Questions about SMLE No. 4s

[Naphtali]

- SMLE No. 4 Mk. 1, 1/2, Mk. 1/T, Mk. 2, and perhaps other variations use the same bolt head pattern. Mk. 1* uses a different pattern bolt head. While the Mk. 1 bolt had cannot be used on Mk. 1*s, can Mk. 1* bolt heads be used on Mk. 1s?

- Can No. 4s accept No. 3 magazines? If they cannot, please explain why not.

- While No. 4 magazines are detachable, the Mk. 2s from Long Branch (Canada) made in December 1954 I owned had sear/trigger springs that were so strong that magazine removal nearly required both hands and a tool. In World War II were No. 4 magazines routinely swapped out during firefights, or were magazines filled by way of 303 stripper clips - as were M1903s and M98Ks?

- What was the British army's expectation of the length of service life for No. 4 Magazine boxes? . . . for magazine follower springs?

[desi23]

Can't answer all your questions but I can say that standard British practice was to load the magazine in the rifle using stripper clips. Magazines were NOT normally removed except for cleaning or, if damaged, to be replaced. I have never run across anything that indicated a "service life" specification for mags.

I have sold off most of my Lee-Enfields but if my memory is right there are slight differences in the construction. The rib on the back of the mag is shorter on a No 4 than on a No 1. It is possible to modify the earlier mag so it will work in a No 4 but, as made, it will not work.

[leebuilder]

Like desi23 said mags were not to be removed unless for cleaning and the rifle is feed from the top with clips. There is footage of Canadians removing mags and topping up, they did what they had to do (MAPLE LEAF UP)
As for the bolt heads all no4 and no5 bolt heads are interchangeable, they time at different locations and come in different lenghts to stop at the proper headspace.
No1 and no4 mags are not all interchangable, it is not normal that they fit but some do. The no1 mag came in several variations as well, the older ones 3rd variation and below are quite rare and made for 215gr round nose bullits.
As for service life of mags and springs, i most likly think it was repair by replacement, the rejects repaired or disposed of. I keep many mags it is easier to keep switching out mags untill one fits good and works good. When you start bending and peening the mag lips you can quickly ruin them.
I have tons of info. Hope this helps any questions please ask.
be well

[Der Gebirgsjager]

The best thing you could do would be to get ahold of a copy of "The British Service Lee" by Ian Skennerton. It has many photos and technical descriptions of an almost bewildering number of Lee Enfield numbers and marks. In fact, it is one of those situations that one hardly knows how to answer some of your questions without more precise information. When you ask about L.E. Mark 1 and Mark 1* bolt heads are you referring to the generation of rifles that came in the very early 1900s, prior to WW I, like 1904, or do you actually mean the No.I Mk. III and III*s of WW I usage, of which many more were produced and which is the more commonly encountered? They are interchangeable, sort of. The magazines were not meant to be routinely removed, and were loaded with 5 rd. stripper clips, but there are some instances where the British soldier was issued two magazines. Some issues of the rifles had magazines serial numbered to the rifle, some did not. As time has passed and ownership by various countries and individuals has changed, it is now rare to find a rifle and magazine with matched numbers. It is not unusual to find magazines where the serial number, usually located on the back (latching) side has been struck out and renumbered. The observable difference between the magazine for the No.1 and No.4 rifles is that the No. 1's has a slightly longer ledge on which the magazine latch catches, below which is a curved flat spring that is riveted to the body, whereas the magazine for the No. 4 rifle has only the ledge. I am told that the No.1 magazine can be converted to fit the No. 4 rifle by removal of the spring and careful shortening of the ledge. I have not personally done that conversion, but in examining the parts believe it possible, although the sides of the No.1 magazine seem to be a bit more curved than that of the No.4's. Obviously, you couldn't go the other way, converting the magazine for a No.4 rifle to that of a No. I rifle without some very fancy gunsmithing as you'd have to increase the length of the ledge and add the spring. The magazines for both are becoming harder to get and more expensive in decent condition, and they seem to be running around $50 each. Lucky me--I've got about 10 of them salted away from "the good old days". I did buy a magazine from a fellow in Canada that was newly made and designed to fit both rifles, and it does work. However, it came without any packaging so I don't know where it was made, or by whom, but believe it was made in Canada. Returning to bolt heads, as stated by leebuilder, the threads on the No. I rifle's bolt head are timed to come up to fit the bolt body in perfect alignment to achieve proper headspace. When I was a student in a gunsmithing school I attempted to correct the headspace on a No. I Mk. III* rifle by swapping out bolt heads. An instructor who was still active outside the school in his own gunsmithing business brought in a 2 lb. coffee can of No. I bolt heads, and I spent an entire afternoon screwing them on and off the bolt body. Out of perhaps 100 bolt heads there were absolutely none that would do the job, some stopped half a revolution short of being snug against the bolt body and some stopped well past where they needed to be and if backed off left an exposed thread. Eventually I got the idea to change out the bolt body and ordered a dozen unissued parts from Springfield Sporters. A new body in combination with a used bolt head solved the problem. This is not a problem on the No.4 rifle which uses different bolt heads sized 0-3, but all are timed the same and just progressively a bit longer. As for your last question, about the expected service life of the magazine and springs, I have never read anything that specifically addressed the question. I believe they were replaced by Ordnance on an as-needed basis.

