There are a bunch of 312 Hornady 174 flat base bullets coming onto the market right now in 100 count boxes - I've seen them in a few places locally. Not an answer to your question, but just an FYI. Also wondering if we could get the Chinese (locally the source of a lot of 762x54 ammo) to sell us just the bullets. They're already producing them, they don't have to change anything, and they could sell a sh*t ton. Sounds like someone with the right connections could make a bunch of money.
Question about World War One versus World War Two versus Post-war Lee-Enfield barrels
- Thread starter steelgray
- Start date
As noted, I don't see much Norinco 54R ammo on the shelves here in the Ottawa region but hopefully they will ramp up Canadian exports to fill the inevitable shortage that is coming - due to the situation in Eastern Europe. It would be even neater if Norinco would crank-out cheap factory 303 British for the commercial, retail market. IMO, it would sell well. Lots of 303s out there not being shot because people don't reload - and can't get factory ammo. Geez, they made 17 million L-Es!
1) Bullets are much easier to import than loaded cartridges. I'd figure there'd be a viable business case for someone producing loaded 303 and selling it to Commonwealth countries, but what would I know.
2) Chinese ammo is generally cheap because it's surplus, 303 is not a Chinese calibre
3) even Chinese surplus can be dodgy, they surplussed a bunch of mil export 5.56 in the 2010's which had bullets that were undersized, they'd hit the paper sideways at 50m
- Location
- WMU247 near Edmonton
Ok its simple
None of the enfields are going to be reliable for use with undersized bullets
you may get lucky to find one that will shoot .308 bullets accurate but its going to be a random occurrence
If you want an enfield that will shoot .308 bullets accurately then you have few options,
first find a 2A or 2A1, it is chambered in 7.62x51 so your problems are solved.
second find a DCRA 7.62 conversion, again its chambered in 7.62x51 and was set up as a competition target rifle, you should be fine with that too
third, re-barrel an enfield with a 30 cal barrel, now you can chamber it in 30-303 or 308Win your choice but it will then shoot .308 bullets
your final choice is buy a lot of enfields and try them all with .308 bullets till you find one with acceptable accuracy
None of the enfields are going to be reliable for use with undersized bullets
you may get lucky to find one that will shoot .308 bullets accurate but its going to be a random occurrence
If you want an enfield that will shoot .308 bullets accurately then you have few options,
first find a 2A or 2A1, it is chambered in 7.62x51 so your problems are solved.
second find a DCRA 7.62 conversion, again its chambered in 7.62x51 and was set up as a competition target rifle, you should be fine with that too
third, re-barrel an enfield with a 30 cal barrel, now you can chamber it in 30-303 or 308Win your choice but it will then shoot .308 bullets
your final choice is buy a lot of enfields and try them all with .308 bullets till you find one with acceptable accuracy
Sometimes simple plain English is needed.
only took me 43 LE’s before I found one that would shoot 0.308 well.
I suppose that plain English also requires that we define what we mean by "acceptable accurately". There is a video on youtube that shows a guy trying various loads that he seems to have carefully tested, under controlled conditions. He seemed to be getting 3" groups at 100 yards with his .311 test loads and about 3.75" with .308 projectiles.
Full disclosure, I watched that video a while back and can't say whether he was doing his testing of 303 British in a L-E or 54R with a Mosin. Per my limited recall, I think it was more likely the latter.
Either way, if that is the plain language outcome - I could handle that.
What do cast bullet shooters call acceptable accuracy?
Full disclosure, I watched that video a while back and can't say whether he was doing his testing of 303 British in a L-E or 54R with a Mosin. Per my limited recall, I think it was more likely the latter.
Either way, if that is the plain language outcome - I could handle that.
What do cast bullet shooters call acceptable accuracy?
- Location
- WMU247 near Edmonton
Ah I misses one other option
find one of the AIA rifles chambered in 308 and buy it, going to be expensive but it will shoot .308 bullets
find one of the AIA rifles chambered in 308 and buy it, going to be expensive but it will shoot .308 bullets
I have one of the AIA guns in 7.62x39, scoped and with a synthetic stock. It is a great gun and ZERO issues with getting cheap ammo - but I'd like to keep my 303 Br stuff in use too.
OP - To answer your question about cast bullet accuracy... Assuming you are shooting with LE peep sights, your eyes are probably the limiting factor for shooting groups at 100 y. For me, thats 3-4 inches on a really good day, with a rifle that's known to shoot. This applies to both cast and clad bullets.
Shooting a scoped rifle, a fella should be able to get 2 inch groups using cast, without too much load tuning.
Shooting a scoped rifle, a fella should be able to get 2 inch groups using cast, without too much load tuning.
- Location
- Western Manitoba
OP - "cast bullet accuracy" - go here - is a link to an NRA article - 1978 - .521" 10 shot group at 200 yards with cast bullets - broke a record of .727" 10 shot group that had been shot in 1901.
https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/for...t-10-shot-group-at-200yards-with-cast-bullets!
https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/for...t-10-shot-group-at-200yards-with-cast-bullets!
Last edited:
Has anyone established if the chambers of one type of L-E is tighter or looser than others. Logic would suggest that WW1 guns were made with intentionally oversized chambers - to deal with production variation problems associated with WW1 303 British ammo. We know that Ross rifles couldn't consistently chamber this poor quality British ammo and those guns need to be rechambered (reamed-out) once they got to Europe.
