|
More (UK) Bad Press For Enfields |
Post Reply 
|
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Delicious Digg Facebook Furl Google Boomarks Google Buzz MySpace Newsvine reddit StumbleUpon Translate Twitter Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks Topic Search  Topic Options
|
||
Alan de Enfield 
Groupie 
Joined: 02 November 2009 Location: Eastern England Online Status: Offline Posts: 60 |
 Post Options
 Quote Reply
 Topic: More (UK) Bad Press For EnfieldsPosted: 08 February 2010 at 6:28am |
||
|
It looks as if the bad press is starting to spread.
"Sporting Rifle" March 2010 Edition page 85 The article is about shooting in the rain : "Water in your action or on your ammunition will cause elevated and variable chamber pressures. At best this will mean erratic elevation, at worst a stretched action. Lee Enfield actions are notorious for this. A No4 shooting 7.62 ammunition is already doing a job a little beyond its design parameters. This coupled with questionable gunsmithing and significantly undersized bores when the rifle was 'converted' from .303 gives a poor starting point in the safety stakes. Add to that an action full of rain and wet ammunition and you may be heading towards disaster. For a ferrous alloy, such as steel used in a rifle action, as long as stresses do not exceed a particular level the fatigue life of the action can be regarded as infinite. But we do not know what level of stress that is, so we must assume that any stressing of the action beyond its design parameters is dangerous. The crucial point is that stressing the action beyond this limit has a cumulative effect, which ultimately leads to failure. The more we overstress the action the closer we come to that failure. Dozens of times I've seen shooters shooting Long Lee Enfields and SMLE's, particularly at the Trafalgar Meeting in the pouring rain, making no effort to keep the rain off their ammunition or out of what is an even weaker action than a No4. To cap all this, when the rifle passed into civilian hands it was subject to a deliberate overload at the proof house. The fact that it didn't give way then is no guarantee it wont give way tomorrow" There then follows a photograph of a No4 action with the by-line : "This post-war No4 action is the best of the Lee Enfield bunch but if you overstress it you risk your life" I, for one, would like some evidence of the fact that LE actions are 'notorious' for this !!!!! If anyone else feels strongly enough to write in, the magazine is published by : Blaze Publishing Laurence House Morrell Street Leamington Spa Warwickshire CV32 5SZ Email : info@blazepublishing.co.uk Tel : 01926 339808 |
|||
|
Its not what you've got thats important, its what you hav'nt got, but still want, thats important.
|
|||
 |
|||
|
LE Owner
Senior Member 
Joined: 04 December 2009 Online Status: Offline Posts: 370 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 08 February 2010 at 4:53pm |
||
Cracking of SMLE action bodies when wet ammunition was fired is given as a reason why the P-14 was prefered as a match rifle. I think you'll find this mentioned in Reynold's Lee Enfield book. I'll check for the source and get back to you.
Also I've been told recently that a 7.62 No.4 (belonging to the friend of the fellow who posted the information )had suffered a warped action body from firing on a wet day.
In Martin Pegler's books on sniping he mentions an incident where an L42 rifle fired in battle during a cold rain in the Falklands first lost its zero then became so difficult to cycle that the Sniper chucked it in a creek and continued the battle using a captured Argentine rifle.
It may be relevant that the British Police depts turned down many surplused out L42 rifles given them by the MOD as being dangerously degraded and unsafe to fire.
I've run across warnings against firing wet ammunition in the SMLE on several occasions with mentions of cracking of the lefthand receiver wall at the ejector screw hole.
The Instructions to Armorers includes instruction on examining the charger guide for looseness and signs of cracking of the receiver wall, so its not an unknown situation.
Use of the converted No.4 with the type of ammo it was intended to use, and taking the same percautions against shooting wet ammo recommended for the LE rifles when still in .303 seems logical to me.
Despite the mythology no high powered rifle was designed to fire wet and muddy ammunition, the Regulations for Musketry mentions in the section on lessons learned that many rifles were rendered unservicable by mud getting into actions and chambers.
Testing of oiled cartridges, mentioned in Reynold's book, tell of increased pressures attributed to incompressable liquids being forced into the throat around the bullet on ignition.
Water being heavier than oil is likely even less compressible than oil.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lithgow
Senior Member
Joined: 25 October 2005 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 972 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 February 2010 at 12:14am |
||
|
significantly undersized bores when the rifle was 'converted' from .303
Undesized bores?
so we must assume that any stressing of the action beyond its design parameters is dangerous. The crucial point is that stressing the action beyond this limit has a cumulative effect, which ultimately leads to failure. The more we overstress the action the closer we come to that failure.
NO!!! really? I would not waste a cent on a publication that prints this type of stuff.
It is a fact that wet or oily ammunition can put a lot of ecessive thrust back on the bolt and can lead to a dangerous situation.
What is the bit about undersized bores about, my own conversion has had the 303 barrel replaced with a 30 cal tube.
A lot has been written about the strength of the Lee Enfield but, I have yet to of a first hand case of one actually exploding. I know the 7.62 conversions that were done at Lithgow on the No1 action were a failure and suffered cracking but they did not explode.
I am not saying they would not explode but I have never heard of it happening.
if the barrel was plugged with mud then the rifle would almost certainly suffer damage when fired, I do not know of one that would not.
All in all, I would think it would take very wet ammo to cause problems after all, a good many battles would have taken place in rainy condition and I would hazard a guess that very few soldiers would take time to wipe the ammo in the heat of a battle.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tony
Moderator Group 
Moderator Joined: 18 April 2006 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 2251 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 February 2010 at 4:49am |
||
|
All in all, I would think it
would take very wet ammo to cause problems after all, a good many
battles would have taken place in rainy condition and I would hazard a
guess that very few soldiers would take time to wipe the ammo in the
heat of a battle.
My sentiments exactly Lithgow. It's cheap sesationalism propagated by so called internet experts including the story about the L42 malfunctioning. Maybe some of the guys who write the rubbish should use the rifles in a combat situation before they speak! Do they honestly think the army would issue unsafe weapons?? |
|||
|
Tony
Do Muslims have Piggy banks? Born free taxed to death!!! Semper im Faecebus sumus sole profundum variat |
|||
|
|||
|
Shamu
Senior Member
Joined: 25 April 2007 Location: MD, USA. Online Status: Offline Posts: 1198 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 February 2010 at 6:45am |
||
|
NOTICE:
Due to massive internet rumors all battles, past, present & future involving effected rifle types, marks & models & ammunition lots will be fought exclusively in clear, clean, dry conditions, that is all, carry on!  |
|||
|
You can't hit it if you can't see it!
|
|||
|
|||
|
LE Owner
Senior Member
Joined: 04 December 2009 Online Status: Offline Posts: 370 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 February 2010 at 1:05pm |
||
|
The L42 was the only 7.62 conversion of the No.4 used in any sort of combat situation, and that in the role of a sniper riflle. No other military, even Pakistan who manufactured No.4 rifles has ever considered using the 7.62 conversions as an infantry rifle.
My understanding is that the L42 was restricted to use of the 144 gr bullet ammo early on, and safety warnings for the conversions don't include that load which is well within the pressure limits of the design.
You can look up the cautions on cleaning ammunition and magazines easily enough, the section in the Muskety book is under Lessons Learned, and was due to rifles being damaged beyond repair by allowing mud or water in the chambers under combat conditions.
The vast majority of Enfield collectors have never and will never carry one in an actual combat condition.
A rifle doesn't have to explode like a pipebomb to pose a hazard to the shooter or bystanders. It also doesn't have to fail on the first shot for there to be hidden damage that can cause problems later on.
I had not heard of the use of undersized bores and chambers until recently, except in an article explaining the bore dimensions of Enfield Manufactured FN FAL barrels which were deliberately undersized to increase usable bore life.
If the warnings of possible cracking of SMLE receiver walls if wet ammunition is fired are have no basis its unlikely they'd have warned against it.
As I remember the warning on that issue it listed increases in velocity causing shifts in point of impact with the P-14, the No.4, and the SMLE, with aprox amount the POI would shift with each rifle, with the added notation that SMLE left receiver walls were known to crack when wet ammunition was used.
The Enfield receivers do stretch and spring back on every shot, thats just a fact thats never be disputed, and the front sight bases are off set to the left to compensate for that springing effect.
When the rifles were sighted in in Britian and then sent to tropical climes the slight increase in pressure due to tropical heat required that the sights be adjusted even further.
When a cartridge of higher pressure levels than the action was designed for are used the action will flex more than it had before. How much more flexing it will handle before permanent deformation occurs is likely individual to the rifles.
If a previous owner has abused a rifle by firing wet ammunition or ammunition that over stresses the receiver then the metal will have become fatigued, and may end up cracking.
I do remember a notation on use of a special gauge to determine if a action body has stretched enough to prevent obtaining equal bearing of the resistence shoulders with a replacement bolt. So stretched actions were not unknown.