[tbx-4]

BTW, Lee Enfield No4 and later rifles are not SMLE's.

[robertbank]

- SMLE No. 4 Mk. 1, 1/2, Mk. 1/T, Mk. 2, and perhaps other variations use the same bolt head pattern. Mk. 1* uses a different pattern bolt head. While the Mk. 1 bolt had cannot be used on Mk. 1*s, can Mk. 1* bolt heads be used on Mk. 1s?

- Can No. 4s accept No. 3 magazines? If they cannot, please explain why not.

- While No. 4 magazines are detachable, the Mk. 2s from Long Branch (Canada) made in December 1954 I owned had sear/trigger springs that were so strong that magazine removal nearly required both hands and a tool. In World War II were No. 4 magazines routinely swapped out during firefights, or were magazines filled by way of 303 stripper clips - as were M1903s and M98Ks?

- What was the British army's expectation of the length of service life for No. 4 Magazine boxes? . . . for magazine follower springs?

SMLE and the #4 Rifle were both loaded with stripper clips or chargers as is the name applied by the Brits and Canadians. The magazines were never swapped out during fire fights.
The SMLE and the #4 Rifle are two different rifles.
The magazines were expected to last until they broke. When they did they got replaced. My 1950 magazine in my Longbranch is 65 years old and is good as new. Better than I but I do have 6 years on my rifle.

The Lee Enfields have an interesting history and there are several excellent books in print on the rifles. Wikepedia can give you a better idea of the various iterations of the rifles and who made and used them.

Take Care

Bob

[rondog]

Nope, the mags don't interchange. Built a little differently.

Oooo, look, I have a photo even.....

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b150/rinselman/guns/misc%20Enfields/enfieldmags.jpg

[W.R.Buchanan]

Also note on Rondog's photo above that the Stiffening Ribs on the sides of the mags go all the way to the bottom of the #1 mag and stop before the bottom of the #4 mag. This is the easiest way to tell them apart.

Randy

[Scharfschuetze]

I think that the biggest differences in the basic No 4 rifles were:

1. The Long Branch rifle from Canada has a simplified bolt removal procedure. It is as effective as the original design and it did away with the spring loaded plunger of the original No 4 design. A slot the length of the bolt head was milled in the right side bolt raceway to accomplish this.

2. The final No 4 Mk II version had a trigger that attached to the rifle's receiver and not the trigger guard/magazine housing. I believe it was more secure and less likely to change adjustment due to moisture in the stock.

3. Four marks of the rear sight, which can be found on any of the variants.

As noted by several members above, the Commonwealth armed forces were trained to use stripper clips instead of changing magazines. The first Lee-Metford and Lee-Enfield rifles actually had their magazines attached to the rifles with a small chain. That's the purpose of the little ring on the front of the trigger guard on many early Enfields.

