P-14 303 Brit Loads

[bruce drake]

Quote:
... ever notice you can't find P-14 load info in any of the reloading manuals?

Yup. I noticed. However, I do not have one but thought it should be loaded to 308 power levels. The problem is it's a 303 Brit and 303 Brit loads are what they are. I would think that 308 load data would be close to interchangeable with P14 loads. The P14 would have a slightly greater case capacity with heavier bullets because of the longer magazine and throat because of the fact that the 303 Brit was designed for heavier bullets. So, why not start a P14 thread? It should be interesting! (I'd suggest calling it P14 loads to emphasize the difference from 'normal' 303 Brit loads).
__________________
Regards
303Guy


I own a P14 as well that I bought right before I deployed to Afghanistan last summer. I am looking to develop some accuracy loads with Cast boolits as well.

My P14 is a Winchester that has gone through the British Weedon Refit in the 20's and I had just enough time to shoot some jacketed loads through it right before I oiled it up for storage.

I'm thinking with the Mauser locking system, we might be able to develop good loads on the same power level of a 303 Ackley Improved or 303 Epps loading in a jacketed load. With Cast it doesn't matter so accuracy loads are the key with those loads in my opinion.

Bruce

[JeffinNZ]

If you going to chase top end velocity with jacketed then you must be really sure to fireform your brass correctly to begin with and get yourself a Lee collet die if you don't have one already. See my accuracy 'sticky'. Oh, and anneal often for long case life and consistent neck tension. You may find that though the rifle will handle + Lee Enfield pressure the brass may not.

For a mild cast load I am having wonderful success with a 205gr boolit from CBE over 13.8gr of 2400.

[303Guy]

You may find that though the rifle will handle + Lee Enfield pressure the brass may not.Good point. I second the proper fire-forming of the cases. My trick is to keep my loaded cases lubed with case lube - not dripping with oil but just enough to normally size a case. That prevents case head separation in a No I Lee Enfield. In fact, it gives indefinate case life but consideration needs to be given to the higher bolt face thrust that results. I don't use absolute max loads anyway. (I also think the bolt face was designed to carry the full thrust). Now the P14 won't have any issues with bolt face thrust, being such a beefy and rigid action.

[Dead Dog Jack]

I own a P14 as well that I bought right before I deployed to Afghanistan last summer. I am looking to develop some accuracy loads with Cast boolits as well.

Bruce


Me too. I know we don't have to stay at the same pressure levels in the P-14 since it is the Mauser type action, but don't want to push it too far. I joined the 314" 202 grain group buy to start creating cast loads.

Should be interesting sharing the info! Rule 303!!!

[bruce drake]

Rule 303!!![/QUOTE]

Off-topic...Great Movie!!!

[Larry Gibson]

bruce

I've chased higher than top end SMLE .303 loads jacketed bullet velocities in my Ross M10. With the enlarged chambers NS'ing is a must and they make for a sort of "improved" case. Another advantage to the Ross M10 is the 30" barrel. I chased the 150 gr Hornady .312 SP all the way to 3017 fps using 4895 with no apparent pressure problems. I settled on 2950 fps though as accuracy is excellent and that is '06 territory with that weight of bullet. A friend has a P!& and he did like wise with no problems but his velocities were somewhat less due to the shorter barrel.

The P14 and the Ross M10 actions can take the psi that the SMLE can't in .303. I/we were using new R-P fire formed cases BTW. I don't have any SMLEs so loading the .303 up is not a potential hazard for me. The boxes are boldly marked for those loads not to be used in and SMLE.

Loading up the .303 to better performance works for me.

Larry Gibson

[Pieter C. Voss]

I shoot only mild cast bullet loads in my MkI No.4 and neck size with a Lee collet die. Should I have fire formed the brass first with some stiff loads? Would it be appropriate to do so now? My brass has been reloaded about 4-5 times, all with 16g 2400 behind the Lyman 314299. Thanks, Pete

[Larry Gibson]

It takes 5000 - 7000 psi to expand cases to fit the chamber. With mild, reduced and "squib" loads, if the cases are not fire formed, a lot of the available psi energy is used "trying" to expand the cases. The larger the case is, the smaller in size it is to the chamber and the more work hardened the more psi energy is used trying to expand the case instead of simply pushing the bullet. That causes irratic ignition and inconsistent velocities. With a case that is fire formed to the chamber and the neck minimallsized to hold the bullet almost all the powders energy is used to push the bullet instead of trying to expand the case.

