Ammunition of higher pressure is not to NATO specs and should not be used. The е…ѓ9 and L42 and the Envoy and Enforcer were and are well capable of handling ammunition made to the normal 7.62x51 service pressure. if they cannot support the shooters then why should we support them?Д§.62x51 is supposed to be manufactured to a certain CIP mean maximum chamber pressure.

I have not stepped foot onto Bisley camp in over a decade now and dropped my membership before that even. The NRA dictat was posted around the camp and in the NRA offices. In fact the Germans thought they were facing a company of Machine guns not riflemen. Barrels had a short life in such circumstances. One officer got a medal for running along the rampart with an oil can dropping oil onto the bolts of the riflemen as he passed to stop them seizing due tot eh heat caused by the rapid fire they were putting down. Also the short service life in the trenches during WW1 was due to the amount of ammunition expended. The specifications and acceptance procedures were laid down and are still available and the bores dimension tolerances were loosed in WW2. They changed the bullet design and weight slightly three times in that period and also the primer size and type. I also had some French 303 from WW1 to 1930. I had a collection of WW2 303 cartridges and the worst was Winchester.

Empire manufactured 303 ammunition was not an issue however American 303 was often of such poor quality it was only used in machine guns where accuracy was not an issue as such. It was this line which was taken down and shipped to the US. The NRA at Bilsey just followed like sheep as per normal after all they would never stand up for the British shooters.ДЄlso the first P-14's were built at Enfield Lock on the machinery used to make the Patter 13 rifles on which the pattern 14 is based. It was in New Zealand that several converted No 4's failed I believe which led to an out right ban on their use in the competitions. 303 bullets were also a continuing issue.Actually issued ammunition was only used in certain competitions. The British inspectors made that decision.The British sent inspection teams whenever they had any weapon or machinery built by contract in the USA just as the Russians and everyone else did.Variations in Enfield bore size were just as great if not greater during and before WW1 as they were in WW2. Its not a handload its simply loaded to the upper end of CIP pressure standards yet well within the safety limits of stronger modern actions.Why should the owners of more modern rifles used in these competitions limit themselves to the lower chamber pressure standards just to accomodate the owners of converted No.4 rifles?So long as you don't enter the matches where that higher pressure ammunition is the standard they could care less whether you reproof your rifle.Enfield never mass produced the P-14, Gunmakers in the U S used American Prat & Whitney machinery and gauges, not anything built in England.Vickers had contracted to produce the P-14 but that deal fell through.The only P-14 rifles with interchangeability issues were the early Winchesters which is why Winchester lost the contract and very few Winchester P-14's were built. Instead the NRA provided the ammunition for those competitions to keep the playing field level.In Police matches there was a big stink when one team was found to be using handloads in their Enforcers, but thats an entirely different issue.The Radway Green and other quality 7.62 matchgrade ammunition that the NRA had previously provided was no longer available in quantity so the NRA contracted for a more modern and powerful matchgrade 7.62 ammo from the continent.The chamber pressure of the new ammo is higher than that of the Radway Green ammunition previously used. Brit Hunter wroteYou seem to have been relying on comments made by others than actually reading the NRA safety warnings themselves.Handloads were not allowed in the competitions that this requirement refered to.

Pattern 14 enfield accuracy