Enfield in .223

[magellan]

.223 extractor?

A "tweaked" extractor for the No. 2 .22RF trainers should also work; already heat-treated and blackened.

Hope to get a "faux" No5 or similar style up and running this year.

The CZ mags also come in 7.62 x 39 (if you can find them).

I had a tinker with 10-round Ruger Mini-14 mags, but the spring is designed for autos. Chopping turns off the spring is not the way to go. You need to wind a spring to the same overall design and length, but with thinner music wires

Anyone thought of doing a 6mm PPC or 6.5 Grendel on a No4 action? Same head size as 7.62 x 39.

A bit off topic, but I made a 7.62x39 conversion too, Around a CZ527 mag again:

---------- Post added at 08:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:36 AM ----------

And finally, not to derail this thread too far. I am now totally off-topic, but to finish with my conversions.
Here is my 7.62x25 prototype, this time around a TT33 magazine:

[Bindi2]

Woodsy you should have seen more than your share of broken bolts at the small lug.
I have a seen well known Kiwi action that was proofed for 144gn NATO that had all 3 lugs cracked from loading up 175gn projectiles just under max specs. Sorry if i am a little wary of the maths.
Oiled proof rounds increase rear thrust big time just ask the Indians about the 2A. Oiled and put away then not dried out with a proper chamber rod rag is more than likely a big factor in over pressure issues or water in the chamber.
Theory dose not always work and maths is not a perfect science. To many cases to say other wise.

[Alan de Enfield]

Oiled proof rounds increase rear thrust big time just ask the Indians about the 2A.

Not only the 2A, but also the No1 Mk3 failed proof when they changed the steel (after independance) from that originally specified by the British


Extract from “Gun Digest 33rd Anniversary 1979 Deluxe Edition”
Article Author : Mr A G Harrison
Qualification : Former ‘Proof Master’ of the ‘Rifle Factory Proof House, Ishapore, India’

From 1908 to 1950 all military bolt action rifles made at Ishapore were proof tested with a dry-round, followed with by an oiled proof round. The proof cartridge was loaded to 24 tons psi breech pressure, or 15% higher than the service pressure. In 1950 (after the departure, in 1947, of India from British control) the material for the rifle bodies was altered from an EN steel to SWES 48 steel with the recoil shoulder and cam recesses being heat treated. With this change the rifle receivers distorted when oiled proof cartridges were fired. This was discovered when hard and sometimes impossible bolt retraction was experienced. Large quantities of rifles were rejected.
To avoid rejections the authorities ordered discontinuance of the oiled proof round. Therefore from 1950 to the end of SMLE production, rifles made at Ishapore were proof tested with one dry proof only, although the specification still called for both dry and oiled proof. All bolts and bolt heads issued as spares were always proofed with a dry proof round only.

[browningautorifle]

Here is my 7.62x25 prototype, this time around a TT33 magazine

What a neat plinker that would be around here.

[Woodsy]

I have seen a couple of sheared safety lugs, but certainly not a common experience. Oiled cases will certainly increase thrust, especially in a tapered case like the .303, which is why the practice is frowned upon in any firearm. The fact remains that any good condition .303 action is safe for conversion to .223. If I was going to do any such conversion I would stick with the No.4 action which has superior strength compared to the SMLE. Over the years I have successfully converted Lee Enfield actions to the following calibres; .223, 9mm Para, .45 ACP, .44 Magnum, 7.62x39, 7.62x51, .30/30, .30/40, .405, .303/22, .303/25, .303/270, without any problems.