Enfield in 308, keep it or not?

[twoworms]

I got a Enfield in 308 years ago.

I don't know much about it other than it was made in India or something like that.

Anyone know much about the 308 Enfields?

Twoworms

[dualsport]

Yes, keep it. There is much written here and elsewhere on the net about the Ishapore 2A in 7.62 Nato. Do a search, verify that your's is a real deal and not some crazy conversion(easy enough once you start reading up). Mine is surprisingly accurate. They are getting scarcer all the time so go up in value too. If your's is not chopped up seriously consider leaving it alone as issued. Not especially pretty guns but well made for the job they did. Maybe you could post a picture? We like pictures. They have a popular nickname, "Ishy".

[adrians]

keep it,,,,you won't regret it

[Artful]

I'd keep it, especially if as issued. Looks like this, right?

[Fishman]

I had a really nice example at one time and foolishly traded it off. Now I don't have one and wish I did. If you like enfields and you have others in .303 I would hang on to it. If not, sell it to a collector and get what you want. Just don't bubba it please

[Hardcast416taylor]

The magazines alone are getting to be a pricy item to acquire. At a recent show I saw 2 "Bubbaed" 10 shot magazines that now were called 5 shot "sporting" magazines for the "Ishy"! People with little to no metal working skills and a small home buzz box welder should leave things alone.Robert

[Ed in North Texas]

Add me to the "keep it", but don't "Bubbaize" it. They are accurate rifles and fun to shoot. When they were being imported, there were people dinging them as not up to the task of holding up to the 7.62 pressure. I'm not sure where those people got the idea that the Indians had no experience in metallurgy and were using junk metal, because it was totally false. The Indians produce excellent steels and the 2A and 2A1A rifles are more than capable of handling the cartridge they were designed for. The usual warnings apply about taking care with .308 commercial ammo, often loaded to higher pressures than 7.62 NATO standards.

[dbldblu]

Send it to me and then I will let you know what you should do with it. I already suspect that it is not suitable for your needs.

[Multigunner]

Add me to the "keep it", but don't "Bubbaize" it. They are accurate rifles and fun to shoot. When they were being imported, there were people dinging them as not up to the task of holding up to the 7.62 pressure. I'm not sure where those people got the idea that the Indians had no experience in metallurgy and were using junk metal, because it was totally false. The Indians produce excellent steels and the 2A and 2A1A rifles are more than capable of handling the cartridge they were designed for. The usual warnings apply about taking care with .308 commercial ammo, often loaded to higher pressures than 7.62 NATO standards.

The 2A rifles are made from good steel, the reason they had this alloy available was due to a long run of SMLE rifles in the 50's that were made from an alloy called SWES48, whether that alloy was not strong enough or did not respond to heat treatment as expected, the .303 SMLE rifles made from SWES48 had a very high failure rate in proof testing. This became such a problem that the Proof requirements were altered, with only a single dry proof cartridge being fired rather than one dry and one oiled cartridge.
So that alloy at least was far less suited to rifle production than the British Standard Chrome/Nickel Steel alloy previously used for SMLE rifles before 1948.


If indeed the 2A rifles are made from a Chrome/Vanadium steel alloy (an EN "European Normal" alloy that replaced SWES48) this would fit the timeline, as Vanadium alloys were introduced into the Automotive industry to make truck suspension systems that could hold up to the heaviest loads and roughest roads.
Many gunmaking alloys were originally developed for production of railway rolling stock or automobiles.
On the otherhand development of Stainless Steels for surgical instruments and cookware came from a failed attempt to creat an alloy for Enfield rifle barrels that could withstand Cordite erosion. This came full circle when stainless steel rifle barrels were sucessfully developed many decades later.
Nickel Steels have the ability to recover from stretching forces, Vanadium alloys have this quality and more.

7.62 NATO Ball generates an average of 48,000 CUP, about the same as most Mk8z .303 Ammunition.
Use of 7.62 NATO or .308 Winchester ammunition that generates pressures higher than 48,000 CUP will at best subject the rifle to un necessary stresses. I'd stick to ammunition of known quality that meets the NATO standardization requirement for infantry ball ammunition or the civilian equivalent.

[303Guy]

7.62 NATO Ball generates an average of 48,000 CUP, about the same as most Mk8z .303 Ammunition.

Interesting. My 1902 LE I* survived 500 rounds of MkVII with little or no damage. I was of course horified to discover I had been given machinegun ammo for use in my gun. No doubt it would have been OK in No4's in which I suspect the military used it! These were not marked MkVIII but rather R2M2 as opposed to R2M1 (or R1M1 or R1M2 or whatever) for the MkVII cartridge. The rifle still shoots just fine. So I would surmise that an increase in the steel strength used (4140 I read somewhere?) would render the action quite suitable for the 7.62 NATO. No.4's are supposed to be made from 4140.

[twoworms]

dbldblu,

I'll think about that...

I'm going to have to take smaller photos, my new cam shoots at 14meg, so I get to retake them.

Tim

[gew98]

Interesting. My 1902 LE I* survived 500 rounds of MkVII with little or no damage. I was of course horified to discover I had been given machinegun ammo for use in my gun. No doubt it would have been OK in No4's in which I suspect the military used it! These were not marked MkVIII but rather R2M2 as opposed to R2M1 (or R1M1 or R1M2 or whatever) for the MkVII cartridge. The rifle still shoots just fine. So I would surmise that an increase in the steel strength used (4140 I read somewhere?) would render the action quite suitable for the 7.62 NATO. No.4's are supposed to be made from 4140.

Could not have stated so better...but what do I know I stayed in a holiday inn last night.

[twoworms]

Just a few of the rifle. Is it junk or ok... lol I'm thinking its a shooter. All the numbers on the metal are the same, down to the mag and everything else. I can't make out the number on the stock. The barrel looks good.

[Multigunner]

Interesting. My 1902 LE I* survived 500 rounds of MkVII with little or no damage. I was of course horified to discover I had been given machinegun ammo for use in my gun. No doubt it would have been OK in No4's in which I suspect the military used it! These were not marked MkVIII but rather R2M2 as opposed to R2M1 (or R1M1 or R1M2 or whatever) for the MkVII cartridge. The rifle still shoots just fine. So I would surmise that an increase in the steel strength used (4140 I read somewhere?) would render the action quite suitable for the 7.62 NATO. No.4's are supposed to be made from 4140.

Not familar with that designation, is your rifle one of those that does not have the added Charger Bridge?
I've heard that LE owners consider their actions stronger than the SMLE because the milled and drilled areas for the SMLE charger bridge are in exactly the wrong spots and take strength away from the left hand side wall, which is where SMLE action bodies have been known to crack if wet ammunition is fired.
The Instructions to Armorers suggest condemning an SMLE action body if theres any sign of loosening of the charger bridge. This may be a sign of cracking around the rivet holes.

Vanadium alloys are also known for superior machinability.
A major cause of cracking of any action type is corners cut too sharply.
Just taking extra care in radiusing corners can eliminate possible future trouble spots.

The actual pressures generated by MkVIIIz ammunition varies quite a bit according to manufacturer and time frame.
Performance figures also vary, with velocities of 2500+ to 2900+ reported for ammunition used in Egypt, the primers so flattened they looked painted on. Pressure of that ammo was estimated as 30 Long Tons, far above that of the proof test loads used at the time.

PS
Standard MkVII ammunition generated 45,400 CUP, SAAMI rounds that figure off to 45,000 CUP.
MkVIIIz ammunition generating 48,000 CUP would then be only 2,600 CUP higher than MkVII, not a great deal of difference there.
The problems can come about due to allowable Maximum standard Deviations. Also increased back thrust due to a number of reasons, such as oily or wet cartriridges, heavily fouled bore, carbon build up in chamber neck, etc, can be more damaging when the cartridge already generates several thousand pounds more thrust than the MkVII.

Theres a pretty good explanation of the effects of repeatedly subjecting a rifle to a greater chamber pressure than it was designed and proofed for in one of the NRA Journals from last year.

Then we have the potential for milsurp ammunition to degrade in storage causing increased pressures.
Also theres the atrocius quality of some .303 ammunition of wartime manufacture.
I once ran across records of the Canadian government appropriating money to pay for the remanufacture of .303 ammunition supplied by the British government. As delivered the ammunition was judged unsafe to fire.
I also ran across an article on British match shooting where they described the damage or destruction of a large number of privately owned Lee Enfield target rifles when ammunition supplied for the Match by the British government proved extremely dangerous to fire. The same publication quoted an English gunmaker as saying more than half the work his firm had gotten for several years was in replacing hundreds of cracked through Lee Enfield action bodies due to the lousy quality of the available milspec ammunition.

Great Britain destroyed hundreds of millions of rounds of defective ammunition at the end of each World War. They mostly dumped this ammo in the sea, but some was sold off to speculators to be broken down for components or remanufactured, or simply palmed off on some unwary and desperate buyer.

[Ed in North Texas]

For What it is Worth:

snip
On the otherhand development of Stainless Steels for surgical instruments and cookware came from a failed attempt to creat an alloy for Enfield rifle barrels that could withstand Cordite erosion. snip

In Sheffield, England Brearley developed a stainless in 1912 while working on gun barrels. But the development wasn't announced until 1915, and a US Patent application in that same year was denied because of a 1912 Patent application by American Haynes.

And in 1908 the Krupp works built a chrome-nickel hulled 366 ton sailing yacht (Germania). Two Krupp engineers filed a patent in October, 1912 for a stainless steel (a different type than Brearley/Haynes developed).

There were others working on various types of stainless, including the Frenchman Guillet, between 1904 and 1911.

I'm not an Anglophobe, nor an Anglophile. There was development of stainless going on all over the industrial world at the beginning of the 20th century. Stainless is not due solely to experiments in developing corrosion resistant gun barrels in England. But one type of stainless was developed in that effort, and the same type of stainless was also independently developed in the US, and patented in the same year as the Brit development.

[303Guy]

Not familar with that designation, is your rifle one of those that does not have the added Charger Bridge?

Yes, exactly. They followed on from the Lee Metford and were essentially identical, complete with bolt mounted safety and dust cover on bolt. They were renamed No.I's later so unless one of those was 'updated' to a NoI MkIII it retained the LE I* stamping. I'm not sure what the '*' was for - some minor change on the rifle, perhaps in the sights.

[doubs43]

I'm not sure what the '*' was for - some minor change on the rifle, perhaps in the sights.

The * indicates a modification that makes the arm - rifle or handgun - different from the original model. Most modifications were to simplify manufacture. The No. 4 Mk I rifle, for instance, became the No. 4 Mk I* when the bolt release was simplified and the rear sight, originally milled and elevation adjustable when in the upright position, was replaced by a two position fixed distances flip sight. (A cheaper stamped elevation adjustable sight was also produced in a couple of variations.) Without looking at my reference book, another mod was changing the trigger from being suspended from the receiver to being suspended from the trigger guard.

[Mk42gunner]

Just a few of the rifle. Is it junk or ok... lol I'm thinking its a shooter. All the numbers on the metal are the same, down to the mag and everything else. I can't make out the number on the stock. The barrel looks good.

From your photos, it looks fine. I would stay away from high pressure loads, but with cast boolits it should last a long long time.

Be prepared fro a long throat, the throat on my 2A1 is roughly 1/4" longer than the throat in my Parker Hale Mauser barrel. Which means I either have a tremendous jump to the lands, or segregated ammo.

The Enfield with cast boolits is a lot of fun to shoot and pretty economical too.

Robert

[Multigunner]

Does the Magazine hold ten rounds or twelve rounds?
I'd heard that a few twelve round magazines had shown up, possibly an aftermarket replacement.

The old Lee Metford and early Lee Enfield rifles were at times fitted with eight and twelve round magazines before they settled on the common ten round magazines.

One very rare magazine showed up awhile back on another board. This was an experimental mag that could be reloaded without opening the bolt or taking the mag from its well.
There was a knob in a slot that allowed the shooter to lower the follower and then load rounds singly through a trap door in the side of the mag body.
Probably easier said than done with the rimmed cartridges.

I'd like to see a replica of the 20 round trench magazine they made for the SMLE. One example showed up several years ago, but what ever happened to the rest was still a mystery last I heard.
Replica extended trench mags for the Gew98 were available, but very high priced.

[Ed in North Texas]

[QUOTE=Multigunner;1344316]Does the Magazine hold ten rounds or twelve rounds?
I'd heard that a few twelve round magazines had shown up, possibly an aftermarket replacement.
[/QUOTE. ]

When I bought mine, early in the importing/sales cycle, they were listed as having 12 round magazines. References on the web (e.g. Wickipedia) show both, with one reference stating that the 12 round mags were on the late production rifles. It may be that the 2A rifles had 10 round mags and the 2A1A had the 12 round mags (both of mine are 2A1As).

I had previously mentioned the "usual warnings" about using 7.62 NATO vs .308. I knew this back when I was involved in the UseNet groups, but I'm not sure it ever became "common knowledge" and I had even forgotten the specifics in my dotage. Here's a quote from the Wiki article (there are references, which I don't repeat):

"Although the 7.62mm NATO and commercial .308 Winchester ammunition are physically interchangeable, these weapons were not designed for use with commercial .308 Winchester ammunition. One of the most noted misconceptions between the 7.62mm NATO and commercial .308 Winchester ammunition; "the .308 Winchester generates significantly higher pressures than 7.62mm NATO ammunition". This is due to incorrectly substituting the SAAMI (piezoelectric transducer) pressure measurement system with the (Copper Units of Pressure, "CUP") measurement system. The original specifications for 7.62mm NATO (M80 BALL) ammunition uses the CUP (Copper Units of Pressure) method. The commercial ammunition usually conforms to the SAAMI standards using the (piezoelectric transducer system) AND/OR the (Copper Units of Pressure, CUP) pressure measurement systems.

For example, 7.62mm NATO ammunition that has been subjected to 125°F to -65°F storage conditions can have an average pressure that shall not exceed 55,000 CUP (Copper Units of Pressure).[1] Whereas commercial .308 Winchester ammunition can have a SAAMI/ANSI maximum average pressure of 62,000 PSI (piezoelectric method) OR a maximum average pressure of 52,000 CUP (copper units of pressure);[2] both of these measurements from SAAMI are one and the same, they just represent different methods of measuring (such as inches and millimeters).

The real issue is the differences in the NATO vs. COMMERCIAL cartridge cases,[3] typically the commercial cases are thinner than the NATO cases. Firing commercial cases in NATO chambers can possibly lead to problems, such as a ruptured case, because NATO chamber head space is longer.[4] Prior to firing ANY .308 Winchester ammunition through a 7.62mm NATO chambered rifle, it is strongly advised to check the headspace[5] using a "field" gauge for commercial .308 Winchester ammunition. Doing so will ensure that it is truly safe to fire commercial ammunition in a NATO chamber."

Since I only use either 7.62 NATO ball ammo, or USGI cases for reloads (with the usual charge reduction for thicker cases), this isn't a particular issue for me.