In the meantime , whether the wording of the article seems offensive to some or not, the admonitions against firing wet ammunition, and/or ammunition not approved for the rifle, should not be ignored.
|
|||
|
|||
|
A square 10
Senior Member
Joined: 12 December 2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1346 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 February 2010 at 2:44pm |
||
|
i think the intentions are obviously good ,
our society has grown excessively prone to warning lables and caution notices - perhaps with well founded concerns for the contamination of the gene pools by those natural selection used to weed out ,
but somewhat because of the litigeous nature of todays world combined with the accessibility to information [good & bad] the net has provided , perhaps its good to remind folks to be carefull ?
|
|||
|
|||
|
LE Owner
Senior Member
Joined: 04 December 2009 Online Status: Offline Posts: 370 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 February 2010 at 6:10pm |
||
|
To clear up one point.
I checked a site on the Enforcer 7.62 conversions and the groove depth was not given but the bore diameter is given as .299.
I've seen .299 and .298 given for the Enfield manufacted FAL barrels.
A report on effects of undersized .7.62 bores on chamber pressures states that bores as small as .305 major (groove to groove or the diameter which would include groove depth) had been observed in use in Britain.
From other sources such as the NRA it appears that undersized bores had become commonplace to otimize performance when using NATO spec ball which often had bullets of .3075 or smaller, some have posted of NATO ball with bullets miking .306.
From what has been published on the subject more recent NATO ammunition is likely to have the standard bullet diameter of .308-.3085, and can generate higher pressures than the standardized infantry ball.
Use of 7.62 ammunition with bullets weighing 175 gr or more has been till recent times limited to more modern design sniper rifles or machineguns. Some older rifles such as the Springfield 1903A4 had been designed for use with heavy bullets and cartridges generating much higher pressures, these remained in service till the mid 60's. The Win Model 70 and Remington 700 series actions were also designed from the ground up for cartridges in the same pressure range and bullet weights as the hottest of long range special ball used with military sniper rifles in 7.62 NATO.
While the average operating chamber pressure of M118 Special Ball is 52,000 CUP its allowable maximum deviation is 57,000 CUP. If M118 Special Ball at the top end of acceptable Max Dev were fired in a tight .307 bore chamber pressures could be very close to that of the proof test cartridges originally used for the No.4. Add a wet or oiled cartridge to the mix and you'd be seriously pushing the design safety margin.
I checked a few sites that deal with target grade barrels and rifles in the UK and they list .307 barrels for use in NRA matches.
One site I found awhile back advised against use of their .307 barrels in converted Enfields. Can't remember the name of that company offhand.
Some time back I ran across an article on handloading in the UK which mentioned UK police marksmen complaining that some departments had been using handloaded ammunition in competitions to gain an unfair advantage.
Handloads deemed safe in a stronger modern action proofed to SAAMI standards can run to 59,000 CUP, and bullets of up to 220 grains are showing up in long range match loads.
The heavier the bullet the less effective case capacity due to limitations on OAL of the 7.62 cartridge. When the long heavy bullet is seated it protudes into the powder space.
Winchester .308 Palma Match loads have used a semi balloonhead case to give more powder space with the heavier bullets. A case such as this might not be suited to some military 7.62 chambers and generous headspace.
While the fairly open design of the rear locking Enfields makes receiver ring failure unlikely gas from a burst case is directed into the extractor opening at the point where the bolt head is weakest. A burst case will often gascut and break up the bolthead sending pieces flying at potentially lethal velocities. Contrary to popular belief there are recorded incidents of death or serious injury from blown boltheads using quality and fresh production .303 ammunition, both on rifle ranges and in the field.
The "slaughter" of Ministry of Defence records pertaining to the Enfield rifles is mentioned in the forward of Reynold's book. Loss of records makes the claims of a few that their were never any recorded accidents a matter of their relying on a very limited and sporadic set of remaing records as being the full and complete body of knowledge.
If one were able to access all medical records for injuries to troops of WW1 and WW2 there might be far more such incidents found. But despite the claims of authors and would be pundits theres no possibility of finding or sorting through all such records.
Even during wartime when special investigations into the wounding effect of various AXIS weapons was attempted and the researchers were well versed in both ballistic and medical terminology and had first hand experiance of combat injuries the task was daunting.
Huge amounts of records were lost between wars and during the 60's when attempts to digitize records resulted in unforeseen crashes that destroyed vast quantities of vital data.
It would be nice if there were reliable records kept on every type of rifle built, but at best most such records were subject to loss or destruction.
In Reynolds research he often relied on bits and scraps found by former officers among their personal papers to flesh out the few official records he could find.
So its just a matter of accepting the limitations of the design, keep pressure levels at the low end of the spectrum, don't exceed the pressures for with the rifles were intended, and keep the rifle as clean and dry as possible, just as the British Army discovered to be necessary from combat experiance.
