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?
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h6/308Scout/Ishapores/Strippedcleaned-1-1.jpg

[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]

34360

34361

34362

34363

34364

34365

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]

34360

34361

34362

34363

34364

34365

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.

[Multigunner]

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).
The U S Military allows up to 57,000 CUP maximum deviation for M118 LR.
A number of Long Range target loads for the .308 exceed the max deviation of M80 Ball.

Not all 7.62 ammo is created equal, and same goes for the .308.
Rifles proofed for use with 7.62 M80 ball or its interchangability equivalent may not be proofed to standards for either .308 or 7.62 Long Range ammunition.

The heavier the bullet the longer it will be unless given a thick body and round nose. When a longer bullet is loaded to the same OAL then effective powder space is reduced.

A long streamlined boat tail bullet will intrude into powder space more than a near cylindrical round nose bullet of the same weight. To achieve even the same velocity will require an increase in pressure. To achieve a significant increase in velocity will require an even greater increase, powder type being the same.
Sometimes use of an alternative powder can allow extra high velocity with little or no increase in chamber pressure, at least if the cartridge company specs are accurate.

No.4 Rifles converted to 7.62 NATO in the late 50's or early 60's, including the L42 sniper rifles, were not proofed to euther SAAMI or CIP standards for the .308 Winchester.
The NRA UK has banned use of converted No.4 rifles with the NRA supplied .308 long range target ammunition unless re-proofed to modern CIP standards.

Those converted No.4 rifles not re-proofed are limited to 3650 BAR which translates as 53,000 PSI by transducer measurement, far below the working pressure of either 7.62 M118 (52,000 CUP) or most .308 Long Range Match Grade Ammo.

Indian Ordnance Factory 7.62 Ball is NATO compliant with a pressure of 48,000 CUP-50,000 PSI.

Theres no direct correlation between any Copper Unit of Pressure measurement and any of the present Electronic Tranducers methods of measurement.
Military organizations use the EPVAT standard for ammo marked as interchangable, with CUP as a sort of back up. M118 ammunition is tested only with CUP methods, no EPVAT PSI measurements are given in the manuals I've found so far.

As of yet I've seen no reliable information on the methods used to proof test the 2A rifles, only what appear to be wild guesses or third hand stories with no provenance.

I would expect that a rifle imported into Gret ritian would have to meet some proof requirements, but I've read in old Winchester literature that Winchester's commercial proof mark was accepted without question by British proof authorities. This was in relation to the Winchester 1895 rifles, and we now know that those rifles later proved to be unsuited to the pressures of some post WW1 .30-06 commercial ammunition and the military M1 Ball.

I'd be very leery of using any heavy bullet .308 or 7.62 ammunition in a 2A or converted No.4.

The Enforcer rifle built on a No.4 action is an exception. These were bulit using only hand picked and tested actions and all parts subjected to strenuous testing, more parts rejected than were used, and proofed to .308 commercial specs when new.
The NRA UK allows the Enforcer to be used with any .308 or 7.62 ammo with pressures up to the max of 62,000 PSI, but only so long as the rifle has not been altered since leaving the factory, and its original proof marks are intact.

[twoworms]

Multigunner, you asked about the Charger Bridge? I posted a photo of what I think is the charger bridge.

(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.)



34423

[Ed in North Texas]

[QUOTE=Multigunner;1344811]
snip
As of yet I've seen no reliable information on the methods used to proof test the 2A rifles, only what appear to be wild guesses or third hand stories with no provenance.

I would expect that a rifle imported into Gret ritian would have to meet some proof requirements, but I've read in old Winchester literature that Winchester's commercial proof mark was accepted without question by British proof authorities. This was in relation to the Winchester 1895 rifles, and we now know that those rifles later proved to be unsuited to the pressures of some post WW1 .30-06 commercial ammunition and the military M1 Ball.