Perhaps the users of the No 4 (T) sniper rifle and its 7.62 descendant used spare magazines as the Mk 32 scope on the rifles would preclude loading with stripper clips. I've never seen this mentioned in any text regarding these rifles though.

I saw private security forces using the No 4 in Central Asia just five years ago. They were using stripper clips and I never saw a spare magazine with their kit.

As far as sights go for the No 4 (excluding the No 4 (T) which had a MkI sight with the battle sight aperture milled off), there were three basic types. The Mk1 was machined steel with a screw adjustable elevation ladder of almost match grade quality. The Mk2 was just a flip over "L" with a short range aperture and a long range aperture much like the M16A1 rear sight. The Mk3 and Mk4 sights were stamped steel and elevated much like a US 1917 rear sight with a spring loaded lever providing the stops at the various range setting.

Those are the differences in the No 4 that I know of. No doubt there's a few more hidden in the weapons somewhere.

The concept of charging battle rifles via a detachable magazine really didn't take hold as doctrine or in practice until WWII with the BAR, M1 Carbine, STG 44, FG 42, etc.

You can see how serious the Brits were about the fitted magazines with this photo. Note the little chain keeping this magazine with this rifle and really precluding the use of magazines as we do today.

[Cottage Hill Bill]

Don't stop by here often, but saw this thread and decided to comment. I've been collecting, shooting and reloading for Lee-Enfields for over 40 years.
As stated above, magazines were not removed from the rifle except for cleaning. Loading was through 5-round chargers.
The rifle that has the rear sight forward of the receiver and where the woodwork goes all the way to the muzzle is a Rifle, Short, Magazine, Lee-Enfield (SMLE) Also known to the British as Rifle No.1 Mark I (or III). On the right side of the butt socket under the bolt handle will be the Royal Cypher (a crown with GR underneath). below that the manufacturer (BSA, LSA etc.), under that the model (MkI, MKI***, MkIII, MkIII* etc) standing for the mark. The * indicates a small change not significant enough to merit a new mark number. Below that will be the year of manufacture (1916, 1941 etc). The British made the SMLE from 1907 until 1941 or so. The Indians kept it in production in .303 or as the 2 or 2A in .308 until possibly as late as the 1980s.

The Rifle No.4 was a different beast. The rear sight is mounted on the receiver bridge at the rear of the action and the muzzle extends past the woodwork for several inches. The No.4 was taken into service in 1941. It was produced at Royal Ordnance Factory (ROF) Fazackerly, and ROF Maltby and Birmingham Small Arms (BSA) plant at Shirley in England, by Savage Arms in the US, at Long Branch, Ontario Canada and the Pakistan Ordnance Factory. The first version was the No.4 MkI, The No.4 MkI* incorporated a change to the way the bolt was removed. The No.4 Mk2 changed the attachment of the trigger from the trigger guard to the action body. The No4 Mk1/2 was a MkI converted to Mk2 specifications. A Mk1/3 was a MkI* converted to Mk2 specs. A No.4 MkI(T) was a rifle fitted with telescopic sight.

Virtually no No.1 (SMLE) parts are interchangeable with No.4s. All No.4s use the same bolt head. No.4 bolt heads came in different lengths as a means of controlling headspace. Bolts were numbered 0 through 3 with 0 being the shortest. Correcting a headspace issue with a Lee-Enfield is not a simple matter of swapping out a 0 for a 3. Go to one of the specialty Lee-Enfield forums as research the subject before messing about with headspace. There are wrong size headspace gauges easily available and a number of other issues to be understood such as bolt lug wear, action body strech and the fact that all bolt heads of the same number aren't the same size. In 40+ years and 200+ Lee-Enfields I have not yet had one out of headspace spec that wasn't so worn out as to be not safe to shoot.

