IOF 315 rifle and cartridge

[riflemarksman]

I would not recommend buying the IOF .315 Rifle.
The Quality is not the same as it was 7+ years earlier.
It is an excellent Cartridge/Bore.
There are however issues with the IOF Rifle (Bolt, Feeding, Ejection, Magazine etc.).
The famous Lakhpat Singh Rawat has shot numerous Man Eaters with this Rifle.
He has killed 51 Man-Eaters (49 Leopards and 2 Tigers).
Even most Gun Shops have stopped selling the IOF 315 Rifle, as there were frequent complaints from the Buyers.
I personally love the .315 Cartridge, it is heavier than the 30.06, but has lesser Velocity (Ft./S) and Energy (Ft. Lbf).

Regards,
Jr.

I think the .315 rifle bridges the gap between a 12 bore slug and a .30-06 iof rifle.... I think the low velocity and heavy bullet has its advantages like ........the lesser velocity means more barrel life it has less recoil.... the cost of the rifle is far less than the iof 30-06 .......a good gunsmith can rectify the problems in a newly purchased rifle...

[Timnorris]

Yes I agree with you and although they have increased the price it is still the cheapest big bore rifle one can buy in India. Somebody was saying that it is the top selling Indian rifle.

[Vikram]

The Austro-Hungarian 8×50mmR Mannlicher or 8×50mmR M93 AKA .315 IOF. Found by ElJefe in a local gun shop in Australia.

[shooter50]

It is a most underrated cartridge. That long 244 grain bullet has great penetration, better than a 150/180 grain 3006 in my opinion. The earlier IOF versions were based on the MK3 303 rifles. With a better stock and little gunsmithing work, it is great value for money.

[timmy]

Agreed! The old SMLE action is very smooth and fast operating, and more than strong enough for what it's called to do. For shooting wihtout a scope, the big heavy bullet offers a lot of penetration.

[mundaire]

Relevant to this thread, so posting here:

https://www.firstpost.com/india/315-bor ... 1.html/amp

[Kittu]

I think the .315 rifle bridges the gap between a 12 bore slug and a .30-06 iof rifle.... I think the low velocity and heavy bullet has its advantages like ........the lesser velocity means more barrel life it has less recoil.... the cost of the rifle is far less than the iof 30-06 .......a good gunsmith can rectify the problems in a newly purchased rifle...

There no long life barrel advantage in .315 bore rifle because of hot powder used in it.They are using cordite like small rod propellent it is slow burning
powder and too hot.Barrel gets too much heated after firing 4,5 cartridges and barrel grooves wears out much faster when barrel is too hot.It is also damn very corrosive leave rifle unclean for 2 weeks and barrel will develop rust.compared to iof 3006 iof 315 is much better choice for defense over 3006iof because of high capacity magazine and much faster reloading speed 315 also have very less recoil compared to 3006.I know of many people
who had rivalry with other groups bought 3006 when it was launched and within six months they reverted back to 315.Accuracy,barrel quality,trigger and at longer distances 3006 is much better then 315.

[timmy]

Cordite as a smokeless propellant came in different formulations.

Cordite is a double-based powder, which means that its major components are nitrocellulose and nitroglycerin.

Single based powders only have nitrocellulose as a major component, and tend to burn cooler than double based powders.

Cordite, as originally formulated, was sensitive to temperature variations and, if impurities crept into its manufacture, could become unstable and prone to detonating at inconvenient times.

One thing that must be understood about these smokeless propellants is that they DO NOT explode -- they burn. This burn rate isn't a fixed value, either. Pressure affects burn rate, so that in unconfined burns, they can sometimes tend to "fizzle", while when contained in a cartridge inside the chamber of a firearm, they can burn much faster.

Compare the 30-06 cartridge with the 300 H&H (sometimes called "Holland's Super 30"): When the 300 H&H was first brought out in 1925, its reason for existence was not to provide a more powerful "magnum" load ("magnum" is just a word for a rather large wine bottle!). The 300 H&H was intended to provide 30-06 ballistics in every corner of the British Empire, without its cordite charge being affected by the heat of tropical and semi-tropical or desert conditions (which will raise the working pressure of a fired cartridge). The cartridge was designed with a gentle taper to provide easy extraction under all conditions. Because of the gentle taper, the 300 H&H didn't have the ability to headspace (determine the correct position and fit of the cartridge to the chamber) on the shoulder, just as its parent, the 375 H&H didn't. So, headspacing was determined by the "belt" on the base of the cartridge. The belt was used, rather than a rim, like the 303 had, because rimmed cartridges don't always feed well through bolt action repeaters. The belt enabled the 300 H&H to slide over the cartridge beneath it in the magazine without "rim interlock" jams, while retaining the headspace function similar to a rimmed round.

Soon, folks began to realize that, with powders more modern than cordite, they could obtain faster velocities than the 30-06 provided with the same bullet because of the larger case capacities. This larger case then was called "magnum" (like the large wine bottles) and the sign of a magnum cartridge was the belt, something that was completely superfluous in the later cartridges formed from the 300 H&H case, like 300 Weatherby, 300 Winchester Magnum, and 7mm Remington Magnum. It has only been recently that cartridges have been designed with the diameter of the belt for the length of the cartridge body, allowing even more powder capacity, sometimes in a shorter case.

Unless you have a 375 or 300 H&H, good riddance to the belt! It's not needed! To the "hillbilly" crowd, it symbolized an extra-powerful cartridge, and others thought that it added strength to the case head (which it didn't), but it was simply a leftover from the 300 and 375 H&H cartridges that furnished the cases from which later "magnums" were formed. (I won't comment on the need for cartridges other than 300 and 375 H&H, except to say that I like the 300 H&H very much.)

Famously, the unstable nature of cordite as a propellant was vividly demonstrated at the Battle of Jutland in WW1, where German shells blew up three British Battle Cruisers, each time with the loss of almost all of their crews. This catasrophe was laid at the foot of Admiral John Fisher, whose "brainchild" the Battle Cruisers were, the reason given being that Fisher had the ships designed without enough armor.

The fact of the matter is that British admirals stressed rapid rates of fire, which cause the British to store the extra munitions needed unsafely, filling turrets and passageways with bags of cordite. Hot metal and sparks from German hits ignited these mis-stored charges and, like a trail of powder in the movies, fires led from the turrets to the magazines below.

The Germans, with their more stable single based powder also suffered hits, but, as with Seydlitz at the Battle of Dogger Bank, even destructive fires did not destroy their ships.

But since all of the British high command subscribed to the doctrine of rapidity of fire and the careless storage of propellent that went with it, they could hardly tell the British public that the loss of thousands of their sons, brothers, and husbands was due to their admirals' bungling, it was found better to lay the blame on Fisher (who most of them didn't like anyway) and his ships. Truly, a poor mechanic always blames his tools.

By WW2, the British had largely sorted out their cordite issues.

It is true that the temperature of ignition can burn out barrels, especially the area in front of the chamber. Also, rapid firing without letting a barrel cool down can accomplish this, too. Reasonable care taken while shooting can avoid this, although I will confess that I don't know what IOF uses in their cartridges for propellant -- they may jam cartridges full of crumbled Chinese fireworks, for all I know. But generally, modern ammunition should permit a barrel life of a thousand rounds or more, depending on the intensity of the cartridge the powders used, and often a 30-06 Springfield US Army rifle was said to have a barrel life of 10,000 rounds. That's a lot of shooting!

Regarding the IOF 315, it is a modified SMLE No. 1 Mk III*, with all that this implies. The later upgrade of the No. 1 Mk III* was the No. 4, introduced just before WW2. These were used for sniper rifles. But the really accurate British 303 bolt action rifle was the Enfield Pattern 1914, which was produced in great numbers for the US Army after being rechambered in 30-06. This got around the accuracy problems of the SMLE, which chiefly was concerned with the bedding of the fore stock.

The critical areas of SMLE fore stock bedding are the two bedding areas beside the trigger slot and the proper fit between the rear of the stock and the butt socket. Often, wood that has shrunk causes poor bedding in these areas, to the detriment of accuracy. These are things that a good gunsmith can address in either a SMLE or and IOF 315, with the use of a properly bedded stock.

But stock issues, while they can be addressed, can't totally compensate for the basic design of the rifle.

Unless one is mounting a scope, at practical hunting ranges, I can't see one being very disadvantaged by hunting with an IOF 315, compared to other rifles. But on the range, this is another matter. Still, it does depend on the sort of competition. I have seen videos of Norwegian rifle competion, where in timed fire, the old Krag rifles rivaled semiautomatic 30-06 Garands for rapid, accurate fire. The legendary smoothness of the SMLE would be an advantage in such competion. It would be a diffent matter for other forms of competition, however.

[winnie_the_pooh]

@Ashokgodara
1.The .315 cartridge is not loaded with cordite.
2.All barrels get hot when you fire a rifle. So unless you intend to hold the rifle from the barrel,should not be an issue. The forend is there for a reason.
@timmy
The action of the .315 rifle is not smooth. The fellows at IOF have messed up that as well.

[timmy]

@timmy
The action of the .315 rifle is not smooth. The fellows at IOF have messed up that as well.

@winnie
!!!

My RFI 2A is as smooth as butter. This is shameful.

[winnie_the_pooh]

timmy, the older ones are as you describe. The new ones are rubbish.

[Vikram]

Cordite as a smokeless propellant came in different formulations.

Cordite is a double-based powder, which means that its major components are nitrocellulose and nitroglycerin.

Single based powders only have nitrocellulose as a major component, and tend to burn cooler than double based powders.

Cordite, as originally formulated, was sensitive to temperature variations and, if impurities crept into its manufacture, could become unstable and prone to detonating at inconvenient times.

One thing that must be understood about these smokeless propellants is that they DO NOT explode -- they burn. This burn rate isn't a fixed value, either. Pressure affects burn rate, so that in unconfined burns, they can sometimes tend to "fizzle", while when contained in a cartridge inside the chamber of a firearm, they can burn much faster.

Compare the 30-06 cartridge with the 300 H&H (sometimes called "Holland's Super 30"): When the 300 H&H was first brought out in 1925, its reason for existence was not to provide a more powerful "magnum" load ("magnum" is just a word for a rather large wine bottle!). The 300 H&H was intended to provide 30-06 ballistics in every corner of the British Empire, without its cordite charge being affected by the heat of tropical and semi-tropical or desert conditions (which will raise the working pressure of a fired cartridge). The cartridge was designed with a gentle taper to provide easy extraction under all conditions. Because of the gentle taper, the 300 H&H didn't have the ability to headspace (determine the correct position and fit of the cartridge to the chamber) on the shoulder, just as its parent, the 375 H&H didn't. So, headspacing was determined by the "belt" on the base of the cartridge. The belt was used, rather than a rim, like the 303 had, because rimmed cartridges don't always feed well through bolt action repeaters. The belt enabled the 300 H&H to slide over the cartridge beneath it in the magazine without "rim interlock" jams, while retaining the headspace function similar to a rimmed round.

Soon, folks began to realize that, with powders more modern than cordite, they could obtain faster velocities than the 30-06 provided with the same bullet because of the larger case capacities. This larger case then was called "magnum" (like the large wine bottles) and the sign of a magnum cartridge was the belt, something that was completely superfluous in the later cartridges formed from the 300 H&H case, like 300 Weatherby, 300 Winchester Magnum, and 7mm Remington Magnum. It has only been recently that cartridges have been designed with the diameter of the belt for the length of the cartridge body, allowing even more powder capacity, sometimes in a shorter case.

Unless you have a 375 or 300 H&H, good riddance to the belt! It's not needed! To the "hillbilly" crowd, it symbolized an extra-powerful cartridge, and others thought that it added strength to the case head (which it didn't), but it was simply a leftover from the 300 and 375 H&H cartridges that furnished the cases from which later "magnums" were formed. (I won't comment on the need for cartridges other than 300 and 375 H&H, except to say that I like the 300 H&H very much.)

Famously, the unstable nature of cordite as a propellant was vividly demonstrated at the Battle of Jutland in WW1, where German shells blew up three British Battle Cruisers, each time with the loss of almost all of their crews. This catasrophe was laid at the foot of Admiral John Fisher, whose "brainchild" the Battle Cruisers were, the reason given being that Fisher had the ships designed without enough armor.

The fact of the matter is that British admirals stressed rapid rates of fire, which cause the British to store the extra munitions needed unsafely, filling turrets and passageways with bags of cordite. Hot metal and sparks from German hits ignited these mis-stored charges and, like a trail of powder in the movies, fires led from the turrets to the magazines below.

The Germans, with their more stable single based powder also suffered hits, but, as with Seydlitz at the Battle of Dogger Bank, even destructive fires did not destroy their ships.

But since all of the British high command subscribed to the doctrine of rapidity of fire and the careless storage of propellent that went with it, they could hardly tell the British public that the loss of thousands of their sons, brothers, and husbands was due to their admirals' bungling, it was found better to lay the blame on Fisher (who most of them didn't like anyway) and his ships. Truly, a poor mechanic always blames his tools.

By WW2, the British had largely sorted out their cordite issues.

It is true that the temperature of ignition can burn out barrels, especially the area in front of the chamber. Also, rapid firing without letting a barrel cool down can accomplish this, too. Reasonable care taken while shooting can avoid this, although I will confess that I don't know what IOF uses in their cartridges for propellant -- they may jam cartridges full of crumbled Chinese fireworks, for all I know. But generally, modern ammunition should permit a barrel life of a thousand rounds or more, depending on the intensity of the cartridge the powders used, and often a 30-06 Springfield US Army rifle was said to have a barrel life of 10,000 rounds. That's a lot of shooting!

Regarding the IOF 315, it is a modified SMLE No. 1 Mk III*, with all that this implies. The later upgrade of the No. 1 Mk III* was the No. 4, introduced just before WW2. These were used for sniper rifles. But the really accurate British 303 bolt action rifle was the Enfield Pattern 1914, which was produced in great numbers for the US Army after being rechambered in 30-06. This got around the accuracy problems of the SMLE, which chiefly was concerned with the bedding of the fore stock.

The critical areas of SMLE fore stock bedding are the two bedding areas beside the trigger slot and the proper fit between the rear of the stock and the butt socket. Often, wood that has shrunk causes poor bedding in these areas, to the detriment of accuracy. These are things that a good gunsmith can address in either a SMLE or and IOF 315, with the use of a properly bedded stock.

But stock issues, while they can be addressed, can't totally compensate for the basic design of the rifle.

Unless one is mounting a scope, at practical hunting ranges, I can't see one being very disadvantaged by hunting with an IOF 315, compared to other rifles. But on the range, this is another matter. Still, it does depend on the sort of competition. I have seen videos of Norwegian rifle competion, where in timed fire, the old Krag rifles rivaled semiautomatic 30-06 Garands for rapid, accurate fire. The legendary smoothness of the SMLE would be an advantage in such competion. It would be a diffent matter for other forms of competition, however.

Tim,

Always a few things to learn from your posts. Thank you.

[timmy]

timmy, the older ones are as you describe. The new ones are rubbish.

Winnie, when I got the 2A, it was so smooth, just like any SMLE I'd handled, but it was better, for the metallurgy had been upgraded to take the intensity of the 7.62x51 NATO round. Seeing the Asoka on the butt socket, I had to have it! I showed it to a friend of mine, who was a medical student at the time and had little familiarity with guns. He was, in fact, negative toward them. When he saw the Asoka, it was clear his impressions were immediately altered. Such an impression indicates something in which one can take pride.

That IOF would have bungled the new manufacture of such a rifle is so sad. How an attitude of excellence can be inculcated when the production of inferior goods is tolerated, or even encouraged, by foolish notions and theories totally escapes me.

Always a few things to learn from your posts. Thank you.

Yes, sir! I'd always thought that the purpose of 300 H&H was to obtain a more powerful cartridge. I found out otherwise, and knowing your appreciation for that chambering, thought I'd drop that tidbit here.

It turns out that the "wildcatters" and factories had not developed a better "magnum", but had diverted the 300 H&H case's purpose and used it for a different end. I think that I'd like to have one again!

[Rajput93]

Following Arms (Amendment) Act 2019 we had to surrender our 315 rifle (bought in late 80s) which was endorsed against my uncle's license and all the other license holder in the family already held 02 weapons. Now I have an opening against my arms license and we are contemplating to apply for retrieval of the rifle. The armorer at local police station where this rifle was surrendered has advised that we should not let this weapon go as after certain period it will be auctioned.
Is it worth the effort or should we go for new purchase?

315.jpg

[hornet22]

I think you should get the rifle back and if you want to upgrade it to some new rifle you can always sell this one and buy a new rifle of your choice.