Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
You ain't ever seen a 303 British like this before...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="shaughn" data-source="post: 1244240"><p>Not insulted here <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> </p><p></p><p>Actually the rifle that was accepted for trials eventually evolved into the No. 1 Mk III was built from the ground up, for use with cordite.</p><p></p><p>The Lee-Metford was the original BP rifle, but cordite made it obsolete (.303 Cordite loads approved 1890) due to excessive erosion of the rifling. (Metford rifling)</p><p></p><p>The Mk I rifle was sealed in 1895 and weren't BP rifles and are very different when compared to the older Lee-Metford.</p><p></p><p>The final variants (British) No.1 Mk III continued to be built until 1943, this included improvements in steel used for all rifles.</p><p></p><p>The No.4 Mk I was officially fielded in the spring of 1942 and it soldiered on to 1947 where it became the No. 4 Mk 2, though not issued till 1949 then continued on to become the L8 Series 1960 then on till 1970 until the adoption of the L96A1 in the mid 80's.</p><p></p><p>The newest No.4 Mk 2, I have ever had was made in 1954 (the action) and was later made into a 7.62 NATO target rifle.</p><p></p><p>I had the chance to participate in an evaluation of the No.4 Mk 1 and 2 and several were pressure tested to destruction (collectors around the world cried for several months as unissued Factory new rifles were sacrificed). It was found when using in Spec chambers the actions easily held up to several proofing loads for the 7.62 NATO, before failure and surprised most everyone there, unfamiliar with the action.</p><p></p><p>Yes, rear locking lugs (2 in this case) and split bridge are not as strong as a double lugged front locking bolt, never said it was, what I did say was the No.4 Mk I and later marks are stronger physically than the No. 1 Mk III.</p><p></p><p>The issue with the rifle is the grossly oversized chambers, which can create artificial headspace , which in turn will lead to a whole host of problems.</p><p></p><p>So, if equipped with an as issued barrel, keep your pressures down and minimal sizing. If you have a target model in 7.62 NATO (No.4 Mk 1/2 and variant) then don't be overly concerned as long as proper maintenance and you keep your reloads within safe limits.</p><p></p><p>I even know a few in 45-70 and they are loaded to Marlin 1895/Winchester 71/86 levels and have been checked regularly for issues, still going strong last I knew.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="shaughn, post: 1244240"] Not insulted here :) Actually the rifle that was accepted for trials eventually evolved into the No. 1 Mk III was built from the ground up, for use with cordite. The Lee-Metford was the original BP rifle, but cordite made it obsolete (.303 Cordite loads approved 1890) due to excessive erosion of the rifling. (Metford rifling) The Mk I rifle was sealed in 1895 and weren't BP rifles and are very different when compared to the older Lee-Metford. The final variants (British) No.1 Mk III continued to be built until 1943, this included improvements in steel used for all rifles. The No.4 Mk I was officially fielded in the spring of 1942 and it soldiered on to 1947 where it became the No. 4 Mk 2, though not issued till 1949 then continued on to become the L8 Series 1960 then on till 1970 until the adoption of the L96A1 in the mid 80's. The newest No.4 Mk 2, I have ever had was made in 1954 (the action) and was later made into a 7.62 NATO target rifle. I had the chance to participate in an evaluation of the No.4 Mk 1 and 2 and several were pressure tested to destruction (collectors around the world cried for several months as unissued Factory new rifles were sacrificed). It was found when using in Spec chambers the actions easily held up to several proofing loads for the 7.62 NATO, before failure and surprised most everyone there, unfamiliar with the action. Yes, rear locking lugs (2 in this case) and split bridge are not as strong as a double lugged front locking bolt, never said it was, what I did say was the No.4 Mk I and later marks are stronger physically than the No. 1 Mk III. The issue with the rifle is the grossly oversized chambers, which can create artificial headspace , which in turn will lead to a whole host of problems. So, if equipped with an as issued barrel, keep your pressures down and minimal sizing. If you have a target model in 7.62 NATO (No.4 Mk 1/2 and variant) then don't be overly concerned as long as proper maintenance and you keep your reloads within safe limits. I even know a few in 45-70 and they are loaded to Marlin 1895/Winchester 71/86 levels and have been checked regularly for issues, still going strong last I knew. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
You ain't ever seen a 303 British like this before...
Top