Argument over no1 mkIII

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.

ANYTHING is not foolproof. Fools are very ingenious at times. If we accept the above scenario, this could happen to almost ANY bolt action magazine fed rifle.

The scenario above IS possible, but would have to have the extractor spring broken or the extractor broken or plugged by crap. The shooter SHOULD know if the rifle has been fired by the recoil, but in the heat of battle might not.

The above would have been an isolated incident, and not a common one. I believe the OP's question regarded sustained fire so while it might happen once or so, it was not a common occurance. If we accept this, it could also occur with almost ANY bolt action rifle.

Tube magazine rifles are designed for flat or round nosed bullets. A pointed bullet in a tube magazine rests on the primer of the round in front of it IN MOST CASES (Remington pump guns excepted due to a spiral magazine tube.) When fired, the rifle recoils but inertia keeps the cartridges from moving back immediately with the rifle, so they compress the spring. Then the recoil stops, and the magazine spring propells the cartridges forward until they hit the loading platform stop. In such cases, it is quite possible to have the tip of a cartridge ignite the cartridge in front of it, and explode most of the rest in the magazine if there are more in front of the one that goes off.

Also, to quote the OP, "He said to me that the Enfield no1 mkIII had a ''factory'' problem with the bolt." The above scenarios would not be a FACTORY PROBLEM but rather an unusual one, initiated by the shooter. With over 6 million No. 1 Mk. III rifles made, you would have thought that this would have come to light over the last 100 years of use but this is the first time I have heard of it, and I went through a Canadian Armourers Course.

There is also another factor here. Under normal circumstances, the round when pushed forward, does not really enter the CENTER of the chamber where a primer on a chambered cartridge would be. The round is stripped off the magazine onto the feed guide and the nose of the cartridge rides upwards toward the BOTTOM of the chamber, guided by the feed lips on the magazine. When it gets into the chamber, it centers itself. Therefore the pointed nose of the bullet is entering the chamber well below the primer of a loaded round, and would jam up on the base of the loaded round below the primer. The pointed nose of the cartridge is actually inside the chamber BEFORE the base and rim pop up out of the magazine.

This has all the earmarks of the Ross Rifle legends and myths. After all, they both shoot .303 ammo, both were military rifles, so both gotta be the same .....right?
 
Last edited:
Ah well, I was just trying to figure a way for this legend to have started.
I really like how you picked my scenario apart tho'. Nicely done.
 
I would think that such a scenario MIGHT occur with a Mauser or other FRONT-LOCKING type, but the Lee has rear locking lugs and a VERY short bolt throw. In my opinion, the Operator would have to be closely related to King Kong just to slap the bolt forward hard enough to set off the primer.

With a Mauser, Mannlicher or other rifle of the forward-locking type, there would be a better chance of getting enough velocity on the Bolt to do the job.

With the Mauser or Mannlicher or most others, though, you would also require a broken firing-pin to set the rifle off with a first round on the bolt. Normally, the bolt CAM holds everything out of the primer's way until well after the bolt is safely locked up. The resultant missing cocking-piece just might give people an idea that something should be looked at.

As well, there is a CAMMING ACTION to all of these rifles: the round does not just slap into the chamber; it is cammed in the last few thousandths of an inch so, if you did set the primer off, it would be set off with the round and the bolt still out of battery. The result would be a BANG!, a huge flash of powder flame in your face as the round separated and, likely, you would end up with the bullet stuck in the barrel.

A round ALREADY IN the chamber well could be set off like this but, again, you would need one awful slam on the bolt-handle to make it happen.

Military rifles are pretty safe; the guys who designed them knew what they were doing.
Most of them were ALMOST idiot-proof.

It's just that we are making idiots better every day, or so it seems!

Fun to think on.
.
 
Ah well, I was just trying to figure a way for this legend to have started.
I really like how you picked my scenario apart tho'. Nicely done.

Not really intentional to pick your scenario apart. It IS possible, but highly unlikely. I, like SMELLIE, have been shooting and working on the Lee Enfields and SMLE rifles for a long time. In my case, since about 1956 with the Military.

We also maintain an extensive library, from Manuals to Books on a lot of rifles and military subjects, and we have been buying and collecting this stuff for decades.

Like Elmer Keiths book title, "Hell, I was there," we were also "there" when a lot of surplus firearms were available in the late 1950s and 1960s. We got to examine a lot of stuff, tear it apart, fire it, and see and appreciate some of the features that were designed into these firearms.

As far as how these "legends " start, take the case of the "jamming Ross Rifles." The Ross was specified by the Government of Canada for tolerances with Canadian made ammunition, which was very good quality. The British scooped the Canadian ammo for their Machine Guns, and issued British ammo to the Canadian troops in the trenches. At Ypres, where the "jammed rifles" story started, it was blamed on the mud, but in actuality, the ammo used, Lots B14 and B15, made by Birmingham Iron and Metals, was ammunition that had been CONDEMNED by the British Military inspectors. Smellie had the chance to talk to some of the Veterans who were at Ypres, and they did not consider the Ross Rifle as a problem one as far as jamming goes, and had a high opinion of it. I just sent SMELLIE a column from the Ottawa Citizen newspaper, dated 1916, where an officer who was invalided home with wounds was asked about the Ross Rifle and he had a good opinion of it, and it's performance. However, politics entered the picture, and the Ross was the bad apple in the bunch according to the Government. It was "cover your butt" time, so the Ross was soiled because of it. Another case of "We have investigated ourselves and found out that we are not to blame."
.
 
Last edited:
... 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.

...

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.

...

Your friend is wrong about the rifle. He's wrong about you being wrong. His family are all wrong. And he's wrong about it being common knowledge.

You have the wrong friend.
 
thanks again for all the comment/replies. as for my friend.... he's not a bad guy lol. this thread had gone WAY much informative that I was expecting. I appreciate all the useful info you guys gave me. And I really like the idea of him bringing me government proof of his allegations.

Now im going to bed much more educaded. thanks CGN!!
 
Not really intentional to pick your scenario apart....
No, no, you misunderstand. When I post a hypothesis about anything, I sincerely want it picked apart. Even the grammar and spelling, if you are so inclined.
That's the way I best like to learn. My victories don't really teach me anything, it's my failures that make me better.

That's not to say that I don't enjoy the hell out of my victories; but they don't leave me any smarter, just cockier. :)
 
No, no, you misunderstand. When I post a hypothesis about anything, I sincerely want it picked apart. Even the grammar and spelling, if you are so inclined.
That's the way I best like to learn. My victories don't really teach me anything, it's my failures that make me better.

That's not to say that I don't enjoy the hell out of my victories; but they don't leave me any smarter, just cockier. :)

Well, I guess that when you live in a small comminity like Faulkland, BC, you have to do something to amuse yourself. After all, you people did erect the largest Canadian Flag in Canada just so you could find the Village. And you probably have the worlds longest extension cord to light it up.
.


gopher.gif
.
 
The German Gewehr 88 had a double feed problem caused by the extractor not engaging the extractor grove.
It was possible to load a cartridge into the chamber without engaging the extractor. If the bolt was pulled back and the person attempted to feed another round, the nose of the second bullet would set off the round in the chamber.
Thai was just another one of many problems the Germans had with the Gewehr 88.
 
Far as the Lee-Enfield is concerned, it was converted at one time into the Charlton Machine Gun. Thirty-round mag, gas-operated, cyclic rate of fire up to about 14 rounds per SECOND.

I that isn't fast enough to get it to screw up, then I don't know what is. I certainly can't work it faster than that by hand!

Yes, the Gew 88 had a problem with double-feeding if you tried to run rounds in and out really quick WITHOUT locking-up the action. Use ALL FOUR motions of the bolt for each round and it worked fine. This is a characteristic shared by ALL "push-feed" rifles with snap-over-rim extractors, INCLUDING THE ONES IN CURRENT PRODUCTION.

Can't really call it specific to the poor old Gew 88, which was actually a nice rifle if it was used with regard to the design parameters built into it.

Something else the Lee and the 88 share.
.
 
Far as the Lee-Enfield is concerned, it was converted at one time into the Charlton Machine Gun. Thirty-round mag, gas-operated, cyclic rate of fire up to about 14 rounds per SECOND.

I that isn't fast enough to get it to screw up, then I don't know what is. I certainly can't work it faster than that by hand!

Yes, the Gew 88 had a problem with double-feeding if you tried to run rounds in and out really quick WITHOUT locking-up the action. Use ALL FOUR motions of the bolt for each round and it worked fine. This is a characteristic shared by ALL "push-feed" rifles with snap-over-rim extractors, INCLUDING THE ONES IN CURRENT PRODUCTION.

Can't really call it specific to the poor old Gew 88, which was actually a nice rifle if it was used with regard to the design parameters built into it.

Something else the Lee and the 88 share.
.

I tried this with snap caps in both my Remington 700 and my push feed Winchester Model 70. They both will double feed if you try though I have never had this happen in actul use and I shoot both a lot the Winchester for 30 years.
 
Back
Top Bottom