Enfield-Rifles.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Enfields > Ishapore Enfields
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Ishapore 2A1 bolt head question
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Ishapore 2A1 bolt head question

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
Mjdunk View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: February 22 2022
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mjdunk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Ishapore 2A1 bolt head question
    Posted: February 22 2022 at 2:23pm
Good afternoon, I have a question reference the Ishapore 2A1 bolt head. I think I’ve read every post on the Internet talking about this issue without coming to a good answer. I recently purchased a barreled Ishapore 2A1 action, and I’m working on building the rifle. I have all the parts, to include the bolt and bolt head but that’s where the main question comes into affect. Some say it must be a 19 ton bolt head marked 19T, What other say you can use the No 1 Mk3 fault as long as the size is correct and then of course they had space is right.
Does anybody know if there’s a definitive answer to this question?
Thank you
Back to Top
Goosic View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 12 2017
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 8842
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goosic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 22 2022 at 7:25pm
The only boltheads I'm aware of stamped with 19T are on No4 boltheads reproofed for the 7.62x51mm...
Back to Top
Mjdunk View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: February 22 2022
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mjdunk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 22 2022 at 7:34pm
Thanks Goosic, makes since. That means the 19T was used for the L42 and L39 I believe. 
Thanks
Back to Top
A square 10 View Drop Down
Special Member
Special Member
Avatar
Donating Member

Joined: December 12 2006
Location: MN , USA
Status: Offline
Points: 16999
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote A square 10 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 22 2022 at 8:26pm
i dont know that , but your 2A1 is a no 1 eifle and im not sure the no 4 heads are compatible , 
Back to Top
Mjdunk View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: February 22 2022
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mjdunk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 23 2022 at 3:28am
Sorry for the confusion, no I will not use the no 4 bolt head, i will use a no1 bolt head.
Back to Top
britrifles View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: February 03 2018
Location: Georgia, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 8404
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote britrifles Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 23 2022 at 12:08pm
I'm not sure if Ishapore used a different bolt head (material and/or heat treatment from the No. 1 Mk III rifle) for the 7.62 rifles.  I recall reading some interesting information regarding how they were proofed (not using an oiled round or some such thing to get them to pass 7.62 NATO proof).  Skennerton's book might have something in it regarding these rifles.  

Is there a serial number on the bolt handle or elsewhere on the bolt?  If it matches the action body serial number, you should be fine.  

If you handload, I recommend only minimum to moderate .308 loads.  Its pretty easy to load the .308 to .303B chamber pressures with the typical powders.  I use 40.0 gr Varget with 174 gr bullet in the .303B and 40.0 gr Varget with 168 or 175 gr bullet in the 7.62/.308.  Many other powders in the medium burn range work well of course.  

Back to Top
britrifles View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: February 03 2018
Location: Georgia, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 8404
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote britrifles Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 24 2022 at 9:08am
I checked my copy of Skennertons book, the Lee Enfield Story.  He states that EN steel and “advanced” heat treatment was used, but didn’t specifically state on which components.  It would have been at least the action body, but also perhaps the bolt body and bolt head.  

I’ve also read somewhere, can’t remember where, that Ishapore had problems with failing 7.62 proof tests, so they changed the proof test procedure and/or proof cartridge. 

The RSAF Enfield concluded in the late ‘50’s early ‘60’s that the No. 1 rifle was unsuitable for conversion to 7.62 NATO due to the limitations in strength and stiffness of the action.  Conversions then proceeded with the No. 4 rifles.  




Back to Top
Shamu View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar
Logo Designer / Donating Member

Joined: April 25 2007
Location: MD, USA.
Status: Offline
Points: 20510
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Shamu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 24 2022 at 10:01am
Yes they discontinued the use of "Wet" (oiled) proof rounds.
Don't shoot till you see the whites of their thighs. (Unofficial motto of the Royal Air Force)
Back to Top
Goosic View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 12 2017
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 8842
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goosic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 24 2022 at 4:06pm
Originally posted by britrifles britrifles wrote:

I checked my copy of Skennertons book, the Lee Enfield Story.  He states that EN steel and “advanced” heat treatment was used, but didn’t specifically state on which components.  It would have been at least the action body, but also perhaps the bolt body and bolt head.  

I’ve also read somewhere, can’t remember where, that Ishapore had problems with failing 7.62 proof tests, so they changed the proof test procedure and/or proof cartridge. 

The RSAF Enfield concluded in the late ‘50’s early ‘60’s that the No. 1 rifle was unsuitable for conversion to 7.62 NATO due to the limitations in strength and stiffness of the action.  Conversions then proceeded with the No. 4 rifles.  

Ishapore also changed the steel from the EN steel back to the steel used originally for the No4 after the the proof tests were conducted.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.07
Copyright ©2001-2024 Web Wiz Ltd.