Enfield in .223

[Thunderbox]

Peter Saroney at Armalon is, of course, still cutting up new No4 Mk2s to make his .223/5.56mm carbine thingys. You might be able to get a barrel from him.

Nearly every .223 conversion I've come across (mostly the above-mentioned Armalons), the owners have complained about all sorts of feeding and functioning problems. Maybe the geometry of the No4 feed-ramp to chamber is simply not optimum for a thin round?

[Peter Laidler]

I tried to modify my receiver body by incorporating into it the magazine well of a scrap SA80. That way I'd have ready made available magazines but the magazine housing and magazines being parallel wouldn't sit in the mag well of the No4 body

Interesting thread

[bigduke6]

Another one from surplus rifle is the .45ACP conversion have built a few of these, on scrapped/ sporterized No4 actions, good fun and cheap to run, the first one I did was from a kit from Rhineland, the rest I built, I had to go to another supplier(rhineland are back making these now) for mag adapters, and produced my own barrels from blanks.

Wish I had of bought a lot more kits from Rhineland when I built the first one, I cant even buy a barrel blank for the price I paid for the full kit.

It was after this I was looking at building an exact copy of the De-Lisle carbine, but shelved the idea, as I wanted to keep it to the original spec, and in doing this it would of been a section 5.

http://www.surplusrifle.com/reviews2...ield/index.asp

[newcastle]

just checked out the Armalon website. They have a rifle (AL42) whihc is in .223 and looks rather splendid. However given exchange rates to import it to teh USA plus import costs woudl be ridiculous, which is a shame because they look real nice. Wonder if he'd convert a rifle I sent to him?
then it woukdn't be importing, just "returning from repair".

[crusty]

If you want a reduced recoil, the little Russian round is great, you can shorten up & re-chamber the 303 barrel. A mini-30 5 round mag fits flush & feeds like dream. Some work is needed to the trigger guard & forend to make it fit.

[Bruce_in_Oz]

Been there, done that.

Well actually a bit more.

I'm the silly bugger who designed the AIA M-10 series. These were initially slated for 7.62 x 39, 7.62 Nato and 5.56 NATO. Only the first two calibres made it to production, The 5.56 was killed off by office politics.

For those not familiar with the M-10 design, there are three significant changes to the Lee Enfield system:

1. The receiver is widened and made more slab-sided so that modular adapters for different mag systems can be fitted tio a common receiver.

2. The barrel is breeched up using a Brewer collar as per a Savage 110.

3. The bolt head has a collar surrounding the face and a spring and plunger ejector.

I have not been involved in the AIA operation for some years and have no idea what they are doing currently.

However, running 5.56 on a No4 / No5 action is not rocket science. The tiny diameter of the cartridge effectively demands a collared bolt face.. I have seen quite a few that have had a a ring simply soldered on with low-temperature solder: not exactly good engineering but it prevents the degradation of the heat-treatment of the bolt head proper. More adventurous folk machine the face back slightly and solder on a "cup". This method also has the advantage of allowing a smaller diameter striker hole. This latter is important as the diameter and protrusion of the standard setup is a recipe for instant ruptured primers. Duplicate the specs for M-16 and you can't go far wrong.

Enthusiasts should be able to fabricate a functional extractor from suitable steel. Tacking a bit onto an original and carefully filing it down to achieve function will give some idea and it might actually work for a while in service, but making a new one from suitable steel is not that tricky once you have derived the dimensions.

As for an ejector, a bit of basic geometry will give you the angles and depth for the plunger hole. Plungers are a piece of cake, springs can, at a pinch, be derived from M-16 types and just use a suitably small roll-pin for retention (a la M-16). One of my dramas was getting the 7.62 NATO version ejecting consistently. A single similar plunger is marginal on the larger case. It is structural and metallurgical madness to attempt to install a stuffer spring: there isn't room. However, the simple addition of a second plunger about 90 degrees away, will solve the problem using the same dinky spring and plunger as the 5.56 version. One could opt for a Mauser-type ejector and cut slots in the bolt head and receiver sides, but I was not too thrilled about that idea.

Magazines: The best "off the shelf" mag is that for the Ruger Mini-14. M-16 / STANAG types will work but, because they are wider at the front, cannot be placed as close to the breech as the Ruger type.

HOWEVER! Do not expect either type to work reliably with their original spring tension. Go and push down the follower on a No4 or a K-98; soft, isn't it? The spring load needed to launch a stack of cartridges up the mag body in a semi-auto is vastly excessive in a bolt action. You will get round leaping in all directions and wildly excessive upwards thrust in the bottom of the bolt body; not good things. The hard-core will get new springs wound to the same form but in a lighter gauge wire, the rest will simply chop bits off the original until it works OK.

Those of you that own M-10s in 7.62 NATO may have occasional issues with feed, especially at low feed speeds. This is because the supplied mags have essentially the same spring as 10rd mags for an M-14; not exactly as I had envisaged.

Fitting of your chosen 5.56 mag is problem. Some folk cheerfully line up their Mini-14 mags (5 round capacity) in a .303mag housing and then pump silicon rubber sealant in to hold it permanently in place: crude but effective. Metalworking enthusiasts can devise their own interface without too much anguish.

Barrels will need a counterbore of dimension suitable to clear bolthead collar and the extractor as it clicks over the rim. Doing this also maintains maximum breech thread length.

Cheers

[MARKDL]

I guy in Australia named rob spittles does a great job of these

[RJW NZ]

I guy in Australia named rob spittles does a great job of these

too many posts, which rifle? No 5?

I hadn't thought of it before but 7.62x39 in a No5 might be a much better idea than .223, dang, with such a similar bore, would that work with just a chamber insert and a new extractor?

BTW, Bruce in Oz, awesome job on the M-10, I'd love to have one.

I'm not sure quite how it happened but I now have two no5s with shagged barrels, they're ideal project rifles.

[Son]

I've got pictures of several converted rifles. If I can find them, I'll stick 'em up.
I do object to the cutting up of standard Lee Enfields in any better than fair condition, but to anyone who might be looking to do this, contact some of the bigger milsurp dealers about a receiver with bolt and small parts to build from. May as well only start with the parts you want, rather than pay for a whole rifle and chuck half of it away.
Here's one pic of a .223 that was done by a bloke in AIHPA for shooting spec 2

[Bruce_in_Oz]

RJW in NZ:

I have been watching buttons going through blanks a bit lately.

The initial run of 20 P-14 barrels is just about finished to profiled and threaded state and then we move on to SMLE and No5 barrels. No4 barrels are bit further away because of the issues of indexing and absolute headspace reference.

It is all happening on a very malnourished shoestring, but it is happening.

The biggest problem is not with the barrels but with the condition of the original bolts and receivers. Too much wear on the locking shoulders in the body and the effort of rebarreling is fairly pointless, regardless of how many No3 bolt heads you own.

However, if you have a "bitza" No5, a 7.62 x 39 rework will be a hoot. That style is where the M-10s started. Mini-30 mags work fine if you can get them. Alternately, if you have a stash of AK types, these can be used but with the reinforcing plates carefully ground off the top sides of the mag body. The controlling feature is the width of the existing mag well. I have never been keen on thinning the receiver side walls in rear locking actions. Previous notes about mag spring tension apply. Your biggest problem will be modifying the bolt head to run with the dinky rimless cartridge.