The misunderstood British enfield. [Archive]

MBTcustom

05-16-2011, 10:25 PM

Multigunner

05-17-2011, 05:43 AM

I believe there are some misconceptions about the enfield rifle. I think that most of the stuff that is said bad about them is misunderstood problems caused by other factors that nobody seems to think of.
Here are the things that I think are misconceptions.

I'll comment on these

1. The rifles fire-formed cases get stuck because there is flex in the bolt.
Thats one I never heard, though its not unlikely that some brass might perform that way. If so a change in the brand of case used should settle that situation.

2. The British enfield cannot be expected to shoot any better that 4 MOA .
Thats what the Range manuals said, using average milspec MkVII ammo and rifles that had not been expertly bedded and tuned for target work.
No doubt some percentage of any type of rifle will be far more accurate that the run of the mill.
I have a No.4 that was beat to death and had a poorly fitted non matching bolt and headspace far over the limit, yet it still printed under 3 MOA using lousy POF ammo that gave many misfires and all hangfires of varying duration.
After some work on the bore and new bolt with #3 bolthead the same rifle shoots sub MOA with taylored handloads.

3. These rifles cannot be pushed to very high pressures because of flex in the bolt.
Please don't encourage people to try to hot rod these old rifles. The SMLE can crack its action body over something as simple as shooting wet or greasy cartridges.
The bolt and action body do flex every time the rifle is fired, the front sight base is offset to compensate for the bullet throw generated by this flexing.
"very high pressure" is subjective, some Wildcatters shoot loads that rival the proof test loads used for the SMLE.
One British Ordnance officer wrote that the SMLE action could stand up to several 30 Long Ton loads, but no promises were made as to how well it would stand up. Standard SMLE actions rebarreled to 7.62 NATO failed during an endurance test ,headspace getting worse with every shot.
The 2A handles most 7.62 loads okay, but these push the limits of the design even with improved metallurgy.

4. The cases must have an O-ring on the base to align the cartridge because the bolt does not capture the base of the cartridge like the mauser does.
Now I look at the Enfield design and I see that many changes where made over the years to the basic design of the action. ie. magazine cutoff, bolt face follower, firing pin, nose cap, sights, etc.
If the design where flawed in such an obvious way, why didn't they change the design in order to correct it while they were at it?
The SMLE was not designed with the civilian handloader in mind. In fact its only been in recent years that British target shooters developed much of an interest in handloading the .303. Some handloading for match use was done early on, but with the British Government anf the UK NRA supplying quality surplus ammo handloading was not that cost effective.
The ejection of the spent case relies on the extractor pushing the case head to the left to drag on the left receiver wall. If the extractor has a tight grip on the rim it can't push it over. I had a Lithgow with that problem, The extractor in that rifle looked a bit different and may have come from a 2A, it was new and not properly fitted

I mean, look at the doggon thing! I dont know about you but one of the reasons I am proud to own one is because of the extraordinary detail that was incorporated into the design. I can honestly say that the British enfield action is the most complex and expertly crafted piece of machine-work I have ever held or seen.
The idea that there is flex in the bolt of the enfield rifle is dumb. It is a hardened piece of 9/16 carbon steel locked into a massive action. If there is any flex at all it would be less than 2 thousandths of an inch on the outside. Don't drink the coolaid! This is not enough to cause all these problems IMO!
Less than one thousandth of an inch of flex is enough to make top grade accuracy problematic. Even a few tenths of a thousandth difference in the bearing of the locking lugs can throw off your shots. Great care was taken to insure that the lugs bore evenly after the British discovered this after a great deal of experimental work.
The bolt body is a hollow tube, strong enough for the purpose but not adamantine. I've seen a SMLE bolt body with left hand lug broken away, taking a large chunk of the bolt body with it. The bolt body walls aren't very thick at that point.

Now in the course of making the .358 Malcolm A1 wildcat, (thank you 303guy :wink:) I have bedded the stocks like a modern rifle, I have trued up the action face within .0002 inches, I have re-barreled the rifle with a .358 barrel that is properly head-spaced to the [I]cartridges not to the head-space gauges, I have improved the cartridges to operate with .010 thousandths taper from the base to the shoulder with a 45 degree shoulder angle. I also cut the chamber with a boring bar to .004 inches over the cartridge base dimension.
My results proved to be contradictory to common belief.
1. All the cases extracted beautifully and after neck sizing and reloading, dunked into the chamber effortlessly.
2. Much better than 4MOA accuracy was obtained. Granted testing was done no further than 40 yards with iron sights, but the results where impressive none the less. 5 shots covered by a nickle.
3. Because the rifle was re-chambered to .358 caliber, the pressures required to push the 250 grain boolit where stout to say the least. Obtained approximately 45,000 cup, with no stuck cases and no off center heads.
Actual bench rest groups are yet to be produced but basically, by cutting the chamber to a size that more closely matches the factory case dimensions, and properly head-spacing the cartridge I eliminated all of the problems that I was experiencing with the rifle in the as bought condition.
The original barrel was as shoddy as the action was superb. The breach was cut .015 inches oversize, the bore was in spec but the grooves were cut to a diameter of .320 with no visible signs of wear or abuse. They were made that way. Also the barrel threads were cut so loose that once the seize was broken, they rattled like a bag of bones "class 3 fit if that". Perhaps one of the most atrocious things was the thread shoulder. I decided to clean it up in the lathe thinking that a light cut of maybe .001 would clean it up nicely. I had to remove .01 inches before I got a single clean cut ring!!!! Finaly the headspace was about .01 inches greater than it should have been in spite of the fact that I have the size 3 bolt-face.
The point is that this rifle was in better shape than many I have seen, and all the problems I have encountered have had to do with the shoddy barrel quality. I have heard many humorous rumors about this rifle that are based solely on uninformed BS that nobody has taken a scientific approach to debunking. I believe that the British enfield rifle (sans barrel) is a wonderful example of a time when master machinist and engineers did things in an expensive and elegant manner because a fighting weapon is something that a soldier takes pride in and stakes his life on. When every other country was sending there average troops out with a dandified piece of pipe with a nice barrel on it, the Brits were sending every soldier out with a well crafted, hand fitted wonder of mechanical know how. The barrel was considered a replaceable feature that would wear out periodically and need to be replaced, but the action was meant to endure indefinitely. It was the soul of the rifle and was built in such a way that nothing could prevent it from functioning for its intended purpose. In fact every piece of the rifle was made in such a way that it could be replaced by a novice armorer in a matter of minutes with no detriment to accuracy or reliability, but every one of them was worked on by a master armorer to insure that it would feed properly-[I]forever-. Even the magazine was given special attention and was made for each individual rifle. That's why every rifle has that lanyard loop in front of the magazine well, the magazines were chained to the rifle, however the chains were quickly removed by the soldiers.
I, for one, am proud to own one of these special pieces of history that were given as much care as a samurai sword as they were produced.

I'm glad your rifle turned out so well but the results with a custom made and fitted barrel don't affect the situation of a bog standard SMLE. They used to say that the headspace of the SMLE should be sufficient to allow the soldiers to carry an extra pair of socks in between casehead and bolt face.

3. Because the rifle was re-chambered to .358 caliber, the pressures required to push the 250 grain boolit where stout to say the least. Obtained approximately 45,000 cup, with no stuck cases and no off center heads.

the MkVII .303 cartridge generated 45,400 CUP so your loads are well within the safety limits of the action.
45K CUP is a long way from being a "very high pressure" load.

The tighter the headspace the closer the firing pin impression will be to dead center. The looser the head gap the further from dead center the impression will be, this is due to the tapered case and chamber of the .303.

I like the Lee Enfield design as well, the original design was from the American gunmaker James P Lee, some improvements were made by the British probably not as many as you might think.
Metallurgy of the SMLE rifles is very good, using steel with a significant Nickel content. The specifications for that steel were fairly loose, with Nickel content varying as much as 1%, so some SMLE actions are stronger than others.

Your rifle should handle loads in the 45K range from now on with no problems, but I would not exceed that pressure level by much if any.

In fact every piece of the rifle was made in such a way that it could be replaced by a novice armorer in a matter of minutes with no detriment to accuracy or reliability, but every one of them was worked on by a master armorer to insure that it would feed properly-forever-. Even the magazine was given special attention and was made for each individual rifle. That's why every rifle has that lanyard loop in front of the magazine well, the magazines were chained to the rifle, however the chains were quickly removed by the soldiers.

Chaining the magazine was discontinued long before the SMLE came along, the staple that replaced the parade swivel that is found on most (possibly all) WW1 era SMLE rifles was used as a tie down point for a canvas action cover.
Some Lee Metfords, and possibly the Long Lee Enfields had the chained magazine.

While when in British, Canadian, and Australian service these rifles were inspected regularly and serviced by highly skilled armorers, but a great many of these rifles later ended up in third world countries with little or no care taken of them other than a often too infrequent cleaning.
The magazine box is fairly sturdy, but I've had to repair many of these over the years due to bent or worn down feed lips.

When every other country was sending there average troops out with a dandified piece of pipe with a nice barrel on it, the Brits were sending every soldier out with a well crafted, hand fitted wonder of mechanical know how. .
A bit of exageration there. The major powers all had excellent combat rifles by the time WW1 came along. I won't even go into how the Boers out shot the British, since most of the improvements in the Enfield and its ammunition were a direct result of the recognized shotcomings revealed by that conflict.
The Ross rifles were the only rifles fielded during WW1 that proved to not be up to the task, every other rifle used in that war proved to be a very reliable and accurate weapon.

The barrel was considered a replaceable feature that would wear out periodically and need to be replaced, but the action was meant to endure indefinitely
Actually till 1925 the British considered the action body to be simply another part to be replaced if it became worn or sprung. If an action body failed gauging they pulled a unissued action body from a stockpile of production over runs kept on hand for the purpose. If the barrel was still good they transfered it to the new body and numbered the action body to match the barrel number.
This method of tracking the rifle by barrel number rather than action body number was a hold over from muzzle loader days when there was no action body.
Of course since the handguard now covered the barrel serial number they later switched to using the receiver ring number for identification purposes.

Now as to bullet throw or "Drill". The enfield rifling has a left hand twist, so spin drift is in the same direction as bullet throw due to action body flex. A barrel with right hand twist would offset throw slightly, but the British seem to have figured it best that both factors working together were easier to counter act by off setting the front sight base.
Generally the heavier the barrel the less throw there would be. The SMLE barrel is fairly slim compared to some of its contemporaries so its more affected by throw than the heavier barrel of the No.4.
The SMLE barrel gives more consistent compensation at longer ranges than heavier barrels, so it equals out.
The bullet throw to the left is also very consistent , so once sighted in for a particular load it does not affect accuracy that much. If ammo with different bullet weights or velocity than the load the rifles was sighted for are used then throw can change the point of impact considerably in the horizontal plane.

Its usually easier to get a No.4 to print tight groups, mainly because of the thick left hand action body wall, but some of the factors affecting the SMLE still affect the No.4, though to a lesser degree.

The charger guide bridge rivet holes can be a weak point of the SMLE action body.
Armorers were instructed to cull any rifle that showed a loose guide bridge, because this might mean the body had cracked at the rivet holes, or had begun to spread or flex too much.
The No.4 doesn't have that potential problem, though the body could sometimes spread at the rear walls.

