Inherent Weakness ?

[ireload2]

>>>I wonder why someone would call a rifle that can shot thousands of rounds and keep working great for tounsands more with the most basic maintenance "inherently weak". Others are stronger, better made etc., but that's beside the point I think.<<<

No other rifle seems to need an array of new bolt heads to keep it in service.

[ireload2]

Ireload2 has used the old rhetorical trick of forming a hypothetical question that is completely off the track of the discussion, which concerned the time leading up to the FIRST world war. So while "American Gunsmith" was shooting his mouth off, the British, being inadequately provided with Lee Enfields and aware of possible improvements, turned to American private enterprise for adequate production of the P14. Meanwhile, for three years the US authorities appear to have taken a "doesn't concern us" attitude to WW1 and Springfield was producing rifles at a rate that would have matched the later M1917 production by about 1940, if the troops could have waited long enough. They could not. So the US in it's turn had to be saved by the same private enterprise production in a brilliant piece of pragmatic planning and production ramp-up by converting the P14 to a 30-06 version and producing the M1917 in quantities that made Springfield look like a garage operation. If the British firearms planning was completely inadequate, then the US planning while the war was already engulfing the world could be described as criminal negligence on a national scale. In both countries, the officials could be described as "minutemen" because that appears to have been their major activity - writing minutes.

Does that mean the Brits got themselves into a war they were not prepared for and expected the US to get into the same war blindly?

Regardless it is easy to perform engineering analysis on the various bolt actions and show which ones are weak in comparison to the others as far as action strength goes. If you favorite does not fare well in this comparison it is just a trade off that you live with. Spend significant time shooting all of the battle rifles and some of your prejudices may be changed.

[Alfred]

I own (and shoot) two rifles: a Mauser 33/40 "Gebirgsjäger" and an LE No. 5 "Jungle carbine". Both load approximately the same Kemira N140 powder charge (according to the book). I hardly ever use the Mauser and I keep it mainly because it´s so beautifully (and expensively) made. Both rifles are very accurate (or I´d have got rid of it) but I practically never shoot the Mauser competitively. I always choose the Enfield ... and have now got myself another .308 Win Enfield conversion. I still prefer the .303. In my younger days, I saw action with the No. 4 & 5 and the FN. Of course times change ... and the FN was a very efficient weapon.

I've also owned a Mauser Carbine, the Persian Mauser, heavier than the G33/40 but aprox same length of barrel.
I've fired several No.5 Carbines since then. I consider the No.5 to be the only Carbine of its class that is reasonably efficient with the standard issue ammunition available to its users in combat.
The Mauser Carbines when using ammo suited to the K98 or Gew98 length rifles is not at all efficient and not as accurate as No.5 Carbines I've used.
I used light loads of fast burning 4198 and 4227 with my Persian Carbine, and these were very accurate.
I gave my remaining supply of these powders to a friend who wanted to start reloading for his No.5 and the results were very promising. He achieved MOA groupings out to six hundred yards using reduced loads of fast powders.

A properly taylored handload can usually result in Sub MOA accuracy with most Military Bolt action rifles of the 20th century if they are in good condition.

The Rear locking bolt of the Enfield does present some factors that should be taken into account, and these usually are taken into account by those who wish to achieve the highest level of accuracy possible.

But the Enfield was the product of a very long period of evolution which eventually made it better than all the others. I`m quite sure that "collectors" would prefer the Mauser but anyone who has ever used one in action will always stick to the Enfield.

The only Military rifles I now own are Enfields. I never cared for the Springfield or M1917, and lost interest in the Mausers long ago.

Ireload2 has used the old rhetorical trick of forming a hypothetical question that is completely off the track of the discussion, which concerned the time leading up to the FIRST world war. So while "American Gunsmith" was shooting his mouth

Exactly who was this "American Gunsmith"?
Since as I've pointed out the most vocal criticism of the Enfield Rifles came from Canadian and British sources.
No doubt some "American Gunsmith" or other has criticised the Enfield, but the Criticisms certainly didn't originate in the US.
Lee Actions had been used with some success in the US long before the British adopted and adapted it to their use.
Remington built many sporting rifles on the 1899 Lee action in calibers of higher performance than the .303.

