More Bad Press For The Enfield

[spinecracker]

Sounds like the contributing author has a hidden agenda. I feel a letter to the editor coming on. Alan, what was the name of the article?

[Alan de Enfield]

You could write them a letter and tell them that the UK MoD doesn't have any record (so far as their records go nowadays) of a Lee Enfield breaking due to water on the ammunition or the rifle. You could also say that Malaya had/still has its fair share of wet weather ......, in fact it has daily monsoons that you can set your wristwatch by. In fact, monsoons to end all monsoons, that would shove big armoured Bedford QL and RL trucks off the laterite tracks with their ferocity and the little Lee Enfields seem to have behaved admirably there.

Of course, I might have been missing something but I certainly didn't keep my rifle under a groundsheet or a poncho. Maybe the editor knows something we don't know. Maybe you could ask Chris White to contact me at the Small Arms School................................

I fully intend to write a letter, asking for the source(s) of the information and pointing out that the "questionable gunsmiths" includer RSAF Enfiled and Parker Hale, and, with Peter's OK I'll certainly conclude with the offer for the author to discuss the situation with the UK's Senior Armourer

Alan, Even though I think the info is either bogus or overly a CYA article, thanks for posting it.

.

I'm sure we all think there is some 'agenda' behind this information, unfortunately the shooting public will take as 'gospel' whats written in a 'quality' shooting magazine.

Sounds like the contributing author has a hidden agenda. I feel a letter to the editor coming on. Alan, what was the name of the article?

The article is titled "Wet Weather Drill"

[spinecracker]

Definitely a hidden agenda. The article starts off nicely enough, then becomes a vicious diatribe against the Lee Enfield. The author shows himself to be a total mammary gland on this. An email is on its way to the editor right now. The more of us write, the more chance of success (or is that too many cooks spoil the broth??). For a firearm with notorious issues and plenty of instances of life-threatening catastrophic failures, I am surprised that none of us or the British military have heard of them before.

[Jollygreenslugg]

Good thing it hasn't rained since 1889 otherwise we'd have been in a whole world of trouble. Lucky for us, it was nice and dry on the Somme, or my great grandfather (22nd Batt, AIF) may have been in strife.

Sheesh!

Cheers,
Matt

[spinecracker]

What I can't get my head round is the way the article is written. It is a harsh critique of the Enfield that is barely camouflaged by a not very good article on shooting in wet weather. By the way, Chris White, stop being such a big girl's blouse about shooting in wet weather - either stay indoors, get an umbrella or grow a pair of testicles.

Sorry for that last bit of rant.....maybe not

[spinecracker]

My letter to the editor, which has not been sent yet. I am not a good writer, so comments are appreciated. As Alan rightly said (and beat me to the punch), this article could easily become gospel for the general public, and I would hate that.

Dear Sirs,

I have had an opportunity to read an article entitled "Wet Weather Drill" by Chris White (March 2010 edition, page 85). The article begins innocuously enough, but quickly degenerates into a baseless diatribe regarding the Lee Enfield Rifle. I would be grateful if the author of the article could enlight the readership of your publication regarding the sources of his information regarding the 'notorious' Lee Enfield action and its supposed weakness. The author does not specify in his article if his comments regarding 'questionable gunsmithing' extends to RSAF Enfield and Parker Hale, and to Lee Enfield versions such as the Envoy and Enforcer, and clarification is, I feel, necessary on this point. I would also like him to produce data indicating any failure of any .303 or 7.62 Enfield action due to water infiltration or any other cause. The fact is that, although any firearm action is potentially at risk of failing if overloaded, the article reads as though Lee Enfield actions are weaker and more prone to failure than any other rifle action. This is not the case, even when correctly converted to 7.62. The Lee Enfield design has been battle-tested in multiple environments, including the snows of Norway, the jungles of Malaysia, the deserts of Africa and the mud of the Somme. The British Army and police forces, and armed forces around the world, have successfully used the Lee Enfield, in both .303 and 7.62 configurations for decades.

I would be grateful if Chris White was given an opportunity to publish in your magazine the data he used in compiling his article or, failing that, you print a retraction of his ludicrous claims.

[Surpmil]

Definitely a hidden agenda. The article starts off nicely enough, then becomes a vicious diatribe against the Lee Enfield. The author shows himself to be a total mammary gland on this. An email is on its way to the editor right now.

Personally I would have suggested a different portion of the anatomy.

Who exactly is this "Chris White"?

Definitely a little campaign under way here...but who's behind it?

Notice the obvious borrowing from the NRA pablum.

Waiting for the next "spontaneous' effusion.

[spinecracker]

Ok, a total sphincter :P Will that do?

[villiers]

... and for further reference:

`The hazadrous effects of sunlight on the Mauser K98k action´

`Perilous Consequences of Contaminating U-Boats with Salt Water´

`A Health Warning Concerning Nuclear Radiation in the Vicinity of Large Rifle Primers´.

Endless potential for Health and Safety addicts.

[Son]

Gentlemen, I have also drafted a letter to the editor. I will leave it posted here for 24 hours seeking comment and input from any and all before I send it on.

Hook in guys- I need to get this right!

-------------------------------------
Dear Sir.

I'm saddened to see a publication like Sporting Rifle being used to further an agenda of someone who seems to be bent on discrediting one of Great Britian's truly great icons, the Lee Enfield Rifle.
The article named above started out as in informative "personal experience" piece about how best to cope with wet conditions on the range. If he had continued in this vein, the author Chris White would have made a positive contribution to the factors taken into account by shooters heading out for a day at the range. But this is just a set-up. Instead he moves to a point he seems to have picked up on from a statement made by the NRA in the US recently and ends up putting out a very negative message.

The NRA accused the Lee Enfield of being dangerous and banned it from certain NRA events. In expanding on the NRA's unsubstantiated claims of "failures .... after prolonged use which is exacerbated by the use of cartridges contaminated by wet weather or oil" Mr White has conveniently shown that it often rains in England where Lee Enfields are often used on ranges and so they must be becoming dangerous.
In recognizing his attempt to put fear of failure and injury into the minds of the men and women who proudly use their firearms week in and week out at their local clubs and representative events, I have to ask the question... what has he got to gain?

Mr White's article is sensationalism in it's worst form. It is not only unsubstantiated in itself, but is also nothing more than a plagiarized idea from another unsubstantiated piece from the US, as well as being an attack an icon of British and Commonwealth history.

Your magazine really needs to ask Mr White to either put up the evidence to back his story- the rifle deserves this at least (evidence that the NRA in the US cannot even provide) or print a retraction of his comments.

I can inform you that that the UK MoD doesn't have any record of a Lee Enfield breaking due to water on the ammunition or the rifle. Perhaps Mr White needs to speak to someone who actually knows the topic, not rely on an NRA release.

I have copied the NRA statement below for you to form your own opinion. Even if you see their point, you will also see the second half of Mr White's article is nothing but a tale built around this......

words fail me....




7.62/.308 Enfield Conversion Safety Alert
Further consideration is being given to any potential
safety issues concerning the use of .308 Win (7.62mm
x 51) factory ammunition in 7.62mm conversions of
Enfield No 4 rifles. Discussions are ongoing with the
UK Proof Authorities over a joint statement which
will be published as soon as it is available on the NRA
website and in the Journal. Pending that statement, the
Association must apply the precautionary principle,
thus the following advice remains extant:
A basic principle of Firearm Safety is that the
individual is wholly responsible for the safety
of the firearm/ammunition combination he
proposes to use. However, in competitions
where ammunition is “as issued” the NRA has
a duty to ensure that the ammunition it issues
does not create a hazard.

The Enfield No 4 action and its derivatives
were originally designed for use with the .303”
cartridge which has a lower maximum cartridge
pressure than the .308 cartridge. The actions
were produced in huge numbers by several
factories to varying standards.
These conversions are not all “factory”
conversions as barrels of many different makes
with varying internal dimensions have also been
fitted to a number of such actions over the years.
Additionally the history of the usage of most
of these actions is not traceable. There is some
evidence of failures of these converted actions
after prolonged use which is exacerbated by the
use of cartridges contaminated by wet weather
or oil.
As the NRA is now supplying ammunition
manufactured especially to its requirement, they
are no longer prepared to allow the use of these
conversions in events where the ammunition
is provided. Nor do they condone the use of
this particular ammunition in these rifles at
any time.
What the shooter chooses to fire through their
rifle upon other occasions is of course entirely
at their own risk and liability."


---------------------------------