I like the Enfields, but I've seen too many that have succumbed to abuse to have any illusions about its strength.
I figure that the main cause of damage to Enfields was the result of using MkVIIIz MG ammunition, which had a somewhat higher acceptable pressure standard than the MkVII rifle ammo.

MBTcustom

05-17-2011, 06:58 AM

perotter

05-17-2011, 07:25 AM

If the design where flawed in such an obvious way, why didn't they change the design in order to correct it while they were at it?

They did. The Pattern 1913 & 1914 rifles - modified Mausers. They didn't have the money to fully change over.

IMO, they should have just copied the Mauser straight up like we did with the '03.

Edit:

The above is as a military rifle. The guns that I do mainly collect are the pre-Mauser 98 bolt action military rifles.

dromia

05-17-2011, 09:51 AM

They did. The Pattern 1913 & 1914 rifles - modified Mausers. They didn't have the money to fully change over.

IMO, they should have just copied the Mauser straight up like we did with the '03.

Edit:

The above is as a military rifle. The guns that I do mainly collect are the pre-Mauser 98 bolt action military rifles.

The reason the P13 was never adopted was because WWW1 started and to change over the tooling would have interupted thje production of much needed rifles as the nation mobilised.

Rifles were made however in America for the UK, the P14.

The reason that the Enfield design was kept up unitil the switch to automatic weapons was because it was so successful. The experience of the troops in WW1 with the Enfield demonstrated that is was a superior bolt action battle rifle to all others so the design was kept. If it isn't broke don't fix.

The thing to remember is that the Enfield and the .303" round were designed as system. The Enfield was never meant to shoot other calibres as the Empire ensured a large enough market for cost effectiveness.

The mauser on the otherhand hand to be capable of handling whatever round a purchasing country fancied, hence it had to be a jack of all trades.

Mk42gunner

05-17-2011, 04:28 PM

The reason the P13 was never adopted was because WWW1 started and to change over the tooling would have interupted thje production of much needed rifles as the nation mobilised.

The P13 was to be chambered for a completely different cartridge also; a big cased .276 or .280 IIRC (my Cartrdges of the World isn't handy right now). This is the reason the action is so large, the .303 certainly didn't require one that big. However when the war started, it was easy to redesign it to make it work with the standard .303.

Rifles were made however in America for the UK, the P14.

And after the U.S. entered the war the P14 was modified yet again into the M-1917 in .30-06.

The reason that the Enfield design was kept up unitil the switch to automatic weapons was because it was so successful. The experience of the troops in WW1 with the Enfield demonstrated that is was a superior bolt action battle rifle to all others so the design was kept. If it isn't broke don't fix.

How does that old saying go? "The Germans built a hunting rifle, The Americans a target rifle, and the British a battle rifle."The thing to remember is that the Enfield and the .303" round were designed as system. The Enfield was never meant to shoot other calibres as the Empire ensured a large enough market for cost effectiveness.

The mauser on the otherhand hand to be capable of handling whatever round a purchasing country fancied, hence it had to be a jack of all trades.

The mausers had cartridge specific magazines, from what I have read. In theory, the magazines are different between small ring Mausers chambered for the 6.5x55 round and ones chambered for the 7x57. It seems like I read an article by or interview of Darcy Echols about this.

Even though they are good rifles, I don't think I would push a No. 1 Mark III or a NO.4 much past 45,000PSI intentionally.

Hope this helps,

troyboy

05-17-2011, 05:46 PM

IMO and many others the enfields action is the smoothest of all milsurp actions. While it certainly aint the strongest it is my favorite. It does what it was designed to do and it did it well. Nothing wrong with the 303 either. The Brits know a thing or three about what works and what don't when it comes to a fight, obviously.

Multigunner

05-17-2011, 06:27 PM

This post was written for the number 4 mark 1 rifle, I apologize for not specifying. Some of what I said does not apply to the earlier renditions of the enfield rifle and would be unsafe.
I am in no way suggesting that unsafe loads should be used, what I am saying is that the rifles can handle the pressures for which they were intended, or even slightly more if they are built tight (I was under the impression that 42k was factory spec)
Not to argue the point, but how can you test the flex in the bolt of a NO.4MK1 rifle as it is being fired? I know there has to be some compressing of the components under pressure, but It seems to me that if there is any flexing going on, it will be happening to the supporting piece of metal behind the locking lug on the right side of the receiver not the comparatively massive bolt. Further more, before barreling the rifle, I used a micrometer to measure the depth of the bolt-face from the front of the action. I subtracted .062 inches to allow for head space, and cut my barrel to that size the curious thing is that when I actually started fitting the barrel to the action, I had to remove an additional .010 inches before I got all the compress out of the bolt assembly. Now if the rifle does not close tightly on the cartridge the slam-hammer effect will be intense ie. case hits bolt-face, bolt-face hits bolt, bolt is stopped by action. I think that canceling out all that momentum by making the rifle shut tight on the cartridge will improve its survival quite a lot.
Thanks again multigunner for a very informative reply, you brought up many things that I hadn't thought of.

.072 is within the British wartime specs for Enfield headspace, while most commercial .303 cases have rims less than .60 thickness, many milspec cases run close to the maximum of .064.
With commercial ammo and handloads theres less back thrust delivered to the bolt face due to the unstaked primer backing out and trapped high pressure gas in the primer pocket acting to cushion the back thrust. This is aided by the case walls gripping the chamber walls and part of the back thrust being absorbed in stretching the case walls. If theres too much head gap for the particular case construction this results in a thinned annular ring inside the case and case cracking or separation when reloaded.

Tight headspace improves case life, which was of no importance to the British Military since they did not use reloaded ammunition. Some European militaries used reloaded ammunition for machine gun training purposes. In Germany reloading ammo for the MGs was a sort of punishment like KP.
The British discouraged reloadable ammo because most rebels in their possessions relied on reloaded ammo, and smuggled components to reload every cartridge case they could scavenge from the field of battle.

The pressure specs for British cartridges can be confusing. They used the "Long Ton" of 2,240 lb while the US uses the Short Ton of 2,000 lb.
The pressure guns were also different, the British used a base crusher gun, while the US used a side mounted piston and cylinder gun.
The MkVII pressure of 45,400 CUP is as measured by U S Ordnance using the standard type gun and in pounds rather than in long tons.
SAAMI specs for the .303 are 45,000 CUP since they round up or down to the nearest thousand pounds.

The Enfield was subjected to many extreme methods of testing, including direct pressure from hydraulic rams. The Older Lee Enfield action body was tested to determine breaking strength and the figure given was 85,000 pounds.
Barrel breaking point was somewhere over 75,000 pounds.
Ordinarily a blocked SMLE barrel will snap off at the point of the blockage before back pressure can break the bolt or action body.
If the blockage is within about three inches of bullet travel the bolt head can shatter or the action may fail in other ways.

The old blow up tests where a barrel is plugged can be misleading, most light or medium weight centerfire rifle barrels fail before the action can fail unless the action itself has a defect.

As I said earlier the bolt is not as massive as you seem to think it is, and the separate bolt head adds another factor not found in most bolt action designs.
The only actions with separate bolt heads that don't affect strength are those where the locking lugs are part of the bolt head rather than the bolt body.

The bolt heads of Mauser type bolts compress and spring back during firing, but the less the distance between bolt face and locking lug recesses the less that compression can be. Compression and spring back of forwards mounted lugs is a tiny fraction of that of the exposed bolt body of a rear lugged design.
This affects all rear lugged designs to a greater or lesser extent, and has consistently limited their usefullness with high intensity cartridges.

Rapid bolt manipulation and short bolt throw has its price.

I have to say that if the Lee Enfields had not been made from excellent alloys with known ability to absorb stretching forces and still spring back to shape the rifles would have never been serviceable at all.
Its possible to build a rear locking action of great strength but only if very high quality steels are used.

I own several firearms which have rear lugged bolt actions, they are fine for their intended power range, but not as well suited to high intensity cartridges as a front lugged bolt design of the same materials.

The Remington 788 addressed some issues of a rear lug design, mainly through its massive tublar receiver and smaller ejector port and magazine well openings.
The two piece bolt kept the non rotating body controled fore and aft, rather than exposed like the LE bolt head.
The three rows of lugs distributed forces more evenly than two lugs could.
Even then the 788 proved limited and subject to lug set back when used with intense cartridges.

Things not obvious to present day shooters aren't necessarily myths. These rifles were intensively tested and examined by true experts, many of whom were deeply involved in its design and manufacture. they didn't just sit around making up stories to confound shooters several generations in the future.

JeffinNZ

05-17-2011, 06:27 PM

The 4 MOA theory is quite correct in reality. It is based on the standard accuracy that was expected from SMLE's as they came off the production line. They were required to shoot 4 from 5 shots into a rectangle measuring 1 inch wide and 1.5 inches high at a range of 100 feet. If you do the math that is pretty close to 4 MOA.

Now before the hate mail starts rolling in the above is an as issued rifle off the line burning mil spec ball ammo. It is not tuned or doctored.

With bedding and tuning and a diet of cast loads to suit the individual rifle my No4 MkII is a regular "near MOA" rifle (6 x Burris) and my SMLE is in the 1.5 to 2 MOA range with a PH5A sight.

doubs43

05-17-2011, 07:20 PM

For Christmas, 1960, I was given a #1 MkIII Enfield with bayonet. The rifle was made in 1916 by London Small Arms Company. Cost? $9.95 for the rifle and $1.95 for the bayonet.

In the Summer of 1961 I was in my mid-teens and had better than 20/20 eyesight. There was a small Coke bottle lying against an unused railway embankment at about 200 yards. I used a fencepost to steady myself (only contact with the post was my hand) and squeezed off a shot with WW2 British surplus ammo. My father, watching through binoculars, said I'd missed by a couple of inches to the right; elevation was perfect. A second shot with slight aiming correction shattered the bottle.

Even today the bore on my Enfield is like new and using 165 grain gas check cast boolits, I've shot 5-shot groups that could be covered by a quarter at 100 yards. A 1939 BSA #1 Mk III that I used to own shot about as well with cast boolits. I've owned more than a dozen Enfields including one of the 1956 Australian #1 rifles that were made in a small quantity to verify that the arsenal tooling was still useable. I foolishly sold it and a #4 Mk 2 still in it's mummy wrap. The other one I wish I still had was a Savage #4 Mk I with the early 6-groove barrel.

ALL of the Enfields that I've owned and shot easily did better than 4 MOA and most were under 2 MOA. IMO, any Enfield that shoots 3 MOA or greater is either worn out, defective in some manner or the ammo is bad.