The point is that despite attempts to stir animosity between UK owners of the Enfields and US owners of the Enfields the author of the work I linked to was quite right in saying that the British had raked the rifle over the coals endlessly in the run up to WW1. Also the Canadian criticisms of the Enfield are a matter of record.

If the US military had wished to there was nothing to prevent them from using as much of the Lee design as they wanted to.
The 10 shot Detachable box magazine for example would have been a very useful addition to the Springfield 1903 rifles.


Also Europeans often forget that the US had almost no stake in the Great War. Nothing that happened in Europe was of any real interest to the vast majority of US citizens.Only continued attacks on US Shipping by German U-boats finally made our involvement necessary.

When the US finally entered the War everyone involved expected the conflict to go on for another decade. Only the Spanish Flu with its devastaing effect on the Civilian populations finally made continued hostilities impossible. The Flu killed as many in a few months as four years of warfare, and left entire armies too ill to fight and civilian populations devastated and unable to supply there men in the field.
One reason so many WW1 era rifles survived to be issued in WW2 was that by the time these were finished there were far too few healthy soldiers to carry them into combat.

the British, being inadequately provided with Lee Enfields and aware of possible improvements, turned to American private enterprise for adequate production of the P14.

And the British nearly bankrupted Remington by cancelling the orders.
The P-14/M1917 was far easier to mass produce using US commercial manufacturing methods than the Springfield 03 or Enfield No.1. The new Nickel Steel alloy used gave it great strength. Those rifles left over at the end of WW1 were sold or given to allies and many were issued to US support troops during WW2. A gret many were sent to Britian for Homeguard use.

BTW
Contrary to popular belief the British benefitted greatly from US manufacturing techniques and automation when producing the No.1 rifles.

Much of what the British considered their own was actually bought or borrowed from "American Gunsmiths", such as the Lewisgun and the Vickers and Maxim guns. Hiram Maxim became a British Citizen after he invented and developed his machinegun design. The Vickers-Maxim MG was adopted by the US as early as 1904, chambered for the .30/03 and probably the .30/06 later on.
The US sent remaining 1904 Vickers MGs to Britian in later years.

The Lewisgun , invented by a US Army officer , had to be beefed up and redesigned to handle the more powerful .30/06 cartridges. It had worked okay with the .303 and so it was easily adopted by the British, and often used in .303 by US forces till the updated .30/06 version was perfected.
During WW2 many US .30/06 Lewisguns were sent to Britian for Homeguard use.

The Krag rifle, a Scandinavian design, was slighty less strong than the Enfield No.1, and I've never seen any Krag collector that didn't acknowledge that the single lug bolt of the Krag was a weakness of that design.

Like the Enfield, failures of a Krag action are unlikely to cause serious injury, but that doesn't make the rifle stronger than it is or perfectly safe if it blows out.
Both are suited for the cartridge and chamber pressures they were designed for, and both have very little safety margin when it comes to excessive chamber pressures. Both were subjected to the most erosive and corrosive ammunition of modern warfare, with rifles that saw a great deal of use often enough ending up with bores that can be very unsafe and cause excessive pressures even with otherwise safe ammunition.

[louthepou]

>>>I wonder why someone would call a rifle that can shot thousands of rounds and keep working great for tounsands more with the most basic maintenance "inherently weak". Others are stronger, better made etc., but that's beside the point I think.<<<

No other rifle seems to need an array of new bolt heads to keep it in service.

From newly manufactured to being called "ready for the smelter", I wonder how many rounds were fired. Then I wonder how many rounds were fired through other similar rifles before they were ready for scraps too. Now that'd be data that can be compared, again before I label a smle as Inherently weak. Or, a ratio of catastrophic failures vs rounds fired, compared again with other rifles...

Changing a bolt head once in a long while, that's like changing my iridium spark plugs once or twice in the lifetime of my car's engine I think. Maintenance. Not needed in other rifles, yes. Doesn't mean it's weak. Prescribed because of design, yes. My bike has shim over buckets valve lash adjustment. Once every 5 years maybe one shim needs to be changed. My buddy's bike got adjustment screws; we fine tune that once a year. Different, but both are good...

The one weakness I see in the SMLE is obvious only on sporterized rifles. The barrel is too skinny to be used as a pry bar to help get that ATV lifted off the ground to change a flat tire

Just thought of something else while re-reading my text. Maybe there's some confusion between a weak point (there's always one), and a flaw (as I understand, a weakness that is so bad that it prevents usefulness). Any system has a weak link. Doesn't mean it's too weak, right?

[Alfred]

Just thought of something else while re-reading my text. Maybe there's some confusion between a weak point (there's always one), and a flaw (as I understand, a weakness that is so bad that it prevents usefulness). Any system has a weak link. Doesn't mean it's too weak, right?

Sounds about right to me.


The replacement bolt heads did allow action and bolt bodies to remain servicable even after significant wear to locking surfaces or set back.
Barrels could be replaced if corroded or worn. Keeping track of wear and doing the necessary repairs kept a lot of rifles servicable. Those same rifles would have been condemned if repairs were not possible at a reasonable outlay, and a great many rifles ended up downgraded to drill Purpose Only status.

Records of failures of Low Number Springfields are easy to find, Hatchers Notebook has a section on these. The only records I've found on LE failures are those listed in the Canadian House of Commons records, and they note that these failures never received any press and that the damaged rifles were always put down as repairable, even when the rifles action was destroyed. I guess as long as one numbered part remained they kept it on the books, like rebuilt commercial aircraft and George Washington's Hatchet.

http://books.google.com/books?id=iSl...esult&resnum=1

[Patrick Chadwick]

...Does that mean the Brits got themselves into a war they were not prepared for
YES
...and expected the US to get into the same war blindly?
NO, the blindness was on the part of the isolationists.
...Regardless it is easy to perform engineering analysis on the various bolt actions
AGREED
...and show which ones are weak in comparison to the others as far as action strength goes.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY WEAK? Adequate for the intended job is not weak.
...If you favorite does not fare well in this comparison
I DIDN'T MENTION ANY FAVORITE
...it is just a trade off that you live with.
NO PROBLEM.

...Spend significant time shooting all of the battle rifles and some of your prejudices may be changed.
ANOTHER rhetorical trick by suggesting the other is unqualified to comment as a result of not having fulfilled an unrealistic demand.

But have you fulfilled this demand yourself?

Are we supposed to think that you really HAVE spent significant time shooting ALL the battle rifles. Let me see, that would be Enfield No 1 No 3 No 4 No 5, Ross MKII, Mk III, P14, Gew88, Gew98 , Kar98a, Kar98b, K98k, StG43, StG44, Steyr-Mannlicher M90, M95, M95 carbine, M95/30, Springfield 03A1, 03A3, Garand, 30M1, Mle 1886, 1886/93, 1886/93/35, Mle 1892 Mousqueton, Mle 1907, 1907/15, Mle1916, MAS 36, Carcano 91, Carcano 38, Carcano 91/41, Mosin-Nagant 1891, 91/30, Tokarev, Dragunow, Simonow, Arisaka T38, T99... just for starters, out of the top of my head, without consulting any books, no claim to be a full list
Let's make it simple. Have you "spent significant time shooting" every type of rifle described in the "Collecting Classic Bolt Action Military Rifles" by Paul Scarlata?

...and some of your prejudices may be changed.
Please be so good as to specify these prejudices and I will get to work on them.

Patrick

[Alfred]

A quick look at Hatchers Notebook and the section on breech failures of the Low Number Springfield shows that many were the result of known bad ammo, and some due to 8mm Mauser ammo getting mixed in with .30/06 and fired in a Springfield, a situation I've heard of before.
The complaints against the low numbered rifles were that the later receivers would have had the extra margin of strength to have held up under these adverse conditions.

Of the Lee Enfield Rifles listed in the House of Commons debates almost all were said to have been fired using freshly manufactured ammunition loaded to British specifications and the ammo was not considered to be at fault.

I would expect that metalurgy would have been at least marginally better as time went on, later Enfields benefiting from better metal and quality control. Just as nearly every other rifle.
The Japanese rifles for example went from having a poor reputation for strength to having the reputation for being the strongest ever produced when the Maganese content of the steel used was increased. The Japanese then sold off as many of the older rifles as they could to Russia and other WW1 combatants in order to finance replacement with the stronger rifles.

If the two piece barrel once considered for the Enfield had ever gone beyond the planning stage the Enfield would probably have been as looked down on as the WW2 wartime expediant Japanese rifles that damaged the Arisaka's reputation.

I've seen a few that claimed the Lee Enfield has a perfect safety record, based on lack of published data on failures. To some its become an article of faith like the tree hugger claim that no wolf ever killed a human, though in fact there are many recorded instances of wolves killing humans before the 20th century and many recorded non fatal attacks during the 20th century plus at least one fatality. The argument then shifts to "non Rabid Wolves" on the principle that if the wolf wasn't tested for rabies then it had to be rabid, or "dog Wolf Hybrid" and that if it couldn't be proven that the wolf was pure blooded then it had to be a hybrid.
Wolf attacks are extremely rare because wolves are rare in most parts of the US, and in places where wolves are common enough people generally are armed, and there are wolves there because their most natural prey is plentiful.

I've seen nothing that would indicate that any model of Enfield, or any rifle of any type for that matter, ever had a perfect safety record.

Q. You have seen the Lee-Enfield rifle. Take that (handing rifle to witness), something has gone wrong with that ?—A. Yes, the bolt is broken.

Q. Have you never 'met with any of that kind before?—A. I have met with the bolt broken, but not with service rifles.

Q. What rifle was it that you met with broken ?—A. It was the Lee-Enfield pattern.

Q. It is possible, though for the bolt to be broken off?—A. Evidently by this it is

Q. Supposing the bolt had broken off, what would be the effect, the probable effect ? —A. I should think the bolt would blow back.

Q. Undoubtedly, and would there be any danger to life?—A. Yes, the man behind the gun might be killed.

Q. As a matter of fact, there was one man killed at London camp last year that way?—A. He might be, I do not know.

Q. Do you know that a man was killed, have you ever heard that anybody was killed by the bolt being blown out?—A. No, sir, I never did. I was not in the position to know it if it happened.

(J. If the bolthead of a rifle were liable to break off, you would consider it a serious defect in the rifle?—A. I would, sir.

Q. So that if it occurred that you once had the bolthead blown off and injury occurred to you, you would be nervous with that rifle afterwards ?—A. I might naturally be nervous, but if I was satisfied that the mechanism of the rifle was all right, I would not condemn the whole rifle for it. It might be a faulty bolt.

http://books.google.com/books?id=FBA...sult&resnum=10

[Edward Horton]

Now that you mention it Alfred I think I saw a British werewolf movie and the werewolves were all carrying Enfield’s.

The werewolves were not debated in the House of Commons because you could not claim them as an added expense and be reimbursed for their upkeep.

So this also means howling at the moon is an inherent weakness.

The moral of the movie/story was to never trust a good looking Scottish girl in a tight t-shirt.





This leads to the question do silver bullets and cordite cause bore erosion and was this ever debated in the House of Commons

[Alfred]

This leads to the question do silver bullets and cordite cause bore erosion and was this ever debated in the House of Commons

Thermal/gas erosion of very type of Cordite used in rifle cartridges was debated in the British Parliment, on many occasions.
Earlier claims of the propellant's stability were questioned after several British Warships blew up at anchor with great loss of life.
In horse and buggy days ammunition wasn't likely to be stored for any length of time in a magazine that could reach temperatures of over 125 degrees, that changed as ships grew larger and more enclosed with powerful engines and powerplants.
Post WW2 testing of RAF ammunition cases showed that these cases left in direct sunlight on the Indian Northwestern Frontier could reach temperatures of 160 degrees for hours at a time.

