PLEASE NOTE: the description of how the enblocs work is incorrect. Watch this instead: • How the M1895 Winchest... [INHALES LOUDLY] Perhaps the new phone picks up audio too well? As title says.
The U.S. really should’ve adopted this rifle instead of the 1903 Springfield, especially with Parkhurst’s improvements. IMO change the mag to the 6 round Mauser mag, use the Winchester model D stock (basically a Springfield 1903 stock with the semi-pistol grip of the Lee-Navy), the rear peep sight set up from the Lyman No.25 (it’d need to be adapted for military use, maybe something closer to the rear sight on the Ross and less like a climbing Lyman) and a stripper clip guide (either like the 1895 Winchester or attacking it to the Lyman style sight like the Ross Mk. III). The ammo would need to be changed imo, as neither 6mm Lee-Navy or .30-03/06 would be good. IMO something close to the .280 Remington would be best. Somethings I’d also like which might not be possible is changing the firing pin assembly to be more like the Krag and Springfield 1903, changing the trigger to that of the Ross trigger, and using the Ross H5 front sight which was a barleycorn front sight with a hood that can be pushed up and down for day vs night fighting.
My gunsmith brought one of these things into our club once. Personally, the design really made me uncomfortable and I recall telling him so. He had more faith in it than I did and shot it the next weekend. It was actually the last thing he ever did. Like all of the other stories about Lee Navys killing people, no one knows exactly what went wrong. My guess was that the bolt likely unlocked itself before the bullet cleared the barrel.
Its a combination of factors - I looked into this as well as another who went farther than I. Firstly, the gas venting of the military models is insufficient. They changed this later on, adding a second vent hole to the bolt and one on the left side of the receiver, but the more desirable military models do not possess this for the vast majority. The way the bolt is designed would not unlock itself like that. I know of the two public detonations/failures, and both had a common feature - they used .30-40 krag reformed into 6mm Lee Navy brass. I don't know why this was a popular choice compared to other options, but it was. This was very likely a major contributor Sectionals have been made of this type of case conversion. It is exceedingly dangerous. The Krag brass does not have much material at all in the "web" by the head of the case, somewhere around half of what it should be, leading to failure at the unsupported extractor area. In both public detonations, the bolt remained locked, it was the firing pin assembly that was ejected. In Robert Bouie's case, he has mentioned there may have been a squib before the explosion, and I have heard murmurs of the powder for SARCO, but I wouldn't take it as gospel. However, any sort of inconsistency such as these would be problematic on a good day, but compounds the already dangerous situation left by these weak case heads. This reformed Krag to Lee Navy brass was being sold commercially as well, so it likely wasn't the idea of either shooters.
@@mars_man9971 I think you might be right as to some of the fatalities these rifles have caused. But in as much as these things are pretty rare and people who shoot them are even more rare, they tend to be involved in a disproportionate number of antique arms accidents. I think what's most telling is how fast these rifles left service and how quickly their ammo was discontinued, Moreover how no one ever copied this action design. I mean, when it's working right and not killing anyone, this is a fast action and the cartridge is no slouch by any means. Both the military and firearms manufacturers have a natural tendency to just defective weapons systems disappear rather than do a formal investigation that would lead to finger pointing and liability. The guns were pulled from service, the ammo was discontinued and no more people got hurt.... until someone pulls one down from over granddad's fireplace and forms his own cases and things start to go terribly wrong again. I'm one of those crazy people who has no qualms about shooting over one hundred year old firearms, but from the moment I handled the Lee Navy, I lost any interest in playing with this particular beat. Perhaps if it's in perfect condition and has the best possible ammunition and on a good day, with a little luck, it might be fun.... but compared to an old Mauser for example... the Lee Navy is a weak design and way too close on the safety factor to shoot if your life doesn't depend on it.
@@RJ-vb7gh Was your gunsmith Glenn DeRuiter? He is the only known and documented death to a Lee Navy explosion I'm aware of. Robert Bouie is the only other well known incident, and he survived. I'd be very interested to know if there is another known incident out there. Particularly because I'm putting together an article on the Lee Navy to help clear up some of the confusion around them. The rifles weren't pulled from service for any safety reasons, they were pulled to simplify logistics with the Army. In terms of shear area for the locking surfaces, the Lee Navy is arguably stronger than anything Mauser ever churned out except maybe the T-Gewehr. It's just gas mitigation and case head support that are lacking. These issues didn't seem to cause any problems big enough to worry the Navy, only more recently with converted cases.
I had one of these which I had to sell but I examined it closely. . The general impression and also it seems is confirmed by events is that this rifle was too quickly put in production, probably at US Navy insistence which, at the time was under great pressure to modernize. The rifle's design just seems to be just not quite "done" and Span Am war experience immediately pointed out defects that were hastily "fixed" but the navy quickly lost enthusiasm for the rifle, whose quirks were tolerable in actions of short duration but just not a rifle to be used over many years. It also didn't help that the first 10,000 were exposed to a warehouse fire prior to issue and the condemnation process appears to have been in done with the bias towards saving as many rifles as possible. I have a first production receiver that I would like to put in a barrel for display purposes and I wonder if a Winchester 95 barrel might work. It's never going to be a shooter because I don't know where the naked receiver has been and will be so marked "not for firing". I bought the receiver for a desk paperweight but considering it's a rarity I want a complete "wall hanger".
I have a drawing of the shank somewhere but im 99% its different if you mean just screwing it in. Personally I wouldn't fire a first run production for the lack of gas vent holes - the bolt only has one and the receiver has none as opposed to the later guns like this one having two on the bolt and one on the receiver (where it should be). Same for any loads using krag brass. I love mine though, its quite a fun rifle to shoot and I wish I had a modern production one I could really use and abuse
The burrs on mine were from the chamber burrs. Those were caused by the extractor impacting the extractor cutout in the barrel, and the highpoints mashing out a burr over time. I don't see how dry firing could cause those. Originally they were bad enough that I could not chamber a round and they had to be stoned out.
Hmmm, so hold the extractor with your thumb on the left side of the bolt, I push mine against the forward stop on the bolt (small square protrusion), just ensure the bolt latch/catch/stop is down and it should slide in relatively freely, then lock it back
I need to make a short video on how they are actually supposed to work, but even then they don't strip correctly. It could be the cases or the spring, but new (old used springs) are $55, and I don't really want to spend that on something that could be the same as mine.
@@mars_man9971 5 years later, I now own a Winchester Lee myself. Revisiting this video shows why I got it for pretty cheap! Someone welded the hole on the left of the reciever closed, and grinded off that back, probably gas deflecting pad that you put your thumb on to close it without the handle. Do your research and reading kids!
@@AbananaPEEl Depending on the make that gas vent hole may not have been present on your rifle originally, does the bolt have one or two gas vents on it? And the gas shield was soldered on originally, that sucks
