Inherent Weakness ?

[Alfred]

I've seen it claimed many times that an American Gunsmith had coined the term "Inherently Weak" to describe the Lee Enfield action.

Well in my studies I've run across many complaints about the weakness of the rear lugged Enfield bolt compared to other bolt action military rifles of its day.
Such as the following.
From
Rifles and Ammunition and Rifle Shooting" 1915

Rifles and ammunition and rifle shooting - Google Books

CHAPTER VII
Modern Military Rifles Critically Examined

ACTUAL war experience seems to point to the conclusion *Vi that, given a good, serviceable rifle—and all the rifles of the Great Powers and many of those of smaller Powers come into this category—the fighting value of the weapon depends more on the practical skill of the user than on any mechanical refinements which engineering or ballistic knowledge may have suggested.
As a matter of fact, the differences in effectiveness of all the best rifles are so small tHat they can easily be mastered by the human element. Good points can be nullified by lack of skill, whilst the handicap that should be introduced by a bad feature in a rifle may easily be more than made up for by highly developed aptitude on the part of the users. In one type of rifle, also, a weak or unscientific feature may be counterbalanced by another extremely good one. An instance of this may be seen in our own latest pattern short rifle. This still has the very unscientific bolt, with the lugs at the rear end of the bolt instead of close up to the base of the cartridge-case; but the slight inaccuracies brought about by this might easily be made up for on active service by the ease and rapidity with which the backsight can be adjusted with the thumb only of the left hand. The bolt is the worst to be found on any modern military rifle; the backsight is the best.

In fact the only references to the weaknesses of the Lee Enfield action that I've run across so far come from British and Canadian sources of the early 20th century when the LE was still a cutting edge design.

Gunsmiths here never considered the LE actions suitable for conversion to high intensity cartridges, but I don't think any British Gunsmith would either.

Also while the Lee action is lauded for its ability to shrug off mud and grit due to its loose tolerances and open design, this seems to be more due to the failure of the Ross rifle to handle the all too often poor quality of British supplied .303 ammunition of WW1.
I've never heard that either the Mausers or the Springfields were at all prone to jamming up in combat.

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.

[Victor Six Bravo]

It was strong enough for the round it was designed to use, not every conceivable round that could be made to fit.

I don't really consider that a "weakness". Yeah, the Mauser is theoretically stronger but the L-E bolt is very, very fast. And in a manually operated rifle, that is a good thing. And it's "strong enough".

Like the Russians say, sometimes best is the enemy of good enough.

[Thunderbox]

Prior to WW1, there was a vocal "anti Lee Enfield" faction - mostly civilian "experts" - who thought the Mauser was the best thing on earth. They were quite free in writing and printing rubbish in support of their beliefs. By the end of WW1, their opinions had been firmly inserted into their lower digestive tracts.... (REME expression, told to me by someone at Warminster)

Just because a source is old doesn't mean its accurate, impartial, researched or reasoned.

Fast forward a century, and you see the same sort of opinionated rubbish, this time promulgated and considerably enhanced into "well known fact" due to the internet. Just look at some of things that go on in these forums.....

[Alan de Enfield]

Analogy - apparently NASA spent millions of dollars developing a pen for space, it must write in zero gravity, upside down, and the 'right way' up.

The Russians used a pencil.

Sometimes simple is best.
Nuff said !!

[Alfred]

Same book same chapter a bit further along.

The British habit of subjecting anything British to a severe course of fault-finding has been responsible for the gradual forming of the opinion that the Empire is the worst provided for as regards small-arms of any of the Powers. In the year or eighteen months before the outbreak of war, the hint that the War Office was experimenting with a new rifle roused popular interest, and many questions were asked in Parliament and many letters written to newspapers. The burden of most of the Parliamentary answers and most of the letters was that the British Service rifle was bad, the bolt, in any case, was unscientific, and would not stand the high pressures necessary for the high velocities demanded by the most up-to- date practice; the short rifle did not shoot well.

Then came the outbreak of the Great War, and Britain had to go in with the arms she had—only to find out in a very short time that, instead of being the worst small-arm in use, the short Lee-Enfield was the best. Actual war tests proved that a "weak and unscientific" bolt may have advantages not possessed by stronger action designed on lines which meet the approval of engineers. The bolt-faction of the British rifle can be worked at very high speed, and this speed is possible without any serious sacrifice of strength or accuracy.

