Yesterday's Weapons Forums

I was out and about today and found this in a small shop in lampasas.bolt reciever match good looking bore for 100.00 OTD.
pete

i think it was a steal , they are going near twice that , and that one is looking superb , you will enjoy shooting it , congrats - good buy

A great deal at that price, if the bore is still nice. Should be, I don't think they used any corrosive primers, but India can be pretty wet at times.

Theres a lot of difference of opinion on the 7.62 Enfields, but near as I can tell so long as you stick to 150 grain bullet loads or lighter and pressures around 50,000 PSI the action is strong enough.
These rifles were not intended for use with heavier bullets and many of the Special ball loads were not around when the 2A was in use.
Can't say whether the 2A is really stronger than the No.4 conversions, but I'd take heed of the British NRA warnings on use of modern 7.62 or .308 loads in the Enfield rifles.
No use overstressing the action.

Probably should testfire remotely and check fired cases to be sure the chamber dimensions are still tight. The old pull throughs and wire gauze method of cleaning has been known to wear a chamber in an oval that can cause case splitting, the less robust case of commercial .308 ammo is less forgiving of a loose chamber compared to the thicker milspec 7.62 cases.

some info I found on these 7.62 rifles.

Ishapore Arsenal Rifles 2A and 2A1 in 7.62x51 mm ( Re-Post of a 2004 article )
By: Robert J. Summerhill

Since the importation of these rifles ten years ago, there has been much discussion on the
safety of shooting the rifles. The mind set of cheap, brass, cast mantle nick knacks and ash trays came to mind when you mention a rifle made in India. This notion could not be further from the truth. You need to ask yourself, “What army would send their troops into harms way with an unsafe firearm?” The matter of the fact is that the armory at Ishapore, India did extensive testing of the rifle that would become the model 2A and the 2A1. Why these rifles came into existence was a matter of necessity. The ex-commonwealth of Brittan wanted to join the NATO alliance and use the new standard round for combat, the 7.62 x 51 mm round. Half of the free world was using the newly adopted rifle the FAL and the English variant, the L1A1. These rifles were being manufactured and adopted around the Free World during this time India was having major problems with its neighbors, Pakistan . Many bloody skirmishes were playing out along India’s vast borders. Ramping up with the new FAL rifle was just not possible due to tooling and manufacturing processing limitations at the Ishapore and Dum Dum arsenals. What these arsenals could do, and do very well was to make the tried and true No.1 Mark III type rifle in this newly adopted caliber. Testing of the SMLE’s standard type receiver soon proved to it be too soft allowing stretching and bolt locking. The engineers decided to start from ground zero and redesign the rifle as a new variant of the latter rifle. First off the receiver’s steel was up graded to Chrome Vanadium and hardened to a higher degree than previous rifles. The bolt head and extractor was reshaped to take a rimless cartridge and changes to the rifles stock and sights were made. A special barrel was designed to provide the best accuracy for a bolt action rifle in this caliber. A new trigger guard and a special 12 shot magazine was developed for these rifles. Why the Indian arsenals did not use the FAL type magazine is a question still left unanswered. Extensive testing of these rifles was undertaken and the results showed the rifles were strong, reliable, and accurate out to 800 yards and further. These rifles soon proved themselves with the firefights against the Chinese and the Pakistanis along with other warring factions the Indian Army had to deal with along its borders.

Having a keen interest with these rifles, I wanted to know just how strong these rifles really are. I send letters to several Proof Houses, and the Imperial War Museum in England along with letters and phone calls to the Consulates for India here in the U.S.A looking for a source of any records or arsenal workers that may still be alive when these rifles were made. I was able to receive data from one of the British Proof houses denoting just how strong these rifles are. The British government also made variations of the Enfield rifle in 7.62 x 51 mm for evaluation in the 50’s. The standard “Proof Load” for the British rifle in 7.62 x 51 mm is 29 tons per square inch on the low side and 31 tons per square inch on the high side. The Indian manufactured rifles passed the proof testing with no discernible problems what so ever. This translates into 58,000 and 62,000 pounds per square inch. These load are the standard proof load for all 7.62 x 51 mm rifles.( specifications changed in 1959 ) I continued digging deeper for the maximum pressure these rifles could withstand, I did come across several reports of failures while these rifles were deployed in the field. Most failures were rifles fired with the barrels plugged with mud or snow. While the barrels failed and burst, there is no record of an action ever failing. The rest were problems with ammunition itself and not the rifle. Anyone who has purchased the surplus Indian 7.62 x 51 mm ammo within the last two summers found the ammunition to be loaded with ball powder, flake powder, Cordite or loose and bent bullets. Some cases had no powder what so ever, others had excessive powder charges that were dangerous. Thankfully this ammunition is all but gone from the market.

All of the rifles with the barrel obstructions had the barrels burst around six inches forward of the chamber. On some of rifles the stock splintered. One report stated of a minor injury to the shooter’s supporting arm from wood splinters. At no time did any receiver/bolt fail, crack or other wise become unserviceable. It has been calculated that these pressures were in excess of 100,000 psi. The receivers held together. After asking questions in England and India, I could find no documented proof of any receiver ever failing. There has been however, reports of excessive headspaceing on rifles that have been sold on the surplus market. These rifles may have been parts guns cobbled together for a quick buck. While I have not held any of these rifles, or even seen one that may have a headspace problem I would say if in doubt have your rifle checked out by a Gunsmith.

By the early 1970’s the 2A and 2A1 rifles were delegated to the countries reserve forces and Indian Police Forces. These rifles were still being used in the 1980’s officially. This fact makes the SMLE type rifle used by a countries Army the longest in history. 100 years. Our Army fighting in Iraq and Pakistan still find these rifles being used by the Terrorists.

On a note of safety, Americans love to dabble in the “black arts” of reloading ammunition. Some folks may get themselves into trouble with this NATO round if mishandling of the loading data occurs. The 7.62 x 51 mm cartridge is the same dimensionally as the .308 Winchester, but they are structurally different.

The walls of the 7.62 x 51 mm casing are thicker. This will cause the room for the burning propellant’s gas to be less than in the casing of the .308 Winchester. Pressure will build up to an excessive amount very quickly. So much so that this factor can cause pressures on the upper end of the load data for the .308 Winchester to exceed SAMI standards. These pressures could cause a case failure/rupture and could possibly damage the rifle or the shooter. The normal operating pressure for the 7.62 x 51 is 55,000-60,000 psi depending on the country that loaded the ammo and the type of projectile. Load data for the .308 using the 7.62 x 51 mm brass can exceed the safe calculated pressures due to the sudden pressure spike on some loadings causing a case failure/rupture. There are countless articles on this problem on the Internet.

There should be no reason what so ever to worry about shooting these rifles using any normal as issued NATO loading. Commercial factory loaded 308 Winchester rounds made by the major ammunition companies maintaining the original specifications for this round are well within the safe pressures for these rifles.
********************************************************************
Safety Note on Non-Ishapor Recent Imported .308 Enfield Rifles
********************************************************************
Since I wrote this article there have been imports of early Enfield rifle that are not 1960's RIA or similar Ishapor made rifles. These are the test rifles that Britain found were not safe to shoot. If you have these rifles do not shoot them with NATO 7.62x51mm or commercial .308 ammo.

Great rifles and at a great price. I see them sell in the $250 range around here.

Here's an extract of what I posted on another forum:

Gun Proof in India - An Historical Account

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With all of the recent attention being paid on these forums to the Lee Enfield and proof pressures, I thought the following extract would be of value to some of you - I certainly don't want it to start another ruckus

I have an awful lot of reference material and while reading today I came across a paper titled "Gun Proof in India - An Historical Account." It was written by Mr. A. G. Harrison the former Proof Master at the Rifle Factory Proof House, Ishapore, India and was published in "The Gun Digest, 33rd Edition, 1979."

I'll get it scanned later but for now I've extracted the part that interested me:

From 1908 to 1950 all military bolt action rifles made at Ishapore were proof tested with a dry proof round followed by an oiled proof round. The proof cartridge was loaded to 24 tons (2240lbs = 1 ton) psi breech presure, or 25% higher than the service pressure.

In 1950 the material for rifle bodies (they made No.1 Mark 3* rifles; my addition) was altered from an EN steel to SWES 48 steel (not heat treated) except for the recoil shoulder and cam recess in the receiver. With this change the rifle receivers distorted when oiled proof cartridges were fired. This was discovered when hard and sometimes impossible bolt retraction was experienced. Large quantities of rifles were rejected. To avoid rejections the authorities ordered discontinuance of the oiled proof. Therefore from 1950 to the end of SMLE rifle production (June 1965) rifles made at Ishapore were proof tested with one dry proof only, although the specification called for both dry and oiled proof.

A bolt action rifle similar to the SMLE Mk. III*, modified to fire the 7.62 NATO cartridge was produced at Ishapore, first in February 1965. Their receivers were made of SWES 48 steel, un-heat-treated, and with the NATO proof cartridge receivers were found to distort with the oiled or the dry proof round! The material was changed to an EN steel so now the rifles stand up better to dry and oiled proof.

There's a lot you can read into what the author has said but I am not going to make any assumptions.

thanks for the additional info.I have searched everything I can find on the net and not one case of the reciever blowing up.its a shame they built these rifles with the same pot metal they build their motorcycles out of .
99% of what I will shoot in this rifle is my cast loads which won't even come close to 7.62 nato pressures.there is alot of info over at cast boolit site on these rifles shooting cast bullet loads which some have turned some excellent groups and only have praise for these pot metal rifles.

pete

in general everything ive read indicates the ishapore 2A & 2A1 rifles , conversions of the no4 by charnwood , stearling and the canadians were all designed and intended for the nato cartriges ,

however the conversions of no4s by other folks would worry me and any conversion of a no1 rifle would outright scare me to death , the new made no1 308s that recently are available in some ares are claimed to be excelent rifles , but they are "NEW" - not conversions

lee sells a .314 push thru sizer and if you have any linotype a mix of 9 lb's ww to 1 lb lino will get you very close to .314 with the lee 185 gr lrngc bullet mold.in some of my MN (russian) riflesI use this bullet sized .314 and it has worked out and these loads are accurate in my rifles.
I had a lithgow 1916 and it was a tack driver shooting the .311 160 gr gc sp w/ imr 4227.from what I have read the english could take lessons from the finn's on how to make and keep barrels to the tolerances required for acceptable accuracy.it is a crap shoot with limey rifles what the barrel will slug out at even when new and unissued.
I haven't slugged out my no 4 mark 2 yet but from what I have read over at cast bullets they vary alot.
I got some cast loads built today for the 2A1 and will make it to the range this week and see how it does.all my loads were built using LC and IMI match brass.
pete

good luck with your bullet casting I hope you find some bullets and loads that work in your rifles.I have sizers from .308 to .314 for my finn's and now brits.
pete