308 Lee-Enfield converted for hunting

you catch everything. I was looking for the weird lion thingy. And you got me, a newbie Lee-Enfield owner. Love the rifle, love the way it looks, feels, and I love the action....so smooth. haha. Really wanted a 308 so I can shoot it forever. Do you think I should take it in to be looked at?
 
I wouldn't shoot .308Win from it without some assurance from someone more knowledgeable than I. Too much of what markings there are suggest it was originally made in .303British.
 
Yes I do.

There were a number of DCRA 7.62 Enfields at the show, mind you for twice the price, including the one on my table. Mine was a 55 Brit no4mk2 receiver, full wood (blond) with the Sterling mag and the PH5E sight assembly. It is the most accurate rifle I own, and will outshoot my sniper. When all things are set up right, there is certainly nothing wrong with a Enfield in 7.62.
 
stencollector said:
I think you speak too soon young grasshopper. Below the crown there appears to be the telltale GRI, which will indicate Indian manufacture.
Click to expand...

The 2a 2a1 rifles weren't around until the early to mid fifties. That may be an Indian receiver but it is way to early to be one of the rifles with the tougher receivers. 1917.

I have never seen one of the 2 series recievers with such an early date or a date before the fifties.

sorifern, get it checked out. On the other hand, if you are going to hand load for it keep your loads below 47,000 cup and you should be good to go. The difference in velocity will be minimal anyway.

The 7.62 Nato round is almost identical in down range performance to the 303 British. Same goes for the 30-06 when loaded to military specs. All of them are capable of producing higher velocities and pressures with modern components.

If you use common sense and keep your loads within those specs, you should be OK.

Check the lug recess in the receiver and look for any set back. If there is any, it will be easy to see.

That barrel has the rear sight of a 2a1. Everything about the receivers made prior to the fifties, is identical in every way to the latter receivers. All parts are interchangeable.

I have even seen a 2a rifle with a 303 barrel on it and a replacement magazine. Why you ask???? Because some of the 2a and 2a1 rifles that came into the country were in very poor condition with very poor bores. The No1 barrels just screwed in and a bolt could be just as easily replaced. A new bolt head/extractor would be needed as well for headspace and extraction.

Same as your rifle, does it extract 308 cases???? It may need an extractor with a longer claw.
 
Thanks Bearhunter. I dont hand load (I am a starving student who probably should not have splurged on a rifle anyways!)so we are talking off the shelf rounds. I will take it to the Calgary Shooting Center, apparently there gunsmith is awesome, and get it looked at. I am so excited for exams to be done so I can get some rounds down range and see if I purchased a dud rifle. Could it be that even the band with the date stamped was from another rifle? Did I buy a Frankenstein rifle? haha. I haven't tried to extract yet as It would be unsafe to do so in my home with a live round, so I was going to wait until I could get to the range, But you may be right, if it was a rough conversion, it may not work quite right so I will have to modify it, which I would be willing to do :).
 
Yepp, I remember that one! she was a beauty. I wanted it pretty bad and almost really splurged on that one. I picked this one up because the price was right, just hope I got an okay rifle that shoots true.
 
I said it was an Indian receiver and as such it will be an Ishapore. But I'll agree with you it's not a 2A rifle.

I don't know enough to argue with you on the safety of using a .303 barrel with a 7.62 chamber, or the effects of a factory load on the early receiver. Personally, my ammunition comes in crates, and I prefer rifles that don't have to be specially loaded to make up for potential or unknown weaknesses.
 
Serial numbers of the Body and the Barrel.

The IMPORTANT ones are on the other side of the Barrel, at the 10 o'clock position.

What I don't understand is the idea of running a .308 reamer into an existing .303 barrel. You SHOULD end up with about an extra quarter-inch of freebore.

BEARHUNTER makes another excellent point: while there are STANDARD MILITARY SPECS for the 7.62x51 round, there seem to be no setch of a hanimule for the .308 Winchester: the makers just keep loading it hotter and hotter and the load books (some of them) have loads running 400 ft/sec and faster than MilSpec. What some true lunatics do with the thing is dumbfounding.

