Print Page | Close Window

Identification: Lee- Enfield 7.62 mm

Printed From: Enfield-Rifles.com
Category: Enfields
Forum Name: 7.62 Enfield
Forum Description: All things to do with the 7.62 Enfield
URL: http://www.enfield-rifles.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=12063
Printed Date: August 12 2022 at 2:38am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Identification: Lee- Enfield 7.62 mm
Posted By: 450 Fuller
Subject: Identification: Lee- Enfield 7.62 mm
Date Posted: June 08 2022 at 6:07am
A newer member here with a rifle I have owned for 20 years.
Photos are a problem as my digital camera is ill.

I initially thought this was most likely an Ishapore 2A 7.62 mm rifle, but now a few doubts have crept in.
First clue is the lack of significant markings.Serial number is 56198 with an "A" above SN-
stamped on action, bolt, and forend nose cap. Stratton has not been that helpful.
There are crossed Brit proof staff banners on barrel and receiver ring. These and a white arms room rack No. "14/277" painted on left side of stock- with Serial Numbers as indicated are pretty much all the identifying markings.No more. The usual 2A1 markings are glaringly absent.
Even other proof stampings are lacking or are well hidden.

It has the MK III style sight, not an aperture one. Trigger is also smooth and not rough with a 3 pound let off pressure. Bore is excellent.(Rifle functions and shoots well.)

Could this be an earlier 2A or even a Long Branch rifle? The more
I examine the rifle, the more it appears to be a MK III 7.62 early refit-
but by whom? Puzzling.Brit, Aussie, Indian or Canadian??
Any help appreciated.

-------------
Only the dead have seen the end of war-Plato

Socialism-The equal sharing of misery-Churchill



Replies:
Posted By: DaveNo5
Date Posted: June 08 2022 at 3:12pm
On the left side of the receiver, where is the ejector screw relative to the charging bridge?  On the No1, it will be centered beneath the bridge.  On the 2A (and 2A1) it will be centered below the front edge of the bridge, to account for the shorter 7.62 round.

A No. 1 could be re-barreled with a 7.62 barrel, but that ejector screw will be difficult to re-locate.

My 2A1 has a letter prefix and a 4-digit number afterwards.  I don't know what they did on the 2A for serial numbers, but I have seen some for sale with the markings of the form L12345 (letter, followed by 5 digits).

Lastly, is there any serial number on the magazine?  It should be on the rear "spine" of the magazine, hidden by the trigger guard when in place.

I am pretty new here too and am learning alongside everyone else.  Welcome to the forum! Dave


-------------
DaveNo5


Posted By: Goosic
Date Posted: June 08 2022 at 3:28pm
Originally posted by 450 Fuller 450 Fuller wrote:

A newer member here with a rifle I have owned for 20 years.
Photos are a problem as my digital camera is ill.

I initially thought this was most likely an Ishapore 2A 7.62 mm rifle, but now a few doubts have crept in.
First clue is the lack of significant markings.Serial number is 56198 with an "A" above SN-
stamped on action, bolt, and forend nose cap. Stratton has not been that helpful.
There are crossed Brit proof staff banners on barrel and receiver ring. These and a white arms room rack No. "14/277" painted on left side of stock- with Serial Numbers as indicated are pretty much all the identifying markings.No more. The usual 2A1 markings are glaringly absent.
Even other proof stampings are lacking or are well hidden.

It has the MK III style sight, not an aperture one. Trigger is also smooth and not rough with a 3 pound let off pressure. Bore is excellent.(Rifle functions and shoots well.)

Could this be an earlier 2A or even a Long Branch rifle? The more
I examine the rifle, the more it appears to be a MK III 7.62 early refit-
but by whom? Puzzling.Brit, Aussie, Indian or Canadian??
Any help appreciated.
Does it look like the top rifle or the bottom rifle.  If it looks like the top rifle, you could possibly have a DCRA converted No4...


Posted By: Goosic
Date Posted: June 08 2022 at 3:37pm
Originally posted by DaveNo5 DaveNo5 wrote:

On the No1, it will be centered beneath the bridge.  On the 2A (and 2A1) it will be centered below the front edge of the bridge, to account for the shorter 7.62 round.

A No. 1 could be re-barreled with a 7.62 barrel, but that ejector screw will be difficult to re-locate.
The ejector screw on both the no1 and no4 rifles including the 2A/1 variant was only implemented to eject an unfired cartridge.  The extractor claw and the rear leading edge of the left side of the magazine in conjunction with friction is what assists the ejection of the empty cartridge. 
The 2A and 2A1 rifle reciever is no different than the No1Mk111/* in every aspect of its dimensions and locations of the ejector screw...


Posted By: 450 Fuller
Date Posted: June 08 2022 at 3:46pm

All indications are that this rifle is a 2A1, complete with squared-off 7.62 magazine, but the magazine SN does not match the rifle SN, which is again
561XX with A above the 1, not prefix letter.
Numbers match on receiver, barrel, bolt and nose cap. {Bottom photo, of course}

Its the lack of the usual 2A1 markings/proof marks that raised the question.
I wonder if it could be an earlier 2A, or the lads at Ishapore had a very long lunch break, lost the stamping tools, or the air raid siren went off? Stayed on.

-------------
Only the dead have seen the end of war-Plato

Socialism-The equal sharing of misery-Churchill


Posted By: DaveNo5
Date Posted: June 08 2022 at 6:06pm
Originally posted by Goosic Goosic wrote:

The 2A and 2A1 rifle reciever is no different than the No1Mk111/* in every aspect of its dimensions and locations of the ejector screw...


2A:  Screw at front end of charger bridge.


No. 1:  Screw centered below charging bridge.



-------------
DaveNo5


Posted By: Goosic
Date Posted: June 08 2022 at 6:19pm
Intresting in that the last 4 2A1 rifles I owned had the screw in the same spot as the No1Mk111/* rifles. The saying, "Anything can be expected when it comes to an Enfield" can be applied here...


Posted By: 450 Fuller
Date Posted: June 08 2022 at 6:37pm
Dave:
My 2A1 corresponds to your centered at front of charging bridge.

Just responded to Britrifles excellent early older post about
handloading the 7.62 for the Enfield rifle.

Be extremely cautious in handloading cast bullets with gas checks in bottleneck cartridges like the the 7.62.
If the Gas check falls off at any time during the seating operation-or after-
a pressure spike occurs similar to a chamber/barrel obstruction. The gas check may lodge in cartridge neck or leade of chamber. All resultant pressure is dangerous to rifle and shooter.
Caveat Handloader!

-------------
Only the dead have seen the end of war-Plato

Socialism-The equal sharing of misery-Churchill


Posted By: DaveNo5
Date Posted: June 09 2022 at 12:25pm
Originally posted by 450 Fuller 450 Fuller wrote:

Dave:
My 2A1 corresponds to your centered at front of charging bridge.

Just responded to Britrifles excellent early older post about
handloading the 7.62 for the Enfield rifle.

Be extremely cautious in handloading cast bullets with gas checks in bottleneck cartridges like the the 7.62.
If the Gas check falls off at any time during the seating operation-or after-
a pressure spike occurs similar to a chamber/barrel obstruction. The gas check may lodge in cartridge neck or leade of chamber. All resultant pressure is dangerous to rifle and shooter.
Caveat Handloader!

Glad to read that you have positively identified your rifle as a 2A or 2A1.  

It's not clear how the discussion shifted to loading with cast, but on the second point, I do load cast for many rifles, but have never heard of this specific hazard before.  This is not to imply that a barrel obstruction is not a bad thing--it is.

However, considering the size of the gas check relative to the lead bullet, one would think a loose gas check would simply get blown out of the way with little effort or left behind in the cartridge.  I do not realistically see one getting lodged in the leade or cartridge neck--but I could be wrong.

But a pressure spike "similar to a chamber/barrel obstruction" could destroy the rifle and seriously injure the shooter.  I checked Hornady and Lyman (both gas check manufacturers) and neither makes mention of this hazard.  Both make 30-caliber gas checks and Lyman publishes data for numerous bottleneck cartridges with cast.

Is this new guidance being published by the gas check manufacturers?  Is there a recall on their product?  Is this something that happened to you?

Dave






-------------
DaveNo5


Posted By: 450 Fuller
Date Posted: June 09 2022 at 4:14pm
A gas check loss from the base of a cast bullet has caused problems before to handloaders. It HAS happened to me, and others using gas checks in bottleneck cartridges like the 30-06 and 303 / 7.62. Mine was with a 338-06 semi-wildcat, though that cartridge has been legitimized by Weatherby& Art Alphin. No problems known in straight wall cases.
It only has to happen once to convert one to the dangers of a loose gas check. I know of no recalls of GCs, but that is hardly comforting. I no longer use them except in the 45-60, 45-70 and other relatively straight wall cases.
I would rather err on the side of caution.

-------------
Only the dead have seen the end of war-Plato

Socialism-The equal sharing of misery-Churchill


Posted By: DaveNo5
Date Posted: June 09 2022 at 5:56pm
Originally posted by 450 Fuller 450 Fuller wrote:

A gas check loss from the base of a cast bullet has caused problems before to handloaders. It HAS happened to me, and others using gas checks in bottleneck cartridges like the 30-06 and 303 / 7.62. Mine was with a 338-06 semi-wildcat, though that cartridge has been legitimized by Weatherby& Art Alphin. No problems known in straight wall cases.
It only has to happen once to convert one to the dangers of a loose gas check. I know of no recalls of GCs, but that is hardly comforting. I no longer use them except in the 45-60, 45-70 and other relatively straight wall cases.
I would rather err on the side of caution.

OK, thank you.  To clarify, the caution you suggest is not to use gas checks at all? 

Also, can you describe what happened when your gas check came off with this 338-06?  


-------------
DaveNo5


Posted By: 450 Fuller
Date Posted: June 09 2022 at 8:50pm
The pre-64 Model 70 is relatively strong. Gas ran through the action and
out the gas vent. The extractor ring was damaged requiring replacement.
No other damage. Shooting glasses handled the escaping gas. It produced
pressure in excess of a proof load.

From that day forward, only straight wall cases get gas checks, and not all of those: original Winchester M 1885 SS in 45 -60 and a Sharps 45-70 which does not require gcs as I paper patch the heavy 400-550 gr bullets. Your 577-450 would not need them, I expect for the same reason of lowered velocity.

I would prefer other methods on bottleneck cartridges to save money, or to prolong bore life. I learned a valuable lesson not quickly forgotten.
I have used reduced velocity cast lead bullets w/o gas checks in my Enfield 2A1 without leading or any other detrimental effects.

I am reminded of the old adage from the South: A mistreated mule will work ten years along, for the opportunity to kick you once. The decision is up to those who own the rifles.

-------------
Only the dead have seen the end of war-Plato

Socialism-The equal sharing of misery-Churchill


Posted By: britrifles
Date Posted: June 10 2022 at 3:47am
I completely agree regarding the benefits of shooting cast, practically infinite barrel life if your shooting at low velocities w/o a gas check. 

I’m on the verge of shooting out the barrel on my No. 4 match shooter.   It had a new barrel when I got it about 25 years ago.  I got in to competitive shooting six years ago, probably averaged 1500 rnds/year during that time.  

IIRC, my .577-450 cast loads run around 1100 fps with a 470 gr bullet, no need for a gas check,  I do use a wad under the bullet which stays contained in the neck of the case (the base of the bullet is well above the case shoulder when seated).  These are black powder loads and I do not use any fillers.  




Posted By: DaveNo5
Date Posted: June 10 2022 at 10:25am
Originally posted by 450 Fuller 450 Fuller wrote:

The pre-64 Model 70 is relatively strong. Gas ran through the action and
out the gas vent. The extractor ring was damaged requiring replacement.
No other damage. Shooting glasses handled the escaping gas. It produced
pressure in excess of a proof load.

From that day forward, only straight wall cases get gas checks, and not all of those: original Winchester M 1885 SS in 45 -60 and a Sharps 45-70 which does not require gcs as I paper patch the heavy 400-550 gr bullets. Your 577-450 would not need them, I expect for the same reason of lowered velocity.

I would prefer other methods on bottleneck cartridges to save money, or to prolong bore life. I learned a valuable lesson not quickly forgotten.
I have used reduced velocity cast lead bullets w/o gas checks in my Enfield 2A1 without leading or any other detrimental effects.

I am reminded of the old adage from the South: A mistreated mule will work ten years along, for the opportunity to kick you once. The decision is up to those who own the rifles.

450 Fuller:  Thanks for the description.  How did you come to the conclusion that what happened was because of a loose gas check, as opposed to some other cause?  Thanks, Dave


-------------
DaveNo5


Posted By: 450 Fuller
Date Posted: June 10 2022 at 11:52am
Scientific method and deductive observation. Close later examination of bullet base to gas check fit. Good gas checks almost always take a snap fit.
These were not loose, but they were not a tight fit as I am used to having.
Scrapped them all.

-------------
Only the dead have seen the end of war-Plato

Socialism-The equal sharing of misery-Churchill


Posted By: DaveNo5
Date Posted: June 10 2022 at 6:53pm
From your description I take it that the cartridge case failed as a result?  And by 'scientific method,' do you mean you deliberately tested some with loose gas checks against those with tight gas checks, and confirmed the hypothesis?

-------------
DaveNo5


Posted By: 450 Fuller
Date Posted: June 24 2022 at 6:51am
Yes and no. Not having a factory test barrel or a strong Weatherby action
in 338-06, I demurred in favor of common sense.

The bullets were cast .338/250 gr and the bore was not blocked by a cleaning patch. Subsequent hunting and shooting this rifle with jacketed bullets from 225-250 gr have produced no ill effects and the rifle is accurate.
The evidence is sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt that the GC was the culprit.

-------------
Only the dead have seen the end of war-Plato

Socialism-The equal sharing of misery-Churchill


Posted By: DaveNo5
Date Posted: June 25 2022 at 7:11am
450 Fuller:

Thanks.  I shoot almost exclusively cast in all my rifles.

Cast have been used successfully in bottle-necked semi-auto, such as the Garand family:
https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?3558-7-62x51-NATO-%28-308-WCF%29-in-the-Springfield-M1A" rel="nofollow - 7.62x51 NATO (.308 WCF) in the Springfield M1A (gunloads.com)

The website so linked has another discussion on cast in the M1 Garand as well.

Considering the length of the threads at that site, there must be hundreds of thousands of rounds fired from bottle-neck cartridges, all with gas checks.

However, there's a similar warning to yours found here, with attendant discussion:

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/15065302/gas-check-warning-for-rifles" rel="nofollow - Gas check warning for rifles - 24hourcampfire

In contrast, the discussion here includes gas checks fall off in flight (obviously loose), with the only effect being a loss in accuracy:

https://forum.castbulletassoc.org/thread/seating-gas-checks/" rel="nofollow - Seating Gas Checks (castbulletassoc.org)

It seems to me the thing to do is to contact the gas check manufacturers, who can test with the appropriate test equipment using different bullet molds, different cases, different loads, and different checks.  If this is really a risk (and it may very well be), the manufacturers should be made aware of it.  


-------------
DaveNo5


Posted By: Goosic
Date Posted: June 25 2022 at 9:04am
(What you have described is something I have read about and experienced first hand and I highly doubt that a gas check was the actual culprit even though it might have played a part.)
 I have been reloading for 38 years now. 
I handload using jacketed bullets.  I weigh each charge out individually on a scale. Up until 6 - 8 months ago, everything was as it should have been. A few years ago I started using a 200grn D166 Lapua bullet in my 303B. Trying to extrapolate load information was not as fruitful as anticipated.  That being said though. I was finally able to establish a minimum charge weight and I stay to that number without deviations. I had just finished loading 50 rounds and proceeded to the range. The first 20 rounds were looking good.  It was when I placed round #42 into the chamber and squeezed the trigger that I was gifted with the most unpleasant experience I had encountered that day. The rifle recoiled hard enough to knock me out of the chair I was seated in. Got up, dusted myself off, looked at the rifle and noticed straight away a definitive outward curve on the slabside of the reciever. Removing the bolt required me to use a chopsaw and cut the reciever in half. The short locking lug was broken off and lodged in its recess. I took the remaining 58 loaded rounds and scaled each one just to make sure of what I was dreading I had done hadn't been done. Found it with the first weigh in. Somehow I managed to double charge load 42 and 43. How did this come to be even though I weigh each charge out independently? I don't know and never will know. What I do know is that, after breaking the rifle down into its individual components it was noticed that the resulting pressure spike sheared away the assend of the rebated boattail and left it lodged halfway down the barrel making it appear to be an obstruction when in fact it was the end result of a double charged load. Agree to disagree with me as you will see fit to do but, it does sound like you experienced a double charged round...


Posted By: 450 Fuller
Date Posted: June 25 2022 at 10:09am
Interesting. You were fortunate.
I have been reloading for 51 years, and have not experienced a repeat incident similar to the one described. Neither do I now utilize GCs in bottleneck cases. I don't miss them at all. I still retain the damaged brass 338-06 case, in case bad memory should overtake me. And I still use cast bullets.

If I did'nt make a habit of single weighing rifle cases in ALL cases, and used IMR 4198 or similar faster powder at the same time in a progressive press operation- it would be entirely possible for a double charge.

The only other possibility is accidentally seating a 348 cast lead FP bullet,
of which I had a box or two. Fortunately, the Model 70 chamber would have required a bit of force to make that happen-and these were gc'd 338 bullets
designed for an 1886 Winchester in 33 WCF.
If there had been a double charge or overcharge, or a faster powder than
a standard load in IMR 4064 powder- with much more damage- I might be willing to concede the possibilty.
There is also the remote possiblity that 2 gas checks were fastened to the bullet base, but not likely. More friction is encountered with jacketed bullets than cast, but that is a moot point.

The Model 70 in question continues to fire and function well, and between
another early Model 70 in 338 WM and a few 1886 Winchesters-I am well supplied with jacketed .338 bullets.
The facts at hand are enough for me. We do share a similar experience without guarantees of the cause-but one possibility has been permanently removed from the equation. My lesson has been learned.

I paper patch heavy cast bullets for a Sharps and 1885 SS in 45 2.1,
and use cast bullets in a couple of New Service Colts.

Gas checks are just as common as scorpions in my loading bench area-and just as welcome.

-------------
Only the dead have seen the end of war-Plato

Socialism-The equal sharing of misery-Churchill


Posted By: A square 10
Date Posted: June 25 2022 at 5:23pm
bottom line response to your original question , if it appears to be a no4 rifle it might be longbranch but if it appears to be a no1 style rifle most likely the ishy , 


Posted By: 450 Fuller
Date Posted: June 25 2022 at 6:20pm
I believe it is an Ishapore, 7.62. Without the usual markings.
Excellent bore-accurate.

-------------
Only the dead have seen the end of war-Plato

Socialism-The equal sharing of misery-Churchill


Posted By: Goosic
Date Posted: June 26 2022 at 5:41pm
Originally posted by 450 Fuller 450 Fuller wrote:

A newer member here with a rifle I have owned for 20 years.
Photos are a problem as my digital camera is ill.

I initially thought this was most likely an Ishapore 2A 7.62 mm rifle, but now a few doubts have crept in.
First clue is the lack of significant markings.Serial number is 56198 with an "A" above SN-
stamped on action, bolt, and forend nose cap. Stratton has not been that helpful.
There are crossed Brit proof staff banners on barrel and receiver ring. These and a white arms room rack No. "14/277" painted on left side of stock- with Serial Numbers as indicated are pretty much all the identifying markings.No more. The usual 2A1 markings are glaringly absent.
Even other proof stampings are lacking or are well hidden.

It has the MK III style sight, not an aperture one. Trigger is also smooth and not rough with a 3 pound let off pressure. Bore is excellent.(Rifle functions and shoots well.)

Could this be an earlier 2A or even a Long Branch rifle? The more
I examine the rifle, the more it appears to be a MK III 7.62 early refit-
but by whom? Puzzling.Brit, Aussie, Indian or Canadian??
Any help appreciated.
If and when you can, please post some photos of this rifle. We here would be very interested as to what it looks like...


Posted By: britrifles
Date Posted: June 26 2022 at 6:29pm
I used to do a lot of 9mm pistol reloading.  I worried about the effects of a double charge, so I would visually check each loading block that held 50 charged cases to see if there were any cases that appeared to have more powder than the others.   Its not fool proof, but does add another step to minimize the risk.

 It’s fairly easy to see a double charge in a 9mm case, but much more difficult to see this when loading cast bullets in rifle cartridges using fast burning pistol powders.  Human error can never be totally eliminated.  


Posted By: Honkytonk
Date Posted: June 26 2022 at 8:21pm
I don't shoot as much as a lot of members, and my reloading stuff is pretty old and slow, so I only load 40 max at a time. The last thing I do after adding powder prior to seating the pills is to use a flashlight and look at the powder levels in the brass. Just a double check I've always done after I double charged my black powder rifle! Luckily that time (and I still do it) once I get to where I'm gonna sit, I always take the ram rod and give the load a quick tamp. It was at that moment I realized there was something fishy in Denmark!


Posted By: Shamu
Date Posted: June 27 2022 at 12:56pm
I have an LED light setup on my Dillon RL550b because that whacking big head casts a big, deep  shadow.

I also avoid powders that give a less than 50% volume fill, that way a double charge is immediately obvious as powder spills everywhere! Wink



-------------
Don't shoot till you see the whites of their thighs. (Unofficial motto of the Royal Air Force)


Posted By: britrifles
Date Posted: June 28 2022 at 8:59am
I like that light set up Shamu.  

I have a magnifier desk lamp with an LED light that is pretty bright, and I can move it around (on a scissor arm).  I move it over top of the 50 case loading block and I can see the top of the powder in the case prior to seating bullets. 

But, it's not foolproof!!

At the last match, I had what I thought was a bad primer in my M1 load (CCI #34).  Firing pin left it's usual mark, but bullet did not move out of the case.  I pulled the bullet when I got home and no powder in the case!  Evidently, the primer is not strong enough to overcome the neck tension on the bullet.  

I was fortunate that it happened during the prone slow fire stage, so it's easy to deal with.  After waiting the usual 10 or 15 seconds (incase of a hang fire), slowly pull back the bolt and extract the round; check to be sure the bullet is still in the case, then load another round.  Had this been in the rapid fire stages, it could be disastrous if the bullet was lodged in the barrel and another round was fired...

In all my years of reloading, tens of thousands of rounds, it was the first time I seated a bullet on an empty case.  




Posted By: Goosic
Date Posted: June 28 2022 at 9:13am
It took me 37 years worth of reloading to finally overcharge 2 cartridges.  It is never a matter of "IF" but a matter of, "WHEN" it will happen no matter what safety precautions are in place...


Posted By: Honkytonk
Date Posted: June 28 2022 at 9:31am
Old age catches up to all of us...😞😞


Posted By: britrifles
Date Posted: June 28 2022 at 10:52am
All my rifle powder loads are well above 50% load density; so a double charge would be obvious.  I have done that a few times, so just dumped the powder back into the measure and started again.

It's pistol loads and cast bullet rifle loads with pistol powders that you have to be so careful with.  Another potential problem is loading the wrong powder; I've almost done that before.  A disaster if you load pistol powder in place of a rifle powder, if you intended to load a ball rifle powder, you might not notice...

I once dumped back about 1/4 full powder measure of IMR 4064 into a 8 lb jug of Varget.  I didn't realize it at the time.  Next loading session I could see the different coloured powder sticks in the weight scale pan.  I tried to get as much of the 4064 out of the Varget as I could; but could not get it all.  I decided to live with it; mainly because those two powders are very close in burn rate and charge weight density.  If Varget wasn't unobtanium these days, I would have burned it up or spread it out on the lawn for fertilizer.  

To err is human.  As Gossic said, it's just a matter of time...

   



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2021 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net