I have pressure tested many such example. The pressure traces with such are very erratic, especially in straight walled cases at PSIs under 14,000 psi, even with the fast burners like Bullseye. I would suggest you do use a bit stiffer load in those 4 times fired cases and fire form the cases for your SMLE. The ignition consistency will improve by doing so in with your mild cast bullet loads.

Larry Gibson

[Pieter C. Voss]

Thanks, Larry. What would you consider a "bit stiffer load?" Like 20g 2400, or maybe 17-18g of Red Dot? I also have Unique and IMR 4756 on hand.

[leadman]

Larry, I don't have a P14 but do have an Arg Mauser in 7.65 x 53(4). Ever notice how close the reloading data is for the 303 and the Arg. ?? Almost identical.

What is interesting is the older specs for the Norma Arg Mauser ammo was over 2,900 fps with a 150 gr bullet. I bought some of this in the middle 80s and altthough I never chronographed any it certainly did not have the drop of my reloads. Norma has knocked about 200 fps off that load now.

I will have to investigate and try to determine what powder Norma was using as this may also work well in the 303. I know in my No4 MKII I can only load to just over 2,500 with 4895.

I'm using 2520 in my AM with 180 gr bullets at over 2,500 fps. This is with the .310" Rem roundnose bullet. My bore is larger than this but I think the smaller bullet gives me reduced pressures. ?

I wonder what "improving" the chamber in a No4 would do as far as increased velocity ?

I do as 303 guy and leave just a very thin film of case lube on the case when fireforming. I use Unique and then fill the case with Cream of Wheat and plug the mouth with parrafin. I use 15grs in my 7mm Rem mag , don't remember what I used in the 303.

It will be interesting to see the results of your quest.

[303Guy]

Ever notice how close the reloading data is for the 303 and the Arg. ?? Almost identical.Not until now. They ARE identical! Hodgedon doesn't give the pressures but they do list a 150gr and 174gr .312" bullet at 303 Brit velocities. What the ...??? Mind you, the 303 Brit loading is not to be snuffed at so why not? After all, the Japs copied the Brit in the form of the 7.7 Arisaka for the same reason. (Or so I read).

[Larry Gibson]

Thanks, Larry. What would you consider a "bit stiffer load?" Like 20g 2400, or maybe 17-18g of Red Dot? I also have Unique and IMR 4756 on hand.

leadman gives a good way without using a bullet, I've done such and it does work. Even without a bullet just remember that what comes out the barrel is still quite dangerous and loud, keep it pointed in a safe direction. I normally use a slower powder such as 4895 with a 32 gr charge under a cast C312-185-2R (I save some wrinkled rejects for such purposes) just barely seated in the neck. Thus they hold the case head back against the bolt face when chambered. I also lightly lube the cases, just for this fire forming though.

A medium range load of 4895 with a jacketed bullet and lightly lubed cases works very well also.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

Yes the case capacities are almost identical. Looks like Mauser simply made a rimless .303 for the M91, no sense trying to re-invent the wheel.....

I've pressure tested several different lots of Argentine milsurp and even one lot of '35 Belgian 7.65. PSIs run the usual 53 - 56,000 psi(M43). Some older original Norma (I about had to give my 1st born for that box!) 150 gr ammo and it runs in the 56,000 psi's. It also really does 2900+ fps out of my 29" M91 and M1909 Argies. I think the newer Norma velocity figures are in shorter barrels. I load 150 gr bullets up to 2900 fps in those longer barreled rifles with IMR 4895 and keep the psi's under 56,000. In the M1909 (M98 DWM action) I have loaded to the 150s to 3000+ fps without apparent psi problems. However i pressure test with a M91 and do not want to push things with that action.

Larry Gibson

[Char-Gar]

The P-14 is a different critter from the Lee mark whatever. If they could modify the Lee to handled 7.62 ammo, the P-14 should certainly hold .308 pressure as the case capacity are very very close. The P-14 is a brute strong action.

I have never owned a P-14 and I have never run across one in the condition I would like. I would like to know if their chambers are so oversized like the Lees. IIRC they are not, but I don't know for certain.

[JeffinNZ]

P14's have been altered to lots of difference calibres here. I know of a .375 H&H. The action is easily up to it.

[Piedmont]

I've got a P14 and it is a favorite rifle of mine. The replacement barrels are gone unless you get real lucky. The brass is made for 45,000 psi, which I appreciate every time I load .303. The cases size easily, much like .30-30s. So my question is why push cases to a shorter life span? Why wear out a barrel that will last about forever with milder cast loads? Why not just enjoy a great old rifle and pass it on to a like-minded younger guy when we die? These old rifles live longer than we do. Let someone else relive WWI in a small way 30 or 50 years from now.