I'd be very leery of using any heavy bullet .308 or 7.62 ammunition in a 2A or converted No.4.
snip
[Quote]

I'd certainly agree with being leery of using heavy bullet .308 in any 7.62 bolt rifle. There is an article, written by Robert J. Summerhill, on the web. In regard to the proof testing issue, he states the following:

"I send letters to several Proof Houses, and the Imperial War Museum in England along with letters and phone calls to the Consulates for India here in the U.S.A looking for a source of any records or arsenal workers that may still be alive when these rifles were made. I was able to receive data from one of the British Proof houses denoting just how strong these rifles are. The British government also made variations of the Enfield rifle in 7.62 x 51 mm for evaluation in the 50’s. The standard “Proof Load” for the British rifle in 7.62 x 51 mm is 29 tons per square inch on the low side and 31 tons per square inch on the high side. The Indian manufactured rifles passed the proof testing with no discernible problems what so ever. This translates into 58,000 and 62,000 pounds per square inch. These load are the standard proof load for all 7.62 x 51 mm rifles.( specifications changed in 1959 )"

Mr. Summerhill is/was a moderator over at the Surplus Rifle board. I don't know what you might think of his story, but here's the URL:

http://www.surplusrifleforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=40340

In the discussion of the Ishapore 2A series rifles, I don't know why you also coincidentally refer to the No. 4 rifles which Britain, and others, had converted to 7.62. The Indian Arsenals did not get involved in that effort, perhaps because they never undertook production of the No. 4 rifles. We can agree that the conversion effort of No.4 actions was not particularly successful beyond hand picked examples.

Years ago, in a discussion of the 2A Ishapore rifles on the rec.guns Usenet newsgroup, a former Ordinance officer of the Indian Army (or someone alleging that status and quite knowledgeable about the rifles and development program) contributed a fairly lengthy item (for Usenet) on the issue of these rifles. I no longer recollect what, beyond specific metallurgy information, he contributed, but it struck me at the time that he dealt with a number of the common "facts" about the rifles in a manner which left no question as to the suitability of these rifles for common 7.62 and mid-weight .308 ammunition. I'm not inclined to go searching for a rec.guns article that old.

Obviously it would not be particularly bright to use heavy .308 loads in any rifle initially designed for 7.62 NATO spec ball ammunition. The 12" twist is good for the 140 to 175 grain weight range, but is lacking for anything heavier.

[Multigunner]

I had asked that about .303 Guy's LE 1*, not the 2A rifles.
The LE rifles did not come from the factory with a charger guide bridge and the Charger Bridge of the SMLE is an add on rather than milled in part from the action body itself as the bridge of the No.4 rifle is.

Its been many years since I examined a 2A, and all I realy remember about these was that the action body had a slightly different look to it compared to the SMLE, but can't really say whether or not it was due to thicker sidewalls or some difference in the machining and finishing. Most were heavily painted at some point, so a true comparasion would require actions of each type stripped of paint and carefully measured.


So far as I know, no attempt to convert a SMLE to 7.62 NATO was sucessful, either attempts by the Australian military or by any professional or amatuer gunsmith.
While the somewhat superior alloy used for the 2A rifle may be the sole cause of its sucess, I suspect they also made some changes in the machining processes. If not a change in the machining , perhaps the claims made for Vanadium alloys as being easier to machine precisely prevented the sort of too sharp corners and other errors which have caused component failures in many other rifle and pistol designs.
Both SIG and Glock pistols and some FN manufactured rifles have had recalls due to a corner cut without radius leading to component failures. The lefthand lug on some FN bolts (don't know the year or serial number range) the slide of one model of SIG military handgun, and one guide rib of the early production .40 S&W Glock.
Those problems were cured by recall of potentially defective parts and alteration of machining processes.

I've found little information on No.4 conversions, other than that some believed the No.4 MkI* is less likely to fail in proof testing, and that action body failures of Converted No.4 rifles usually involved cracking at the edges of the milled slot of the bolt release catch at the rear of the right hand ejection opening and rail.
The SMLE and 2A rifles have a somewhat different bolt release catch, but are also milled for a similar slot in the same location.
Simply ensuring the slot has a radiused corner may have prevented some potential difficulties.
Something anyone interested in building their own rifle or pistol action should keep in mind.

India now produces a sporting rifle based on the SMLE action. If these were to be imported into the U S A , in calibers more recognized by U S shooters, I'm sure they would sell fairly well.
As is the Indian sporting rifle is chambered for a rimmed 8mm cartridge with poor reputation for accuracy.
Only recently have Indian law makers begun to consider taking the .303 cartridge off the restricted list. This came about in the aftermath of a murder trial in which the shooter used a police SMLE rifle. The defense argued against a mandatory death sentence for use of a proscribed weapon in a homocide, claiming the .303 should no longer be considered a military caliber. Problem there is that a number of .303 automatic weapons are still in use by the Indian military, and milspec ammunition is still produced for these weapons.

[Multigunner]

I'd certainly agree with being leery of using heavy bullet .308 in any 7.62 bolt rifle. There is an article, written by Robert J. Summerhill, on the web. In regard to the proof testing issue, he states the following:

"I send letters to several Proof Houses, and the Imperial War Museum in England along with letters and phone calls to the Consulates for India here in the U.S.A looking for a source of any records or arsenal workers that may still be alive when these rifles were made. I was able to receive data from one of the British Proof houses denoting just how strong these rifles are. The British government also made variations of the Enfield rifle in 7.62 x 51 mm for evaluation in the 50’s. The standard “Proof Load” for the British rifle in 7.62 x 51 mm is 29 tons per square inch on the low side and 31 tons per square inch on the high side. The Indian manufactured rifles passed the proof testing with no discernible problems what so ever. This translates into 58,000 and 62,000 pounds per square inch. These load are the standard proof load for all 7.62 x 51 mm rifles.( specifications changed in 1959 )"


Yet the proof mark on the L42 rifle bolthead is for 19 Long Tons, one half long ton greater than for the SMLE in .303 with a chamber pressure of 45,400 CUP.
The proof marking on the rifles reflect the expected back thrust on the bolt face of a standard cartridge fired dry in the chamber under normal conditions.
A proof mark of 19 LT translates to a back thrust of 42,560 pounds, what you could expect from a standard 144 grain 7.62 British version of the interchangable NATO Ball with chamber pressure of 48,000 CUP, under normal conditions with dry oil free chamber.
Had the L42 been proofed at 31 Long Tons it would not now be neccessary to have these rifles re proofed.

BTW
India had been independent of Britian for more than a decade when the 2A rifles were built.
Another common story about proof testing of the 2A during wartime was that they simply fired ten standard ball cartridges from each as they came off the line then shipped them out.
How true either story is would be hard to prove.




In the discussion of the Ishapore 2A series rifles, I don't know why you also coincidentally refer to the No. 4 rifles which Britain, and others, had converted to 7.62. The Indian Arsenals did not get involved in that effort, perhaps because they never undertook production of the No. 4 rifles. We can agree that the conversion effort of No.4 actions was not particularly successful beyond hand picked examples.
The reason so many 7.62 Conversion kits for the No.4 were available to civilians some years ago was due to India having once ordered thousands of these kits then renegged on the deal, leaving Sterling with a warehouse full of unsold kits.
No other military showed any interest in these either.
India apparently did have a large number of No.4 rifles at her disposal at that time.

The L42 rifles were very accurate and adequately strong for the 144 gr Ball. In later years when the Metropolitan Police leased L42 rifles from the MOD, they found a third of the rifles supplied were badly degraded and judged by police armorers to be unsafe to fire. I suspect those rifles were damaged by use of ammunition other than the recommended 144 grain Ball ammunition, the Military armorers trying to pass these culls along to the Police to get them off their books.

The result was the Police then contracted for purpose built .308 rifles, the "Enforcer".




Obviously it would not be particularly bright to use heavy .308 loads in any rifle initially designed for 7.62 NATO spec ball ammunition. The 12" twist is good for the 140 to 175 grain weight range, but is lacking for anything heavier.

The Iron sights would also be regulated for the standard infantry ball as well.

If I owned a Winchester Model 1895 in .30-06 I would not use ammunition that generated more than the 48,000 CUP of WW1 era .30-06 Ball ammunition.
If I owned one of the modern manufactured replicas of the 1895, I'd still be leery of ammo generating more than 48,000 CUP. These may or may not have been made using a superior alloy, but the design and proportions of the load bearing parts remain the same. I have heard of some of these replicas not holding up well to the hottest modern loads for the .30-06.

I can't think of a single reason why I'd subject a 40+ year old Milsurp rifle that had seen unknown abuse in the past to any load even a tad hotter than the loads it was intended to use when manufactured.

[303Guy]

I'm taking all this in. At least one of my Lee Enfields has seen a lot of use. The barrel which appears not to be the original is worn large, not rusted large. That's my BSA&M which I now know to stand for Birmingham Small Arms & Metal Co.

[Ed in North Texas]

Multigunner wrote "India apparently did have a large number of No.4 rifles at her disposal at that time."

I found a single reference to a No.4 in Indian service doing a quick search. This was a listing on "Enfield Stuff" of a `March 1943 Fazakerly No 4 Mark 1 with an Indian Navy hang tag marked "Bombay Naval Stores". Apparently the Indian Navy had some unknown number of No 4s, probably obtained British surplus after the war.

http://www.enfield-stuff.com/regimentals/rifles/enfield_queue/Queue_India.htm see Rifle #241

In searching the small arms of the Indian Army, I found no mention of the No 4. In listings of producers of the No 4 rifles, there is no listing of GRI/post 1949 RFI production of No 4 rifles, though the Pakistan Ordinance Factory (POF) is listed as a production facility for the No 4.

According to Stratton (British Enfield Rifles, Lee-Enfield No. 4 and No. 5 Rifles, Vol. 2 [For Collectors Only], Charles R. Stratton), Sterling Armaments produced "several thousand" conversion kits for the No 4 and "a handful" for the No 5 rifles, with the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield also producing kits - though no information as to number or whether they ever sold these on the civilian market (P 173). I guess the Enfield kits might have all been used in the L8 and L42 rifle conversions. I could find no information on the number of Sterling No 4 conversion kits available for sale in the US, or any information about such sales at all. Some number must have come into the country, since there were a few individuals asking about rifles they had which were apparently, or known to be, converted with Sterling kits. If thousands came to the US (if Stratton is correct, this would apparently have constituted something close to all of the kits), the importer must have been stuck with a large number of the kits, else I would expect there to have been more references of people asking about .308 Enfields (other than 2As) on the various boards. I found a couple of info requests by people looking for a "Sterling Kit", though one turned out to be someone looking for an imported Sterling sub-gun kit.

Multigunner wrote: "I had asked that about .303 Guy's LE 1*, not the 2A rifles."

I haven't a clue as to when I might have mistakenly included any commentary involving this, or was this a response to somone else? Perhaps I'm just confused as it seems both you and 303guy might be responding to some parts of what I have written, or to each other, or both. Without consistent quoting, advancing CRS means I'm unable to keep up. :-)

[Multigunner]

I haven't a clue as to when I might have mistakenly included any commentary involving this, or was this a response to somone else?
I was composing a reply to the post by two worms above your post

Multigunner, you asked about the Charger Bridge? I posted a photo of what I think is the charger bridge.
when you posted, this is why I posted twice in a row, one a reply to him the other a reply to you.
I should have quoted his post first to avoid confusion.

Quite a few of the No.4 (T) rifles were sent to India during WW2, India did not manufacture the No.4 but some were apparently sent there during the war or later.
Not nearly as many as the number of SMLE rifles in service of course.
There was such a shortage of rifles to equip Indian troops early on that the British bought 30,000 Darra built SMLE copies for use as Drill Rifles.
The British supplied allies with both No.1 and No.4 rifles, and even supplied Remington manufacture 1903 Springfields to New Zealand for use in training till sufficient supplies of Enfield rifles could be secured.

