NRA Safety Notice re No 4 7.62mm Conversions

[Strangely Brown]

This is the current stance of the NRA safety warning which first appeared in the Summer NRA Journal:

Safety Notice
Enfield No 4 Rifle Conversions to 7.62mm

A safety warning concerning the use of Enfield No 4 Rifle actions converted to 7.62mm was published in the Summer Journal.

After further consideration of all factors influencing safety of these conversions and consultation with the Birmingham Proof Master, the following advice must be adhered to in respect of the use of Enfield No 4 conversions:

• Owners of Enfield No 4 actioned rifles converted to 7.62mm currently proofed to 19 tons per square inch are strongly advised to have them re-proofed to the current CIP standard (requiring a minimum mean proof pressure of 5190 bar) which allows the use of CIP approved ammunition with a Maximum Average Working Pressure (MAWP) of 4150 Bar.
• Conversions retaining their original Enfield barrel or a replacement barrel as manufactured by RSAF Enfield are safe to use with commercial CIP approved ammunition, which complies with a MAWP of 4150 bar, loaded with any weight of bullet, providing they carry a valid proof mark, and are still in the same condition as when submitted for proof.
• Conversions fitted with any other make of barrel (such as Ferlach, Maddco, Krieger etc) should be checked by a competent gunsmith to determine the throat diameter of the chamber/barrel fitted before use.
• Conversions where the throat diameter is less than the CIP specification of 0.311” but not smaller than 0.3085” must not be used with ammunition which exceeds 3650 Bar MAWP when fired in a SAAMI/CIP pressure barrel.
• Conversions which have been checked and found to comply with Rule 150 may safely be used with any ammunition supplied by the NRA including the 155 grain Radway Green Cartridge, 155 grain RUAG Cartridge or any other commercial CIP Approved cartridges loaded with bullets of any weight provided that the ammunition pressure does not exceed 3650 Bar when measured in a CIP standard barrel.
• Owners of Enfield No 4 actioned rifles converted to 7.62mm who are uncertain as to the proof status of the rifle should have it checked by a competent gunsmith.
• Owners of Enfield No 4 actioned rifles in any calibre are strongly advised not to use them in wet weather or without removing all traces of oil from action and chamber prior to shooting.
• Enfield No 4 rifles which are fitted with a barrel which has a throat diameter less than 0.3085” must not be used on Bisley Ranges.
• Ammunition loaded with bullets of any weight which are of greater diameter than the throat diameter of the barrel must not under any circumstances be used on Bisley Ranges in any rifle or barrel of any manufacture.

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.

[Edward Horton]

Mick

When these conversions were made were "oiled" proof pressure rounds used or had the switch been made to the "CIP" standard of non-oiled proof test rounds?

Translation to American English and pressure standards.

Requiring a minimum mean proof pressure of 5190 bar or 75,274 PSI transducer method.

CIP approved ammunition with a Maximum Average Working Pressure of 4150 Bar or 60,190 PSI transducer method.

19 TSI is equal to 38000 CUP or Copper Units Pressure British axial method which requires 10% to 20% to added to equal American radial method of CUP. (Between 41,800 and 45,600 CUP)





NOTE: 50,000 CUP equals 60,000 PSI transducer method.

[Thunderbox]

Thus the UK NRA have back-tracked on just about everything. Still no attempt to present any "evidence" of an actual problem. There is also a response in the Journal which dribbles on about heeding warnings from other sources - but conspicuously fails to specify these.


"• Owners of Enfield No 4 actioned rifles in any calibre are strongly advised not to use them in wet weather or without removing all traces of oil from action and chamber prior to shooting."


So, only about 120 years too late with that little gem of advice.....

I think I'll continue to place my trust in the century or so of accumulated trials and testing of the Royal Arsenals, rather than internet myth merchants...

[slamfire1]

• Owners of Enfield No 4 actioned rifles in any calibre are strongly advised not to use them in wet weather or without removing all traces of oil from action and chamber prior to shooting

.

Eh Gads!.

Now I can't shoot my Lee Enfields unless the sun is shining.

[Edward Horton]

Ask yourselves what are the hazards of excess bolt thrust on the Enfield Rifle.

Below was written in 1946 by James Sweet a Queens Prize winner and author of "Competitive Rifle Shooting".

[Strangely Brown]

Mick

When these conversions were made were "oiled" proof pressure rounds used or had the switch been made to the "CIP" standard of non-oiled proof test rounds?

To be honest ED I don't know whether oiled rounds were used or not; in fact I was always of the opinion that they (Proof House) used an "over loaded" round.(Can anybody else comment on that?)

Regarding CIP as a measurment, I doubt if it was in use (UK) during the period of conversions which was from circa 1969 and the last conversions I can find were around 1986.

