2A1 Ishapore terrible accuracy + other problems

[Alan de Enfield]

I was wondering the same thing re head spacing. I have to say (rightly or wrongly) I've always had my doubts about the strength of the 2A1 action and 7.62x51.

I know the steel is changed, but still, dimensionally, it's a No1 and the somewhat
slim sidewalls of the action body would trouble me, I have my doubts...

I'm afraid you have 'fallen for' the internet rumour that if repeated enough times becomes fact.

The steel is NOT a better grade, it is exactly that as specified for the No1 Mk3.
In fact Peter Laidler bought a dozen 2A / 2A1 and had them tested, several were found to actually be No1 Mk3 and the original markings could be seen under the microscope.

There was an interesting article (some years ago) from the ProofMaster of the Ishapore rifle factory and a section of the article dealt specifically with Lee Enfields.


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 1949, 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.

A bolt action rifle similar to the SMLE MkIII*, modified to fire the 7.62mm NATO cartridge, was produced at Ishapore, first in February 1965. The receivers were made of SWES 48 steel (as per the SMLE MkIII*) and with the NATO proof cartridge the receivers were found to distort with both the dry and oiled proof round. The material was changed back to the originally specified EN steel so now the rifles stand up better to dry and oiled proof. After passing proof the barrels are impressed with the Indian national proof stamp. The bolt handles and bolt head claws are struck with the crossed flags only.



You could say that the 2A / 2A1 were a better steel than the Ishapore No1 Mk3's, but that is only because the Indians changed the specification of the steel used on the No1 Mk3.
The 2A / 2A1 steel used is the same steel as originally specified for the No1 Mk3 ans is the same as that used by all other No1 Mk3 manufacturers.

[Bindi2]

The proof was only for 144gn NATO ammo nothing else. Not for 308 150gn or larger. These rifles are not 308 proofed. Lithgow did also convert some No6 Mk1s the same action as the No1 Mk3* but they all failed. The range shooters with No4s could send their rifle to Lithgow for conversion to 7.62 NATO. There was a failure rate with them as well. Not all rifles came back from the proof firing. So if you have a No4 7.62 conversion use only 144gn NATO ammo or similar handloads.

[mrclark303]

Very interesting guys, many thanks indeed for the information.

I've seen two failed SMLE action bodies over the years, one twisted along its length and another with a clean fracture on the left hand side, by the charger bridge.

From memory, the broken body was British and the twisted example was Ishapore ( 1953 from memory).

Both .303

The broken body was stripped out at an RFD's and the twisted example was a friend of a friend, who noticed the bolt getting stiff until it jammed (you would think this was the clue to stop and check) but he ended up using a rubber hammer to get the bolt out of battery and off the rifle.

I only made a quick examination of the rifle, but sure enough, the bolt would only go in to the charger bridge level then jam solid. I tried another bolt and just the same. I never found out the results of the strip, but it was clearly trashed!

[Roger Payne]

The message I get from all this is that even if the SMLE sction just about copes with 7.62mm 144 grain ammo when the body is made from EN steel, the conversion process pushes it to its very limits. The No4 body is intrinsically more heavily built & stronger, but even in that I only shoot 144gr service ammunition. Other people can do what they wish; I'm no Brad Pitt, but I'm happy with my facial features just as they are......

[Lee Enfield]

I'm afraid you have 'fallen for' the internet rumour that if repeated enough times becomes fact.

The steel is NOT a better grade, it is exactly that as specified for the No1 Mk3.
In fact Peter Laidler bought a dozen 2A / 2A1 and had them tested, several were found to actually be No1 Mk3 and the original markings could be seen under the microscope.
...snip...

I'm sorry, but this story cannot be true - there are structural differences between a 2A/2A1 action and a No1 action - and yes, when PL made the assertion that 2A/2A1 actions were merely converted No1 .303 actions, I called him on it.

The easiest structural difference to see is that the ejector screw is moved forward approx. 1/4" on the 2A/2A1 action.
the second one is that there is a relief cut on the inside of the action to assist the cartridge base running into the ejector screw.

If .303 No1 receivers were "converted" into 2A/2A1 actions, it would be very plain to see, and there would be 2 ejector screw threaded holes in the action - similar to the Sterling 7.62 No4 conversion

[Alan de Enfield]

I'm sorry, but this story cannot be true - there are structural differences between a 2A/2A1 action and a No1 action - and yes, when PL made the assertion that 2A/2A1 actions were merely converted No1 .303 actions, I called him on it.

The easiest structural difference to see is that the ejector screw is moved forward approx. 1/4" on the 2A/2A1 action.
the second one is that there is a relief cut on the inside of the action to assist the cartridge base running into the ejector screw.

If .303 No1 receivers were "converted" into 2A/2A1 actions, it would be very plain to see, and there would be 2 ejector screw threaded holes in the action - similar to the Sterling 7.62 No4 conversion

If we accept that PL was mistaken with regard to the re-use of No1 Mk3 bodies, do you accept that the steel used and the revised testing is as reported by the Proof Master ?

[Bindi2]

The 2A is a converted action the 2A1 is a new built action. The No4 can not be compared to them apples and oranges.

[Lee Enfield]

The 2A is a converted action the 2A1 is a new built action. The No4 can not be compared to them apples and oranges.

The 2A and 2A1 rifles which I have owned and handled have ALL been new built 7.62 actions.

The difference between the 2 rifles is the rear sight tanget on a 2A is a .303 (1800 or 2000?? yards) tangent leaf on a recalibrated bed.

The 2A1 has a new sight bed and tangent leaf.

Numrich at one point had loose 2A/2A1 7.62 barrels for sale - who knkws what they have been fitted to.

---------- Post added at 04:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:28 PM ----------

If we accept that PL was mistaken with regard to the re-use of No1 Mk3 bodies, do you accept that the steel used and the revised testing is as reported by the Proof Master ?

I would think that the "Proof Master" would have an idea of whether actions failed proof or not.

I believe that comment was circa 1962/63ish and either in the Reynolds book or American Rifleman magazine.

This would correspond with the start of 2A production.

[Bindi2]

I know what the differences between the 2A and the 2A1 are. Check the action stampings they tell the story. The Indian FTR process didn't get rid of all the clues just most. The 2As came into Australia first, the game was to find out who built the action the Indians or the Brits. I haven't seen a Lithgow converted. The 2A1s were not mixed as there has been no confirmation as yet.
The No4 conversion in Australia did not have a new ejector screw hole drilled, in fact most screws were removed all together if the local Central sight was used. Some other sights used that screw hole for mounting. There was no requirement to be able to eject unfired rounds, cases ejected without the screw in place.

[Alan de Enfield]

I would think that the "Proof Master" would have an idea of whether actions failed proof or not.

I believe that comment was circa 1962/63ish and either in the Reynolds book or American Rifleman magazine.

This would correspond with the start of 2A production.

As I quoted in post #31 :

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’