MBTcustom

05-17-2011, 09:43 PM

The purpose of my post was not to say that the shortcomings of the enfield rifle are false, what I am saying is that all of the problems that I was plagued with turned out to be associated with the barrel. I still dont believe that the bolt has flex in it. What I am saying is that in my experiments, all of the "flex" was in the junctions between the bolt-face and the bolt, and the bolt and the action, and these were all measurable quantities. What I found was, that I didn't have to subject it to 40,000 lb. of force to see these things, the difference was clear between the measured and calculated head-space and what was actually produced with a shim on the base of the ideal cartridge, (.062). All totaled, the tolerance stack-up from all these components gave the original case, in the original barrel, a possible movement forward and backward of .025 inches!!!
I am saying that if you cancel out all of these by making the rifle head-space correctly, the action becomes a much stronger unit. By removing all that play in the bolt area, you will squelch the inertia that is produced, and by stopping all the slamming of the bolt pieces into each other and into the action, the energy from the exploding cartridge is more effectively transferred to the butstock of the rifle instead of being absorbed by the action and its components.
These are not things that I have read about, these are things that I have seen with my own two eyes, with experiments that I have conducted on my own.
I am not telling folks to push the rifle to unsafe limits! I am saying that if you want a decent accurate hunting rifle then the enfield may be the cheapest bolt action you can afford (other than the mosin negant)
At the end of the day it may all be a mute point, because in order to get an enfield action to function like I am saying, it must be fitted with a quality barrel, and the chamber must be cut with a boring bar, like I did mine, or with an undersized reamer. Most folks wont do this for a $150 rifle. I just thought that there where a few out there who have a lathe at the house who would like to know that there is a cheaper way to make an accurate rifle than buying a Mauser for three times what it is worth, and dumping even more money and time into re-barreling it.

gew98

05-18-2011, 11:47 AM

I agree in that most of the Enfield problems were barrel related. I think personally most of the barrel problems were directly associated with bedding. The forend of the No1 and No4 rifles if not properly addressed can be a real bugger to accuracy. As well cordite burning at a hotter temp caused alot of undue bore wear. I believe it was in Pritchard's Book on great war sniping that they found the typical SMLE picked for sniper work lost accuracy badly for their use at around the 500 round mark. I have read alot of shooters having great luck and accuracy with cordite loded surplus 303 and when trying IMR or 'Z' loaded 303 ammo accuracy suffered in those rifles due to the particular throat erosion cordite imparted to the bore. Yet rifles not used with cordite loaded fodder and like new could be shot with the other than cordite fueled ammo with great results.
The Magazines on the No1 and No4 rifles really have rarely been custom fitted...it's a rare day when I have had one give problems in a rifle not serialed to it... and it's always form abuse or a knockoff like those made by Numrich years ago.
Only early Metfords had the chain...more to prevent loss than keeping a specific magazine with rifle. Enfields are one of the few rifles that you can extend the life on by utilizing another bolt head of longer length to correct headspace problems. Works wonders with bolt mismatch enfields !. I think numbering of the magazines did not start until the advent of the No4. At least all british No1's of great war vintage I have owned and own never head serialed magazines originally. I have obly seen this on FTR'd rifles of the No 1 type and none that I would say were british done.
I have a No4 about 21 years ago I had the barrel shortened and rebored/chambered to 44 mag. It shot very good and was a piss. A buddy talked me out of it and he spent alot of time modifying a magazine to hold 6 rds inline and it actually worked after all his effort... but he was limited on OAL length of his 44 mag ammo.
I can't agree with the mauser deisgned to be a jack of all trade thingy. The current german military cartridge of the day in 1898 was the 88 Patrone , which was designed from the earlier 7,65 and 7mm mauser cartridges in that it used the same base diameter and rimless design. It was a natural progression to pop it out to 8mm to equal the french advance with the 86 lebel 8mm bullet.
On the 1903 Spgfld....America kind of messed that up in the lousy striker assy and horrible sights adopted with the mauser lock up , extractor and magazine designs used in it.
I like the idea of taking an old military rifle that is not collectible in condition and making it a beautiful shooter. By doing it in 35 caliber it would be like saving an old 98 mauser action for a 9x57 conversion which was done commecrially over a hundred years ago...with even gew88 actions.
Lots of good read here and what a great machining job !.

nanuk

05-18-2011, 01:28 PM

if you can't go faster, you go heavier!

the 35 is near perfect for the enfield

303Guy

05-18-2011, 05:32 PM

Now if the rifle does not close tightly on the cartridge the slam-hammer effect will be intense ie. case hits bolt-face, bolt-face hits bolt, bolt is stopped by action. I think that canceling out all that momentum by making the rifle shut tight on the cartridge will improve its survival quite a lot.This is my theory on lubed cases. Not dripping with oil or smeary with grease - just a slight oily feeling. The case still grips the chamber walls but not before it has settled against the bolt face before the pressure builds up. Excessive headspace will hammer the locking lug recesses until they peen out enough to actually jam the bolt.

I went to military sponsored shoot once and shot off nearly 500 rounds of cordite ammo through my 1902 LE I. Only later when I chrongraphed a few that somehow found there way into my pocket, did I realize they were MkVIII machinegun rounds! Well, at least I can say the bolt now bears evenly on both lugs. The bore is nicely run in too with a slight taper toward the muzzle (It had a new No.4 barrel on it).

the 35 is near perfect for the enfield I hold that opion too.

The strength oF the Lee Enfield is actually quite something considering it was designed for a black powder cartridge. At least, I think it was?

perotter

05-18-2011, 05:58 PM

The reason that the Enfield design was kept up unitil the switch to automatic weapons was because it was so successful. The experience of the troops in WW1 with the Enfield demonstrated that is was a superior bolt action battle rifle to all others so the design was kept. If it isn't broke don't fix.

All bolt action rifles were obsolete before WW1 ended. Really they were obsolete before the war started. The Enfield design maybe wasn't broke, just a relic of the past.

doubs43

05-18-2011, 09:09 PM

All bolt action rifles were obsolete before WW1 ended. Really they were obsolete before the war started. The Enfield design maybe wasn't broke, just a relic of the past.

Specifically, what was there available to the world's armies before or during WW1... indeed, as late as 1935 that could have replaced the bolt action rifle? :roll:

perotter

05-18-2011, 10:10 PM

doubs43

05-19-2011, 12:27 AM

Before WW1 not much except the production Winchester self loaders. Good enough to be considered for WW2 use.

During WW1 the German MP18 & they had figured out modern tactics. Also, the US Petersen device. 500,000 ordered. Black Jack knew he couldn't win the war with bolt action rifles. But, we/he hadn't figured out the tactics yet. But, Germany went broke & that ended the war.

The Winchester semi-auto rifles would not have stood up to use in the trenches of France. Nor could they handle the 30-06 cartridge. The only self loading rifle of note that saw extended use was the 1918 Browning Automatic Rifle or BAR. Designed as a light machine gun, it really doesn't count as a general issue rifle for infantry use by everyone. It also arrived too late to have an impact on the war.

The Bergmann MP-18 used the 9mm Parabellum PISTOL cartridge and the 32 round snail drum magazine that was difficult to load and used a special tool to do so. It wasn't very practical although it led to better SMG designs that were used effectively in WW2.

The Petersen device fired a low powered cartridge much like the later 30 carbine round. The kit would have added 14 pounds to the load already carried by the Doughboy. It was never used in combat. The supplies made were mostly destroyed, making them a highly sought after collectable.

IMO, none of your examples were serious contenders to replace the bolt action rifle and the only major army to enter WW2 with a standard issue semi-auto battle rifle was the US.

Multigunner

05-19-2011, 02:37 AM

The Winchester semi-auto rifles would not have stood up to use in the trenches of France. Nor could they handle the 30-06 cartridge. The only self loading rifle of note that saw extended use was the 1918 Browning Automatic Rifle or BAR. Designed as a light machine gun, it really doesn't count as a general issue rifle for infantry use by everyone. It also arrived too late to have an impact on the war.

The Bergmann MP-18 used the 9mm Parabellum PISTOL cartridge and the 32 round snail drum magazine that was difficult to load and used a special tool to do so. It wasn't very practical although it led to better SMG designs that were used effectively in WW2.

The Petersen device fired a low powered cartridge much like the later 30 carbine round. The kit would have added 14 pounds to the load already carried by the Doughboy. It was never used in combat. The supplies made were mostly destroyed, making them a highly sought after collectable.

IMO, none of your examples were serious contenders to replace the bolt action rifle and the only major army to enter WW2 with a standard issue semi-auto battle rifle was the US.

While I agree that no semi-auto rifle of the WW1 era was developed to the point that it could be issued on a large scale basis, there were at least four military semiauto rifles in the full power military chamberings available to French and German forces.
There were two very nice French semi auto rifles, one saw much more action than the other. Both suffered from lack of suitable stainless steel alloys for their gas systems.Many were later modified for use as straight pull rifles.
The Germans bought up the Mondragon semi auto rifles manufactured in Switzerland, they issued these to aerial observers before they developed a flexible mounted machinegun. Mauser also developed a semi auto rifle that used a flapper type locking system, it required waxed cartridges and was not suited to trench war fare but also saw some use as an observers gun.

The Winchester self loaders were bought in large quantities by the French, and used both as observers guns and as proto-assault rifles by some French Infantry officers. These rifles were fitted with extended high capacity magazines.

The available autoloaders were too expensive and difficult to mass produce to be issued to the Infantry on any large scale, though efforts were made to do so in the last years of the war.

The British never came up with a decent reliable autoloader design till after WW2. There were a few designs that were geared towards converting the SMLE to gas operated selective fire, but not as an Infantry personal weapon.

The British found it better to license build the FAL in the 50's than to further develop home grown designs.

The bolt action rifle was far from obsolete during WW1, or WW2 for that matter. Autoloaders were here to stay by WW2, but the bolt action was more durable and easier to learn to operate and maintain in the worst climates, so it was more suitable for arming huge armies that battled in the worst conditions, especially the sub zero Russian winters.

If not for the American industrial superiority its unlikely that the U S could have manufactured enough Garand rifles to arm the majority of our troops. As it was many U S troops still carried the Springfield during the early stages of U S involvement.

PS
While the 93 Spanish Mauser did inspire the design of the 1903 Springfield, the only parts of the 03 action covered by Mauser patents were in the magazine box and floorplate, and the stripper clips and guides. Much of the Mauser bolt and action design features were lifted from previous designs, such as the Lebel and Gew 88 designed by a Spandau engineer.

doubs43

05-19-2011, 02:58 AM

While I agree that no semi-auto rifle of the WW1 era was developed to the point that it could be issued on a large scale basis, there were at least four military semiauto rifles in the full power military chamberings available to French and German forces.
There were two very nice French semi auto rifles, one saw much more action than the other. Both suffered from lack of suitable stainless steel alloys for their gas systems.Many were later modified for use as straight pull rifles.
The Germans bought up the Mondragon semi auto rifles manufactured in Switzerland, they issued these to aerial observers before they developed a flexible mounted machinegun. Mauser also developed a semi auto rifle that used a flapper type locking system, it required waxed cartridges and was not suited to trench war fare but also saw some use as an observers gun.

The Winchester self loaders were bought in large quantities by the French, and used both as observers guns and as proto-assault rifles by some French Infantry officers. These rifles were fitted with extended high capacity magazines.

The available autoloaders were too expensive and difficult to mass produce to be issued to the Infantry on any large scale, though efforts were made to do so in the last years of the war.

The British never came up with a decent reliable autoloader design till after WW2. There were a few designs that were geared towards converting the SMLE to gas operated selective fire, but not as an Infantry personal weapon.

The British found it better to license build the FAL in the 50's than to further develop home grown designs.

The bolt action rifle was far from obsolete during WW1, or WW2 for that matter. Autoloaders were here to stay by WW2, but the bolt action was more durable and easier to learn to operate and maintain in the worst climates, so it was more suitable for arming huge armies that battled in the worst conditions, especially the sub zero Russian winters.

If not for the American industrial superiority its unlikely that the U S could have manufactured enough Garand rifles to arm the majority of our troops. As it was many U S troops still carried the Springfield during the early stages of U S involvement.

My point is that no SLR was in general use by any major army until the Garand entered service in 1936 and to declare the bolt action rifle obsolete by the time of WW1 is just plain wrong. The US Army was still using large numbers of Springfields when war broke out but by the time of Guadalcanal in early 1942, the US Army was issuing Garands to those units heading to combat. The Marines stubbornly held on to their Springfields and refused to accept the Garand until their experience on Guadalcanal made them believers.

