Indian SMLE .308 caliber bolt rifles.

[gumpokc]

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.

[Brithunter]

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 " using a better steel for their actions which I seriously doubt as getting good steel in India is a major problem

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 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"

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 . 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 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.

[Adam Helmer]

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

[gumpokc]

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.

[Gil Martin]

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

[Adam Helmer]

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

[Brithunter]

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 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 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.

[gumpokc]

Originally posted by Adam Helmer
gumpok & Gil,

gumpokc,


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.

Adam

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

[Adam Helmer]

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

[Brithunter]

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 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 . 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 .

[Gil Martin]

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