Found an Ishapore Enfield 7.62 NATO

[Brother_Love]

I ran across it in a pawn shop today. It has the nicest black paint I've ever seen on one of these. The bore is good, receiver and bolt numbers match. It has not been Bubba'ed at all. He told me $199 and I told him to give me an hour or two.

I have not seen any of these lately so I do not know what the current values are. GB is no help. What say you?

Thanks, Malcolm

[Brother_Love]

Never mind, I got. I could not stop myself!!!!

[Artful]

I'd say you done good!

[Scharfschuetze]

Good on you Brother. Let's see a photo or two.

Enfields have always interested me. From the Boar War to current times, they've seen the Elephant. I guess only Antarctica and South America are the only continents not graced by their presence.

The last ones that I saw in use were in Bangladesh a couple of years ago. I saw both the No 1 Mk III and the No 4 there.

[starmac]

I'm not sure what you hesitated for 200, bucks for a 308 sounds good to my way of thinking. I picked up an old /06 for 200 bucks today and if it turns out to be a shooter, I will be stoked.

[docone31]

They are real precise with a reciever sight and standard front sight. They paper patch real well also.
I love them.

[reloader762]

You did good on the price, on-line auctions have been higher (data here (http://www.gunstockmarket.net/sales.php?firearm=5&searchwords=7.62&excludewords=)) plus shipping, etc.

[felix]

Mine is a #5 Jungle. Nato chamber type for sure, so expect a compressed bolt or a full military chamber. This means low velocity rounds fired results in cases too long for resizing back to SAAMI. ... felix

[FLINTNFIRE]

Bought some of them back when they were plentiful , kind of goes along with the other .303 enfields , in the closet.

[Artful]

I guess only Antarctica and South America are the only continents not graced by their presence.

Shackleton in The Heart of the Antarctic, in which some variation occurs.

Importantly, in this list, suppliers are noted where known.

It mentions:

.45 Revolver

.32 Revolver

.303 Rifle

12 Gauge Shotgun


Full list here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/9680441/Shackleton-Expedition-Food-List

[Mk42gunner]

On mine, which I paid $149.00 for several years ago, the chamber isn't way oversized. The origin of the rifling is way, way out there though. I have about .250" difference between it and the Parker-Hale Mauser barrel that I shoot most.

Robert

[Gray Fox]

I Got one of those a couple of months ago and it came in the ATI black composite stock. I ordered and installed the Mojo aperture sight in place of the issue rear sight. After several applications of the Outers foam bore cleaner over a couple of night and some new bore brushes there is a very nice bore there. It is a tighter fit at the muzzle with the Lee 200 grain bore rider than a Savage 99C .308 I recently picked up.

Both of them are finally going to the range tomorrow so I'm hoping for good things from both of them. GF

[BruceB]

It was my firm belief, years ago, that nothing could be "homelier" than a #1 MkIII SMLE.

Then.... I met the Ishapore .308/7.62 NATO rifles.

I've avoided adding one to my motley crew, since FOUR .303 rifles fill that gap rather well. The four .303 rifles are a pretty motley bunch all by themselves:

-a 1914-dated custom #1 MkIII with its original barrel, Lyman 48 sight, and beautifully-built into an African-style sporter which I love dearly;

-a 1955 Fazakerley #4, as-new with a Parker-Hale match sight;

-a 1943 Long Branch #4, another as-new recent addition to fill a hole that's existed since I was issued a similar #4 in 1958 (#85L7408.... reward offered);

...and the newest of my .303 rifles, the Ruger #1. The .303 seems a perfect match for the design/style of the "Victorian" Number One Rifle.

After many decades' experience, I find that the .303 is the full equal of the .308 Winchester, and that is a very fine neighborhood to call home. The cartridge has certainly served me well, up to and including clean kills on several moose and some other critters.

[bob208]

you did good. i got mine for $130 when they first came in. i shoot it more then my other enfields they don't have the headspace problems. .308 and cast seam to go together.

[Hardcast416taylor]

I also got one of the first entries into the country, seems like I paid about $120 for it cosmoline and all. After 2 nights of cleaning off enough cosmoline to preserve a Sherman tank I got down to a nice bore and fairly nice wood. Turned out to be a good shooter. Even if you wanted to, you can`t confuse the magazines of this Enfield with a .303 Enfield.Robert

[Multigunner]

I prefer the .303 to the .308. Some .308 loads are ballistically superior to the hottest .303 loads, but this comes at a price, significantly higher chamber pressure.
The 2A rifles were designed to use the equivalent of NATO M80 Ball ammo, its best to use nothing hotter.

[Brother_Love]

Guys,
I was not insinuating that the 2A was a better rifle/round than the .303. I have a #5 .303 that I love to shoot. I was kinda proud of this nice specimen of a 2A I had found. BTW, it is going to be a cast boolit shooter.
Thanks, Malcolm

[Multigunner]

Guys,
I was not insinuating that the 2A was a better rifle/round than the .303. I have a #5 .303 that I love to shoot. I was kinda proud of this nice specimen of a 2A I had found. BTW, it is going to be a cast boolit shooter.
Thanks, Malcolm

While I'm not enthusiastic about 7.62 Enfields, either 2A or the converted No.4, I would not mind having a 2A with good headspace, so long as I had a good supply of fresh M80 Ball or a commercial .308 with a known chamber pressure that was no higher than 48,000 CUP.
The rifles served their purpose well, so long as they were fed good ammo. Some truly dismal 7.62 NATO ammo has appeared on the market now and then. enough so that I'm leery of investing in any 7.62 bolt action rifle, Mauser as well as Enfield, unless fresh ammo of known quality is available at reasonable prices.

