Quick question for Brian BDL- Failed 2A1

[Son]

Brian, your name came up in a post on another forum implying knowledge of a destructive failure of a 2A1... The poster is infamous for making it up as he goes, so I thought I'd ask you here while he will undoubtably tapdance around the question with pages of googled quotes from un named sources.... here is a cut and past of his post.

The 2A does not have a reputation for failure , but its not intended to be a test bed for handloads either. Work up your loads for each individual rifle, thats the best way to avoid unpleasant suprises.

There has been a blown out case of one 2A rifle that seriously damaged the shooter's family jewels when the magazine blew out and hit him in the groin. That shooter ignored an earlier warning sign when the extractor broke and had been punching out empties with a cleaning rod.
Two importers have stated that no 2A rifle they received was within the headspace specs, one ( Dennis Kroh) refused to sell the rifles after the above mentioned case blow out, and another (Brian Dick ltd If I recall correctly) obtained un issued new old stock bolt heads and made sure all his 2A rifles were with in specification before selling any of them.

Like any other rifle condition is important to safety, and using ammunition that is suited to the configuration of the chamber and specifications.

Blow up tests and anedotes that can't be confirmed can be misleading. Actions surviving having a blocked barrel bursting is an example. The position of a blockage makes the difference. Blockages nearer the muzzle usually result in the barrel bursting with a great deal less stress on the action, while blockages nearer the chamber can blow out an action. They found this out early on when making blow out tests on the Lee Enfield and later studies on barrel failures and blown actions when defective rod grenade shafts caused extreme pressure excursions.
I've not heard of any scientific testing on the actions of Lee Enfield Rifles since the early days, I have heard of poorly done attempts at running such tests that provided no useful information and have lead some to make exagerated and unsubstantiated claims.
They used to claim no Lee Enfield action had ever failed except when firing reloads, that turned out not to be true.




Thanks for any light you may shed on this Brian.. also open to any input... comments...

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.

[muffett.2008]

This boy shore has got up your nose Brad.

[Homer]

This boy shore has got up your nose Brad.

Understandably.

[Son]

This boy shore has got up your nose Brad.

Yes, Kev.. he has.... I make no bones about it either. Where he does occasionally post relevant stuff, he seems to live by the mantra "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull$hit". I think it's the same bloke who has been removed from two other forums, who became known as "googlesam".

I am yet to get a satisfactory response to my (always polite) request for references from him over there... because he gives the illusion of knowing what he is on about, too many take his word for gospel. My mantra is, in the words of the late Don Chipp, "Keep the Ba$tards Honest"

[Son]

Just a quick update..... another quote from this .... ...gentleman....

Gas cutting of the bolthead due to gas escaping from a blown out case was the most common cause of Lee Enfield Rifle failures. Escaping gas would enter the extractor recess in the bolt head extractor lug, and blow out the extractor and portions of the lug or shatter the bolthead.


have I just learned something that everyone else already knew?

[Thunderbox]

Just a quick update..... another quote from this .... ...gentleman....

Gas cutting of the bolthead due to gas escaping from a blown out case was the most common cause of Lee Enfield Rifle failures. Escaping gas would enter the extractor recess in the bolt head extractor lug, and blow out the extractor and portions of the lug or shatter the bolthead. have I just learned something that everyone else already knew?

Thats "gunnersam" (and other IDs), who was eventually banned from Gunboards and another forum for posting troll-like diatribes about exploding Enfields, etc.

[Brian Dick]

He hasn't got my story quite right. I've had many of the 2A and 2A1 rifles over the years but most that I've bought and sold were in specification. I've had many more sent to me by customers for a headspace check and before we knew the proper specifications thanks to Peter, I always replaced the bolt heads with NOS long ones if they failed a SAAMI Field gauge and shipped them out headspaced to L39/L42 specification which is considerably tighter than Indian specification. As loose as some of these rifles are, I've never seen or experienced a catastrophic failure or even heard of any occuring with others.

---------- Post added at 08:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:21 PM ----------

He hasn't got my story quite right. I've had many of the 2A and 2A1 rifles over the years but most that I've bought and sold were in specification. I've had many more sent to me by customers for a headspace check and before we knew the proper specifications thanks to Peter, I always replaced the bolt heads with NOS long ones if they failed a SAAMI Field gauge and shipped them out headspaced to L39/L42 specification which is considerably tighter than Indian specification. As loose as some of these rifles are, I've never seen or experienced a catastrophic failure or even heard of any occurring with others.

---------- Post added at 08:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:22 PM ----------

Sorry for the double post. I've no signal tonight with CRAP ATT wireless.

[Thunderbox]

He hasn't got my story quite right. I've had many of the 2A and 2A1 rifles over the years but most that I've bought and sold were in specification. I've had many more sent to me by customers for a headspace check and before we knew the proper specifications thanks to Peter, I always replaced the bolt heads with NOS long ones if they failed a SAAMI Field gauge and shipped them out headspaced to L39/L42 specification which is considerably tighter than Indian specification. As loose as some of these rifles are, I've never seen or experienced a catastrophic failure or even heard of any occuring with others.

---------- Post added at 08:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:21 PM ----------

He hasn't got my story quite right. I've had many of the 2A and 2A1 rifles over the years but most that I've bought and sold were in specification. I've had many more sent to me by customers for a headspace check and before we knew the proper specifications thanks to Peter, I always replaced the bolt heads with NOS long ones if they failed a SAAMI Field gauge and shipped them out headspaced to L39/L42 specification which is considerably tighter than Indian specification. As loose as some of these rifles are, I've never seen or experienced a catastrophic failure or even heard of any occurring with others.

---------- Post added at 08:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:22 PM ----------

Sorry for the double post. I've no signal tonight with CRAP ATT wireless.

The guy is a deliberate troll. As "gunnersam" and other IDs, he used to write long diatribes about the danger of weak and exploding Enfields. His modus is to take an urban myth or a fact completely out of context, and extrapolate a long story from it. Like most trolls, he proclaims that he is talking about "well known facts" or "documented cases" - yet of course never engages in a direct debate. Unfortunately, he finds fertile ground in Forums where there are a lot of inexperienced or gullible Enfield owners - hence his reappearance on Surplus Rifles. Note that his ludicrous postings there are actually a cut-and-paste of identical entries on other forums (from where he was eventually banned).

A good example of his methodology is his allegation about (sic) "UK parliamentary enquiries into catastrophically failed Enfield Rifles", from which he wishes the reader to get the impression that a serious safety fault in Enfields required intervention at the highest levels, etc. In fact the Hansard entry to which he refers records a completely un-detailed statement in a speech by an MP about "failures" in the "new rifle" reported from Canada. There are no supporting facts at all, and the statement comes, o course, from a politician with some sort of agenda (probably an attack on the Government for giving up the faithful Martini-Henry!). From the date (IIRC early 1880s) and the location in Canada, its apparent that the "new rifle" must be a very early model of Metford, or even a troop trials rifle of some sort. The "failures" are not detailed, and could be anything at all - note that troop trial reports at the time detail lost screws, loose butt stocks, rattly dust-covers, mud-plugged barrels, and a host of faults short of what "Gunersam" wishes to implicate - exploding actions. "Gunnersam" is careful not to reveal that the Hansard entry is from the very dawn of the Enfield era - he intends the reader to get the impression that the much later main Enfield family (No1 onwards) was subject to a safety scandal.

[Son]

Thankyou for your time and effort replying, gentlemen. Revealing this bloke for what he is on the forum he is infecting is a little harder due to the amount of new collectors that find their way to it. The more that are awake to him, the less mileage his crap gets... gotta be good for our collective interests.

[Peter Laidler]

Gas cutting of the boltheads........ that's a new one on me too. Gas cutting......... what orbitory planet is he on?

I detailed the two catastrophic failures of No4's that occurred during the late 70's - 80's and they were noithing to do with........... anyway I won't repeat it all again but it's all detailed in the bowels of this or the other forum if anyone is really interested