7.62X51 bolt head ID

[muffett.2008]

It's about time you used that nice AXX Lithgow barrel, they are pretty rare these days.
I picked up a 7.62 Conversion with one of these barrels at a gun show a couple of weeks ago, took it to the Range and put up a nice 47.2 score at 500yds on a blustery day on modern targets, so I guess these old girls can still keep up.

All I have to do now is convince the new owner to keep it as is.

[moosem14]

My apologies for digging up an old thread and perhaps a dumb question
However information on 7.62x51 conversions seems as illusive as finding the parts themselves -

I had understood the bolt heads were proofed to 19 tons but were the bolt bodies needing this proof as well?
Was this marking the bolt handle to reference a separate proof test or just the entire assembly was proofed together?

[Alan de Enfield]

My apologies for digging up an old thread and perhaps a dumb question
However information on 7.62x51 conversions seems as illusive as finding the parts themselves -

I had understood the bolt heads were proofed to 19 tons but were the bolt bodies needing this proof as well?
Was this marking the bolt handle to reference a separate proof test or just the entire assembly was proofed together?

I understand that being individual components both the head and the bolt body were prooved. (Proof tested)

See the 'ball' on the bolt body (BNP - Birmingham Nitro Proof) and also the 19T markings on the bolt head.
makes sense really otherwise someone could simply swap-out the head or the body for non- 19T versions.

[desperatedan]

I understand that being individual components both the head and the bolt body were prooved. (Proof tested)

See the 'ball' on the bolt body (BNP - Birmingham Nitro Proof) and also the 19T markings on the bolt head.
makes sense really otherwise someone could simply swap-out the head or the body for non- 19T versions.

As I understood it the prooving process involves the firing of proof rounds in the rifle which presumably means complete and fitted with the bolt and head as it would be used in service. So therefore wouldn't the marking of the bolt, head and barrel/body all be as a result of that single process. I can't imagine single component parts being subjected to individual prooving separate from the rest of the rifle or do I misunderstand what your're saying Alan?

[Brian Dick]

I'd do the mods to the mag well in the body and fit an Enfield Pattern magazine. The Sterling mags are OK and can be adjusted to feed but ejection will never be positive as the ejector was a separate assembly. They will drop the empties out on the bench if a good extractor spring is in place. Make sure the bolt is assembled correctly on the tight side and use proper L39/L42 gauges for headspace. 1.628 Go and 1.635 No-Go.

[Alan de Enfield]

As I understood it the prooving process involves the firing of proof rounds in the rifle which presumably means complete and fitted with the bolt and head as it would be used in service. So therefore wouldn't the marking of the bolt, head and barrel/body all be as a result of that single process. I can't imagine single component parts being subjected to individual prooving separate from the rest of the rifle or do I misunderstand what your're saying Alan?

The finished rifle 'less woodwork and accessories' is test fired with a proof load (or two) and marked as being proved.
Spares (bolts, bolt heads and barrels) are tested individually.

In the civilain market changing any 'pressure bearing' component requires the whole rifle to be sent for proof. I even had my local Police force tell me that changing the woodwork required the rifle to be re-proofed.
Many conversations resulted in 'no change' in their policy. I eventually had to get a letter from the Proof-House saying that all firearms are required to be prooved with the furniture removed (due to clamp-damage).
The Police still 'stuck to their guns' until I pointed out that the wood would have to be removed to be sent for proof, the rifle returned having passed proof, refit the woodwork (and under the Police 'rules') would then have to resend it for proof. Remove wood etc etc etc.......................

[Micheal Doyne]

The Police still 'stuck to their guns' until I pointed out that the wood would have to be removed to be sent for proof, the rifle returned having passed proof, refit the woodwork (and under the Police 'rules') would then have to resend it for proof. Remove wood etc etc etc.......................

How wonderfully British constabulary! Out of interest did they give any reason why a no pressure baring part would impact a pressure baring part, or was it just a case of ‘them’s the rules, rules is rules, never shall them rules be broke!”

I had a similar discussion when I asked for my webley .455 to be approved for human dispatch as I had approval for .38 special, answer back was along the lines of “too powerful” me “but it’s muzzle energy is significantly bellow” “ah but it’s not all about muzzle energy, .455 is .075 bigger and that must be taken into account! Any ways them’s the rules” is I kept quiet. Privilege, not a right and all that.

[Roger Payne]

You sure you wanted it for 'human dispatch' Michael? My constabulary would have taken a very dim view of that for a reason to acquire......!

[Ovidio]

How wonderfully British constabulary! Out of interest did they give any reason why a no pressure baring part would impact a pressure baring part, or was it just a case of ‘them’s the rules, rules is rules, never shall them rules be broke!”

I had a similar discussion when I asked for my webley .455 to be approved for human dispatch as I had approval for .38 special, answer back was along the lines of “too powerful” me “but it’s muzzle energy is significantly bellow” “ah but it’s not all about muzzle energy, .455 is .075 bigger and that must be taken into account! Any ways them’s the rules” is I kept quiet. Privilege, not a right and all that.

If I understood that correctly, then it is plenty funny

[Alan de Enfield]

How wonderfully British constabulary! Out of interest did they give any reason why a no pressure baring part would impact a pressure baring part, or was it just a case of ‘them’s the rules, rules is rules, never shall them rules be broke!”

I had a similar discussion when I asked for my webley .455 to be approved for human dispatch as I had approval for .38 special, answer back was along the lines of “too powerful” me “but it’s muzzle energy is significantly bellow” “ah but it’s not all about muzzle energy, .455 is .075 bigger and that must be taken into account! Any ways them’s the rules” is I kept quiet. Privilege, not a right and all that.

I had a lot of trouble with the Firearms Manager during his period 'in office'.

In addition to the 'proofing' discussions,

He refused me a 7.62 NATO rifle as my land was only approved for 'up to 303', It took a lot of explaining that a 303 was measured differently and was in fact 7.7mm when using the same method as the 7.62 ammunition. He reluctantly accepted.

Then he refused me permission to make a 'personal' import from the USA. Again he had to back down.

It was shortly after these problems, and subsequent complaints of the "Police interpreting the law rather than applying it" that he took 'early retirement' and he was replaced by two (seemingly) young ladies working a Job-Share.