Another unloved rifle followed me home

[motorcycle_dan]

Yeah, I can tell by the other posts that I'm not alone in this sickness...
So I'm calling this therapy. I have an Ishapore Indian R.F.I Enfield. Chambered in 7.62mm 2A1 as it says on the receiver:

" http://castboolits.gunloads.com/imagehosting/thum_16234e7a3fa7cc2f7.jpg (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2179)

The configuration is that of a No5 jungle carbine. Short action and trumpet muzzle

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/imagehosting/thum_16234e7a4040a8615.jpg (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2180)

What is the proper model of this thing?
And it followed me home without a Bolt or a Magazine. Gulp, anyone have a "spare"

[303Guy]

That's an interesting piece. Would you mind posting more pictures?

I've seen magazines for them advertized on the net. ProMags maybe? Apparently they're not the best quality according to one forum posting.

Would the SMLE bolt be interchangeable with the 2A1 I wonder? If so, there are several in a gun shop near me. From what I can tell, only the extractor claw is different. (That's what I read in Wikipedia). If one will fit the loads can be kept to 303 Brit levels just to be sure.

[303Guy]

Came across this comment.
numrich's has mags for the 2a that work decent with a little massaging

Another reference;

From the looks of things, it was converted to be a clone of the No. 5 Jungle Carbine with a shortened barrel and a conical flash hider. I know that because of the conversion, it isn't worth as much to collectors...

[303Guy]

More references.
2A1 Carbine 1968, this is a Navy Arms, .308 refurbish/ Conversion. The import marks are on the right side of the barrel, just behind the front site.Here's the link; forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?...Ishapore-2A1-Carbine...

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/641/copyofl1010066edited1.jpg

http://img6.imageshack.us/my.php?image=copyofl1010066edited1.jpghttp://img6.imageshack.us/img6/1584/l1030885edited1.jpg

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/7620/l1030884edited1.jpg
http://img6.imageshack.us/my.php?image=copyofl1010066edited1.jpg

[Gtek]

Heard chatter about receiver, bolts lug strength being a little on the light side for the hotter .308". Normal ranges are about 5K PSI difference. Just a thought, be safe. Gtek

[Ed in North Texas]

Heard chatter about receiver, bolts lug strength being a little on the light side for the hotter .308". Normal ranges are about 5K PSI difference. Just a thought, be safe. Gtek

This is a recurring theme on the RFI 2A and 2A1 rifles. For starters, the overall configuration should look like a No.1 Mark III. This one has been, as already noted, altered to imitate a No. 5 and that reduces the collector value, but not the shooter value.

The thing to remember with all 7.62x51mm rifles is they are NOT .308 Winchester rifles. There is a difference in the cases (we all know that "GI" cases are thicker than commercial cases and we must reduce powder charges to allow for that, and some state the pressure standards are different - but I'm not getting into that one) for the two cartridges (even though they both started life at the same point).

Years ago, on a USENET shooting Newsgroup, a former Indian Army Ordinance officer contributed information about the development of the 2A and 2A1. These were not simply No. 1 Mark III actions chambered in 7.62, the metallurgy was worked up specifically to deal with the pressures of the 7.62 cartridge. With RFI having produced NO.1 Mark IIIs for decades, they obviously made maximum use of machinery and tooling there, and used anything from the No. 1 which fit, or could be adapted to, the overall theme (furnish a reserve of caliber 7.62 rifles until production of FALs could catch up with demand) without diminishing the functionality and serviceability. Let's not forget that India had a war with China in 1962, and border skirmishes with China since the 1959 Chinese invasion of Tibet and India's granting the Dalai Lama assylum. And there was Pakistan to consider too. No modern country facing further combat in some of the most hostile territory in the world sets out to scrimp on quality of small arms. There are those who claim the Indians could not produce steels of adequate quality, but that allegation seems to be based more on hearsay and prejudice than fact. As many of these rifles as were imported to the US, and (I'm sure) fired with .308 Win ammo without a large number of "kabooms", tends to prove the allegation wrong.

For myself, for jacketed bullet loads, I fire 7.62 NATO (either milsurp or loaded to those levels) in my 2 rifles. While open sights are getting to be a problem for me, I still can hit with these rifles.

Oh, and the biggest difference between the 2A and 2A1 is the rear sight. The 2A used the .303 type sight, graduated to (IIRC) something like 2000 meters. The 2A1 used a sight with a design range of 800 meters.

[docone31]

For us older eyes, and the #2A rifles, Williams, and lyman make a reciever sight for the #1MKIII that will go right on! Makes an huge diference! The steel is soft there and drilling and tapping is no issue.
My wife loves hers.

[Char-Gar]

I spent some time in India in the early 70's and saw lots of these rifles and older Lee Enfield "musket" as well. Most Indian police were unarmed, but some were. Those armed were called "Musket Men" and used Lee Enfield rifles in several configurations. Only the officer class of Police carried pistols. I spent some time with the IG (Inspector General) of the Bombay police. He had a Browning High Power, we shot it in his back yard.

[motorcycle_dan]

So my question, is it acceptable to use any bolt from a 7.62mm 2A or 2A1 rifle. Would appreciate if anyone had a line on a source.

[motorcycle_dan]

Would you mind posting more pictures?

Nope, here's what I have
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/imagehosting/thum_16234e7b90b3428f4.jpg (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2190)
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/imagehosting/thum_16234e7b90d0c4f49.jpg (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2191)
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/imagehosting/thum_16234e7b90f9d2bab.jpg (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2192)http://castboolits.gunloads.com/imagehosting/thum_16234e7b910f28f6f.jpg (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2193)

[motorcycle_dan]

Is it proper to call this a "number 7" Gunbroker has one currently on auction calling it a Number 7, a conversion done by Navy Arms.

[Multigunner]

Is it proper to call this a "number 7" Gunbroker has one currently on auction calling it a Number 7, a conversion done by Navy Arms.

Call it what you like, there was no military version of this particular carbine conversion.
A similar .303 carbine on the SMLE style Lithgow No.1 action was built in test quantities by Australia but not adopted. There were several variations, mainly differing in the placement of the rear sight.

The British did build a very few shortened SMLE rifles for various purposes, a few believed built as cadet rifles have shown up from time to time. Something similar to the Krag "School Rifle".
Field modified SMLE rifles for use by tunneling parties during WW1 have also been writen of, some no bigger than the smoke grenade dischargers used by some armored vehicles during WW2, others were in a carbine configuration similar in size to the carbine under discussion but without flash hider.

Some P-14 and M1917 rifles were cut down to about the same OAL as the No.5 carbine , the shortened P-14 tested before WW2 and a near identical shortened M1917 produced in the India/ China/ Burma theatre during WW2 for use by smaller statured Chinese soldiers, at least in training camps. No flash flash hider for these, barrel length was around 21-22 inches with fore end and bayonet lug set back along with the front sight.
A couple of the test models of cut down P-14 rifles had folding bayonets similar to that of the Carcano carbines.

Before the No.5 carbine design was completed a number of shortened No.4 rifles were tested. These had the regular No.4 style butt stock, fore end was pretty much the same as that of the early No.5 fore ends, no flash hider, the No.4 front sight set back, they mocked up No.4 style bayonet lugs for the tests, the cut down barrel wasn't thick enough to recut proper lugs so they built up the lugs by brazing. Had new barrels been produced they would have milled proper bayonet lugs for these.


PS
The stories of poor quality Indian steel probably started when India substuted an alloy called SWES48 for the British Standard Chrome Nickel alloy previously used to make the SMLE rifles.
After an unacceptable high percentage of warped or broken actionbodies during proof testing India downgraded its proof testing procedure, using a single dry proof load rather than the previous one dry and one oiled proof firing.
By the early 1960's India had settled on a new alloy with a European Standard EN number. This may be the Chrome Vanadium steel mentioned in some articles on the 2A rifle. Vanadium steel alloys were developed for the suspension systems of heavy trucks and railroad rolling stock. The superior alloy and some alterations in the manufacturing process produced a much stronger action, suited to the standardized 7.62 infantry ball, equivalent to the U S 7.62 M80 ball.
The Standard 7.62 infantry ball generates aprox 48,000 CUP as opposed to 45,400 CUP for the .303 MkVII ammunition. Indian 7.62 M80 ball as still manufactured generates the same 48,000 CUP or 50,000 PSI EPVAT.

Attempts to convert standard SMLE rifles to 7.62 NATO have always ended poorly, the bolt being the first thing to show increasing degradation. The tested rifles didn't blow up on the first few shots but headspace increased till the rifles became unsafe to fire.So I'd not trust using an SMLE bolt body as a replacement for a lost 2A bolt.

This is where much confusion about such conversions comes from. A rifle does not have to blow up like a pipe bomb during proof testing for that rifle to be unsafe for the cartridge.
Most reasonably well designed centerfire rifles can withstand quite a few overloads before damage builds up to where the shooter can see it.
A rifle that will hold up to only a couple of thousand rounds before becoming unusable would not be a good choice for arming an army. The rifle must hold up to many thousands of rounds under the worst conditions, and if rebarreled and otherwise serviced its main load bearing structures may then hold up to hundreds of thousands of rounds over a decades long service life.

Cartridge specifications include maximum deviation figures, a M80 Ball cartridge can generate 53,000 CUP and still be within the acceptable maximum deviation for that cartridge. The M118 Special Ball 7.62 cartridge has a working pressure of 52,000 CUP, but a Max deviation of 57,000 CUP. So a M118 cartridge degraded by poor storage though still within acceptable standards could subject a rifle to pressures 9,000 CUP higher than the working pressure the rifle was intended for, a more than 18% overload. The rifle might hold up to many rounds of M118 that stay at the average working pressure, but a few hundred, or even a few dozen, rounds that generate the maximum deviation pressure could damage the rifle beyond repair.

[303Guy]

The problem with calling them No7's is that the name is already taken.

After the Second World War, the Rifle, No. 7, Rifle, No. 8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No.8_rifle) and Rifle, No. 9, all .22 rimfire trainers and/or target rifles based on the Lee action, But like everything else, correctness is not going to over-rule popularity. So I suppose 'No. 7 Jungle Carbine' is what it will be known as. Maybe it comes from shortening the correct name 'Rifle 7.62mm 2A1' ?

[Ed in North Texas]

So my question, is it acceptable to use any bolt from a 7.62mm 2A or 2A1 rifle. Would appreciate if anyone had a line on a source.

If you are asking if a No.1 Mark III bolt can be used in the 2A/2A1 rifles, my answer would be I wouldn't use one. I believe the steel for the bolt, as well as the receiver, is different, and the extractor for a rimmed cartridge is different than that for a rimless (.303 vs 7.62).

If you are asking if the bolt from a 2A can be used in a 2A1, the answer is yes, assuming headspace isn't a problem with the particular bolt. I don't know if bolt heads are still available for the 2A rifles, though I think some folks believe the No 1 Mark III bolt heads will work. I don't know that and would not recommend it without talking to a gunsmith with real knowledge - or maybe the folks at Springfield Sporters.

[303Guy]

At very least, I wouldn't load to 308 pressures using a SMLE bolt. If it's going to be used for cast boolits then that's not an issue. The SMLE extractor can work on a 308 case as is. Actually, some of them won't work in other 303 Lee Enfields. It depends on the extractor groove and the extractor itself. It's not difficult to make an extractor claw. Gauge plate is one suitable material that can be used.

[CLAYPOOL]

I would think some more about this...I do every thing in life for the people that may use what ever I am doing or fixing later on and not know what is dangerous or NOT.. SO don't scrimp or take any short cuts..it may hurt some one you love when you ain't here no more

[303Guy]

not know what is dangerous or NOT.. SO don't scrimp or take any short cuts..it may hurt some one you love when you ain't here no more Very good point!

[Ed in North Texas]

Very good point!

Roger that. I was just thinking about safety today, as I read in SGN (I think it was) about a good price on Bulgarian 7.62x25 milsurp. I thought "If I get a case of that, I'd have to leave notes all over it that it was to be used in the CZ 52s but NEVER in the Broomhandles. I know better, and my sons should know better (first mistake is taking that for granted), but the Grandsons could be inheriting some of the ammo, along with the pistols.

Plan ahead for safety.

[Dead Dog Jack]

So my question, is it acceptable to use any bolt from a 7.62mm 2A or 2A1 rifle. Would appreciate if anyone had a line on a source.


Neither Stratton, Skennerton, nor Edwards specifically say the bolt was of different metallurgy. They do say the receiver was of higher grade steel (EN), but don't say the bolt was.

Edwards says: "The bolt body, bolt head, cocking piece, striker, and mainspring are standard Mk3* parts." Just the extractor is different.

Stratton says the bolt body remained unchanged throughout its service life.

[Multigunner]

Neither Stratton, Skennerton, nor Edwards specifically say the bolt was of different metallurgy. They do say the receiver was of higher grade steel (EN), but don't say the bolt was.

Edwards says: "The bolt body, bolt head, cocking piece, striker, and mainspring are standard Mk3* parts." Just the extractor is different.

Stratton says the bolt body remained unchanged throughout its service life.

Since India switched alloys twice before the 2A rifles came out, and the SWES48 alloy was proven to be substandard compared to the earlier Chrome Nickel alloy used by the British I'd find it hard to believe that they would upgrade the receiver alloy but continue using the older British Nickel steel alloy for the bolt.

It is not unlikely that unused SMLE replacement bolt bodies were sometimes used in repairs, theres no visible difference in the bolt bodies. I've seen more than enough damaged .303 SMLE bolts that at worse were subjected to unsuitable Machine gun ammo or degraded cartridges to believe that the SMLE bolts would be suited to the higher pressure of M80 Ball which generates about the same pressure as .303 MkVIIIz.
Some SMLE rifles seem to hold up fine to MkVIIIz ammo, others haven't held up nearly as well. The quality of the ammo is probably the deciding factor.

[Dead Dog Jack]

I'd find it hard to believe that they would upgrade the receiver alloy but continue using the older British Nickel steel alloy for the bolt.


I tend to agree with you as it seems logical. But, for some reason, none of those sources mention it.

[303Guy]

I've seen more than enough damaged .303 SMLE bolts that at worse were subjected to unsuitable Machine gun ammo or degraded cartridgesI've only heard of bolts buckling up like a cobra in the event of catastrophic failure and locking lug recesses setting back with overloads (seen one of those - the bolt started locking up on the peening) but not heard of the bolt itself getting damaged from overloads. Lack of evidence is not proof! Just saying I haven't heard not that it doesn't happen.

[Multigunner]

I've only heard of bolts buckling up like a cobra in the event of catastrophic failure and locking lug recesses setting back with overloads (seen one of those - the bolt started locking up on the peening) but not heard of the bolt itself getting damaged from overloads. Lack of evidence is not proof! Just saying I haven't heard not that it doesn't happen.

I've read that P O Ackley tested an SMLE in a .303 Ackley Improved chambering. The bolt was not holding up to the loads found safe in a p-14 so he decided to test that SMLE action to destruction.
The pattern of failure has been noted by others as well.

Heres what I remember from several sources, including Ackley's experiment.

First the bolt body becomes compressed (one such from an Indian SMLE I examined showed ripples in the bolt body ahead of the lugs) then the bolthead becomes loose and tilts. The bolt Body then starts to bend to the right till impossible to retract.
These were results of deliberate overloads in a cartridge the SMLE was not considered suitable for to begin with. Cartridges Ackley used had progressively heavier powder charges.
No.4 rifles that failed reproof after conversion to 7.62 NATO were usually condemned due to the bolt body or action body warping enough to cause difficulty in opening the action.


Bolthead failures are a different story. These are usually the result of a burst case head, high temperature gas being funneled into the opening in the extractor lug.
If Headspace is excessive even a standard pressure cartridge can burst, Cord Worn chambers are another culprit leaving the case with less support on the worn side which is usually the righthand side ahead of the extractor.
Bent bolt bodies were mentioned in some Lee Enfield failures I looked into in old records. You have to dig deep to find solid information on failures of military rifle actions, the exception being the notes reproduced by Hatcher in his study of the failures of Low Number Springfield receivers, and the uproar in the German press over accidents involving early production GEW88 rifles.

[303Guy]

Very interesting! Thanks for that, Multigunner. I'm a little puzzled by the 'bending to the right'. Is that due to the bolt head being unsupported in the body? I would have expected the bolt to buckle inward toward the left then outward toward the right in a kinda 'S' bend. I wish these guys had digital camera's in those times so's we could all see the results of their tests!

[Four Fingers of Death]

The two rifles shown differ from the Jungle Carbine in that the wood comes further up the barrel, or thats how it seems to me. The wood in relation to the barrel doesn't seem balanced.

The stock also isn't the short one with the rubber pad which also adds to the lack of balance as opposed to the Jungle Carbine. The no4 and the Jungle Carbine are poetry in motion as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure it wasn't planned as such, but it looks like the appearance was an important factor in the design of both weapons. They sure look the goods!

Good luck with the bits, I hope you didn't pay too much for the boltless, magazineless 'rifle.' It will be a good serviceable rifle if you can get her percolating. It sure needs a few edges rounded off and finished though. I would have to try and get a Jungle carbinee butt and stock (they are being re-produced) and I'd be trimming back that forend and top wood to improve the balance.

[Dead Dog Jack]

Very interesting! Thanks for that, Multigunner. I'm a little puzzled by the 'bending to the right'. Is that due to the bolt head being unsupported in the body? I would have expected the bolt to buckle inward toward the left then outward toward the right in a kinda 'S' bend. I wish these guys had digital camera's in those times so's we could all see the results of their tests!


I'm right there with 303Guy. It would seem that the bolt head would bend to the left, being it is unsupported by the rail on that side.

[Multigunner]

I'm right there with 303Guy. It would seem that the bolt head would bend to the left, being it is unsupported by the rail on that side.
The SMLE Bolthead is not supported in the same manner as the No.4 bolthead, one type extractor lug guide is male the other female. Best I can describe it. Neither guide rail provides that much in the way of support in either case.
The extractor/guide lug of the bolt head does not normally contact the guide rib of the boltbody, so theres no bracing action there. Should the bolt head tilt far enough to touch the bolt guide rib that would limit further movement, but by then you probably couldn't close the action on a live round unless the action was already toast due to greatly increased head space.


By bending to the right I mean the shooters right hand side where the action is wide open for the ejection of the spent cases.
The Bolt Body can't move to the left because of the solid lefthand receiver wall. Same goes for the tilt of a bolthead.
Several Enfields I've examined showed a deep indentation where the lefthand rear shoulder of a bolthead had dug into the left hand track in the receiver wall under excessive back thrust (wet or greasy ammo like as not). The bolt head could not tilt or shift any further to the left.

When a bolt head has begun to tilt theres usually a peened ridge forming on the right hand side of the mating shoulder of the bolt body.

Some boltheads got a tilted boltface surface due to careless stoning to fit an overlong replacement bolt head (not all armorers were on the ball 24/7). But if theres any sign of tilted boltface on fired cartridges one should cheack the mating shoulder of the bolt body, and for signs of bulging of the bolt head sides especially near the mating shoulder.
Excessive wear to the threads in the bolt body (mainly due to fine grit getting inside) can also cause some tilt, as the strong extractor spring pressure pushes the bolt head to the right.
This spring pressure also causes the threads to wear more on the right side.

Up to WW1 the case hardened Maleable White Cast iron (no.34 Gun Iron) bolthead was the most common. While not as strong as steel these were far less likely to fracture, they would deform before breaking, unless a burst case cut into it with hot gases at well over 4,000 degrees.
The cast iron bolthead could shear off under side forces as the fit became extremely loose or a bolt body collapsed behind it.

The British used Nickel Steel for action bodies because these alloys have excellent recovery from stretching forces, the action body stretches a tiny bit on every shot but springs back. The open right side and sturdy left wall makes the stretching and recovery action unequal which resulted in bullet throw to the left. The front sight base is offset to the left to compensate.

The only real weak spot in the SMLE action body is where it was milled and drilled to accomodate the charger guide bridge.
Instructions to armorers state that action bodies with loose charger guides should be scrapped, a loose bridge being a sign of cracking near the rivet holes which are very close to the left hand locking recess. Spreading and flexing of the rear side walls and mag opening rails can also loosen the bridge and would be a sign the rifle had been subjected to excessive pressures or back thrust.

Excessive flexing of the rear side walls has been given as the cause of the "Wandering zero" problem of some No.5 Carbines. Not all No.5 Carbines had this problem, so I suspect that those that did suffered from a manufacturing related flaw rather than a design flaw. The lightening cuts wouldn't cause sidewall flexing near as I can tell. Since the No.4 and No.5 don't have the add on charger guide like the SMLE theres no weakening affect from that, and the sidewalls are much more substantial than those of the SMLE. The No.5 lighter action body would not handle the heat of long strings of rapid fire in tropical climates as well as the No.4 action body, there being less metal to absorb the same amount of heat.
When fired till extremely hot the rear sidewalls of the No.5 could flex enough to shear through the rear sight pivot shaft key pin.

I've read that the side walls of the 2A action body are slightly thicker than those of the SMLE, if so thats bound to help.
Vanadium Steels are said to be easier to machine than most other alloys, so I suspect this would help prevent stress fractures by not giving them a place to start like a microscopic gouge or too sharp corner in the milled track of the bolt latch spring.

A higher velocity light weight bullet such as the M80 Ball would also shorten the barrel time, reducing the length of time the action was under pressure. I suspect there would also be less throw to the left.

I find no reason to believe that the No.4 action in good condition couldn't handle the standardized 7.62 NATO infantry ball, Same goes for the 2A, but theres quite a few 7.62 and .308 loads that greatly surpass the pressure levels of the M80 Ball cartridge.
The British NRA appears to agree with me on this, and requires reproofing of No.4 actions converted to 7.62 or .308 if the owner wishes to use the NRA supplied Long Range Match ammunition.
Enfield manufactured Enforcer rifles (and a few others) built from the ground up as .308 rifles are exempt from the re proofing requirement so long as they retain the original barrel and proof marks and are otherwise unaltered. These being built on carefully tested actions with more parts rejected than were used in manufacture.

[SharpsShooter]

This is yet another reason I love this place...fascinating amounts of information.

SS