Just for the record, the Hornaday bullet I've seen referred to here as a BTHP is actually a FMJ-BT, and it is .3105" not .312". Not trying to split hairs here, but it could save someone looking for a .312" BTHP that doesn't exist.
Mfg. specs were different. I have a battle-worn Maltby No.4 Mk.I that slugs out at .3125. I own a mint condition, never issued, brand new, 1943 Long Branch with bore that slugs out to a .317". I still have to slug my Jungle Carbine...
Manufacturers produced barrels that have been reported as .309" - .324".
Here is my issue. With my LB, it has a big ol' .317" bore. What tells me is that a little .3105 FMJ-BT is going to rattle down that barrel and oscillate without stabilizing. We are talking about bullet deformation, gas blow-by, excessive copper fouling, throat erosion, and horrible accuracy.
WRONG!
My barrel like many Enfields, is a 2 groove. That means that I have 2 very thin grooves that only affect 10% (approximately) of the bullet's ogive, and the other 90% (approximately) is hitting the lands.
The lands in my rifle slug out to a perfectly concentric .3031 diameter.
So instead of a .3105" bullet rattling down a .317" bore, we have a .3105" bullet being squeezed and swaged .0074" down to .3031". Part of this tight swage forces more jacketing material into the grooves lessening the amount of blow-by, and creating a tighter seal.
The proof is iin the pudding. At 100m, I shot those "undersized" bullets into a 2" group.
Alec