"Ask the Rabbi" by R. Mermelstein
QUESTION: Dear Rabbi
Mermelstein:
I have just purchased an Enfield rifle (2A1) made in India and
designed for the .308 round. I am considering another rifle in the
.308. I want to stay with the .308 to simplify my ammunition stock. My
rifle gives 3-inch groups at 100 yards which is good for an older
military rifle; at least that's what I have been told. Do you see this
as a reasonable choice for target shooting and self defense? It is so
inexpensive that I am considering getting a second one and getting it
accurized. I am also considering an M1 Garand (to be converted to .308)
or an M1A (civilian M14), both of which are more expensive, but of
questionable improvement in performance. There is an IDF sniper version
of the M14 also available which should be much more accurate, but with
a substantial increase in cost. What would you recommend?
I am open to other Rifles, but I like the bolt actions the best. I also
have a question about military surplus ammunition. I see both boxer
primed and berdan primed versions of the NATO round. Is there a safety
consideration between the two? I have been told that commercial .308 is
"hotter" than the NATO round and that the commercial ammunition uses
thinner or softer brass. Is that true and is it a problem? Should I
keep non FMJ ammunition on hand?
Thank You
Ray Roseman
27 Oct 1999
ANSWER: Dear Mr. Roseman,
Recently I've been corresponding
with a very knowledgeable collector of surplus military arms. He took
me to task for giving my blessing (no pun intended) to the use of
commercial .308 Win. ammunition in converted Enfield rifles.
While I've never heard of an action failure due to such ammunition in
converted surplus rifles, perhaps he has a point. Commercial .308
ammunition is loaded to a SAAMI average maximum pressure of 52,000 cup.
This may be in excess of 7.62 NATO rounds. The correspondent also
pointed out that there is no standardized spec for NATO rifle rounds;
something that I was unaware of if it's true. My rather complete
library of texts regarding all aspects of small arms ammunition make no
mention of this, and I've hit a dead end trying to research the matter.
The correspondent questions the safety of such converted rifles even
when "NATO spec" ammunition is used exclusively.
Many of these conversions are made on Enfield rifles, among several
others, by Century Arms in St. Albans, VT. They are a reputable firm,
and surely aware of liability issues in turning out inherently unsafe
converted rifles. Pending further investigation, it may be wise to err
on the side of caution using these conversions.
Regarding any safety concerns between Boxer and Berdan primed
ammunition, I feel confident to state that none exist. Assuming primers
within the same heat range and sensitivity are used, a single or double
flash hole is merely two different ways to deliver the primer's spark
to the propellant charge.
I have previously written on another post in this column that there is
no dimensional difference between NATO and US commercial .308 rounds.
The Illustrated Reference of Cartridge Dimensions, published by Wolfe
Publishing, does not show separate entries for the two. While some
commercial .308 rifles may have minimum spec chambers and not accept
NATO ball cartridges, as my correspondent argues, I've never seen or
heard of such an occurrence.
It is entirely a matter of your preference whether you choose a
converted Garand or one of the many versions of the M14. I would,
though, avoid the M1A clone once imported into the US by Norinco (China
Sports). These rifles are made with metric parts, none of which are
interchangeable with American M1A parts. Other scathing reports have
been written of them, as well, pointing out faults that go well beyond
metric dimensions.
Sincerely,
R. Mermelstein
Click
here to write Rabbi Mermelstein your questions!
[Back to "Ask
the
Rabbi"]