[Simon]

"After further consideration of all factors influencing safety of these conversions and consultation with the Birmingham Proof Master, the following advice must be adhered to in respect of the use of Enfield No 4 conversions".

What a surprise eh, The "Birmingham Proof Master" a private company who'll be more than happy to relieve you of your hard earned, recommends a re-proof.

Cheers,
Simon.

[Surpmil]

The inanities of suggesting that a No4 in .303 is not safe in the rain, or that RSAF(E) produced barrels are safe "as long as they are in the same condition as when submitted for proof" - in other words, not used much since(!) are clear enough.

What is still not entirely clear is the reason for all this fuss and bother.

Is it legal liabilty "CYA", or did all this begin with the apparently bogus MoD "safety warning" that has been deconstructed elsewhere on this site?

If I'm not mistaken, the Lee Enfield and the No4 are enjoying a bit of resurgence in the UK in the last few years?

So here we can see a nice convergence of government, commercial, legal (NRA?), and target rifle snob interests in attempting to discredit the No4 (and by implication the No1 SMLE as well of course)

What a mess, but of course if you keep throwing mud, some of it will stick in the dimmer recesses of the public mind, which is what they're counting on.

So now No4's in 7.62mm need to be proofed to 30 Tons or MORE?? Quite a jump from the 19 Tons that sufficed for the MoD for 30 odd years. Well that should blow a few up if nothing else will.

Then you'll hear some crowing.

[Beerhunter]

I see that we all got our Journals yesterday then

When I read that load of old round things, my immediate reaction was that some one in the NRA just can't bring themselves to admit that the original statement was a load of rubbish based on no evidence and have now put this arse-covering nonsense out rather than admit it. I have read it again several times since and am now convinced that is the case.

I shall be writing again asking for clarification, and demanding that the NRA produce evidence, NOT hearsay, or that they withdraw the notice properly.

I shall also ask: how much this exercise in futility has cost us (the Members), who was responsible and their current employment status.

[Thunderbox]

I see that we all got our Journals yesterday then

When I read that load of old round things, my immediate reaction was that some one in the NRA just can't bring themselves to admit that the original statement was a load of rubbish based on no evidence and have now put this arse-covering nonsense out rather than admit it. I have read it again several times since and am now convinced that is the case.

I shall be writing again asking for clarification, and demanding that the NRA produce evidence, NOT hearsay, or that they withdraw the notice properly.

I shall also ask: how much this exercise in futility has cost us (the Members), who was responsible and their current employment status.

Seconded.


No authority has issued any sort of warning, and the NRA cannot point to anything other than the same old hearsay.

Its noticeable that the Proof Houses have stated - reading between the lines - words to the effect "this is silly, but we are more than happy for you to recommend that everyone reproofs their rifle" (£££££££.....).

My own recent feedback from one Proof House about this matter was - "hahahahaha - its all rowlocks" (sic). They declined to put that in writing, however.

BTW, .303 rifles continue to be proofed in apparently one of three ways, judging from the condition of the returned weapon: (1) filthy black bore: presumably a dry over-proof round; (2) dripping with oil but not too dirty: possibly oil proof with a normal ball round? (3) mysterious process whereby the rifle is returned bright and shiny clean.... (I guess the Proof House now cleans selected rifles; I'm sure they can't possibly say "another No1/4; haven't had one of those fail in recorded history; lets just stamp it up and send it back"....)

Ed,

James Sweet was a respected shot but, again, he never ran a ballistics laboratory, merely selectively quoted the same historical sources we all use. He omits, in quoting from the Textbook of Small Arms, to mentions that the 19 ton load of oiled ammunition was considered to be the normal service load condition and that the actual rifle proof was 24 tons.

Similarly, there is actually no tested and proved link between "straining the action" and the action fractures he mentions. A tiny, tiny number of No1 actions - out of the thousands that have been shooting for 90-odd years - do eventually warp and crack, but there has never been any military survey or trial that pointed to a finite "service life" or a correlation between service life & conditions of usage. ALL military No1s and No4s will have fired wet and/or oiled ammunition - most probably hundreds of times. More than 4 million No1 actions were mass-produced in 1914-18 so, statistically, some of those must have been borderline in terms of materials and metal hardening. The reasons for the (remarkably low) number of No1 action failures are up for supposition, until proven one way or another in laboratory conditions.

P.s. Strangely, Beerhunter, Simon, UK forum'ers: I'd be keen to hear about any case of a "stretched" rifle that is available for examination in UK, or where there is reasonable authoritative proof that this is taken place. It would be interesting to collect some real-world data. I'm not stating that it doesn't happen, but of the three rifles I've been shown so far where this is alleged to have happened, all had evidence of previous bad gunsmithing (no names, no pack drill...) - brand new bolt in one with uneven bearing, one with a bolthead over-rotating by about 90o, another with barrel shims and evidence of "improvement" in the locking surfaces.