Indians For Guns

Anyone seen Lee-Enfields in 30.06 in India?

Had seen some Lee-Enfield in 7.62 mm- long time ago ( perhaps 20 years ago )... it was a SSB outfit. Lee-Enfield with it's strong long action- would have been a better platform for the Indian Ordnance Factories Idiots for production of 30.06 rifle- what with availability of Millions of surplus actions available all over India- but they had to go with what they are now dishing out....

The Lee Enfield action as such is not strong enough for the .30-06 cartridge. Even the 7.62mm version is a modified, much strengthened action that was an interim designed before the pirated SLRs supposedly designed by our IOF kicked in with the Indian Armed forces.
Considering such a major strengthening redesign had to take place with regard to the 7.62mm, I guess you could probably do it to accommodate the .30-06 cartridge as well but the resultant abomination might not look anything like a Lee Enfield anymore nor would it likely be cost effective to do it, considering there are many more rifle designs that our IOF could copy( which I guess they eventually did)

The big advantage with the action of the Lee Enfield is its slick action and speed of operation, but it is limited by its rear locking lugs, which is not as strong as the Mauser action or for that matter most other actions including the Sauer202( which the IOF 30-06 is a copy of) which lock at the front.
regards,
Anand

Skyman

No you can not find any Lee-Enfield action in 3006 caliber. First Lee-Enfield come out in 303 British and later on they converted in to 7.62 NATO ( 7.62x51MM )or .308 caliber and both caliber are prohibited in India.


Here is a link for more info. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee-Enfield

Baljit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1917_Enfield

There is, sir.

Skyman wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1917_Enfield

There is, sir.

That is not a Lee Enfield.

As far as M1917's go,they are easy to find.

The American Enfield then.I stand corrected.Have you shot them and what is your opinion on them? Are they cheaper than an IOF 30.06?

hi skyman you are correct its known as 1917 enfield.It was designed in U.K and three companies were given contracts.Remington.winchester and eddystone which was infect a remington firm in eddystone.so if you find 3006 made by eddystone its a remington.M1917 was designed to accept a diffrrent cartridge.But all three firm were slow to produse rifles in time and england was ingaged in world war1 and they gave away away idea of new rifle to prevent its arm forcece from mistakenly supply ammo of diffrent caliber.When US entered war there was a huge demand of weapons from alies countries.It was the time when steel was more valuble than gold.Ships loaded with tones of gold sailed from england to usa andthey didnt hadthe placetokeep themsafe.It was the time when american sought those enfield barrels and decided to use their m06 cartridges in them.That is the reason we find 5 grooves in 1917 model thanks

The Pattern 17 was the 30-06 version of the Pattern 14.
Pattern 17 Enfields are strong actions ..... VERY strong actions.

Grumpy wrote:The Pattern 17 was the 30-06 version of the Pattern 14.
Pattern 17 Enfields are strong actions ..... VERY strong actions.

Grumpy says it! The videos on the web of the 577 Tyrannosaur is built on a P14/P17 action.

So it is safe to say that it can take more than the shooter can!

[youtube][/youtube]

If any of you have shot/handled them, please share your opinion.

Fired a P17. Small stock. I was a converted bolt action.
Not very accurate as the barrel had been shot out,
But, in india cant even get a replacement barrel.

Oh.But other than the IOF made rifles, it think parts for other rifles are hard to come by no?

It`s pretty much a waste of time trying to convey to someone else how a rifle shoots. It depends so much on how one person is built compared to another ..... and sporterised rifles are very different from the original military versions. Unmodified Enfield P14s/P17s are heavy - pretty much the same as M1s I reckon. The M1 has a MUCH better shaped grip and stock than the P14/P17 or any version of the Lee Enfield in my opinion. Mauser K98s have better stocks/grips than the Enfields/Lee Enfields but nowhere near as good as the M1. They`re lighter than just about all the others as well. Lee Enfields feel slick compared to the other bolt action rifles but not, I think as positive. A nice Lee Speed feels particularly good.
Replace the military barrel with a shorter, tapered barrel and you alter the weight, the handling and the balance of a rifle. Replacing the stock for a shorter, sporter style with a higher and straighter comb and a full pistol grip makes a huge difference to how a rifle feels. The sporting fore-ends are also invariably shorter the original military versions and the handguard is thrown away at the same time. A sporting stock doesn`t need to provide protection to the barrel and a civilian rifle is highly unlikely to be fired at a rate fast enough to necessitate the use of a handguard to avoid burns. In the case of the P14/P17 the rear sight `dog-ears` are invariably ground off on sporterised rifles ..... mostly because they`re so damn ugly ! Most sporterised P17s are based on Remington or Winchester actions because the Eddystone was not as well made. The heavily kranked P14/P17 bolt handle is often straightened or replaced as well.
By the way, it`s very naughty and incorrect to refer to the `P14, Pattern 14, P17 and Pattern 17` ...... unfortunately the experts can`t always agree what the P14 should be called but the 30-06 is the `United States Rifle, Cal. .30, Model of 1917 .....
The P13/P14 came about because it was found in the Boer War that the Mauser M93 and M95 in 7x57 were more accurate than the Lee Enfield and ( unhurried ) development brought about the Enfield P13 .276 cal. which was basically a near copy of the Mauser m98. The P13 became the P14 in .303. WWI conditions were very different from those in South Africa with rate of fire more critical than accuracy. The Lee Enfield cycled faster than the Mausers and had double the magazine capacity which meant that in practice the Lee Enfield had a rate of fire CONSIDERABLY faster than the M98.
The Ishapore 2A and 2A1 7.62x51 rifles were not - as has been pointed-out in another thread - modified/strengthened Lee Enfields but built from the ground up as a 7.62 rifle. The design was fundamentally that of the SMLE MKIII* but the receivers were built of superior steel and dedicated 7.62x51 barrels were fitted.
All variants of the Rifle No. 4 are strong enough to handle the 30-06 and a great many other calibres.

Skyman,
I dont know whether to laugh at you or be mad at you.
What parts of which IOF products are available in the market for you to justify your previous statement?