Ishapore .308

[Ray1946]

A local gun shop has an Ishapore Enfield in .308 that I am thinking kind of hard about. It's a pretty neat looking old gun, but I don't know all that much about them. Are these guns really strong enough for .308? Does anyone know what the twist is in these barrels? When I start working up something in my .303 No.4MkII. I'm thinking 5744, probably 16-20 grs. Has anyone used 5744 in the Ishapore and how did it shoot? Thanks and have a good one...............Ray

[docone31]

I love my Ishy.
I paper patch, and use about 40gns of 4895.
Pretty accurate rifle.
I have fired factory .308s in it. No issues. I mostly use MilSurp ammo to get the brass from.

[Multigunner]

Standardized 7.62 NATO Infantry Ball with bullets of 146-150 grains generate about the same pressure as M8Z .303 Machinegun ammunition, so the rifles handle this pressure level okay. Previous SMLE No.1 MkIII and earlier rifles could be damaged by M8Z, and attempts to convert those to 7.62 have never turned out well.

Due to the often loose military chamber and generous headspace, its best to use military spec cases which are usually drawn with thicker brass at the head and lower case body.

Most lighter bullet standard velocity .308 Win ammunition does not generate pressures beyond the rifles limitations, but some long range match and heavy bullet hunting cartridges may. Long Range Special Ball also generates much higher pressures than the Standard ball, with a much greater accepted standard deviation.

India was not part of NATO, its use of the NATO cartridge did not mean their rifles had to meet any interchangability requirements, and cartridge interchangability was not a requirement.
As far as I can tell India did not use any ammo in these rifles other than their homegrown version of the standard Infantry Ball, and it is loaded well within the pressure limitations of the design.

My advice would be to avoid .308 ammo if you can't find out the pressure level of the particular loads. Don't assume that because one or two ISHY owners have not blown up their own rifles with a particular load that it will be safe for your rifle.
Don't use Long Range Ball or Match loads, especially if assembled on the semi balloon head Winchester Palma Match cases.

A rifle can usually withstand a number of loads beyond its design limits , but no use inducing excessive wear or weakening a action un necessarily by not being vigilant about the suitability of the ammunition to the rifle.

The 1895 Winchester had no problems with WW1 era .30-06 but often developed excessive headspace when used with post WW1 .30-06 military and sporting ammo. The same situation could develop with some WW2 era designs in 7.62 NATO as pressure levels of military and sporting ammo in .308 have increased over the decades since adoption.

[chrispy]

Indian Ishy's were newly built with stronger steels compared to No1's.

Chrispy

[Hip's Ax]

I guess this could happen with any mil surp but, make sure you get the head space checked before you buy.

10 years ago I bought a lovely Ishapore in 7.62. All matching, fine condition, the only complaint was some muzzle wear from the military steel cleaning rod. When the rifle arrived I was in love. I have head space gages here for most calibers and I check this rifle out, the head space was HUGE. If I recall correctly, Field + 0.038" !!!

At the time I paid $140 for the rifle, it cost me that much again to have a master gun smith fix the head space.

Hope I'm not sticking my nose in where it doesn't belong.

[herbert buckland]

Indian Ishy's were newly built with stronger steels compared to No1's.

Chrispythis is true but they were proofed for theearly standard 7.62 rifle full meatal jacket boolit ,if yousing 308 i would not youse a heaver than 155gr boolit and dont try to hotload it is not a mauser,having stated that it is a fine rifle to shoot and very safe if comon sence is yoused(WARNING do not even think about using modern 7.62 sniper rounds in this rifle they are way more than it was desighned for an it would not suprise me if the rifle came apart on the fist shot)

[Multigunner]

I guess this could happen with any mil surp but, make sure you get the head space checked before you buy.

10 years ago I bought a lovely Ishapore in 7.62. All matching, fine condition, the only complaint was some muzzle wear from the military steel cleaning rod. When the rifle arrived I was in love. I have head space gages here for most calibers and I check this rifle out, the head space was HUGE. If I recall correctly, Field + 0.038" !!!

At the time I paid $140 for the rifle, it cost me that much again to have a master gun smith fix the head space.

Hope I'm not sticking my nose in where it doesn't belong.

Sounds like lug or locking recess setback.

Did your smith replace bolt body or bolt head?
Or perhaps set the barrel back one thread?

The steel used by Ishapore from early 1950's through early 1965 is said to have proven inferior to steels used previously, resulting in an abnormal percentage of actions failing in standard proof testing of one dry proof load and one oiled proof load. For some time they dispensed with the oiled case proof loads altogether.
They did then change the steel used once again in 1965 for all further production of the .303 and 7.62 rifles, to an EN Steel, EN being the European standards similar to the US SAE Steels.
The Steel of the 2A is likely superior to that used for MkIII production anywhere else, but how much better is hard to say.

The SMLE rifles have a Action Body that is stronger than its bolt, if frame stretching or sidewall cracking is avoided an out of spec action can be repaired and put back to specs fairly easily.
I've replaced one bolt body with an unissued replacement body, replaced two others with used very good condition bolt bodies, and replaced bolt heads on several occasions to bring worn SMLEs back to safe headspace limits.
The same should be possible with the 2A rifles.

From the SMLE rifles I've examined which showed very loose boltheads or other damage I suspect most were damaged by use of the Mk8Z Machinegun ammunition.
There have been reports of European Mk8Z equivalent loads damaging SMLE rifles and shattering the bolt head of a No.4 rifle.
The Mk8Z has been noted in some loadings to exceed 60,000 CUP, far above its normal specifications. Those were apparently due to a WW2 production defect.
Mk8Z in the more common pressure range is not that dangerous, but I'm not going to use it in my .303 rifles.
The max acceptable standard deviation of M118 Long Range Ball is over 57,000 CUP, degraded surplus ammo may exceed that pressure.
US manufacture M-80 Infantry Ball has a max deviation of around 53,000 CUP, about 5,000 CUP over the standard pressure for 7.62 NATO Ball that meets the interchangability requirement.

The Indian Ordnance Factory M-80 Ball is listed on their website as generating 348 MPA, which according to convertors is 50,473 PSI, which is roughly 48,000 CUP for this cartridge.

Occasionally an anecdotal incident of a 2A action suriving after the barrel was blown in half by ice obstructing the muzzle is quoted as a claim that the action can withstand 100,000 PSI. Bore obstruction barrel failure doesn't work that way.
A localized high pressure wave front at the point of obstruction snaps the barrel in two, the pressure wave does not make it back to the receiver.
This has been known since the earliest experiments on rod driven rifle grenades.

[Ray1946]

Thanks so much for all the great info on the Ishapore Enfield! I had no idea that the machine-gun ammo had that high of pressure. By the way, what is the rifling twist? I have read a few things over the years about a higher quality steel being used in the manufacture. If I buy the one I have been looking at, I will be using it for cast bullets ONLY. I have a No.4 MkII and a Lithgow No.1 MkIII that I hope to shoot this year. The 10" twist of the .303 will stabilize a long bullet, thats why I was wondering about the twist in the Ishy .308. Thanks and have a good one,..........................Ray

[fatelk]

I have two Ishapore Enfields, a 2A and a 2A1. I bought them a couple years ago when they were $99 each. One of them has very good headspace, but the other is long.

The old Syrian 7.62x51 ammo I had stashed away works fine in it. This ammo was cheap a decade or so ago, but the brass was known to be way out of spec; so long that it won't chamber in most rifles.

I haven't done it yet, but I figured I would just work up a good cast load for this long-headspace rifle, and set my sizer die according to the chamber.

[Hardcast416taylor]

Thanks Multigunner for making me remember to look at two 80 round boxes of Winchester made 1945 dated .303 ammo I have. It is indeed the same machinegun ammo you talked about! I`ll be tearing this ammo down for the bullets and primed brass and fertalize the Frau`s flower bed with the powder.Robert

[smokemjoe]

Mine was a $99.00 also, Clip dont work right, barrel like new but is .311, really shoots good, I did a story on it in a back issue of the Fouling Shoot if yous have it. Joe

[Multigunner]

Well I just ran across a warning I'd seen once before several months back.

The gist is that the SMLE action body could be cracked if a wet or oily cartridge were fired, and I expect this goes for excess oil in the chamber as well. The warning ,quoted from a book written by a fellow named Sweet who was a master marksman and expert on accurizing the Enfield, also said if any bullet lubricant was used (I expect he meant cast boolits) that care should be taken that grease did not get in the chamber.

