Enfield not mk I* safety

[BoogieMan]

I posted some time ago about this same issue. I have finally found the time to address it. I bought the rifle for $100 without a safety. Ordered several from numerich before getting what I think is the correct one.
When the rifle is cocked and set the safety the striker moves back slightly and rotates clockwise very slightly. If I then pull the trigger I can feel resistance on the trigger. The sear then will not reset. If I then turn the safety off the striker will drop to the half cock position. From what I can see the half round rod on the safety is a little short and causes the striker to cam off and rotate. This allows the sear to contact the striker. If I hold the striker from rotating the sear moves when I pull the trigger but then resets.
The safety doesn't have a lot of wear on it and it appears to be correct except slightly short on the half round section. I am planning on tig welding the tip to extend it by about .05". This should fix the problem.
I would like to hear thoughts from some of you that know more about the enfield than I do.

 

[wogpotter]

Are you sure the multi-start thread is engaged on the correct position?
90% of safety problems are caused by using the wrong thread start.

 

[BoogieMan]

I have moved the multi lead thread until I found the correct position. I have also removed the bolt locking ring (multi thread nut) and use the striker block only so that I can isolate the problem.

 

[BoogieMan]

The problem is as if the seer is to long. I also have a no 5 jc. Pulled the working safety from that and installed in the no 4. I am having the exact same issue.
Not sure is I mentioned or if it matters. This is a savage marked us property.

 

[wogpotter]

Might the sear be in there upside down? Its not 100% symmetrical.

 

[BoogieMan]

The seer is not even close in length from one side to the other. I have not removed it. Not that that means it's in correct. But it appears correct to me. The long leg engages the cocking part. Short side to the trigger.

 

[tangolima]

The safety should cam back the cocking piece (you called it striker) so much that it is totally off the sear. The wear could be in the notch in the cocking piece. The cocking piece should not noticeably rotate when the safety is being engaged. If it does, it "steals" from the camming back motion of the cocking piece.

I would try to stop the rotation. Peen or tig weld the safety. Shortening the sear works too.

The engagement between the safety and cocking piece should be positive. The cocking piece should go back while the safety is being engaged.

-TL

 

[BoogieMan]

On my no 5 the cocking piece moves back noticeably, .03 or so. Seeing as the cocking piece, safety, and seer all show no wear on the no 4 I am assuming something is out of spec.
Does anyone have the measurements or prints for the seer and cocking piece? I think that the best bet is to grind the seer seating surface on the cocking piece back by .02 or so. Shortening the seer would thicken the contact area and it may not catch properly in the half cock notch.
Thoughts?

 

[wogpotter]

Before grinding anything check the hardening used. Many parts are case hardened & if you break through that wear will be fast & permanent.
Have you checked the receiver with the full safety reinstalled?
What you are describing is symptomatic of a sprung receiver!

 

[BoogieMan]

Wogpotter- I'm afraid I'm not familiar with what you mean by sprung receiver. Do you mean stretched from an overcharge or similar problem? I would think that if it were stretched then the space from the cocking piece would be increased when safety is on.
As far as grinding the cocking piece, I didn't consider the case hardening on that surface. I will have to have it case hardened after grinding that much from the surface

 

[joe sixgun]

There may be another problem that isn't caused by a defective safety. Maybe that's why the thing was sold without a safety, someone else tried to fix it and gave up?

 

[wogpotter]

The No1 was a split bridge receiver, meaning the top was not cross-braced. Perfectly fine with the pressures it was designed for, but a weak spot for overloads. The bolt can actually apply enough force to the rear locking lugs that the 2 halves actually spread apart a little. If this happens the bolt will drop lower when open (usually accompanied by a sloppy fit & contact between the small locking lug & the sear nose.)

This means the receiver is destroyed as it can no longer safely support the forces of firing.

The problem is that the safety catch & the safety lever do not contact the bolt body, nor the sear in any way, they only work on the cocking piece. No matter what was done to the safety mechanism & its 2 levers it would have zero impact on the sear contacting the bolt!

 

[BoogieMan]

Wogpotter- this is a No4, Mk1. Not a No1.
It does appear that they were manufactured as a split bridge and then a piece is forged or welded into place at the back of the stripper guide. When looking at this action. There is no sign that it opened up in that area. The bolt has about .01 dia clearance within the receiver channel. I don't know what that number should be. But, compared to many of my milsurps I would say that it's tight. Also no scaring on bolt lugs or the receiver lug seats.

 

[wogpotter]

OK the No4 is a little stronger because of the riveted in charger bridge.
The safety still has nothing to do with the sear/bolt engagement though. Because of that I think you're looking at 2 separate problems.

 

[BoogieMan]

I think you may be misunderstanding the problem or I am doing a poor job at explaining. Probably the later.
The rifle operates fine except for the safety. When I engage the safety the cocking piece/striker does not lift off of the seer as it does with my other enfield. My hypothesis is that either the seer or cocking piece lug are not within spec. Removing a bit of material from the cocking piece lug or seer would allow room for the safety to lift the cocking piece off of the seer.

 

[wogpotter]

OK, now I understand.

Its the camming action between the "D" shaped end of the safety lever shaft against the "comma shaped" cut(s) under the cocking piece. The 2 cuts are for "Cocked" & "1/2 cocked" striker positions & both should create about 1/16" or so of rearward movement when the safety lever is rotated from the 10 o'clock (fire) to the 3 o' clock (safe) position. Its the "front" edge of the "D" that moves the cuts so thats where I'd look first.

You can actually use this as a test to see if its the "D" shaft or the cocking piece cut that's in need of work. If its both then the safety lever/shaft are bad, if it's only 1 or the other its the cut in the cocking piece.

I don't think its the sear. That wouldn't produce the effect you're describing. It would fail to cock, or hold the striker too far to the rear. But that's it. Try measuring the distance from the bolt to receiver rear in both rifles & see if there's a discrepancy & if it swaps with the bolts?