- Location
- Nova Scotia
You ask the guy who you bought it from?
If it was rechambered markings be on the barrel.
If it was rechambered markings be on the barrel.
Sht. LE III won't chamber .303 Brit - UPDATE
- Thread starter yidava25
- Start date
It's a 5 groove bore.
.307 win is a good thought, I have a friend who says he may have ammo I can try to see if it would feed out of this mag. That's what doesn't make sense to me, if someone went to the trouble of rechambering it to .308 Win why wouldn't it have a mag that was made or modified for that round? Unless it's an unfinished project.
If it WAS .308 Win, does anyone know if an Ishapore 2A 7.62 magazine would work in this rifle's magazine well?
.307 win is a good thought, I have a friend who says he may have ammo I can try to see if it would feed out of this mag. That's what doesn't make sense to me, if someone went to the trouble of rechambering it to .308 Win why wouldn't it have a mag that was made or modified for that round? Unless it's an unfinished project.
If it WAS .308 Win, does anyone know if an Ishapore 2A 7.62 magazine would work in this rifle's magazine well?
It doesn't have a flat on top of the chamber area but it does have one on the underside, if that indicates anything. Also there are these two vague marks in that area, somewhat obscured by Bubba's bedding job, that i did not see before.
Attachments
- Location
- Western Manitoba
Back in the day, I understand many were converted to fire 7.62 NATO (308 Win) but as a single shot rifle - the original 303 British magazine was simply used as a loading platform - for mostly target work - rifles were fed single shot, not used as repeaters - although some could have been converted to use "proper" 7.62 NATO magazines and were "repeaters". At least one brand of magazine required additional milling to underside of receiver - hence a more expensive conversion, besides the additional cost of the "new" magazine - Sterling and Enfield are two brands of magazines that come to mind - not sure which required extra milling on the receiver - is possible that they both did. Was also some people that used 7.62 magazines from No. 1 made in India, even though their rifle made 60 or 70 years earlier - that magazine would be from the Ishapore 2A that you refer to - I understand that some people have made them work in No. 1 and No. 4 conversions.
As I understand it - was the ejection system that was problematic - the system for 303 British did not always work reliably for the 7.62 NATO - hence some of the "conversion" magazines had integral "ejectors" on them - should not really have been an issue for the single shot target work - since apparently the extractor system worked fine - although was a different extractor usually fitted to the bolt head, when converted from 303 British to 7.62 NATO. I do not know how Ishapore resolved that ejection thing.
So that you know, from your first picture - that SMLE seems to have a heavier than "normal" SMLE barrel - so what is installed might be a Heavy Barrel for SMLE, or perhaps a No. 4 barrel - I understand that the threads are 180 degrees opposite between No. 1 and No. 4 - that might explain why the "knox form" is on the bottom? Also consider bore diameter - will give you clues what that barrel actually is chambered for. A difference between North America and Europe - I do not think there are any guns sold in Europe without markings on the barrel about chambering or proof testing - for the past several hundred years - here, we can (and always could) do whatever we wanted to.
On original No. 1 and No. 4 barrels, the chamber part close to the receiver is tapered - wider towards the receiver - the knox form was flat, but "tilted forward" - so if a barrel was lathed to be "straight" then the "knox form" would become that tapered shape that you show in your last picture - since it would be hidden under the wood - was likely of no concern to that maker or that buyer.
Last edited:
I'd say it's probably a .307 Winchester [essentially a rimmed .308 Winchester]. Looks like Bubba has been at work on the cocking piece & the bolt head & you can see where the vice jaws were clamped onto the front receiver ring.
I've seen that "knox form" on the bottom of the barrel before; a Finnish capture Mosin?
I've seen that "knox form" on the bottom of the barrel before; a Finnish capture Mosin?
- Location
- WMU247 near Edmonton
looking like the barrel was taken off and the barrel on it is turned down to clean up the chamber, shoulder set back.
barrel length is going to be around 25" likely a little shorter.
I'm still thinking a 307R loaded with .311 bullets
barrel length is going to be around 25" likely a little shorter.
I'm still thinking a 307R loaded with .311 bullets
If you want to quickly find out whether the bore is .308 or .303, just stick a .308 cartridge, bullet first, into the muzzle. If it goes all the way in to the case neck, it's probably a .303. If if only goes in partially, it's a porbably a .308 bore. My money is also on a .307 WIN though.
Yeah tried that with a .308 bullet, it etches into the rifling on the ogive. Also made a cast of the bore but as was mentioned with a 5-groove bore you can't measure straight across groove to groove.
Could you drill a 19/64 hole in thin metal and ream it out to .308 and try it over the bore cast ? or a 5/16 (.312) drilled hole and see if it is a bit of a loose fit over the bore cast?(have read that a drilled hole may not be perfectly circular though, whereas a carefully reamed hole should be ) . Rick
- Location
- Western Manitoba
If you have the tooling, skills and know how to make a perfectly round hole, you probably can make a proper tool to measure 5 groove rifling. If you can't make the anvil the required number of degrees, you probably can not make a perfectly round hole, either. But the rifling is theoretically .300 versus .303 and the groove is theoretically .308 versus .311 - you are looking to ID .003" difference. That is assuming it is a 308 Win (7.62 NATO) or a 303 British - is other possible diameters between that.
So here's the other question that's come up in my online reading - many say it's unsafe to fire .308 out of an SMLE action because they can't handle the higher pressure (about 10k psi more than a .303 Brit) so even if I sort everything else out what are my options if that's the case? Light loads, Trail Boss only?
- Location
- Western Manitoba
If you were in Europe, there would be a gov't approved proof house that would answer that for you - is apparently no such thing in Canada or USA, so what you do, is between you and the builder - if you are like most people, you will not have the instruments to measure breech pressure - is probable that neither did that maker. I do know that No. 4 and other actions have been "proofed" for 308 Win pressure levels, but I do not know if SMLE actions ever withstood that level of pressure. As I understand it, the SMLE action's lockup and strength, is similar to the No. 4 Lee Enfield - but that does not "prove" that your unit is "average". Some No. 4 and certain small ring Mausers "blew up" when subjected to 308 Win proof loads - not all, but some.
Depending on your outlook or perspective - is known that the SMLE were made in the day to use 303 British ammo - some authority - often a military one - asserted that rifle was "good enough" for their soldiers to use, with their ammo. In Britain, that rifle had to go through a "proof house" when it was sold off as surplus - to demonstrate it was "strong enough" to be safe for a consumer to use - basically with ANY commercial ammo. Rifles from Canada or other countries may never have been "proofed" that way - so even if they are still using the cartridge that they were originally made for, is possible that age, corrosion, etc. makes them no longer suitable for what they were designed for - 100 plus years ago. Then, in your case, that rifle has been altered from the original design. That might have made it stronger or weaker than original.
Your first picture in Post #19 is showing the marks that your SMLE was "proofed" at the Birmingham Proof house - I can not make out the symbols to tell you what year that was done. You might want to go to https://www.hallowellco.com/proof_date_codes.htm and look up the codes on your rifle from the Birmingham Proof House.
Last edited:
307 and 308 Winchester are excellent cast bullet cartridges. I have been trying a few different loads in each but haven’t decided what loads are best. Once the weather warms up I’ll probably start shooting them more. Using 2400 and 170 or 180 cast.
303EppsFan
CGN Regular
- Location
- Almonte,Ontario
This is probably easy.
You got your sample. Looks v good.
Take your measurements and confirm the book "Cartridges Of The World" over 1500 cartridges all with a pic and at back of book every one has measurements for Nec dia, Shoulder dia, Base dia, Rim dia, Rim thickness, Case length + a few others too.
There is your awnser.
Had a bag once over 200 unmarked cartridges IDed most. Even wildcats and I am an Obsolete Calibre Man.
You got your sample. Looks v good.
Take your measurements and confirm the book "Cartridges Of The World" over 1500 cartridges all with a pic and at back of book every one has measurements for Nec dia, Shoulder dia, Base dia, Rim dia, Rim thickness, Case length + a few others too.
There is your awnser.
Had a bag once over 200 unmarked cartridges IDed most. Even wildcats and I am an Obsolete Calibre Man.
Yes, from my measurements it's a .307 Win. chamber. Whether that will feed out of the magazine and be safe to fire in this action has yet to be determined, I'm waiting on ammo to try.
307 win is below the pressure of 308 win so good to go on factory or equivalent reloads. I have my doubts they will work in the mag unless it has been modified.
The chamber cast shows no trace of a .303 chamber. If it was a .303 barrel, it was set back far enough that the .303 chamber was eliminated.
Nock's Form on the bottom suggests that either a SMLE barrel was altered, or a No.4 barrel was fitted. SMLE and No.4 barrels are 180 degrees out for indexing. The larger diameter area in front of the receiver ring doesn't look short.
What cuts are on the barrel breech face for the extractor?
Is the rear sight stock or has it been altered? No.4 barrel is larger in diameter than a SMLE. Similarly is the front sight base keyed and pinned to the barrel?
The cocking piece has been altered.
I would suggest finding out exactly what has been done to the rifle before firing it. A 1917 in 7.62x51/.308 would be marginal with standard loads. .307 might be OK if pressures are in the .303 range.
Someone put some time and effort into this rifle. Catch is, you don't know exactly what was done, nor how skilled and competent the person was.
Nock's Form on the bottom suggests that either a SMLE barrel was altered, or a No.4 barrel was fitted. SMLE and No.4 barrels are 180 degrees out for indexing. The larger diameter area in front of the receiver ring doesn't look short.
What cuts are on the barrel breech face for the extractor?
Is the rear sight stock or has it been altered? No.4 barrel is larger in diameter than a SMLE. Similarly is the front sight base keyed and pinned to the barrel?
The cocking piece has been altered.
I would suggest finding out exactly what has been done to the rifle before firing it. A 1917 in 7.62x51/.308 would be marginal with standard loads. .307 might be OK if pressures are in the .303 range.
Someone put some time and effort into this rifle. Catch is, you don't know exactly what was done, nor how skilled and competent the person was.
