1965 Enfield 2A, questions on its finish and on .308 vs. NATO ammo

Re: 1965 Enfield 2A, questions on its finish and on .308 vs. NATO ammo

feeds@yuku.com (temperflash) — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:21:29 GMT

Found some info on the four lug Remington Lee design.
The 1899 version. A contemporary of the early Lee Enfields, but more expensive to mass produce.

The Remington-Lee was the last turnbolt pattern from brilliant firearms designer James Paris Lee. Like he Mauser 98 it has twin forward locking lugs, the left lug slotted for a pivoting mechanical ejector.

The recessed bolt face surrounds the case head with a ring of steel, broken only by a slot for...

Re: 1965 Enfield 2A, questions on its finish and on .308 vs. NATO ammo

feeds@yuku.com (Skeyed) — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 00:35:48 GMT

One more reply then I'll hush on this one.
Re guard less of the load, rifle, or type of ammo.
From all the information I have learned on this and other forums and my 4 reloading manuals. Any time you have a chamber that produces
Excessive swelling of the case then that is a sign of excessive pressure for that load in that chamber.
This should not mean the receiver is Inferior or weak.
We are all aware that some of these old war horses have over sized chambers....

Re: 1965 Enfield 2A, questions on its finish and on .308 vs. NATO ammo

feeds@yuku.com (timberlord) — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 22:09:38 GMT

quote Temperflash :
James Paris Lee, who originated the action type, designed an improved four lug lockup for a military rifle in 7mm Mauser caliber. This is a very rare rifle, if indeed any still exist. The improved lee action used the standard rear lugs coupled with a forward locking pair of lugs and a Manlicher type bolthead.
I've only seen cutaway drawings of the action and catalog drawings of the rifle which greatly resembled the Lee...

Re: 1965 Enfield 2A, questions on its finish and on .308 vs. NATO ammo

feeds@yuku.com (Gunfreak25) — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:27:33 GMT

Everyone, please read this article written by surplusrifleforum member Rapidrob. He has more shooting and gunsmithing experience than many of us will ever have. http://www.surplusriflefo...pic.php?f=120&t=40340

Simply put, you don't ever have worry about your rifle blowing up with even todays hottest...

Re: 1965 Enfield 2A, questions on its finish and on .308 vs. NATO ammo

feeds@yuku.com (Skeyed) — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 01:00:20 GMT

Easy does it.
For any one wondering about this should take a 7.62x51 NATO round and down load it and put the powder charge in a factory 308 Winchester case with the same weight bullet. Then fire one of each in your 2A1 and see what the difference in case swelling comes to.
Could be a difference.
skd

Re: 1965 Enfield 2A, questions on its finish and on .308 vs. NATO ammo

feeds@yuku.com (temperflash) — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 11:37:10 GMT

Hate to have to bump this, though whatever safety information we do establish probably should be posted as a sticky somewhere.

I just downloaded a Winchester Components catalog. Some pressures for recommened loadings using Winchester components were in CUP and others in PSI but the .303 loads were all in PSI and all 46,600 or less with some below 40,000 PSI .
Most .308 were not much hotter, with the 147 grain FMJBT actually lower than 46,000 when 748 powder is used and 49,000...

Re: 1965 Enfield 2A, questions on its finish and on .308 vs. NATO ammo

feeds@yuku.com (bigedp51) — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:57:10 GMT

Oh and one more thing, guess who makes .308/7.62 ammo to the same pressure and velocity specifications as military.

In closing, don't believe 99% of what you read on the internet and in these gun...

Re: 1965 Enfield 2A, questions on its finish and on .308 vs. NATO ammo

feeds@yuku.com (bigedp51) — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:31:46 GMT

After a nights sleep and rereading this post again I think I understand Temperflash a little better and get his point, here American ammunition companies download the .303 British to below 43,000 CUP in deference to the older SMLEs being shot.

I'm also old fashion and grew up with the CUP standard for pressure testing and...

Re: 1965 Enfield 2A, questions on its finish and on .308 vs. NATO ammo

feeds@yuku.com (temperflash) — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 01:18:42 GMT

Temperflash gives a figure of 39,000 "PSI" for Mk 7 ammunition. This is correct for the base-crusher system - and you can find the 17.5 ton (39,200 lb.) figure stamped on many exported Lee-Enfields - but is actually about the same as 45,000 c.u.p. using the US radial crusher system. One has to be very careful about making comparisons between pressure figures derived the with diverse systems employed on different continents.

And making...

Re: 1965 Enfield 2A, questions on its finish and on .308 vs. NATO ammo

feeds@yuku.com (Parashooter) — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 00:51:21 GMT

It's unfortunate that temperflash seems unaware of the differences between the axial ("base-crusher") measurement system long used in the UK and the radial crusher gauge common in the US. Perhaps this information, quoted from a Wm. C. Davis, Jr. article on pp. 130-131 of the NRA publication "Handloading", will help readers understand his confusion.

"The pressures recorded by the base-crusher gage are typically less than those recorded by a...

Re: 1965 Enfield 2A, questions on its finish and on .308 vs. NATO ammo

feeds@yuku.com (temperflash) — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 00:38:08 GMT

Temperflash

You're dancing around the subject and not proving anything, the SMLE No.1 and No.4 both shot Mk.VII ammunition, and conversion of the pressures is not the subject, it is not done because of the conversion error factor. (dead subject)

Excuse me but we don't seem to be talking about the same things at this point.

You are most interested in the differences in the .308 and the 7.62 while I'm...

Re: 1965 Enfield 2A, questions on its finish and on .308 vs. NATO ammo

feeds@yuku.com (bigedp51) — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 00:03:41 GMT

Temperflash

You're dancing around the subject and not proving anything, the SMLE No.1 and No.4 both shot Mk.VII ammunition, and conversion of the pressures is not the subject, it is not done because of the conversion error factor. (dead subject)

...

Re: 1965 Enfield 2A, questions on its finish and on .308 vs. NATO ammo

feeds@yuku.com (temperflash) — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 22:56:17 GMT

The .303 British pressures are approximately 45,000 CUP or 49,000 PSI and proof pressure tested at approximately 67,000 PSI and NOT as you stated as "39,000 PSI and Proofed at 58,000 PSI."

You are going by cartridges designed long after the rifle came into service. The cartridges it was designed around were of much lower pressures than the later marks, and the Cordite loaded rounds remained at significantly lower pressure ranges than the later...

Re: 1965 Enfield 2A, questions on its finish and on .308 vs. NATO ammo

feeds@yuku.com (bigedp51) — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 20:42:06 GMT

Temperflash

Do not confuse CUP with PSI pressure readings and CUP conversions to PSI, they are inaccurate and NOT used, the mixed readings in the newer reloading manuals are from direct pressure testing using the newer transducer methods and NOT converted CUP to PSI data. (See conversion errors in my post above)

Re: 1965 Enfield 2A, questions on its finish and on .308 vs. NATO ammo

feeds@yuku.com (Skeyed) — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 20:07:43 GMT
I have two, one in original configuration and a Gibbs Model.
I have and will continue to fire "factory Managed recoil," and light hand loads, but not full factory loads.
Like I said before, from the managed recoil, I can get 5 or 6 reloads with neck sizing before having to full size and/or trim.
The cases are doing fine.
I had one case split on the neck, from "New Managed recoil" but that can and does happen with any cal/load.
When I first got mine...

Re: 1965 Enfield 2A, questions on its finish and on .308 vs. NATO ammo

feeds@yuku.com (Parashooter) — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 20:03:17 GMT
We're seeing a good example of the confusion arising from several different systems for measuring breech pressure that have been commonly used during the past 100+ years. When dealing with historical pressure numbers it takes some experience to figure out if something listed as "p.s.i." is actually what we would now call "c.u.p." (radial copper crusher gauge), if the number was generated with the British axial crusher type gauge (which gives a still different result...

Re: 1965 Enfield 2A, questions on its finish and on .308 vs. NATO ammo

feeds@yuku.com (temperflash) — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 16:58:52 GMT

I'm always amazed at how rumors become facts when not questioned and verified.

Excuse me Ed but we are in the process of questioning and verifying. You'll see a lot of questioning of others statements here.

Did our American 03 Springfield's blow up we fired commercial 30-06 ammunition in them…..NO

Some early Springfields blew up using fairly mild military ammo. Those were problems corrected by...

Re: 1965 Enfield 2A, questions on its finish and on .308 vs. NATO ammo

feeds@yuku.com (Skeyed) — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:22:35 GMT
Right, bigedp51,
I am not as much concerned with how strong the receiver is or as to diff between 7.62 vs 308. pressure as I am for the condition of my chamber.
All other factors thrown out the window. If my rifle fires a "load" that leaves the case beyond resizing size, (swelled) to a point to where it cannot be full length re-sized, Then I cannot see any purpose for firing that load in that rifle. Whether it be , 2A1, 303, K31 etc.
Even if I was not reloading, I...

Re: 1965 Enfield 2A, questions on its finish and on .308 vs. NATO ammo

feeds@yuku.com (bigedp51) — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 12:46:30 GMT

Know thy rifle, the headspace settings for the 2A1 7.62 are not the same as American SAAMI or the American M-14, they are the same as the British Enfield L42 7.62 sniper rifle

L42

*Min - 1.628

*Max - 1.635

Re: 1965 Enfield 2A, questions on its finish and on .308 vs. NATO ammo

feeds@yuku.com (Youngblood) — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 11:19:55 GMT
"Read Books" ?

1965 Enfield 2A, questions on its finish and on .308 vs. NATO ammo

feeds@yuku.com (xlerb) — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 01:53:50 GMT
Hi All,

I recently bought an Enfield 2A rifle from Southern Ohio Gun and though I'm happy with it I don't quite know what to make of it. Both the metal and wood are in good condition, all numbers match - even the magazine, so that's either a small bit of luck, or someone's been busy with the punches. Bore looks great, etc.

But I don't know about the finish. Once I removed the cosmoline (more like differential grease) the finish on the wood seems...