I'm new to the whole bolt action deal, I've been trying to track down a rifle in .223 to suit my needs. So anyways, I'm down at the local stores checking out the Remchesters and what not when I spotted an old Enfield #5. Just for S's and G's I checked it out. Well know ! I was pleasantly surprised with what had to be the sweetest action of all the rifles I had tried. I know a lot of you are already familiar with this, I've heard quite a bit about the famed Enfield actions on boards like this and others. So tell me this, how come no one makes a commercial version for a hunting/target rifle using the Enfield action ? Or is this already done and in my ignorance I haven't noticed ?
Any commercial guns use an Enfield action ?
- Thread starter ATeaM
- Start date
Gibbs Rifles does. But they actually use the mil surp actions. The bolt face accomodates the .45-70 rim diameter and Gibbs was predicting one available Fall of 2000. That has moved to Fall of this year. Some of the reasons that we don't see the Enfield action as a basis of more modern cartridges is 1) the superior Mauser actions are so plentiful and 2) they (Mausers) are superior for modern cartridges and accuracy because the locking lugs are at the front of the bolt, while the Enfield lugs are at the rear. For a stout modern cartridge, its probably not unsafe, but accuracy will sure suffer by the action of a flexing bolt, from the cartridge contact point on the bolt face, back, say, four inches to the point of bolt lockup. Mausers usually are "clean" on top of the action and are easily rebarreled and scoped. The Enfield takes more work if you want a nice clean, modern-looking package.
Several (most) modern rifle designs have one or more elements of the original Mauser design incorporated in their existing rifles. Mausers were continually upgraded and hundreds of thousands of them have been refurbed and remarketed all over the world. They were the battle rifle of choice of many different countries in many different configurations well into the 20th Century. They are plentiful and of good to excellent quality, to say the least.
Enfields are fine rifles too, for the cartridges for which they were designed. I personally don't want a.45-70 based on a rear lockup bolt (even though I would dearly love a bolt action .45-70!).
So the main reason we don't see commercial versions for a hunting/target rifle using the Enfield action is because the Mauser action is much better (plentiful, stronger, cheaper, etc.).
Several (most) modern rifle designs have one or more elements of the original Mauser design incorporated in their existing rifles. Mausers were continually upgraded and hundreds of thousands of them have been refurbed and remarketed all over the world. They were the battle rifle of choice of many different countries in many different configurations well into the 20th Century. They are plentiful and of good to excellent quality, to say the least.
Enfields are fine rifles too, for the cartridges for which they were designed. I personally don't want a.45-70 based on a rear lockup bolt (even though I would dearly love a bolt action .45-70!).
So the main reason we don't see commercial versions for a hunting/target rifle using the Enfield action is because the Mauser action is much better (plentiful, stronger, cheaper, etc.).
Al Thompson
Staff Alumnus
IIRC, Art Alphin used Enfield actions in his DG rifles. A-Square rifles shot very well and used high pressure cartridges, so strength does not seem to be a problem.
Giz
Giz
IMO the primary reason is an Lee-Enfield type action would be so expensive to manufacture. Compared to a Mauser the Lee-Enfield is very complicated - it's a machinists nightmare (or dream... depending on how you look at it). The beauty of the Mauser is not only it's strength but it's simplicity. -- Kernel
As for sporters made from scratch, Remington made some sporters on the old Lee action, and BSA and other English makers made sporting rifles on the Lee-Enfield action. Most of the sporters, though, were "sporterized" ex-military rifles, and there were thousands made throughout the old British Empire, where they were the common "war surplus" rifle as were the Krags, Model 1917's and Model 1903's in the U.S.
Converted L-E's are a common proposition in countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Jim
Converted L-E's are a common proposition in countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Jim
Jim Keenan's right. If you read up on what has happened over the years in those countries mentioned, there is a pot full of wildcats based on the .303 Brit. Considering that the .303 is a close cousin to the .308, that makes for some interesting wildcat cartridges, and mighty effective ones too.
As far as "smoothness" goes, that might be perception and vary from rifle to rifle. The Enfield seems quicker on the bolt cycle though. As I recall, the Enfield bolt doesn't have to travel as far as a Mauser bolt to eject and pick up the next round ... no locking lugs up there. An interesting difference. But your question is, do any "commercial" bolt actions duplicate it's smoothness? The unhesitating answer is yes. A Ruger is probably as close as you will get to a Mauser, without getting an actual Mauser. I have a 14 year old M77 in .30-'06. Smooth as wet glass. In all the modern bolt actions these days, smooth is the rule. A rough bolt is a trip back to the factory and a spanking for QA.. Savage, Remington, USRAC (Win), CZ, Blaser
, etc.
[Edited by sensop on 05-24-2001 at 07:21 PM]
As far as "smoothness" goes, that might be perception and vary from rifle to rifle. The Enfield seems quicker on the bolt cycle though. As I recall, the Enfield bolt doesn't have to travel as far as a Mauser bolt to eject and pick up the next round ... no locking lugs up there. An interesting difference. But your question is, do any "commercial" bolt actions duplicate it's smoothness? The unhesitating answer is yes. A Ruger is probably as close as you will get to a Mauser, without getting an actual Mauser. I have a 14 year old M77 in .30-'06. Smooth as wet glass. In all the modern bolt actions these days, smooth is the rule. A rough bolt is a trip back to the factory and a spanking for QA.. Savage, Remington, USRAC (Win), CZ, Blaser
, etc.[Edited by sensop on 05-24-2001 at 07:21 PM]
The American Enfield (in contrast to the British SMLE) is actually pretty much a Mauser that cocks on closing, IIRC. The British were going to change over to the P14 Enfield and ditch their smellies when the nastiness in 1914 caught them with their pants down. Remington built P14 Enfields for Britain in 303 (but not fast enough to suit them) and for the US as the Mod 1917 in 30 US Gomt. I beleive that was also the genesis of Eddystone Arsenal to build Enfields. Remington was the contractor. Let's see if George Hill thinks Remington sold out because they built rifles for the Limeys. 
Art Alphin (A-Square) uses the P-14 Enfield and 1917 Enfield actions for his large caliber express rifles. These are mauser style actions with front locking lugs and large diameter bolt. It is also a very long action and is capable of feeding the largest conventional cartridges. Alphin has used them as the platform for .475 A-Squares, various big .500 calibers as well as the awesome .577 Tyranosaur.
The No 5 carbine mentioned uses a weaker, rear-lugged Lee Enfield action, a variant of the actions used on No 4 MkI/MkII and No1 Mk III rifles. You will occasionally see Lee-Enfield sporters in calibers which are wildcats of the .303 British, usually of British, Australian, or Canadian origin. New production Enfields would be expensive to manufacture and less capable than their Mauser style counterparts.
It is true that the Lee-Enfield action is weaker and a bit more complex than Mauser 98 rifles, it is also very smooth and fast, has a large magazine capacity (for a bolt rifle), is easy to clean under battle-field conditions. The No 4 rifles are superior to Mauser rifles in one respect, that being the ease of correcting head spacing. Bolt heads of different sizes can be fitted to correct head space. Mauser rifles would require rebarreling, chamber work, or a barrel set back to correct headspace problems.
No 4 Enfields have been converted to 7.62NATO (not to be confused with .308) sucessfully, so they are fairly capable. When Gibbs first hinted at the .45-70 Enfields, some posters did calculations to estimate the acceptable chamber pressure for the .45-70. The action should be safe with all Winchester, Federal, etc loads, and has the ability to go a bit higher. The safety factor was only marginal when it comes the 40K PSI Buffalo Bore-type loads, where the bolt thrust may cause locking lug set back with repeated firings.
The No 5 carbine mentioned uses a weaker, rear-lugged Lee Enfield action, a variant of the actions used on No 4 MkI/MkII and No1 Mk III rifles. You will occasionally see Lee-Enfield sporters in calibers which are wildcats of the .303 British, usually of British, Australian, or Canadian origin. New production Enfields would be expensive to manufacture and less capable than their Mauser style counterparts.
It is true that the Lee-Enfield action is weaker and a bit more complex than Mauser 98 rifles, it is also very smooth and fast, has a large magazine capacity (for a bolt rifle), is easy to clean under battle-field conditions. The No 4 rifles are superior to Mauser rifles in one respect, that being the ease of correcting head spacing. Bolt heads of different sizes can be fitted to correct head space. Mauser rifles would require rebarreling, chamber work, or a barrel set back to correct headspace problems.
No 4 Enfields have been converted to 7.62NATO (not to be confused with .308) sucessfully, so they are fairly capable. When Gibbs first hinted at the .45-70 Enfields, some posters did calculations to estimate the acceptable chamber pressure for the .45-70. The action should be safe with all Winchester, Federal, etc loads, and has the ability to go a bit higher. The safety factor was only marginal when it comes the 40K PSI Buffalo Bore-type loads, where the bolt thrust may cause locking lug set back with repeated firings.
I was actually researching the feasibility of having a rough-use gun built on an SMLE action last night.
I would be using a fairly low-pressure cartridge, so I believe the major challenge would be rim diameter. IIRC, the rim diameter is .540, which is considerably larger than the pistol calibers I would like to chamber for (I would really like a fast 16" bl "full-capacity".41 Magnum carbine!).
I would be using a fairly low-pressure cartridge, so I believe the major challenge would be rim diameter. IIRC, the rim diameter is .540, which is considerably larger than the pistol calibers I would like to chamber for (I would really like a fast 16" bl "full-capacity".41 Magnum carbine!).
Spectre-
Have you given up in your quest for a .454 Casull Rifle? I seem to remember you mentioning it in posts about the NEF and in the gun smithing section.
I've heard of Enfields rechambered to .45LC, .45ACP, 10mm, .44Mag , .444 Marlin, .45-70, .45-90, to name a few. It should be able to handle the .41 Mag, although feeding might be a problem. The pistol caliber ones had modifications for pistol magazine feed, which compensated for the short cartridge length. Looked a bit like the DeLisle silenced carbine, minus the bolt mods and sound suppressor, of course.
Have you given up in your quest for a .454 Casull Rifle? I seem to remember you mentioning it in posts about the NEF and in the gun smithing section.
I've heard of Enfields rechambered to .45LC, .45ACP, 10mm, .44Mag , .444 Marlin, .45-70, .45-90, to name a few. It should be able to handle the .41 Mag, although feeding might be a problem. The pistol caliber ones had modifications for pistol magazine feed, which compensated for the short cartridge length. Looked a bit like the DeLisle silenced carbine, minus the bolt mods and sound suppressor, of course.