Far as I know Silver was not used as a jacket material, but Cupro-Nickel with its silvery appearance was used by most nations till we developed the Gilding Metal jacket still in use today.

Cupro-Nickel is some nasty stuff to get rid of once its taken hold.
I had to sell off an otherwise very nice Krag due to the condition of its bore caused by corrosion under a thick layer of Cupro-Nickel fouling. I made sure the collector I sold it to had no intention of trying to fire that rifle.
This sort of metal fouling can be deceptive, on the surface the bore can look bright and shiny, but underneath corrosive salts locked into microscopic fissures continue their work at destroying the bore.

I've often wondered why the British chose to use Berdan Primers.
I recently found that due to an 1898 accident in loading crates of US Manufactured Boxer Primers onto a ship headed to India, with loss of life of those on the dock, Parliment passed a law against shipping primers with anvils already inserted. Anvils would have had to be shipped in separate crates and inserted at the ammunition factories. So Berdan Priming was a much simpler way to go.

Accidents and questions of erosion show up here and there in records of Parliment.


BTW
Britain finally paid off its WW2 debts to the United States, I ran across debates in Parliment on that as well.
One thing UK citizens don't seem to realise about the Pre WW2 years is that Britain was not just an island nation it was still an Empire with many times the Population and resources of the United States.
Same can be said of France to some extent with its active colonies.
In the 30's the US had possibly the smallest and least well equiped army of any of the modern states. Our Navy was strong but in many ways outdated.
If not for US industry the European Allies would have been up the creek when it came to war materials, especially after the early losses in France.
US Troops often had to go without as US supplies were diverted to our allies.

Some more free downloads of Books relevant to the Enfield Rifles.
"Sniping in France"
H Hesketh-Pritchard
http://www.archive.org/details/snipi...ncew00pricrich
Quite a lot on loss of accuracy due to gas erosion, and the warping of Enfield fore ends under conditions in the trenches.

And
"The Book of the Rifle"
By Thomas F Freemantle
http://books.google.com/books?id=eHQ...esult&resnum=4

T F Freemantle (Lord Cottesloe) author of "The Book of the Rifle" is described by H Hesketh-Pritchard (author of "Sniping in France") as having more knowledge of rifles and telescopic sights than any man alive in those days.

I've been studying the rifle and its ammunition starting from the ground up, and paying attention to the words of those most familar with every aspect of it from its inception.
When recently published claims don't jibe with known scientific facts I'll accept the words of those who used the rifle extensively in the most horrific conditions of WW1.

[ireload2]

These are calculated values for the bolt compression and the stretch of the
receiver at the PSI shown for a #4 Mk1 Lee-Enfield.
The PSI shown is acting in a .450 diameter case with .030 thick walls at the base. So the PSI is acting on the area of a .390 case head ID.


.................Receiver........Bolt............. .Total Deflection***
PSI............Stretch.....Compression.......Recei ver + Bolt
30000....... 0.0009.......0.0037...............0.0046
35000....... 0.0011.......0.0043...............0.0054
40000....... 0.0013.......0.0049...............0.0062
41440....... 0.0013.......0.0051...............0.0064
45000....... 0.0014.......0.0055...............0.0069
50000....... 0.0016.......0.0061...............0.0077
55000....... 0.0017.......0.0068...............0.0085
60000....... 0.0019.......0.0074...............0.0093
65000....... 0.0020.......0.0080...............0.0100
70000....... 0.0022.......0.0086...............0.0108
75000....... 0.0024.......0.0092...............0.0116
80000....... 0.0025.......0.0098...............0.0124
85000....... 0.0027.......0.0104...............0.0131
90000....... 0.0028.......0.0111...............0.0139
95000....... 0.0030.......0.0117...............0.0147