Milsurp After Hours

First post.

I don't currently own an Enfield, though I once had a Ishapore I enjoyed. I'd love to get another SMLE one day, but I'm reluctant to buy guns for which ammo is expensive and occasionally difficult to find (I want to reload someday, but it's a ways off). OTOH, I have a Mosin-Nagant that is cheap to shoot. I like my M-N, but the bolt on an Enfield is a dream. So...

I'm wondering about the feasibility of converting the .303 rifle to 7.62 X 54R. The bullets are very close in diameter (if not the same), and the weight range is the same; velocities and M.E. in like bullets is close, and both are rimmed. Unless the pressure of 54R is significantly higher than .303, receiver strength isn't an issue. I've never heard of it being done, so please please tell me why it won't work-or who is doing it.

Pressure generated by the 7.62x54 is considerably higher than that generated by the .303. The .303 is 44K or so and the 7.52x54 is 55k or more, comparable to the 30-06, which would be unsafe in an Enfield.

MM

But there are enfields designed for the 7.62 X 51, like the Ishapore, and, I think, some of the later Aussies-and the pressure for that round is comparable, isn't it?

The 2A's were made on purpose built receivers that were designed for the increased preasure.

Antibubba, Isn't rechambering a L-E to 7.62X54R a bubba jab?

Anyway, this is a topic that pops up from time to time. The general concensus is don't do it,

Regards, Brad

There wouldn't be much left of the barrel Nock's Form after a rechamber to 7.62X54R---the shoulder on the .303 is quite a bit further forward than the one on the .30 Russian. Rechambering would require a lot of barrel setback.

Enough, I think, that the forstock would have to be shortened to accomodate the change.

Aside from that, I would like to point out that "Cartridges Of The World", 8th Edition, gives a "pounds per square inch" rating for both .303 and 7.62X54R.

They rate 7.62X54R @ 45,000psi and .303 @ 45-48,000psi----well within each other's range.

I hate these internet spook stories about the "monster cartridge that ate Chicago"---I really do.

-----krinko

The Ishapore receiver is a far higher grade of steel and the rifle was designed for the 7.62mm NATO round, so one would assume that the bolt assembly is also upgraded.

Australia did do some conversions of their No1 to this round and found that it was unsafe.

What it would cost to do the conversion, that you propose, would see you reloading.

Eoiin.

Antibubba treat yourself to a enfield it would probably be cheaper and safer than a conversion and the 303 is a cracking round in its own right.

the Russian cartridge isn't particularly cheap or plentiful here, so it wouldn't make much economic sense.

The "7.62mm SMLE" subject is one fraught with hearsay and urban myth, and precious little verifiable fact:

There is no evidence whatsoever that Ishapore 2A1s are made of "superior steel" to normal SMLEs - either of Ishapore or British manufacture. On the contrary, examination of 2A1s frequently shows old British or Indian .303 inspection marks on the bolt, boltheads and sometimes receiver - indicating a degree of parts commonality or salvage. Its reported that Pete Laidler recently tested some 2A1 receivers at Shrivenham, and found them to be of identical hardness to .303 receivers.

Lithgow did test 7.62mm conversions of SMLEs: a batch were tested to destruction with proof cartridges until headspace increased or receiver fracture occured. However - no detail of this trial is given, such as how many proof rounds were fired from each rifle, etc. The conversion trial was abandoned because it was not economic in the military sense, not because it wasn't possible.

Other 7.62mm/.308 SMLEs do exist, and do seem shoot with no problem. At least one Belgian gunsmith produced numerous 7.62mm/.308 SMLEs, and these turn up with normal Belgian and British proof marks.