[Ed in North Texas]

Mine is a #5 Jungle. Nato chamber type for sure, so expect a compressed bolt or a full military chamber. This means low velocity rounds fired results in cases too long for resizing back to SAAMI. ... felix

Is that a 2A/2A1 converted to #5 Jungle carbine configuration by the importer (or someone else)? Or are you saying that you have a SMLE #5?

[Fishman]

I had one that cost $69 from the importer in the mid-90's as I recall. Still had the numbers painted on the stock. Traded it for $90 in about 2001 in a rampant fit of stupidity. I really have no idea what I was thinking.

I have one of the Enfields converted to .410 in India that is unfired. Every time I think about selling it, I remember the Ishapore. Thing is, I like actually shooting my old military guns.

$200 for a nice milsurp with a 10 round mag of .308? What's not to like? You did very well.

[WILCO]

$200 for a nice milsurp with a 10 round mag of .308? What's not to like? You did very well.

Ditto for me! Well done.

[FLINTNFIRE]

You did do good , I like all my enfields , I bought one of those once just to give to a friend who had a stash of .308 from when he sold his semi auto , it was cheap at a gun show and he was looking at the gibbs (i think) versions , on a side note I also ended up with one of those without a magazine , had one on order from j&g sales for a year then they refunded money , was in gun shop about a month ago and they had a couple of them , now it has a magazine .
They make fine cast shooters ,just like there .303 cousins they may not be the pretty one in the rack , but they are rough and tumble every day working mans rifles.

[felix]

Get back to you later, Ed. Don't know where the gun is right now. The kids went shooting this morning, and who knows what they took, or whose house the gun is residing. Actually, the kids, actually a group called the Fellas, go to the gun shows with pockets full of cash. The mode of operandi is to look at the military ammo prices, and buy the guns to match. They traded off a worn out AK and remaining ammo for a three for one profit a couple of months ago at a gun show. They got a new original Bushmaster and 5K of (Tula) rounds for the total cash received, or something like that from someone they knew (connections). ... felix

[felix]

It's a 2A1 model with crown on action. Has flash hider, exactly like the #5. USA Importer stamp is on barrel at muzzle. ... felix

[cheese1566]

You did good!
Mine was dismal in finish so made a project out of it.

Be sure to check your headspace. Mine is excessive so I went to cast/Unique loads only and use a Lee collet die to neck size only. Since it was a project, I did not hesitate in adding a Williams peep sight on the rear. Sure makes it fun to shoot and heads turn at the range. I can shoot it all day long and never get a sore shoulder.

Have fun with it!

[Buzzard II]

Good for you! I would have bought it at that price too!

[Southerngunner]

Congratulations on your Ishapore ,I found a nice example myself about a month ago, all numbers matched and it apears to be unfired.725937259472595
I am waiting on some 30 cal gas checks so I can get this one out and shoot it. I know its not an original Jungle Carbine but I am very pleased with what it is.8-):-D

[Mk42gunner]

I have to say that is the best looking 2A1 I have ever seen. Nice first post, by the way.

I may have to strip and refinish the wood on mine this summer.

Robert

[Multigunner]

Remember that milspec headspace standards for the 7.62 exceed the SAAMI standards for .308 Winchester.
The cartridge cases are externally interchangeable, but milspec cases are most often thicker above the web and designed to remain safe in worn rifles with slightly oversize chambers and generous headspace.
Most commercial .308 ammo has a fairly study case but some may not because it isn't always called for in a cartridge intended for sporting rifles with reasonably tight chambers and SAAMI spec headspace.

There was a problem with some Remington manufacture .308 rifles when non U S 7.62 NATO ammo was used. The Remington chambers left a fairly tight throat and milspec chambers use a longer throat to compensate for variations in the ogive of military FMJ bullets from a great many manufacturers, some of which had pretty loose tolerances and worn machinery.
Bullets with a fat ogive (I have some Belgian .303 long range MG ammo with fat ogive boat tail bullets)could reach too far into the throat and cause increased pressures. Can't say from personal experience but I've heard that this caused a few Remington 788 bolt handles to snap off when trying to open the action on a stuck cartridge.
When I bought my 788 in .243 it was because no gunshops near here would carry the 788 in .308 due to warnings they got from Remington about using 7.62 NATO ammo. Same happened when I asked about using 7.62 NATO in a Remington 600 carbine in .308. The shop owner said he would not sell the single 600 in .308 he had to anyone who he thought would try to use 7.62 ammo in it.

This was about the time when Federal had a voluntary recall of .303 British hunting ammo due to a fatal accident involving an Enfield with badly worn chamber.
There were rumours of similar accidents involving .308 rifles and 7.62 ammo, but no one ever gave any details on these.

Firing a .308 Win cartridge in a 7.62 rifle with near new but generous sized milspec chamber is like firing it in a badly worn .308 rifle. A badly worn chamber that was oversized to begin with combined with excessive headspace can be bad news.

I've heard two differing accounts on the 2A and L42 rifle headspace tolerances. Some claimed these were supposed to meet SAAMI specs while others claimed they used the wider milspec. I suspect that there's some of each according to when they were manufactured.

I've run across several reports of 2A rifles with out of the round chambers and at least two incidents of blown caseheads with injuries when commercial .308 ammo was used.

[Outpost75]

My experience has been that the 7.62mm conversions don't feed as reliably as rifles in the original .303 calibre.

If your Ishy feed well then there are not issues.

For my own bush rifles I have stayed with .72672303

[Gray Fox]

I took my 2A1 in the ATI stock with the Mojo peep site on it to the range last week and had very good results. It had taken several applications of the Boreslick foaming bore cleaner and lots of patches and brushing, but there was a nice bore under the crud. I made up some moderate loads of Win 748 with LC 7.62 brass and some pulled 147 grain FNJs I got from folks here on the site. Got 1/2" or so groups off the bench at 50 yards and chased tennis balls around on the berm at about 110 yards. Next time I'll take a second target holder and see what it and my old eyes can do at 100. I was shooting several guns and didn't want to move the target holder from the 500 yard line. GF

[Ed in North Texas]

My experience has been that the 7.62mm conversions don't feed as reliably as rifles in the original .303 calibre.