IIRC India had negotiated for 60,000 7.62 Converted No.4 rifles, and I'm pretty sure these were kits manufactured by Sterling. Whether they intended that Sterling do the Conversions in England or send the kits to India is not clear. Whichever was the case Sterling ended up stuck with thousands of unsold conversion kits. Whether they had manufactured the entire lot of 60,000 or not before the cancelation is also unclear.

I had written


The reason so many 7.62 Conversion kits for the No.4 were available to civilians some years ago
I did not make any guess about the number of those kits sold in the U S, civilians in the Commonwealth bought some. I've found nothing to indicate that any non UK military considered using converted No.4 rifles as combat rifles, and aside from the L42 the British used no converted No.4 rifles as combat rifles.

Sterling conversion kits were advertised for sale in the Shotgun News back in the late 80's or early 90's. I had considered buying one of those kits at the time. How many that particular importer had in stock at that time is not known to me, enough that they were advertised for sale in that publication.

PS
I have no idea how many No.4 rifles were used by India, but I do remember that a stocking up method for the No.4 was developed in India during the 1950's, after Indepence was declared. This was a fix for No.4 (T) rifles that later became an accepted bedding method for No.4 rifles used in Service Rifle matches in the UK.

[Ed in North Texas]

[QUOTE=Multigunner;1345511]I was composing a reply to the post by two worms above your post

when you posted, this is why I posted twice in a row, one a reply to him the other a reply to you.
I should have quoted his post first to avoid confusion.

Thanks, that helps. :drinks:

I should remember the SGN ads, I subscribed most of the years since the days of the "yellow cover". But I don't. Guess I was too pre-occupied with work at the time (or lacked interest in a conversion).

[Multigunner]

[QUOTE=Multigunner;1345511]I was composing a reply to the post by two worms above your post

when you posted, this is why I posted twice in a row, one a reply to him the other a reply to you.
I should have quoted his post first to avoid confusion.

Thanks, that helps. :drinks:

I should remember the SGN ads, I subscribed most of the years since the days of the "yellow cover". But I don't. Guess I was too pre-occupied with work at the time (or lacked interest in a conversion).


I don't think these were advertised for long, they either sold out fast or the company may have found a bulk buyer, possibly sold off to a UK or Commonwealth end user.

I'd asked around about the Sterling conversions at the time, but 7.62 conversions of the No.4 were not well thought of here.
The general objection was that it would be a waste to convert a No.4 still in very good to excellent condition, and using a well worn No.4 action might be hazardous and would not give best results so it would be a poor deal all the way around.
7.62 NATO ammo of good quality was no cheaper than recently manufactured .303 milspec ammunition, and there just wasn't any appreciable increase in power unless loads judged too hot for the converted rifles were used.
I remember one article on the subject where a UK target shooter mentioned that the most accurate .308 long range target hand loads duplicated the MkVII ballistics.

Also IIRC some of the Sterling kits offered consisted of barrel and bolt heads only, no magazines, the magazines being sold separately. This would have effectively made these single shot or increased the cost of conversion once cost of magazine was added.

When checking out how well a stock .303 magazine handled rimless cartridges, I found that unaltered mags could handle the 7X57 cartridge just fine, and these were stripped by the bolt as well as .303 cartridges. The unmodified extractor of my No.4 ejected rimless cases just fine.
I then considered a 7X57 conversion, but by that time I'd polished the slightly pitted and dinged up .303 bore and found a very accurate load for it. I'd also replaced the worn bolt body and bolt head so headspace and case life are no longer a concern.

[303Guy]

Ooh boy! You shouldna have mentioned 7x57 in a Lee Enfield. Now you got me all interested! It seemed to me to be a do-able and possibly optimum combination (providing the old chamber pressures were adhered to). I thought about a 7x57R too as being about perfect. Problem is, I'm having enough trouble giving all my Lee Enfields a turn as it is.:roll:

[Surplus Shooter]

Keep it they are very good guns and have an excellent build quality in my opinion.