Hope this helps with your question. The two best Lee-Enfield forums today are http://www.milsurps.com/forumdisplay.php?f=72 and http://forums.gunboards.com/forumdisplay.php?55-The-Lee-Enfield-Forum&

Some true Lee-Enfield experts on both of those sites and the folks there are very friendly and welcome new Lee-Enfield shooters.

[northmn]

My first deer rifle was a sporterized #4 and I still ahve it. Found the discussion interesting. Basically I handled the headspace issue like many do and bought a neck sizer adn only neck size cases after they are fired. Early on I had a case split but after neck sizing cases lasted a little longer. Many articles have been written about the Enfields being battle rifles where these issues were designed to handle various ammunition supply from various manufacturers and combat conditions. Some have also reformed 30-40 Krag cases as they have a slightly larger head area.

DEP

[Four Fingers of Death]

I carried an SMLE No1 Mk111 (no star, Cadet armouries were not normally upgraded) in the Australian Army Cadets as a teenager. The Patrician Teaching Brothers that ran the Cadets were all veterans (or returned servicemen as we used to call them). The brother in charge was a WW2 and Korean vet and the other two Brothers were Korean and Malayan Emergency vets and all were infantrymen, so they knew their apples when it came to SMLEs.

We were never allowed to remove the magazine unless we were cleaning the rifle. They were real gung ho, one cadet would clean his rifle and the cadet beside him would stand guard (we were on the school oval mostly, haha, but they took it seriously). If you were spotted removing the mag at any time apart from cleaning, you would have been running around the oval with the rifle above your head.

All ammo including drill rounds were loaded from stripper clips.

I have a beautiful old SMLE which was owned by the Gilgandra Cadet Unit, Gilgandra is a town west of my town. I am very fond of the rifle and the town. The rifle was made at Lithgow (35 miles from where I live) in 1922 and as such is pretty rare, they just produced enough rifles to keep the factory ticking over after WW1.

I would love to own the SMLE that I carried at my school. I used to volunteer to help in the armoury and as such, had the pick of the rifles. Mine had very dark walnut woodwork and was always spotless and well oiled. I must see if it is possible to do a search of Army records to track down the rifles issued to my school? I must check. Merry Christmas.

[Cottage Hill Bill]

Northmn,

The case splits most likely have nothing to do with headspace issues. Lee-Enfields are notoriously hard on cases due to a rather wide variation in chamber dimensions. They were after all, produced in a number of different factories, mostly under wartime conditions and in the case of the British plants, while being subject to bombing. Neck sizing is the only way to go when reloading for the L-E. If you have more then one L-E, segregate your brass and keep a separate batch of brass for each rifle. And buy a broken case extractor. You will need it eventually and they aren't expensive, under $20. When L-E brass fails it is usually not a ruptured case. Normally the case stretches just ahead of the web and when you open the bolt the rim and first 1/8 inch of case are pulled off leaving a nice brass tube stuck in the chamber. A broken case extractor makes it a non-event. There is also a wide variety of quality in the cases made by different manufacturers. Greek HXP military surplus is some of the best and S&B commercial some of the worst. Separate brass by rifle, anneal the case necks and neck size only are the keys to getting multiple reloads from your .303 British brass.

[vzerone]

I think that the biggest differences in the basic No 4 rifles were:

1. The Long Branch rifle from Canada has a simplified bolt removal procedure. It is as effective as the original design and it did away with the spring loaded plunger of the original No 4 design. A slot the length of the bolt head was milled in the right side bolt raceway to accomplish this.

2. The final No 4 Mk II version had a trigger that attached to the rifle's receiver and not the trigger guard/magazine housing. I believe it was more secure and less likely to change adjustment due to moisture in the stock.

3. Four marks of the rear sight, which can be found on any of the variants.

As noted by several members above, the Commonwealth armed forces were trained to use stripper clips instead of changing magazines. The first Lee-Metford and Lee-Enfield rifles actually had their magazines attached to the rifles with a small chain. That's the purpose of the little ring on the front of the trigger guard on many early Enfields.