If your Ishy feed well then there are not issues.

For my own bush rifles I have stayed with .72672303


The Ishapore 2A and 2A1 7.62 rifles are not conversions of .303 SMLE rifles. The Indians worked with the tooling they had at the Ishapore Arsenal to come up with a rifle they could safely issue while waiting for production of the FAL to ramp up. The general configuration would lead you to believe it is a No. 1 Mark III, which is what Ishapore had been making. But the action itself is redesigned, and made from different steel alloys, for the 7.62x51 NATO cartridge. With a Border war with China always just an incident away, the Indian military decided they needed as many rifles in 7.62 NATO as they could produce. The Ishapore 2A and 2A1 filled the gap until the FAL could be produced in sufficient numbers. With their original magazine, there usually are no feed problems with the 2A/2A1 rifles. The No. 4 SMLE conversions are a different issue.

[Multigunner]

The magazines and ejector method determines how reliably these 7.62 rifles will feed.
Some No.4 conversions have the ejector built into the magazine, don't know about the 2A.
Also the 2A was originally intended to have a twelve shot magazine, ten shot mags were substituted for rifles sold in the U S, some mags that come with the rifles are aftermarket manufacture of varying quality.

The .303 cartridge does all I'd want with a rifle of this sort. I prefer the rimmed cartridge for handloading.

[Mk42gunner]

You got me curious, I had to check the magazine capacity of my 2A1. In all the years I have owned this rifle, I have never actually filled the magazine.

With the original magazine, serial numbered to the rifle, it holds eleven rounds of 7.62 Nato. I have always heard 12, maybe that is supposed to be with a round in the chamber? Moot point, every 7.62mm stripper clip I have seen is five round.

Robert

[Southerngunner]

You got me curious, I had to check the magazine capacity of my 2A1. In all the years I have owned this rifle, I have never actually filled the magazine.

With the original magazine, serial numbered to the rifle, it holds eleven rounds of 7.62 Nato. I have always heard 12, maybe that is supposed to be with a round in the chamber? Moot point, every 7.62mm stripper clip I have seen is five round.

Robert

Thanks for the kind words about my Ishapore and my mag capacity is 12 rounds with a empty chamber. I do need to try and come up with one or two more mags.

Terry

[Ed in North Texas]

The magazines and ejector method determines how reliably these 7.62 rifles will feed.
Some No.4 conversions have the ejector built into the magazine, don't know about the 2A.
Also the 2A was originally intended to have a twelve shot magazine, ten shot mags were substituted for rifles sold in the U S, some mags that come with the rifles are aftermarket manufacture of varying quality.

The .303 cartridge does all I'd want with a rifle of this sort. I prefer the rimmed cartridge for handloading.

The two I bought had the 12 round mags, not the butchered mags. I always thought that 12 was a strange number as the 7.62 strippers are 5 round. Maybe some states required low capacity mags?

[Multigunner]

You got me curious, I had to check the magazine capacity of my 2A1. In all the years I have owned this rifle, I have never actually filled the magazine.

With the original magazine, serial numbered to the rifle, it holds eleven rounds of 7.62 Nato. I have always heard 12, maybe that is supposed to be with a round in the chamber? Moot point, every 7.62mm stripper clip I have seen is five round.

Robert

You may actually have a ten round magazine.
A friend told me his SMLE magazine would hold eleven rounds, but when I checked it with eleven rounds in place the top round would not budge when he tried to cycle the bolt.

Some ten round SMLE .303 mags are so loosely made that you can force an eleventh round in but its such a tight fit the top round won't feed. Same may be true of the ten round 2A mags.

The pre WW 1 long Lee Enfield or Lee Metford once had a twelve round magazine developed for it but they then went with the ten round mag as being more reliable.

[PS Paul]

I had one that cost $69 from the importer in the mid-90's as I recall. Still had the numbers painted on the stock. Traded it for $90 in about 2001 in a rampant fit of stupidity. I really have no idea what I was thinking.

I have one of the Enfields converted to .410 in India that is unfired. Every time I think about selling it, I remember the Ishapore. Thing is, I like actually shooting my old military guns.

$200 for a nice milsurp with a 10 round mag of .308? What's not to like? You did very well.

Look, man. we have ALL let go of things that would today give A LOT more than we paid for 'em! ha ha! Reminds me of the old SKS I bought for $50.00 and sold for $75.00 about 20 years ago! If only I could see into the future, eh? he he.

[ABluehound]

Enfields seem to have overpopulated in my home, the Enfield is a nice sturdy receiver that for a time was super cheap to get and tinker with and for that reason I have more of them than anything else. Years back I found the Reinland kit to convert them to shoot .45 ACP and got obsessed. I kept hunting for a basket case Bubba engineered monstrosity to do the conversion to. My curse was I would buy them, realize they were not as messed up as I thought and fixing them. Towards the end I was grabbing up 2A's and finally found one that I managed to overcome my fetish for restoring them and finished my project. I have not managed to get my hands on the .410 or the .45/70 versions though I would love to. I like both the .303 and the 7.62 NATO rifles almost equally, the only thing that really elevates my 2A above the others is the longevity of the .308 brass. Enjoy your 2A.

[Multigunner]

I've heard of 20 rnd mags for these fabricated from FAL or M-14 magazines.
There was a 20 or 25 rnd mag developed for the SMLE during WW1 but only a very few still exist.

