Originally Posted by
JonInWA
I'm afraid you're mis-reading or misinterpreting some of my points.
My citing of British Army practices was not to come up with esoterica, but to point out that a major concern was potential feed-lip spread induced by the constant pressure of the pressure 10 rounds-a friend of mine who was the senior gunsmith at his company related to me some years ago that H.P White's research indicated that successively reducing rounds in a magazine resulted in not just a proportionate, but a geometric reduction in feed lip pressure. This issue was both of historical and contemporary merit-and even more so given the limited and diminishing amount of available quality magazines, and the likely need for gunsmith examination and fitting of replacement magazines to individual rifles.
If you've been successfuly storing and using your Lee Enfield magazines in a fully-loaded state, good on you. And realizing that spring wear is caused more by repeated compression and expansion as opposed to cintinued compression, when you factor in potential feed lip malformation it might be a a better practice to 1) store magazines in an empty, or partially loaded (e.g.,downloaded with 5 rounds), and 2) in use start with a 5 round load, up-loading as situationally indicated.
The images and apparent practice of at least some of the Canadian Rangers using multiple magazines for reloading as seen earlier in the discussionn thread here (as opposed to using the 5 round charger clips) is interesting. I can understand the desirability in an extremely cold environment, where magazine exchanging might be easier to accomplish than fiddling with the charger clips . However, in my research I came across a 2010 Canadian Defense study, "Canadian Ranger Rifle: Human Factors Requirements Validation" which is exceptional reading, based on in-depth surveys of 4 of the 5 Canadian Ranger Patrol Groups with 135 survey participants. It provides a unique perspective on modern bolt-action rifle use and desirability in constant use in extreme environments. Some of my key take outs from it:
-A bolt action platform is the most durable and reliable action/operating system in extreme environment use;
-The Lee Enfields were replaced primarily due to the diminishing of available stocks (at the organizational level-the Canadian Rangers are a 4,000 + person national organization organizationally exclusively armed with rifles (previously the Lee Enfield No 4 Mk 1*, and now the Tikka C19, a Colt Canada assembled version of the T3X (commercially available as the T3X Arctic). Critical shortage replacement components were replacement magazines and sights (presumably the preferred vernier-adjustable rear sights). These two components alone were most frequently cited for breakage and replacement in the study, with the magazines called out for their bulkiness and need for repair.
My suggestion/extrapolation is that particularly in organizational use using multiple Lee Enfield magazines as what we envison a detachable magazine with reloads accomplished by magazine removal and immediate replacement with another fully loaded one has not played out well in actual use. Probable causes are: relatively clumsy/poor ergonomics in magazine removal and replacement with another fully charged magazine, gradual feed lip wear inducing operational difficulties, possible feed lip wear induced by frequent magazine replacements, and the necessity for armorer or higher echelon proper magazine fitting for each magazine to each individual Lee Enfield rifle.
Accordingly, while I'll at some point probably get a spare magazine for my personal Lee Enfield No4 Mk 1, I'll properly vet it for use and then just keep it as a spare. I will utilize the charger clips for reloading, and my initial/administrative default loading will likely be either 5 rounds, or 5+1 round.
I'll strongly suggest performing a search and reading the Canadian Defense study-it's a great read, with some great nuggets and suggestions for contemporary bolt action rifle use.
If I could find a T3X Arctic, it would be an ideal choice, due to both its modern construction, ergonomics, iron sights (and provision for after-market RDS and/or optical sights), use of improved materials (stainless steel and laminate stocks), and in its more potent (and logistically available) 7.62/.308 chambering. However, I feel quite well served with my magnificently restored Lee Enfield No 4 Mk 1 in .303 chambering (pending gunsmith vetting and personal vetting and zeroing).
Best, Jon
Being ban-compliant would not, of course, be the point.
Reply With Quote