I might add that if a fine looking rifle were available at a very reasonable price yet I knew that the previous owner had been using the hottest loads in it, I'd pass on it. His luck might not have run out, but theres no way of knowning if the integrity of the action has been compromised by abuse.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lithgow
Senior Member
Joined: 25 October 2005 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 972 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 10 February 2010 at 12:16am |
||
|
My comment on the repeated firing of high pressure loads was not meant to be dismissive, I fully agree that continued firing of hot loads will eventuall destroy an action.
I know a bloke here who, as he put it "wore out" a Remington 308 in a fairly short time. He did admit that his loads were bordering on dangerous. My 270 by comparison has had more rounds through it and is older and is still in good shape.
The lee enfield is a pretty forgiving rifle but I have seen them condemned for various reasons, mostly abuse of some sort.
|
|||
|
|||
|
LE Owner
Senior Member
Joined: 04 December 2009 Online Status: Offline Posts: 370 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 10 February 2010 at 2:24am |
||
I've only seen this mentioned in passing, and also seen it said that no MkVIIz ammunition was manufactured in Australia except on contact for other governments, implying that neither were used in Australian Vickersguns or other MGs.
While jungle fighting probably wouldn't offer much opportunity for long range firing patrol boats, aircraft and other craft would benefit from the longer range of the Mk8 bullet.
While its recognized that use of Mk8 or MkVIIz in guns already eroded by MkVII would prove inaccurate, MkVIIz being less affected since it had a flat base, and possibly increase erosion further, the higher pressures of some Mk8z ammunition which could approach the same pressure range as 7.62 Special ball is a more likely reason for its prohibition in rifles, especially those with the No.1 type action.
Also I've read that Australia used only MkVI ammunition during WW1, rather than upgrading the short cone and sight bed for MkVII.
Another thing I'd like to find out is whether the Lithgow was made from a Nickel Steel alloy at some point, and whether wartime shortages resulted in any substitutions in materials during late war production.
Heres something on the use of L42 rifles by Metropolitan Police
Sounds like the Army was dumping their worst examples onto the police.
A sniper rifle would be much better maintained than most any infantry rifle, and the quality of its ammunition far more tightly controled. For that many rifles to be in such poor condition and be passed onto the police in that condition is unusual. There simply was not that much action going on in that time frame.
I suspect that some of these were over stressed by unsuitable ammunition, and palmed off on the police to get them off the books. |
|||
|
|||
|
Lithgow
Senior Member
Joined: 25 October 2005 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 972 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 12 February 2010 at 5:13pm |
||
|
I dont know for certain but I dont think any Mk VIIZ or MKVIIIZ ammo was produced in Australia.
My father was an armourer and civilian gunsmith and I never heard him say that it was not safe to fire the machine gun ammo in rifles but then again the subject never came up. It was certainly never issued to the rifle clubs.
My uncle was in the army in the 50's and he said they still had some Vickers guns as well as the Bren and they were never told that they could not interchange the ammo with their rifles but they may well have been using standard Mk VII ball ammo in everything.
I know Mk VI ammo was used in WW1 as I know someone who picked up a cpmplete round recently on a battle field from WW1 but I believe the Aussies were using MkVII, they may well have been using up old stocks of MkVI.
I have seen WW1 pictures with troops with long lees so they would have used MkV1 ammo if they could get hold of it. They were not Aust troops but from somewhere in the commonwealth.
|
|||
|
|||
|
LE Owner
Senior Member
Joined: 04 December 2009 Online Status: Offline Posts: 370 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 12 February 2010 at 6:38pm |
||
I know that single base IMR type propellants were not manufactured in Australia till some time in WW2.
Dupont in order to make up for supposed profiteering contracted with our government to build propellant factories for the war effort at cost plus a nominal fee and allow their formulas to be used.
I had run across a reference to MkVI ammunition being in short supply at some point and MkVII ammo having too long an OAL to fit the mags of some Lee Enfield rifles, the result being the affected troops using their rifles as single loaders till MkVI was again available. I hadn't heard of a difference in the magazines length before, so it could be a case of out of spec MkVII ammo.
The near waterproof nature of strand cordite allowed it to last longer in storage, and some earlier single base propellants could degrade and give excessive pressures in tropical heat.
Apparent IMR type propellant suitable for .303 was manufactured in Australia shortly after WW2.
PS
I checked Instructions to Armorers of the 1930's, for the SMLEs, and the more recent instructions for Canadian No.4 rifles still in use there. Both give instructions to examine the action bodies for cracks.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Post Reply
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
