A question for the UK members with cadet knowledge between 1985 and 1990

[Frederick303]

I have a question for Capt Laidler and other UK members who might have been in, or familiar with, the Cadet forces in the period from 1985 to 1990. It is in regards to the removal of the No 4 rifles from the cadet forces in the UK. Prior to posting the specific questions, let me post the relevant prior writings on this topic, so that the questions can be seen in the proper light:

SURPLUS "ENFIELD" WARNING
(From The American Rifleman magazine, November 1988, p65)
The following warning came to us from the United Kingdom Liason Office, Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center, Picatenny Arsenal, N.J.
"1. In July 1987 a UK MOD ban was placed on the firing of ball rounds from .303 (cal.) No. 4 rifles in UK service as a result of two explosions which occurred in the chamber area of the weapons and resulted in burst barrels.
"2. UK MOD investigations found that the barrel explosions were as a result of severe 'craze cracking' of the two barrels which were of indeterminate age and life.
"3. UK MOD have initiated a study into why some barrels suffer craze cracking and others do not, but results of this are not expected to be complete for some time, and even then might not be conclusive.
"4. Because, in peace-time, .303 No. 4 rifles are only used in Cadet units, it has been decided that it is not cost-effective to carry out detailed examinations of all barrels, particularly as the cadets are being issued with the new L98A1 Cadet GP Rifle. The firing ban will therefore remain in force.
"5. Users of the No. 4 rifle worldwide, whether civilian or military, are strongly advised to have the weapons closely examined for signs of craze cracking and condemned accordingly. Thereafter, it is recommended that any barrels which have passed such inspection should be examined regularly for such signs and condemned if necessary."

NRA magazine comments following:
“Owners of the .303 No. 4 rifles should certainly heed the advice in the UK safety notice to have them "closely examined" before firing them again. The examination should be conducted, preferably, with the aid of a good optical bore-scope, by an experienced gunsmith who is familiar with the signs of erosion in gun barrels. If there are any signs of roughness from erosion in the barrel immediately ahead of the chamber, or any other visible defects in the barrel or chamber walls, then the barrel should be regarded as suspect and the rifle *should not be fired* until it has been properly fitted with a new barrel. “

Now a few months later the NRA posted a letter from Edna Parker in this very topic, I seem to recall this letter being posted in the Enfield collectors digest as well. In this letter she said the cause of the problem was that the barrels had seen a great deal of use and were very worn, and that this was not an entirely unknown phenomena, her father Alfred J Parker having seen this on rifles in Cadet forces in the pre 1964 Era. I do not recall the specifics of her letter in any more detail then that, but they were a confirmation of the original posting.
Now some years later when Major Kim Williams (NZ Army Ordnance ) was alive I corresponded with him on this topic, back prior to having read Capt Laidlers comments on this topic. I seem to recall it was around 2002, my notes are not dated from that period so it could have been anytime between late 1998 and 2003. He said that the ban was not enforced on the Cadets until 1990, at least that was his recollection, though he indicated that might have been the first year he was aware of it, as he was at Bisley that year (1990). Now my correspondence was on the service life of the barrel and he indicated the 12,000 round barrel life of the No 4 was not an exaggeration, at least for service level accuracy, as long as cordite cartridges were used. He gave me some understanding as to why the cordite cartridges would give such good life for so long, indeed some of the winning rifles of the historic LERA matches in the UK during this period (2002~2004) had barrels that would be condemned according to strict ordnance measurements of said barrel. Having had a chance to look at some very worn barrels and shoot same at short range, the explanations seem to be consistent with what I have myself observed.

Again, form the notes of this period all indications were the 1987 warning did in fact pertain to barrels that had craze cracking and had indeed had in excess of 12,000 rounds through them. The high round counts was the fundamental problem that lead to the failures.

Now a few years ago Capt Laider put out comments that this was not the cause of the removal of the Cadet rifles or the issued warning, it was misuse of the rifles. Rather then put words into his mouth, here are his posts regarding these incidents:

1)
“It was one fired without the bolt head and the other was an RAF style DP that has a big hole bored down through the top of the rear handguard, the barrel and then right through the fore-end so you can actually see right through the rifle so to speak. This large diameter hole is an inch or so in front of the knox form and is a good clue that all would not be well should the rifle be fired.

All was not well when it was fired.........................!”


2)
“The Board of Enquiry after the event found out what happened and it was this. The rifles that were 'live' were taken onto the firing point and a couple of other 'live - serviceable' rifles were at the back of the firing point together with a few DP rifles, used for what we call 'background activity' One of the rifles on the firing point wouldn't fire so the instructor stood behind the firer took it off him, cleared it and shouted to one of the Cadet NCO's at the rear.... 'bring me another rifle over.....' which he did.

What neither of them did was to check that the 'new' rifle was serviceable....., and in this case, it wasn't because it had a xxxxing big hole through the barrel, top to bottom. BUT, the BOLT was serviceable, unlike the bolt in the rifle that had failed to fire. Already, you can see that this isn't a good mix. As we say, it's an accident just waiting to happen. And the first round it fired WAS an accident where the Cadet lost a couple of fingers. They are still in orbit around the sun!

The Board of Enquiry established that prior to the actual shooting, half the group had sat around in a circle and started to clean the rifles and bolts while the other half had filled some Bren magazines and cleaned/oiled the bren guns. Then they changed over and the Bren filling half finished off cleaning and oiling the rifles and asembled them.

Unfortunately, due to 'lack of adult supervision', a DP bolt with a welded up bolt face and therefore no striker protrusion was placed into a service rifle. This rifle wouldn't fire. But because of this, a DP rifle went onto the firing point with a serviceable bolt and fired.

There's two threads to this story 1) think hard before you invade Russia and 2) check your rifle before you shoot it.

Anyway, humour aside, I think they saved the lads badly mangled fingers but they are badly disfigured.

After that an urgent signal went out to rapidly convert the RAF spec DP rifles to the current L59 specification that are safe. I bet you wonder how I know this don't you......................?”

His postings on the failure rifles was 1)It was fired with no bolt head, 2) the barrel had a hole drilled through it, in both cases it was not a case of worn barrels leading to the recall of these rifles out of the Cadet forces.

Hence it seems we have two different narratives.

Now as to my questions:

1) What year were the rifles formerly pulled out of use by the cadets? Was it 1987, 1990 or later? I refer to the use of the .303 No 4 rifles for competitive use, not drill or the .22 variations.

2) Was there ever any sort of problem with the barrel wear? I ask as there seems to be conflicting accounts of if the rifles were inspected yearly or not.

3) If there was not any issue (i.e. rifles/barrels were replaced as needed), how did the warning, quoted directly above get out and why was it so specific as to the exact cause of the failure?

4) Were there possibly other incidents related to barrel wear other then the 2 noted by Capt. Laidler above?

5) Having looked at and shot some very worn barrels, some that were virtually smoothbore, I have noted that other then the throat the bores were very smooth, Cordite wear that is not exacerbated by rust seems to leave a fairly smooth bore/grooves. Has anyone seen rough wear like that described as “craze cracking”? If so is this phenomena caused by firing or lack of care (my notes with Maj. Kim Williams seem to imply that rounds alone would not degrade a barrel to the failure point in the absence of some maintenance failure.)

Thanks to anyone who can explain these seeming divergent points of view, most particularly Capt. Laider. Not looking to challenge anyone but for the most detailed information possible.

Thanks in advance.

Frederick303

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.