NRA Safety Notice re No 4 7.62mm Conversions

This is the current stance of the NRA safety warning which first appeared in the Summer NRA Journal:

Safety Notice
Enfield No 4 Rifle Conversions to 7.62mm

A safety warning concerning the use of Enfield No 4 Rifle actions converted to 7.62mm was published in the Summer 2010 Journal.

After further consideration of all factors influencing safety of these conversions and consultation with the Birmingham Proof Master, the following advice must be adhered to in respect of the use of Enfield No 4 conversions:

• 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.
• Conversions fitted with any other make of barrel (such as Ferlach, Maddco, Krieger etc) should be checked by a competent gunsmith to determine the throat diameter of the chamber/barrel fitted before use.
• Conversions where the throat diameter is less than the CIP specification of 0.311” but not smaller than 0.3085” must not be used with ammunition which exceeds 3650 Bar MAWP when fired in a SAAMI/CIP pressure barrel.
• 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.
• Owners of Enfield No 4 actioned rifles converted to 7.62mm who are uncertain as to the proof status of the rifle should have it checked by a competent gunsmith.
• Owners of Enfield No 4 actioned rifles in any calibre are strongly advised not to use them in wet weather or without removing all traces of oil from action and chamber prior to shooting.
• Enfield No 4 rifles which are fitted with a barrel which has a throat diameter less than 0.3085” must not be used on Bisley Ranges.
• Ammunition loaded with bullets of any weight which are of greater diameter than the throat diameter of the barrel must not under any circumstances be used on Bisley Ranges in any rifle or barrel of any manufacture.

FAO Mr P. Carr (Editor)

Dear Sir,

Sporting Rifle – March 2010. “Wet Weather Drill”

As an ardent collector, shooter and historian of Lee Enfield rifles I was very concerned, even alarmed, at the statements made by Mr Chris White in his article “Wet Weather Drill”.

The article started innocuously enough but then seemed to move to a serious ‘Enfield Bashing’ session, with unsubstantiated rumours and half-truths being quoted as fact.

I would like to break down the article into manageable sized ‘chunks’ and look at each statement individually:

a)      “…….. at worst a stretched action. Lee Enfield’s are notorious for this.”

Any rifle with water in the chamber, or using wet ammunition will have problems. It is not that the chamber pressure is higher than normal, but, the fact that the cartridge case can no longer grip the chamber wall, and therefore more force is passed back onto the bolt head / bolt. As the author states himself, his grandfather was at Passchendaele, where conditions were not ‘ideal’ and I am sure if Enfield’s ‘exploded’ when wet there would have been some reports of it happening.

Where is the evidence confirming “No4 Enfield’s are notorious for this” ?

Out of around 16 million Enfields manufactured, surely it would have been known if there was a ‘problem’.

I have spoken with the most Senior British Military Armourer at the Small Arms School at Warminster. He has trawled the military records and can not find a single report of a No4 action being affected in this way. He has offered to discuss Mr White's findings with him if he should care to find out the truth, as opposed to ‘internet rumours’.

Contact details provided if you require them.

b)      “A No4 shooting 7.62 ammunition is already doing a job beyond its design parameters”

Whose design parameters? As well as civilian shooters, the Military and the Police have used No4 actioned 7.62 rifles for many years. For example, the L39 (Military target rifle) was designed and built by RSAF (Royal Small Arms factory) Enfield, the Police ‘Enforcer’ Sniper rifle, The Enfield ‘Envoy’ and numerous other rifles were built by RSAF Enfield and Parker Hale, is Mr White suggesting that they knowingly built and sold rifles that were being asked to perform beyond their design parameters? I think the RSAF would have a little more knowledge on this subject than Mr White.

c)      “This coupled with questionable gunsmithing and significantly undersized bores when the rifle was converted from .303 ……”

Undoubtedly there have been some ‘home conversions’ of Enfield rifles but to lump together all conversions, as “questionable gunsmithing” is totally unreasonable. Official ‘conversions’ have been undertaken by Government agencies all around the world, again such notable names as RSAF, Parker Hale, and DCRA, - the list goes on.

The comment could be read as the fact that the 303 barrels were bored out and sleeved for 7.62 – this is not the case. “Conversion Kits” included the correct (newly made) barrel, breeching up washers, bolt head and extractor, there was no ‘questionable gunsmithing’ involved.

What evidence has Mr White to support his claims of “questionable gunsmithing” & “undersized bores” ?

d)      “….. stressing the action beyond this limit has a cumulative effect, which ultimately leads to failure …….”

Absolutely true of any metal part, on any rifle and is not a peculiarity of an Enfield rifle.

e)      “…. To cap it all, when the rifle passed into civilian hands it was subject to a deliberate overload at the proof house …..”

The implication here is that this is something unique to Military surplus / Enfield rifles, surely Mr White is aware that ANY firearm sold in the UK must be proofed with a “deliberately overloaded” proof round.

The military proof testing (STANAG) is even more severe than the civilian testing in that not only do they use a proof round 25% above service pressure, but they also use an ‘oiled’ round (to simulate wet cartridges) which would pick up on the alleged “action stretching”.

I quote from the specification:

“Each weapon and component considered vulnerable to the effects of a rapid change in pressure, for example barrels, breech blocks and bolts, will be tested by firing one dry round at a corrected minimum of 25% over pressure and one oiled round at a corrected minimum of 25% over pressure. 25% over pressure means 25% in excess of the Service Pressure (Pmax). The Service Pressure is defined as the mean pressure generated by the Service Cartridge at a temperature of 21°C. Such a high pressure proof is conducted with both the weapon and ammunition conditioned to an ambient temperature of 21°C.”

Any military firearm would be subject to this test, I again revert to the example of the Military L39 which is a 7.62 calibre ‘converted’ No4 action.

The shooting fraternity is under increasing pressure from Politicians and the non-shooting public, and ‘scare mongering’ reporting such as this article does our sport no good at all.

With the latest mandates from the UN to ban the civilian sales of military calibre weapons and ammunition (this includes 7.62), The international airlines (IATA) refusing to carry military calibre weapons, and the fact that in the UK 7.62 and .308 are seen as the same calibre (and many FAC’s show 308/7.62) we are looking at an uncertain future.

I am sure Mr White has researched his article and used information from qualified sources, this being the case, I see no reason why he should not be able to provide empirical evidence to support his article, If he cannot, then I would ask that an admission of error be published.

Yours faithfully