Along with that information was the latest on the NRA UK warning on converted No.4 rifles in 7.62 NATO. If the rifles are to be used with modern .308 or 7.62 ammo generating 60,000 PSI they must first be reproofed at 75,000 PSI.

Any rifles bearing the earlier 19LT or 20LT proof marks are to be limited to ammo generating no more than 52,000 PSI.
All Enfield owners were also cautioned to avoid firing wet ammunition or firing in the rain.

I don't think the Ishy 2A was proofed at modern .308 proof test pressures of over 80,000 PSI, or 75,000 PSI for that matter.

[corvette8n]

My Ishie came with a hang tag from Century Arms not to shoot .308 only 7.62 NATO
I kept the rifle for about 10 years and never did get around to shooting it, before I traded it off.


Here is what surplus riles says kinda a mixed review on shooting .308

http://www.surplusrifle.com/shooting2006/762ishy/index.asp

[felix]

The Indian ammo obtained with the 308 I now have seems mild, very mild. I continually shoot a 165 grainer LBT with 38 grains of the spotter 50 cal powder having the same recoil and trajectory. ... felix

[Multigunner]

The following PDF file
http://www.everyspec.com/MIL-SPECS/MIL+SPECS+(MIL-P)/download.php?spec=MIL-P-3984J(AMENDMENT3).008538.PDF

Gives pressures of US Mil Spec 7.62 cartridges , some are given in both CUP and Epvat Transducer PSI.
The M-80 Ball is listed as 48,000 CUP or 51,000 PSI EPVAT, Maximum deviation is 53,000 CUP or 56,000 EPVAT.

M118 Long Range has a chamber pressure of 52,000 CUP, with maximum deviation of 57,200 CUP, no EVPAT equivalent is given.
M118 LR then generates 1,000 CUP less than the maximum deviation of M-80 Ball and its Maximum deviation is 6,000 CUP higher than the standard working pressure of M-80 Ball and 4,000 CUP higher than max deviation of M-80.


5. The pressure units for Standard Deviation, Port Pressure, and Extreme Temperature Chamber Pressure are the same as for the corresponding Chamber Pressure units at ambient temperature.


14. The individual maximum chamber pressure applies at 70 + 2º F only.


Extreme temperature chamber pressure of the M-80 Ball is 55,000 CUP or 58,000 PSI.

No extreme temperature pressures are available for M118.

[Trey45]

Multigunner and biged, take your dirty laundry to PM, keep it off the open forum! This is not open for debate, discussion or arguement, take it to PM.

[herbert buckland]

In Australia our 7.62 sniper rounds are suplyed drectly by LAUA ,i do not know the presure difrence but i do know the recoil is much harder the trajectory is way beter,this may be because of boolit shape,we have been told by the people that should know not to use it in converted No 4s and i belive a L42A1 is stronger than the Indian 7.62 ,by the way for those who belive the 7.62 & the 308 are difrent ,Lapua marks this round as 308 winchester and the Australian army has no problems isuing it for tere AI 7.62 sniper rifles

[cheese1566]

Multigunner and biged, take your dirty laundry to PM, keep it off the open forum! This is not open for debate, discussion or arguement, take it to PM.

Well said and thank you!!!

[Multigunner]

In Australia our 7.62 sniper rounds are suplyed drectly by LAUA ,i do not know the presure difrence but i do know the recoil is much harder the trajectory is way beter,this may be because of boolit shape,we have been told by the people that should know not to use it in converted No 4s and i belive a L42A1 is stronger than the Indian 7.62 ,by the way for those who belive the 7.62 & the 308 are difrent ,Lapua marks this round as 308 winchester and the Australian army has no problems isuing it for tere AI 7.62 sniper rifles

There is a level of interchangability.

The external dimensions are the same or close enough barring occasional loose tolerances of mil spec ammo, but there can be differences in internal dimensions, such as the semi-balloonhead Palma Match cartridge case.
The main Reason the Enfield Envoy rifles were put into production was that L42 rifles leased to Metropolitan Police by the Military were often judged unsafe to fire.
The converted wartime manufacture No.4 actions don't seem to have held up as well as expected.


In the meantime, the 'borrowed' L42A1 Rifles had not impressed the Met. Twenty of the first batch to be 'hired' were returned straight away after being inspected by the force armourer. Another five were sent to the Royal Small Arms factory during the first year. Following an inspection by the Weapons Branch, Technical Group, Woolwich on 2nd August 1972 it was found that 17 out of the 30 rifles needed workshop adjustment and of those 9 were unsafe to use! The defected rifles were sent to the REME workshops at Donnington.

There was a meeting of interested parties which resulted in the Assistant Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office writing to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police asking for the L39A1 to be accepted in place of the Parker Hale Safari rifle. It was pointed out that the L42A1 rifles 'loaned' to the police had been 'early conversions from .303 to 7.62 and that all had been of 'war-time manufacture' with all that term implied in the way of quality control!

http://www.amstevens.fsnet.co.uk/History.htm

[herbert buckland]

I stand by my original warning about not yousing the Lapua sniper round in the Indian rifle,if you have the need please ceep away from other people wile doing so

[Multigunner]

Seems to me that confusion due to the differing figures derived from differing chamber pressure testing aparatus has led some to assume that any combination of 7.62/.308 and rifles chambered for either cartridge is totally safe.

The US Military document I linked to reveals that US M-80 Infantry Ball which is within the STANAG interchangability requirements generates 48,000 CUP little higher than the 45,400 CUP of .303 MKVII ammunition tested in the US before WW2. I figure ammunition that meets the standarization requirement for 7.62 Infantry Ball as it was in the 1960's would be safe enough in the 2A or properly converted No.4 rifles.
Unfortunately there have been problems with some 7.62 NATO ammunition, in recent years defective 7.62X51 ammunition manufactured by CBC has destroyed more than 80 rifles of various types. Testing revealed some of these cartridges generated 130,000 PSI.

Whenever ammunition is mass produced some cartridges in any lot will exceed the standard working pressure, thats why limitations on maximum deviation are set.
The Standard working pressures of both US and Indian M-80 Ball are 48,000 CUP, the maximum deviation of M118 is 57,200 CUP, maximum deviation of M-80 is 53,000 CUP.
At max deviation, which could be any number of rounds from any particular lot of cartridges, M118 could exceed the working pressure of MkVII .303 amunition by 11,800 CUP, more than 20% higher pressures than the Enfields were designed to take on a regular basis. At maximum deviation the M118 would be very close to the proof test pressure of .303 Enfield rifles. If the cartridge is oily or the chamber wet by rain the effect would be much the same as an oiled proof test load at every shot of max dev ammo.
The 24 Long Ton proof test loads generate 53,000 pounds force on a base crusher, how well this would relate to the CUP of radial pressures I wouldn't know. Supposedly a dry 24 LT load gave the same back thrust on the bolt as an oily 19 LT MkVII service load.

The British had intended to convert large stocks of No.4 rifles to 7.62 NATO, but then canceled out leaving the manufacturers with 60,000 conversion kits, barrels boltheads etc. India had at first offered to buy these, but they also canceled their order. No military has ever used the L8 conversions as a battle rifle, and Australia chose not to use the L42 rifle as a sniper rifle.

For many years UK target shooters had access to the 144 gr British version of the NATO ball, presumably loaded to aprox 48,000 CUP or very little higher. The rifles seem to operate well when ammo in this class is used.

A misconception on the use of oiled cartridges comes from the British pratice of wiping down ammunition with a flannel rag moistened with oil to prevent mud and dirt from sticking to the case. The ammunition was not left in an oily to the touch condition, the thin smear of oil dried to a microscopic protective layer that would have had little effect on reducing chamber wall grip.
A residue of grease, or mineral jelly used to protect the bore, left in the chamber on the otherhand could pose a problem.


I stand by my original warning about not yousing the Lapua sniper round in the Indian rifle,if you have the need please ceep away from other people wile doing so

That sounds like very good advice.

PS
Remember those Turkish capture SMLE rifles rebarreled to 8mm?
Those may have worked fairly well if only the original 8MMJ bore cartridge were used, but I have my doubts about how long one of those would last if WW2 era 7.92 heavy ball were fired in one of those.