Going by the original military specs, there is not all that much difference between the 7.62 and the .303. The .303 runs a 174 at 2440 with the Mark VII (2550 with the Mark 8 MG loading) and the 7.62 NATO runs a 173 at 2550 in the M-118 loading. Case capacities are very close and I suspect ACTUAL operating pressures would be, likewise. What the 7.62 ACTUALLY had going for it was that it was an AMERICAN design and so HAD to be better. Too bad: the British .280/.30 actually was a BETTER COMBAT ROUND. The Americans are finally figuring this out, hence the rash of silly developments (Grendels and Socoms and all the rest), all mimicking the original .270 EM-2 cartridge, more or less. Ho-hum! The Americans are still in love with PRESSURE. I don't think they will ever get it through their heads that lower pressure equals LESS PROBLEMS. Throwing COMMON SENSE at a problem is much cheaper than throwing millions of bucks at it. They'll learn. Hopefully.
 
Isn't one test to chamber a 303 and a 308 round to see which fits? You don't even need to close the bolt to conduct that test, I think.
Also, wasn't the bolt head changed for 308?
 
The ARMY changed the bolt-head when they put the 7.62 NATO into some rifles, but it is not a huge job to mod a regular .303" one to work just fine.

If the rifle has simply had a 7.62 chamber reamed into an existing .303 chamber, then the rifle will accept BOTH cartridges. But this is simply the beginning of the conundrum. Your .303 brass is going to come out looking REALLY strange (and quite possibly bursting in the chamber during firing: base diameters are very much different) and your .308s are going to have awfully funny necks on them. As well, the thing will have at least a quarter-inch of excess freebore for the .308 cartridge; this can complete ruin accuracy. The saving grace is that that much freebore should bring the pressures down a bunch.

I have a bunch of odd-looking brass around here somewhere, came out of a BAR. The barrel had been MADE for the 7.62 NATO, which has very little paper, the re-reamed to handle the original (to the gun) .30-'06. Empties came out almost straight for the first part of their length, then suddenly tapering down to '06 specs. Stuff looks very weird and is a proper b*tch to resize.
 
So I have to ask you, Smellie, are chambers like that safe in the long term?

I would have thought that since the barrel would be off anyway, why would you not set the barrel back a bit to try and get a completely new chamber? And even then, with the slight difference in bores, over the long term with off the shelf ammo, is it safe?
 
Thought I would let you know I found an Ishapore stamp on the barrel last night. Will get a pic up probably friday
 
That barrel does not look to have been shortened. It IS possible, given that you have a big enough Lathe, simply to chuck the BARREL into the 3-jaw, letting the ACTION rotate out in mid-air. Then you can run a REAMER in from a chuck in the Tailstock. If everything is lined-up properly, there should be no problems: the way is clear all the way from the Butt Socket to the Muzzle.

Not good machining practice, to be sure..... but possible.

Given that the barrel HAS been shortened, considering the .303" bore diameter and the .311" (or slightly larger) groove diameter, and the closeness of the two rounds, I see no reason it would not be safe to fire the thing.

Even if the work was done by running a .308 chamber ON TOP of a .303 chamber, the worst thing that likely would happen would be reduced pressures, possibly poor accuracy and definitely really funny-looking brass.

Peter Laidler says that the Indian steel used in the 2A1 is identical to normal steel used in the SMLE. That said, there would be no reason not to use an original English action. You are quite right regarding the serials: the rifle HAS had a new barrel installed. As we now know it is Ishapore marked, I think we can assume that it is wearing a 7.62 barrel.

CHAMBER should be able to be confirmed easily: if a .308 round fits, then that should be the ammo. A .308 round will NOT enter a .303 chamber. If it is a .303 chamber, then the .308 will not go into it because of case diameter, whereas a .303 will be terribly loose in a 7.62 (.308) chamber and should not go forward far enough for the bolt to be closed.

No matter, I handload for everything, so ammunition is never a problem. The OP might consider taking up handloading. For one thing, he can buy a complete outfit for about the price of 200 rounds of factory ammo..... and he will be set for a lifetime of half-price full-power rounds..... and 11-cent-a-shot plinkers.
 
Yes, I know. You can get BIT on what those first 3 letters say!

Still, it WOULD be good to know.

BTW, did you know that this is Buffdog's Birthday? I didn't until FB reminded me.
 
smellie said:
Yes, I know. You can get BIT on what those first 3 letters say!

Still, it WOULD be good to know.

BTW, did you know that this is Buffdog's Birthday? I didn't until FB reminded me.
Click to expand...

What is an old curmudgeon like you dong on FaceBook? Heck I am only half your age (I am just over 50) and I don't even go on there. Happy Birthday to Buffdog though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom