Question about World War One versus World War Two versus Post-war Lee-Enfield barrels

steelgray

steelgray

Regular
Rating - 100%
37   0   0
Location
Ottawa Valley - Ontario
I have a bunch of Lee-Enfield rifles in my collection, including my dad's First World War 1918 Royal Small Arms Factory Enfield gun – sporterized, as bought in the 60’s, at Canadian Tire, together with a 1942 production Ishapore No. 1 Mk III*, as well as a 1949 Royal Ordnance Factory Fazakerley No. 4 MK 1/2.

I’m thinking of picking up a 1942 No.4 MK1. I can’t inspect this rifle, because it is on an auction site, but the serial no. starts with “C” and I assume this to be a Long Branch gun.

I'm a shooter, rather than a collector, and so I actually care about barrel quality and specifications. Further, while I much PREFER to shoot .311 bullets, I acknowledge that I would prefer a gun that can handle.308 bullets, when used.

I don't know a lot about these things, but have certainly read references to how poor quality the First World War 303 British ammo was - and how as a “workaround” for this problem the guns produced during that era had oversized chambers. I've also read that, guns produced in the First World War had a dramatic variation in bore diameters - ranging from something like .307 to .317. I have no personal knowledge here.

I have always assumed that Second World War production guns had less variation in bore diameters, although I've never read that anywhere. I've also been inclined to think that Second World War guns would have had chambers that were not intentionally made oversized - again with no real basis for that belief.

The big issue I have with Second World War guns - and their barrels - is that I have also read that, when things got desperate, after Dunkirk, the British cut many corners in the production of Lee Enfield rifles - including going to bores with only two rifling grooves. Supposedly, testing - at the time - suggested that this still worked to stabilize the issued ammo of the day. HOWEVER, what about now when using 308 projectiles? Do the deficiencies, associated with this shortcut, make a big difference, today?

And, if I buy that 1942 presumed Long Branch gun - from the auction site - am I going to end-up with a crap two groove rifled barrel that will never shoot .308 bullets with an degree of accuracy?

Finally, there is my 1949 production No. 1 Mk 1/2 Fazakerley gun. Are post war II barrel better than wartime production ones? Any chance that a 1949 barrel is going to shoot .308 projectiles better than some dodgy/ expediency-driven wartime production barrel?

On the other hand, maybe my Fazakerley L-E will have left the factory with a crumby barrel for other reasons; since that factory was eventually closed as a result of severe labour problems.

What era of Lee-Enfield can be expected to have the "best barrel", in this case a barrel with a non-oversized chamber and a bore that can get along reasonably well with .308 bullets?
 
I'd suggest you use .303 British projectiles rather than undersized .308's.

The No. 4 Mk 2 Lee Enfield rifle (post war) is the very best of the best in my humble opinion, but even it won't prove very accurate shooting undersized projectiles.
 
The only way to know your bore diameter is to slug it. To guarantee it working with .308 bullets you would have to install a new barrel with that bore diameter.

As to the chamber lots of factors in there, each rifle is different hence why some serious Lee Enfield reloaders use a o-ring on the base of the case for the first firing then only neck size that case and only use it in that specific rifle.

Best of luck, my recommendation is a brand new barrel to accomplish your goals, everything else is speculation.
 
I believe your perception of an enfield two groove barrel being "crap" is misguided. I have an all original completely matching '42 Long Branch with a two groove .311 that is DCRA marked, and of the more than 2 dozen enfields I have, this one shoots lights out. It came with the PH5C, an absolutely fantastic rifle. I shoot 174gr Sierras with IMR 4064.
 
Painkillers said:
I'd suggest you use .303 British projectiles rather than undersized .308's.

The No. 4 Mk 2 Lee Enfield rifle (post war) is the very best of the best in my humble opinion, but even it won't prove very accurate shooting undersized projectiles.
Click to expand...

I agree on the late No4 Mk2, the brass shot through mine (PF serial, 1954) doesn't stretch, folks will tell you stretching is an epidemic level problem with LE rifles.
 
If you are serious about shooting LE's, I would suggest avoiding 308 bullets altogether. You run the risk of gas cutting/erosion in the bore. If you want to wring the most out of your 303's get some flat based pills such as the Hornady 0.312 150 SP. At minimum load, the MV will match military specs eg 2440 fps... This should jive with the barrel harmonics, assuming the bedding is set up properly.
 
I currently have about 20 303’s and only one will shoot 0.308 bullets well. Strongly recommend using 0.311 or 0.312 bullets. I experimented with 0.308 bullets and results where not good. I don’t really find much difference in the quality of different barrels from different years if they are in good condition. I have a couple-#4’s with Surrey barrels that perform well. Any Surrey barrels I have seen always shot well. Boat tails don’t shoot very well. I found flat base bullets work excellent.
Buying anything from auction is a crap shoot. Never know if a lemon or a golden egg.
 
A C-prefix serial does not mean Canadian. A Long Branch rifle will have an "L" in the serial, as in 90L8030.
If you really want to experiment with .308 bullets, in addition to slugging the bore, look for a barrel with an outstanding as near to new as possible bore. Look for a sharply defined throat. Many ex-service rifles will have throat erosion. .308 cup and core flat based bullets might slug up enough to get a decent fit in the rifling.
 
OP - go here: https://www.milsurps.com/enfield.php?pg=in2.htm

Part way down that page - if the No. 4 that you are looking at has serial number starting with letter "C", followed by four digits, appears to have been originally made as a No. 5 rifle at ROF Fazarkerly? It appears that a letter prefix, followed by five digits - might have been a No. 4 Rifle made at various English factories. If the rifle's serial number has one or two numbers, then a "C", then more numbers - was likely made by Savage in USA?

I do not think any No. 4 Mk.I* were made at any English maker - but many / most from Long Branch in Canada and Savage in USA used that modification. I believe I read that very earliest production at Long Branch, and possibly at Savage, were No. 4 Mk.I. The difference is visible on the right side of the rifle action - do not have to look at serial numbers or stampings to differentiate a No. 4 Mk.I from a No. 4 Mk.I* rifle.

Despite advice given above about slugging a bore, I do not have tooling to measure a slug from a 5 groove English barrel - 2, 4, and 6 groove appear doable, since the grooves are 180 degrees apart and can be measured with micrometer - not really so easy with 3 groove or 5 groove slug.
 
Last edited:
Lots of people evidently have responded to my opening post by saying “you should really use 311 bullets.”

I totally get that and - as a matter of fact - I haven't yet shot at 308 bullet out of any of my Lee Enfield rifles. Mostly what I've been doing has been taking apart 762 X 54 rounds and reusing the components from those - which has worked out very well.

However, being realistic it's obvious that it's getting harder and harder to come up with 311 bullets. The industry seems to get that and I notice that when you buy 7.62x54R or 303 British dies these seem to increasingly come with two expander balls - with the 308 when installed in the dies. I'm also seeing more and more reloading data that refers to using 308 bullets for the recommended loads for 54R and 303.

For all these reasons that's why I said - in my opening post - that I PREFER to shoot .311 bullets but I’m Interested in L-E guns with barrels offer the extra versatility of allowing you to “get away with” shooting 308 projectiles.

Here is a supplement to my original question. Has anybody noticed that, if you do shoot undersized bullets that performance is better if you stick to the lighter ones; for example 125 grain 308 bullets in a .311 bore? I can see some logic where an oversized bore (and/or a worm-out bore) would be hard-pressed stabilize a heavier bullet, but might not have as much trouble stabilizing a lighter one. Does anyone know if there's any truth to that suggestion?
 
If you're truly serious about running .308 projectiles, then consider purchasing one of the Canadian #4's that were converted to 7.62 Nato for target use, or try and find one of the Indian 2A, or 2A1 models in 7.62 that were based on the #1 mk3 rifle.

Sometimes a tight .303 bore will shoot .308 projectiles reasonably well, but most Enfield chambers, with the possible exception of the P-14's was designed to handle the earlier mkVI cartridge with 215gr roundnose projectile as well as the later mkVII round with 174 gr spitzer and have fairly long throats.
 
Last edited:
Ganderite has posted a number of times about setting up No. 4 rifles in .30-.303 using retired .308 target rifle barrels. These barrels tend to be long, 28"-30", so when the breech is cut off and rechambered, the old throat disappears. The result is a Lee Enfield designed to shoot .308 bullets, while retaining the .303 cartridge case Just reload using the .30 expanding button which apparently accompanies some .303 die sets.
 
steelgray said:
Lots of people evidently have responded to my opening post by saying “you should really use 311 bullets.”

I totally get that and - as a matter of fact - I haven't yet shot at 308 bullet out of any of my Lee Enfield rifles. Mostly what I've been doing has been taking apart 762 X 54 rounds and reusing the components from those - which has worked out very well.

However, being realistic it's obvious that it's getting harder and harder to come up with 311 bullets. The industry seems to get that and I notice that when you buy 7.62x54R or 303 British dies these seem to increasingly come with two expander balls - with the 308 when installed in the dies. I'm also seeing more and more reloading data that refers to using 308 bullets for the recommended loads for 54R and 303.

For all these reasons that's why I said - in my opening post - that I PREFER to shoot .311 bullets but I’m Interested in L-E guns with barrels offer the extra versatility of allowing you to “get away with” shooting 308 projectiles.