[herbert buckland]

Are you endorsing the youse of the sniper round in the Indian 7.62s

[herbert buckland]

I am no expert ,i am going of what i was told by the army who got the advice from Lapua,by your anser i take it you diagree and you may be right, i just know i do not want to be standing next to you wen you are proving it

[Multigunner]

I've found postings of messages from two gun dealers who've had problems with shipments of 2A rifles, all in the shipments they received having excessive headspace, or developing excessive headspace after firing only a few rounds. One dealer obtained new condition unissued boltheads and returned his rifles to proper specs before selling any, the other simply refuses to sell any 2A rifles after a shooter was badly injured by a breech blow out that drove the magazine box into his groin with sufficient force that surgery was required to save the family jewels. The last incident involved what appears to have been Remington .308 Winchester sporting ammunition.

A collector on another board recently posted that he'd obtained a 2A rifle with a 1964 marking. The problems of Indian .303 rifles failing the oiled proof cartridge due to use of SWES 48 steel were from the early 1950's through early 1965, so it would appear that at least a few 2A rifles still out there may be built on inferior receivers, not properly proofed for .303 much less .308/7.62.
What percentage of SWES 48 action bodies are defective can't be determined due to the Indian Ordnance Factory suspending the use of the oiled proof cartridge due to the abnormally high failure rate.

This brings up the possibility of pre 1965 parts being used to rebuild post 1965 rifles.
The 2A rifle is begining to look like a crapshoot so far as strength of materials goes. Some may be of highest quality while others may incorporate substandard parts.

PS
I suspect that the SWES steel by itself may not have been the root cause of rifles that failed proof, its possible that if they treated this steel exactly the same as the previous alloy, as far as heat treatment methods and resistence shoulder hardening, that this was not the optimal heat treatment method for that particular alloy.

Previous alloys used for SMLE production appear to have been a low end Nickel Steel alloy, with from 2.75 to 3.50 percent Nickel and a trace of Chrome and Manganese.
The lower end Nickel Steels, below 9% Ni, actually have better elasticity than high nickel content steels.

Notes on the failures of converted Lithgow rifles speak of a Carbon Steel substituted for the Chrome Nickel alloy. I wonder if the actions chosen for conversion may have been late wartime manufacture using a substitute steel? By that time Lithgow only assembled parts from subcontractors rather than manufacturing all parts on site.

[mike in co]

Don't use Long Range Ball or Match loads, especially if assembled on the semi balloon head Winchester Palma Match cases.


The same situation could develop with some WW2 era designs in 7.62 NATO as pressure levels of military and sporting ammo in .308 have increased over the decades since adoption.

where does one find palma loads in winchester BALLON HEAD CASES ?

ya got to be kidding with that statement ??? ballon head 308.......

ww2 HAD NO 7.62 NATO DESIGNS...it came out in 54 or so.A WW2 design adopted to 7.62 nato should not be an issue( see below).

can you show me the documentation that either sporting 308 win or mil 7.62x51 nato has had pressure limit increases ???


US ARMY LIMIT IS 50KPSI(PROOFED AT 67K)
SAAMI IS 62KPSI/44KPSI WITH PROOF AT 83-89KPSI

[mike in co]

The Enfield rifle is sold as C&R in the U.S. and by law dealers are not required to perform ANY safety checks, head space, proof testing, etc. In Europe they are required to be inspected and proof checked, anyone who doesn’t understand this and “consumer beware” needs to be educated.

Show me the Indian Enfield 2A1 manuals stating head space standards for this rifle.
(every 7.62 NATO rifle made has a different head space standard)

Show me the Indian Enfield 2A1 manuals stating proof testing requirements.

Show me official testing that shows the Indian Enfield’s were made from melted down scrap rail road tracks.

The myth about the .308 and 7.62 was started by people who don’t understand the difference between CUP or copper units pressure and the more modern PSI transducer method.

Our 03 Springfield’s and M1917 didn’t blow up when we shot commercial 30-06 ammunition in them. Our .303 British Enfield’s didn’t blow up when we fired commercial in them.

The difference between a military rifle and a civilian rifle is head space and cartridge case design with military cases being made thicker in the base web area.

If the shooter doesn’t have the brains to remove ALL grease or oil from the chamber when the cartridge is fired the bolt thrust can exceed the bolt thrust of a “dry” proof cartridge and damage the rifle or the shooter.

Below in my photo is a .010 feeler gauge inserted between the right locking lug and the receiver, a empty unfired .308 case is in the chamber and I have .010 head gap clearance.

The average rimless commercial cartridge case is made .002 smaller than minimum chamber head space to ensure the case will fit a rifle with minimum head space. This means my 2A1 would actually have .008 head gap clearance if this Enfield had a “GO” headspace gauge in the chamber.

A .303 Enfield with a maximum head space of .074 and with a rim thickness of .058 will have .016 head gap clearance and this is considered safe by the British military

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/bigedp51/2A1b.jpg

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/bigedp51/headspacestretch_frame_000.jpg

If you do not know how to inspect your surplus firearms them get a gunsmith to inspect it for you. (But without a Indian 2A or 2A1 manual you don’t know the actual specifications anyway)

99% of what you read on the internet is bovine scat and 99% of the people giving you information think they are experts. Do your own research and only believe actual military or firearms manufactures data and NOT myths spread by untrained amateurs.

Below is a link to another .308/7.62 debate, please read what the expert ganderite has to say in the matter, he actually pressure tests ammunition.

Post subject: 7.62 NATO Pressure vs. commercial 308 Winchester

http://www.surplusrifleforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=76&t=39614&st=0

Note: I know Peter Laidler was the one who stated the head space standards for the 2A/2A1 and these were given to him by an Indian exchange officer. BUT show me the manual, these settings are supposedly tighter than SAAMI standards for the .308 Winchester in a military rifle??????


your drawing is correct for the terms for a RIMMED cartridge0303 brit), but not for a rimless/semi rimed case,,which the 308 win/7.62x51 are/is.


mike in co

[Multigunner]

where does one find palma loads in winchester BALLON HEAD CASES ?

ya got to be kidding with that statement ??? ballon head 308.......



1992 Winchester produced a SEMI-Balloonhead case with three grains Measured in water) higher capacity.
The higher capacity case was to allow more powder to be used with heavy long range bullets.

WW2 era bolt action rifles now chambered in 7.62 include the K-98 and various copies of the Model 98 such as the Spanish M-48 action, Various pre WW1 designs such as the 1895 Mauser still in use by many nations in the WW2 era, and of course the No.4 rifles converted to 7.62.

In some cases conversion to 7.62 was carried out properly with new barrels, in others such as some South American Mausers the mauser chamber was drilled out and an insert brazed or soldered in place and the old 7mm barrel rebored to .308 and rechambered, not a good idea.

Check the lists of 7.62 ammunition identified as generating excessive pressures, you can find these lists on some rifle manufacturers sites with warnings of damage to their rifles if used.
M118 Special ball was not intended for use in converted infantry rifles of the 1960's.

As for the Mausers some are strong enough for any reasonable .308 load while others may not be, I've seen several 1909 Argentine receivers, a better than average Mauser knockoff) with excessive headspace and noticable lug setback, which are still in the original 7.65 chambering, the 7.65 generates lower pressures than M118.
Mausers were produced in many countries with widely varying quality control.

Its best to leave old milsurp rifles in their original chambering.

[herbert buckland]

BIGEDP 51 states that 99% of what you read on the internet is bovine scat and to check all information ,good advice ,however dismising safty warnings out of hand is not a wise move ,especily when it can put others at risk

[Multigunner]

dismising safty warnings out of hand is not a wise move ,especily when it can put others at risk

I agree.

PS
The original T65 cartridge on which both 7.62X51 and .308 Winchester are based used bullets of 147 grains at 2750 FPS and powders tightly controlled to deliver that performance at reasonably low pressures of circa 48,000 CUP.
As bullet weights increase and nose profile remains the same the bullet will be longer. The 7.62 is of limited OAL so a longer bullet means that available powder space will be intruded upon.
As available powder space decreases, pressure levels increase and deviations in pressure increase.

As more countries begain manufacturing their own versions of the NATO Ball differing manufacturing techniques and levels of quality control have resulted in ammunition which barely met specs when fresh and degraded to dangerous levels before being S-Canned and sold to unscpuluous or just plain ignorant ammunition dealers.

In the past decade every available cartridge that can pass the NATO five year inspection regime is kept in stores, used in training, or given or sold to allies. Thrird world military don't cull nuthing that isn't hopelessly beyond specification.
You'd have better luck on average finding fresh and well within spec 7.92X57 than 7.62X51.
Not there aren't good 7.62 ammo out there, its just that so much total garbage has shown up in recent years that I'd sooner reload than take a chance on it.

Also in recent years Long Range match bullets of 220 grains have been marketed for the .308, I've yet to see any Military Ball 7.62 that uses a 220 grain bullet, and certainly not loaded on a semi-balloonhead case.

[mike in co]

The only difference between a rimmed case and a rimless case is the distance between the head space datum lines. ;)[/QUOTE]

lol...you are funny mr redford......

a rimmed case headspaces on the rim....the gap between a case and the breechface is head clearance which maybe be in spec or not...i think you said that....

a semi or rimless case headspaces on the shoulder( a specific spot on the Shoulder). the gap between the breechface and the head of a case may or may not be head clearance...cause you cannot see where or what the shoulder is doing. it must be checked with a head space gage.


mike in co

[mike in co]

1992 Winchester produced a SEMI-Balloonhead case with three grains Measured in water) higher capacity.
The higher capacity case was to allow more powder to be used with heavy long range bullets.

.


sorry , but i must be from that state.....SHOW ME!

some proof....

A SEMI balloned case would be much weaker than what we shoot today, the idea of adding case capacity to a weaker case is not a reasonable approach.


mike in co

[mike in co]

[QUOTE=bigedp51;869335]

Gee I wonder why this 30-06 M1 Garand didn't blow up shooting a 7.62 NATO cartridge............give me a break.

QUOTE]

the rifle did not blow up becase the pressure from a 308 fired in a 30'06 chamber would be lower than 308 and lower than 30'06.

with an extra 1/2" or so of chamber space the power would never get up to the pressure of a 308...

volume up/pressure down.....

drops to something around 40kpsi maybe less

mike in co

[mike in co]

the current longrange 7.62x51 is a combination of lake city brass, sierra 175match king and the equivelent of reloader 15.

do not quote any data you find on this ammo as it has been a constantly changing round.

the orginal load supposedly produced 2700fps from bolt guns,BUT WHEN USED IN m14's...bent op rods were the results. so the load was tuned down. then the same load ws shot in the desert in m14's and guess what / more bent rods. the load has been tuned down again , and the best i can see is bolt guns with 24" bbls are probably around 2550 maybe 2600.


the really good thing about the rl15 in this load is great velocity and low pressure.

so while there is a data sheet out there somewhere with a 2700fps load for 118lr....it aint whats being used today......


they have dropped one full grain of powder...so far......


mike in co

[Multigunner]

sorry , but i must be from that state.....SHOW ME!

some proof....

A SEMI balloned case would be much weaker than what we shoot today, the idea of adding case capacity to a weaker case is not a reasonable approach.


mike in co

Prove it to yourself, just go out and buy yourself some Winchester Palma Match .308 cases and section one.
I've fired this ammo in an FAL but never tried reloading it because the FAL nearly tore the rim off in extraction. I seriously doubt that I saved any of those cases, so I'm not going to bother looking for one.

[herbert buckland]

the current longrange 7.62x51 is a combination of lake city brass, sierra 175match king and the equivelent of reloader 15.

do not quote any data you find on this ammo as it has been a constantly changing round.

the orginal load supposedly produced 2700fps from bolt guns,BUT WHEN USED IN m14's...bent op rods were the results. so the load was tuned down. then the same load ws shot in the desert in m14's and guess what / more bent rods. the load has been tuned down again , and the best i can see is bolt guns with 24" bbls are probably around 2550 maybe 2600.


the really good thing about the rl15 in this load is great velocity and low pressure.

so while there is a data sheet out there somewhere with a 2700fps load for 118lr....it aint whats being used today......


they have dropped one full grain of powder...so far......


mike in cothe Australian sniper round is marked at 860 meters/second (2821.488 fps) with a 170 gr boolit,i think this would bend rods as well and if the presure is not higher than the Nato 7.62 it will come as a hugr suprise to me as my sholder thinks there is a difrence.Interesting about the change by the US though the M 14 would be a beter urban rifle and i see you are relying more on the 50 cal as a sniper platform

[Multigunner]

so while there is a data sheet out there somewhere with a 2700fps load for 118lr....it aint whats being used today......


Never heard of a 2700 fps velocity for matchgrade 175 gr 7.62.
The 2750 FPS T-65 used a 147 grain bullet. Its what Nato Infantry Ball is based on.

Conversion of Garands to 7.62 by insertion of a chamber adapter was a stop gap measure, the rifles were used to some extent by the Navy.
The chamber insert used in Chilean 1895 rifles was entirely different.

This sectioned barrel shows the chamber insert and solder joint. This barrel was originally 7x57. It is now chambered in 7.62 NATO. This is not a particularly prudent conversion as the action was not designed for subsequent use with commercial .308 Winchester ammunition. The gap in front of the chamber is thought to be caused from gas cutting of the soft solder joint.

http://dutchman.rebooty.com/1895Chile.html
As shown the entire chamber portion of the 7mm barrel has been drilled out and a cylindrical adapter soldered in place. Since rifling extends into the adapter the barrel was likely rebored after the adapter was fitted.

PS
The Garand was torture tested with multiple firings of special proof rounds of 125,000 PSI, no 19th century bolt action design is anywhere near its class.

and BTW
The problems of bent or broken op rods of M-14 and Garand rifles is not a matter of chamber pressure alone, its a matter of gas port pressure coupled with the action attempting to open before residual pressure has dropped enough for the case to lose its grip on the chamber wall.

The Winchester ammo I fired in that FAL, or several different load types, caused a similar problem, gas port pressure was too high. The rifle, which belongs to a friend, is an Inch pattern FAL, this particular rifle did not have sufficient gas regulation to adjust for the Winchester ammo. Other FAL rifles might fare better.

There are some very hot loads on this site
http://www.shootingtimes.com/ballistics/308_winchester.html
Over 3,000 FPS with 165 gr bullets, that should wring the starch out of a 2A pretty quick.

[herbert buckland]

if you want to check my statment look at the spects for the Lapua 308 170gr lock base cartrige it is rated at 3000 ft.-lbs. and 2820 fps velocity, a simple google serch will find it,i would think to get this increase in velocity and hiting power there would have to be a increase in chamber pressure,would you onestly youse this round in a Indian 7.62 or a proofed No 4 7.62 conversion for that mater and expect there would be no wories

[mike in co]

From a 1968 Lyman reloading manual, NO PSI transducer figures and all pressures are in CUP.

Max load in red of IMR-4895 42.5 grains 168 grain Sierra Matchking 51,200 CUP

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/bigedp51/168match.jpg

U.S. Army Match load in red, IMR-4895 42 grains 168 grain Sierra Matchking 50,000 CUP

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/bigedp51/762match.jpg

Is a half grain of IMR-4895 powder and 1,200 CUP going to blow up your 2A1?

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/bigedp51/IMGP3024.jpg

How much air do you put in your tires :groner:

can you tell us what you are talking about ?

quoting pressures for a given loaded round has nothing to do with max acceptable pressure for a rifle.
you keep quoting load data. it has little to do with max pressure for the rifle.

what does 1968 data have to do with todays data ?

[mike in co]

if you want to check my statment look at the spects for the Lapua 308 170gr lock base cartrige it is rated at 3000 ft.-lbs. and 2820 fps velocity, a simple google serch will find it,i would think to get this increase in velocity and hiting power there would have to be a increase in chamber pressure,would you onestly youse this round in a Indian 7.62 or a proofed No 4 7.62 conversion for that mater and expect there would be no wories

not always so...better powder. the use of rl15 is a case in point in 308.

maybe you can just post the data that supports the 170/2820 fps.

the mil got up to 2700fps with a 175 in a 24" bbl.

mike in co

( you may get close with n530 and a 30 bbl)

[felix]

Are you guys shooting factory ammo? It seems to me the prevailing sentiment on this board is to pull all foreign ammo when acquited, no matter who made it. If you did not load it, be careful. Especially with military stamped ammo. ... felix

[mike in co]

lol...you are funny mr redford......

a rimmed case headspaces on the rim....the gap between a case and the breechface is head clearance which maybe be in spec or not...i think you said that....

a semi or rimless case headspaces on the shoulder( a specific spot on the Shoulder). the gap between the breechface and the head of a case may or may not be head clearance...cause you cannot see where or what the shoulder is doing. it must be checked with a head space gage.


mike in co

Dear mike in co AKA Paul Newman

I told you I was better looking than you were and you didn't believe me, on top of this you again forgot I have a beautiful mind.

You put a head space gauge in the chamber and the bolt closes all the way, what have you learned and how much head gap clearance do you have?

If you are really good looking and you can get all the women off your back for a few moments you perform a little test to check head gap clearance.

You take a empty unfired case and a fired spent primer.

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/bigedp51/IMGP6553.jpg

You then insert the primer in the primer pocket chamber the case and close the bolt.

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/bigedp51/IMGP6556.jpg

When you remove the empty case from the chamber and the amount the primer is sticking out of the base of the case is head gap clearance.

You measure the length of the case before you insert the primer with vernier calipers and then remeasure the case after you seat the primer with the bolt.

The difference is called head gap clearance :rolleyes:

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/bigedp51/IMGP6562.jpg

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/bigedp51/butch-1a.jpg

:groner:[/QUOTE]


when one puts in a go gage and the bolt closes, ont then puts in a a NOGO gage and the bolt should not close.
on a commercial rifle the typically means you chamber is between MIN and plus 0.003.
brass compresses, moves and is quite unreliable for an ACCURATE headspace measurement.

if you want an actuall headspace measurement. they make gages in 0.001 steps. this will then allow one to determine how much to size ones brass...2-3 thou under for a semi is good. in a bolt you can go to a 1/2 or less...some use a slight crush bolt close( not ideal for hunting applications).
your brass and primer tells you little because you have no idea how much the case flexed.....the resistance to seating the primer.
so there is two things.:
..headspace...the specific characteristic of a guns chamber, and there is
..head clearance....the clearance around a loaded round in a specific chamber.

[herbert buckland]

herbert buckland

The .308 Winchester is rated at 52,000 CUP or 62,000 PSI, and it doesn't matter who makes the .308 ammo the chamber pressures are all the same.

If you put IMR-4350 in your M1 you will bend the operating rod because the gas port pressure is higher due to the slower burning powders pressure curve. The IMR-4350 will have the same chamber pressure or lower than IMR-4895 BUT the port pressures are much higher.

Someone should tell Winchester the .308 and 7.62 are not the same. :rolleyes:

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/bigedp51/IMGP6565.jpg

Factory loaded .308 Winchester ammunition is loaded to LOWER chamber pressures than Military 7.62. Factory loaded .308 ammunition averages approximately 45,000 CUP to 47,000 CUP or 55,000 PSI to 57,000 PSI which is lower than military chamber pressure. The real difference between the .308 and 7.62 is case construction and chamber dimensions and we put up with this same problem with military and civilian 30-06 ammo and rifles and they didn't blow up.what you are saying is that the extra volocity with a heaver boolit does not chang the chamber presure ,this dose not make sence to me ,i fail to see how you can extra enegey at no cost

[herbert buckland]

30 inch barell may explain the incease in volicity but why the notisable difrence in felt recoil,and no the cartriges are not specily made

[Multigunner]

I think the major consideration is that at least some commercial .308 cases are not suited to use in a military Infantry Chamber which has headspace at the long end of the generous headspace requirement for military ball. They may or may not stand up to the added stresses of expansion into an over sized chamber and the stretching involved. If you add to that chamber pressures ten percent higher than than that of M-80 ball (48,000 CUP/50-51,000 PSI EVPAT) then you are stressing what is at best a rehashed 19th century design manufactured under wartime conditions from an alloy that may or may not be superior to the alloys used for the design at the turn of the century, and unknown method of proof testing under stress of putting as many rifles in the hands of troops as possible during a genocidal campaign. That from a factory known to have skipped normal proof testing procedures with previous .303 rifle production when substandard materials resulted in a high rejection rate.
I've seen 2A rifles in excellent condition, and others that look like forty miles of bad road, same as any other selection of Enfields.

Some extra high performance .308 cartridges have relied on mixed charges and compressed charges. The chamber pressures under test conditions at least remaining within SAAMI limits.
Use of slow burning powders may allow a slight increase in velocity within pressure limits, but result in the action and cartridge case being subjected to that level of pressure for a longer time during bullet travel.

The SMLE action is an updated ( for 1903 at least) action based on the nearly identical 1890's Lee Enfield, which itself is an update of the 1880's Lee Metford, a Black Powder era design that bridged the gap between BP and early Smokeless.
The major improvement of LE and SMLE over the LM is the method of mounting the bolthead, and that method was found wanting so the No.4 used a complete redesign for greater strength.
The SMLE bolthead has a threaded shank, with threads runnin right up to the shoulder, the No.4 uses threads as well but the threads stop short of the shoulder leaving a smooth shank that fits neatly into a cylindrical recess.
I've seen photos of sheared off SMLE Boltheads, broken at the jucture of threaded shank to shoulder, but never a sheared off No.4 bolthead.
Looking into pre WW1 range accidents in Canada involving the LE rifles, sheared off boltheads were the most common cause of injury, including at least one fatality and several life threatening injuries both to shooters and bystanders.

In the normal course of inspection of No.4 rifles Instructions to Canadian armorers gives instruction to examine action bodies for cracks at or around the resistence shoulders, those rifles with cracked action bodies being demilled by drilling through the chamber and inserting a steel rod.
Instruction for the SMLE say to examine the charger guide for looseness and for cracks in the left sidewall.
So damage to rifles that had fired only the the standard .303 ball was not unknown, and those rifles had received the proper standard proof test procedure.
From the numbers of otherwise decent looking No.4 rifles demilled and consigned to drill purpose only, cracked or otherwise damaged action bodies seems to have sidelined quite a few rifles during its service.
I've examined trashcans full of damaged SMLE and No.4 Rifles marked for sale as wall hangers or to be stripped for parts, and examined quite a few surplus Enfields sold as shooters.
The Indian No. 1 Enfields were the worst cared for of any I've seen. Of course since the rifle is still in use by police and other agencies they likely kept the best examples for their own use.
I've never seen any sign of these rifles having been reproofed before sale to US dealers. Most looked to have been last fired decades earlier and then packed in comoline without cleaning, even though at least several hundred rounds worth of residues choked bores and caked moving parts.

A good many commonly available .308 sporting loads exceed the maximum acceptable deviation of M-80 ball, the cartridge class the 2A was intended to digest. Those .308 loads are assembled using cases that would not pass the specifications of cases suited to use with military ball in a mil spec chamber with milspec headspace.

I would not subject any valued (if not valuable) firearm to pressures it was not designed or intended to handle.
No attempt was made to improve the bolthead design of the SMLE when applied to the 2A rifle. Theres nothing to indicate that these rifles held up better in service than the SMLE, and no indication that it was expected to handle pressures higher than 48,000 CUP on a regular basis.

If a 2A owner ends up with the family jewels in a sling like the gentleman mentioned earlier, he can't complain to the cartridge manufacturer, since his rifle was never within SAAMI headspace limitations, and not proof tested to the required pressures for the .308. The shooter is just out of luck, but if a man uses his head he doesn't have to rely on luck.

The L42 rifles were converted by government armories and proof tested to the standards of the day, yet by the time they were leased to the Metropolitan Police many were in unsafe to fire condition.
Those weren't kicked around third world infantry rifles, and would have received the best care by trained professionals, they fired only high quality fresh government approved ammunition, yet they ended up being judged unsafe to fire.
Thats something to give pause.

PS
In researching the Canadian LE failures I found in the records of the house of commons the question of whether these blow ups had been mentioned in the news papers, the answer was no but they might be the next day.
If a man is injured by his rifle blowing up, unless someone dies its unlikely to make the back page of the Hooterville World Guardian, much less be on MSNBC with full forensic investigation report.
Usually the only thing the ER or Cops would be interested in is the shooters blood alcohol content, not a detailed history of the rifle or a study on why it failed. Just another old rifle that gave up the ghost, nothing to get excited about.

When a member of another board witnessed a blown out bolthead incident on a range, an incident in which a spectator received a neck wound from fragments of the bolthead, theres no sign that it was ever reported in the news papers there or anywhere else, and no details as to cause emerged, only speculation that a handload was involved with nothing to back that suposition.

In Hatcher's Notebook he mentions witnessing a blow up at a range, the shooter said nothing, just packed the destroyed gun in its case and walked away as if nothing had happened.
Unless litigation or criminal charges are involved you are unlikely to ever learn details of most firearms accidents, and sometimes even if investigated the results may be sealed as part of a settlement.

When Federal sporting ammunition was involved in the fatal bolthead failure of a .303 rifle, the result of investigation was bore condition was the major factor, but Federal recalled the ammunition voluntarily and made changes to its line of .303 ammo to compensate for bores eroded and corroded by the British .303 ammunition.
I don't think there will be any such massive changes in the manufacture of .308 Winchester comercial sporting and target ammunition to cater to owners of milsurp 7.62 rifles with loose chambers and headspace far beyond SAAMI specifications.

[herbert buckland]

very infomitave with a lot of comon sence put in ,my waning about the Lapua 170gr lock bass sniper round was pased on to me by two difrent aromurs who had a very thorough grounding in L42, these men did not give wanings to hear the sound of there own voice ,i thort it might be a good idear to pass the waning on ,i just hope those who disregard such wanings dont do it in public,it may be safe but i do not want to find out the hard way it is not

[Multigunner]

very infomitave with a lot of comon sence put in ,my waning about the Lapua 170gr lock bass sniper round was pased on to me by two difrent aromurs who had a very thorough grounding in L42, these men did not give wanings to hear the sound of there own voice ,i thort it might be a good idear to pass the waning on ,i just hope those who disregard such wanings dont do it in public,it may be safe but i do not want to find out the hard way it is not

Its very likely those same armorers have had to repair or condemn L42 rifles that have been fed the wrong ammunition.
Unfortunately a lot of collectors seem to go off the deep end if anyone offers any sort of advice on sticking to safe loads or avoiding decades out of date surplus ammo.
I've run across people talking of cleaning corroded cases with brillo pads just to get old ammo in the chamber, then they wonder why they aren't getting sub moa groups. At other times I've seen people urging a visitor to use old MkVII ammunition in a rebarreled LE sporter, and that barrel an SMLE MkI not intended for MkVII ammunition , not throated for it and not sighted for it, and the rifle bearing only the 16,5 LT proof mark, signifying it had never been proofed for anything higher than MkVI, also no sign that the rifle had been reproofed after rebarreling.

[35 Whelen]

Hard to argue with this: 7.62 NATO Pressure vs. commercial 308 Winchester (http://www.surplusrifleforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=76&t=39614)

35W

[Ray1946]

A very special thanks to everyone for all the great contributions! I have never seen so much data on .308 in my entire life. All of this data kind of reinforces what I have felt for a long time; stay with low pressure cast bullet loads in the old,classic military rifles.
I have several old military rifles. Finding one with a really good barrel and a usable stock means I have something I can use for the rest of my life: If I use cast bullets with sensible loads that barrel and the rest of the rifle will probably last a long,long time.
A lubricated cast bullet practically eliminates throat erosion, because the flame from the powder is just beginning to melt the lube as the bullet is pushed into the barrel by the exploding powder. The surface of the throat and the rest of the barrel become "seasoned" by the liquifying and gaseous state of the lube as the bullet passes thru the barrel. I read somewhere that after 10,000 rds. a barrel was checked for ware and none was found. Sounds like a real good case for cast bullets, especially if we want to pass them down in shooting condition to future shooters..........................Ray

[felix]

" the flame from the powder is just beginning to melt the lube as the bullet is pushed into the barrel by the exploding powder" . Not true, Ray, because the logic is faulty. Contrast your statement with the heat of friction generated by colder-than-ice "air" and colder-than-ice spacecraft. Re-entry characteristics would be "roughly equal" to a projectile being fired from a gun. As seen on TV the effects can be extremely destructive. ... felix

[Multigunner]

" the flame from the powder is just beginning to melt the lube as the bullet is pushed into the barrel by the exploding powder" . Not true, Ray, because the logic is faulty. Contrast your statement with the heat of friction generated by colder-than-ice "air" and colder-than-ice spacecraft. Re-entry characteristics would be "roughly equal" to a projectile being fired from a gun. As seen on TV the effects can be extremely destructive. ... felix

Actually in British testing of the effects of excessive grease left in bores or chambers of .303 rifles they found that when there was grease at the case mouth and neck it was squeezed into the throat, forming a temporary incompressible seal, this resulted in some increase in pressure and a very slight but noticable increase in velocity.
The base of the bullet is still in the case as the forwards portion of the body og the bullet first engages the origin of rifling at the throat. At that point grease on the bullet or case neck would be subjected to high mechanical pressure but not to propellant gases or extreme heat, that comes next in the cycle.

The effect would vary with the type of propellant and chamber pressure, also the qualities of the grease. Mobil Lubricant had very different properties compared to mineral jelly, and caused damage to many Springfield match rifles when excessive lube was used.


stay with low pressure cast bullet loads in the old,classic military rifles.

Sometimes this would be close to a necessity, and one can't really go wrong by using light loads and cast bullets, but I do usually load for my high power rifles at very near the energy levels of the original ball ammunition, as well within SAAMI specifications.
I've also learned to take into account the age and previous use and abuse of the individual rifle.
There are new propellants on the market which can duplicate the balistics of the original military ball at far lower pressures. IMR 4007 sounds promising, its a "Super Short Cut" extruded powder.

I have no interest in exceeding the performance of the original military ball ammunition.

I've tried cast before without much sucess (except in handguns where I achieved excellent results), but that was mainly due to not having a rifle with a bore especially suited to cast boolits. One reason I went to extra effort and expense to obtain the 1915 MkIII I have now was due to its bore being at the nominal specs for .303 ( .303X.311)rather than the commonly over sized bore usually found with these rifles (up to .318 in some cases with .314 common), and very finly cut rifling with no sign of wear or erosion (almost certainly a replacement barrel though numbered to the receiver).

I've seen the myth of the Enfield being expected to fire muddy ammunition safely , and at one time believed it. After finding a book on musketry published during WW1 and early in the text the admonition against firing with mud in the action or mud on ammunition, with the note that many rifles had been rendered unservicable in this manner, my opinion changed.
Thats where I found the true meaning of cartridges "oiled in the service manner", not wet with oil, but simply wiped with an oil moistened rag and left to dry to a dry to the touch micro thin protective coating.
The oiled proof test loads were intended to take into account rifles not properly cleaned of excess oil and grease before firing.
No rifle would be left with bore completely free of a protective oil for any length of time, or rust would have claimed the bore quickly in lulls between actions, or while sitting in racks awaiting use in emergencies such as the Mumbai incident.
In that incident a number of Indian Police reported failures of their SMLEs, rifles left basically unattended for years then rushed into the hands of police, many of whom had never been allowed to fire these rifles in training.
Some reported that when issued .303 Enfields when on duty in problem areas, they were given ten rounds for use if needed and no alotment of ammo for familarization with the rifle or target practice. Misfires and failures to extract were common.
In one video of the Mumbai incident a courageous officer exchanged fire with his heavily armed foes. From the huge ammount of smoke in the muzzle blast My best guess is that the barrel of that rifle was still heavily greased for storage.

The Enfields are one of the easiest to clean rifles ever issued, being able to clear mud from a Enfield quickly was why it worked so well in the trenches, not some mythical ability to be fired safely with mud in bore or chamber.

One thing to look out for is the "Cord Worn" chamber. In the incident I mentioned earlier of a bolthead blowout killing a hunter, it was found that the "breech was thinned on the righthand side".
Use of pull through cords that often became contaminated by dirt or sand could damage muzzles or chambers, giving an ovaled look since pulling in a perfectly straightline is not possible, if the chamber is ovaled even slightly there is less support for the case.
In that incident excessive pressure from a stuck bullet jacket was sufficient to rupture the case at the worn chamber with gases directed into the extractor channel in the bolt head lug. The extractor and part of the bolthead severed a large vein killing the shooter.
The odd part is where the wound was, low on the right side of the abdomen. No one knows for sure but its suspected that the shooter had held the rifle away from his body with his lefthand to fire a test shot to satisfy himself that the rifle was safe. This was not a sufficient method of testfiring as it turned out.

Anytime I get an old rifle, milsurp or commercial, I testfire remotely at least three rounds of full power ammunition, then examine the cases for signs of any hidden problems.