[corvette8n]

My Ishie came with a hang tag stating to shoot only 7.62 NATO. I never did shoot the thing but was going to load some plinkers with a 150gr cast and 10gr of Unique, but alas I sold it.:cry:

[bydand]

Just a point on Long Lee's and MkVII ammo. during the early parts of WW1, SMLE production was having a hard time keeping up with the expansion of the army. Long Lee's were issued to many units. And MkVII ammo was used. I once knew a veteran who was issued a Long Lee in 1915.
Now the funny bit, when he emigrated to the U.S. he had not bothered to collect his medals. Put him in touch with the medal office and he got them. Of course Now his family has them as he passed away. Even MkVIII ammunition which used a boat tailed bullet for machine guns was only 100FPS faster than MkVIII and was authorized for use in rifles when flash supression was a requirement

[303Guy]

That 100fps faster translates into quite a bit more energy requiring quite a bit more pressure. With modern powders that 100fps can be achieved with no increase in pressure.

[Multigunner]

Just a point on Long Lee's and MkVII ammo. during the early parts of WW1, SMLE production was having a hard time keeping up with the expansion of the army. Long Lee's were issued to many units. And MkVII ammo was used. I once knew a veteran who was issued a Long Lee in 1915.
Now the funny bit, when he emigrated to the U.S. he had not bothered to collect his medals. Put him in touch with the medal office and he got them. Of course Now his family has them as he passed away. Even MkVIII ammunition which used a boat tailed bullet for machine guns was only 100FPS faster than MkVIII and was authorized for use in rifles when flash supression was a requirement

There were some problems with feeding when MkVII was used in the LE.
Some outfits reported that jams were so common that they could only use their rifles as single loaders.
MkVI ammo was used almost exclusively by the Australians , the SMLE rifles originally were intended for use with MkVI ammo, and bores were originally reverse taper lapped to reduce bullet drag in an attempt to get the same velocity when using MkVI from the shorter SMLE barrel as when fired from the longer LE barrel. Accuracy suffered but replacement unlapped barrels were not made available till 1917.
Barrels throated for the MkVII were marked SC and HV, for Short Cone and High Velocity.
Rifles originally proofed for the MkVI and earlier marks were proofed for 16.5 Long Tons back thrust, rifles proofed for the MkVII were proofed for 18.5 LT back thrust. A number of proof test cartridges were in inventory, these had a "Q" designation.
Besides the standard proof cartridges , used both dry and oiled, there were cartridges used to proof barrels before assembly. The pressures used to test barrels were much higher than the pressures used to proof the action assembly.
Barrels were proofed before use because a crack near the breech of a barrel could split an otherwise good action.

While catastrophic failure during proof firing was rare, a proofed action that exhibited warping of the bolt body, spreading of rear receiver walls, or stretching of the action body would be condemned. Even noticable binding of the bolt was cause to condemn the action on the spot.

MkVIIz ammunition had the same reduced flash as MkVIIIz.
MkVIIIz was approved for use in the No.4 only when supplies of MkVII or MkVIIz ran low.
According to Reynolds he was once asked to test fire a No.4 rifle that had proved wildy innaccurate when MkVIIIz was substituted for MkVII.
The rifle had proven remarkably accurate with MkVII printing consistent 4" 200 yard groups. When MkVIIIz was used the rifle keyholed every shot and barely got on paper.
The cause was cordite erosion of the throat and leade. Open Flat base bullets could bump up well enough to seal, boat tail bullets don't bump up enough to avoid bullet jacket damage due to blow by.

Chamber pressures of 48,000 CUP when using MkVIIIz were far less of a problem than very wide maximum deviations in pressures of much of the wartime production ammunition.
While an average pressure of 48,000 CUP might only cause increased wear, pressure spikes of as much as 60,000 CUP were not unknown when MkVIIIz was used in extremely hot climates.
A veteran posted on another board that when coming back from long range patrols they often disposed of unused MG ammunition that had been exposed to desert sun and bounced about in ammo cans in armored vehicles.
RAF tests of ammunition crates on the Indian Nortwestern Frontier found that ammo cans exposed to direct sunlight reached temperatures of 160+ degrees F.
Heat in North Africa could be much worse.

PS
According to several sources far more ammunition was condemned and destroyed in the field than was ever used in combat in either world war..

Suspect ammunition could not be trusted in combat. Some suspect ammunition was sent to Machine Gun training schools. Ammo that caused a high incidence of jams and other failures gave trainees the opportunity to learn to deal with jams and parts replacements quickly, which served them well in combat.
Headspace of training MGs was often loosened to increase likelyhood of unexpected case separations, so trainees could learn to deal with this in the field.

[303Guy]

The machinegun ammo I had used hollow and externally fluted sticks of cordite. Would that be the "Z" ammo? Faster burn due to higher surface area? I don't recall it being boat tailed but it had an aluminium nose core and the bullet was 175gr, not 174gr and it clocked 2550fps.

[Multigunner]

The machinegun ammo I had used hollow and externally fluted sticks of cordite. Would that be the "Z" ammo? Faster burn due to higher surface area? I don't recall it being boat tailed but it had an aluminium nose core and the bullet was 175gr, not 174gr and it clocked 2550fps.

If the ammo you used contained cordite strands it was neither MkVIIIz nor MkVIIz. The small z is actually a sideways N intended to designate use of single base Nitro-Cellulose propellent.
Nitro-Cellulose powders often come in the form of short extruded tube like grains, a tiny fraction of the length of cordite strands, cordite strands are usually long enough to reach from the flash hole of the case head to the shoulder of the case.
Cordite normally is topped by a glazeboard card, nitrocellulose does not need an over the charge card.

the MkVIII bullet is a rebated boat tail bullet, though some equivalent MG loads use a standard non rebated boat tail bullet.
I have seen references to a cordite loaded MkVIII ammunition, but since without the card cordite erodes bores at six times the rate of the same load with the card, I can only assume this was either a short lived experiment or a special purpose load of some sort.
I have heard of cordite loaded ammo without the card being used for synchronized aerial guns, at least when relatively fragile wooden propellors could be damaged by the ejected card at high velocities. The vitrified card could carch the grain of a wooden propellor and initiate a split. The card could also score any surface finish or doped fabric overlay, and possibly blow back into the face of a pilot or gunner of an open cockpit aircraft or be drawn into the engine intakes or oil cooler.
Contrary to what some may think, the card is not consumed by the high temperature gases. NG/NC propellents such as cordite produce only a slight bit more oxygen than they consume. The super heated card cannot combust until it reaches open air. The same applies to shotgun card wads.

Card wads are worthless when boat tail bullets are used, to seal against blowby the card must be used with a flat base bullet.

Both MkVII and MkVIIz ammunition were used by MGs for any but ultra long range fire.
Barrels used with MkVIIz or MkVIIIz were marked , barrels that had fired more than a few hundred rounds of cordite ammo could not be trusted to handle ammo loaded with nitrocellulose with any degree of long range accuracy.
A barrel only slightly eroded by cordite could ,if MkVIIIz were then used, suddenly begin dropping short rounds among friendly troops.
Barrels used with MkVIIz or MkVIIIz could still handle MkVII ammunition with a fair degree of accuracy.

The gas system of the BREN Gun was modified to allow use with MkVII ammunition, the gas port moved nine inches closer to the chamber. It was intended that only MkVII ammo be used with the BREN Gun, but the brighter muzzle flash of cordite gave away the gunners positions in low light actions, so the use of MkVIIIz was officially authorized for use in low light or at night by 1943.
No effective flash suppressant was possible for cordite.
This was an on going problem for Royal Navy vessels, the bright flash allowing the enemy to pinpoint their positions. A "Flashless" propellent was devised.