The US manufacturing capability may have been the single biggest factor in winning WW2. We provided materials to the USSR that likely saved their butts. We sent Britain massive amounts of arms, munitions and other materials that kept them going. At the same time, the US produced what our own military forces needed in abundance. Calling us the "Arsenal of Democracy" wasn't far fetched at all..... we certainly were. It took time to gear up and we were short on things for awhile but our industry came through.

NickSS

05-19-2011, 03:53 AM

gew98

05-19-2011, 02:57 PM

Multigunner

05-19-2011, 11:19 PM

All very interesting but the bottom line is that the rifle in one mark or another served the British Empire from 1888 through the mid 1950s as a main battle rifle. This covered quite a few wars including two World Wars and if the rifle did not work the Brits would have dumped it long time ago. In actual fact the 4 moa spec is the same spec that the US used for the 1855, 1961, 1863, 1866, 1868, 1870, 1873, 1877, 1884, 1888, 1892, 1896, 1899, 1903, 1903A3, M1 Garand, and M14 rifles. This was the minimum acceptable accuracy for a new rifle. Most shot a lot better than that. Personally I own 4 enfilds and they will all shoot under 2moa with Military Ball ammo. It should also be noted that they are far from new rifles and have had no rework done to them by me.

Acceptable accuracy for the Springfield 1903 on first sighting in was four inches at 200 yards, Two MOA not four MOA.
The target used for preliminary sighting in of a new rifle or rifle that had just been rebarreled was a cross of four inch wide bands for a two hundred yard range. If only a one hundred yard range was available the bands were reduced to two inches wide.
Four out of five shots had to go inside the square where the vertical and horizontal bands met. One flier was allowable.
That was the WW1 era requirements, and can be found in Farrow's "Manual of Military Training".
IIRC the Garand had looser accuracy acceptance requirements than the Springfield.
The 1903A4 Springfield was still in use as a Sniper rifle well into the 1960's before being replaced by classic American sporter rifle actions such as the Winchester Model 70 and Remington 700. The MAS 36 action is still in limited use as a Sniper rifle in 7.62 NATO, which means it outlasted the No.4 action's use with the L42 Sniper rifle by several decades. The 1891 Mosin Nagant rifles can occasionally still be found in use, often in sniper rifle configuration.

I don't think anyone here would argue that the Lee Enfield was not up to its intended purpose, but the rifle does have uncommon features that should be taken into account when handloading or considering conversion to another cartridge.
High capacity magazine and rapid bolt manipulation were the Lee Enfield's strong suit. Other contemporary rifles also had their advantages along with some quirks or short comings.

Multigunner

05-19-2011, 11:52 PM

Multigunner ; You missed the M1916 selbsladengewehr made for trial purposes for infantry and the "fleigerkarabiner' version of it that they did use in aerial use. The Villar perosa 9x19 Glisenti caliber blowback SMG was more revolutionary and proceded the MP18. And lest we forget the Federov automatic rifle in 6.5x50 arisaka... one of the daddy's of future assault rifles.

While an SMG is a devastating weapon for close quarter combat its usefullness is limited due to its short range and lack of penetration on barriers. The SMG can not be considered a replacement for the infantry rifle, especially for much of the type of fighting done during WW1, and the presence of ungainly though effective body armor as used by German and French machinegunners and assault troops.
This armor couldn't stop direct hits from the infantry rifle except at extreme ranges, but stopped pistol rounds like those used by the SMGs even at close ranges. The Soviets fielded similar armored breastplates during WW2 specifically to protect against the 9mm bullet from the MP40.
The 03 Springfield in the hands of U S Marines proved deadly on individual targets out past 600 yards, around three times the accurate effective range of the best SMGs.
The SMG made a good trench broom, but its limited range meant you had to be close up and personal, while the enemy armed with a rifle had you in his effective range for several hundred yards before you came within the effective range for the SMG.
The present day near worldwide availability of effective lightweight body armor has just about put the SMG out of business as a battlefield weapon, the various short barreled assault carbines like the M4 and Krinkov taking over its duties.
Bolt action rifles , both military and civilian sporter types, in full house main battle chamberings have been used in recent years to defeat all but the best modern body armor that even assault rifle cartridges could not defeat.

PAT303

05-20-2011, 08:54 AM

perotter

05-20-2011, 09:15 AM

The Winchester semi-auto rifles would not have stood up to use in the trenches of France. Nor could they handle the 30-06 cartridge.

The Petersen device fired a low powered cartridge much like the later 30 carbine round. The kit would have added 14 pounds to the load already carried by the Doughboy. It was never used in combat. The supplies made were mostly destroyed, making them a highly sought after collectable.

IMO, none of your examples were serious contenders to replace the bolt action rifle and the only major army to enter WW2 with a standard issue semi-auto battle rifle was the US.

The point was to get out of the trenches of France, not stay in them. The 30-06 cartridge wasn't needed or even desirable for that.

The US wasn't in a position to fight a war for several years( the American people didn't want to be in it). Blackjack had to do something & the Petersen device was the cheapest & fastest that could be done. Not the best solution, but better than nothing.

While bolt actions are fine for you, me & the guy down the street to shoot critters & are very entertaining paper punch, as the main individual weapon of war their life was short. Hatcher said that lessons of WW1 were soon lost. The only major war that I can think of that was ever won with bolt actions was in 1905.

FWIW, in 1927 or 1928 Vickers started to tool up for the Petersen rifle. I don't know why it was stopped. The 1929 worldwide money mess maybe? Maybe you might have more info about this over there. Also, the Chinese fully tooled up to replace their Mauser with the Liu auto in the WW1 era. But, General Liu had a heart attack or stroke or something & things got muddled.

perotter

05-20-2011, 09:28 AM

I think one point that has to be made is that the Lee Enfield action is not heat treated nor does it have difficult machining,both of which make it easier and cheaper to make.In war production counts. Pat

I knew that the machining was of a simple nature, but didn't know that they didn't need to be heat treated. Very interesting.

MBTcustom

05-20-2011, 10:41 AM

Pat303, no disrespect intended but I think that the enfield action is one of the most difficult to machine pieces ever! If you are a machinist I bow humbly to your skill as a master craftsman who can call the enfield action "easy". I cut metal for a living and I believe I could reproduce the Mauser or negant or even AR-15 actions without too much sweat, but the enfield would be a real challenge. Again that is my opinion, based on 12 years of custom machine shop know how. I know there are many craftsmen, older, wiser, and more experienced than I am, so if you are one of those, please forgive me.

doubs43

05-20-2011, 12:45 PM

The point was to get out of the trenches of France, not stay in them. The 30-06 cartridge wasn't needed or even desirable for that.

The tank was far more effective in breaking the deadlock than any infantry small arm.

The US wasn't in a position to fight a war for several years( the American people didn't want to be in it). Blackjack had to do something & the Petersen device was the cheapest & fastest that could be done. Not the best solution, but better than nothing.

The war ended and we can only speculate about what effect the Pedersen Device may have had in actual use. I'm not convinced that an underpowered 30 caliber cartridge would have made that much difference.... even in a semi-auto full sized rifle. It's also questionable if the mechanism would have stood up to use in the mud and filth of the trenches.

The AEF (American Expeditionary Forces) was not deficient in rifles or handguns by the time they entered combat. They relied upon the French and British for artillery pieces - primarily the French 75 - and machine guns. I believe that the AEF mostly used the British Lewis and French Chau-Chau light machine guns and water cooled MG's supplied by the Brits. Had the war lasted longer, The BAR would have proven superior to any other light MG of the war. FWIW, the 1895 Colt "Potato Digger" MG was used by the Canadians and Belgians and a few other minor countries in WW1. I don't know if the AEF ever used them.

While bolt actions are fine for you, me & the guy down the street to shoot critters & are very entertaining paper punch, as the main individual weapon of war their life was short. Hatcher said that lessons of WW1 were soon lost. The only major war that I can think of that was ever won with bolt actions was in 1905.

With the single exception of the US Army and Marines, the bolt action rifle was the backbone of all major armies of WW2. The Germans introduced the STg-44 and the G-43 & G-44 but the former was too late to influence the war and the latter two saw only limited action. Neither of the full powered G-43/44 rifles were very good. The STg-44 was excellent and went on to influence arms design until this very day. So, the Franco-Prussian War was won with bolt action rifles and so was WW1 as well as WW2 on the Eastern Front. I'd say they were pretty "major" as wars go.

FWIW, in 1927 or 1928 Vickers started to tool up for the Petersen rifle. I don't know why it was stopped. The 1929 worldwide money mess maybe? Maybe you might have more info about this over there. Also, the Chinese fully tooled up to replace their Mauser with the Liu auto in the WW1 era. But, General Liu had a heart attack or stroke or something & things got muddled.

I can't deny that semi-auto designs were around as far back as the late 19th century BUT none of them had a major impact until the Garand was used in WW2. Speculating what might have been had WW1 lasted longer is fun but doesn't alter the fact that it was the bolt action rifle that was the primary weapon of all major armies prior to the M-1 Garand.

perotter

05-20-2011, 02:39 PM

The tank was far more effective in breaking the deadlock than any infantry small arm.

The war ended and we can only speculate about what effect the Pedersen Device may have had in actual use. I'm not convinced that an underpowered 30 caliber cartridge would have made that much difference.... even in a semi-auto full sized rifle. It's also questionable if the mechanism would have stood up to use in the mud and filth of the trenches.

The AEF (American Expeditionary Forces) was not deficient in rifles or handguns by the time they entered combat. They relied upon the French and British for artillery pieces - primarily the French 75 - and machine guns. I believe that the AEF mostly used the British Lewis and French Chau-Chau light machine guns and water cooled MG's supplied by the Brits. Had the war lasted longer, The BAR would have proven superior to any other light MG of the war. FWIW, the 1895 Colt "Potato Digger" MG was used by the Canadians and Belgians and a few other minor countries in WW1. I don't know if the AEF ever used them.

With the single exception of the US Army and Marines, the bolt action rifle was the backbone of all major armies of WW2. The Germans introduced the STg-44 and the G-43 & G-44 but the former was too late to influence the war and the latter two saw only limited action. Neither of the full powered G-43/44 rifles were very good. The STg-44 was excellent and went on to influence arms design until this very day. So, the Franco-Prussian War was won with bolt action rifles and so was WW1 as well as WW2 on the Eastern Front. I'd say they were pretty "major" as wars go.

I can't deny that semi-auto designs were around as far back as the late 19th century BUT none of them had a major impact until the Garand was used in WW2. Speculating what might have been had WW1 lasted longer is fun but doesn't alter the fact that it was the bolt action rifle that was the primary weapon of all major armies prior to the M-1 Garand.

I forgot about the Franco-Prussian war. But off the top of my head, I think that less than 25% of the German Union troop had bolt actions.

I never said that they were not the primary weapon of major armies, but said that they were obsolete a weapon in that role. In WW1 they couldn't win the war & hence the stalemate, until Germany went broke.

In WW2, bolt actions didn't factor in with the Russians for front attack use. I've talked to a few Eastern front veterans about what the Russians used & how the Russians operated their attacks. They weren't using bolt action rifles & must have considered it a waste to do so.

The side that lost WW2 was the side that relied heavily on bolt action rifles. The Germans should have known better.

doubs43

05-20-2011, 03:21 PM

In WW2, bolt actions didn't factor in with the Russians for front attack use. I've talked to a few Eastern front veterans about what the Russians used & how the Russians operated their attacks. They weren't using bolt action rifles & must have considered it a waste to do so.

So the many MILLIONS of 1891, 1891/30, 1938 and 1944 rifles produced by the USSR were used for what? Sorry but I've seen far too many pictures and films of front line Russian troops in WW2 equipped with the Moisan-Nagant rifles. I've also read numerous accounts by German Vets of the Eastern Front and they would disagree with you.

Don't you find it odd that on the eve of WW2, Finnish troops, during the Winter War, captured massive amounts of M-N rifles that they reworked into their own models?

I don't think the facts support your theory.

perotter

05-21-2011, 02:47 PM

So the many MILLIONS of 1891, 1891/30, 1938 and 1944 rifles produced by the USSR were used for what? Sorry but I've seen far too many pictures and films of front line Russian troops in WW2 equipped with the Moisan-Nagant rifles. I've also read numerous accounts by German Vets of the Eastern Front and they would disagree with you.

Don't you find it odd that on the eve of WW2, Finnish troops, during the Winter War, captured massive amounts of M-N rifles that they reworked into their own models?

I don't think the facts support your theory.

Yes, the Winter War. I don't find it odd at all. A great case of how obsolete the bolt action rifle was. The ineffectiveness of the bolt actions is why the Finns "captured" them - from dead Russians.

450,000 who's individual arm was a bolt action rifle vs 130,000 that had a mix of bolt action & lever action(Winchester 1895s) rifles. And the 1000s of M31 submachine guns & a few thousand other submachine guns(1500 Bergmans for example). The Finns had less than a 2 month supply of ammo.

The result was that the Russian dead was 126,000 minimum(Khrushchev's autobi he puts it much higher). And much lost equipment.

From this the Russians learned that with the tactics they used:
1. Giving a solider a club was just as effective as giving them a bolt action rifle for a fighting & cheaper. Let the solider carry one to keep his sprints up & for defensive purposes. The commissar can take it away right before the attack.

2. Build 1,000,000s of submachine guns. Russia has for year produced large numbers of great arms designers.

I take WW2 propaganda pictures & movies with much more than a single grain of salt. US, British, German, Russian, etc. To view them as a straight up historical record only leads to ideas based on lies.

After all, such propaganda is fool the folks back home & the new recruits. The Russian propaganda films & pictures couldn't really give a hint of of the truth. Couldn't very well tell the people
1. That they'd spent years making the wrong equipment
2. The fearless leader executed anyone in the military that might be able to have new idea
3. The guy left to run the army only idea is to mass attack in waves. Until the Germans run out of ammo or we run out of men.

perotter

05-21-2011, 02:57 PM

FWIW, being a German machine gunner on the Eastern front from 1941-1945 was just fun and games according to Dr. Schultz. Even when the Russians ran out of men before the Germans ran out of ammo you didn't just sit around drinking schnapps & playing cards.

You had to help remove & count the dead Russian. And pickup & the count the weapons. I'd think that after 3-4 years of that he had a good idea of what the Russian carried for weapons & the number of them.

doubs43

05-21-2011, 07:28 PM

The first semi-auto rifle placed in service by the Soviets was the 1938 Tokarev which was modified to become the 38/40. ALL OTHER semi-auto rifles and sub-machine guns were introduced in 1940 or later. Are you suggesting that those weapons were produced in numbers that allowed them to replace the M-N, a rifle in continuous production for over 45 years by the time of the invasion of the USSR?

When the Soviet Union was invaded by Nazi Germany in 1941 the Mosin–Nagant was the standard issue weapon of Soviet troops. As a result, millions of the rifles were produced and used in World War II by the largest mobilized army in history.

By the end of the war, approximately 17.4 million M91/30 rifles had been produced.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosin%E2%80%93Nagant

Max Hastings, a British historian, says that the best available figures indicate that 8.7 million Soviet soldiers were killed in WW2. A further 22 millions were sick or disabled during the war. To suggest that Soviet industry could replace the millions of M-N rifles in the hands of soldiers with other weapons while still turning out the M-N is not rational. I can understand that certain assault troops may have carried large numbers of sub-machine guns such as the PPSh but the vast bulk of the troops would have been armed with the M-N rifles.... your purely anecdotal "proof" notwithstanding.

I've talked to literally scores of WW2 American soldiers and the overwhelming opinion of them is that the 1911A1 pistol kicks too hard and you can't hit a barn door with one. If I accepted the anecdotal evidence of those men, I'd say the 1911A1 pistol was a horrible handgun not fit for anything except a boat anchor. OTOH, I've shot many issue 1911A1 pistols and know that their claims just ain't so. They simply lacked sufficient training to be proficient with the pistol. So much for anecdotes.

I also reject your contention that the bolt action rifle was obsolete by or before WW1. Just ain't so but I won't be arguing the point any longer. It's your story so you tell it any way you like.

GabbyM

05-21-2011, 10:45 PM

gew98

05-22-2011, 12:20 AM

While an SMG is a devastating weapon for close quarter combat its usefullness is limited due to its short range and lack of penetration on barriers. The SMG can not be considered a replacement for the infantry rifle, especially for much of the type of fighting done during WW1, and the presence of ungainly though effective body armor as used by German and French machinegunners and assault troops.
This armor couldn't stop direct hits from the infantry rifle except at extreme ranges, but stopped pistol rounds like those used by the SMGs even at close ranges. The Soviets fielded similar armored breastplates during WW2 specifically to protect against the 9mm bullet from the MP40.
The 03 Springfield in the hands of U S Marines proved deadly on individual targets out past 600 yards, around three times the accurate effective range of the best SMGs.
The SMG made a good trench broom, but its limited range meant you had to be close up and personal, while the enemy armed with a rifle had you in his effective range for several hundred yards before you came within the effective range for the SMG.
The present day near worldwide availability of effective lightweight body armor has just about put the SMG out of business as a battlefield weapon, the various short barreled assault carbines like the M4 and Krinkov taking over its duties.
Bolt action rifles , both military and civilian sporter types, in full house main battle chamberings have been used in recent years to defeat all but the best modern body armor that even assault rifle cartridges could not defeat.

I'm not sure of what point you are trying to make ?.

doubs43

05-22-2011, 01:20 AM

We didn’t have the M1 Garand in wide service until half way through WWII.
The real nasty battles the fist years in the Pacific were fought with 03’s.
Up in the air we flew Wildcats with nine pistons and four guns. F6 Hellcats and F4U Corsairs and M1 Garand didn’t come along until after the turning point.

Given the habit of Japanese for mass human assaults. I’d of taken an Enfield any day over the 03.

Only the defensive phase of the war in the Pacific - Philippines, Wake Island etc. - was fought primarily with the '03. The Marines went into Guadalcanal with bolt action Springfields but when the Army joined them, they had the Garand and the Marines saw the error of their ways in keeping the '03. They immediately demanded the Garand. Tarawa followed Guadalcanal in May of 1943. The Marines had the Garand for it and for the actions that followed. Tarawa was considerably less than half way through the war.

Multigunner

05-22-2011, 02:25 AM

I'm not sure of what point you are trying to make ?.

That the SMG was never a replacement for the main battle rifle, the SMG never had the necessary range or penetration for open country combat or urban combat where the enemy is dug in and well barricaded.

Had all of the major powers of WW2 posessed the manufacting capability to mass produce autoloading main battle rifles then the bolt action rifles would have been phased out. But the war ended before that was possible.
As an example most of the STG 44 assault rifles manufactured during the closing stages never left the loading docks before Germany was crushed.

perotter
While the Russian Tank Rider Battalions were armed almost exclusively with the PPSH, the vast majority of Russian troops still carried the Mosin Nagant.

As for the Winter War lousy training and tactics lead to the horrific Russian losses in Finland, not their infantry rifles. The Soumi was devasting in the right hands, but the Russians blundering into ambushes and losing all common sense when the officers went down in the first volley gave the Soumi gunner a target rich environment where he could put his SMG to work.
The Finns bought up every bolt action rifle they could, including Japanese type 30 and Italian carcanos. Not every trooper in Finnland carried an SMG or could have used one effectively if they had one.
Had every Russian trooper in Finnland been armed with an auto loader or SMG the outcome would have been the same, superior weapons can't make up for lack of training and poor leadership.

Also when you are in a forest blanketed with snow and sub zero temperatures you would be better off armed with a bolt action rifle that works than with an auto-loader that probably won't.

The Russians developed a neat trick for dealing with German MG positions. Siberian troops would charge until the Germans first opened up, then go to ground digging into the snow.
After awhile the Siberians would charge again, by which time the German MG actions were frozen solid by congealed fouling.
A German officer wrote of seeing Siberian troops over running his MG positions then using a bean sprayer to douse the frozen MGs with a deicer and subzero lube, then turn the now working guns on the retreating Germans.
Even during the Korean War proper sub zero lubes were not commonly issued. U S troops had to use Vitalis hair oil on their Garands to keep them going in the extreme cold.

Both the Canadians (.303) and Swedes (.30-06) still issue bolt action rifles to their arctic patrol groups. Bolt action rifles are far more reliable in extreme cold, and I'd hate to have to face a Polar Bear with only a 5.56 and certainly not with a 9mm SMG.

PAT303

I think one point that has to be made is that the Lee Enfield action is not heat treated nor does it have difficult machining,both of which make it easier and cheaper to make.In war production counts. Pat
The Enfield actions are heat treated, but in a very different manner to Mauser like actions.
The locking lug recesses and locking lugs are differentialy heat treated using electrodes to confine the heat to a specific area. The rest of the Action body is given a sort of spring temper that goes all the wat through.
Theres no super hard carburized shell as with the Mauser.

I ran across a lecture on the manufacturing methods used to make the Metford and early LE rifles. If I can find it again I'll post it here.
The exterior of the action body was precision ground with machine controled grinding wheels rather that machined with cutting heads.
Manufacturing methods probably evolved over the years.

PS
Found it

From "Nature" A weekly journal of illustrated science volume 47, november 1892 through April 1893.
THE MAKING OF RIFLES.
A T a recent meeting of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Mr. •**• John Rigby, superintendent, Enfield Factory, read an interesting paper on the manufacture of small .mn .. We reproduce from the abstract printed for the Institution Mr. Kigby's lucid account of the various processes of manufacture of the components of the Lee-Metford Mark I. magazine-rifle, of 0-303 inch bore, the weapon adopted for the British Army—an account which he prefaced with a general description of the Enfield Factory.