Maybe WW2 or post war guns were made with tighter chambers once the builders became confident that all the crap oversized WW! 3030 British ammo stocks had been used up.
Does anyone know? Do you have a post war or FTR gun that has a tighter chamber than a WW1 gun?
Maybe WW2 or post war guns were made with tighter chambers once the builders became confident that all the crap oversized WW! 3030 British ammo stocks had been used up.
Does anyone know? Do you have a post war or FTR gun that has a tighter chamber than a WW1 gun?
A serial number starting with a "C" is Savage made - at Chicopee Falls. As I recall, they were the maker of the 2 groove barrels, because they were using 2 groove rifling machines to make 30-06 barrels.
The last time I was there they had a display in the factory lobby about their WW2 production. They made over 1 million Lee Enfields. Some of the parts they made went to Long Branch.
I have no idea if these barrels are better than others with 308 bullets. I have heard cast bullets shooters swearing by them.
Given that .311 and .312 bullets are in production, why are you truing 308s?
I have tried to make my old Lee Enfields shoot well. Only one does well with the Sierra Match King bullet (a boat tail). All the others much prefer a flat base bullet. Sierra (and others) make a good flat base bullet for the 303. I suggest you try some of those and compare to the Noisy Maggot bullets.
The last time I was there they had a display in the factory lobby about their WW2 production. They made over 1 million Lee Enfields. Some of the parts they made went to Long Branch.
I have no idea if these barrels are better than others with 308 bullets. I have heard cast bullets shooters swearing by them.
Given that .311 and .312 bullets are in production, why are you truing 308s?
I have tried to make my old Lee Enfields shoot well. Only one does well with the Sierra Match King bullet (a boat tail). All the others much prefer a flat base bullet. Sierra (and others) make a good flat base bullet for the 303. I suggest you try some of those and compare to the Noisy Maggot bullets.
Last edited:
I have found that it doesn’t matter what year or model chambers are all different. I have #1 and #4 that I can neck size for and swap between them. Only other 303 they will fit is my martini which will take fired cases from all my other 303’s. Even from the same manufacture can be different.
The technical drawings specifying chamber dimensions would form part of the manufacturing package for service rifles. Any variations would be noted in the official List of Changes. Perhaps these could be accessed. Any manufacturing variations would not be random.
I do not know that I ever inspected cases fired in, say, a 1955 FAZ No. 4 Mk. II, but ones fired in LB No. 4s don't look any different from those fired in British rifles.
I would expect that 1950s production barrels would likely have bore dimensions very close to .303 specifications, with no variations resulting from wartime production pressures. Perhaps the worst choice for .308" bullet experimentation.
I do not know that I ever inspected cases fired in, say, a 1955 FAZ No. 4 Mk. II, but ones fired in LB No. 4s don't look any different from those fired in British rifles.
I would expect that 1950s production barrels would likely have bore dimensions very close to .303 specifications, with no variations resulting from wartime production pressures. Perhaps the worst choice for .308" bullet experimentation.
you may be able to bump the 308 bullets up to 311. if you use something on the nose/ogive to hold the bullet you could pace it in a press/bottle jack/wack it with a hammer just enough to bump it a few thousands of an inch then send it through a 311 sizing die
i have done this with a handpump press and a 1" dial indacator to get the same amount of squish every time using cast bullets, jacketed may not work as well or as easy but very well could.
or even simpler just paper patch your 308 bullets, or powder coat them and then run them though a 311 sizer.
i have done this with a handpump press and a 1" dial indacator to get the same amount of squish every time using cast bullets, jacketed may not work as well or as easy but very well could.
or even simpler just paper patch your 308 bullets, or powder coat them and then run them though a 311 sizer.
I have learned a lot from several of the well informed/ knowledgeable posts above. The consensus seems to be that you can't say specifically that later guns have consistently tighter chambers or more consistent bore diameters than earlier war production guns, etc.
You are pretty much saying you have to test your guns to see what the deal is with each. I suppose that this reality make feeding and shooting L-E guns more "interesting" but presumably more time consuming.
You are pretty much saying you have to test your guns to see what the deal is with each. I suppose that this reality make feeding and shooting L-E guns more "interesting" but presumably more time consuming.
When you consider the reaming method that was used during the production of SMLE barrels, the uniformity is remarkable.
It was established that the .303 ball projectile upset sufficiently that minor variations in bore dimensions did not affect service accuracy.
It was established that the .303 ball projectile upset sufficiently that minor variations in bore dimensions did not affect service accuracy.
- Location
- Western Manitoba
OP - perhaps recognize that the objective was to produce a "battle rifle" - not a precision instrument. I think on Internet you can find how they were sighted in - like 1" wide by 1.5" high box at 33 FEET. The very best - the "T" sniper versions done up by Holland and Holland - had to produce like 4 MOA for 5 out of 6 shots - so like most any modern Savage Axis II will outshoot that. Is a bit of a "sow's ear into silk purse" for us to think our "run of the mill" milsurp 303 British is going to magically become a precision target rifle. Is a whole plethora of considerations for battle rifle that we do not normally think about - to be a "handle" for a bayonet, to be picked up out of mud or sand and expected to work - like Lee Enfield, SKS and AK do - frozen, baked, wet or whatever. I am not personally familiar with American battle arms, but I suspect they met similar criteria.
