Sorry I'm too late on this one, but if you ever use your project again or update it, yiou might consider this, if you haven't already.
In terms of industry, make sure you add in that this was another design contracted to the lowest bidder, and as such the manufacturer tried to save $$$ wherever they could, like making magazines with springs that were manufactured from metal that was too brittle for this purpose, machining all moving parts to a perfect fit, allowing no give for grime and dirt build up, of even greasing for that matter, a big nono that the makers of the M16 found out in Vietnam, oh yah, and the fact that the weapon itself was made out of really heavy metals making it heavier than a lot of other weapons its size, but the weapon was still fragile as an egg and reactive to everything, including the British Army's own mosquito repellent.
On top of all this, the different pieces of the weapon were machined and refined by different sub contractors to Enfield, and as such the metals have different properties, including some in which some pieces almost fuse together because one piece is hotter or colder than another and has expanded at a different rate. It is actually possible to create a weld this way, by freezing one piece of steel, and superheating another, then inserting the cold one into a hole in the hot one, when the pieces cool again, the bond is nearly inseparable. This process can be imitated by the weapon in cold climates, I can personally attest that the barrel itself gets very very hot when firing, hotter a lot of weapons I have fired, and I can only imagine how hot the internal parts are getting. Now picture this, You're serving in a frigid climate or the middle of winter, it's 0300 and you need your weapon suddenly, it's ice cold. You start firing, the outsideof the weapon isn't warming up but everything insode is, get the picture?
In fact, just last year I was reenacting a War of 1812 battle in February in Ogdensburg, New York, and I saw the wooden stock of a musket (vastly different technology, I know) split long ways, and it was a nice stock too, very nicely made, not one of those Indian opieces of junk for anyone who knows what I mean. The prognosis: The barrel had superheated and expanded but the wood was frigid and condensed, something had to give.
On top of all this many British soldiers complain that the stock is uncomfortable and you have to hold the weapon higher or else you could get struck in the eye by one of the gun's ejected casings, which were notorious for flying every which direction, if they ejected at all.
And of course, as stated already, a big thank you goes out to HK, who fixed this major F**K up, which, ironically enough, won out its bidding contract against a competing HK model, can't remeber which one off hand, but oh well, HK got paid either way. Interestingly enough, Enfield weapons have a history of problems such as these, like the original versions of the Lee-Enfield bolt action repeater, some of which's problems were not fixed until after the first world war.
Back to the point, I must say that you should add under your technology section that it is well suited to many tasks and roles, it is apparently a good support weapon, it has even been compared to the BREN support weapon of World War 2, as the BREN had a couple of the same issues, but was also very accurate.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS: As I mentioned before, this weapon is highly sensitive to grime and dirt build up, especially in moist climates. In the desert it requires a lot of cleaning, as do most weapons that serve in a thater like that, but due to the small amount of grease and lubricant that can be put into the weapon, it is not as difficult as cleaning say an M16, which uses a lot of grease and when that mixes with sand it gets the consistency of undried epoxy. However it is also prudent to add that continuous firing without cleaning the weapon, like say if there were a need for a unit to engage in a prolonged firefight lasting more than 24 hours, this is a bad weapon to have, because as mentioned, it is sensitive to dirt, which includes residue from it's own cartridges, even though the british have pretty much mastered the art of the clean propellant, or as clean as it will probably ever get before we all have Star Trek weapons, after about 1000 rounds there begins to be a notable difference in the rate of fire and accuracy of the weapon.
Sorry for yet another long post, lol, I'm bad for that