The most important part of a rifle was the barrel, which had always engaged the special attention of gun-makers. Up to the time of the Crimean War, it was, for the bulk of British troops, a comparatively rude tube of iron, lap-welded under rolls and tapering externally, with a cylindrical bore of about ä inch diameter. The barrel of the present day was a steel tube of accurate workmanship, only -fc inch bore, almost perfectly true and straight, rifled to ^Vir inch, and so closely inspected that the existence of the most minute grey or seam in the bore, requiring a highly-practised eye to detect it, was sufficient to condemn it. The material used was produced either by the Siemens-Martin or the crucible process of manufacture, and was supplied to Enfield as a solid round bar l| inch diameter and 15^ inches long. After severe testing, this bar was parsed through a rolling-mill to draw it to its full length : it was then taken to the forge, the swell at the breech-end was stamped to the required shape by a steamhammer, and afterwards straightened cold. The next step was to submit the bar, without annealing, to the turning and drilling-machines. The latter were horizontal, the drills operating from each end. In the process of drilling, the barrel revolved at nearly 1,000 revolutions a minute against half-round bits held flat down, a capillary tube, of brass, supplying a soap-and-oil emulsion, at a pressure of 8o Ib. to the square inch, to wash out theswarth and cool the cutting-edge. The drills advancing from each end continued boring until a small disk about TJ7 inch diameter broke out, and the two holes met. The tendency of the drills to follow the line of axis of a revolving bar was one of those curious occurrences in practical mechanics which might be accounted for after observation, but which no one would predict. Occasionally, through some defect in the steel, a drill wandered from the axial line ; in this case the barrel was taken from the machine and reset sufficiently to bring the hole true again. To test its truth, a ray of light was made to illuminate the flat bottom of the hole while the barrel slowly revolved. It was very rarely that a barrel was rendered waste from bad drilling. Rough-boring followed with a three-edged bit, the blade being about 4 inches long. The rough external turning was effected in self-acting lathes, which gave the required curved taper. Three or four cutters acted simultaneously, each producing a long cutting that attested the quality of the metal of the barrel. The operation of barrel-setting followed. Previous to rough-turning, the barrels were fairly straight internally, but the removal of the metal caused slight inequalities which were tested by the eye of the barrel-setter, and corrected by transverse blows. This constituted skilled labour of a peculiar character, and was performed by young men of good sight, who were specially trained for the purpose. After middle life the eye generally lost some of the quality necessary for this work, and it was rare to find a man excel in it after that period. Many mechanical devices had been contrived to supersede the simple ray of light laid, as ¡fit were a straight edge, along the surface of the bore ; but the eye still remained the arbiter of straightness and could be relied on for very accurate results. The construction of the barrel was completed by the important operation of rifling. In British small-arm factories the system was followed of planing out each groove separately with a hooked Gutter, and had been brought almost to perfection. In Continental and American factories the grooves were ploughed out by cutters, with several cut I ing or knife-edges set at an angle and following one another in the manner of a single-cut file or float. Similar machines had been tried at Enfield, but did not give as smooth a cut as the slower-moving, single-tooth machines. A few passes of a lead lap, fed with fine emery, removed any burr that might remain, and completed the polish ; a cylindrical lap, spinning rapidly, was then passed through, and gave the final finish to the barrels. The limits of gauging were from 0-303 too'305 inch.

Next in importance to the barrel was the mechanism of the breech, for which the material preferred was crucible cast-steel

of a mild character, but capable of being hardened in those parts exposed to the pressure of the bolt. The body was forged in two operations under the steam-hammer ; it was then drilled and subjected to along series of operations, in the course of which the end was recessed to receive the screwed end of the barrel, and the corresponding thread in the recess was milled out in a specially-contrived machine, which insured that the thread should always start in the same place relative to the gauged part of the body, a point of great importance. The bolt, also of crucible cast-steel, was forged under the steam-hammer. A special machine, invented at Enfield, was used to finish the bolt after shaping. After machining, the bolts, packed in wood charcoal in iron cases, were heated and hardened by immersion in I oil. The temper of the handle was then reduced in a lead bath. The rest of the bolt was tempered straw-colour. The bolt-head was similarly hardened and tempered.

The other components of a complete rifle were mostly shaped by mills built up to the proposed profile, or by copy-milling machines. The process of drifting was used with good results I at Enfield. AH such slots or perforations as had parallel sides, and were not cylindrical, were so finished. The common practice in drifting was to push the drift, but at Enfield much better work was accomplished by pulling. It was found that used in this way drifts were very valuable for interchangeable work. The sides were cut with successive teeth, each slightly larger than the preceding one, andfthe whole length of the drift was drawn through. Emery wheels were also largely used at Enfield as a substitute for finish-milling and filing. The wheels ran under hoods connected with a pneumatic exhaust that carried away the heated particles of steel and grit. It was popularly supposed that a machine once adjusted to turn out a component of a certain size and shape was capable of reproducing such in large numbers, all absolutely identical. This was so far from being the case that no die, no drill, and no milling-cutter actually made two consecutive articles the same size. The wear of the cutters or dies proceeded slowly but surely, and it was only possible to produce in large numbers components of dimensions varying betweenja superior and an inferior limit. In smallarm manufacture a variation of about one two thousandth of an inch was about the amount tolerated, but it varied according to the size of the piece. A difference of diameter of one twothousandth of an inch in the sight axis-hole, and in the size of the pin or axis, would cause a serious misfit, whereas a similar difference in the measurement of the magazine, or of ihe recess in which it lay, would be quite immaterial. The operations of gauging, proving the bairel, and sighting, were successively described, as al-o the manufacture of the stock, which was of the wood known as Italian walnut, though largely grown in other countries. Among the smaller components, the screws were mentioned as being rapidly produced by the automatic screwmaking machines of Pratt and Whitney.

The Component Store received the various finished parts, which numbered 1591, or, including accessories, 1863, and issued them to tne foreman of the assembling-shop. Theoretically, the assemblers should have nothing to do but to fit and screw them together, but in practice small adjustments were found necessary. The amount of correction was generally exceedingly small, and was done wherever possible with the aid of emery wheels. The completed arms were submitted to inspection, and then issued in cases of twenty each to the Weedon Government Store or elsewhere.

http://books.google.com/books?id=FMUKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA163&lpg=PA163&dq=bore+of+hammer+forged+enfield++barrel&source=bl&ots=UlO7qKBwPQ&sig=GB8OBAJbr8ZN_mvQfkyz_c7PbeU&hl=en&ei=o_a4S4_lNYK0lQeuwLWWCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CB4Q6AEwBzgK

GabbyM

05-22-2011, 12:32 PM

Only the defensive phase of the war in the Pacific - Philippines, Wake Island etc. - was fought primarily with the '03. The Marines went into Guadalcanal with bolt action Springfields but when the Army joined them, they had the Garand and the Marines saw the error of their ways in keeping the '03. They immediately demanded the Garand. Tarawa followed Guadalcanal in May of 1943. The Marines had the Garand for it and for the actions that followed. Tarawa was considerably less than half way through the war.

That’s pretty much what I wrote.

Please don’t underestimate the amount of fighting which took place up to the point where Japan abandoned Guadalcanal. There weren’t a lot of cameras in the battles until later in the war so most of the film footage you see they have an M1.

Guadalcanal lasted from 7th of August 1942 until 9th of February 1943.
Marines never made a choice not to field the M1. They just weren’t built yet.
US Army had lost about 5/6th it’s total manpower in the Philippines and was rebuilding back in the states when Guadalcanal began. That’s why you don’t see much of the Army until later on.

We fought at Guadalcanal and Midway not because we were ready. We were out gunned out manned and out of time. When we met the Imperial Fleet at Midway it was to repel an offensive that, if successful, would have over run New Zealand and Australia. We did not win at Midway due to luck as Hollywood would have us believe in the poor movies they have made of the battle.

The invasion of Iwo Jima began on February 19, 1945.
Just last year we laid to rest here in town a Marine who went up and down Mount Suribachi. In his personal experience it was mostly grenades. When your turn to move up came you tossed your grenades, as you climbed, at a hole where the Japs were as they tossed and rolled grenades down at you. As you awaited your turn to go up you watched one Marine after another get blasted off the hill. Slats said his first grenade went in the hole. Hence we heard his story.

The M1 was nice to have but it's not why or how we won the wars.

doubs43

05-22-2011, 01:43 PM

spqrzilla

05-22-2011, 07:16 PM

Looks to me like the Enfield is not misunderstood at all.

GabbyM

05-23-2011, 02:28 AM

Looks to me like the Enfield is not misunderstood at all.

It's well appreciated in my mind and I’ve only fired a few rounds from one.
It won two world wars. It’s still in use today in remote areas.
The Mauser lives on as a hunting rifle but the Enfield is a far superior battle rifle.
Our 03 is nothing but a cheap Mauser. I’d love to own one from a historical perspective but they are actually an embarrassment. Only reason they shot better than the others was they were made in the USA by red necks. Design of the 1903 sucks. The old 30-06 1917 Enfields almost always shot better and were a far better design. Sights and all. The stock was off and they had that WWI barrel length. Sgt York was issued a Springfield and dumped it for a 1917 Enfield. As most did when they got the chance.

GabbyM

05-23-2011, 02:50 AM

Gabby, I have no idea where your information comes from but you've reached some very wrong conclusions. The Marines very pointedly rejected the Garand as inferior to the Springfield. Read this "Time Magazine" report from 24 March, 1941: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,884292,00.html Also note the rate at which the Army was replacing the '03 with the Garand; about 700 each day! That was 9 months before we got into the war.

I also suggest that you find a copy of the book "Shots Fired In Anger" by John George. He is very specific in pointing out that the Garand proved to be as reliable - or possibly more so - than the '03 used by the Marines on Guadalcanal. George fought on Guadalcanal and was later a member of Merril's Marauders. He gives an excellent evaluation of both US and Japanese small arms. Perhaps you've heard the story of the combined Army-Marine patrol on Guadalcanal with an Army Sgt. on point. Close at his heels was a Marine; so close, in fact, that the GI asked the Marine why. The Marine replied that the Sgt. was surely going to be the first to get shot and he, the Marine, was going to "have that damned Garand". Anecdotal? Sure, but it's a perfect illustration of how the Marines changed their minds about the battle worthiness of the Garand.

The Army joined the fight on Guadalcanal on 13 October, 1942, just over two months after the Marines landed there. The Army was therefore in the fight for 2/3 of the campaign. It was the Battle of Midway that made the first offensive action by the US at Guadalcanal possible. Breaking the Japanese code gave the US Navy a huge advantage in the battle for Midway. Knowledge of the Japanese battle plan resulted in a decisive victory for the US and a defeat that Japan was unable to recover from.

No one - especially me - has claimed that the Garand won the war but it sure was the deciding factor in many meetings between US troops and the enemy. I will say, with much justification, that the Garand was THE best battle rifle of WW2 fielded in large quantities by any army of the time.

You are still splitting hairs. I know when the battles were fought. It’s all on Wiki.
Sure the Army showed up with M1's.
You can say the Marines claimed the M1 was inferior. You read that in a Garand worshiping book so it is true, right. I say the Marines didn’t get the M1 until after the army had all they wanted. So they told there men they don’t want it anyway. I used to eat lunch and take breaks with men who fought in the pacific. Then I’ve read the books written by Marines not Garand fans.

There’s lots of literature out there. Sounds to me you have been reading books about the M1 glorious career. I’ve been reading books of battle accounts and men’s service. Same story from a different perspective. What I was saying is by the time the M1 came into service we had already won the war in the Pacific.

don't over rate the role of the Army with the Marines at Guadalcanal.
Fact is we lost around 124,000 real soldiers of the US Army in the Philippines. Were only about 29,000 left in the USA. In the big scope Pearl Harbor was just about cold steel. Our blood was lost in the Philippines. Our Army was just getting back in the game at the end of the Guatalcannal fight. Most Ameicans have no clue as to the ass kicking we got delt by the Japanese. It's just not handy for them to deal with it.

As you said we used the bolt guns in the defensive part of the Pacific war. Well after that the disparate fighting was over. Still ugly but the out come was always certain.

Compare the M1 Garand to the thread topic Enfield and the M1 pales. Sure it was the best. But not the greatest or most used.

