You ain't ever seen a 303 British like this before...

[Greyfox]

I can't wait to see the shooting results. This is certainly a unique build!
If there is one thing I have learned over the years is that the old military rifles can give very surprising results while breaking all the practices and rules that have dominated our thinking. I have a 1943 vintage 1903 A3 Remington that is all original, and an A3 that has been configured and re-barreled to A4 sniper specs with a Hi-Lux M82 G2 scope that consistently maintain their zero, and shoot .5MOA.....in the case of the 1943, for decades. I have used these rifles for vintage competition. Considering skinny barrels with full length bedding, skimpy stocks, original two stage triggers, etc, etc, I don't think this is a fluke as I have seen these kind of results quite frequently with other shooters rifles. Based on the results I have gotten out to 600 yards, with proper optics and loads, I think these rifles could get the job done if pressed into LRH use.

200 yard group from my A3

 

[shaughn]

In the No.4 MkI and the original SMLE MkIII (and other Mk's) the chambers are oversize, which can create artificial headspace and reduce case life significantly. This is more than enough reason to tread carefully when reloading.

The No.4 Mk 1 and it later bretheren are capable of handling the 7.62 NATO and have been successfully converted to said caliber and there has been no issues as far as I am aware with the pressure generated, remember NATO spec is not SAAMI, the ammunition is usually at the upper end of the pressure curve, since it has to be used in everything from service rifles to GPMG.

The 303 Mk VIII ball used a 175 gr spitzer and depending on weapon used the velocity was between 2525 fps - 2900 fps which should put the maximum pressure up in the 60,000 psi range, this round was intended for Vickers machine guns, but was considered acceptable for use in all .303 inch small arms and Machine guns, but the powder bullet combo had an adverse errosive effect on rifles/LMG that had previously used Cordite ammunition, so general policy was to restrict it to the "heavy" machine guns.

Snipers, once the ammunition became available, were known to get very friendly with ordnance personnel and Vickers machine gunners so as to be able to get thier hands on a reliable supply

 

[WildRose]

I can't wait to see the shooting results. This is certainly a unique build!
If there is one thing I have learned over the years is that the old military rifles can give very surprising results while breaking all the practices and rules that have dominated our thinking. I have a 1943 vintage 1903 A3 Remington that is all original, and an A3 that has been configured and re-barreled to A4 sniper specs with a Hi-Lux M82 G2 scope that consistently maintain their zero, and shoot .5MOA.....in the case of the 1943, for decades. I have used these rifles for vintage competition. Considering skinny barrels with full length bedding, skimpy stocks, original two stage triggers, etc, etc, I don't think this is a fluke as I have seen these kind of results quite frequently with other shooters rifles. Based on the results I have gotten out to 600 yards, with proper optics and loads, I think these rifles could get the job done if pressed into LRH use.

200 yard group from my A3

No you're certainly not wrong. The biggest problem with old all original military rifles is finding one with a bore that doesn't look like a rusted out old cast iron sewer pipe. Find a good bore and chances are they will still perform well as long as you stick to bullet weights they were originally designed for and to pay very close attention to those build circa 1900 because they were definitely not built for the kinds of pressures modern rifles and cartridges are.

I've particularly seen some amazing shooting from a few original O3A3's.

 

[WildRose]

In the No.4 MkI and the original SMLE MkIII (and other Mk's) the chambers are oversize, which can create artificial headspace and reduce case life significantly. This is more than enough reason to tread carefully when reloading.

The No.4 Mk 1 and it later bretheren are capable of handling the 7.62 NATO and have been successfully converted to said caliber and there has been no issues as far as I am aware with the pressure generated, remember NATO spec is not SAAMI, the ammunition is usually at the upper end of the pressure curve, since it has to be used in everything from service rifles to GPMG.

The 303 Mk VIII ball used a 175 gr spitzer and depending on weapon used the velocity was between 2525 fps - 2900 fps which should put the maximum pressure up in the 60,000 psi range, this round was intended for Vickers machine guns, but was considered acceptable for use in all .303 inch small arms and Machine guns, but the powder bullet combo had an adverse errosive effect on rifles/LMG that had previously used Cordite ammunition, so general policy was to restrict it to the "heavy" machine guns.

Snipers, once the ammunition became available, were known to get very friendly with ordnance personnel and Vickers machine gunners so as to be able to get thier hands on a reliable supply

Shaun don't assume I'm somehow insulting the LE, it was in many very important ways ahead of it's time. It's greatest strength was the speed with which it could be cycled and even more importantly one of it's early improvements was the speed with which it could be reloaded. In "The Mad Minute" drills a gifted LE shooter could accurately fire thirty or more hits on 200-300m targets in one minute. The record is over 40. The speed with which it could be loaded and fired proved devastating to opposing armies equipped with the Mauser action staring with the Boer War. Fortunately the Germans refused to learn that lesson through the next three decades.

It was however designed in the black powder era and first issued as cordite was becoming the standard propellant. It simply isn't possible that it was developed to handle powders that were not even invented when it was designed.

The rear lug design just has an inherent weakness compared to front lug and double (front and rear) designs which followed it.

It's not, or at least shouldn't be an emotional issue, it's just physics and geometry and firearms design has had an evolution just like living things albeit far, far faster.

Chuck Hawks did an excellent article years ago in which he discussed the strengths and weaknesses of the more popular bolt actions designs as he saw them and all of our favorite actions as he describes in it have their strengths and weaknesses.

 

[BRIT]

Heretic Heretic . Stone the Heretic

Brit.

 

[shaughn]

Not insulted here

Actually the rifle that was accepted for trials eventually evolved into the No. 1 Mk III was built from the ground up, for use with cordite.

The Lee-Metford was the original BP rifle, but cordite made it obsolete (.303 Cordite loads approved 1890) due to excessive erosion of the rifling. (Metford rifling)

The Mk I rifle was sealed in 1895 and weren't BP rifles and are very different when compared to the older Lee-Metford.

The final variants (British) No.1 Mk III continued to be built until 1943, this included improvements in steel used for all rifles.

The No.4 Mk I was officially fielded in the spring of 1942 and it soldiered on to 1947 where it became the No. 4 Mk 2, though not issued till 1949 then continued on to become the L8 Series 1960 then on till 1970 until the adoption of the L96A1 in the mid 80's.

The newest No.4 Mk 2, I have ever had was made in 1954 (the action) and was later made into a 7.62 NATO target rifle.

I had the chance to participate in an evaluation of the No.4 Mk 1 and 2 and several were pressure tested to destruction (collectors around the world cried for several months as unissued Factory new rifles were sacrificed). It was found when using in Spec chambers the actions easily held up to several proofing loads for the 7.62 NATO, before failure and surprised most everyone there, unfamiliar with the action.

Yes, rear locking lugs (2 in this case) and split bridge are not as strong as a double lugged front locking bolt, never said it was, what I did say was the No.4 Mk I and later marks are stronger physically than the No. 1 Mk III.

The issue with the rifle is the grossly oversized chambers, which can create artificial headspace , which in turn will lead to a whole host of problems.

So, if equipped with an as issued barrel, keep your pressures down and minimal sizing. If you have a target model in 7.62 NATO (No.4 Mk 1/2 and variant) then don't be overly concerned as long as proper maintenance and you keep your reloads within safe limits.

I even know a few in 45-70 and they are loaded to Marlin 1895/Winchester 71/86 levels and have been checked regularly for issues, still going strong last I knew.

 

[pjb2643]

According to an "old timer" that I knew, another "secret" of getting accuracy from an Enfield was to stay with the 170gr+ flat based bullets. He said the mid weight boat tail bullets, that are so common now, would keyhole in alot of the old military guns. True enough, as I found out, Federal mid-weight hunting loads would keyhole at 50yds and old military FMJs would still group around 2-2.5" at 100 yds.

 

[crashlanding]

Very nice work!