Does anyone on this forum shoot a 30-40 Krag chambered Lee Enfield? What load data? This is out of interest. I know of one person from another forum that loads 220gr bullets for his 30-40 chambered Lee Enfield. Healthy velocity too! (I don't remember exactly what he was getting).

Is not 30-40 Kraig so close to 303Brit that the brass is interchangeable?

I don't have a 30-40, but I have lots of 303Brits, and I have the SAAMI drawings with tolerances on the chambers and cartridges of both.

quote:

Originally posted by tnekkcc:
Is not 30-40 Kraig so close to 303Brit that the brass is interchangeable?

I don't have a 30-40, but I have lots of 303Brits, and I have the SAAMI drawings with tolerances on the chambers and cartridges of both.

I know you said they are SAAMI drawings. That in mind the thing to ask is, where is this from and is the source reliable? (Please take no offense. Better safe then sorry!)

Lee-Enfields have chambers way larger in diameter than the brass sold in the US. The chambers I have measured were .460 in diameter at the rear edge of the chamber as measured with -.0002 pin gauges.
Most US brass is about .450 to .452 diameter just ahead of the rim. The oversize chamber leaves a pronounced pressure ring on fired brass. Along with the stretching from generous headspace and an action with the elasticity of a rubber band, this lead to lots of case head separtations with anything approaching factory pressures.
Fifteen to 20 years ago .30-40 Krag Remington brass was .455 diameter. The Krag brass is longer than .303 brass but the shoulder length is shorter. Krag brass can be shortened and fired in a .303 chamber. While .003 larger dia. brass does not seem like much of an advantage it cuts the clearance in the chamber down to .005 and reduces the size of the pressure ring step. Along with reduced pressure loads it dramatically increases case life.
I have also swaged the solid heads of .444 Marlin brass from .464 down to .469/.460.
the web area of .444 brass is much heavier than .303 brass. Forming .444 makes you tired but yields excellent brass.

I heard of folks rebarreling to 30-40 for the availability of bullets. Personally, I like the longer neck of the Krag. That would suite the way I load better - cast bullets and bullets seated far out with a wax wad under them (stops copper fouling and stops corrosion in the suppressor-break).

James has a point. But tnekkcc did say "with tolerances". Those would be the drawings to have! Would it be possible to show those drawings? (I have never come across drawings with tolerances).

quote:

Along with the stretching from generous headspace and an action with the elasticity of a rubber band, this lead to lots of case head separtations with anything approaching factory pressures.

Is that why many folks in the US think of the Lee Enfield as a poor choice for reloading? When I rebarreled my MLE (circa 1902) I had a No4 barrel fitted which required cutting the breach face back to align the thread start and this tightened the chamber. I get excellent case life with factory velocity. My No4 whith it's rather long chamber seems fine too but the neck is rather short and the shoulder is a odd shape, leaving less neck to hold the bullet than I would prefer.

quote:

Is not 30-40 Kraig so close to 303Brit that the brass is interchangeable?

I heard of one fella who used 303 Savage ammo in his Lee Enfield for Moose! Some folks were horrified at the thought but looking at the cartridge drawings, one sees that it would actually work.

quote:

I have also swaged the solid heads of .444 Marlin brass from .464 down to .469/.460.
the web area of .444 brass is much heavier than .303 brass. Forming .444 makes you tired but yields excellent brass.

That's an idea! It would have an advantage for cast bullet shooting from the case capacity viewpoint.

quote:

Is that why many folks in the US think of the Lee Enfield as a poor choice for reloading? When I rebarreled my MLE (circa 1902) I had a No4 barrel fitted which required cutting the breach face back to align the thread start and this tightened the chamber. I get excellent case life with factory velocity. My No4 whith it's rather long chamber seems fine too but the neck is rather short and the shoulder is a odd shape, leaving less neck to hold the bullet than I would prefer.

That is the answer at least for me.
You bring up another point. I have never seen the SAAMI drawings for both chamber and cartridge but
Fired .303 cases look nothing like ammo or new brass. The shoulders on some fired cases are nearly square shoulder or a full tangent radius. All ammo has a normal looking shoulder angle.

[/QUOTE]That's an idea! It would have an advantage for cast bullet shooting from the case capacity viewpoint.[/QUOTE]

I have toyed with rebarreling a #4 with a 1903 Springfield barrel. The rebarreling would be finihed by reaming the barrel with the front 2.22 of a 30-06 chamber. The brass would be made from .444 Marlin brass. I made up a few dummy rounds and they do not come close to feeding due to the large .30-06 shoulder.
I never rebarreled the rifle due to the feeding issue.

quote:

I never rebarreled the rifle due to the feeding issue.

But they fit 308 barrels onto No4's. The magazine and the extractor are different. I would have thought the 30-06 barrel would work with 444 brass. How would it be different to the 303 Epps? Perhaps if the shoulder were left further back (longer neck) it would fit the magazine better. I like the idea!

SAAMI drawings are pricey, but they are in the back of this book. It only goes up to 1980, so the 40 S&W is not in there. The 30/40 and 303B are in there. At $3.45/used, you can afford it.

http://www.amazon.com/Handload...-Davis/dp/0935998349

quote:

It only goes up to 1980,

That's plenty modern for me! Thanks.

When you see a SAAMI drawing, it will look like this. They are hand drawn, like from my technical drawing class in 1965 in the 9th grade. We got graded on how well we could print, how wide our lines were, neatness, etc.

I could scan the 30/40 and 303B pages, and post them at 6mmBR, and then post the image here [like the above 223 drawing], but then you would not go out and buy a copy of the out of print used book I suggested.

.303guy,
Here is another alternative from my stash of brass.
.405 Winchester brass by Hornady is .457 dia on the head just in front of the rim.
All 3 of my .303 brands of brass measure .058 to .060 for rim thickness. The .405 measures .065 to .067.

The .405 brass tightens up both the diametral fit and the headspace.

You could use the .444 Marlin brass by swaging or turning the head as mentioned above or you could polish your chamber to .464 at the rear and use .444 brass with out all the swaging. However you would be getting a permanent divorce from standard .303 brass and ammo.

A more involved and maybe more practical correction might be to bore out the over sized .303 chamber, drive in a press fit sleeve of 416 stainless, then bore or ream a new tight chamber in the 416 bushing. The dimensions for the new chamber should come from factory brass plus a couple of thousandths for clearance.

quote:

I could scan the 30/40 and 303B pages, and post them at 6mmBR, and then post the image here [like the above 223 drawing], but then you would not go out and buy a copy of the out of print used book I suggested.

True! But then if I didn't get the used book, I wouldn't have it and I want it.

quote:

A more involved and maybe more practical correction might be to bore out the over sized .303 chamber, drive in a press fit sleeve

I have been thinking along these lines! Mmmmm.... ! There is yet another less conventional option - you just gave me the idea - that is to fit a longer bolt head and skim the breach face. I actually have a half made bolt head which was supposed to fix another rifle with a serious headspace problem. I do note that both my 303's do not produce excessive expansion rings. It's just the No4 that shortens the neck with a funny shape. It's not really a problem - I'll just shape my sizer to suite. I likely won't be shooting cast in the No4 so it doesn't matter that much.

quote:

Originally posted by 303Guy:

quote:

I could scan the 30/40 and 303B pages, and post them at 6mmBR, and then post the image here [like the above 223 drawing], but then you would not go out and buy a copy of the out of print used book I suggested.

True! But then if I didn't get the used book, I wouldn't have it and I want it.

quote:

A more involved and maybe more practical correction might be to bore out the over sized .303 chamber, drive in a press fit sleeve

I have been thinking along these lines! Mmmmm.... ! There is yet another less conventional option - you just gave me the idea - that is to fit a longer bolt head and skim the breach face. I actually have a half made bolt head which was supposed to fix another rifle with a serious headspace problem. I do note that both my 303's do not produce excessive expansion rings. It's just the No4 that shortens the neck with a funny shape. It's not really a problem - I'll just shape my sizer to suite. I likely won't be shooting cast in the No4 so it doesn't matter that much.

Can you measure the rear diameter of your chambers? I would be interested to see what diameter they are and why they do not excessively expand the brass.

I've resized 303 Brass I have picked up at the range and used it for my 1898 Krag... the 303 brass is just a hair shorter than 30/40 Krag brass...

however load data for the two are pretty interchangable...

only real difference is 308 vs .311 diameter...

quote:

Can you measure the rear diameter of your chambers?

I shall do that. It would be interesting. I suspect that SMLE's had a tendency toward very large chambers while the original MkI's did not and maybe No4's were not too bad. Mind you, they can't be too good either if two No4 barrels were trimmed back to fit NoI actions and still fit the case! It's that two groove barrel that intrigues me. That's the one that does not expand the case as much as expected!

30-40 and 303 Brit actually interchangeable (almost)! That is interesting seafire2. Where exactly did James Paris Lee get his cartridge design from? (Awfully close to the 6mm Lee Navy and subsequent 220 Swift! There is a parent case to all these if I am not mistaken? One that the 30-40 was derived from?)

quote:

Originally posted by 303Guy:

quote:

Can you measure the rear diameter of your chambers?

I shall do that. It would be interesting. I suspect that SMLE's had a tendency toward very large chambers while the original MkI's did not and maybe No4's were not too bad. Mind you, they can't be too good either if two No4 barrels were trimmed back to fit NoI actions and still fit the case! It's that two groove barrel that intrigues me. That's the one that does not expand the case as much as expected!

30-40 and 303 Brit actually interchangeable (almost)! That is interesting seafire2. Where exactly did James Paris Lee get his cartridge design from? (Awfully close to the 6mm Lee Navy and subsequent 220 Swift! There is a parent case to all these if I am not mistaken? One that the 30-40 was derived from?)

The parent was probably some missing link black powder cartridge or the 303.

quote:

Originally posted by 303Guy:

quote:

Can you measure the rear diameter of your chambers?

I shall do that. It would be interesting. I suspect that SMLE's had a tendency toward very large chambers while the original MkI's did not and maybe No4's were not too bad. Mind you, they can't be too good either if two No4 barrels were trimmed back to fit NoI actions and still fit the case! It's that two groove barrel that intrigues me. That's the one that does not expand the case as much as expected!

30-40 and 303 Brit actually interchangeable (almost)! That is interesting seafire2. Where exactly did James Paris Lee get his cartridge design from? (Awfully close to the 6mm Lee Navy and subsequent 220 Swift! There is a parent case to all these if I am not mistaken? One that the 30-40 was derived from?)

I don't know where the cases were derived from, but I can bet dollars to donuts that the Krag was heavily influenced by the 303...

set both cases side by side, and you'll see there isn't much difference...

quote:

I don't know where the cases were derived from, but I can bet dollars to donuts that the Krag was heavily influenced by the 303...

It appears that everyone made a circle looking over each others shoulder copying rifles and cartridges back then. Take a look at the drawings for the 6.5 Carcano, the 6.5MS and the 6.5X53R Dutch Mannlicher. One internet poster from New Zealand says he can shoot 6.5 Carcano ammo in the 6.5 MS by applying tape to the shoulder.

quote:

for the 6.5 Carcano, the 6.5MS and the 6.5X53R Dutch Mannlicher.

That makes sense since those are all Mannlicher rifles. Mauser did the same unless otherwise requested, ie the Swede and Swiss Mausers. Wasn't the 30-40 earlier than the 303 Brit?

quote:

Originally posted by 303Guy:

quote:

for the 6.5 Carcano, the 6.5MS and the 6.5X53R Dutch Mannlicher.

That makes sense since those are all Mannlicher rifles. Mauser did the same unless otherwise requested, ie the Swede and Swiss Mausers. Wasn't the 30-40 earlier than the 303 Brit?

I think the 30-40 Krag was an 1892 development and was always smokeless. The .303 was an 1888 round that was originally loaded with black powder.

From Wikipedia

quote:

The .30-40 Krag/.30 U.S./.30 Army/.30 Government was a round of ammunition developed in the early 1890s to provide the US armed forces with a new, powerful round to fire from the rifle it was going to select in the 1892 trials. Since the round it was replacing was the .45-70 Government, the round was considered small-bore at the time. The rifle selected was ultimately the Krag-Jørgensen. It was the first round used by the US army designed for smokeless powder.

The rimmed 30-40 round was also known as .30 Army, .30 U.S., or .30 Gov't. The .30-40 Krag was the first smokeless powder round adopted by the U.S. military, but it retained the "caliber-charge" naming system of earlier black powder cartridges, i.e., the .30-40 Krag employs a .30 caliber (7.62 mm) bullet propelled by 40 grains (2.6 g) of smokeless powder. As with the .30-30 Winchester, it is the use of black powder nomenclature that often leads to the incorrect assumption that the .30-40 Krag was once a black powder cartridge.

In 1899, the .30-40 was used to shoot the world-record Rocky Mountain elk. The record stood until the latter half of the 20th century.

The 303 Brit was adopted in 1888, so it was developed earlier. I believe the Lee Enfield was originally offered to the US army chambered in 45-70?

When was the 7.62 Russion adopted or developed? That was a black powder cartridge if I am not mistaken.

Found in Wikipedia.

quote:

The 7.62x54mmR is a Russian rifle cartridge dating back to 1891. Originally designed for the bolt-action Mosin-Nagant rifle, ...

quote:

The 7.62x54mmR is the oldest cartridge still in regular combat service with several major armed forces in the world.

quote:

The American Winchester Model 1895 was also chambered for this cartridge per a contract with the Russian government.

A cartridge case is similar to a camera body in that it just is a convenient box to hold the package together. If the original design is satisfactory there is not a lot of reason to change it. I suspect that somewhere some country is still using the 8X57 and it is older than the Rusky round.