The Indian Army’s .303 story

[TwoRivers]

converted from the old style 'let's keep it in place till we need to cleanit and till then let's use the charger clips' old lee enfield mags to the ishapore made .303 'let's slap on the mag now and rack the bolt and do drop the mag to load the next one '...does that explain it better, sir? At least that is what i think sir abhijeet was talking about. :p

Ishapore -made Enfields were standard .303 SMLE Mk.III rifles, with the magazine removable, but loaded with five-round stripper clips from the top, while in the rifle. When this rifle was adapted for the 7.62x51mm Nato round, the magazine had to be boxier in outline to accept ten of the bulkier cartridges, top loaded with stripper clips as before.
So I still don't know what you are trying to say.

[Bhargav]

Very interesting read, thanks for posting !

[Raptor]

converted from the old style 'let's keep it in place till we need to cleanit and till then let's use the charger clips' old lee enfield mags to the ishapore made .303 'let's slap on the mag now and rack the bolt and do drop the mag to load the next one '...does that explain it better, sir? At least that is what i think sir abhijeet was talking about. :p

Ishapore -made Enfields were standard .303 SMLE Mk.III rifles, with the magazine removable, but loaded with five-round stripper clips from the top, while in the rifle. When this rifle was adapted for the 7.62x51mm Nato round, the magazine had to be boxier in outline to accept ten of the bulkier cartridges, top loaded with stripper clips as before.
So I still don't know what you are trying to say.

i beg to differ on that one sir. Ishapore 7.62x51mm 2A1 had a twelve, not ten, round box mag, now my contention made earlier was the indian army post 1965 has not used .303.. To that sir abhijeet said that the indian army also used .303 with a ten round detachable box mag. Now , personally i have not seen or used a .303 made by ishapore and therefore i wrote that i am unaware of any ishapore conversion in .303 . To the best of my knowledge ishapore was only available in 7.62x51 or .308. You may check the facts . Thank you.

[cottage cheese]

The timing of this thread is interesting, I was just completing a series of write ups on older service weapons for the local police museum....
Quite simply, .303 No.1 MkIII and No.1 MkIII* SMLE rifles have been in production at the Rifle Factory Ishapore from 1907 to 1955. In all, about 700,000 such rifles were made in that time period. One mustn't forget that all 'crown' marked rifles don't necessarily mean non-Indian manufacture. In fact Ishapore rifles were marked "GRI" topped by a crown till independence and thence "RFI" topped by the Ashoka Lions. All Lee flavored 303 rifles beginning from the Lee-Metford of 1888 right down the Lee-Enfield share more or less the same action with differences mainly to accommodate manufacturing expediencies. All had more or less the same detachable magazine of 10 shot capacity. (Some Metford's apparently had an 8 rounder but using the same design parameters)... but spare magazines were generally not issued or even considered and more stress was put on reloading from the 5 round chargers.
7.62mm Ishapore Rifle 2A1's were essentially issued with the same thinking in mind. The change in magazine design was obviously necessitated by the new caliber. The confusion about 10 round or 12 round magazine probably came about because 2 more rounds of rimless (and almost parallel) 7.62 rounds could be accommodated in about the same height of magazine that would have been occupied by 10 rounds of rimmed and tapered 303 rounds ... same relation with the Pattern 1914 and the M1917 rifles. More than 10 tapered and rimmed 303 shots would've caused the bottom rounds to sit at a very angle and contribute to stoppages unless the magazine was curved. KF 7.62 rounds used to and still do come packed in 5 round chargers and the Ishapore 2A1 rifle still had that elaborate Lee-Enfield type charger guide bridge so obviously in most situations it would have been simpler to load two chargers (thus 10 shots) and forget about fumbling around with two loose rounds....

[timmy]

Another aspect of the RFI 2A and 2A1 magazines is that the Indian versions were made as 12 round magazines, but some that were imported into the USA were modified to hold only 10 rounds to comply with local laws. I am not fully sure, but I believe California was one state that required the 10 round magazines.

The 2A sights were calibrated to 2000 meters and he 2A1 sights were calibrated to 800 meters.

The key difference between the RFI 2A/2A1 rifles and the SMLE No. 1 Mk III and Mk Iii* rifles was e steel used by the Ishapore arsenal in the RFI versions. Using the Ishapore bolt action rifle as a reserve rifle chambered in the same caliber as the FN FAL selected as the main battle rifle seemed a good idea, but the old SMLE design was not strong enough to handle this more powerful round. Ishapore engineers used a stronger steel to give the old design an extended life in 7.62x51 NATO.

