L42/Enforcer Ammunication

[Bindi2]

Roger some of us know this limitation most don't. they don't comprehend it is a conversion not a new built rifle.

[Alan de Enfield]

A d E the No4/L42/clone in Ozz dosent have to be reproofed to use heavier projectiles it is in the buyer you are on your own in this .. People just don't know and wont be told that it is not a 308. The clones are not proofed at all.

And in the US folks can just 'throw a few gun bits together' and use it with no (prooving) checks at all.

Which nation is correct ?

[Bindi2]

And in the US folks can just 'throw a few gun bits together' and use it with no (prooving) checks at all.

Which nation is correct ?

Not the U S A or OZZ.
And don't even mention DPs in the USA as non shooters.

[GeeRam]

People just don't know and wont be told that it is not a 308.

[Micheal Doyne]

Micheal Doyne you are pushing the friendship as well.

It is proofed to 21 tons per cubic inch, which I was told made it ok for GGG 155?

[Bindi2]

It is proofed to 21 tons per cubic inch, which I was told made it ok for GGG 155?

Still well up on the original design and in front of many that failed 19t proof here in OZZ

[30Three]

Personally I just don't get why anyone would want to use a hotter round in a rifle that's not designed for it.
It's a bit like saying that your classic car has a red line at 6,000 RPM, but if you push it to 7,000 RPM you'll get more power!
How often do you want to try that before it let's go and your sweeping up the bit's!
At least with an engine you won't be wearing the bit's in your face!

[muffett.2008]

Dunno 'bout that Zed, had a car on a dyno redlining when it blew, took chunks out of the spanner leaning over the bonnet.


….but to boost Bindii's argument, here in OZ we had two types of 7.62 in service, F4 which was the standard practice round and the L2A2 which was the full blown service round.
The L2A2 round was not allowed to be used in civilian competition, as it was too hot for anything other than the M44 Omarks in the early 70's, the Lee Enfield conversions were severely stressed when using this round, as were a lot of L1A1 's that were found to be a bit soft.
So in order to maintain an even playing field on changeover and maintain a fair degree of safety, only the F4 round was allowed.

[Daan Kemp]

Pardon me for being confused. It seems that many countries have differently loaded military 7,62 ammunition, which must be an interesting logistical exercise for supplying the front line. Why would you use a different round in practice to what you would use in combat?

[muffett.2008]

Basically the same round, the L2A2 was produced to Nato Spec's in OZ using AR2201 powder, a fast burning non temperature sensitive powder that was relatively consistant, but caused accelerated wear in Auto and Semi Auto weapons.
The AR2201 powder was used until 1979, but another powder was substituted in 1976, the round being reclassified as F4 using AR2206 Powder, a slightly slower burn rate relieving both stress on the firearms and operators, while maintaining velocity with the 144gr. projectile.

The change of powder was an immediate success in the Training Battalions , marksmanship skills jumped and the subsequent flow on to the rifle clubs was very pronounced, requiring a reduction in scoreing rings on all targets.

The reduction in chamber pressure allowed the 7.62 converted rifles back into the game where they continued in long range use until the early 80's.

Although OZ produced ammunition to Nato standards, we were very independent and industrious when it came to variations, I remember you questioning my comments about 106RCL ammunition, I did not bother to answer than, but Australia made a lot of innovative munitions that were not standard within Nato signatories, we did what we wanted when we wanted......and still do.