[1500FPS]

The Ishapore 2A and 2A1 7.62 rifles are not conversions of .303 SMLE rifles. The Indians worked with the tooling they had at the Ishapore Arsenal to come up with a rifle they could safely issue while waiting for production of the FAL to ramp up. The general configuration would lead you to believe it is a No. 1 Mark III, which is what Ishapore had been making. But the action itself is redesigned, and made from different steel alloys, for the 7.62x51 NATO cartridge. With a Border war with China always just an incident away, the Indian military decided they needed as many rifles in 7.62 NATO as they could produce. The Ishapore 2A and 2A1 filled the gap until the FAL could be produced in sufficient numbers. With their original magazine, there usually are no feed problems with the 2A/2A1 rifles. The No. 4 SMLE conversions are a different issue.

From 1908 to 1950 all military bolt action rifles made at Ishapore were proof tested with a dry proof round followed by an oiled proof round. The proof cartridge was loaded to 24 tons (2240lbs = 1 ton) psi breech presure, or 25% higher than the service pressure.

In 1950 the material for rifle bodies (they made No.1 Mark 3* rifles; my addition) was altered from an EN steel to SWES 48 steel (not heat treated) except for the recoil shoulder and cam recess in the receiver. With this change the rifle receivers distorted when oiled proof cartridges were fired. This was discovered when hard and sometimes impossible bolt retraction was experienced. Large quantities of rifles were rejected. To avoid rejections the authorities ordered discontinuance of the oiled proof. Therefore from 1950 to the end of SMLE rifle production (June 1965) rifles made at Ishapore were proof tested with one dry proof only, although the specification called for both dry and oiled proof.

A bolt action rifle similar to the SMLE Mk. III*, modified to fire the 7.62 NATO cartridge was produced at Ishapore, first in February 1965. Their receivers were made of SWES 48 steel, un-heat-treated, and with the NATO proof cartridge receivers were found to distort with the oiled or the dry proof round! The material was changed to an EN steel so now the rifles stand up better to dry and oiled proof.

This suggests that the type of steel used in the 2A series of rifles was changed for a short period to SWES 48 but then changed back to an EN grade similar to the older No.1 MarkIII steel

[Ed in North Texas]

From 1908 to 1950 all military bolt action rifles made at Ishapore were proof tested with a dry proof round followed by an oiled proof round. The proof cartridge was loaded to 24 tons (2240lbs = 1 ton) psi breech presure, or 25% higher than the service pressure.

In 1950 the material for rifle bodies (they made No.1 Mark 3* rifles; my addition) was altered from an EN steel to SWES 48 steel (not heat treated) except for the recoil shoulder and cam recess in the receiver. With this change the rifle receivers distorted when oiled proof cartridges were fired. This was discovered when hard and sometimes impossible bolt retraction was experienced. Large quantities of rifles were rejected. To avoid rejections the authorities ordered discontinuance of the oiled proof. Therefore from 1950 to the end of SMLE rifle production (June 1965) rifles made at Ishapore were proof tested with one dry proof only, although the specification called for both dry and oiled proof.

A bolt action rifle similar to the SMLE Mk. III*, modified to fire the 7.62 NATO cartridge was produced at Ishapore, first in February 1965. Their receivers were made of SWES 48 steel, un-heat-treated, and with the NATO proof cartridge receivers were found to distort with the oiled or the dry proof round! The material was changed to an EN steel so now the rifles stand up better to dry and oiled proof.

This suggests that the type of steel used in the 2A series of rifles was changed for a short period to SWES 48 but then changed back to an EN grade similar to the older No.1 MarkIII steel

Good info is always better with a citation from where the information comes. I'd suspect the SWES 48 receivers did not make it to issue, though I obviously don't know that. Did the source happen to note the steel grade which was ""...similar to the older No. 1 Mark III steel.?

[1500FPS]

Good info is always better with a citation from where the information comes. I'd suspect the SWES 48 receivers did not make it to issue, though I obviously don't know that. Did the source happen to note the steel grade which was ""...similar to the older No. 1 Mark III steel.?

73811

[Multigunner]

I've tried to find out the exact steel used for the 2A rifles without success. Some EN steels (European Normal) are very much like the Nickel Steel used for the SMLE rifles, but the acceptable tolerance for variations in contents of alloying metals in the steel used for the SMLE is rather wide.
The Steel used for the M1917 rifle is also similar to the steel used for the SMLE but Nickel content is higher on average and acceptable tolerances are smaller.

The Steel used for the 2A might have the same alloy structure but still be stronger if there's a significant difference in the ores or the smelting processes.

Also I suspect that improved methods of machining improve durability. Many actions failures, of all types of actions including auto pistol slides , have been traced to receivers or bolts machined with sharp corners rather than small radiuses near load bearing structures. A too sharp angle promotes cracking at lugs and seats.
No.4 MkI* receivers converted to 7.62 NATO are said to have had fewer failures in re-proofing than No.4 MkI action bodies due to the milled cuts for the MkI style bolt release catch. When that cut has a sharp or undercut corner the action body may crack at that point.

To elaborate
You might convert fifty SMLE rifles to 7.62 NATO and find five that held up to proof testing at modern SAAMI pressure specs for the .308, theres that much variation in the alloy used when those rifles were made.
If the same tolerances were in effect during M1917 production you'd likely have had a high percentage of failures in proof testing at the 70-75,000 CUP specification for the .30-06.
British and NATO proof test pressure specs for 7.62 Enfield rifles in the 60's were far below those used today. Even then some converted 7.62 No.4 rifles that had passed .303 proof test failed re-proof at those levels.

[1500FPS]

I've tried to find out the exact steel used for the 2A rifles without success. Some EN steels (European Normal) are very much like the Nickel Steel used for the SMLE rifles, but the acceptable tolerance for variations in contents of alloying metals in the steel used for the SMLE is rather wide.
The Steel used for the M1917 rifle is also similar to the steel used for the SMLE but Nickel content is higher on average and acceptable tolerances are smaller.

The Steel used for the 2A might have the same alloy structure but still be stronger if there's a significant difference in the ores or the smelting processes.

Also I suspect that improved methods of machining improve durability. Many actions failures, of all types of actions including auto pistol slides , have been traced to receivers or bolts machined with sharp corners rather than small radiuses near load bearing structures. A too sharp angle promotes cracking at lugs and seats.
No.4 MkI* receivers converted to 7.62 NATO are said to have had fewer failures in re-proofing than No.4 MkI action bodies due to the milled cuts for the MkI style bolt release catch. When that cut has a sharp or undercut corner the action body may crack at that point.

To elaborate
You might convert fifty SMLE rifles to 7.62 NATO and find five that held up to proof testing at modern SAAMI pressure specs for the .308, theres that much variation in the alloy used when those rifles were made.
If the same tolerances were in effect during M1917 production you'd likely have had a high percentage of failures in proof testing at the 70-75,000 CUP specification for the .30-06.
British and NATO proof test pressure specs for 7.62 Enfield rifles in the 60's were far below those used today. Even then some converted 7.62 No.4 rifles that had passed .303 proof test failed re-proof at those levels.

Out of that book:

73846

73847

73848

[Multigunner]

Out of that book:
I've seen those pages and photos referred to many times, in Skennerton's books or articles, yet like so many other books on the subject they give no really usful information on the alloys actually used. I had to search long and hard to find the composition and percentages with tolerances for the SMLE, the M1917 alloy was much easier to find.

So far I've seen no explanation for the supposed substitution of Carbon Steel. The Enfields and Lee Metford before them always used a nickel steel alloy.

Heres the alloy used for the SMLE.
EN36
Body -- Steel. B.S.S.5005/401 -- Partially oil hardened, tempered and browned.

Iron based

Nickel 2.75 to 3.50 %

Manganese 0.35 to 0.75%

Chrome 0.30%

Carbon 0.25 to 0.35%


As for the 2A some believe they used this alloy

BS 970 655M13 (the upper number is the present British standard number for this alloy.
(EN36)
A high quality nickel chromium case hardening steel. Can be hardened to provide hard surface with a strong tough core. Used for high duty gears and shafts. Supplied in as-rolled condition in black square and round bar and bright round.

There are several Nickel Chrome alloy steels that have very similar numbers , EN361, EN36a, EN36C, etc.
Some of these are Chrome/Nickel/Manganese, while others are Chrome/Nickel/Molybdenum.
The EN361 has a much higher Nickel content.

Material designation: En 36
Diagram No.: 1337
B.S. designation: En 36
Chemical composition in weight %:
0.14% C,
0.19% Si,
0.46% Mn, 0.009% S, 0.006% P, 3.55% Ni,
1.11% Cr,
0.12% Mo

Steel group: Ni-Cr and Ni-Cr-Mo case hardening steels
Applications: No data
Comment: McQuaid Ehn grain size: 4-5 (ASTM), as quenched grain size: Finer than 8 (ASTM)
Source: J. Woolman and R.A. Mottram, The Mechanical and Physical Properties of The British Standard
EN Steels, Volume 2, The British Iron and Steel Research Association, A Pergamon Press Book,
New York, 1966, p.400.

Heat Treatment
End quench temperature: Curve A: 860 oC and Curve B: 770oC

http://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tables/Matter/Strength_st.htm

PS
Long before advertisements stated Chrome Vanadium steel was used I'd seen articles that stated the alloy was a Chrome Molybdenum steel.

[1500FPS]

Here are the Indian EN steels:


C Mn Si S P Cr Ni Mo
EN-8 .35 - .45 .60 - 1.00 .10 - .35 .050 MAX .050 MAX - - -
EN-8D .40 - .45 .70 - .90 .05 - .35 .060 MAX .060 MAX - - -
EN-9 .50 - .60 .50 - .80 .05 - .35 .040 MAX .040 MAX - - -
EN-15 .30 - .40 1.30 - 1.70 .10 - .35 .040 MAX .040 MAX - - -
EN-16 .30 - .40 1.30 - 1.80 .10 - .35 .040 .040 - - .20 - .30
EN-18 .35 - .45 .60 - .95 .10 - .35 .040 .040 .85 - 1.15 - -
EN-19 .35 - .45 .50 - .80 .10 - .35 .040 .040 .90 - 1.40 - .20 - .40
EN-24 .35 - .45 .45 - .70 .10 - .35 .040 .040 .90 - 1.40 1.30 - 1.80 .20 - .40
EN-25 .27 - .35 .50 - .70 .10 - .35 .040 .040 .50 - .80 2.30 - 2.80 .40 - .70
EN-31 .90 - 1.20 .30 - .75 .10 - .35 .040 .040 1.00 - 1.60 - -
EN-36B .12 - .18 .30 - .60 .10 - .35 .040 .040 .60 - 1.10 3.00 - 3.75
EN-36C .12 - .18 .30 - .60 .10 - .35 .040 .040 .60 - 1.10 3.00 - 3.75 .10 - .25
EN - 41B* .35 - .45 .60 MAX .10 - .45 .040 .040 1.50 - 1.80 .40 MAX .10 - .25
EN - 42 .70 - .85 .55 - .75 .10 - .40 .040 .040 - - -
EN - 45A .55 - .65 .70 - 1.00 1.70 - 2.0 .040 .040 - - -
EN - 47 .45 - .55 .50 - .80 .50 MAX .040 .040 .80 - 1.20 - -
EN - 48A .50 - .60 .60 - .90 1.35 - 1.65 .040 .040 .55 - .85 - -
EN - 353 .20 MAX .50 - 1.00 .35 MAX .040 .040 .75 - 1.25 1.00 - 1.50 .08 - .15
EN - 354 .20 MAX .50 - 1.00 .35 MAX .040 .040 .75 - 1.25 1.50 - 2.0 .10 - .20
16Mncr5 .14 - .19 1.00 -1.30 .15 - .40 .035 MAX .035 MAX .80- 1.10 - -
20Mncr5 .17 - .22 1.10 - 1.40 .10 - .35 .035 .035 1.00 - 1.30 - -
SAE - 4140 .38 - .43 .75 - 1.00 .20 - .35 .035 .035 .80 - 1.10 .15 - .25 -
SAE - 4150 .48 - .53 .75 - 1.00 .20 - .35 .040 .040 .80- 1.10 - .15 - .25
SAE -4320 .17 - .22 .45 - .65 .15 - .35 .035 MAX .040 MAX .40 - .60 1.65 -2.00 .20 - .30
SAE -4340 .38- .43 .60 - .80 .15 - .35 .035 MAX .040 MAX .70 - .90 1.65 -2.00 .20 - .30
SAE - 8620 .18 - .23 .70 - .90 .20 - .35 .040 .040 .40 - .60 .40 - .70 .15 - .25
SAE - 52100 .95 1.10 .25 - .40 .20 - .35 .025 .025 1.30 - 1.60 - -
F-22 .15 MAX .30 - .60 .40 MAX .040 .040 2.00 - 2.5 - .87 - 1.30
17crnimo6 .14 - .19 .40 - .60 .15 - .40 .035 MAX .035 MAX 1.50- 1.80 1.40 - 1.70 .25 - .35
A-105 .35 MAX .60 - 1.05 .35 MAX .050 MAX .040 MAX - - -
LF-2 .30 MAX .60 - 1.35 .15 - .30 .040 MAX .035 MAX - - -

Yes I've heard them using Chrome Molybdenum steel and Chrome Vanadium steel. Gary James always said they were chrome moly. I cannot nail the composition of SWES 48 steel steel down. I have read that it is not heat treated and from what I understand it was not very strong or hard for lack of a better description.

[Multigunner]

Thanks for posting these

The tolerance for Nickle content of the Steel used for the SMLE may be why these rifles proved unsuited to the 7.62 cartridge. The design of the Lee Enfield is up to it if a tough enough steel is used. Also many SMLE rifles used bolt heads of case hardened White Cast Iron, which is pretty tough stuff but malleable under extreme pressure. Its resistence to compression is very high but its shear strength is not that great.

Also SMLE bolt bodies were not made from the same alloy as the Action body.
From specifications in effect in 1938

"Bolt, Breech -- Steel. D.D.8 -- Oil-hardened, tempered, polished and browned or oil-blacked."

"If the bolt-head be made of mild steel it is to be marked with the letter "M" on the top of the wing."

The British metallurgists termed White Cast Iron as a Mild Steel as opposed to a carbon or alloy steel. In the U S mild steel is a low carbon steel rather than a cast iron. Just an odd difference in terminology, like they say "two nations divided by a common language".

NOTE: earlier specifications (S.A./242 for Rifle, Short, Magazine, Lee-Enfield (Mark 1). |C.|) 13th July 1903, called for the bolt-head to be made from malleable cast-iron, specifically 34F Special gun iron, case hardened."

Much of the strength of the 2A may be due to a stronger steel used for bolt body and bolt head.

[Artful]

Too bad the 2A wasn't made to use FAL mag's that would have been awesome. Wonder how hard it would be to retro fit one the use the FAL mags?

[Multigunner]

Too bad the 2A wasn't made to use FAL mag's that would have been awesome. Wonder how hard it would be to retro fit one the use the FAL mags?
Probably not that difficult. If you have one of each magazine handy try for some measurements.

From the photos in the book the large capacity magazine may interfere with firing from the prone position. A cut down 15 round mag might serve better.

PS
I just noticed that the cracks in the action body near the ejector screw and charger guide of the Converted No.1 rifles is the same type of cracks sometimes reported if you fired a SMLE very often with rain wet or oily .303 cartridges.

I've heard that the LE action body, without charger guide, was not noted for such cracking.
I suspect the rivet holes for attachment of the charger guide leave an avenue for crack propagation. The rivets are heat shrunk in place, so over heating during that process may have embrittled some action bodies at that point.

[1500FPS]

Thanks for posting these

The tolerance for Nickle content of the Steel used for the SMLE may be why these rifles proved unsuited to the 7.62 cartridge. The design of the Lee Enfield is up to it if a tough enough steel is used. Also many SMLE rifles used bolt heads of case hardened White Cast Iron, which is pretty tough stuff but malleable under extreme pressure. Its resistence to compression is very high but its shear strength is not that great.

Also SMLE bolt bodies were not made from the same alloy as the Action body.
From specifications in effect in 1938

"Bolt, Breech -- Steel. D.D.8 -- Oil-hardened, tempered, polished and browned or oil-blacked."

"If the bolt-head be made of mild steel it is to be marked with the letter "M" on the top of the wing."

The British metallurgists termed White Cast Iron as a Mild Steel as opposed to a carbon or alloy steel. In the U S mild steel is a low carbon steel rather than a cast iron. Just an odd difference in terminology, like they say "two nations divided by a common language".

NOTE: earlier specifications (S.A./242 for Rifle, Short, Magazine, Lee-Enfield (Mark 1). |C.|) 13th July 1903, called for the bolt-head to be made from malleable cast-iron, specifically 34F Special gun iron, case hardened."

Much of the strength of the 2A may be due to a stronger steel used for bolt body and bolt head.

You are welcomed. The data is out there, but one must really dig hard to find it.

I found the cast white steel interesting. Makes it more plausible now that the Japanese had a cast receiver in that one unusual Arisaka. Makes me wonder what type of cast alloy it was.

[45 2.1]

I found the cast white steel interesting. Makes it more plausible now that the Japanese had a cast receiver in that one unusual Arisaka. Makes me wonder what type of cast alloy it was.

It wouldn't matter too much as that particular model (from one particular arsenal) had the bolt lock into the barrel extension, not the receiver. The cast receiver just held the parts together and wasn't intended to nor did carry any stress.

[1500FPS]

It wouldn't matter too much as that particular model (from one particular arsenal) had the bolt lock into the barrel extension, not the receiver. The cast receiver just held the parts together and wasn't intended to nor did carry any stress.

Yes that is very correct. I was not talking about the cast receiver Arisaka in the sense of taking any stress only the fact that some are applauded, don't believe, refuse to accept it that the somewhat thought lowly cast iron was used in some modern firearms.

[1500FPS]

Multigunner,

It is very possible that SWES 48 alloy may be White Cast Iron. I am not saying that positively. Here is the chemical composition: hemical composition: C=2.5%, Mn=0.4%, Cr=17%, Si=1.3%, Ni+Cu=1.5%, Cr=1%,P=0.15%, S=0.15%, Mo=0.5%

[Multigunner]

Multigunner,

It is very possible that SWES 48 alloy may be White Cast Iron. I am not saying that positively. Here is the chemical composition: hemical composition: C=2.5%, Mn=0.4%, Cr=17%, Si=1.3%, Ni+Cu=1.5%, Cr=1%,P=0.15%, S=0.15%, Mo=0.5%

I don't think so.
Nickel Steel was chosen for the Lee Enfields because the alloy has remarkable ability to recover when stretched. Cast Iron, even White Cast Iron has no such property.

[1500FPS]

I'm just talking for the very very short while they tried SWES 48. They switched right away to a better alloy when they found out that SWES 48 wasn't any good for it. I sure would like to know what the composition of SWES 48 is.

[Ed in North Texas]

73811

Given that this is a British publication, were the Indians sharing information about their arms program with the Brits? Or were the Brits spying on the Indian Army? I could be mistaken, but didn't think there was any great love between India and Britain after partition and freedom.

[1500FPS]

Given that this is a British publication, were the Indians sharing information about their arms program with the Brits? Or were the Brits spying on the Indian Army? I could be mistaken, but didn't think there was any great love between India and Britain after partition and freedom.

I honestly don't know.

[Multigunner]

Given that this is a British publication, were the Indians sharing information about their arms program with the Brits? Or were the Brits spying on the Indian Army? I could be mistaken, but didn't think there was any great love between India and Britain after partition and freedom.
British arsenal personnel hung around for a couple of years to help the Indians get their ducks in a row. Also While India was not part of NATO they continued to help out their old allies in non combat roles, such as medical personnel and support during the Korean War.

Nothing the Indians had in the way of small arms was any sort of a secret. They still use many WW2 era British BREN Guns and their version of the FAL was a clone of the FN just as the British FN FAL was.
India used the STEN Gun quite a bit and its still in police inventory. Not sure if they ever used the Sterling.

[Ed in North Texas]

British arsenal personnel hung around for a couple of years to help the Indians get their ducks in a row. Also While India was not part of NATO they continued to help out their old allies in non combat roles, such as medical personnel and support during the Korean War.

Nothing the Indians had in the way of small arms was any sort of a secret. They still use many WW2 era British BREN Guns and their version of the FAL was a clone of the FN just as the British FN FAL was.
India used the STEN Gun quite a bit and its still in police inventory. Not sure if they ever used the Sterling.

But the '60s were somewhat after that time period. I can't remember whether India was a member of SEATO (obviously they couldn't be a North Atlantic Treaty Organization member). I guess their small arms development data wasn't considered classified in any way and was available to anyone who was interested.

[Multigunner]

IIRC India had contracted with Sterling for a large shipment of conversion kits to convert No.4 rifles to 7.62 NATO, then some sort of tiff developed over Sterling not being authorized to sell the Sterling SMG to India so India canceled the order.
I suspect most of the sterling No,4 conversion kits that hit the surplus market came from that canceled order.
India had used the SMLE style rifles almost exclusively but they had a stockpile of No.4 rifles and these were used by their Navy.
Pakistan manufactured the No.4 rifle under license, but I have not heard of any Paki No.4s being converted to 7.62.

PS
I don't think India was illegible for SEATO but was illegible for NATO membership. A number of NATO members are nations you might think would have been part of SEATO.
Its likely they chose to stay out of NATO due to political implications of their on going confrontations with Red China. If India had been part of NATO the border skirmishes with Red China could have triggered WW3.

[rjathon]

I saw one today that looks near perfect. it is the model where the barrel barely sticks out from the end. The shop is asking $499.

It was part of an estate.

[Ed in North Texas]

IIRC India had contracted with Sterling for a large shipment of conversion kits to convert No.4 rifles to 7.62 NATO, then some sort of tiff developed over Sterling not being authorized to sell the Sterling SMG to India so India canceled the order.
I suspect most of the sterling No,4 conversion kits that hit the surplus market came from that canceled order.
India had used the SMLE style rifles almost exclusively but they had a stockpile of No.4 rifles and these were used by their Navy.
Pakistan manufactured the No.4 rifle under license, but I have not heard of any Paki No.4s being converted to 7.62.

PS
I don't think India was illegible for SEATO but was illegible for NATO membership. A number of NATO members are nations you might think would have been part of SEATO.
Its likely they chose to stay out of NATO due to political implications of their on going confrontations with Red China. If India had been part of NATO the border skirmishes with Red China could have triggered WW3.

Now that you mention it, I seem to remember the Sterling No. 4 Conversion kits being advertised at least by one seller as being from a cancelled contract.

India wasn't eligible for SEATO, but neither was Pakistan and Pakistan (including East Pakistan back then) was a member, so I'm sure India could have been if they desired. I'm sure the ongoing border issues with China caused them to walk a fine diplomatic line at times.

[Artful]

Well found one for sale - says the bore is in good shape - exterior looks a little rough - asking $250- what's the group think, worth it or not?

It is a 1965, 2A, with a 800 M sight, and the bore is in V.G. condition, sharp rifling and shinny.
7461074611746127461374614746157461674617

[adrians]

I'd be tempted, :twisted:

[Artful]

Well, going to go see it Tuesday

[Petrol & Powder]

Shackleton in The Heart of the Antarctic, in which some variation occurs.

Importantly, in this list, suppliers are noted where known.

It mentions:

.45 Revolver

.32 Revolver

.303 Rifle

12 Gauge Shotgun


Full list here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/9680441/Shackleton-Expedition-Food-List

A few weeks ago I Read "Shackleton's Boat Journey" by Frank Worsley (The Captain of the Endurance).
One of the best accounts of real leadership I've ever read. The men left on Elephant Island likely made good use of that rifle while they awaited rescue.

[Artful]

Well, it came home with me, oozing cosmoline. Looks like awhile before it will be picture worthy.

[Petrol & Powder]

I like cosmoline, it beats the hell out of rust! Besides, removing it gives you a chance to examine your new toy.

A .308 Enfield is a solid tool, a little bit of history that you can hold in your hands and FUN!

And just for the record, I think that .308win / 7.62 NATO or whatever you want to call it, is just about the perfect do-all rifle cartridge (at least for me)
Cool!

[Artful]

Most of the cosmoline is mostly gone - Wow is the throat long on this thing - actually longer than Remington 700 PSS that was the previous record holder in my book. - Going to take it out next week and fire off some and see how it does. Before putting in anymore work on the wood.

[Scharfschuetze]

I picked this one up from a fellow in my battalion back in 1997 or so when he was retiring and wanted a cushion of cash and was selling of many of his weapons. While I've never shot reloads in it, it has an almost new bore and it will shoot the 168 grain M852 match ammo into 1 1/2 MOA with the issue sights for 10 shot groups off of a bench rest. It's also pretty well on zero wise. Case stretch as measured from the head to the shoulder is about .012 to .015 inches. I'm sure with lower pressure cast boolit loads it wouldn't be an issue, but for full power loads, I'll probably just stick to surplus military rounds. It's a lot of fun with M-80 ball on steel targets at distance.

[Multigunner]

I can't say from personal experience but I've heard military match competitors prefer to break the hold of neck sealants of milspec ammunition to reduce variations in pull strength due to hardened sealants.
I would hazard a guess that excessive pull at the neck would raise pressure significantly.

Just a theory but if using old milsurp ammo it might pay to use the same methods, seat the bullet just a hair deeper to break the seal, or pull and reseat before firing. It should reduce chamber pressure (and stress on the cases) while tightening groups. Might make reloading easier as well.

PS
Just watched a movie called "the Trench" set in 1916.
The rifles used were mostly No.1 MkIII but in the back ground you could pick out the squared front sight ears of the 2A or 2A1.

[Scharfschuetze]

Multigunner,

I've shot on several military teams and we never broke the seal on our issue ammo. We were required to shoot issue ammo in military and DCM/CMP Leg matches and at Camp Perry.

When we "Mexican matched" the M-118 SB rounds by pulling the GI bullet and replacing it with a 168 grain Match King (SMK) or equivalent, we then often broke the seal as you suggest to make the pulling of the military bullet easier. We used this enhanced ammo at civilian matches such as state championships and regional matches under NRA rules and not the military or DCM/CMP rules.

We generally swapped out projos with the M-118 Special Ball in the 80s and 90s as that ammo often needed some help in the accuracy department. Lot to lot variation also was a factor as some lots were MOA and some... weren't.

[Artful]

Man I suck at the old iron sights on this anymore. It seems to want to group if I can do my part. Scout Scope mount may be next stop

[Gray Fox]

The Mojo barrel mount aperture sight that replaces the issue notch rear sight is nice and helps the eyes tighten up the groups. Also, SARCO just got back in stock some nice 2A1 magazines. Mine came in last week. It is solidly made and sure looks as close to an original as you could find. GF

[adrians]

Man I suck at the old iron sights on this anymore. It seems to want to group if I can do my part. Scout Scope mount may be next stop

I know how ya feel ,my eyes don't care for irons anymore so I ran across an old Rawson aperture sight and for now anyways they are happy.
A scout set up will be next,,,:evil:

[0802]

Digging up this old thread in search of help on my 2A. She's really not a very good specimen, but I bought it to shoot. Lots of stock repairs some well done, some not.

I just completed a minor cleaning of this -- I bought it 10 years ago and then got busy with life. Shot it a couple times but never really cleaned the cosmoline out of it thoroughly. I've done that now and have found a problem with the rear site.

When I adjust the (303) sight, some of the lower end adjustments, 300-800 meters (or yards?), the sight elevation is from (sight) metal on (stock) wood not (sight) metal on (sight) metal contact. At 100 or 800+, the sight is properly metal on metal.

I'm sure this is wrong and not as designed. My question is if this is common, what has been done about it, and what you would do with it if it were yours? Part of me says to just take off a little of the wood so its metal on metal -- it's not a collector, but I don't want to harm it. Alternatively, I could just get a aftermarket peep sight as described earlier in this old thread.

I'll try to post a picture of this, but its really hard to photograph.

https://www.jpgbox.com/jpg/59798_600x400.jpg[/URL]

Photographing on the other side doesn't show anything, but I can look under there and verify with a light that the sight itself is NOT contacting the sight base.

[Mk42gunner]

Well I had fun rereading this old thread, thanks for bringing it to the front again. To answer your question:

In the condition it is, you are not going to hurt its value any by trimming a small amount of wood to make it useable. You bought it to shoot not as a "Preserve at all costs, even if it makes no sense relic."

Robert