[timmy]

@ Raptor - actually both (.303 & 7.62 SMLE's) are still in use, an easy way to tell the difference is to simply look at the shape of the magazine. The 7.62 SMLE's have a "boxier" looking magazine.

Cheers!
Abhijeet

I have neither seen nor fired the converted .303

What is a "converted .303"?

a SMLE with a detachable box mag in .303 caliber...please refer to sir abhijeet's post above.

Well, OK, all SMLEs in .303 caliber had detachable magazines, and Abhijeet's post didn't mention anything about a conversion or a detachable ability. Your answer is simple and straightforward, but didn't address the question I asked... :-/. Whatever, I guess.

[Raptor]

sir tim , firstly, thank you for your write up. Secondly the conversions i was referring to are as follows:

a) sight caliberation changed from imperial to metric standards.
B) a more linear 'over barrel' furniture
c) a quadrangular box mag with front bottom corner at a gradient
d) more simplified sights on the mark IV
e) different grips
and as you youself pointed out in the post above, different markings. But you know, whatever..

[winnie_the_pooh]

Raptor, The detachable box magazine is not meant to be detached except in certain circumstances. Some versions of the Enfield had a chain on the mag to prevent it being 'misplaced'.Loading was/is always to be by using charger clips.Infact,if you take out a loaded magazine,in majority of the cases the rounds will start popping out.

[Raptor]

Raptor, The detachable box magazine is not meant to be detached except in certain circumstances. Some versions of the Enfield had a chain on the mag to prevent it being 'misplaced'.Loading was/is always to be by using charger clips.Infact,if you take out a loaded magazine,in majority of the cases the rounds will start popping out.

thank you, thank you, thank you! Sir, that was exactly my point...however the RFI took care of that. Now as far as i know the slap on detachable box mag was available only for the .308 but there have been some claims here that RFI made the same conversions to their .303 models as well. Like i mentioned earlier i have not seen or fired any converted .303s.

Sir pooh i thank you with all my heart for presenting this information so emphatically

[winnie_the_pooh]

Raptor The IOF did not convert any 303 rifles to 7.62.ALL 7.62 SMLE's made by them were purpose built as 7.62 rifles. India only made the No1 MkIII rifle.These rifles made in 303 would not have been able to take the pressure of the 7.62 cartridge.

There are 303 rifles converted to 7.62 but these were No4 rifles and none of these conversions were done in India.India never produced any No4 (Mk1 or 2 ) rifles.The ones that you see in service with the police (No4 Mk1 or 2) are either the ones that came to India at the end of WWII or the ones Indian's captured from the Pakistan'is.

CC, rifles were made after 1955 as well.I do believe some were produced as late as the early '80's

[timmy]

Raptor:

1. Winnie is exactly right. No .303 SMLE rifle was converted to shoot 7.62x51. The RFI 2A and 2A1 is a completely different rifle, engineered from the ground up to be made out of a stronger grade of steel. An SMLE cannot be successfully converted to 7.62x51 NATO caliber. It is not strong enough and will soon fail if converted.

Bottom line: The RFI rifle is not a conversion of an SMLE.

2. The RFI magazine and the SMLE magazine are both detachable. The magazines of both rifles are both held on the same way. The magazines are shaped differently because they hold different cartridges. But the magazines of both rifles are held on the same way. If you had ever handled both rifles, you would understand this.

3. When I have asked you questions, you have not answered them. You go on to give lengthy explanations to other questions and apparently try to pass those off as a proof that you know what you are talking about in this thread. It is evident to me that you do not. Please remember that other members are reading your posts and could be misled by your misinformation.

[Raptor]

Raptor:

1. Winnie is exactly right. No .303 SMLE rifle was converted to shoot 7.62x51. The RFI 2A and 2A1 is a completely different rifle, engineered from the ground up to be made out of a stronger grade of steel. An SMLE cannot be successfully converted to 7.62x51 NATO caliber. It is not strong enough and will soon fail if converted.

Bottom line: The RFI rifle is not a conversion of an SMLE.

2. The RFI magazine and the SMLE magazine are both detachable. The magazines of both rifles are both held on the same way. The magazines are shaped differently because they hold different cartridges. But the magazines of both rifles are held on the same way. If you had ever handled both rifles, you would understand this.

3. When I have asked you questions, you have not answered them. You go on to give lengthy explanations to other questions and apparently try to pass those off as a proof that you know what you are talking about in this thread. It is evident to me that you do not. Please remember that other members are reading your posts and could be misled by your misinformation.

sir timmy you are entitled to your opinion but if you read my posts carefully i'm sure you will revise it. At least i have fired an ishapore 7.62 and that is good enough for me. I suggest you read what's written .That's all.

[timmy]

Raptor:

1. Winnie is exactly right. No .303 SMLE rifle was converted to shoot 7.62x51. The RFI 2A and 2A1 is a completely different rifle, engineered from the ground up to be made out of a stronger grade of steel. An SMLE cannot be successfully converted to 7.62x51 NATO caliber. It is not strong enough and will soon fail if converted.

Bottom line: The RFI rifle is not a conversion of an SMLE.

2. The RFI magazine and the SMLE magazine are both detachable. The magazines of both rifles are both held on the same way. The magazines are shaped differently because they hold different cartridges. But the magazines of both rifles are held on the same way. If you had ever handled both rifles, you would understand this.

3. When I have asked you questions, you have not answered them. You go on to give lengthy explanations to other questions and apparently try to pass those off as a proof that you know what you are talking about in this thread. It is evident to me that you do not. Please remember that other members are reading your posts and could be misled by your misinformation.

sir timmy you are entitled to your opinion but if you read my posts carefully i'm sure you will revise it. At least i have fired an ishapore 7.62 and that is good enough for me. I suggest you read what's written .That's all.

Your post implies that I have not already read your posts carefully, but that is false. I have read them carefully, and you have not responded to my challenges. You are stating that the RFI is a conversion, you are stating that SMLE magazines are not detachable but RFI magazines are, and you are not responding to the challenges I've made to your false assertions. Wether you have read my posts carefully or not, I do not know, but the impression you give is that you are purposely trying to avoid admitting that you've been called out and found wrong on these issues and that you are still trying to assert you know what you are talking about.

You may have fired an RFI rifle, but that does not mean you know anything about whether it was a conversion from an SMLE, which it is not, or whether an SMLE magazine is detachable just like an RFI, which it is.

So, if you have truly fired an RFI 2A or 2A1, or if you have not and come over here and shoot the one I own, the statements you have made in this thread are incorrect, and when challenged on these points, you have refused to respond or admit you're wrong. Rather you have tried to obfuscate while maintaining some supposed knowledge on the subject being discussed.

You do not have that knowledge, sir; you have been wrong on a number of counts, and you potentially could mislead other readers. I hope you will not require a careful reading of what I am saying to understand my point here. I am sure our other readers will not.

[TwoRivers]

[quote"Raptor"]



i beg to differ on that one sir. Ishapore 7.62x51mm 2A1 had a twelve, not ten, round box mag, now my contention made earlier was the indian army post 1965 has not used .303.. To that sir abhijeet said that the indian army also used .303 with a ten round detachable box mag. Now , personally i have not seen or used a .303 made by ishapore and therefore i wrote that i am unaware of any ishapore conversion in .303 . To the best of my knowledge ishapore was only available in 7.62x51 or .308. You may check the facts . Thank you.

You may differ all you want. Ishapore started production of the .303 Lee-Enfield for the Anglo-Indian Army in 1907; with conversion of older pattern rifles having been performed the two previous years. You are the one who should check facts before making mistaken claims on the forum.
Rather than checking the "facts", I simply checked the magazine capacity of the two Indian Lee-Enfield 7.62x51 rifles on hand. Loading manually, the magazines accept 11 rounds. That, with one up the spout could well make it a "twelve-shooter" in Indian parlance. But I am willing to bet that the Indian Army issued its ammo on five-round clips; not on 5 1/5 round clips, or half on 5-round, and half on six-round clips. The extra capacity of the magazine is required to allow clip loading. since the last round has to be pressed below the magazine lips in loading.

[Grumpy]

Very frustrating that the above thread was locked because there is definitely still mileage in it and nobody that I noticed picked-up on the errors in the opening paragraphs which are bizarrely confused and confusing.
I`d like to know just what Jacob Snider had to do with the .303 or SMLE ...... apart from nothing at all.
He designed the Snider Enfield but that was never chambered for the .303 and was obsolete before the .303 was introduced - although undeniably in use in various parts of the Empire. He certainly didn`t design the SMLE.
Likewise Rudyard Kipling mentions a Snider in `The Grave of The Hundred Head` - he doesn`t mention an SMLE and doesn`t mention the .303. The rifle he referred to probably was a Snider Enfield .... but it still has no relevance to the .303.
Apart from all that, the technical discussion on the Indian produced Lee Enfields was excellent ..... and stopped in it`s prime.