The Enfield Confusion

[RC20]

Eanie:

Steel does not compress. The only way that would move things around would be lugs to break off or the recess to wallow out. One is a condemned bolt and the other a condemned receiver and likely both.

I would not call the 303 is not weak, it was a lower PSI than its contemporaries (never updated) but the Brits shot a lot of ME/FW out of the air with it and fought wars with it for over 100 years?)

Sherman: Cooper was not the only one that bashed the Sherman, he was just the latest. His factual parts were good, he had a bent and told some whoppers in regards to Patton as well as the Sherman itself.

Isrealis used upgraded Shermans into the 80s as I recall.

The Invasion Shermans were the standardized Ford V8 version (Brits had the Chrysler engine that they liked)

The odd part was the Jackson TD was a Sherman with a 90 mm gun that was equal to the Tiger I. Until they ran into the Panther in quantity (Normandy) did they start to re-consider as the 75 had done fine and was better HE than the somewhat better 76 (still to be answered was why they could not make a slower HE in the 76 that had the same HE of the 75?)

Brits put a 17 lb gun in the Sherman, pretty good AT but I have seen the pictures of trying to man it, insane, bent over and twisted to shoot it (they put it on its side to fit which took up turret room)

The Jumbo Sherman was as good as Panther armor wise, they failed to upgrade the armor.

Pattons command scrounged tanks and armored theirs so they were pretty much Jumbo Shermans. The other two armies did a concrete layer or a sand bag layer (not as good as adding more armor but a help)

One action I read about where they were attacked by 5 Panthers they just did a cross shoot into the sides, 5 dead Panthers (its side armor really sucked, it was more a long range Russians front where you could see the other guy a long way away and kept your nose to them)

Panthers made up about half the German tank force at the end (though a lot were broken down at any given time)

[ernie8]

You need to look up the properties of steel . Beat on a piece of steel with a big hammer for a while and then say it does not compress !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[RC20]

Ernie: Unless it bulges out, it does not compress, it can change shape.

Pressure down the central core of an almost solid piece of steel is unlikely. If it did, the bolt would jam.

Water is compressible, not much.

Steel is compressible, to such a tiny degree you could not measure it.

Temperature would have more affect on it and its minuscule.

[44 AMP]

WWII armor is a hobby of mine, and I would love to straighten you guys out on a few things, but this is NOT the place for it.

hint, hint...

[Jim Watson]

I read somewhere recently, likely on Wikipedia, that the Sherman was not significantly more likely to brew up than a Mk IV panzer.
When they went to wet storage of ammunition, fires dropped way off, 60% from penetrating hits down to 15%.

[RC20]

WWII armor is a hobby of mine, and I would love to straighten you guys out on a few things, but this is NOT the place for it.

hint, hint...

Mine to. Move it to General Discussion or get a 3 way email train going?

Keeping in mind that both side figured out that the other side wanted to repair their stuff, so depending on how it was going, they would shoot the daylight out of the other side if they figured it was going to get towed away.

Germans were a recovery whiz until the US came along and industrialized it.

[RC20]

Back to subject:

The simple answer of different size bolt heads for the No.4 was production expediency. Select fit for proper headspace and bolt assembly, then send it down the line.

[F. Guffey]

I am assuming that Mr Guffey was referring to those.

Thank you dufus, these guys are so desperate for attention I have to check them everyday.

I tried to get RC20 to understand I have 25 P14 barrels and access to 250 more. I failed in that attempt to get him to understand anything and them I informed him it was impossible to turn a P14 barrel into a M1917 barrel; and still he insisted he is the M1917-P14 expert.

And now he has a response on the reloading forum that leads me to believe he has never chambered a factory loaded, over the counter new minimum length case in a M1917 with a long chamber from the shoulder to the bolt face. Yeah, you gotta take him seriously because he has the 'bump the shoulder back'. And basically that is all he has to know.

F. Guffey

[F. Guffey]

You need to look up the properties of steel . Beat on a piece of steel with a big hammer for a while and then say it does not compress !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I brought up the topic of 'GLUPE MAKERS' several times in the past; it seems we do not have any old sailors among us, it has been my experience when it comes to anything mechanical sailors are a source of good information.

A fluid flows, water is a fluid, water flows but water can not be compressed. And then there was 'Caine Mutiny'.

And I said I did not like the 303 with the rear locking lugs; I did not say the bolt compressed. I said the bolt humped. During the 'NEIGHBOR WARS' in South Africa the British got the worst of it from the neighbors because they were using the Mauser.

Kipling and Doyle were in South Africa at the same time, they knew what the problem was and they knew the British were not going to fix the problem so they returned to England with a plan.

If the British was not going to fix the rifle the British soldiers had to be taught how to shoot so Kipling and Doyle started a marksmanship program. And sure enough the British went into the next war with the '303' and the next war...

And then? they started in about 1905 with a 284? that looked a little like the Ross. Dupont went across the pond to get some ideals about smokeless powder, he returned to the USA with what he went over there to get. All the British had to do is go across the pond and bring the powder back.

They didn't, they continued to use the same powder, the mistake caused cookoff with the 284. They gave up and kept the 303 round and rifle. And then came the P13, and then the P14 and from that came the M1917. And for that I am thankful.

Roy Dunlap said something like, "The Eddystone is like a box of candy, you never know what you are getting". That was before the Internet and he was giving smiths advise on what surplus rifle to purchase when building a custom rifle. He suggested the Remington m1917 or the Winchester M1917.

F. Guffey

[RC20]

Add to the definitive form SMLE experts

The bolt-fitting caper was done by specialist workers at the factories. Trays of carefully-gauged components were selected for "best fit. "Best fit" was VERY tight, because after the complete bolt assembly was fitted to the barreled body, this assembly went to the proofing room where a "different" proof round was fired to "seat" the whole assembly of body, barrel and bolt.

[F. Guffey]

And the members of the Orange Free state had the advantage, so rather than level the field the British cut them off from the Mauser. And then we get into it with Spain, We got kicked in all 7 knees with our 30/40 crag, and to think; we could have had a Mauser.

Mauser? Now that man knew how to build a rifle, he did not place the lugs in the rear, he placed them up front. I say them because he used two lugs 'upfront', the 30/40 had one lug. Springfield did not use two lugs because they decided it only needed one. In the old days manufacturers of rifle knew how difficult it was to build a rifle with two lugs.

F. Guffey

[Jim Watson]

The Boers kicked the Brits because they knew how to shoot. The advantage of the Mauser over the Lee was little if any.

The Krag's ability to top up with a round in the chamber was apparently trumped by the clip loading of the Mauser... maybe. A fixed position is always an advantage.

I do agree that we might have done better by just buying the Mauser package and having an 1898 in .30 3 1/4" would have been less fuss than our own attempt at cherry picking features from Mauser, Krag, and Somebody's Bright Ideas.

[F. Guffey]

I did not want to leave out Kipling, I did not want to leave out Doyle, they are the ones that were there. They are the ones that thought the 303 British rifle was a piece of Sh#$$. They are the ones that knew the problem was not going to be fixed. No one would say the British (like Springfield) was WWHUA as in 'working with their heads up donkey'. Because 'HERE COMES the GERMANS' like the 303 rifle against the Mauser all over again and the British having no way to catch up with the numbers.

I do like that story/exchange the Germans had with the British: The British informed the Germans they were using the 303 bolt operated rifle and the Germans responded with "really, we thought all of you guys were using machine guns". To bad the term "WE WISH' had not been invented yet.

F. Guffey

[Mike Irwin]

"We got kicked in all 7 knees with our 30/40 crag, and to think; we could have had a Mauser."

Yeah, pity how the US lost the Spanish American War because the Spanish troops had Mausers...

While MOST US troops in the combat zone had.... Trapdoor Springfield rifles.

Yet, somehow, it was the (sic) Crag's (sic) fault.


Realism's time, for Christ's sake...

In all of the cases that allegedly showed the combat superiority of the clip-fed Mauser rifle, British and US troops were assaulting Boer/Spanish forces across OPEN ground against troops that were dug in or otherwise under cover.

Anyone really think that a Mauser in the hands of the British or Americans at that time would have made that much of a difference?

Additionally, both US and British practice at the time was to hold the magazine in reserve and load and fire single shot. The US Mills cartridge belt, used for both .45-70 and .30-40 ammunition issue, is a pretty good indicator of that practice.

What use is the fast loading magazine on a rifle if you're not using the magazine as your primary mode of fire?

Not a lot.

Apparently the Americans didn't learn a whole hell of a lot from their epiphany that the Mauser clip fed was the best thing since (the not yet invented) sliced bread because the 1903 KEPT the magazine cutoff, and the military kept teaching troops about single loading fire with the magazine as the reserve.

Regarding the British, they kept the magazine cutoff on the Lee-Enfield (until WW I demand finally saw them drop it), but they also adopted charger loading in the early 1900s, and retrofitted some earlier Lee-Enfield and Lee-Metford rifles.

[F. Guffey]

I have always thought we would have been better off had we fired Springfield and hired John Browning;

F. Guffey