[303Guy]

So my question is why push cases to a shorter life span? Good point. There is nothing wrong with 303 Brit ballistics. It would be nice having a little more leeway with top end limits and it is a heavy rifle so why not make it earn its keep. Case life can be indefinate but would definately be my load limiting factor. However, I do believe the case can take a higher pressure than it was designed for without loss of case life with the stiffer P14 action. And being such a strong action as it is, lubing the loaded cases will not harm the action in any way (not dripping with oil) but will guarantee long case life provided the necks are regularly annealed. (It works at lower pressure in the L E's).

[bruce drake]

Bear and Moose with 220 grainers is what I am thinking towards hunting purposes and a little more velocity with 174gr FMJs for target shooting at 600 and 1000 yard competitions.

[Larry Gibson]

The brass is made for 45,000 psi

If using new commercial WW or RP do we still really believe that? Do we really think Win/Rem use a different, lower strength brass for the .303 cases than they do for the .308W, '06 or any of the magnums? The head, primer and web area of the .303 cases is just as generous as with many other cases loaded to higher psi so if made of the same brass then how is it "made for 45,000 psi"?

I've loaded the R-P cases to somewhat higher psi (note the post above) and have yet to expand a primer pocket, split a neck, have any incipient head seperation or even lose a case in the grass. The strenght of the older SMLE actions may be restricted to 45,000 psi (CUP) but in the stronger P-14 and Ross M10 actions that is not the case (pun intended). The modern, new commercial Winchester and R-P cases are up to higher levels of performance in those actions.

Larry Gibson

[Ed in North Texas]

Yes the case capacities are almost identical. Looks like Mauser simply made a rimless .303 for the M91, no sense trying to re-invent the wheel.....

snip

Larry Gibson

I think it was more a case of great minds think alike, or perhaps that cartridge development was universally limited by the metallurgy and engineering ideas of the times. Maybe propellant design had a big hand in the decisions of the time, though see below about the .303 introduction.

The .303 was first introduced in December, 1888 in the Lee Metford, the 7.65x53mm first introduced in the 1889 Belgian Mauser. The introduction of both was fairly close in time, though the .303 was introduced as a BP cartridge (though intended to use smokeless eventually), while the 7.65x53mm has always been a smokeless cartridge.

To give an idea of lead times involved, the Mauser family began development of a small caliber, bolt action repeater (which became the 1889/91 rifle system) about 1880. The rifles (one with metal barrel jacket - the eventual 1889 and one without - the eventual 1891) were initially tested in 1884 in the Kingdom of Bavaria, though I don't know whether a 7.65mm precursor cartridge was involved in that early test. These were the first rifles to use the stripper clip to load the integral magazine (although the magazine could be detached, it was intended to remain on the rifle and be loaded with the stripper), rather than the "en bloc" Mannlicher system, or the tubular magazine of the Lebel. The Argentine Government requested the Mausers produce their next rifle (the eventual Modelo 1891) in 1886.

[Ed in North Texas]

Once upon a time the P-14/M-1917 actions were the "go to" action for conversion to .375 H&H (at least for those who couldn't afford a Magnum Mauser action). Amply strong for any sane .303 load (any most not sane).

[Larry Gibson]

Ed in North texas

Yes there was always is a lot of lead time in developments of rifles and cartridges back then. I'm sure the .303 was being developed a long time before it was adopted in '88. I wasn't being serious BTW about Mauser copying the .303. since you mentioned the testing in bavaria in the back of my mind I recall Mauser developing what he thought was the perfect BP catridge, a 9.5 MM on a rimless 9.5x60R Turkish Mauser(?) case somewhere around that time?

Interesting topic.....

Larry Gibson

[madsenshooter]

The brass is made for 45,000 psi

If using new commercial WW or RP do we still really believe that? Do we really think Win/Rem use a different, lower strength brass for the .303 cases than they do for the .308W, '06 or any of the magnums? The head, primer and web area of the .303 cases is just as generous as with many other cases loaded to higher psi so if made of the same brass then how is it "made for 45,000 psi"?

I've loaded the R-P cases to somewhat higher psi (note the post above) and have yet to expand a primer pocket, split a neck, have any incipient head seperation or even lose a case in the grass. The strenght of the older SMLE actions may be restricted to 45,000 psi (CUP) but in the stronger P-14 and Ross M10 actions that is not the case (pun intended). The modern, new commercial Winchester and R-P cases are up to higher levels of performance in those actions.

Larry Gibson

Some of the older case drawings show the 303 with a web of .150" rather than the .200 of more modern cartridges. This is also true of Krag cases, or the drawings thereof, I should say. A quick measurement of PRVI 303 Brit shows a web thickness of .16 and newly made Krag .18, whereas a .308 is .200. I believe the case walls of the Krag and 303 are thinner than brass used for more modern cartridges too.

[Ed in North Texas]

Ed in North texas

Yes there was always is a lot of lead time in developments of rifles and cartridges back then. I'm sure the .303 was being developed a long time before it was adopted in '88. I wasn't being serious BTW about Mauser copying the .303. since you mentioned the testing in bavaria in the back of my mind I recall Mauser developing what he thought was the perfect BP catridge, a 9.5 MM on a rimless 9.5x60R Turkish Mauser(?) case somewhere around that time?

Interesting topic.....

Larry Gibson

There are folks who believe the 9.5x60R in the Turk M87 was the closest to being the perfect BP cartridge, others have a different opinion (now there's a surprise). Paul might have experimented with a rimless version, but I see no info on it ever being marketed.

[frnkeore]

There are ways to increase the strength of brass for higher pressures. One is to "hit" the head more times in it's production to work harden the brass and increase tensile and yield strength. The other way is to make the brass thicker front to back and tapered a bit more in the transition from the head to the body.

That said, the gun writers will try to scare you by telling you that a certain case will only handle X amount of pressure. Not true at all. I've expanded the primer pockets of many 30/30 cases at but, at pressures above 50,000 cup (estimate). Same with 30/40 Krag in a Hi Wall. The Krag is much like the Brit and is suppose to be loaded a little lower.

It takes at least .200 in the case head to make a large primer pocket and I've found that with that amount of brass in the case head that it will take at least 48,000 cup (again estimated) to open a primer pocket on the first shot or two.

The soft brass in the Fed 308's will take factory loading but, won't take the match loads very well in the 55,000+ range that they try to use them in.

I've never found brass to really be a limiting factor just because it may be used in a certain range.

Frank

[leadman]

I just read an article in an old American Rifleman on the development of the Mauser. It made a reference to a 7.65 Rimmed case that was tried before the rimless. The rimmed case never went into production according to the article.

[Larry Gibson]

There are folks who believe the 9.5x60R in the Turk M87 was the closest to being the perfect BP cartridge, others have a different opinion (now there's a surprise). Paul might have experimented with a rimless version, but I see no info on it ever being marketed.

Probably about the time he got the 9mm perfected (maybe the Turk?) smokeless powder was on the scene and he switched to that.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

Madsenshooter

Note I referred to newly made WW and R-P. I have sectioned WW .03 cases and WW .308W cases and they are very close to the same in the web. Since both taper and are rounded inside into the head its hard to get an exact measurement. Also I was referring to the psi the brass is made for with newer WW or R-P cases. Good info you've provided if someone is going to push other makes of cases or other cartridges to a probable 60 - 62,000 psi (piezo) level.

Larry Gibson

[JeffinNZ]

Larry, I don't think it is a factor of the strength of the brass as such but more the actual construction of the case. Cases for the three oh three are not as thick in the bottom end etc. Like the difference between a .45 ACP and a .460 Rowland.

[Larry Gibson]

Well, all I got to say is they seem to be holding up just fine and I've not had any loose primer pockets, etc. with such loads in my Ross M10.

Larry Gibson

[303Guy]

The rimmed 303 Brit case doesn't need as much strength as a 308 Win as the Brit case is fully supported within the chamber. (Not speaking for all 308 chamber designs). That does not mean the 303 Brit can suddenly handle higher pressure but at least the full case head is within the chamber while some 308 or at least 7.62 NATO chamber have no case head support at all. The web is still within the chamber though.

The way I see it is the Lee Enfield is a flexi-action which limits the pressure the case can withstand for reloading purposes while the P 14 is rigid and does not. Besides, primer pocket loosening and case head expansion is not the main issue - it's case head separation and case elongation.

[bruce drake]

Ok, I just bought a Lyman 314299 200gr boolit mold to work up heavy loads for this P14 of mine. It might be interesting to see what that boolit can do.

Bruce

[JeffinNZ]

My SMLE, with a similar weight boolit just loves 41gr H4350 for bang on 2000fps.

[303Guy]

Jeff, that's a healthy load! For plain cast! Nothing wrong with that.

On the case construction, I'm not sure there is anything less strong with the 303 Brit case construction. It is a bit more susceptible to case head separation I would think but in a rigid and strong action I would think there would be no difference (providing the case is properly headspaced on the shoulder).

[frnkeore]

Here is a thought for the P14....... run a 30/40 Imp reamer into the chamber. You'll get '06 velocitys w/o quite as much powder. It would make a awesome P14. The neck diameter is .003 smaller but, I don't think it would be to small for the .314 bullets but, if so, you could turn the first .100 of the neck.

Frank

[303Guy]

... run a 30/40 Imp reamer into the chamber.Or how about a 303 Epps reamer? Someone somewhere must have one.

Here's another thought. Ask goodsteel to make you a reamer. (Not to say he would want to but let him decide that).

[bruce drake]

Those 314299 boolits made a great 3" group at 50 yards today. First cast through the P14 and a nice group! I think I'll keep her in 303 Brit with this boolit combo.

[PAT303]

Personally I don't see the need to hot rod the 303.I've shot 303's for years culling Kangaroo's,pigs,goats etc and I tried different powders/bullets/loads and in the end I gave up,I stuck with the 123grn Hornady interloc over 43grns of AR2208 for 2800fps and it killed everything I shot without fuss,later I've used a CBE 225grn boolit over a case full of AR2217 and it leaves big holes in the opposite side of everything it hits. Pat

[Multigunner]

I think it was more a case of great minds think alike, or perhaps that cartridge development was universally limited by the metallurgy and engineering ideas of the times. Maybe propellant design had a big hand in the decisions of the time, though see below about the .303 introduction.

The .303 was first introduced in December, 1888 in the Lee Metford, the 7.65x53mm first introduced in the 1889 Belgian Mauser. The introduction of both was fairly close in time, though the .303 was introduced as a BP cartridge (though intended to use smokeless eventually), while the 7.65x53mm has always been a smokeless cartridge.

To give an idea of lead times involved, the Mauser family began development of a small caliber, bolt action repeater (which became the 1889/91 rifle system) about 1880. The rifles (one with metal barrel jacket - the eventual 1889 and one without - the eventual 1891) were initially tested in 1884 in the Kingdom of Bavaria, though I don't know whether a 7.65mm precursor cartridge was involved in that early test. These were the first rifles to use the stripper clip to load the integral magazine (although the magazine could be detached, it was intended to remain on the rifle and be loaded with the stripper), rather than the "en bloc" Mannlicher system, or the tubular magazine of the Lebel. The Argentine Government requested the Mausers produce their next rifle (the eventual Modelo 1891) in 1886.

The Swiss officer and inventor Major Eduard Rubin submitted 7.5 and 8mm necked cartridges in 1883, these were loaded with the compressed Black Powder cylinders as used by the Lee Metford in .303 British.
A French chemist invented Poudre B in 1884.
France developed their smokeless powder cartridge of otherwise similar design in 1886, Germany paid a French defector for a purloned Lebel rifle and ammo, Spandau developed the GEW88 by reverse engineering and improving on the best features of the Lebel coupled with other designs.
They lifted the Rimless case design from earlier experimental designs by Rubin.

There may have been other usable smokeless propellents around before 1886, but most of these remained highly unreliable in performance and quality for some time to come.

PS
W W Greener wrote of the difficulty of establishing proper proof test loads for Smokeless powder cartridges. They couldn't simply increase the charge weight, since most were already pushing the maximum charge weight for their case capacity, so instead they used the same weight of a far more energetic powder. This was to mimic the effects of heat and/or moisture degraded powder which would be the major source of danger of excessive pressures.

I've read of a .303 belted magnum cartridge, probably obsolete.
I would not rechamber a P-14 unless its existing chamber was badly messed up already.
If so a rechambering for a long belted case would allow one to cut the chamber with mimimum headspace, and clear up the throat.

[Brithunter]

Hmmm funny how the P-1 is not mentioned here nor it's .276 cartridge.

The P-14 is an adaption due to WW1 starting of the afore mentioned P-13 which itself was designed for a high velocity high pressure .276 cartridge. The P-14 action if in good condition will handle any normal modern cartridge it is however not as robust as the Ross M10 as that was deigned to handle the pressures of the 280 Ross which has a proof pressure of 28 Tons. For comparison the 270 Win is 19 tons.

In fact digressing slightly Eley bros had to develop the .280 Nitro for those shooters wanting the .280 "Ross" but not a Ross rifle. repeated use of the full blown Ross cartridge in the Mauser 98 rather quickly developed lug set back. The Mauser 98 was not designed to handle such pressures as a regular diet.

Now back to the .303 and higher pressure loadings................. :bigsmyl2:

I am sorry but the hogwash od modern brass cartridge cases in some chamberings being weaker than others is just that ........................... hogwash!

I believe it was in 1999 that Petersens Rifle Shooter ran an article on Souping up the ole 30-30. The ran pressure sup to around the same as the .308 and it intrigued me so i kept the article. Some years later I acquired a bespoke (custom) built bolt action in 30-30 and using a load taken from that article well it shot bug hole groups with the Hornady 130 grn SP from the start. Using h335 it gives velocities of 2800+fps using Winchester brass I have yet to lose one piece of brass through fatigue or failure.

In their pressure barrel they had to run the pressure sup to over 70,000 PSI to expand a primer pocket.

Now in the 303 a lot will be determined on the size of the chamber and te brass used. The biggest probelm is that US manufacturers seem incapable of making cases to the drawings. measure the web and rim of a US made .303 case and it will eb at least 0.005" undersize. This is fine for re-forming to the 6.5x53R ( I use R.P bras to do just that for this reason) but it means the case has to stretch that 0.005" just to reach the size it should ahve been made to then it has to stretch further to fill the chamber and a WW2 chamber of a No4 can be much larger than that. The to compound it it gets squeezed back down to do it all over again and then it fails.

Using brass that is larger in the web area and rim means the brass has less work to do. Despite loading for several .303 rifles ( at one point I was loading for Eight different ones) using HXP 69 brass that i fired having brought a case of the ammunition (1248 Rnds to a case) the nly cases that I have lost are just that ones lost and not found again or those re-formed to other cases.

Now in this BSA Model E which is P-14 based:-

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL14/134492/4011864/376549980.jpg

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL14/134492/4011864/51041129.jpg

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL14/134492/4011864/50085554.jpg

I have pushed the loads a bit using the Hornady 150 grn SP for fine results on Deer. Again the cases have been fine but bear in mind this has a commercial chamber and so is tighter than most later military ones.

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL14/134492/322277/29382451.jpg

One can see here just how much tighter a commercial chamber is from these fired and sized cases. I always Full length size them too. Notice the lack of bulge at the web so often found on undersize .303 brass. For soem strange reason the photo makes the two outer cases look bent...Hmmm never noticed that before :(.

Now the Century Arms sporterised P-14:-

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL14/134492/1449358/16934889.jpg

I got lumbered with proved to be a nightmare. Their Q/C leaves a lot to be desired :evil:. The chamber was so tight that cases could not be sized to fit. new ammo was fine but fired ammo Nope. As I had quite a few .303's there was no way i could keep cases segregated for this rifle. It went to several smiths for inspection and none could get cases sized to fit. We tried Five different dies sets from Four different makers. Mine are RCBS. None would size cases to fit this chamber.

So after much thinking I eventually paid a lot of money to have the rifle re-chambered to .303 Epps. However I got this:-

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL14/134492/1217121/29656376.jpg

A 303 Imp but not an Epps the price was also well over double quoted. I was not a happy bunny. I also asked for him to make sure the lugs bore evenly and as far as I can tell this was not done. Seems Century really tightened the barrel on this one and it was a real pig to get off.

So now I own a .303 that should e capable of stepping up the performance to another level. The plan is to re-machined the rear bridge to a profile to match the BSA as we have no idea what scope mounts the century is supposed to taken and enquiries with Century Arms did not even get a response/reply. The oblong hole will be bored round and a plug sweated in as on the BSA Model E then drilled and tapped for mounts. the right side of the bridge will also be drilled and tapped to accept a receiver sight. Have a choice of a Parker-Hale 6E or a Redfield 102. A nice ramped foresight will be fitted. I have even been thinking of getting a better stock for it and turning it into something like this:-

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v166/Brithunter/Model1923BSAHigh-powerCaliber33BSARHS.jpg

That's a BSA Hi velocity model 1923. OK I cannot make it into a .26 or a .33 but I can make it look similar.

If a .303 rifle is chambered correctly and not with a bell mouthed or oversize chamber and IF brass of the correct size is used and not undersized in the critical web area then brass life is good. I can see no reason why the 150 grain bullets should not be loaded to achieve 2800-2900 fps. Kynoch loaded them to 2700 fps. The 174-180 grain bullets should be able to reach 2600 fps and 2200 fps is possible using the right powder so 2300 fps with 215's should be achievable.

of course once you leave the realms of published and lab proved data your one your own.

[303british.com]

I've shot thousands of Epps cartridges and can tell you that you can safely manage 2350 - 2400 fps with a 215 gr. bullets. You can also manage 2600-2650 fps with a number of powders using a 180 gr. and 2800- 2900 fps with 150s.

When I wrote Shooting & Reloading the 303 British/303 Epps, I used a rechambered No 4 with no other modifications. None of the pressures exceeded 49000 PSI.

When I experimented with one of my converted P14s, I managed a little more velocity, but in many cases, a 0.5 grain powder increase drove pressures up 6000+ PSI. I concluded that the data I compiled for the No 4 workups was the practical limit.

The best performers in the No 4 tests were close to, or exceeded 100% load density. This meant that it was impossible to increase performance or there was precious little to be gained from upping the charges. Of the few powders that were not at 100%, bumping them up 0.5 grain was an adventure. Velocities didn't increase much at all, but pressure increased by 1000s of PSI.

Be careful.

[The Virginian]

I've got a P14 and it is a favorite rifle of mine. The replacement barrels are gone unless you get real lucky. The brass is made for 45,000 psi, which I appreciate every time I load .303. The cases size easily, much like .30-30s. So my question is why push cases to a shorter life span? Why wear out a barrel that will last about forever with milder cast loads? Why not just enjoy a great old rifle and pass it on to a like-minded younger guy when we die? These old rifles live longer than we do. Let someone else relive WWI in a small way 30 or 50 years from now.

I agree since we want to use cast bullets at reasonable pressures to preserve and enjoy these old guns. Prices have gone into the stratosphere on P-14, P-17 and SMLEs with many parts being scarce. What is the best cast load that does not push these old Vets?

[303Guy]

I'm seeing load data with 2950 fps with 150's! (No pressure given so I won't even contemplate it). Now if we could get that powder and load to a more reasonable velocity we should have very mild pressures indeed. I have a load for 180's using H4350 that is nice and moderate yet enough and the books show it as a 2330 fps load. It drops some over a little distance.

Here are some interesting powders and loads for the Brit. These are max loads so imagine how mild the starting loads must be. I don't have the AA-4064 start load but the BLC-(2) loads are right there in the Hodgdon online load data.

180gr AA-4064 44.0gr 2523fps 38700 cup 24.0 inch barrel
180gr BL-C(2) 45.0gr 2563fps 43000 cup 24.0 inch barrel
150gr BL-C(2) 48.0g 2756fps 39200 cup 24.0 inch barrel

They do seem too good to be true. I can get BLC-(2) in my parts and I plan to do that and try it with heavier paper patched boolits at lower pressure.

One might wonder how a 303 Brit could possibly out perform a 308 but with 150's the case capacity is much greater than a 308 and with some powders it might be possible. A quirk like the hornet and k-hornet using Lil'Gun under a 55gr bullet. The standard hornet out performs the larger k-hornet and even the even larger 221 fire-ball but only with Lil'Gun.

Of course, we are concerned with much milder loads for use in older guns - that's were these powders should interest us.

[Multigunner]

I'm seeing load data with 2950 fps with 150's! (No pressure given so I won't even contemplate it). Now if we could get that powder and load to a more reasonable velocity we should have very mild pressures indeed. I have a load for 180's using H4350 that is nice and moderate yet enough and the books show it as a 2330 fps load. It drops some over a little distance.

Here are some interesting powders and loads for the Brit. These are max loads so imagine how mild the starting loads must be. I don't have the AA-4064 start load but the BLC-(2) loads are right there in the Hodgdon online load data.

180gr AA-4064 44.0gr 2523fps 38700 cup 24.0 inch barrel
180gr BL-C(2) 45.0gr 2563fps 43000 cup 24.0 inch barrel
150gr BL-C(2) 48.0g 2756fps 39200 cup 24.0 inch barrel

They do seem too good to be true. I can get BLC-(2) in my parts and I plan to do that and try it with heavier paper patched boolits at lower pressure.

One might wonder how a 303 Brit could possibly out perform a 308 but with 150's the case capacity is much greater than a 308 and with some powders it might be possible. A quirk like the hornet and k-hornet using Lil'Gun under a 55gr bullet. The standard hornet out performs the larger k-hornet and even the even larger 221 fire-ball but only with Lil'Gun.

Of course, we are concerned with much milder loads for use in older guns - that's were these powders should interest us.

I agree that the .303 is potentially a more efficient cartridge than the .308, the limited OAL of the .308 means that heavy bullet loads intrude on the powder space uping chamber pressures at the same performance levels. The .303 was originally designed for heavy bullets so its OAL is sufficient for long heavy bullets with minimal intrusion into the powder space.

