Inherent Weakness ?

[Edward Horton]

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.

No one but a moderator can restrict what you have to say in a posting and I have not stopped or restricted anything you or anyone else wanted to say or did say in any posting.

This forum is located in Canada so our American first amendment rights do not apply here and you are going to have to settle for a constitutional monarchy headed by Queen Elizabeth with the Enfield rifle as part of their heritage.

I do not think or believe that Albert is accomplishing anything in this thread nor is he doing anything remotely related to spreading American good will to our English speaking cousins in regards to the Enfield rifle.

It amazes me that Albert does not see his posting as a source of irritation to the countries that carried the Enfield rifle in battle, you could even say his posting is a little like spitting on another countries flag.

So as an American I’m voicing my opinion and letting others know I do NOT share Albert’s opinions on the Enfield rifle in any way, just as I do not share your opinion on greasing and oil cartridge cases when the books and manuals tell you not to do it.

If different views and opinions get under your skin to the degree that you are showing now in this forum it might be time for you to find another hobby or at least pick another rifle to insult.

Ed Horton
An American and proud owner of Enfield Rifles.

(I also collect Enfield manuals and read them)

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.

[ireload2]

>>>The spreading of the receiver walls <<<
This is a concern that I have never heard before.
It is possible to see how it can occur over time. The right receiver rail is weaker than the left and will strain (stretch) more under firing forces. The description of a blown up LE that I have read indicated that the bolt was forced upward and to the right. I believe in that case the bolt was bent. Bending the bolt would put huge side loads on the walls of the receiver bolt passage.
Derelict barreled actions show up from time to time at local guns shows.
It appears that one of these would make a good sample for determining the failure mode of a Lee-Enfield receiver and bolt. Such an example could have the diameter of the bolt bore measured before any tests and then again after testing to see what effects destructive tests made.
If anyone knows of existing photos of a damaged Lee-Enfield bolt and receiver I would like to see them. I have seen Mausers, Carcanos, Contenders, Arisaka that suffered over pressure failures. I would like to see the damage for a Lee-Enfield.

There is no international boundary on discussion of military rifles .

[jmoore]

I believe Mr. Laidler commented on how action spread in No. 5 rifles would shear the rear sight axis pin's retaining cross pin (thinggy).

[Alan de Enfield]

I believe Mr. Laidler commented on how action spread in No. 5 rifles would shear the rear sight axis pin's retaining cross pin (thinggy).

Posted By: Peter Laidler
Date: Sat 26 Jul 2008 6:13 am
In Response To: No.5 Wandering Zero: Peter Laidler opinion? (milprileb)
Hi Milpreb and others. Yes, the little No5 rifle. As I said, we still had some in Malaya in the mid 60’s plus I’d say, a thousand or so+ that came through our huge Base Workshops in Singapore where from Australia, New Zealand, Malaya, Hong Kong Vietnam and occasionally Fiji Armourers would regularly congregate for various reasons. And a week or so exploring the bustling sights and sounds of night-time Singapore was probably top of the list. But being a young, celibate, church-going, teetotal young lad, I stayed in and knitted scarves and darned socks for the needy. But I digress.
I have to confess that until I was in New Zealand in 1967, I didn’t know that in early 1949 the No5 was on the cusp of being introduced as the standard service rifle to replace the No4. I read this while reading an old, little document in the workshop bosses office, ASM Leo Francis ( ….remember him Kim?). The document was about the sale of and introduction into New Zealand of the .22” No8 rifle. The document was aimed at Australia too but I never saw a No8 when I was there, except for an odd-ball owned by ASM Clive Connors at Bandiana. He was another RAEME Armourer …., who’d probably ‘liberated’ it when he was somewhere. I did get him some spares sent over in the freight from Malaya, consisting of 1 complete and another all-but complete rifle but I digress again. The document in Leo’s office at Ngaruawahia went on to say that the No5 was introduced into British Army service and will eventually supplant the No2 rifle and various others throughout. ‘Throughout’ probably meant the other odds and sods such as the No7’s and No9’s plus the little ex US lend lease Mossbergs that you could still see occasionally. It was correct because the No8 did replace them eventually although the RAF Cadets at Abingdon did still have a couple of No7’s in 1982. But the No8 was the norm.
Oh, yes. The document said that the No8 rifle had been developed in look, style, feel and weight as a direct result of the forthcoming decision to adopt the No5 rifle as the standard arm throughout the Army. I asked Jock Annandale about it in conversation and he’d obviously heard and read this and commented to me that while it was a laudable idea, the No5 had many problems and while it might be OK in the jungle and as a short range close quarter weapon, it was definitely NOT a rifle for long ranges we’d expect in Europe. This was because once it got hot, its zero went. It was as simple as that. And as you all know, once you start to follow your zero over the target, it’s time to stop for the day. That’s because YOU are following the zero and generally, your eyes are going and you’re tired. But when it’s the RIFLE that’s causing it……………. And the No5 RIFLE did. He also told me, in words that Warrant Officers are apt to use when a silly suggestion is made, that the notion that the whole of the Commonwealth was going to change, when they were knee deep in perfectly good, almost new No4’s was pure , er ….., horse, er ……, manure!
I asked the other Armourers in Malaya, especially the LEP (locally enlisted) Chinese and Malays (known as MOR’s …, Malayan Other Ranks) and they all knew about the rifles going off zero but in the short ranges that they were used, it was academic. So in Malaya they stayed. You could always tell the high mileage rifles, apart from the shot-out barrels because the backsight axis pin retaining pin (longest name of a part on the rifle. The PIN, retaining, pin axis backsight) was always sheared where the bodies had expanded at the rear and sheared it. So, if at the moment of firing/and max pressure/load the body spreads at the rear, especially during a gun battle, I suppose it would upset the balance between the locking lugs, bolt and cartridge seating on the bolt face.
I think I mentioned earlier that when we were doing the big Crown Agents FTR programme, it was priced (so I was told) that if 70 came in, 70 went out and if some were ZF’d (scrap) then they’d be replaced from our ANZUK (I think this was Aust, NZ and UK stockholdings) mobilization stores from the huge …., and I mean HUGE Ordnance stockpiles close by at Johore Bahru. So we would cannibalise No5’s and if necessary, send them out with No4 bodies.
I don’t think it was the kick that made them wander off because we would fire hundreds every day in just shorts and boots. No shirts, hats or ear defenders. During this shooting the boss of the Ordnance Stores depot, a nice bloke called WO1 Arnold, (we all called him ‘Sir’ to be polite), used to bring his son down for days during the school holidays, especially on Bren days and son, age about 15 or so used to load the magazines and shoot the rifles/Brens for function testing first then we got him used to shooting the accuracy tests at the special Armourers target screen. He was quite good too and always mixed in. But we were only a couple of years older than him anyway. His mum was always nice to us, so was dad really, and used to bring a load of bottles of cold Frazer and Neave orange juice and home made things to scoff for break. We had some Brens with front grips that you could use as heavy SMG’s, fired from well tucked back in the waist during jungle patrolling and we’d let him fire these at the targets from very close range. God, I shudder at the thought now. If I saw someone doing it now I’d go ballistic …., let alone allow a young lad to do it! The Small Arms shop 2i/c S/Sgt Beady and the AQMS Dick Shepherd used to think it was a bit of a punishment to be sent on the range for the day because the No5’s used to jump about a bit and crack but when there were a few of us there, we were out of the way
Oh, yes. Back to No5’s. Some of them just wouldn’t zero so they’d be examined and if necessary, re-barreled or just stripped for spares or scrapped. some were as good as gold. I never did get to the bottom of why they had a wandering zero problem. Just theories but they certainly did. Whether YOURS has or not is a bit academic but while I don’t think it had a bad name, it certainly wasn’t a myth.

[Alfred]

Yep thats the article.

You could always tell the high mileage rifles, apart from the shot-out barrels because the backsight axis pin retaining pin (longest name of a part on the rifle. The PIN, retaining, pin axis backsight) was always sheared where the bodies had expanded at the rear and sheared it. So, if at the moment of firing/and max pressure/load the body spreads at the rear, especially during a gun battle, I suppose it would upset the balance between the locking lugs, bolt and cartridge seating on the bolt face.

Sounds reasonable.
The Enfields were so often described as having loose tolerences so as to operate in muddy and sandy conditions that side play in the bolt track wouldn't raise any flags.

I wonder if spread receiver walls could be tweaked back into original specs in a heavy vise without compromising the strength of the metal?

[ireload2]

If the LE receiver had significant residual internal stresses from the forging, machining and heat treatment processes the cyclical loading from repeated firing may have served to relieve some of the stress and cause the receivers to spread. A simple test might have been to braze, rivet or tig weld a heavier bridge across the rear of the receiver. If the receiver is about to be scrapped it could do no harm, unless of course it was not specified in some manual as an approved repair procedure.

[ireload2]

>>I wonder if spread receiver walls could be tweaked back into original specs in a heavy vise without compromising the strength of the metal?<<

There are limits but for mild cases there would have been no problems.
In fact I would not be surprised if some accuracy shop out there is not using this method to cheat a little bit to improve the guidance of the bolt. I am not talking about just putting it back to the max of original specs but putting it back to minimum clearance or even tighter.

I have a Redfield receiver sight that is mounted with a cross screw through the rear sight ears. Added tension on this dinky screw can change the bolt slop in the receiver.

[Alfred]

If the LE receiver had significant residual internal stresses from the forging, machining and heat treatment processes the cyclical loading from repeated firing may have served to relieve some of the stress and cause the receivers to spread.

That sounds like a distinct possibility, with the problem being worse with the No.5 receivers for some reason, perhaps a shortcut in production.
The vertical play of worn Savage No.4 MkI* bolts and chipping way of the track due to boltheads rotating out of the track may also have been caused by a manufacturing shortcut, insufficient stress relief.

I'll look up the details on the redesigned No.4 Receivers now manufactured for 7.62 NATO caliber target rifles.
Their bridge is different, more for use as a convenient scope base than anything else.

I may try squeezing my Savage receiver with clamps or a bench vise later on, to see if that takes the slop out. The Bolt body is a new condition replacement and locks up tight as a hatband so the slack must be in the receiver walls rather than the bolt.

Bending the lefthand mag lip up far enough that the bolthead contacts it on the forwards stroke has eliminated the tendency to rotate out of the track, but thats only a temporary fix at best.

The problem would likely never be noticable with the No.1 since its bolthead hooks over a male rail and the earlier No.4 non * bolthead that hooks into and under the female rail might show undue wear at that point if loose fitted but theres no cut out in the rail to rotate out of as in the No.4 MkI*.

PS
Its very common for DP marked magazines to have the lefthand feed lip worn down, apparently by contact with the bolthead as it goes forward. Could be that many of the DP marked rifles that shoow little obvious wear were DP'ed due to spreading of the action body.

I've seen it mentioned that replacement bolts were available that were several thousandths larger in diameter, to take up wear to the receiver tracks. Its likely that the looseness these oversize bolts were used to repair came from action body spreading rather than actual wear to the tracks of the receiver wall.

A split bridge has always been considered a weak point in those front locking designs that have them, Mannlicher and Mosin Nagant for example.

[ireload2]

>>>Its very common for DP marked magazines to have the lefthand feed lip worn down, apparently by contact with the bolthead as it goes forward. Could be that many of the DP marked rifles that shoow little obvious wear were DP'ed due to spreading of the action body.<<<

The old #1Mk111* (Lithgow 1918) that I once had was badly chewed up on the right receiver rail. Apparently the guys in OZ did not break the edge of the bolt heads. The side load from the extractor caused the sharp edge of the bolt head to shave away the receiver rail.

[Alfred]

Page 176 of this book preview
The Springfield 1903 rifles: the ... - Google Books

Has a nice photo of the extremely rare .303 caliber Remington 1903 springfield prototype.

The butt stock has the classic Enfield grip and the Floor Plate appears to be deepened for the clearance necessary for the rimmed cartridge.

Another source tells that Remington cancelled out on this idea, saying that they felt they should only manufacture rifles chambered for the US .30/06 in case they were called on to supply arms for our own forces.
The same source says that Remington was approached to manufacture No.4 MkI rifles first.
The British did buy many of the Remington manufactured 1903 rifles in .30/06, Many were sent to New Zealand for use as training rifles till enough No.4 rifles could be produced.
Some UK sources I've found tell of US Rifles with Springfield stamped on the receiver ring, being issued for Home Guard or Irish LDF training. But its not known if these were in fact 1903 rifles.