Perhaps the users of the No 4 (T) sniper rifle and its 7.62 descendant used spare magazines as the Mk 32 scope on the rifles would preclude loading with stripper clips. I've never seen this mentioned in any text regarding these rifles though.

I saw private security forces using the No 4 in Central Asia just five years ago. They were using stripper clips and I never saw a spare magazine with their kit.

As far as sights go for the No 4 (excluding the No 4 (T) which had a MkI sight with the battle sight aperture milled off), there were three basic types. The Mk1 was machined steel with a screw adjustable elevation ladder of almost match grade quality. The Mk2 was just a flip over "L" with a short range aperture and a long range aperture much like the M16A1 rear sight. The Mk3 and Mk4 sights were stamped steel and elevated much like a US 1917 rear sight with a spring loaded lever providing the stops at the various range setting.

Those are the differences in the No 4 that I know of. No doubt there's a few more hidden in the weapons somewhere.

The concept of charging battle rifles via a detachable magazine really didn't take hold as doctrine or in practice until WWII with the BAR, M1 Carbine, STG 44, FG 42, etc.

You can see how serious the Brits were about the fitted magazines with this photo. Note the little chain keeping this magazine with this rifle and really precluding the use of magazines as we do today.

Just adding that the Russian's didn't believe in changing magazines with their SVT38 and SVT40. In fact they didn't make many magazines for them thus why you don't see many for sale. The Argentine 1891 was another one not meant to change magazines.

There is no doubt the SMLE's were/are great rifles.

[Dead Dog Jack]

- SMLE No. 4 Mk. 1, 1/2, Mk. 1/T, Mk. 2, and perhaps other variations use the same bolt head pattern. Mk. 1* uses a different pattern bolt head. While the Mk. 1 bolt had cannot be used on Mk. 1*s, can Mk. 1* bolt heads be used on Mk. 1s?


I believe you are confusing actual bolt heads with how the bolt head is manipulated in removing the bolt from the action body. Rifles No. 4 Mk 1* and No. 4 Mk 1/3 had a slot cut into the bolt head rail toward the front of the action body in which the bolt head is turned to allow the bolt body to be removed.

A spring loaded catch located to the rear of the action body is used to turn the bolt head on (and thereby remove the bolt body) on Rifles No. 4 Mk 1, No. 4 Mk 1/2, No. 4 Mk 2.

In all of the above rifles, the bolt heads are interchangeable. This applies to (T) marked No. 4 rifles as well.


:D

[Dead Dog Jack]

I think that the biggest differences in the basic No 4 rifles were:1. The Long Branch rifle from Canada has a simplified bolt removal procedure. It is as effective as the original design and it did away with the spring loaded plunger of the original No 4 design. A slot the length of the bolt head was milled in the right side bolt raceway to accomplish this.The Rifle No. 4 Mk 1* made by Savage in the U.S. also utilized this modified way of removing the bolt. :D

[Brithunter]

Most of the problem with case head seperations is down to undersized case webs on US manufactured brass. The web is supposed to measure 0.455" but in all the commercial US brass that I have tried it's more like 0.450" or even under that. This means that at the web the case has to expand at least 0.005" just to reach the unfired size specified and as chambers are found that measure 0.460" it means that the wall at the web needs to expand 0.010" to fill the chamber this is then squeezed back in resizing the expanded etc and it does this a few times then it fails at the web/wall juncture. Not suprising but it would not do this so quickly if the cases were of the correct size to begin with.

I used to load for a number of 303 rifles but used Greek HXP milsurp brass that is of the correct size at the web and NEVER had a case head seperation.

Also when one checks headspace on a 303 it needs to be done using British military spec gauges and NOT SAMMI specs ones as SAMMI messed up and altered the spec......................... why Well you would have to pin them down on that one but it seems they like altering the design specs on old established designs.

The original Lee Enfield 303 rifles were issued with two magazines one of which was chained to the rifle. This was so that should the magazine become damaged the rifle was not out of action for longer than it took to swap in the undamaged magazine. The original Lee 303's had an 8 shot magazine BTW if I recall correctly.

The chambers were dimensioned so that any 303 ammunition no matter in which factory was made would chamber and fire in the rifles. Reloading the cases was never considered the British set up plants in all parts of the Empire.

[Wis. Tom]

I have picked up a sporterized 303 Lee Enfield. Thank you all for the info. I am starting my quest, to find out what I have. Under the bolt, it has a star with a triangle in it, under that is LITHCOM, SHT.LE, III* and under that, which was in a sheild, is 1919. The barrel has 75066 with England under that and 50885 under that. Behind that is NF or NP 303"2'22" under that 18 1/2 or a 3, ATONS and under that 50885**. The safety has III marked on it. The other side of the barrel has 1912 stamped on it? I am pretty sure it is 1912 and not 1919, which is on the other side. I will try my hand with photo soon. Just beginning to collect info on these now, as this is my first LE.

[303Guy]

LITHCOM? Could that be LITHGOW? I have a Lithgow and if I could get to it I would be able to compare the stampings but alas, it's buried under the rubble of my recent move! Mine is a sporterized 25/303 so the barrel would not share any semblance to the stampings. Anyway, the III on the safety refers to the Mk III safety. The 303" 2.22" refers to the bore and case length and the 18 1/2 TONS is the rated pressure (tons per square inch). In any event, the Lee Enfield is an interesting and fun rifle and can be quite challenging too.

[Four Fingers of Death]

"SHT.LE, III* and under that, which was in a sheild, is 1919. The barrel has 75066 with England under that and 50885 under that. Behind that is NF or NP 303"2'22" under that 18 1/2 or a 3, ATONS and under that 50885**. The safety has III marked on it."

It sounds like a Short Lee that has been upgraded to a No1 Mk111* in England.

[Scharfschuetze]

SHT.LE, III* and under that, which was in a sheild, is 1919.

I always thought that the shield on the pre WWII SMLEs made in Australia was a nice touch. I almost bought such a marked SMLE for my collection, but the bore was a bit worn and I settled on a 1942 production rifle that, while lacking the shield, had a virtually mint bore and it is still shot routinely to this day.

I always wonder where this rifle served. North Africa, the Kokoda Track in PNG or possibly in the Malayan Emergency?

I once went hunting in New South Wales while on R&R from Vietnam. I traveled through the Bathurst, Orange and Lithgow areas where the Aussie SMLEs were made , but I didn't see any sign of the factories that produced 'em.

[Wis. Tom]

Thank you , yes, it is Lithgow. Eyes needed alittle help for that one. (Glasses now on). LOL

[Four Fingers of Death]

[QUOTE=I once went hunting in New South Wales while on R&R from Vietnam. I traveled through the Bathurst, Orange and Lithgow areas where the Aussie SMLEs were made , but I didn't see any sign of the factories that produced 'em.[/QUOTE]

The factory is a few blocks from the middle of town in Lithgow and the train passes a few blocks from the factory, but there is a rise in between with houses for the factory's workers which would have blocked your view.

I hope you had a good hunt, better than crawling through bars in Sydney.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Most of the problem with case head seperations is down to undersized case webs on US manufactured brass. The web is supposed to measure 0.455" but in all the commercial US brass that I have tried it's more like 0.450" or even under that. This means that at the web the case has to expand at least 0.005" just to reach the unfired size specified and as chambers are found that measure 0.460" it means that the wall at the web needs to expand 0.010" to fill the chamber this is then squeezed back in resizing the expanded etc and it does this a few times then it fails at the web/wall juncture. Not suprising but it would not do this so quickly if the cases were of the correct size to begin with.

I used to load for a number of 303 rifles but used Greek HXP milsurp brass that is of the correct size at the web and NEVER had a case head separation.

Also when one checks headspace on a 303 it needs to be done using British military spec gauges and NOT SAMMI specs ones as SAMMI messed up and altered the spec......................... why Well you would have to pin them down on that one but it seems they like altering the design specs on old established designs.

The original Lee Enfield 303 rifles were issued with two magazines one of which was chained to the rifle. This was so that should the magazine become damaged the rifle was not out of action for longer than it took to swap in the undamaged magazine. The original Lee 303's had an 8 shot magazine BTW if I recall correctly.

The chambers were dimensioned so that any 303 ammunition no matter in which factory was made would chamber and fire in the rifles. Reloading the cases was never considered the British set up plants in all parts of the Empire.

This is about the situation. Premature separation in the Lee-Enfields is at its worst when chambers of excessive width at the shoulder combines with brass undersized at the head. Precise headspace alone isn't useless, but doesn't do very much on its own. Neck-sizing is much better, although it might need a special neck-sizing die, if you can find one, to do it really well. The counsel of perfection, expensive as perfection usually is, would be a die made to match your chamber. The use of .30-40 Krag cases might help, if you can't find any of the official .455.

James Paris Lee always intended his magazines to be interchangeable, with the advantage that they could be changed with a round in the chamber, without the rifle being immobilized for an instant. He predicted that tube-magazines such as the Kropatschek would function as single-shots in sustained action, and indeed they did. But I don't believe the British even used the eight-shot single-column magazine of the Lee-Metford that way, and certainly not the ten-shot double-columnthey developed for it. They had agreed to pay Lee $250,000 dollars for little more than the right to put cartridges centrally and one on top of the other, and they had seen Mauser get away with doing the same thing, under German law. So a cynic might wonder if $200,000 of that money being payable on the basis of $0.50 per magazine had something to do with their decision. What they got was a rifle that was far and away the most difficult to put out of action in the conditions of trench warfare.

The other problem we hear of in the No4 is excessive groove diameter. This should be effectively countered by larger diameter bullets, such as .318 J-bore 8x57 Mauser bullets sized to groove diameter. Even with jacketed bullets that slight sizing should leave them acceptably accurate. What you have to watch out for (though I have never heard of a case and there may be none) is a rifle with bore so oversize and neck so small, that the use of groove-filing bullets will clamp the neck onto the bullet.

The quoted pressure in tons can't be directly equated with gas pressure in thousands of psi, as quoted in reloading manuals or programmes. The British system was to measure it in terms of thrust per unit area of bolt face, i.e. as moderated and spaced out in time by the strength of the case, although as this was sometimes oiled for the purpose, this didn't operate in quite the way it does for the ordinary shooter. While technically a less accurate measurement than crusher gauges or piezo-electric strain gauges, it is probably a better indication of what makes rifles fail.

Nobody uses a case as tapered as the .303 in a new cartridge design. It is known that in conventional sporting use, a near-cylindrical case extracts more easily. But this may not have been the case with a chamber roughened or heavily fouled in military service. There is no doubt, though, that a very straight case, such as the Ackley Improved range, are less prone to separation.

I once sectioned normal and Ackley Improved versions of the same brass, and found that the improved version was internally widest at the shoulder, and tapered backwards from there. The standard version was widest just in front of the solid web, and tapered forwards. If a rifle has any headspace looseness or springiness, and if there is any creep at all between brass and steel, the Improved round would have about an inch and a quarter to do that stretching in, and the standard version a small fraction of that.

[Scharfschuetze]

I hope you had a good hunt, better than crawling through bars in Sydney.

That I did! Five days in the mountains under the sun and stars. I really enjoyed the Kookaburra's screeches and watching the Wallabies bouncing around.

I did see a few bars in Sydney before leaving, but I did make time for the Sydney Natural History Museum and of all the bars, I enjoyed the milk bars (I think that's what they called 'em) the best.

[Four Fingers of Death]

That I did! Five days in the mountains under the sun and stars. I really enjoyed the Kookaburra's screeches and watching the Wallabies bouncing around.

I did see a few bars in Sydney before leaving, but I did make time for the Sydney Natural History Museum and of all the bars, I enjoyed the milk bars (I think that's what they called 'em) the best.

The milk bars are not so popular with the younger folk now. I try and grab a milk shake from one in market street, all art deco like the theatre it is attached to.