Its long been said that the most accurate .308 loads for medium ranges (out to 600 yards) mimic the .303 MkVII balistics. Most Match or Sniping loads for the 7.62/.308 squeeze 200 to 400 FPS more out of it for better long range performance (1000 yards out to 1200 yards)but pay the price in higher pressures.

My only objection to loading the .303 to its maximum potential for use with the P-14 is the possibility of loads meant for the P-14 becoming mixed in with loads intended for the SMLE or older Lee Enfield rifles. Even if pressures weren't high enough to cause an action failure it would definitely cause excessive strain and premature wear of the older actions.

When IMR 4007 SSC (Super Short cut) powder first appeared Hogdons online reloading manual gave load data for the .303 that mimicked the MkVII load balistically yet produced pressures far below those listed for the same performance level using more common powders.
So far this powder has not shown up locally. There had been some delay in bringing it out, and I heard no more about it.

[bruce drake]

Just coming back into this thread, and wow on the length of responses regarding this fine action and the cartridge.

Criterion Barrels does make 303 Barrels for the P14 but doesn't install them which is funny since they are willing to rebarrel the 1917s which is the same barrel threading.
http://criterionbarrels.com/barrels/p14-enfield
My rifle has a good barrel with a new crown (done by me) so I don't intend to do a barrel change anytime soon although if the taxman is generous this year there may be a new barrel salted away for one of the son's to install after I pass on.

I currently have a great load built for Sierra's 174gr MatchKing Bullet using IMR4007SSC (44.5gr) but Hodgdon announced recently that they are dropping this powder next year so I am building a 147gr FMJ (Russian Steel-core bullets pulled from Russian surplus 7.63x54R cases) match load with IMR4831 (44gr) to go along with my current go-to loads of IMR4895 (40gr) and Alliant Reloader 10X (34gr) as well for this bullet weight.

Is there a rimmed case with a thicker web that can be reformed into 303 British cases? I don't think there are any but it would be interesting if we found a case that could be reformed for 303 British cases in a P14 to push the cartridge better without blowing off the case heads with higher pressures.

I just found 2 bags of 303Brit cases at my local gunshop. Winchester NOS at $21.99 per 50!!! Yes, I bought 100 more :)

[Nickle]

Bruce, just how much pressure are you asking to push in it?

Would 30-40 Krag brass meet you expectations?

But, if you wanted it hotter, and wanted a P14, if modifying it is OK, then rebarrel to a magnum case. It not only can be done, it has been done.

[bruce drake]

Nickle,

Run through the entire thread and we have been discussing the various pressure limitations with current 303 Brit brass. 30-40 brass will work for resizing purposes but there is a neck that needs to be trimmed down for them to work properly with the shorter necked 303 cases. I currently have 16 30-40 Krag cases that have already been reformed and are in by cast boolit cartridge boxes.

I won't be hotrodding my P14 rifle. My goal will be to shoot the rifle with current loads and not a heavier pressure load. My focus on a thicker case heads to help prevent cases flowing forward requiring a trim after every 3rd firing. I'm hoping, that this will give me more cartridge life through the 1914-era Enfield (the serial # said it was made in 1916)

Bruce

[Nickle]

Ah, case lengthening. Gotcha!

OK, that's a different story, and a different solution. Sounds funny I would know about it, but, I also own a 6.5 Rem Mag, and they're notorious about case stretching. They're a high pressure cartridge, and the brass itself is virtually the same as other cases of similar type (belted magnums). Part of the reason it stretches is the dimensions of the cartridge. It's been well looked into.

Now, I would recommend trying to just neck size the brass, set the shoulder no further back than needed.

As 303 British headspaces on the rim, as we all know, the headspace isn't the key here. It's the depth of the chamber, shoulder wise. #1 and #4 rifles are notorious for lousy brass life for this same reason. I don't know if the P14 is as well, but I tend to doubt it, as the same companies made 1917's on the same bsic tooling and design, and they have few problems.

Different brands of brass may work.

[303Guy]

It's the head-spacing on the rim that's the problem. It means that the chambers don't need to be made to some 'spec' for for head spacing. Anyway, I seem to have the opposite problem of cases shrinking! Well, not really but they don't elongate either. It's on fire-forming that cases shorten. I did have some cases I trimmed a little short once and I thought "no problem, they'll soon elongate to correct length" but they didn't!

What I've found is that a case that chambers with some force will loosen on firing and chamber easily thereafter. I neck size only and my cases last forever.