Attempts to further modify cordite for rifle use failed, newer less erosive versions of cordite would not pass through the machinery used to form the strands for rifle sized cordite.

[Link23]

i couldnt hit the broad side of a barn with my ishapore, it was stamped 65, and it shot about 5 foot high at 100 yards and i couldnt get it to group with Jacketed let alone boolits.... but my dads sporterized enfield is a swell gun its Minute of clay pigeon at 200 yards

[Multigunner]

i couldnt hit the broad side of a barn with my ishapore, it was stamped 65, and it shot about 5 foot high at 100 yards and i couldnt get it to group with Jacketed let alone boolits.... but my dads sporterized enfield is a swell gun its Minute of clay pigeon at 200 yards

A BSA SMLE belonging to a friend would hit several feet high. I took a look at it and saw it had handguards with the legs cut off, a common method of dealing with broken hand guard legs.

The missing legs meant there was nothing to prevent the rear handguard from shifting forwards under recoil. His rear sight was being held up by the handguard so it was shooting very high.
I trimmed the wood there to prevent further interference and it shot fine after that.

Some rear guards fit well enough that they won't shift forwards even if without the legs, others have a lot of slack in the fit.

When I ordered a rear handguard with legs intact to match a front guard with legs intact that I'd been given to use in restoring my SMLE the rear guard I received was an Indian made piece. Very nice wood, but not very well made. One side of the wood was high just under the rear sight, preventing the sight from coming all the way down against the bed. I noticed this right off amd trimmed it properly before installing it.

[303Guy]

Thanks for the info, Multigunner. Theses rounds I had were card and some black stuff sealed. It was South African military ammo.

[Multigunner]

Thanks for the info, Multigunner. Theses rounds I had were card and some black stuff sealed. It was South African military ammo.
Old sealants can cause increased pressures.
Its common for military marksmen to seat the bullets of ammo a hair deeper in order to break the grip of dried out sealants. Otherwise the extra grip affects pull and pressures vary greatly from shot to shot making accuracy unreliable.

Water proof laquers around the case mouth can also increase pressures, and residue can build up in the chamber neck.

[303Guy]

I have pulled old MkVII bullets and they were tight but the black stuff was still in good condition and formed a thin layer between bullet and neck. What is that black stuff they used? The rounds I was given were fairly new and appeared in as new condition. I did have some older MkVII ammo - including soft point sporting ammunition - but thought it best to keep them as keepsakes. I did once pull a bullet from a sealed MkVII and set it of remotely and it went off with a tremendous bang. The case was still in its 'holder' and intact (other than the damage to the case mouth in pulling that bullet). I have had non black stuff non-303 ammo that had the bullet fused to the neck interior. Other 303 ammo developed split necks with age. I don't recall finding a 303 cartridge with fused bullet (I didn't pull that many).

[Multigunner]

I have pulled old MkVII bullets and they were tight but the black stuff was still in good condition and formed a thin layer between bullet and neck. What is that black stuff they used? The rounds I was given were fairly new and appeared in as new condition. I did have some older MkVII ammo - including soft point sporting ammunition - but thought it best to keep them as keepsakes. I did once pull a bullet from a sealed MkVII and set it of remotely and it went off with a tremendous bang. The case was still in its 'holder' and intact (other than the damage to the case mouth in pulling that bullet). I have had non black stuff non-303 ammo that had the bullet fused to the neck interior. Other 303 ammo developed split necks with age. I don't recall finding a 303 cartridge with fused bullet (I didn't pull that many).

Hard to say what sealant was used. The old manuals speak of Beewax, but under definitions they give a formula for a beewax compound. The compund is mostly wax but contained resins including "Swedish Pitch" later sources mention "Asphaltum" which may mean a coal tar or could refer to another wax and resin compound.

Sealants of some .303 cartridges I've broken down filled the small space at the shoulder over the card. The sealants of these may have migrated due to heat.

I've seen .303 MG ammo with a thick band of grey laquer at the neck.