One of the criticisms against the British Service rifle is that the lugs which lock the bolt against the shock of discharge are placed so far back on the bolt that there are several inches of unsupported metal between the bolt-head and the lugs, and that the slightest irregularity in the seating of the lugs on the resistance shoulder and resistance grooves allows this unsupported metal to play sideways, and causes irregularities in the shooting. The body of the action is also complained about on the score that it is weak. From a mechanical point of view, both these condemnations must be supported by the critic; but a careful engineer who bears in mind how successfully the short Lee-Enfield has borne the severest test any rifle has yet been put to, may be allowed to emphasise the fact that both body and bolt of the British Service rifle are difficult and expensive to machine, and that, in the first instance, complaints as to the lack of scientific design in our rifle have come from manufacturers.

Simplicity is the outstanding feature of every detail of the British action (see Plate XXI.). The trigger mechanism is worked on two pivots, and is much less complicated than either the Mauser or the Mannlicher trigger action. In the short rifle a double pull off has been obtained in a most ingenious manner by providing two points of contact between the trigger arm and the lower arm of the sear. The first point provides a long light pressure, and the second, which takes the scear nose from the bent, provides a harder but quicker pull. The transference of the contact from one point to the other is brought about by the change in relative position of the lower sear arm and the trigger arm.

So despite the earlier acknowledgement that the rear locking bolt was not "scientific" the authors agree with the points made by the posters on this thread.

Acknowledging shortcomings in some areas of a design isn't the same as a blanket condemnation of the design.

Just because a source is old doesn't mean its accurate, impartial, researched or reasoned.

And simply because a book doesn't pull any punches doesn't mean it isn't impartial, the opposite in fact.
The book appears to be very well researched in fact, and as near as I can tell its impartial. The authors dealing with facts rather than opinions driven by emotional attachments.

[Patrick Chadwick]

I think I would rather have a "weak design" Enfield bolt action than a shattering Springfield receiver caused by faulty hardening - an example of the eponymous "American Gunsmith" in action?

Good design implies fitness for the intended task, and the Enfield was not intended to be bored out to take magnum cartridges or to be used as a bench-rest rifle, but rather to launch bullets with acceptable accuracy as fast as possible in the direction of the enemy. Something which it did quite satisfactorily.

Patrick

[ireload2]

>>>The trigger mechanism is worked on two pivots, and is much less complicated than either the Mauser or the Mannlicher trigger action.<<<

Anyone that has compared the two actions know this is pure bunk.

[ireload2]

I think I would rather have a "weak design" Enfield bolt action than a shattering Springfield receiver caused by faulty hardening - an example of the eponymous "American Gunsmith" in action?

Good design implies fitness for the intended task, and the Enfield was not intended to be bored out to take magnum cartridges or to be used as a bench-rest rifle, but rather to launch bullets with acceptable accuracy as fast as possible in the direction of the enemy. Something which it did quite satisfactorily.

Patrick

Yeah but would you rather have to go into combat against a Garand rifle with your #4. Things change. The Lee-Enfield was a design left over from the black powder era. Like many other designs, it appears the to be a case of being smart enough to make a bad idea work.

[bearhunter]

ireload2, there were many times when the Lee Enfield equipped troops went into battle against semi auto rifle equipped troops. They also came out of those conflicts quite well.
Good training and discipline under fire make up the difference. To many people think that the ability to spray a lot of bullets in the general direction of the enemy is the best policy. Not so.
IMHO a man equipped with a bolt action, being well trained in its use and confident in his ability is a far more dangerous adversary than a man equipped with a spray and pray assault rifle. Rifles, like the Lee Enfield, are also purpose designed aussault rifles and in the proper hands every bit as effective.
There are many more arguments in favor of bolt action rifles and I won't go into that here. I will also say that in the proper hands a properly trained man with a semi/full auto rifle is also extremly effective.

In the end it's all in the training.

[Edward Horton]

Well GunnerSam AKA Alfred and ireload2 have the choice of also voting with their feet and moving to the Mauser forum……………….permanently

I’ll stay here with the people who enjoy the Enfield Rifle, its history and not bitch about it, this is why I always say it’s impossible for an American to be an expert on the British Enfield rifle.