Читать книгу Bolt Action Rifles - Wayne Zwoll - Страница 27

Headspace and Chamber Tolerances

To cut down manufacturing and assembly time, perhaps, and certainly to reduce maintenance time later on when headspace corrections were needed, a new headspacing system was introduced with the No. 4 rifles. It was a simple system, made possible by the two-piece bolt with separate bolt head. It consisted of making the bolt heads of different lengths to obtain and maintain proper headspace; in the 303 Lee-Enfield rifle, this is the space between the face of the bolt head and the barrel face.

The bolt heads, made in four different lengths, were numbered from “0” to “3.” No. 0 head was the shortest; No. 1 was .003 ” longer than No. 0; No. 2 was .003” longer than the No. 1; and the No. 3 was .003” longer than the No. 2 head. During factory assembly, a bolt head was fitted which gave normal headspace of .064” to .074”. These figures represent minimum and maximum allowable headspace. If, after much use, headspace increased, a new bolt head could be installed to decrease headspace by .003”, .006”, etc. Bolt heads of the No. 4 rifles were marked with the qualifying number on the extractor lug.

To the consternation of many handloaders, No. 4 rifles were often found to have overly large chambers—that is, longer than need be to accept commercial 303 British cartridges. These wartime chambers were purposely made large so that the rifles would function properly even with dirty, corroded or slightly damaged ammunition. While most Lee-Enfield military rifles have “maximum” chambers, most No. 4 rifles (as well as the No. 5 carbines) seem to have chambers much larger than the normal maximum, so large that the fired cases show pronounced body enlargement, with body splits not uncommon. Manufacturing tolerances for both rifles and ammunition were generous during the war, which in no way affected the rifle for military use, or even for sporting use. A large chamber, however, is not desirable in a target rifle, so it was a problem for many handloaders, since their cases seldom lasted more than two or three reloadings before they’d separate.

Case separation is generally caused by overworking the brass, by repeated full-length resizing. Shooters often blame excessive headspace for case separation (and it may be partly to blame in some rifles), but even in a rifle with minimum or zero headspace, too-frequent full length resizing is the real cause of case separation. The Lee-Enfield reloader should A) Get a full length sizing die tailored to his rifle’s chamber; RCBS can supply these if several fired cases are sent to them. B) Resize the case just enough to let it enter the chamber with a touch of effort. C) Neck size only, assuming that cases so-worked will enter the chamber without undue force. Other than this, the only positive solution is to set the barrel back and rechamber it, or install a new barrel with a normal chamber.

Gunsmithing the Lee-Enfield

Both No. 1 and No. 4 rifles can be remodeled into fine sporting rifles for hunting big game. For most big game hunting, in my opinion, few cartridges are better than the 303 British. Underneath the wood handguard is a slim tapered barrel of the most pleasing contour, ideal in weight for a sporter. The action is reliable, strong and easy to operate—smoother, too, than many other military turnbolt actions. The action has a good safety and a low, well-positioned bolt handle. Shortening the barrel, installing the sights of your choice, remodeling the issue stock, or installing a new sporter stock and forend, is about all that is needed to turn these rifles into sporters. Other things can be done to make the Lee-Enfield into a deluxe sporter, but whether you want a plain or deluxe job, the “makings” are there.

I don’t think, though, that it’s practical to spend a lot of time and money to build a deluxe Lee-Enfield sporter for several reasons. First, it is much easier to remake the rifle or carbine into an open-sighted rough-and-ready, spare, second or loan-out rifle. The No. 5 Carbine, usually called the “Jungle Carbine,” is such a rifle as is. It is perhaps the best choice of any military rifle to use pretty much as issued for hunting. The buttstock is rather short for many shooters, and the comb is very low, but putting on a low-cost Fajen or Bishop buttstock will correct these problems—and all you need is a large and long screwdriver to install it. A new forend is as easy to install, but the issue forend on the No. 5 is acceptable the way it is.

Because it has a longer barrel, the No. 1 rifle makes a better looking sporter. I suggest shortening the barrel to 22 or 24 inches, then installing such open sights as the Williams Guide rear sight, and a bead or blade front sight mounted on the Williams sweat-on or screw-on ramp base. If you’d rather have a receiver sight, I’d recommend the Williams Foolproof sight. For the No. 4 Lee-Enfield, I suggest the Redfield adaptor bracket and their receiver sight, since no drilling and tapping is required.

After the barrel has been shortened and the sights installed, the No. 1 or No. 4 sporter can be completed by installing a new sporter stock and forend. They are furnished by several stock firms. To improve the looks of the rifle, the metal can be polished bright and then reblued. A lot of these rifles have Parkerized metal. If you like this matt surface, but dislike the color, the parts can be reblued without doing any polishing. To remove the Parkerized finish, it will have to be polished off. Some No. 4 rifles have a dark, painted-on finish, which can be removed with coarse emery cloth in the first step in making the metal smooth.

No. 4 Mark I Lee-Enfield action, open.

Top view of the No. 4 Mark I action.

It is not too difficult to alter the ten-shot magazine to five-shot. Cut off the bottom part of the magazine, which projects below the stock, and weld or silver solder on a new bottom plate made from a piece of heavy sheet metal.

To make the receiver a bit trimmer, the clip charger guide bridge can be cut off entirely. This will not weaken the action to any noticeable extent. The magazine cutoff on the No. 1 actions should be discarded.

Lee-Enfields are not ideally suited for use with a scope sight. However, a hunting scope can be mounted on No. 4 and No. 5 rifles with one of the several commercial scope mounts available.

I have often been asked about the feasibility of restocking the Lee-Enfield with a one-piece stock. A couple of my friends stocked their Lee-Enfields in this manner, but after I saw the work involved, my advice is—don’t attempt it!

Rechambering and Rebarreling

Lee-Enfield rifles offer no rechambering possibilities. There is the 303 British Improved cartridge, a blown-out, sharp-shouldered version of the standard 303, but rechambering the Lee-Enfield for it is not advisable. (The 303 British P-14 Enfield rifle, which has a stronger action than the Lee-Enfield, however, is suitable for this rechambering.)

I continually get letters from shooters who would like to build a 45-70 or some other big bore caliber bolt-action rifle, many of them wanting to know if the Lee-Enfield action would serve their purpose. Well, the forerunner of the Lee-Enfield, the Remington-Lee rifle, was made in 45-70, and the No. 1 and No. 4 Lee-Enfield actions, with some alterations, could be adapted and rebarreled to handle this cartridge. With similar modifications, the No. 4 action would also be suitable for the 444 Marlin cartridge. Whether this rebarreling would be practical or not is something else, much depending on how much of the work you can do yourself.

I strongly advise against using any Lee-Enfield action for rebarreling to any one of the wildcat cartridges based on the 303 British or 30-40 Krag case.

The Lee-Enfield for Target Work

In England, Canada and Australia, the Lee-Enfield has long been used for competitive target shooting, a sport for which these rifles have been highly developed. Parker-Hale, Ltd., was one source of a line of target accessories for this rifle, including the best precision-made receiver sights. Because the 7.62mm NATO (308) was the standard military cartridge of these countries, and because the supply of good 303 British target ammunition was no longer plentiful, many target shooters converted the No. 4 rifles to the 7.62mm. At least one firm in England once offered a conversion kit, which includes a threaded and chambered 7.62mm barrel, magazine, extractor, ejector and clip-slot adaptor. In fact, if the rifle was used as a single shot, only a barrel is needed, and any component barrelsmith could do the job. Only the No. 4 (or No. 5) action is suitable for 7.62mm rebarreling, since it is the strongest of the Lee-Enfields.

Comments

During the many years that rifle mechanisms have interested me, I’ve read and heard much praise and criticism of the Lee-Enfield action and rifle, with devotees and critics equally vehement. While I don’t want to enter into this debate, I will make some comments.

Although the Lee turnbolt-action system was of advanced design when James Paris Lee patented it in 1879, and when a modified version of it was adopted by Great Britain in 1888, it must be conceded that it was, along with the rimmed 303 British cartridge, outmoded by the Mauser system actions developed from 1893 to 1898. Regardless of this, the British, having made the choice, probably spent more time and money in experimenting and testing the Lee-Enfield rifle than any other country did. The fact that the Lee-Enfield rifle performed so well during its long military history proves without a doubt that the action is sound. Manufacturing specifications were quite rigid. The steel used in it was always the best available for the purpose. The various parts were properly machined, finished and heat-treated. Unlike the early Model 1903 Springfield actions, there was never any doubt about the quality of the steel and heat-treatment used in making the Lee-Enfield action. Generally, however, it is not material or manufacture that is criticized, but the design.

The two-piece stock design is often criticized, yet I think no other military bolt-action rifle has a stronger buttstock attachment to the receiver. It is, perhaps, stronger than the Japanese Arisaka Type 99 rifle. The separate Lee- Enfield forend, though, has always given trouble. I believe, however, that if the butt socket had been designed with a front recess, so the rear of the forend could have been fitted inside it, and the barrel had been made a bit shorter and heavier from the start, bedding problems would have largely eliminated.

The protruding sheet-metal magazine is also criticized. The British did not develop the Lee-Enfield for anything except military use, and I believe its magazine system is one of the best for military use. The magazine box was made rather light, but it was quickly detachable, and if it was damaged another one could be quickly inserted. For some military uses, it probably was more convenient to carry extra loaded magazines than loose ammunition or ammunition in clips. Even though the magazine was detachable, for most military use it was left in place and loaded from the top through the action, either with clips or by pressing single cartridges into it. The large capacity was certainly desirable, and the fact that the magazine protruded below the bottom of the stock was of no disadvantage for military use since the point of balance of these rifles is forward of the magazine.