Here is a supplement to my original question. Has anybody noticed that, if you do shoot undersized bullets that performance is better if you stick to the lighter ones; for example 125 grain 308 bullets in a .311 bore? I can see some logic where an oversized bore (and/or a worm-out bore) would be hard-pressed stabilize a heavier bullet, but might not have as much trouble stabilizing a lighter one. Does anyone know if there's any truth to that suggestion?
Click to expand...

No. Wrong.
 
steelgray said:
Lots of people evidently have responded to my opening post by saying “you should really use 311 bullets.”

I totally get that and - as a matter of fact - I haven't yet shot at 308 bullet out of any of my Lee Enfield rifles. Mostly what I've been doing has been taking apart 762 X 54 rounds and reusing the components from those - which has worked out very well.

However, being realistic it's obvious that it's getting harder and harder to come up with 311 bullets. The industry seems to get that and I notice that when you buy 7.62x54R or 303 British dies these seem to increasingly come with two expander balls - with the 308 when installed in the dies. I'm also seeing more and more reloading data that refers to using 308 bullets for the recommended loads for 54R and 303.

For all these reasons that's why I said - in my opening post - that I PREFER to shoot .311 bullets but I’m Interested in L-E guns with barrels offer the extra versatility of allowing you to “get away with” shooting 308 projectiles.

Here is a supplement to my original question. Has anybody noticed that, if you do shoot undersized bullets that performance is better if you stick to the lighter ones; for example 125 grain 308 bullets in a .311 bore? I can see some logic where an oversized bore (and/or a worm-out bore) would be hard-pressed stabilize a heavier bullet, but might not have as much trouble stabilizing a lighter one. Does anyone know if there's any truth to that suggestion?
Click to expand...

Why not just keep on using 7.62 R bullets you pulled from Russian ammo? That sounds like the way to go. Good idea.
 
OK - So you really want to use 308 bullets. I would suggest a heavier bullet than 125 gr, and possible one with a flat base with exposed lead. The logic is that you need pressure to obdurate the bullet - more easily realized with heavier bullets. (My own experience shooting 0.311 bullets in a worn bore.) The exposed lead in the flat base is the most likely to obdurate and grip the rifling.
Plan B - Get an expanding die to bump up your 308 bullets.
Plan C - Shoot cast bullets, readily available in the appropriate dia (eg 0.314), cheap to shoot, quite accurate, and less wear on your bore and brass.

Let us know how your 308 trials go...
 
Last edited:
cantom said:
Why not just keep on using 7.62 R bullets you pulled from Russian ammo? That sounds like the way to go. Good idea.
Click to expand...

Yes, taking apart 54R surplus ammo - and reloading the projectiles and powder into 303 cases (reducing the powder load by 6 or 7 grains) is a GREAT way to go; and is currently my go-to way to feed my L-Es now. NO argument!

However, its super-obvious that factory .311 bullets are becoming ever more scarce at retail - and there’s ALSO the strong likelihood that cheap surplus 54R ammo is also going to get scare. This is due to the situation in Russia and the Ukraine – both of which were formerly important sources of cheap surplus 54R ammo.

Trudeau has supposedly also stopped imports of ammo from Russia, but even if he hadn’t, there are reports that Russia troops are now using 40 year old ammo - because they have run out of newly-produced stuff (and yes, 54R is still an issued battlefield cartridge). I’m betting that, right now, Russia and/ or Ukraine are wishing they’d never surplussed the stuff I’ve already cannibalized - to shoot in my L-E.

SO … like I said I PREFER to shoot .311s in my L-E but you have to be realistic!

Retailers can’t get .311s and surplus 54R is going to be less common. The war will certainly cause all Eastern European stocks of 54R to dry up - and I don’t think China and/ or Norinco have been much of a source of 54R. Obviously, we are all no strangers to supply shortage (even if Ukraine has nothing to do with it) like primers, 410 shells, wads, and even 22 LR ammo (in that case, South of the border).

That’s why I’d like to know which version of L-E guns are better than others in getting along with the potential necessity of reloading with .308s. NOT that I want to, but because we may have to.

I assume WW1 guns would be THE worst choice (because they are known to have been made with intentionally-oversized chambers and a high degree of bore diameter variation. I'm also inclined to think that expediantly-producted WW2 guns (after Dunkirk), would be poor choices - due to general corner-cutting and/ or a sub-optimal number of rifling grooves. As noted, perhaps post-war guns might be a better choice, but I don’t know. That’s why I’m asking.

I suspect that there are smart people out there with enough time and equipment to test … so they know. I’m not in that group.

Also I have ZERO interest is shooting cast bullets. If I wanted to, I already have lots of them. That is its own hobby - which I know that group of shooters really enjoys. However, I'm not into that whole face full of stinky blue smoke thing - every time I touch off a shot.

Further - while I don’t know this for a fact - I’m inclined to believe that the very best cast bullet isn't going to come close to the achieving the velocity and other performance of even a so-so, undersized (.308) jacketed bullet.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom