Originally Posted by Vasco

Originally Posted by jumpinjarhead

7.62 NATO 146.6 gr 2,756 fps 2,472 ft/lbs

I wish I could buy 146.6 grain 7.62 NATO. The range office at Bisley sells Radway Green ammunition with a 175 grain bullet (or some newer commercial stuff) and I am reliably informed that my L39 (and all other No 4-derived rifles) cannot handle this, being proofed for 19 tons maximum, which, apparently, implies a 155 grain bullet.

Admittedly, Privi make a cartridge that would be safe in my rifle, but it is labelled 0.308 so I cannot buy it until I get my FAC changed!

I am now looking at 3 cases of that very ammunition in my weapons vault--come on over. :D

Would that it were that easy! But thanks for the invitation.

Originally Posted by Vasco

Would that it were that easy! But thanks for the invitation.

We are oiling Garands and Springfields now for a shoot this afternoon on my range.

Originally Posted by Vasco

Originally Posted by jumpinjarhead

7.62 NATO 146.6 gr 2,756 fps 2,472 ft/lbs

I wish I could buy 146.6 grain 7.62 NATO. The range office at Bisley sells Radway Green ammunition with a 175 grain bullet (or some newer commercial stuff) and I am reliably informed that my L39 (and all other No 4-derived rifles) cannot handle this, being proofed for 19 tons maximum, which, apparently, implies a 155 grain bullet.

Admittedly, Privi make a cartridge that would be safe in my rifle, but it is labelled 0.308 so I cannot buy it until I get my FAC changed!

This has so far turned out to be completely unsubstantiated bollox lifted from internet urban myth, and used by the NRA to dissuade people shooting anything other than a nice expensive TR rifle.

- All of the Enfield No4 actioned 7.62mm rifles were originally optimised for standard 144gn RG NATO ball (which they still tend to shoot better than modern 155gn ammo);

- The current 7.62mm proof is 20T, and so far no Enfield has failed this - not even Ishapore 2A1s based on a No1 action. London Proof is currently making no distinction between 7.62mm and .308W, so another urban myth to scotch;

- many Enfield owners have been shooting 155gn ammo for years, with no ill effects. I have one Envoy here that has 9,000 recorded rounds - and its still tight on its original "0" bolthead;

- the recent NRA warning wittered on about 155gn ammo being "larger in diameter" than the old 144 gn type. Apart from the fact that there is of course huge variation in rifle bore diameters anyway, no-one has ever previously suggested that this could cause "dangerously high pressures", etc - certainly not due to variations in the same calibre;

- when challenged, the NRA was unable to provide any evidence to back up their warning. The only authorities in UK - the two Proof Houses - have never issued such an advisory. This story about "No4 action unsafe with 155gn ammo" first did the rounds about five years ago. At the time, I heard - from someone close to the source - that this had originated in a Jersey rifle club where a political battle (what, in a target rifle club?!) had taken place over trying to bar a shooter - who presumably happened to be using a No4 action. Not sure if this is the truth but, in common with most types of urban myth, no evidenced account of a serious Enfield rifle failure with standard ammo has yet come to light.

BTW, when the No1 was being tested, it was observed that the supposedly weak Enfield rear-locking action could sustain proof pressure of up to 30T with a rimmed round like .303 (due to the strength of the base of the rimmed cartridge), whereas Mauser actioned rifles (Springfield and Mauser at the time) failed at far less than this when used with a rimless round. AFAIK, no one has yet destruction tested a 7.62mm Enfield, but it is clear that the rifle is far stronger than myth has it.

Originally Posted by 4(T)

Originally Posted by Vasco

Originally Posted by jumpinjarhead

7.62 NATO 146.6 gr 2,756 fps 2,472 ft/lbs

I wish I could buy 146.6 grain 7.62 NATO. The range office at Bisley sells Radway Green ammunition with a 175 grain bullet (or some newer commercial stuff) and I am reliably informed that my L39 (and all other No 4-derived rifles) cannot handle this, being proofed for 19 tons maximum, which, apparently, implies a 155 grain bullet.

Admittedly, Privi make a cartridge that would be safe in my rifle, but it is labelled 0.308 so I cannot buy it until I get my FAC changed!

This has so far turned out to be completely unsubstantiated bollox lifted from internet urban myth, and used by the NRA to dissuade people shooting anything other than a nice expensive TR rifle.

- All of the Enfield No4 actioned 7.62mm rifles were originally optimised for standard 144gn RG NATO ball (which they still tend to shoot better than modern 155gn ammo);

- The current 7.62mm proof is 20T, and so far no Enfield has failed this - not even Ishapore 2A1s based on a No1 action. London Proof is currently making no distinction between 7.62mm and .308W, so another urban myth to scotch;

- many Enfield owners have been shooting 155gn ammo for years, with no ill effects. I have one Envoy here that has 9,000 recorded rounds - and its still tight on its original "0" bolthead;

- the recent NRA warning wittered on about 155gn ammo being "larger in diameter" than the old 144 gn type. Apart from the fact that there is of course huge variation in rifle bore diameters anyway, no-one has ever previously suggested that this could cause "dangerously high pressures", etc - certainly not due to variations in the same calibre;

- when challenged, the NRA was unable to provide any evidence to back up their warning. The only authorities in UK - the two Proof Houses - have never issued such an advisory. This story about "No4 action unsafe with 155gn ammo" first did the rounds about five years ago. At the time, I heard - from someone close to the source - that this had originated in a Jersey rifle club where a political battle (what, in a target rifle club?!) had taken place over trying to bar a shooter - who presumably happened to be using a No4 action. Not sure if this is the truth but, in common with most types of urban myth, no evidenced account of a serious Enfield rifle failure with standard ammo has yet come to light.

BTW, when the No1 was being tested, it was observed that the supposedly weak Enfield rear-locking action could sustain proof pressure of up to 30T with a rimmed round like .303 (due to the strength of the base of the rimmed cartridge), whereas Mauser actioned rifles (Springfield and Mauser at the time) failed at far less than this when used with a rimless round. AFAIK, no one has yet destruction tested a 7.62mm Enfield, but it is clear that the rifle is far stronger than myth has it.

Totally agree-we shoot our Enfields and SLRs with any and all of the reference ammo.

Originally Posted by 4(T)

Originally Posted by Vasco

Originally Posted by jumpinjarhead

7.62 NATO 146.6 gr 2,756 fps 2,472 ft/lbs

I wish I could buy 146.6 grain 7.62 NATO. The range office at Bisley sells Radway Green ammunition with a 175 grain bullet (or some newer commercial stuff) and I am reliably informed that my L39 (and all other No 4-derived rifles) cannot handle this, being proofed for 19 tons maximum, which, apparently, implies a 155 grain bullet.

Admittedly, Privi make a cartridge that would be safe in my rifle, but it is labelled 0.308 so I cannot buy it until I get my FAC changed!

This has so far turned out to be completely unsubstantiated bollox lifted from internet urban myth, and used by the NRA to dissuade people shooting anything other than a nice expensive TR rifle.

- All of the Enfield No4 actioned 7.62mm rifles were originally optimised for standard 144gn RG NATO ball (which they still tend to shoot better than modern 155gn ammo);

- The current 7.62mm proof is 20T, and so far no Enfield has failed this - not even Ishapore 2A1s based on a No1 action. London Proof is currently making no distinction between 7.62mm and .308W, so another urban myth to scotch;

- many Enfield owners have been shooting 155gn ammo for years, with no ill effects. I have one Envoy here that has 9,000 recorded rounds - and its still tight on its original "0" bolthead;

- the recent NRA warning wittered on about 155gn ammo being "larger in diameter" than the old 144 gn type. Apart from the fact that there is of course huge variation in rifle bore diameters anyway, no-one has ever previously suggested that this could cause "dangerously high pressures", etc - certainly not due to variations in the same calibre;

- when challenged, the NRA was unable to provide any evidence to back up their warning. The only authorities in UK - the two Proof Houses - have never issued such an advisory. This story about "No4 action unsafe with 155gn ammo" first did the rounds about five years ago. At the time, I heard - from someone close to the source - that this had originated in a Jersey rifle club where a political battle (what, in a target rifle club?!) had taken place over trying to bar a shooter - who presumably happened to be using a No4 action. Not sure if this is the truth but, in common with most types of urban myth, no evidenced account of a serious Enfield rifle failure with standard ammo has yet come to light.

BTW, when the No1 was being tested, it was observed that the supposedly weak Enfield rear-locking action could sustain proof pressure of up to 30T with a rimmed round like .303 (due to the strength of the base of the rimmed cartridge), whereas Mauser actioned rifles (Springfield and Mauser at the time) failed at far less than this when used with a rimless round. AFAIK, no one has yet destruction tested a 7.62mm Enfield, but it is clear that the rifle is far stronger than myth has it.

I have my figures wrong, haven't I? It is the 155 grain stuff that is verboten, of course.

It was in the LERA Jan 09 'Despatches' that I noticed:

'May I make mention that 7.62 x 51mm Lee Enfields are not
proofed or designed for anything exceeding 19 tons. This means that 155gr RG and similar is not
acceptable and the RCO will not allow you to shoot it.'

Only later did I see Martin Farnan's notice in the range office at Bisley.

Are you an influential member of LERA? I imagine you are! Please get them on side with this, if you will, so that I can start shooting my L39 again!

Or will the proof houses proof my rifle to 20T?

Originally Posted by jumpinjarhead

Originally Posted by Vasco

Would that it were that easy! But thanks for the invitation.

We are oiling Garands and Springfields now for a shoot this afternoon on my range.

Sounds good to me - have fun and stay safe!

Originally Posted by Vasco

Originally Posted by jumpinjarhead

Originally Posted by Vasco

Would that it were that easy! But thanks for the invitation.

We are oiling Garands and Springfields now for a shoot this afternoon on my range.

Sounds good to me - have fun and stay safe!

We are also taking an SLR (L1A1) in honor of ARRSE!

I might have missed this in the reports,But from what I could see it said that their Afghan allies had similar problems with their weapons......were these also M16 series weapons or the AK series weapons that the Afghans normally carry.

Just out of curiosity really, and I know that Afghan fire discipline and weapon maint should be no where near American lads standards.But if some of the Afghans were using the AK without the gun seizing due to the conditions it might be an interesting slant.

Originally Posted by jumpinjarhead

Originally Posted by tearsbeforebedtime

24% added dental picks to their cleaning kits.

Soldiers asked for a weapon with a larger round, “So it will drop a man with one shot.�

Even as a stickler for weapon cleanliness, is it just me or does anyone else see something wrong with a weapon that the troops find requires dental picks to clean properly?

Reading through this guide is fairly astounding to say this is for a battle rifle.

On top of your standard tools; pressurised air, a wire wheel and about a pint of solvent are used for cleaning a weapon that has fired 100 rounds.