Argument over no1 mkIII

U

urupak

Member
EE Expired
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Yesterday I had an argument with a friend. He said to me that the Enfield no1 mkIII had a ''factory'' problem with the bolt. He said that if someone cycle the bolt too fast, the next round would not feed correctly and upon closure of the bolt, it would explode.

I replied to him that maybe it was possible BUT, IMHO, if something like this ever happen, it was probably due to bad maintenance of the gun. Or the most plausible cause was headspace.

He replied I was wong, that all his family knew this when shooting, that it was common knowledge that enfield no1 mkIII had this problem and it was due to a assembly problem.

I still think that he's wrong and if a Enfield ever blew up it was probably had bad care or the bolt of a gun have been changed and headspace was incorrect. Am I off target??
 
Nope, your not. The no 1 mark 3 is well known for being a fast bolt action. The standard test was to be able to fire all 10 rounds in under 10 seconds. They have loose chambers for a reason as they were used in the trenches and must funtion being covered in mud and dirt
 
i have never heard of this 'factory' problem. i've had a couple of no1 mk3 and they were all superb shooters for me :)

how would the primer be possibly be set off upon closure of the bolt? i don't see how this can happen..

i think the ross rifle had a problem that it could still be fired without the bolt fully closed.
 
I shot my first Enfield at age 9 - I've owned or shot them pretty much continuously since then (35 years or so), and I've never heard of this. I asked my Dad, who served in the British Army with Lee Enfields as his issued weapon, he'd never heard of it (actually he said it was a load of sh*te). At the outset of WWI the Germans thought they were facing machinegun fire when they ran into highly trained British soldiers with No1mkIII rifles. Sorry, but all historical and practical info points to the same thing - buddy is way wrong. I've done and seen some pretty dumb stuff done with various Lee's and the worst thing I've ever seen was a marginal 'event' at best when a cartidge case failed completely at the base.
 
Last edited:
With the Ross Mark III, this was a bit of a problem but it was blown 'WAY out of proportion; actual incidents were extremely rare and nearly ALL of those were the result of "demonstrations" that it COULD happen. I have a dozen Mark III Rosses here to attest to the fact that there actually WERE a few survivors. One of these is a Trials rifle with 57 years of military service to its credit; it's just FINE.

What happened in the case of the Ross is only too-well documented. Out-of-spec ammunition was issued for use in tight, match-grade rifles. The ammunition was KNOWN to be out of spec at the time it was made: it was too big for the Vickers or for the Lee-Enfield, which already had a fairly loose chamber. Then guys started tinkering with their rifles, even though this was forbidden by the Regulations: bolt disassembly was supposed to be by the Armourers only. That's when the "discovery" was made (although already known to the Armourers, who were there to PREVENT it from happening). What was NEVER told was the simple fact that the Ross bolt can NOT get out of whack by itself: it MUST be thrown out of alignment during misassembly.

As to the SMLE having "problems" with being run too fast, all I will say is that I have 20 of them which have never heard of this. The SMLE was demonstrated literally HUNDREDS of times at a function-fire rate of 67 rounds per minute, 37 rounds per minute aimed application fire, 100% hits on a 200-yard target. FIFTEEN rounds per minute, aimed application with 100% hits, was a part of the BASIC MUSKETRY course. You didn't pass Basic without equalling or EXCEEDING this figure and there were pay increases for men who exceeded the 15 round per minute minimum.

I think it is reasonably safe to say that the SMLE was a fairly quick rifle with VERY few problems.

As to the problem with "headspace", the Lee-Enfield design uses a RIMMED cartridge. It is VERY nearly impossible to wreck a Lee-Enfield rifle because of "headspace". The Americans have a HUGE bugaboo regarding "headspace" because they used a RIMLESS cartridge with a hard "rifle" anneal, running pressures higher than ANY other country. THEY had problems (of their own making) but WE did NOT.

In 50 years of tinkering with these things, I have seen exactly TWO problems with .303s which required some thinking to correct. One was a firing-pin letting go (breaking) while a round was being chambered on a P-'14. The broken ERA component was replaced with a W component with more careful heat-treatment and the rifle is on my rack right now, working just fine. As to the shooter, he got 2 stitches in his hand, got his deer with that rifle.... and is fine today. The OTHER involved an 1895 Winchester in .303 which would not chamber a round. I removed the front of a .30-40 Krag round from the chamber and the rifle works fine and has accounted for any number of coyotes.

ANY problems I have seen with Rosses have been MAN-MADE, any problems with Lee-Enfields can be laid upon the altar of NEGLECT and/or IGNORANCE of proper procedures.

Your rifle is just fine. Happy shooting!

Hope this helps, friend.
.
 
smellie said:
As to the SMLE having "problems" with being run too fast, all I will say is that I have 20 of them which have never heard of this.
Click to expand...

I can see you have never heard of the American "Fast Eddy" who had the quickest hands in the West. Fast Eddy's hands were so quick he could open an Enfield bolt before the firing pin lit off the powder. :eek:

headspace.jpg



smellie said:
As to the problem with "headspace", the Lee-Enfield design uses a RIMMED cartridge. It is VERY nearly impossible to wreck a Lee-Enfield rifle because of "headspace". The Americans have a HUGE bugaboo regarding "headspace" because they used a RIMLESS cartridge with a hard "rifle" anneal, running pressures higher than ANY other country.
Click to expand...

1. Read Hatcher's Note Book in the section on headspace where he kept reaming the chamber out with more and more headspace on a M1917. ;)

2. As punishment I have contacted the U.S. Border Patrol and from now on you will be stopped at the American border and will not be allowed to travel to Florida during the winter months. :HR:

Below a half inch of excess headspace. :eek:

image006e.jpg


P.S. Don't mess with the American Fast Eddy, he has watched every episode of Red Green Show and is in the American Rapid Response Home Guard "AND" has a jet powered bicycle. ;)

IMGP4113.jpg
 
Last edited:
In the great book A RIfleman Goes To War (ww1) the author writes about the varying qualities of ammunition and how he would hoard the good stuff while trading away the lots that caused problems. 80 YRS later in the CF we would also notice different quality of issued ammo for service rifle competitions and we did the same. Ammo quality differences is real.




Posted from Canadiangunnutz.com App for Android
 
thanks for all the replie, particularly smellie for all the info. But knowing my friend he will replie that im wrong because of wrawrawra

have a good day!
 
.
Personally, the fastest I got off was 39 rounds in one minute with a SMLE. In 1996, when I was 55 years old, we had an argument at the local Gun Club so set up a trial. Recorded on video, 37 rounds in one minute, Figure 11 target at 100 yards, with 36 hits, and one about one inch off the side of the target but on paper.

About a month ago, on the range with SMELLIE and an new-to-me Lee Enfield, I fired 10 shots in 11 seconds ( recorded on movie) with SMELLIE spotting the 200 yard target, and I am now 71+ years old. (If the rifle would have had a shorter butt stock fitted, this probably would have been faster.)

As explained in previous posts, your buddy has probably been confused by the problems with the ROSS Military Mark III rifle that the Canadians were armed with during the start of WWI. If taken apart by someone who is not familiar with the problem, then the bolt MIGHT be assembled with the bolt head 180 degrees out of line. When the bolt is closed, the front locking lugs only rotate 1/6 of the distance they should, and thus the bolt is not fully locked. Firing the rifle in this condition will shear the small area that is locked and the bolt flys back injuring the shooter.

However, this condition is with a cartridge FULLY into the chamber of the rifle and not having one in the chamber with another picked up in the magazine and pushed forward. If this is the supposition, ANY BOX MAGAZINE RIFLE is subject to the same theory.

Let us look at the mechanics of the Lee Enfield, assuming the bolt is back to the rear. Pushing the bolt forward strips a cartridge from the magazine to the chamber, but the rim of the cartridge slides onto the bolt face and BEHIND the extractor before it enters the chamber. If the bolt is then brought back, it will bring the cartridge back with it, whether the cartridge has been fired or is live, so that the chamber will be empty when the bolt comes fully back to pick up another round from the magazine. HOW WOULD A LIVE CARTRIDGE GET INTO THE CHAMBER IN THE FIRST PLACED AND HAVE THE BOLT BACK TO PICK UP ANOTHER LIVE CARTRIDGE FROM THE MAGAZINE.

I suppose someone could drop a cartridge into the chamber, then close the bolt to pick up a new live cartridge, but that is operator caused and is not under sustained and prolonged fire as your buddy says. It would only happen ONCE.

The other scenario is a broken extractor or extractor spring. Again, it could only happen ONCE. However, in this case, it is more probable that the round in the chamber would have been FIRED, and not a live round.

Also, if this happened, there would have been records kept and available. Warnings and notices would have been published, and Armourers Notes would have had the facts in them. Many books on the Lee Enfield System have been published, and I have most of them. There is no mention that I can find on this condition.

Another Urban Legend Myth shattered before it gets started and going too far. As far as your Buddy, some people are always right, regardless of proven facts. Ask him to produce ACTUAL OFFICIAL WRITTEN DOCUMENTS with his point of view. Not some post on the Internet, but GOVERNMENT or published information ----I doubt if he can substantiate that this was a common problem and not some isolated incident, (if it really did happen.)

Many of the people who have answered your question are intimately familiar with the Lee Enfield System, in particular SMELLIE who is an acknowledged authority on the SMLE, LEE-Enfield, Ross and Maxim Machine Gun. SMELLIE also majored in History, specializing in Military History, in University. It will be interesting to see what your Buddy's qualifications are. Please keep us informed, and amused.

.
 
Last edited:
There is an idiot level mishap that can occur with any Lee Enfield.
Disassemble the bolt, and reinstall it without the bolthead.
This has actually happened at least once during slow fire target shooting competitiion.
 
I saw that one once, but not in a competition. It was a guy in Nfld getting his rifle ready for Moose season. Cleaned his Number 4 and his son fired it w/out the bolthead. Split the bolt body lengthways, brass all over the place. Surgeons got the brass out of the son's eye: brilliant work at the James Paton Hospital in Gander.

I UNSCREWED the fired casing before I took photos of the split bolt.

The rifle was back in service with a new bolt, worked fine.

But yes, definitely an idiot-level error!
.
 
Firing without the bolthead is what gave Gehas such a bad name, although during a fast reload you can actually lose the bolthead.
The Geha is a G98 converted into a shotgun. Made up in the '20s using scrap Mausers. The bolt was cut back, and a larger bolthead was inserted from the front to support the shotgun shell. The extractor was part of the bolthead. The only thing retaining the bolthead was the modified rifle extractor engaging a notch in the bolthead.
Lose the bolthead and there is nothing backing up the shell.
 
How about this to explain an "event" like that...
Round is chambered, but does not engage the extractor, and is not fired. "Speedy" (the shooter) pulls the bolt rearward, picks-up another round, and rams the pointed FMJ into the primer of the chambered round...
Possible?

Then re-tell the story a few times and ... here we are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom