Indian SMLE .308 caliber bolt rifles.
 

About 3 years ago I bought a mint condition Jungle Carbine "Clone" in .308 caliber and a mint condition MkIII .308 "clone." Both arms have mint bores and shoot my jacketed and cast bullet handloads to about the same point of impact with the battle sights at 100 yards. I paid $100 for each arm and will buy any others I run across.

The Jungle Carbine has the typical MkIII rear sight rather than a receiver peep sight, but it is a handy arm for carry about the farm. The MkIII is robust and akin to toting a fence post, but it is very accurate with my hard cast 173 grain Lyman #311471 bullets and 13.5 grains of Unique. Both arms have 12-round magazines and are a part of military history transitioning from bolt arms to self-loaders. If you find one in nice shape, buy it and enjoy a piece of history. Good shooting.

Adam

Adam
 

I have one of the Mark III rifles in .308, but have not shot it. It is a unique piece of history and seems to have been an interim arm when India was have border tensions with China back in the 1960s. Frankly, I am a bit leary of firing full power .308 loads in this rifle based on the strength of the action. Cast bullets and moderate loads with jacketed bullets should be OK. All the best...
Gil

Adam, were those made at roughly the same timeframe of the lee-enfield .410's? Not sure if they are clones or not, but i've seen more than a few recently.

I would agree with the top post here, I have a 1964 Indian .308 SMLE. I had wanted to try out a SMLE for some time, and I fell upon it for a good price ($150, a few years back), and it was in .308, so I got it. It has turned out to be a nice rifle.

As for shooting regular .308 rounds. From what I have read, the Indian .308's were made from the ground up in .308 from somewhere around 1960 forward, rifles dated earlier than that may have been rechambered. So, my thinking has been that mine, dated '64, would be fine with regular mil-surplus loads, as it was built for them...

But, if anyone has any information going against this... let me know here, I have put quite a few rounds through this rifle, and if it shouldn't be able to handel it, I'd like to know.

gumpokc,

First, my cast bullet is the Lyman #311467. For jacketed loads, I use a 150 spitzer ahead of a mild (low end) charge of H414 that keeps the pressure below 40,000. I use the term "clone" loosely to indicate a "look-alike" or a direct desendent rather than a rework. Maybe some were reworked by the Indians, but all rifles and carbines I have examined were new manufacture.

I have seen those MkIIIs in .410 bore and read an article they were made up for prison guards around the time of WWII.

Arcturus,

I assume the Indian Army used their standard .308 Ball load in the rifles. I have not read where they are unsafe with Ball, but I do not shoot US Ball in my Indian .308s.

Gil,

I read where the Indian Army used the bolt .308s until they got enough FN FAL rifles issued.

Adam

Hmmm the Enfields especially the Indian ones are chambered for the 7.62x51 Nato cartridge and not .308 Winchester. There are slight differences which is certain circumstance can proove to be a problem. So refering to these arms as .308 is not only wrong but could proove to be unwise.

Brithunter,

Thanks for your input. On page 56 of the book, "Cartridges of the World" 9th Edition, it says under the heading ".308 Winchester (7.62x51mm NATO)":

"Historical Notes, Introduced by Winchester as a new sporting cartridge in 1952, the .308 is nothing more than the NATO 7.62x51mm military round."

What differences do you see between the .308 Winchester and the 7.62x51mm NATO?

Adam

Ha the never falable COTW :p yes I have a copy now the I believe it's the shoulder and neck which is slightly different also the pressures are not the same.

Brithunter,

Mayhaps you need to advise the editor of COTW of his error about the 7.62mm NATO and .308 Winchester being the same rounds.

Adam

.308 versus 7.62 NATO
 

There is a vast difference in these cartridges and the link below covers the topic very well. There is a significant pressure variance that one should consider carefully. The Indian Enfields are built to handle about 45,000 p.s.i. As the link states, the .308 can go considerably higher and would be a stretch for a British Enfield. Hope this helps. All the best...
Gil


http://www.thegunzone.com/30cal.html

Agreed there is a considerable difference in 7.62x51 nato and .308 winchester.

7.62 nato uses a thicker, harder brass, at a slightly reduced pressure level. This is to be expected for a military round, as we all know battlefield conditions are rife with any numbers of factors that can raise pressure levels (trash, grit, mud, massive changes in humidity and temp) as well as ammo care once loaded into magazines.

.308winchester in general uses a softer brass that is not quite as thick, as well as some loading being well above NATO standard pressures. (interestingly enough this is one of the major causes of stuck cases, ripped heads in CETME's)

Most bolt actions chambered for either cartridge, _IF_ in good working condition, can fire either with no problems, within reason.

Semi-autos can be abit picky about the pressue levels though, especially if they were specfically designed to work at NATO standard pressure levels.

Gil,

I would not agree with you that "there are vast differences between these cartridges (7.62x51mm NATO and .308 Winchester.)." If there were, do you not think Frank C. Barnes would have stated so in his book, "Cartridges of the World." I agree that 7.62 Nato brass is heavier and pressures may be lower than for the .308 Winchester, but most good semi gas guns have adjustable gas pressure to compensate for any differences in pressure.

I have shot US GI 7.62NATO Ball, Tracer and AP out of my Indian SMLEs of 7.62x51mm or .308 caliber with no ill effects. I have shot a lot of US GI 7.62x51mm LC Ball out of my Remington 700BDL .308V heavy barrel with .575" groups of GI Ball at 100 yards.

I think "vast" is too harsh a description for interchangeable ammo . Does Midway advise customers NOT to shoot 7.62x51mm Ball out of guns chambered for .308 Winchester?

Adam

Adam
 

The topic was .308 Indian Enfields and as the link I posted pointed out, .308 pressures can go up to levels that I would not shoot in a British Enfield. You shot 7.62 NATO ball in your Indian Enfield and as I pointed out that would be OK due to the lower pressures. I am sure a Remington 700 can handle the pressures.

There is no danger in shooting 7.62 NATO out of a .308 chamber so Midway would have no reason to advise folks to cease and desist shooting 7.62NATO rounds out of a .308. There may be a problem in shooting .308 ammo out of a relatively weak action.

All the best...
Gil

Adam, it isnt a problem shooting 7.62 Nato out of a .308win, as a matter of fact most 7.62nato would considered a "mild" .308loading.

it's when you reverse it and fire .308's out of a 7.62nato specced weapon. The softer brass added to the higher pressures can (from personal experience) cause cases to formfit to fluted chambers, ripping off heads as the bolt tries to extract the case.

Yes this is the CETME example again, but it is one i have personal experience with. Look at the older FAL's prior to the adjustable gas ports for them, they had quite a rep for chewing up .308brass, adn head seperations as well, but they function fine with NATO specced 7.62


on average the .308win case will hold 2 to 3 grains (depending on manufacturer) more than a 7.62nato.

If we look at the .308win loading charts for , lets says the 168gr BTSP, a fairly popular loading i am sure you will agree.

The min to max loading is only 5 grains difference, now if your cases vary by 3 grains (maximum example) how dangerous is that?

even if we focus on the 2 grains difference that _can_ still be a considerable increase in pressure.

Gil & gumpokc,

As I pointed out in a former post on this thread, I load a "low end" charge of H414 and 150 grain jacketed bullets in my Indian rifles that are 7.62NATO/.308 Winchester. My Lyman cast bullets are fueled by mild charges of Unique.

Now as for "Vast differences" in the 7.62NATO and .308 Winchester, I just checked commercial boxes of Federal, Winchester and Remington factory loads and none said, "DO NOT FIRE IN A 7.62X51MM NATO gun." If there was a problem betwixt the two designations, I think a warning label would be prominent. I suppose SAAMI has covered the .308 field of commercial ammo like they have for the 8x57mm Mauser.

Finally, I shot a lot of commercial .308 Winchester factory ammo in my M-14s and never had a problem. I also loaded ammo for my 7.62x51mm M-14s on RCBS .308 Winchester dies. Ok, I will say no more on this matter because I have not seen a "problem" that has made it to the national consciousness, other than the "gunzone" article and that is ok.



Adam

damn board is acting funny..

chuckle, shrug believe what ya want to Adam, just remember, i have not ever seen a box of .357 mag, that says "do not shoot in .38spl". either, but i know not to do it.

Same goes for 7.62tok and .30mauser, damn near identicle, but put the tok in a broomhandle, and guess what happens?

It's something i've been aware of for well over 20years even before i left the military, and it was a common question in the "sgt's board" examinations in all the units i served in.

also please remember each weapon type has it own quirks, it may opr may not affect the m-14's i don't know, i do know it affects the CETME's. I know it does not affect the AR-10's, each is different.

shrug, have fun, and be good.

OK Adam,

Let us put it this way. The Enfield action was never designed for the pressure found in .308 winchester cartridges. The Indians are "supposedly :rolleyes: " using a better steel for their actions which I seriously doubt as getting good steel in India is a major problem:confused:

The Lee Enfield is perfectly safe with in it's design parameters and once you step outside this envalope your on your own. I do not know if you are aware of not but 7.62x51 converted Enfields are banned in New Zealand due to the actions failing:confused: :rolleyes: :eek: It's not the actions but the morons who are overloading them to keep the 155 grain bullet supersonic at 1200 yards. yep the so called expert riflemen "Target Shooters":rolleyes:

In the UK our NRA is suggesting that all converted Enfields be re-proofed at 20 Tons which is the same as magnum cartridges. The .270 Win is proofed at 19 Tons as was the 7.62x51 conversions. Yes they were proofed well above their service pressure and still this so called reloading experts in the target shooting crowd insist on overloading the cartridge and the rifle. It's just luck that no one has been seriously maimed YET!

When the British War department wanted a higher performance cartidge they designed the P-13 and the .276", now if the Lee Enfield action had all this reserve of hidden strength confused: why did they go to all this bother? let alone the expense:eek: . You are blindly accepting the Mr barnes was infallible, sorry it's not the case and an example is the .280 Ross which Barnes states was introduced in 1906 yet is was in late 1907 that Eley bros under contracted made the .280. 1906 was his first attempt at the .280 using the then new all singing 30-06 Government cartridge from the US but prooved to be a failure only reaching 2700 fps and not the targeted 3000 fps that Ross wanted. Barnes also incorrectly states that the MkV11 ball using the spitzer bullets in .303 was adopted around 1914 yet in fact 1914 was the start of the Great war (WW1). Barnes probably thought WW1 started in 1917 when the US came in to join it. Here are the dates for the .303 delopment which are related to the 174 Grin Spitzer bullet:-

1907 Start of main series of trials with .303” spitzer bullets.

1907 Letter “C” dropped from head stamps of cordite ball ammunition and last two digits of date of manufacture included on head stamps.

1909 Start of ammunition and rifle trials designed to replace the .303” Enfield.

1910 First .303" spitzer ball (the Mark7) approved for service.

And this in information which is readlily available and Barnes and COTW get it wrong ........................ Sorry but COTW is only really useful as a quick reference guide but for accurate information other sources must be used as COTW is unreliable


As to why the manufacturers don't print warnings on their ammo ..................... well as I have no influence their I cannot really say :p I am however sure the reason that the 7.92mm (8x57mm) is loaded down has nowt to do with safety and is purely political. After all loading to it's proper pressures the 7.92 out perfoms the std Military 30-06 and that is simply far too embarassing;) The spitzer loading of the GI .30 150 Grn gives a velocity of 2700fps yet the original 154 grn Spitzer loading in the 7.92mm gives 2950fps and note that the Turks stayed with this loading though out and did not adopt the 196 Grn load as did the Germans for better long range power when used in machine guns and air craft.:rolleyes: :(

Brithunter,

If your "Moron" blokes wish to OVERLOAD ANY gun to get 1200 yard performance, I hope they keep learning that too much is more than enough. Maybe NZ needs to ban morons. Wotever?

gumpokc,

If you wish to try to chamber a .357 Magnum in any of my .38 Specials, and do so successfully, then you may have my .38. In fact, the factory made the .357 "idiot proof" by making the case LONGER than a .38 Special so it cannot chamber in a .38 SPL. So, just because you do not see a written warning on the .357 ammo box, it is understood because the factory goof-proofed the .357/.38 for even the dullest moron.

As for the CETME and its fluted chamber, the first CETME's used a lower powered .308 round due to its design weaknesses, so the CETME is a poor example of a .308 NATO or .308 Winchester. Allegedly the "C" pre-fix CETMEs are now up to full power NATO rounds. If not, better shrug a time or two, LOL.

As for "Written Warnings" check any box of 12 gauge ammo and read where it says, ""These shells must not be used in guns having Damascus or twist steel barrels, or chambers shorter than 2 3/4 inches." So, you see there are warnings for obvious problems. We all know military brass is heavier in the .30-06 and .308 than commercial brass and load military cases with reduced charges. BUT, show me one box of commercial .308 ammo that says it MUST NOT be fired in a 7.62x51mm NATO arm.

I would not cite the CETME as the starting point for a discussion of the 7.62 NATO round. I have had too many MATCH M-14s to think the CETME was worth consideration.

Adam

admittedly the .38spl/.357 was a bad example, since it is "almost" moron proof. I have seen some pretty ingenius morons. Including myself on occasion :)


Yes some ammo has warnings, but not all of them do, most don't need it.

Firing a .308win out of a 7.62nato isnt going to blow it up (well as long as it's in good working order), but you will be pushing the high side of the pressure spec. If you happen to have a firearm that has "quirks" and we've all had or seen them, it _can_ cause problems. Not huge ones, but irratating none the less.

as for the case capacities, yes i do consider 2 full grains a "vast" difference, just as Gill does. when 1/10th of a grain makes a noticable difference, then I definately consider 20 times that amount "vast", but thats just me.

Why you'd want to compare a factory accurised weapon against a standard model is beyond me. Even so i've fired my CETME against national match M1A's (not too many select fire m-14's around here) and done quite well, won some, lost some.

But if you want to do that, i'd compare the NM M-14 agaisnt the PTR-91 or G3A3 both of which are direct decendants of the CETME, or the M21D vs the PSG1, all in all very good matches, thought the PSG1 is a little on the expensive side.

Otherwise i guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, since your not goign to budge my opinion, nor am I yours.

anyways take care and be good.

Good points and we are straying a bit
 

Remember the topic was .308 SMLE rifles and if someone wants to shoot high pressure .308 loads out of one, they do so at their own risk. All the best...
Gil

gumpok & Gil,

gumpokc,

The three Match M14s I refer to were not select fire, rather they were sans the selector and semi-auto only. In fact, Gil fired two of them in the past.

I agree that the Indian 7.62x51mm arms MUST be loaded judiciously and shot with "low end" pressure rounds as I said in a prior post that I feed mine. Really, we have many more areas of agreement than disagreement.

There were days I wished I could have put .357s into my M10 .38 Spl. S&W while on duty. Be well, my friend.

Gil,

I really wish Brit hunter would tell us what those folks are up to when they try to keep an SMLE action pushing loads supersonic at 1200 yards! I do shoot "low end" charges in my Indian SMLEs. I see SAAMI puts the maximum pressure of the .308 Winchester at 52,000 psi. My handloads are well BELOW that.

I say again, if anyone comes across a nice Indian 7.62x51mm MKIII rifle or Jungle Carbine, buy it and enjoy a piece of military history. I only have 3 so far, but there are a few gun shows yet this year.

Adam

Adam my dear friend it's quite simple really. You see in target shooting in the UK and the Old Commonwealth the Enfield action re-barreled to 7.62 Nato using a heavy hammer forged barrel like the Envoy, Enforcer and the L42 rifles were until a few years ago still very popular in main stream target shooting and used in the annual Bisley Imperial meeting and of course in places like Australia and New Zealand.

Instead of working within the design paprameters of the Enfield action these experts using the New Sierra 155 Grain Palma Match Bullet proceded to load them up to a velocity which would maintain a supersonic velocity at 1200 yards as that was the longest distance they competed over and as the bullets slow down and come back through the sound barrier they of course get severly buffeted which of course effects their performance of grouping on the target. Now instead of laying the blame squarely where it lies at the feet of these idiots who overloaded and in doing so vastly over pressured/overstressed the action, instead they those who control the target shooting in New Zealand knowing as they do just how EXPERT their target shooters are blaimed the rifle and banned it's use. This of course caused some trouble as at that time a British rifle team was about to travel to NZ for a competition and some members of that team were of course using Envoy rifles which is built on an Enfield No4 action.

Our NRA based at Bisley Camp is now trying to insist that all 7.62 Nato convert Lee Enfields be re-proofed at 20 tons. It seems that the "target" shooters cannot be wrong it MUST be the action despite the fact that the Army and Police and hundreds of sensible shooters have been using converted Enfields since the mid 1950's without problems until this little episode with the then new Palma match Bullet. Oh btw the proof pressure for the .270 Win is 19 Tons ;) I cannot think of anyone who in their right mind would consider the Enfield action capable of routinely handling the same pressure as that of the .300 Win Mag:eek: In the Imperial meeting pressures are not a problem as normal Nato target grade ammunition is issued to each competitor. It's in the free matches which allows the use of Handloaded ammunition which cause the problem:rolleyes: Bear in mind that the Enfield was designed with a pressure for service ammunition of around 45,000 and not the 52,000 of the .308 Winchester let alone the pressures that a hot load in the .308 case can reach.

Chuckle you too Adam, hey if people never disagreed it'd make the world a pretty damn dull place wouldn't it :)

Brithunter,

Not to prolong a dispute over terminology, calibers and such like, but yesterday I received a flyer (mail catalog) from AIM at phone number 888-748-5252 in Springboro, Ohio 45066.

On the front page of the advertisement is a photo of an," Enfield 2A .308 Nato Rifles." I have shot much .308 Winchester ammo in my 7.62x51mm rifles and they apparently did not know the difference, if any.

The flyer says the Ishapore folks used "superior 1960s technology in steel manufacturing and tooling when compared to the turn of the century processes to make the .303 cal. Enfields."

Bottom line, it seems the 2A is a .308 Winchester and a 7.62x51mm arm. If your local blokes wish to overload a .308 Nato, then God be with them.

Adam

Hmm seeing as how the machinery that the No2's are made on was British and now gettin very old. AND Indian steel is very varible in quality from my persoanal experience having to machine the stuff after our buyer brought it thinking he was saving money :rolleyes: it was so poor the job too about 5x as long and we had to introduce new operations to get around the materil problems.

I doubt very much that the Indain made No2's are higher quality steel than the other N01's mae elsewhere. Also do you not think that it's possible AIM are marketing the .308 to make it more appealing to American shooters? And not only that there is no such thing as .308 Nato!

It's 7.62x51 Nato so it seems that AIM do not know what they are doing after all :p . Now if you wish to risk shooting higher pressure rounds through a possible dubious quality rifle then may God watch over you. Me I won't touch them with a barge pole ;) .

I agree with Brithunter
 

The AIM advertisement lists both 7.62x51mm NATO and .308 Win. as the caliber of these Indian Enfields. They are not the same cartridge in terms of pressure and in these rifles prudence should rule. All the best...
Gil