I have little information about. The original Remington-Lee rifles in some illustrations are shown to have had both forward locking lugs as well as the rear locking lugs. Has anyone ever owned or examined one of these rifles? I am curious if they really did have both front and rear locking lugs why was the decision made to drop the front locking lugs for the rifles the British adopted?

The Remington Lee 1899 model came out after the Lee actions tested by the British, long after in fact.
The Four lug design was used in Rifles of one US National Guard outfit (possibly State Guard is the proper term) in 30-40 Krag Caliber. The same action was used in 7mm Mauser chambering and many sporting cartridges.
These are fairly rare but highly sought after.

One source tells me that the extra lugs were meant more as safety lugs, but I couldn't tell you for sure.
I have examined one of the Sporting models, and it was extremely well made and had a slick and fast bolt throw.
In any case if the four lug design had been adopted the British Enfields would have had a more secure lock up, and been better suited to more powerful cartridges, with a much greater margin of strength in the event of overloads or fouled bores.

The No.4 Rifle had a blocky and more substantial left receiver wall. The styling of the No.1 receiver wall, and the thumb cut for clearance when charger loading is more suited to a front locking design. They removed more metal there than was called for, and this was to some extent corrected by the No.4 redesign.

An article on the wandering zero of the No.5 Carbine , found on this site, tells of spreading of the rear walls of the action body, this has solved one mystery for me.
The vertical tilting of some No.4 MkI* bolts and the bolthead jumping the track at the cut out, is probably due to spreadng of the rear walls. This would increase the clearance between bolt body and the rather shallow grooves that are all that guides the bolt. Too much metal removed when milling the clearance cuts for the lefthand magazine feed lip complicate the situation.
No one can deny that bolt heads jumping the track is a known issue of No.4 MkI* actions, and the recent reproductions of the No.4 manufactured as target rifles have a redesigned bolthead and track to reduce the incidence of this problem. They also have a more substantial bridge, more for use as a scope base, that may reduce tendency of the receiver walls to spread.

Its likely that action body spread was due to either firing unsuitable ammunition, or firing rifles that had excessive fouling build up.
Corroded bores due to the Primers used certainly didn't help matters, and an action that had received such abuse, and was later fitted with a replacement barrel and other parts, could be difficult to spot.

[ireload2]

I guess with Lee's death in 1904 the model 1899 rifle must have been close to the end of the line for new designs with his input.
I found the illustrated break down showing the bolt head with locking lugs.

[Alfred]

Looks like the forwards lugs are part of the detachable bolt head. This is similar to the lugs of the Mosin Nagant, and would preclude the rear lugs being effective as load bearing lugs, thus they'd act as safety lugs only.
Firing stresses would have been distributed in the same manner as the Mauser bolt, directly to the receiver ring. The bolt body would not be subject to compression in normal firing, and the effect of action body spring would be eliminated.
Its likely the metalurgy was of about the same level as that of the Krag.

Looking into the Low Number Springfields I've found that these remained in service with the USMC long after they were pulled from US Army use. The Marines seem to have had no problems with them. They drilled a hole in the Receiver to allow escape of gases should a case rupture, and issued orders that Low Number rifles were not to be used to launch rifle grenades.

The Metal and heat treatment were inferior, but the strength of the design prevented most of the Low Number receivers from failure despite the poor materials used.
A stronger design can't completely make up for poor materials.

Nickel Steel and more sophisticated alloys used in later production made the Springfield extremely strong, though it still had some design flaws, such as the two piece firing pin.

[ireload2]

Looks like the forwards lugs are part of the detachable bolt head. This is similar to the lugs of the Mosin Nagant, and would preclude the rear lugs being effective as load bearing lugs, thus they'd act as safety lugs only.
Firing stresses would have been distributed in the same manner as the Mauser bolt, directly to the receiver ring. The bolt body would not be subject to compression in normal firing, and the effect of action body spring would be eliminated.
Its likely the metalurgy was of about the same level as that of the Krag.

Looking into the Low Number Springfields I've found that these remained in service with the USMC long after they were pulled from US Army use. The Marines seem to have had no problems with them. They drilled a hole in the Receiver to allow escape of gases should a case rupture, and issued orders that Low Number rifles were not to be used to launch rifle grenades.

The Metal and heat treatment were inferior, but the strength of the design prevented most of the Low Number receivers from failure despite the poor materials used.
A stronger design can't completely make up for poor materials.

Nickel Steel and more sophisticated alloys used in later production made the Springfield extremely strong, though it still had some design flaws, such as the two piece firing pin.

I am not much of a Springfield fan. There is an article in a Rifle magazine where a half dozen or so low number receivers were whacked with a common screw driver in some cases breaking the receivers (which were held in the other hand) into 3 or 4 large parts. I was not a fan of the multiple part firing pin either. My Remington 03A3 while crude was among the most accurate military rifles I have ever fired.

Krags have their fans but I am not a fan of the US version. I suspect the metallurgy of the Danish and Norwegian version are better.
Digging through a box of stuff at a gun show I found a couple of prizes. One was a like new Wilson 25-06 inline seater that I bought. I also found a US Krag bolt with no locking lug. The bolt had suffered a brittle failure breaking off the lugh about .060 deep into the bolt dia. I should have bought it for the paper weight value.

I am not so sure the Remington-Lee would have had the aborted metallurgy of the Krag. The Krag was a government arsenal goat roping.

[villiers]

" ...why was the decision made to drop the front locking lugs for the rifles the British adopted?"

Do you think it´s because only an anal retentive tends to wear both belt and braces?

Or maybe the only reason why they did away with one set of locking lugs was to provide you with further proof that the Enfield is in many ways inadequate. I am certain that the relevant authorities would have relished your advice at the time (and, of course, changed the spike bayonet on the basis of your unfortunate escapade with the ice-pick).

[ireload2]

" ...why was the decision made to drop the front locking lugs for the rifles the British adopted?"

Do you think it´s because only an anal retentive tends to wear both belt and braces?

Or maybe the only reason why they did away with one set of locking lugs was to provide you with further proof that the Enfield is in many ways inadequate. I am certain that the relevant authorities would have relished your advice at the time (and, of course, changed the spike bayonet on the basis of your unfortunate escapade with the ice-pick).

Actually I am curious from an engineering standpoint about the real rationale and engineering decisions. These decisions are always trade offs sometimes cost vs function. If that was the case the rear locking only Lee was ham strung early on rendering it unsuitable for later developments with larger smokeless rounds. In that case the belt and suspenders approach was not as dumb as the alternative.
As time has shown the spike bayonet was consigned to the dust bin.
Sometimes they make the wrong design choices trying to save a few dollars.

[louthepou]

You wouldn't want me there either, I don't behave well in public spaces, better stay in my rural refuge

[ireload2]

Your first amendment rights do not get to define my first amendment rights.
If you seek to deny my rights maybe your rights should be limited.
There is no international boundary on discussion of military rifles especially in the case of the Lee-Enfield whose designer appears to have been a naturalized American. Tt appears his last design changed the rifles mechanism somewhat so he also found room for improvement.

I suspect the people of the UK can speak for themselves without having a mouth piece do it for them.

Talk all you want about the Johnson.

[Alfred]

If I were afraid of criticism of a particular rifle I certainly wouldn't care to own one.

Theres no recall of obsolete arms that haven't been manufactured or serviced by the original manufacturer for many decades. There are steps one can take to prevent excess wear and tear on a rifle when replacement parts are becoming harder to find, and when the receiver its self can not be effectively repaired if overstressed.
The spreading of the receiver walls is something I hadn't heard of till reading of it on this site, that article was written by a British Army Armorer, and I would figure its just another of many honest apraisals of the action type.
It solved a mystery for me, and explained why so many Enfields seem to have far more play between bolt body and receiver than they should.

Unrealistic pandering to national pride and stirring animosity between UK and US collectors is counterproductive.

It seems like any discussion of the technical aspects of the Enfield is answered By "Well Rooseveldt was a Wuss" or something of that sort.