Lee Enfield # 4 (re-barelled to .308) - If you own one, this is a must read

[Navalsnpr]

Had an interesting experience occur around a month ago which is worth while bringing up on this forum.

I was the RSO for Civilian Target Rifle match and during a course of fire, a competitor who was shooting a Lee Enfield (originally barrelled to .303) had an ammunition failure. The ammunition casing physically separated around 1/2 way down the casing wall and caused the base of the casing to strike the face of the bolt. It in turn partially disintegrated and ejected part of the bolt along with part of the casing.

The shooter ended up with a minor cut over his eye, some particles that had to be removed from his right eye, and some powder burns/tattooing on his left hand.

I, as the RSO, was standing square on to the shooter, behind him at an approximate angle of 45 degrees and around 12 feet away. I ended up receiving an 1/8" cubed piece of casing in my upper arm. Had an operation the following week to have the item removed from my upper arm. If I was standing a foot to the left, I probably wouldn't be here explaining this one.

Some info on the re-load ammunition as follows:

     The ammunition was reloads, the load was 44 grains of Winchester 748, in twice fired brass, behind Lapua 155g Boatails.
     A proven load (500+ rounds with the same combo) No obvious pressure signs seen.

After some investigation by many of our association members, it was determined that there are a couple of factors at work here that caused the incident.

1. The head space of this particular type of firearm has been known to have excessive head space and should be regularly checked. For those not knowing what head space is, it is the clearance allowed between the base of the cartridge case and the face of the bolt.

2. Re-loaded ammunition. Commercial Brass is NOT as thick as Military brass. When a round is fired in the chamber, it lengthens, therefore causing the wall of the casing to become very thin. In this case, it became too thin, ruputurupturedhus lead to the bolt and partial casing to be edjected. A good description on Head Space can be vied at:   Head Space Article

Lessons learned:

Periodically check the head space of any firearm you have, especially after any major servicing.
When using hand loads, make sure you ensure all steps are taken to prepare and assemble the ammunition.

This one could have ended up different.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Have the cadet L.E.'s been rebarrelled to .308, or is this head space problem just as likely to occur on the .303? Cheers..

 

[Navalsnpr]

No, this wouldn't affect any weapon that is still in service within the Canadian Military.

The Lee Enfield # 4 was brought into service in the 1950's and a couple of decades later, a number of them were sold off as surplus. As .308 was a more popular calibre than .303, many were re-barrelled.

The Canadian Rangers still use the .303 No4 MkI and the Cadets use the .22 Cal No7 MkI

This issue wouldn't be an issue with the .303 No4 MkI or the .22 Cal No7 MkI.

 

[1feral1]

The Lee Enfield # 4 was brought into service in the 1950's   As .308 was a more popular calibre than .303, many were re-barrelled.

Hey Navalsnpr, you are lucky, as was the shooter. Hope ya recover well.

The Canadian Longbranch No.4 Mk1* was wartime made too. Mine is dated 1943, and is in the 36,000 range.   Longbranch did make more in the 1950's. If memory serves me correctly, the CF never adopted the rifle in 7.62 NATO, but the RCMP in the 1960's and 1970's may have dabbled. Most conversions were 'civvy sourced', and the quality by some "armchair armourers" or overseas armourers in large arms clearing houses is questionable.

The HS problems could be as simple as a mismatched bolt, as head space is determined by different sized bolt heads.

Case separation is quite common with Lee Enfield rifles (especially surplus mismatched ones), even the old .303's.

Shooters beware! When in doubt, if you have a new rifle to your collection, most reputable gun smiths have generic .303 or 7.62mm HS gauges (and a swag of bolt heads to boot), and its simple to see if the rifle passes or fails. yes, its cheap to replace a bolt head too.

Better safe than sorry.

My 2 Bob.

Wes

 

[pappy]

I disagree, improper head space can be a problem in any firearm.  You can have head spacing problems with any rifle and any design.  It just tends to show itself more on these type of rebarreled actions. (not enfields but any rebarrel from one caliber to another)

Plus no matter now careful one is with handloads, not to say it happened here, but accidents happen.  Glad everyone walked away in one peice.

 

[Navalsnpr]

This outcome could have definately been worse that what it was.

We will all take something home from this one, safety thing that is.

When ever in doubt, have the head space checked.

 

[1feral1]

I disagree, improper head space can be a problem in any firearm.   You can have head spacing problems with any rifle and any design.   It just tends to show itself more on these type of rebarreled actions. (not enfields but any rebarrel from one caliber to another)

I was simply referring to the Lee-Enfield in this case through personal expereince, as I have headspaced heaps of Australian No.1 Mk III rifles in the past 10 yrs alone. If the rifle was head spaced properly in the first place, this may have been avoided, but surplus weapons, even with matching serial numbers are always at risk, as the bolt head simply unscrews.

Headspace is indeed a problem with all rifles (and MGs), and thats why annual inspections, and before live fire EX's we conduct cover headspace along with bore erosion, trueness, and firing pin protrusion.   Australians are so anal about headspace even the carriers on our all our MGs, AUG's, M4's and M16A1's are serialised.

Regards,

Wes

 

[Foxhound]

This is actually a large problem with surplus Mk 3's, No. 4 Mk1's and No. 5's (same bolt as No. 4's.)   The reason?   These rifles actions lock at the rear of the bolt as opposed to the front.   Through the act of firing thousands and thousands of rounds, the body of the bolt becomes compressed and the headspace loosens.   For the No. 4 Mk. 1's and No. 5's, there were three different bolt head sizes that could be screwed on to compensate for the bolt compression.

When I worked for Century Int'l Arms (C.I.A. - LOL) we had thousands of Enfields that we had to headspace properly before we could sell them.   Since they were surplus from so many different countries, it was almost impossible to find a rifle that had it's original bolt and bolt head.   What we did was send the bolt heads out to have metal welded on to the face of the bolt head then I and another gunsmith would machine them down to proper tolerance on the lathe.

I would strongly suggest that if you own any pattern SMLE, re-barreled or not, bring it to a competant 'smith to have the headspace verified.

 

[CH1]

Also watch breech diameter.  One of the reasons a SMLE could cycle quickly and function in extreme conditions was the loose breech.  I do not remember too many hard extractions.  The other problem with the .303 case, was the fact that it was loosely modeled on the Krag (if I remember right) casing & hence the tapered case. Have to drag the Janes out again.

 

[TCBF]

Thanks - I own a 7.62mm No.4 Mk.1* (Long Branch) .  Put 60 rounds through it last spring.

Tom

 

[YukonJack]

The part in the post above about commercial brass being thinner than Milspec is true, but could be somewhat misleading to a neophyte. SAAMI standards are developed with commercial brass, and pressure limits are derived with commercial brass. Therefore, any handload conforming to (or below)  these specs/pressure limits in civilian brass with reliable published data should be safe.
  I hope nobody runs out and gets surplus brass to load up based on the heavier/thicker brass issue, with the idea that they can reload it more times or control case fatigue without a little more info.
  Even Milspec brass conforms to the SAAMI dimensional (exterior) size. If it's thicker, that means the internal volume of the case is less. Safe loads in commercial brass have the potential to become dangerously loaded in surplus brass. Some have approached proof load pressures.  Remember to reduce your powder charge accordingly when using surplus brass.
  I'm not saying the fellow shooting the Enfield was using surplus brass, just giving a little more info, hoping to prevent some mistakes that have been made in the past. Any serious handloader would know all this already, and it's not aimed at them.
  Navalsnipr, glad things didn't turn out worse for either of ya's.