Ishapore 2A1

attachment.php


http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51942

I got my Ishapore in September 1999 for $69.95 from Gibbs, through Shotgun News.
I spent $40 for a scope mount.
The rifle would have had to appreciate from $70 to $1294 in 16 years to keep up with the stock market @20% compounded annually.

Back then I had some steel case bulgarian 7.62x51 ammo that was 10 cents a shot delivered. That ammo was by far the best in my Ishapore, but I never figured out why.

That was before I started writing up range reports, and I have not shot it since.
 
Which would they be? Id be interested in checking them out.
Click to expand...
The best source I've found is those "all in one loadbooks", I have a couple of them & they have 3 or 4 sections with separate load tables for the two. Its mostly charge weight differences to allow for reduced internal capacity. Winchester used to have a specific sub section as well.
 
The rifle would have had to appreciate from $70 to $1294 in 16 years to keep up with the stock market @20% compounded annually.
Click to expand...

Don't be surprised if it does just that. I bought a few for $16.00 each that were missing minor parts (buttplates, safeties, sling swivels, etc.) about 15 years ago from Century and sold them for $400-425 recently after investing (on the average) $15-25 in parts to fix them up. That's not a bad return. I also bought some .303s in similar condition and made good money on them as well. I don't see any of this stuff getting cheaper as time passes.
 
Last edited:
Pretty much the same as any other old MilSurp.
Matching numbers on receiver, bolt, forend & nosecap (magazine also maybe).
Check the bore condition.
Look for obvious damage neglect, boogered screw heads & so on.
Does it "feel right" working the bolt cycling the action working the cocking piece & checking function of things like the safety.

Gloppy paint is kinda normal on these don't let that put you off.
A little (1/4~3/8") Bolt flip on firing is normal.
The trigger is suppose to have 2 (actually 3) stages. 1 is floppy & free, 2 is light steady pressure (3~5Lbs), 3 is "snap" at about 4~7Lbs.

Its much easier if you can actually handle before buying, rather than on line sales that don't offer that option.
 
The feeding problems?
Its just a design feature from way back. You have to remember this is a design from the 1890's, magazines weren't thought of as "disposable" or "Interchangeable" back then. At least not in the modern "empty, dump slam in another" sense of the term. The mags were designed to be permanently attached & refilled through the action with chargers.

The front lips are a bit more delicate than modern ones because they were supposed to stay inside the stock & receiver except for removal for cleaning.

The easiest way to fix a mis-feeding mag is with action proving dummies. You basically make 3 or 4 inert duplicates of a live round & use them to test the fit & feeding. What you want is the tip of the bullet to contact the center of the feed ramp about 1/4 to 1/3 of the way up & then have the magazine lips free the shoulder allowing the bolt to push the now free floating case into the top center of the ramp & then into the chamber.

Adjustment is just a slight bending of the lips till the "inverted "Y" shaped track is created on the feed ramp. Personally I like using a 1/2" dia steel round rod section as its just about right for the curve ypu want to form.
 
The feeding problems?
Its just a design feature from way back.
Click to expand...
I personally think its that the gun was designed to feed cartridges with a rim, and they tried to convert it to rimless cartridges.

The issue with my mag was, it sat to low to allow the rounds to be reliably stripped. If you held up on the bottom of the mag while you worked the bolt, it fed them fine (extraction/ejection, was a different story).

Regardless of how things look, the only way to know, it to shoot them. And that goes for anything, not just the SMLE's. Ive owned quite a few old surplus military rifles over the years, and Ive been very lucky with most of them. My Ishpore was one of three I had an issue with. The other two were M1's.
 
I'm sending my Ishapore in to the local gunsmith.

Hopefully he can make it feed. It seems like there is some vertical play in the mag, and the lips are all wrong. Also the gun sometimes doesn't want to eject fully though it might be the mag doing that??
 
Wog, not sure I agree with post#36.

Yes, the 2A1, is based on a design from the 1890's, but so is the Mdl 98 Mauser.

I read that Even pre-WWI Mauser issues are still considered viable. Mausers were over-designed and over-built, to compensate for any deficiencies in materials.

The 2A1 was, I believe, a post WWII, build, with superior materials to the original '98s.

Designs based on the Mauser '98 are still considered as viable today as ever.

I have never heard of weakness as being considered a design flaw with this design, just deminishing accuracy.
 
Its more the design pressure levels than anything. The .303 was by modern standards a low pressure round the Mauser wasn't.
It seems like there is some vertical play in the mag, and the lips are all wrong.
Click to expand...
Play is bad, it should be locked firmly in place when fitted! A peculiarity of the Lee Enfield design is the fact the bottom (trigger & magazine well & latch) are in no way attached directly to the action including the feed lips! They are designed to just clamp the stock wood between a pair of camming surfaces & a controlled crush of the wood.;)
Because of this things that only affect L-E's (like wood stocks drying & shrinking) come into play for things like magazine positioning. That's why matching serial numbers are so important!

Here's a loaded & empty magazine showing the presentation & lip shape you're looking for.

(Images (c) Wogpotter 2011)

DSCF8801_zps1b3ce802.jpg


DSCF8802_zps09b0a75b.jpg
 
How could a country have an issue rifle with a known defect?

There should be some armory known fix to accompany the .308 Ishapore; otherwise you'd have a high percentage of failures per battle unit; unacceptable no matter how low you make the bar.
 
How could a country have an issue rifle with a known defect?
Click to expand...

Easy, you just apply the principles of calculated risk and cost/benefit.

Used as intended, and taking the overall numbers into account, if the design works adequately well, any "defect" is ignored as inconsequential.

Something dependent on wood shrinkage to be a problem, might well be ignored, because of the odds of enough rifles suffering from that during their estimated service life is miniscule.

Things that can happen, 20,30, 40 years+ AFTER the service life of the arm are inconsequential to the service use of the arm.

Every nation has issued weapons with things that could be called defects. Its a matter of cost, and time.

Good Enough is the enemy of "perfect". When a nation has what they consider good enough, they don't go on until they get perfect, the make, and issue good enough. And they keep doing it, until they recognize when good enough isn't good enough anymore. THEN they go looking for a "better" in the hopes that it will be the new "good enough".
 
One in ten might be ok, every other one makes for lots of battles where.your team gets wiped out. String enough together and its time to invest in a dictionary in your enemy's language.
 
How could a country have an issue rifle with a known defect?

There should be some armory known fix to accompany the .308 Ishapore; otherwise you'd have a high percentage of failures per battle unit; unacceptable no matter how low you make the bar.
Click to expand...
Its an 1890's design feature, not a defect. Armorers had gauges, differing spacers & varying bolt heads to fix such problems as well.
In service magazines were individually numbered & matched. The stocks were regularly oiled so there wasn't a problem. Its actually one of the best battle rifle designs ever as was proven in 2 world wars.
The problem came later when they were ill maintained for decades & non matching parts flung in by importers, something that would never have been allowed in service use.
 
In the terrorist attack a couple of years ago in India, the only rifles I saw in the news reports (carried by Indian Army/Police) were bold action, SMLE?

The terrorists had bags of loaded magazines, for their AK 47s. Shot up everything, had no viable opponents. Walked through the rail station, shooting.

Burned a lovely Hotel. No training was the problem, not the Lee Enfield's.

The Mark4 I was issued in the Royal Signals, National Service, 1954 to 1956, was a brand new never issued (covered in Grease (Cosmoline?) very smooth, very accurate. Made in Canada, the wood was a dark red?

An AK armed person at any range, would have been toast.
 
Is there a way to tell if a .308 SMLE is good to go or not?

I would like one but don't want junk or a "project".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top