Does anyone still make a cock-on closing setup for an Enfield?

If you mean a cock-on-open kit then yes. You can buy a Dayton Traister made kit at Brownells.

Bearing in mind that the Enfield cock on closing is a carefully thought out design feature and is not broken. Absolutely no need, nor any benefit, in changing it, and if done wrong (meaning not increasing the striker fall beyond the existing retracting cam cut) it can be unreliable.
Only American shooters think it necessary.
Train on it and you will see they are faster and easier to operate.

I have a number of heavy hitting rifles built on P14 Enfield actions and all have Dayton Traister cock on opening conversions. I have never experienced even the slightest of trouble with any of them, including the .505 SRE I took on three trips to Africa.

As a life long competitive shooter with great experience in firing bolt action rifles rapid fire, I can assure you that changing to cock on closing is not a system you want to adopt, if you have been using the alternative all your life.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
Bearing in mind that the Enfield cock on closing is a carefully thought out design feature and is not broken. Absolutely no need, nor any benefit, in changing it, and if done wrong (meaning not increasing the striker fall beyond the existing retracting cam cut) it can be unreliable.
Only American shooters think it necessary.
Train on it and you will see they are faster and easier to operate.

+1

Note my comment; "Train on it".
If you do not know how to correctly operate any mechanical piece of machinery, you will not be successful with it. But once you are attuned to it, it will pose no disadvantages and actually has advantages. I have built many Enfields; all remain cock on closing. 100% reliable.
Again, there were valid and well proven reasons for the design.

The firing pin fall on the aforementioned kit is a bit on the ragged edge of reliable ignition. (In my opinion)

I tend to agree with DCPD...either live with the cock on closing or be prepared to spend big bucks to weld up the existing notch, reshape to a fall of about 3/8"..lots of work!

You just have to generate a pretty authoritative inertia..a "push", no matter how stiff the spring just won't ignite the primer. The shorter the fall, the more you're moving toward a "push"

Duane, I can't express adequately how highly I value your opinion, but I have one M1917 Enfield with the DT conversion which I have been using since 1960 and have never experienced a misfire or even hang fire.

The P14 Enfield is the last military rifle I am aware of to incorporate the cock on closing feature almost 20 years after Mauser introduced the Model 98, which made all earlier, cock on closing, Mauser models obsolete. The decision was made to use that system in deference to the British Army standby, the Lee Enfield rifle, also cock on closing, and to obviate the necessity of retraining the entire British army with a new system. The M1917 Enfield retained the system, since the US factories manufacturing the P14 were tooled up to make the P14's and changing that feature was not deemed necessary.

The last Remington commercial sporting rifles based on the Enfield system were changed to cock on opening to compete with the new Model 54 and 70 Winchesters, which were based loosely on the 1903 Springfield, which in turn had copied the Mauser 98 cock on opening system.

The last Enfield based sporting rifle, the model 720, was cock on opening and featured a firing pin fall of only .183". With the newly designed Walker firing pin spring it produced an impact velocity of 13.6 ft/sec with a lock time of 2.6 ms, producing 65 in/0z of energy and .80 oz-sec of impulse. (Otteson's "The Bolt Action") This compares with the pre-64 Model 70's lock time of 3.5 ms, impact velocity of 13.6 ft/sec, energy of 86.1 in/oz and impulse 1.05 oz-sec. (ibid.)

My .505 SRE has gotten me out of some tight spots in Africa and has proven to be totally reliable. I will continue to rely on the DT system. Others are free to choose otherwise.

Jerry,

I am going to jump in on the side of the leave it alone crowd. I shot on the Army rifle team, and one of the events we fired was a 300m 3-position rapid fire event(C.I.S.M.). We used mostly Rem. 700's and Win. mod. 70's. All cock on opening. To say that I learned to shoot accurately and fast is an understatement.

Then came the day that I bought my first Husqvarna in 9.3x57 and also my first cock on closing rifle. I also had the thought to change it, until I did my first rapid fire drill with it. Wow! I didn't know how fast I could be. I can honestly say that in the rapid fire drill I had zero clue that it was cocking on close.

Moral of the story, sight the gun in and get off the bench and shoot every first shot with a rapid fire follow up, and then progress to a full magazine of rapid fire. And if you don't already, please learn to leave the rifle in your shoulder and your eye on the target while cycling the bolt.

Sorry to be one of those guys that divert your original post to another direction.

Lance

Thanks for the comments; I'll probably leave it as-is. It's a Les Bauska version of a Whelen improved and I used to use it for elk, but 30 years ago I got a 338 which is a bit better for where I hunt.

I'm going on a kudu/bushbuck hunt next May and thought I might dust off the Whelen just for kicks.

Wouldn't blame anyone for using the rifle they have faith in.

I know it's a little off the original topic but I think leaving it "as is" is simply a matter of practice with it. People get used to a certain way of how things work and don't like to adapt to different ideas. But it sounds like you are already at least somewhat familiar with the cock on closing M 1917.

The Brits I believe kept the P14 cock on closing not only to reduce familiarization problems with the new P14 but also because they recognized the fact that the Lee Enfield was faster than anything else out there at the time. Only imminent war prevented them from following through with their plans. Whether the p14 would have actually proved itself is lost to history. The m1917 does still live on in Greenland with the Sirius patrol who maintains sovereignty in their Arctic regions. When asked if they wanted to change to a more modern designed rifle they have consistently declined. Rugged reliability in extreme conditions obviously has its virtues.

For me I like and am very familiar with a cock on closing action. My first rifle as a kid was a 93 Mauser 7x57 that was my constant companion both hunting and manning remote fire watches in the mountains. Today my favorite blacktail deer rifle is a simple cock on closing Kimber of Oregon sporterized 96 Swede Mauser in 6.5x55. It does everything I need it to do.

I've long had a m1917 Enfield that was sporterized back I'm guessing in the 1920's or 30's with a Pacific receiver sight and banded front sight. For a long time I've considered having it made into a no frills rifle that retained all the features of the original 1917 Enfield but better took advantage of that big 'ol action. Something like a .375 H&H would be quite useful for me. I would like it done up by someone who appreciated the Enfield as is. DPCD comes to mind. I haven't done it yet simply because that now I'm retired I'm being a little more frugal with projects right now. But it's day will come.

To me at least a simple reliable rifle like this would be just the thing for someone like a guide who needs a rugged tool that always works and appreciates it for what it is. But as I said earlier I'm very familiar with the quirks of a m1917 and think it would more than fit the bill.

I am on the side of Duane and Lance as well.
One of my favorite all around Alaskan rifles is a Mannlicher stocked Enfield 9.3x62 with the original cock on closing feature and if you work the bolt briskly the way they were intended you never notice the difference between it and a cock on opening action.

I have mixed emotions on this subject..especially on a DG rifle that I prefer to be slicker n snot loading...Ive used them both ways, I like the modification much better, but even though Ive not experienced a mal function I tend to worry about it...????????

I have two 1917 Enfield that have been converted to cock on open.

In hindsight I should have left them cock on close.

The conversion shortens the fall and I had issues I had to correct to get 100% reliable primer ignition.

On my 404 jeffery it was pretty simple - uniform the primer pockets on my Norma brass. That fixed it.

On my 35 Whelen I had to uniform the primer pockets and go to softer primers. I did research on primer hardness and moved from my standard CCI primers (the hardest) and to Federal (the softest).

Keep cock on close.

In my mind the cock on close design is easier to use when fired from the prone position or from a trench.
Ease of opening on this type of battle rifle is the idea, keeping the shooters elbow down low during the reload recock cycle means it's less likely to get shot off by the enemy.
Raising of the elbow to gain leverage on a cock on open may get that shooters elbow shot off in trench battle.
PRS shooters and action designers for that game may want to consider this as those shooters want to stay in the scope as much as possible during the recock reload cycle. This has been a topic with that group of people.

As I keep saying, the cock on closing was designed with valid rationale; it's purpose is to transmit most of the opening force required to EXTRACT the brass, rather than wasting effort in Cocking in the same motion. (Yes there is a little cam for FP retraction on opening)
That was in the era of soft brass cartridges, and muddy, sandy, dirty field conditions. The designers transferred most of the needed opening force, to the closing motion for two reasons; the empty case is already out, and the new cartridge would be easier to insert. Also, instead of trying to resist the left torque the rifle (an unnatural feel) when cocking on opening, it is more natural to resist a forward push when cocking on closing.
I never understood why Mauser changed his design to cock on opening, in a battle rifle. It was a step in the wrong direction, strictly from a combat rifle perspective. Cock on opening offers no advantages. None. But now, everyone thinks cock on closing is some kind of freakish mechanical abomination that needs changing. It doesn't.
Train as you fight.

Hmmmm It seems to me that Ted (of Mausefield) showed me a feature to change from full cock on opening to part way, then finish up the job with cock on closing. Timan...know anything about that?

That is how the 98 Mauser works as is; it is not 100% cock on opening; it is about 85% cock on opening and 15 % on closing. You can see it when you close one.
If you cut the cocking cam half way up with a step in it so the nose of the cocking piece would sit in it when you open the bolt, then you would have a half and half. The 1917 Enfield has the same feature; the firing pin is retracted quite a bit upon opening the bolt, so it is actually not 100% cock on closing.
Neither system is 100% one way.

I have a Model 30 with a DT kit and a P14 on which I welded up the cam and set up with a 5/16 striker travel. It uses a modified Remington three-lever trigger. I have not finished the M30 build yet but the P14 has worked well. It is a target rifle though so not used under real rough conditions.
I also have another P14 which is a pure hunting rifle and retains the original system. I like it just fine. Regards, Bill

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
That is how the 98 Mauser works as is; it is not 100% cock on opening; it is about 85% cock on opening and 15 % on closing. You can see it when you close one.
If you cut the cocking cam half way up with a step in it so the nose of the cocking piece would sit in it when you open the bolt, then you would have a half and half. The 1917 Enfield has the same feature; the firing pin is retracted quite a bit upon opening the bolt, so it is actually not 100% cock on closing.
Neither system is 100% one way.

Yes that's right, All bolt guns have some way of relieving the pressure from the rear of the bolt body if I remember right...Ted's could be changed. Maybe it did involve swapping out cocking pieces....Though I don't recall that being the case

Right, on a 98 you can mill off some of the cocking cam if you want a 50/50 system. Not a terrible idea.
On a 14/17, you build up the FP retracting cam with weld, as Bill said. I have done that, but it is just wasted work.

The Brits could really work the COC on the Lee Enfield in WWI. Some fast firing.