308 Enfield Barrel Question

F

Frost Cracked

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
39   0   0
Location
My house
Recently on the EE I picked myself up a 308 Lee Enfield barrel, which has had me a bit perplexed and in search of some answers.

The barrel is "In the White" and has no markings on it, other than what looked like an engraver mark on the butt-end of the nox, labeled "308".

Installed fine, and some test-fires performed well (IE it didn't blow up in my face).

The front end of the barrel however has given me some problems.. The bayonet lugs are too large to fit the front site on (not to mention a bayonet), and there's no cross-file for the sight pin. I was hoping someone might have some information on who might have made this barrel ( I have been informed DCRA barrels did not have lugs), and what's my best course of action to get this rifle front-sighted.

-Thanks

RILXtiW.jpg
 

Attachments

  • RILXtiW.jpg
    RILXtiW.jpg
    19.8 KB · Views: 219
The CAL barrels for the DCRA sponsored conversions were for 7.62x51, not .308. The ones for target shooting did not have bayonet lugs. CAL did make some 7.62 No. 4 barrels with bayonet lugs for the British, for their 7.62 conversion program.
Hard to tell who made yours.
It shouldn't be too difficult to alter a sight base to fit your barrel. It could be bored (if necessary) to match the barrel diameter, and the grooves for the lugs filed to fit. Once fitted, a notch to clear the cross pin could be filed in.
What had to be done to index and headspace the barrel?
 
tiriaq said:
The CAL barrels for the DCRA sponsored conversions were for 7.62x51, not .308. The ones for target shooting did not have bayonet lugs. CAL did make some 7.62 No. 4 barrels with bayonet lugs for the British, for their 7.62 conversion program.
Hard to tell who made yours.
It shouldn't be too difficult to alter a sight base to fit your barrel. It could be bored (if necessary) to match the barrel diameter, and the grooves for the lugs filed to fit. Once fitted, a notch to clear the cross pin could be filed in.
What had to be done to index and headspace the barrel?
Click to expand...

I haven't done anything to index or headspace really. Just cranked it on. It chambered a shell so it wasn't under-chambered. I'm going to get ahold of some gauges and check what's actually going on inside before I put it to any more use. I put two rounds down range without issue.

The sight fits on the barrel itself, but doesn't fit past the lugs. Since It doesn't hold a bayonet either I'm thinking the lugs, and by extension the front sight lugs are oversized by some margin.

Pardon my ignorance but who are CAL?
 
CAL = Canadian Arsenal Limited = Long Branch.

If the sight base slides on then stops at the lugs, I'm sure the sight base grooves could be filed out to fit over the barrel lugs. I would suggest that altering the base would be preferable to altering the barrel.

There was discussion that one of the US barrel makers was doing No. 4 barrels, complete with lugs.
 
Canadian Arsenal Limited

Making a square peg fit into a round hole kind of problem only has two possible solutions. Make the hole fit the peg or the peg fit the hole.

You absolutely need to try a No Go gauge to ensure the chamber is not oversized (headspace too long). Excess headspace can be dangerous.
 
burnt_servo said:
is this in 308 winchester / 7.62 x51 ?

or is this in 303 british , with a .308 barrel instead of a .311 barrel ?
Click to expand...

Barrel is to my knowledge in 308, and was sold to me as such. Marking at the back says "308." Whether it's 7.62, or actually 308 I am unknown. Going to check with gauges before attempting any more use of it.
 
A .308 marking would suggest commercial manufacture. That might also explain why the front sight base doesn't quite fit.
 
Can you post a picture of the markings. It is on the breech end I assume.
I think they are 7.62 x 51 but the person who bought a huge pile of them as surplus just marked them 308 to keep it simple
 
wheaty said:
Can you post a picture of the markings. It is on the breech end I assume.
I think they are 7.62 x 51 but the person who bought a huge pile of them as surplus just marked them 308 to keep it simple
Click to expand...

Hi Wheaty, The marking is no longer visable, with the barrel installed. It was inscribed with what looked like an awl or engraver in scratchy "308" on the flush of the barrel where it met against the receiver. It's got no other markings I could find anywhere else...
 
gaff said:
criteronbarrels.com it's just a commercial barrel.
Click to expand...

Ahhh. Well that might explain it then. I didn't know they made 308 barrels though.. or at least their site says they don't...?

I managed to get the front sight on with a bit of filing and a brass punch and hammer... quite snug. I tested with a set of go/no-go, and on a no 1 bolt head it's waay too much head space. On a No 2 Bolt Head (out of another enfield) it closes on the go, and closes with force, on the no-go, so I think I need to get ahold of a No 2 head... anyone got one?
 
Frost Cracked said:
Ahhh. Well that might explain it then. I didn't know they made 308 barrels though.. or at least their site says they don't...?

I managed to get the front sight on with a bit of filing and a brass punch and hammer... quite snug. I tested with a set of go/no-go, and on a no 1 bolt head it's waay too much head space. On a No 2 Bolt Head (out of another enfield) it closes on the go, and closes with force, on the no-go, so I think I need to get ahold of a No 2 head... anyone got one?
Click to expand...

Let us know where you read to use force with a gauge?? Is NOT how they are to be used. Also, I can only presume that you are using standard 303 rated bolt heads - not the specifically pressure tested one for the 7.62 NATO round? And the bolt heads that you substituted clocked within spec on the bolt body?
 
Potashminer said:
Let us know where you read to use force with a gauge?? Is NOT how they are to be used. Also, I can only presume that you are using standard 303 rated bolt heads - not the specifically pressure tested one for the 7.62 NATO round? And the bolt heads that you substituted clocked within spec on the bolt body?
Click to expand...

Force may have been the wrong word... I noted that the bolt head did close with the no 2 head on the no-go but it was noticeably stiffer doing so, but still closed without excessive effort. If I am using the gauge wrong please correct me, but I have been under the impression it should come to a natural stop, or at least it has when I've gauged other firearms?

And yes I am using a standard 303 bolt head.
 
Frost Cracked said:
Force may have been the wrong word... I noted that the bolt head did close with the no 2 head on the no-go but it was noticeably stiffer doing so, but still closed without excessive effort. If I am using the gauge wrong please correct me, but I have been under the impression it should come to a natural stop, or at least it has when I've gauged other firearms?

And yes I am using a standard 303 bolt head.
Click to expand...

My impression is that the precision ground gauge is about "feeling" for contact - so like finger tip pressure on the bolt handle - to feel if the gauge made contact or not with the datum on the chamber shoulder - is not about seeing if the bolt will close - is about trying to feel when contact has been made. In a Lee Enfield #4, it has helical breeching, so the bolt will continue to advance all the way through the bolt handle movement, until the bolt hits it's stop - like on a P14 or an M1917 - but NOT like a Mauser or many commercial actions.

With the No. 4, is also a step to "clock" a replacement head - is a check that the alignment of the threads in the bolt head line up correctly with the bolt body - was my impression that you did NOT want the bolt head threads to be taking the firing load - wanted that head to be seated snuggly to the bolt body - I do not recall the particular spec off-hand - I suspect that you would find it in some of Peter Laidler's articles on the Library section on the milsurp website, or likely at other resources - was a distance or number of degrees between a bolt head turned snug to bolt body, and the reinforcing rib along that bolt body.

There were specific bolt heads pressure tested for 7.62 NATO - maybe they were standard 303 bolt heads, but were not marked as such.
 
Last edited:
Potashminer said:
My impression is that the precision ground gauge is about "feeling" for contact - so like finger tip pressure on the bolt handle - to feel if the gauge made contact or not with the datum on the chamber shoulder - is not about seeing if the bolt will close - is about trying to feel when contact has been made. In a Lee Enfield #4, it has helical breeching, so the bolt will continue to advance all the way through the bolt handle movement, until the bolt hits it's stop - like on a P14 or an M1917 - but NOT like a Mauser or many commercial actions.

With the No. 4, is also a step to "clock" a replacement head - is a check that the alignment of the threads in the bolt head line up correctly with the bolt body - was my impression that you did NOT want the bolt head threads to be taking the firing load - wanted that head to be seated snuggly to the bolt body - I do not recall the particular spec off-hand - I suspect that you would find it in some of Peter Laidler's articles on the Library section on the milsurp website, or likely at other resources - was a distance or number of degrees between a bolt head turned snug to bolt body, and the reinforcing rib along that bolt body.

There were specific bolt heads pressure tested for 7.62 NATO - maybe they were standard 303 bolt heads, but were not marked as such.
Click to expand...

I did do some reading that they had some specific bolt heads, but I have also read that some guys who did later conversions just made do with regular bolt heads and saw not much in the way of a difference. I will look into the bolt clocking, but it seems to be that I'll be looking for a No 2 head now... No 3's seem to be, something of unobtanium...
 
Frost Cracked said:
I did do some reading that they had some specific bolt heads, but I have also read that some guys who did later conversions just made do with regular bolt heads and saw not much in the way of a difference. I will look into the bolt clocking, but it seems to be that I'll be looking for a No 2 head now... No 3's seem to be, something of unobtanium...
Click to expand...

I don't have my references here but I believe that anything over 15 deg past the lug is too much.

and yes No3 bolt heads are fairly rare to find.
 
Potashminer said:
Let us know where you read to use force with a gauge?? Is NOT how they are to be used. Also, I can only presume that you are using standard 303 rated bolt heads - not the specifically pressure tested one for the 7.62 NATO round? And the bolt heads that you substituted clocked within spec on the bolt body?
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as a "special" 7.62 bolt head.

A visual inspection for damage to a bolthead is required whether used in a .22lr, .303 or 7.62/.308.

I know British bolts were supposedly subjected to commercial proof firing - not sure how all those "Irish" No4Mk2 rifles were commercially proof fired while still in their original manufacturers long term storage packaging.
 
Hi FC. I remember some of these barrels appearing at the shows 1970. Wrapped in plain brown paper I believe. Some guys thought they were from CAL but unlikely as nobody ever saw one actually fitted to a rifle. I was holding out to find one with bayonet lugs but never did. Not available through DCRA or any of the usual sources. As for bolt heads it was found that all LB bolt heads inspected were of the quality steel and hardness consistency to allow 7,62 pressure so they are A O.K. to use. The Brits had doubts about some of their war time stock so that for fitting to a 7.62 in addition to inspection they were proof fired before the cross sceptures proof mark was applied. JOHN
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom