Enfield Action

28 April 2002, 10:46

Ulrik Hentzer

Enfield Action

What action is used in A-Squares rifles - the P-14 or the P-17 . I have seen both actions mentioned, and I do not know which is used ( do not know the difference of the two either..).
And what about the strength of the action used by A-Square. They claim itï¿½s the stongest receiver ever massproduced - BS or what ?
What is the strength of the used Enfield action compared to for example a CZ 550 and a M-98.
Anyone who have a qualified opinion ??

------------------
UH

28 April 2002, 11:35

PAWildcatter

Ulrik,

I don't know if my opinion is qualified or not, but I own 2 A-Squares, a 1917 Sporterized Enfield and have another Enfield receiver for a project gun.

The A-Squares, both early models, are P-17s (known as Pattern 17) or 1917 Enfields.

My gunsmith says that next to the Arisika, the 1917 Enfields are the 2nd strongest receiver ever made.

The knock against them is that they cock on close. So when you close the bolt there is quite a bit of spring pressure against the bolt handle.

For a receiver, in my opinion, you can not beat them.

------------------
Speak softly and carry a really big MAGNUM.

Regards,

Mark

28 April 2002, 12:02

500grains

The Enfield is a very fine action design.

However, metallurgy has progressed quite a bit since 1917. I will not name the company, but one company making actions progressively overloaded its own action until it gave way somewhere above 110,000 psi. They then used the same barrel (undamaged) and load on an Enfield action. The Enfield blew apart like a hand grenade.

That is the difference in metallurgy.

28 April 2002, 15:21

<333-OKH>

Some company blew up two actions with the same load and if I understand correctly the Enfield gave up more catastrophically. Is not the whole point of reloading to avoid that result? No question that an action from 1917 will not have the benefit of steel from 2002, how does that make the Enfield less useful than the new action? It would seem that loads held to a reasonable pressure would keep such a gun going for another century. I surely have no quibble with progress, but blowed up is blowed up, is it not? Or am I missing something?

------------------
If Elmer didn't say it, it probably ain't true.

29 April 2002, 02:27

<500 AHR>

The more important issue with 500grains example is quality control. The enfields as I recall were of relatively good quality. The Arisaka's on the other hand were not.

I see so many people posting about how strong the Arisaka action is. The over design of this action was done entirely because the Japanese understood their limitation with regard to metallurgical and heat treat process control (quality control). The Arisaka actions were notorious for blowing up in combat. This was due to poor metallurgy and heat treatment i.e. hard and soft spots. Due care should always be taken with these old actions. In other words they should not be pushed very hard period. The same holds true for some of the Mausers (depending upon where and when they were made and by who none of them are as bad as Arisaka's though).

Todd E

29 April 2002, 04:27

<eldeguello>

There was a problem with some 1917 Enfield actions being somewhat brittle like the low-numbered Springfields, and most of those with this problem were those made by Eddystone. Also, Enfields had very tightly fitted barrels, and some receiver rings were cracked by "gunsmiths" when removing the arsenal barrels for rebarreling. Often these cracks were not visible to a casual inspection, and only showed up later. The basic difference between the 1917 and the P14 action is that the P14 has a bolt face machined for the .303 British rimmed case and the M1917 bolt face is standard .30/'06 size.

29 April 2002, 07:31

<richard10x>

quote:
Originally posted by Todd E:
The more important issue with 500grains example is quality control. The enfields as I recall were of relatively good quality. The Arisaka's on the other hand were not.
I see so many people posting about how strong the Arisaka action is. The over design of this action was done entirely because the Japanese understood their limitation with regard to metallurgical and heat treat process control (quality control). The Arisaka actions were notorious for blowing up in combat. This was due to poor metallurgy and heat treatment i.e. hard and soft spots. Due care should always be taken with these old actions. In other words they should not be pushed very hard period. The same holds true for some of the Mausers (depending upon where and when they were made and by who none of them are as bad as Arisaka's though).
Todd E

Please see P. O. Ackleys Handbook for Shooters And Reloaders, Volume 2 for more on both the Arisaka and the Enfield P-14/P-17.

29 April 2002, 09:27

Ulrik Hentzer

A-Square wrote that the actions have been magnaflux tested and x-ray examined and that the action is completely reworked at A-Square before use - so I quess that qualitycontrol is pretty good.

------------------
UH

29 April 2002, 09:31

<500 AHR>

Why would I look at Ackley's book? I have some personal experience with both actions. I can assure you I have 1000 times more metallurgical experience than Mr. Ackley. In all honesty I have no idea what Mr. Ackley has to say about these actions. The simple truth is I do not care. I have been there done that.

I have also received feed back from some Japanese gentlemen regarding the vaunted Arisaka. These gentlemen used these rifles. Their comments were not flattering towards the rifles or the Americans that use the now.

I was only trying to make a point about quality control. Quality control today is orders of magnitude better than 50 years ago let alone 80 years ago when some of these actions were made. Specifically Japanese metallurgy has improved 100 fold since the 70's.

Magnafluxing will detect surface cracks.
X-ray may pick up porosity and subsurface cracks, again I stress MAY. What A-Square does not do, because they could not, is check hardness (both surface and subsurface), metallurgical composition, purity, etc. There are better nondestructive tests than X-ray by the way.

I would use a modern action over any of the mil surp actions. I have stated my reasons why. If other want to go through the hard ship and pain of using the mil surp actions so be it.

Todd E

[This message has been edited by Todd E (edited 04-29-2002).]

29 April 2002, 09:49

500grains

333okh,

The point is that if you make a handloading mistake, modern metallurgy will be more forgiving than 1917 metallurgy. of course, all of us would prefer not to blow up any action at all.

29 April 2002, 10:01

<richard10x>

quote:
Originally posted by Todd E:
Why would I look at Ackley's book? I have some personal experience with both actions. I can assure you I have 1000 times more metallurgical experience than Mr. Ackley. In all honesty I have no idea what Mr. Ackley has to say about these actions. The simple truth is I do not care. I have been there done that.
I have also received feed back from some Japanese gentlemen regarding the vaunted Arisaka. These gentlemen used these rifles. Their comments were not flattering towards the rifles or the Americans that use the now.
I was only trying to make a point about quality control. Quality control today is orders of magnitude better than 50 years ago let alone 80 years ago when some of these actions were made. Specifically Japanese metallurgy has improved 100 fold since the 70's.

Magnafluxing will detect surface cracks.
X-ray may pick up porosity and subsurface cracks, again I stress MAY. What A-Square does not do, because they could not, is check hardness (both surface and subsurface), metallurgical composition, purity, etc. There are better nondestructive tests than X-ray by the way.

I would use a modern action over any of the mil surp actions. I have stated my reasons why. If other want to go through the hard ship and pain of using the mil surp actions so be it.
Not trying to pull your chain, but I also have a modicum of experience with metals,
A.S.N.T. T.C. 1 A level III MT, PT, UT, & RT, in addition to being a C.W.I. and a level III Visual Inspector, and as for why you should care about MR. Ackleys opinions of rifle actions, he was a technicaly trained engineer of whom the U. S. Government thought highly enough to entrust most of Springfield Armoury to his care.

[This message has been edited by Todd E (edited 04-29-2002).]

29 April 2002, 16:49

358Mark

Anyone who thinks 'modern' quality control is better than 75 yr. ago should take a look at a new Rem. 700. Mark

30 April 2002, 00:58

Bad Ass Wallace

Ulrick,
Enfield actions are very strong. I have two built in 404 Jeffery and 510 Wells (.460 Weatherby necked to .510) I had a lot of feed problems initially untill I fitted the Magazine box with the follower from Brno Model ZKK602. The Actions used are Remington and Eddystone and were crack tested in a metals laboratory prior to use.

The cock on closing can be altered in about 45 mins by milling the extising cocking piece and TIG welding .

Eric G

30 April 2002, 04:56

Robgunbuilder

Guys- the 1917 enfield in the Winchester variation is an excellent action when properly built. The advantage of these action s are that they are cheap and will readily handle a cartridge of the .416 Rigby/505 Gibbs length. The bolts can be opened to .640 easily and their strength is totally adequate. I have never seen one blown up and I can not say the same about the M98. Just look at the lower locking lug area in a 1917 and compare it to a M98 even the uneducated will discern the difference. The downside is that an enormous amout of machine work is required by someone who KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE DOING! The cost of this is not trivial and thus a CZ550 is far and away a better option unless you have a
re-worked 1917 action laying around. Done properly with cock on open performed, you will be hard pressed to find a better big bore action.-Rob

30 April 2002, 13:49

<500 AHR>

Rob,

I agree with your statements 100%.

richard10x,

I am sorry if I upset you by my statements regarding the esteemed Mr. Ackley. Personally, I think the guy was a hack! That is my opinion and I am not sorry for it. I apologize further for not immediately recognizing all you acronyms, could you please enlighten me as to what they mean?

Todd E

30 April 2002, 16:30

500grains

I owned a 22-250 build by PO ackley on a mauser 98 and it shot crappy. Other than that I have no comment on him or his work.

30 April 2002, 20:35

aHunter

Interesting thread. Iï¿½ve read Ackley. Apart from that discussion, we know that steel ages. Sometime it gets plain iron. We also know how recruits treat guns. Those 14 and 17ï¿½s did second line duty.

Bottom line: it might have been the action of choice for the biggies in the fifties, but today I would take a CZ 550 Magnum any day. If I could afford it, a Heym Safari or Johannsen action. Iï¿½m sure there are more Magnum actions out there today than ever before.

Hermann

------------------