So the good at the range, the rifle feeds, fires and extracts as it should. Sights are on, poa/poi at 100m on the 200m setting of the MK1 was a touch low as it should be.
The bad, accuracy is poor. There’s barrel contact at the last 2” of the sporterized forend, the last couple inches of rifling near the muzzle looks a bit worn The crown looks good, I have not slugged the bore but it’s a 2 grove barrel. I’ll have to file out the forend and free float it fully, if that doesn’t improve things I’ll think about cutting the barrel. It currently measures at 23.75” from a closed bolt head to the crown, so I have a bit over 5” to play with cutting and still be in the 18”-18.5” legal length. I generally am less comfortable with a peep sight so I used a 5” black triangle on a 2’x3’ sheet of white paper so I would have a good repeatable sight picture to try an remove that from the equation, I am comfortable shooting irons in general though.
Some visible case expansion, more of a radial expansion than anything in my opinion. So I’m guessing I’ve got somewhat of an oversize chamber vs excessive headspace. I have two Okee guages, their No-go and Field guages. They measure in at .066” for the no-go and .073 for the field, vs Laider’s listed sizes of .064” for the Go and .074” for the No-go armourer’s guages. My bolt won’t easily close on either of mine, could likely force it to close on the .066” and there’s noticeable resistance on the .073” As far as I see it headspace is good.
I fired some NOS Dominion CIL and some new PPU fmj, I couldn’t feel any ring internally with a wire so I cut one of each open to see what case walls near the web actually looked like. Looks better than I was expecting but let me know what you think. None of my other Lee Enfield’s exhibit much in the way of headspace or chamber size issues so this is something new for me. I didn’t use an o-ring on any of the case rims but I’ll do so next time. PPU is on the left and Dominion on the right in the sectioned brass pic.
...
A couple comments - I notice that SAAMI defines a Minimum Headspace and a Maximum Headspace - I can not find in SAAMI material where they define what is a "NOGO" gauge's dimensions. If someone know how and where SAAMI defines a NOGO gauge, I would appreciate to hear or read that. I think a NOGO gauge is a barrel maker or perhaps a reamer maker invention, not a SAAMI thing. What I read was that military Armourers had a FIELD gauge - the rifle obviously were over Minimum (GO) size, since they were chambering and firing the standard ammo - but the concern was if the bolt lugs or something else had worn or stretched - hence, if bolt closed on FIELD gauge, chamber was too long to continue in service - might be repairable, might not be - depending what was wrong - maybe with bolt or maybe with receiver??
For sure I have a set here for 30-06 made by Clymer - a GO Gauge, a NOGO gauge and a FIELD gauge. For most others that I bought, I just bought a "GO" gauge, and install shims made from a feeler gauge between bolt face and GO gauge to know "head space" of that unit.
I suspect that I read much where people form opinions about head space, based on rimless cases, like 30-06 or 308 Win, and then apply those ideas to rimmed cases like 303 British or 30-30 Win, or to belted cases like 300 H&H or 300 Win Mag. I think the best case life and longevity probably comes from "head spacing" on the case shoulder if that is possible - like on 303 British or 300 Win Mag - but probably not dependable on a 300 H&H or similar. Personally, I think the "headspace" thing is over done - when I reload, I try to make these brass fit that chamber, and the specific "head space" number really does not matter - might be different if only SAAMI compliant factory ammo is used - likely is good plan to have a SAAMI compliant chamber.
Also, the military standards apparently had nothing directly to do with SAAMI - all of WWI (when train loads of 303 British cartridges were made and fired) was all at least a decade before SAAMI existed - so I believe most militaries set their own standards for their ammo and rifles - 6.5x55, 30-06, 8x57JS, etc. - all were in use in the world, long before SAAMI existed in the USA. Is my opinion, that except for Canada, about no one else in the world cares about SAAMI standards, unless they want to sell something into the USA.
So, much of the stuff that you read about 303 British, has to be kept in mind how it was used, then. Brass was fired ONCE - was not suppossed to burst and was supposed to extract, most of the time - ONCE. What may have happened to the brass case during firing was not really a concern - the need was to fire and then extract - once. It is us that insist on trying to reload those brass - not what the original designers were asked to consider.
Same with the rifles and the tolerances they were built to - to be "good enough" for "government work" to fire that cartridge and extract it - none of them were designed as target precision rifles - although the odd one shot much better than the next one - was purely random - perhaps stacking or cancelling tolerances. I think the over arching concern was to make a LOT of them, and to make them CHEAPLY as possible, and still to perform sort of "good enough".
Perhaps many of the design criteria that were important then, do not mean much now - they had to serve as a bayonet handle - they were used by strong young fellows to "butt strike" - they were fighting guns - but, with some features removed, they could become saleable as hunting rifles. And the were sold off as surplus so cheap after the WWII, about any one and his brother to try their hand at making one into a "hunting gun" - Lee Enfield, Enfield's, German 98 Mausers, Swede 96 Mausers, and so on.