[mike in co]

very infomitave with a lot of comon sence put in ,my waning about the Lapua 170gr lock bass sniper round was pased on to me by two difrent aromurs who had a very thorough grounding in L42, these men did not give wanings to hear the sound of there own voice ,i thort it might be a good idear to pass the waning on ,i just hope those who disregard such wanings dont do it in public,it may be safe but i do not want to find out the hard way it is not


its not hot ammo...the velocity is the results of the 30 INCH BBL.

now jump to 115 degrees outside or so , who knows.

it can be done with over the counter powder.

[Multigunner]

its not hot ammo...the velocity is the results of the 30 INCH BBL.

now jump to 115 degrees outside or so , who knows.

it can be done with over the counter powder.

How great is the velocity difference between a K98 and a GEW98 firing the same 8mm ball ammo?

Or a better comparasion.

During the development of the Tango 51, Tac Ops took a standard 26-inch barrel and cut it down to 18 inches in one-inch increments. Between 10 to 20 rounds were fired at each invrement. They found that a 20-inch barrel provides for a complete propellant burn and no velocity loss when using Federal Match 168-grain BTHP, a cartridge that has become something of a law enforcement standard. Going to an 18-inch barrel only resulted in a loss of 32 feet per second (fps).



Many agencies purchasing a .300 Win. Mag. will primarily be employing the rifle in an urban environment. The common reason for opting for the .300 Win. Mag. that it extends the capabilities of the rifle to longer ranges than the .308 Winchester is capable in those rare situations where longer range capability is necessary. This leads to an obvious question -- will going to a shorter barrel for added maneuverability in the urban environment adversely affect long range performance of a rifle in this caliber?

To find the answers, Tac Ops took a 26-inch barreled .300 Win. Mag. and chopped the barrel down in one-inch increments as they previously did with the .308 Winchester. Ten rounds of Federal Match 190-grain BTHP Gold Medal were fired from each increment. No velocity was lost from 26 inches to 22 inches. Velocity loss started to occur only after they went below 22 inches.




Longer barrels give the powder more time to work on propelling the bullet. For this reason longer barrels generally provide higher velocities, everything else being equal. However, the gas pressure behind the bullet diminishes as the bullet moves down the bore. Given a long enough barrel, there will eventually be a point in which the bore friction and air pressure in front of the bullet will equal the gas pressure behind it. At this point, the velocity of the bullet will start to decrease.

http://www.tacticaloperations.com/SWATbarrel/

[herbert buckland]

If this amunition is so safe why is the British NRA not alowing bullits heavier than 144gr to be yoused in the 7.62 conversions,do you think maybe they are being over causious or are they creating a myth

[Multigunner]

If this amunition is so safe why is the British NRA not alowing bullits heavier than 144gr to be yoused in the 7.62 conversions,do you think maybe they are being over causious or are they creating a myth

from the latest NRA news on the subject.

Conversions which have been checked and found to comply with Rule 150 may safely be used with any ammunition supplied by the NRA including the 155 grain Radway Green Cartridge, 155 grain RUAG Cartridge or any other commercial CIP Approved cartridges loaded with bullets of any weight provided that the ammunition pressure does not exceed 3650 Bar when measured in a CIP standard barrel.

3650 BAR is 52,938 PSI
thats a good bit lower than the max deviation pressure of M-80 Ball, and quite a bit lower than a great many of the medium pressure .308 heavy bullet loads.

As for the cream of the crop


Owners of Enfield No 4 actioned rifles converted to 7.62mm currently proofed to 19 tons per square inch are strongly advised to have them re-proofed to the current CIP standard (requiring a minimum mean proof pressure of 5190 bar) which allows the use of CIP approved ammunition with a Maximum Average Working Pressure (MAWP) of 4150 Bar.
• Conversions retaining their original Enfield barrel or a replacement barrel as manufactured by RSAF Enfield are safe to use with commercial CIP approved ammunition, which complies with a MAWP of 4150 bar, loaded with any weight of bullet, providing they carry a valid proof mark, and are still in the same condition as when submitted for proof.

4150 BAR is 60190 PSI
So to be authorized to use high end 7.62 or .308 ammunition the rifles must be reproofed if they don't already bear the CIP proof mark.
5190 BAR is 75274 PSI, below SAAMI Proof standards for the .308.

The admonition against 155 grain bullets was due to difference in bullet and bore diameters more than anything else, many converted No.4 rifles having been fitted with undersized bores to compensate for surplus 7.62 having bullets smaller than .308.

It will be interesting to see the results of reproofing of these rifles.

PS
The warning against shooting in wet weather or with oil in the chamber is still in effect.

[felix]

Pardon my ignorance, just what are you guys trying to accomplish? What's the problem? ... felix

[docone31]

Ah, Felix, they are having fun!!!!
Besides, I am learning a lot.
They love their Enfields also.

[herbert buckland]

Because MONEY is involved and people can be bribed, in the UK firearms are required to be inspected and reproofed if they change hands. How much money can a proof house make if all .7.62 Enfields are required to be reproofed again.

Now think about what the British NRA said, bullets heavier than 144 grains will cause excess pressure....HOW is that possible..... ALL 7.62 ammunition is rated at 50,000 CUP or 60,000 PSI.
(Except for the new American M118 Special Long Range at 52,000 CUP)

And why would you reproof a military Enfield with a dry proof cartridge to civilian CIP proof standards when it will only put 50% of the strain on the bolt and receiver that an oiled military proof round would.

Or for that matter why would the United States buy 9mm Beretta pistols and Belgium FN squad automatic weapons (SAW) or Canadian made Striker military vehicles. $$$$$$$$$Oww! A goverment conspiricy.Posible. but could safty also be a reason

[Multigunner]

Herbert Buckland download and read this
http://www.triplej.com.au/pdfpages/pressure_factors.pdf

The use of undersized bores for 7.62 conversion to compensate for the often undersized bullets of the 144 grain British NATO Ball and similar NATO ball from various sources led to shooters showing up at meets with rifles unsuitable for the Radway green 155 grain slightly longer range ammo which had full diameter .308 bullets. Chamber pressures as can be seen from the report went up, and since most such rifles had not been proofed beyond the 19 LT level they were exceeding the rifle's proof test rating at every shot.
Some of the L42 rifles were reproofed to 20 LT, but this apparently is still below SAAMI standards for the .308.

I had read of some British police marksmen complaining that rival police marksmanship units were cheating at competitive matches by using higher velocity handloads slipped by in place of the standard authorized factory loads.

The first NRA warning on the conversions I found in their journal mention concerns of the Police among others about unsuitable ammunition/rifle combinations.

The Police Enforcer rifles were assembled from the highest quality parts, its said far more parts were sent to the scrap bin than used in production. Each part was carefully tested by the most advanced methods of the day, so it stands to reason that the Enforcer with original barrel and unaltered since its proof test would be best able to handle the .308, but its sill not proofed to SAAMI standards.
The Enforcer has a slightly undersize minor diameter, from .298-.299, could find nothing on its major diameter.

As for the tinfoil hat brigade, theres always a few who despise seat belt and helmet laws. Also more than a few who believe no one ever landed on the moon.
And of course they've all seen enough Mel Gibson movies to "know" that the Enfield can be fired safely with swamp water running out of the muzzle as our hero rises from the murky waters to kill all the japs or whoever.
They've also seen plenty of photos of Enfield rifles with mud on the outside so they conclude that its safe to stuff mud caked cartridges in the breech and let fly.
Some just like to argue and will take whichever side of debate thats left open.

Personally I'd rather discuss than debate, rational discussions may seem boring to some but are far more productive.

PS
Just check Hodgdons Reloading center, about half the heavy bullet .308 loads given there exceed the NRA safety limits of aprox 53,000 PSI with quite a few over 58,000 PSI and up to 61,000+ which exceeds the limitation for those few top grade Enfield 7.62 rifles proved to CIP specs.
Of the 175 grain bullet .308 loads that do fall within the safety limit velocity is almost Identical to that of .303 MkVII ammunition, but often at a higher pressure than equivalent loads in the .303 section.

To remain within NRA UK safety limits the vast majority of the converted No.4 rifles would require loads very nearly identical to the performance level of the .303.

[herbert buckland]

Multigunner ,I downloaded that an it was very informative with a couple of suprises ,i agree with your asesment, but i also think some of the infomation about not yousing a enfild in th rain and such is way over the top ,if this was the case ther would have been reports from the 1st ww to Malayer and i have not heard of any,but i still can not go along with yousing the heavy high velocity round in the Indian or converted 7.62 enfilds

[mike in co]

A very special thanks to everyone for all the great contributions! I have never seen so much data on .308 in my entire life. All of this data kind of reinforces what I have felt for a long time; stay with low pressure cast bullet loads in the old,classic military rifles.
I have several old military rifles. Finding one with a really good barrel and a usable stock means I have something I can use for the rest of my life: If I use cast bullets with sensible loads that barrel and the rest of the rifle will probably last a long,long time.
A lubricated cast bullet practically eliminates throat erosion, because the flame from the powder is just beginning to melt the lube as the bullet is pushed into the barrel by the exploding powder. The surface of the throat and the rest of the barrel become "seasoned" by the liquifying and gaseous state of the lube as the bullet passes thru the barrel. I read somewhere that after 10,000 rds. a barrel was checked for ware and none was found. Sounds like a real good case for cast bullets, especially if we want to pass them down in shooting condition to future shooters..........................Ray


its your rifle and you do what you want....
BUT
like some have said.........
most of what you have read is by some proclaimed "expert"
tons of bs has been posted here

powder burns, does not explode, as long as the bullet/boolit is moving( in a normal load)
go look at hazmat...primers are an explosive, powder is a flame hazard.
most cast boolit loads are low enough that throat wear from powder burn will be litte to nothing.

don't let what has been posted here get your panties in a wad....

unless you have some specific reason to not trust the action it will do fine with any reasonable load.

note that some posters kept confusing facts by discussing 303 brit, and not 7.62x51/308 win.

persoanlly i have never seen so much bs on one thread in a very long time.

once you start shooting the rifle with jacketed bullets you will discover that the long thin bbl does not like shooting small groups...it heats, it moves and the shots start moving too.

here is the time where cast can help. lite loads with heavy boolits. 1600 fps or so.


mike in co

[Multigunner]

Multigunner ,I downloaded that an it was very informative with a couple of suprises ,i agree with your asesment, but i also think some of the infomation about not yousing a enfild in th rain and such is way over the top ,if this was the case ther would have been reports from the 1st ww to Malayer and i have not heard of any,but i still can not go along with yousing the heavy high velocity round in the Indian or converted 7.62 enfilds

I had not heard of there being a danger when firing wet cartridges till recently either, but the armorer's instructions do make it clear that action bodies could crack though reason is not given ,and the warning is repeated in books written by noted UK target shooters.

You can check the admonitions in regulation for musketry in this free download.
http://www.archive.org/details/musketry30322car00sola
Its early on in the section on lessons learned in the war.

One might get away with shooting with a wet chamber many times, and action body cracks may not open up immediately, but once a crack forms the rifle is on its way to the scrap bin, or to be demilled as Drill Purpose only.

PS
If you've ever seen the canvas action covers issued for use with the Enfield rifles and wondered what they were for, these are mentioned in the above book, these were to prevent water and mud from getting into the action.

Also it seems most believe that an action not simply blowing up when a proof test round is fired is the end of it, but after that test round is fired the action is carefully examined for signs of damage the average shooter would have difficulty seeing. Action bodies used for conversions were at one time at least subjected to extensive examination for microscopic cracks that might have developed during previous service. Any that had cracks would be condemned before proceeding further.

An old publication I ran onto recently tells of target shooting at Bisley in the 1890's and of one season when many privately owned Enfield rifles were damaged or destroyed by defective ammunition , that ammunition having been supplied from government stores, further on it quotes a "London Gunmaker" on the high number of Enfields brought into their shops with action bodies cracked through, so excessive pressures could and did destroy many fine target rifles even in controlled conditions, with ammunition manufactured to government specifications of the day.
I believe this coincides with comtamination of government contracted cordite by mercury, which caused a scandal at the time.
The lefthand sidewall of the No.4 action is notably high and thick, far more so than the mounting of the rear sight would have called for. I suspect this was meant to reduce if not eliminate sidewall cracking from excessive pressure ammo or wet or oily ammunition or chambers.

Setback to bolt lugs or damaged boltheads can be repaired by simply fitting replacement parts, which I was surprized to find are still commonly available, even unissued replacement bolt bodies pre proofed and with the BNP Birmingham markings, but a cracked action body is the end of the rifle for any use other than a wall hanger or DP.

I'd often wondered where so many demilled L42 rifles came from, you'll see these listed on UK sites that deal with non functioning collector grade firearms.
With so few made you'd think any that were salvagable would be far too valuable to be rendered non functional.

In two of Martin Pegler's books on sniping he mentions the failure of an L42 during the Falklands campaign. In wet conditions the rifle first lost its zero then became dificult to cycle, the bolt becoming so difficult to move that the sniper had to discard his L42 and use a captured Argentine FAL.

In Malaya the No.4 and No.5 seems to have been the major issue rifles. Most accounts of jungle fighting there which I've run across mention the use of SMGs and shotguns more often than rifles of any sort.
In an article on the No.5 carbine an armorer of the day said that many No.5 carbines were brought in with the rear sidewalls spread, enough to shear through the rear sight pivot lock pin.
I'd figured unauthorised use of MkVIIIZ to be the cause, but wet weather might have been a factor.

UK target shooters have had the benefit of their NRA keeping track of ammunition quality for generations, and guidelines for safety of the rifles of all sorts in use. Accidents are very uncommon, because the vast majority of gun owners take heed of safety warnings. In combat soldiers remember their training and take steps to keep their rifles in top working order, those who don't end up KIA or POW or with injuries they wouldn't care to talk about.

[herbert buckland]

The latest up to date documented advice i can find on this subject is the British NRA who with the Birmingham proof house have decided that rifles have to be reproofed to youse the heaver Palma match amunition, Australia comes under the same rules so this would the waning may have originated ,though i am not sure as it came through Australian Army armours,it does not mater what i think or anybody elce for that mater, if i want to shoot my L42 i have to youse the old nato 7.62 round on the range or not shoot at all,this does not trouble me as this was the round the rifle is calibrated to ,and there is no way i am going to get it reproofed

[45nut]

Let's not forget the focus on this forum is the use of cast, not fmj. The use of cast for most of us in rifles is reduced loads, bypassing most of the above pressure induced problems.

[Multigunner]

Let's not forget the focus on this forum is the use of cast, not fmj. The use of cast for most of us in rifles is reduced loads, bypassing most of the above pressure induced problems.

True that cast boolits are the specific interest of the board, but in this case that makes the warnings against lubrication on cases and in chambers an important factor.
With cast boolits we need bullet lubricants, if the boolits are always seated with lube grooves below the case mouth then the exposed portion of the boolit can be cleaned at least well enough that no noticable amount of lube will be deposited in the chamber during insertion of the cartridge. If any lube remains on cases or boolits it should be wiped away before use.
Lower pressure loads will not subject the action to any great amount of back thrust force even if the case is lubed, but thrust would be greater than expected, and according to Sweets manual that can result in vertical displacement or stringing.
The Enfield SMLE and LE also have a noticably offset front sight base, to compensate for springing of the action body under pressure. The No.4 front sight base is also offset but less noticably.
The amount and consistency of back thrust will determine the amount of vertical displacement and/or horizontal bullet throw/drill.

With lower pressures safety is less likely to be compromised by wet or oily cases, but accuracy would still be affected to some extent.

If any lube is left on the cartridge even a small amount per case can build up in the chamber during a day's shooting, so occasionally wiping the chamber clean may help with maintaining a tight grouping ability and avoid wasted shots and fliers.

Also since most load cast in previously fired cases from factory or surplus ammo , then when firing factory ammo in these rifles choosing the right ammo pressure wise is still important.

[Multigunner]

The latest up to date documented advice i can find on this subject is the British NRA who with the Birmingham proof house have decided that rifles have to be reproofed to youse the heaver Palma match amunition, Australia comes under the same rules so this would the waning may have originated ,though i am not sure as it came through Australian Army armours,it does not mater what i think or anybody elce for that mater, if i want to shoot my L42 i have to youse the old nato 7.62 round on the range or not shoot at all,this does not trouble me as this was the round the rifle is calibrated to ,and there is no way i am going to get it reproofed

The Australian NRA also had a similar warning posted on their website sometime back with a detailed description of possible issues.
There apparently had been a few incidents of some sort but no details were available.