JIMinPHX

05-23-2011, 03:07 AM

The US manufacturing capability may have been the single biggest factor in winning WW2. We provided materials to the USSR that likely saved their butts. We sent Britain massive amounts of arms, munitions and other materials that kept them going. At the same time, the US produced what our own military forces needed in abundance. Calling us the "Arsenal of Democracy" wasn't far fetched at all..... we certainly were. It took time to gear up and we were short on things for awhile but our industry came through.

This is precisely why the current status of our manufacturing capabilities in this country scares the living daylights out of me.

perotter

05-23-2011, 08:09 AM

The old 30-06 1917 Enfields almost always shot better and were a far better design. Sights and all. The stock was off and they had that WWI barrel length. Sgt York was issued a Springfield and dumped it for a 1917 Enfield. As most did when they got the chance.

The 1917 Enfield was another copy of the Mauser & not an improved Lee.

perotter

05-23-2011, 08:30 AM

I've talked to literally scores of WW2 American soldiers and the overwhelming opinion of them is that the 1911A1 pistol kicks too hard and you can't hit a barn door with one. If I accepted the anecdotal evidence of those men, I'd say the 1911A1 pistol was a horrible handgun not fit for anything except a boat anchor. OTOH, I've shot many issue 1911A1 pistols and know that their claims just ain't so. They simply lacked sufficient training to be proficient with the pistol. So much for anecdotes.

That is why it was replaced with the M1 carbine. What was good enough in 1911 wasn't 20 years latter.

Before the US Army decided to get a light auto loader, they tested a small bolt action - like Spanish Destroyer - that fired the 45 acp.

perotter

05-23-2011, 09:06 AM

The Finns bought up every bolt action rifle they could, including Japanese type 30 and Italian carcanos. Not every trooper in Finnland carried an SMG or could have used one effectively if they had one.

Indeed, how and where weapons is used is more important than an single weapon.

In the Winter War in the "normal" Finnish infantry every other squad had a Soumi. In the Sissi(sic?) infantry every squad had on. In the Continuation War the Soumi made up a little over 25% of the weapons in the "normal" infantry paltoon & about 30% in a Sissi(sic?) infantry.

I wrote that bolt actions were obsolete & not that they weren't used.

The Finns bought/ordered up almost any weapon they could during. For small arms they bought/ordered 177,000 bolt action, 13,456 pistols, 5,700 semi auto rifles & 100 machine guns.

The 100,000 Carcanos weren't delivered until after the Winter War. The 77,000 Swedish Mausers were, but the Finns returned at least 25,000 of them when Sweden decided to increase the size of their army.

I believe that the Japanese rifles were acquired in the late 1920's in a round about trade. Traded some 8mm Mauser ammo for them. These went to the Civil Guard & were never used by the Finnish military.

Thank for the information on the manufacture off the Enfield rifle. I never knew that they drilled the barrels from both sided at the same time.

FWIW, I found an e-copy for the manual for the Petersen rifle that Vickers-Armstrong published. I knew that Vickers had tooled up for them, but didn't know that they produced & sold them.

gew98

05-23-2011, 09:57 AM

You are still splitting hairs. I know when the battles were fought. It’s all on Wiki.
Sure the Army showed up with M1's.
You can say the Marines claimed the M1 was inferior. You read that in a Garand worshiping book so it is true, right. I say the Marines didn’t get the M1 until after the army had all they wanted. So they told there men they don’t want it anyway. I used to eat lunch and take breaks with men who fought in the pacific. Then I’ve read the books written by Marines not Garand fans.

There’s lots of literature out there. Sounds to me you have been reading books about the M1 glorious career. I’ve been reading books of battle accounts and men’s service. Same story from a different perspective. What I was saying is by the time the M1 came into service we had already won the war in the Pacific.

don't over rate the role of the Army with the Marines at Guadalcanal.
Fact is we lost around 124,000 real soldiers of the US Army in the Philippines. Were only about 29,000 left in the USA. In the big scope Pearl Harbor was just about cold steel. Our blood was lost in the Philippines. Our Army was just getting back in the game at the end of the Guatalcannal fight. Most Ameicans have no clue as to the ass kicking we got delt by the Japanese. It's just not handy for them to deal with it.

As you said we used the bolt guns in the defensive part of the Pacific war. Well after that the disparate fighting was over. Still ugly but the out come was always certain.

Compare the M1 Garand to the thread topic Enfield and the M1 pales. Sure it was the best. But not the greatest or most used.

I knew more than a handfull of veteran Marines..one still living. To a man they preferred the M1 over the bolt rifle. On guadal canal when the army trrops did show up with M1's it was all the rage for marines to steal one for their own use.. and they did.
I knew more than one USMC vet that tossed away M1 carbines in preference for the Garand... it simply knocked the japs they fought down when the carbine seemed not to more than once. I'd have to say if you talked to the vets I knew/know and said the war in th epacific was won by the time the garand got their they may think you crazy to be polite. You do know M1's were in the philipenes when the japanese attacked there and those rifles acquitted themselves well there. by 1944 ALL USMC boot camp training was with the M1 rifle .
Personally as I have stated before the 1903 rifle was a cheap knockoff with alot of flaws which made it less than spectacular in combat. I have owned some nice collectible 03's and shot them all and eventually I found all their faults and got away from them and stuck with real mausers that did'nt break down or were easily rendered inoperable.

gew98

05-23-2011, 10:05 AM

On enfields to keep it relevant , to me they are among the best bolt rifles ever fielded for military use. In some aspects the german made mauser equivalent beats it but in most ways the No1 Mk III and especially the No4 rifle beats the 98 mauser in versitality and accuracy.
But to recognize the most accurate 303 brit rifle I have to tip my hat tot he Patt'14 as I have personally found it to be the ultimate 303 issue rifle for accuracy.
If I had to go to war with a bolt rifle make mine a "smelly" any day all day.

doubs43

05-23-2011, 01:05 PM

That is why it (1911A1) was replaced with the M1 carbine. What was good enough in 1911 wasn't 20 years latter.

Replaced? No, it didn't. The M-1 Carbine was issued to front line junior officers and some NCO's in WW2 & Korea as a more effective weapon at longer distances than the 1911A1 but it never actually replaced the pistol at all.

I qualified in basic training in March of 1965 with the Carbine at the same time that the Army and Marines were still carrying the 1911A1 as their standard sidearm. I was temporarily issued a 1911A1 in 1967 for Special Courier duty. By then the Carbine was nearly gone as a US military weapon. Millions of them were sent to places like South Korea, Thailand, Philippines and South Vietnam for use by their troops. The 1911A1 outlasted the Carbine by some years as an issue weapon.

doubs43

05-23-2011, 01:13 PM

I knew more than a handfull of veteran Marines..one still living. To a man they preferred the M1 over the bolt rifle. On guadal canal when the army trrops did show up with M1's it was all the rage for marines to steal one for their own use.. and they did.
I knew more than one USMC vet that tossed away M1 carbines in preference for the Garand... it simply knocked the japs they fought down when the carbine seemed not to more than once. I'd have to say if you talked to the vets I knew/know and said the war in th epacific was won by the time the garand got their they may think you crazy to be polite. You do know M1's were in the philipenes when the japanese attacked there and those rifles acquitted themselves well there. by 1944 ALL USMC boot camp training was with the M1 rifle .

Exactly right. However, an old fart such as myself obviously knows nothing about guns so I leave the floor to GabbyM who knows it all.

GabbyM

05-23-2011, 02:27 PM

Guys you’re giving me a hard time. :popcorn:

It’s a fact that the US Marines landed on Guadalcanal with the 03 not the M1.
I never said the Marines didn’t like the M1. That was gew98 that came up with that article.

Try a google weapons Guadalcanal. Heck I’ll do it for you. This is the easiest page to find topic I came across. Click on the 303 Springfield after you read the insert.

http://www.pacificghosts.com/guadalcanal/weapons/usmc/index.html

While reading some on the net I found this. You M1 lovers will like this quote from a forum thread.
Quote:
I just read an article about the 164th Infantry Regiment. After the soldiers landed on Guadalcanal in October 1942 to relieve the 1st Marine Division, Japanese bombers attacked the beach. During each air raid, the soldiers would take cover and the Marines would swipe as many M1's as they could from the Army's boxes of equipment. Having served in the USMC, this account has the ring of truth!

It’s well accepted that after Guadalcanal the Japanese had lost the war. I can’t understand anyone taking issue with that statement. Japanese just wouldn’t admit defeat.

I’ve read books that were written by Marines. Air and ground. So of course they say when the Army came in the fighting was mostly over. They call the Army an occupation force. Army guys may have a different take on that one.

I found a photo of a Brit who had hid out during occupation on Guadalcanal with a smelly.

MBTcustom

05-23-2011, 10:23 PM

:holysheep You guys really know your stuff!! what a history lesson!!!:popcorn:
Its obviously better to be misunderstanding than to be misinformed. I am just blown away that so many of you were actually there. I hope I didn't offend anyone with the comments that I made at the start of this thread. My opinions were not based on history at all but on the workmanship of a piece of metal that impressed me.
Since I see that my post has drawn the attention of several who have actually served, may I take this opportunity to say
Thank you
Thank you for making it so that I can not only bear arms in the defense of my home and family, but have security such that I probably wont ever have to.

gew98

05-24-2011, 09:25 AM

Guys you’re giving me a hard time. :popcorn:

While reading some on the net I found this. You M1 lovers will like this quote from a forum thread.
Quote:
I just read an article about the 164th Infantry Regiment. After the soldiers landed on Guadalcanal in October 1942 to relieve the 1st Marine Division, Japanese bombers attacked the beach. During each air raid, the soldiers would take cover and the Marines would swipe as many M1's as they could from the Army's boxes of equipment. Having served in the USMC, this account has the ring of truth!

It’s well accepted that after Guadalcanal the Japanese had lost the war. I can’t understand anyone taking issue with that statement. Japanese just wouldn’t admit defeat.

I’ve read books that were written by Marines. Air and ground. So of course they say when the Army came in the fighting was mostly over. They call the Army an occupation force. Army guys may have a different take on that one.

.

Guadal canal did not mark pacific victory ...not sure how you come to that conclusion. tens of thousands of US troops died after gaudal canal... The battle of midway was The turning point more so than the canal was...and even then no dice. The japanese mindset was not such where a major battle or strategic defeat would compell them to ever think they were losing or had lost to make them 'give up'. Stalingrad the the tone of how the eastern front in europe was going to go..yet the war went on almost three more years after the 6 th army died there. So I have to factually disagree with your comment that the battle for the canal "won the war in the pacific". I don't think any of the pacifc vets I ever knew would have accepted the war was 'over' at that point..considering the close up and personal combat they endured long after that moment in history.
I am getting the jist you are somehow disposed to feel the marines did it all ?. There are plenty of instances of Army troops in the pacific with and without marines. That the marines had considerably more able leadership is a given...they did by merit of their long serving NCO and very professional old officer cadres.
No one branch could have done it all without the other.
In one of my books I recall reading where in the battle for manilla there was a bunch of japanese dead that were being searched and they were all armed with a mix of enfields and 03's... some 03's w/jap type 30 bayonets attached even.
Oddly on enfields the germans whom captured large quantities of them in both world wars seemed predisposed to not like them. The only two instances I have ever come across where the germans reissued SMLE's was to some border troops on the occupied french//german border and those coastal fortress units that used 303 cal MG's. I believe most of the 303's the germans handed to their balkan allies and as well I assume the ammunition captured was'nt enough to meet german needs and the fact they never produced 303 bal for the rifles in their hands.
On your M1 fanboy thing.. I'm not so much an M1 fanboy as much as I am a no likey 03 guy. If the US gov't had done it right we would have had a rifle as good or better than the SMLE , but we got something far less than that and kept it far too long.

spqrzilla

05-24-2011, 02:49 PM

It’s well accepted that after Guadalcanal the Japanese had lost the war. I can’t understand anyone taking issue with that statement. Japanese just wouldn’t admit defeat.

Because it is a subjective statement, not a factual one, by its nature. Because the Japanese war aims were never to "win" the war against the US by conquest but rather by attriting the US into accepting a negotiated settlement and because there was still a lot of hard fighting left that was by no means certain of result. It is well accepted that there was a momentum change with Midway in mid '42 but it took six long and hard months of fighting in Guadalcanal in early '43. And as late as 1944, the Japanese were on the offensive in China and into India itself.

GabbyM

05-24-2011, 03:09 PM

gew98:
Go back and read what I actually wrote. Then please stop misquoting me. You are making up words like war over and fan boy that I never wrote. You are trying to make me out to be argumentative and that’s simple not true. I wrote M1 fans. Not what you pseudo quoted as “M1 fan boy“.

I don’t know why you can’t be civil over a historical discussion.

You brought up the Army. Everyone knows how the Marines refer to the army. That’s just a running joke. I’ve not bashed the Army in this thread and never have in my life.

Losses in the Philippines including Commonwealth of the Philippines soldiers was 146,000 men. 25,000 killed 21,000 wounded 100,000 captured. IIRC about 124,000 of that was US. But I can’t find the numbers. This does not include US Navy losses. Our Sub fleet was hurt bad.

GabbyM

05-24-2011, 03:35 PM

Because it is a subjective statement, not a factual one, by its nature. Because the Japanese war aims were never to "win" the war against the US by conquest but rather by attriting the US into accepting a negotiated settlement and because there was still a lot of hard fighting left that was by no means certain of result. It is well accepted that there was a momentum change with Midway in mid '42 but it took six long and hard months of fighting in Guadalcanal in early '43. And as late as 1944, the Japanese were on the offensive in China and into India itself.

Books will use terms like turn the tide of war. We stopped loosing battles is what it amounts to. You are just being argumentative.

India was never invaded. We fought in Burma and allies lost something like 38,000 men there. I used to eat lunch every day for about eight years with a man who marched over 800 miles up through Burma. 124th Texas Cav. A Texas NG Regiment. Half of his Company died one night. In the morning The Army AF bombed the Japs with Napalm from P-61 Black Widow‘s.. No Japanese survived. Meral said the whole mountain top went up in a fireball. They named the mountain there White Mnt after there Captain. They had M1 Garand and carbines plus 03’s. It was soldier choice as to what to carry. He did say the carbines jammed up a lot that night. After over 800 miles drug through the jungle.

Multigunner

05-24-2011, 05:03 PM

gew98

05-24-2011, 06:37 PM

The Germans found out early on that using the captured British .303 rifles was extremely hazardous due to the distinctive muzzle blast of cordite. German forwards observers were very familar with this muzzle flash and immediately called in artillery on any position where they saw it. An incident when conscipted non German troops (Hungarian?) using Enfields were decimated by friendly fire brought this home.
The Germans did use as many captured BREN Guns as possible and had many captured Vickers guns they had seized from Central European armies that had bought the surplus Vickers dirt cheap after WW1. Many Maxim guns were also chambered in .303 and were commonly encountered in central and eastern europe and Africa.
There have been reports of German remanufactured .303 ammo found loaded with cordite yet without the over the charge card. This suggests either reloaded spent cases or remanufactured relic ammunition given a fresh primer and pulled cordite charges sorted to get rid of deteriorated strands before reloading. I've seen a film strip of women loading cordite one strand at a time into cartridge cases that already had the shoulder and neck formed. I have no idea where the film came from. Its been suggested that this might have been filmed in Russia or one of the occupied countries. The Russians used many .303 weapons, both rifles given to them by Britian and aerial guns on British supplied aircraft.

The Japanese seem to have issued captured SMLE rifles to POW camp guards. Most captured SMLE rifles were put in storage in China and many were later recaptured by Chinese Guerillas when storage areas were raided.
The Japanese hated to use any rifle not manufactured under their direct supervision and bearing the Imperial seal. They did used many Mauser rifles captured in China and some manufactured under their supervision in captured Chinese arsenals before converting these facilities to manufacture the Japanese rifles.

The Garand was highly developed by the time it began to be issued on a wide scale, but it had many teething problems early on. At first grenade launching using the Garand could be a problem, so Springfields were still used to launch rifle grenades for some time. The Marines preferred the Johnson auto loader, but it was never available in sufficient quantities.

I have never heard of any great criticizm of the Springfield by any troops that used it in combat. It did have some serious problems of a unknown percentage of brittle receivers till the heat treatment process was changed and improved alloys were introduced. Even then most early WW2 USMC Springfields were low number rifles with suspect metalurgy. The "Hatcher Hole" and careful inspection and maintenance by Marine Corp armorers seems to have headed off accidents. Most likely almost all the rifles with brittle receivers had already bit the dust by then.
The Marines filed down the battle sight for a dead on 50 yard zero. The full windage adjustable Springfield rear sight was one of the best of its type.
The two piece firing pin was a potential problem but so long as the separate striker tip was properly heat treated it was unlikely to break during normal use.

The Lee Enfield long rifle and carbine also suffered many teething problems early on, and failed a number of Canadian field tests in bitter winter weather. There were constant redesigns and upgrades of the Lee Enfield rifles up to and during WW1.

When the Springfield was in the design stage the Enfield did not have the charger loading system, that came along at about the same time that the U S contracted for the Mauser designed stripper clip and other features. The legal hassles conected to using Mauser features for the then new rifle seem to had been due to the Comptroller of the U S Treasury claiming that the Chief of Ordnance had overstepped his authority in contracting for these features through auser's American business associates.
There were a number of competing stripper clip designs, but the mauser clip was the best and easiest to manufacture.
The Enfield charger is very different from the Mauser type charger, and unsuitable for rimless catridges. It also required more steel to mass produce.

The British contracted Remington to produce a redesigned Springfield 1903 rifle chambered in .303, but only a prototype was built. Remington then offered a simplified Springfield in .30-06 to fill the contract. Most of these rifles ended up in New Zealand, while some seem to have ended up in storage and never used. Other rifles from this run were diverted to arm other allies.

The power and penetration of the .30-06 , regardless of which rifle was used. was extremely useful during the island campaigns. The ability to shoot through trees and logs with enough power remaining to stop an enemy cold was very important, since the Japanese were adept at making full use of cover.

One objection to the Garand was its peep sight. a rain drop could make the sight useless at an inopportune moment. When the Japanese built their copy of the Garand they chose an open sight mounted on the barrel.
Apeture sights have many advantages, but the consesus of experianced jungle fighters of the day was that the open sight was superior for rapid target aquisition, many still feel the same way.

The prototype .303 Springfield used a receiver mounted peep sight, far different in construction from the later 03a3 rear sight. This rifle also had a M1917 style grip, and may have inspired the "scant" gripped 03a3 stock.

The "cordite muzz blast" is fantasy for the germans not to have used such. As well the germans did not load any 303 ammo , let alone with 'cordite' as the germans never manufactured cordite. Germans produced 6,5 dutch , 8mm lebel and 8mm Danish krag in the occupied countries . The germans as well in the first war produced 7,62x54R and 8mm lebel for use with large quantities of captured rifles and emma gees.
The communist russians had a good many of Patt'14 and Ross rifles they took from the estonians..and SMLE's , and many of these came from aide originally supplied to the white russians hence original Soviet manuals on how to use can be found dated in the 1920's & 30"s.
What does the 303 5 round charger have to do with anything in this discussion ?. I will add it holds cartridges more secure than the mauser pattern charger.
What is with the "power of the 30-06 ball have to do with anything here ?. For all practical purposes the japanese 7,7 and brit 303 were rather eqaul and acutally better long range loading wiht the heavier bullet(s).
And the 03 did not have glaring faults to it's leary days..some that persisted to the end of production.
Peep sight vs raindrops...*** ?.
Consensus of jungle fighters of the day ... *** ?.
Nothing personal but it sounds like some stuff out of a comic book. I have been actively collecting military rifles for 30 years.... new alot fo WW2, Korean , Vietnam and two Great war veterans.... never heard such things from them or any book or mil publication.
Have you ever had an 03A3 loose it's rear sight assy under rapid fire.. I have
Have you ever seen an 03 pierce a primer and shoot the 2 peice firing pin out of the back of the bolt like a bullet...I have twice and it was'nt pretty on the first occassion.
Have you ever encountered an 03 or 03 A3 with damaged front sight blades...can't tell you how many I have as they are delicate. And I have reapried or rpelaced a handfull of 03 rear sights as they were either worn to the point of moving when shooting or simply damaged...worst combat sight I can recall off the top of the dome.
Ever hear of 03's blowing up..I sure have and have seen one personally that let go.Kid survived with cuts & brusies and a bit of a permanent flinch.
Ever come across 03's with stocks cracked at the wrist... a bunch , for I have.
Only veteran I ever met that carried an 03 in battle was in italy as an infantry captain. After the first big close up shootout with the enemy he got into ...he tossed it and picked up an M1 rifle.... he felt way undergunned with all the automatic weapons the germans used.
I have yet to hear of an enfield let go , blow bolt bits back in a shooters face , have easily damaged sights and or stock. Only M1's I have ever heard of giving problems were those that hand rolled ammo on tweaked match guns and had out of battery discharges due to the outside operationg parameters of the rifle and ammo as they did.
I can snap shoot with V notch or peeps...but it's super hard with those tiny 03 krag like rear and front sights. You could almost say the same of the SMLE...but with the front and rear sight ear protectors for snap shooting those buggers work wonders...miles above all comers. Snap shooting is soemthing you either are a natural at or can only garner from lots of practice. With the M16A1 when I wa sin uniform we put tape over the rear sight and had to learn to naturally point to hit. Having hunted alot for me it was a no brainer and easy peasy.
Anyhow I give up goobering on this thread anymore.

Multigunner

05-25-2011, 05:31 AM

The "cordite muzz blast" is fantasy for the germans not to have used such.
The muzzle blast from cordite was such that the British authorised use of Mk8z ammunition for use in the BREN gun during low light operations specifically because the muzzle flash gave away the gunner's position to German forwards observers. The Single Base powder used by Mk8z ammunition gave less muzzle flash.

As well the germans did not load any 303 ammo , let alone with 'cordite' as the germans never manufactured cordite.
I would have thought the same but some of this German manufactured ammo has shown up in recent years.

What does the 303 5 round charger have to do with anything in this discussion ?. I will add it holds cartridges more secure than the mauser pattern charger.
The Charger works fine with rimmed cartridges, but it is not suited to rimless cartridges. The mention of the Springfield being a copy of the Mauser required some clarification. The supposed patent infringement was over the stripper clip and guides, not the design of the bolt.

What is with the "power of the 30-06 ball have to do with anything here ?. For all practical purposes the japanese 7,7 and brit 303 were rather eqaul and acutally better long range loading wiht the heavier bullet(s).
The MkVII bullet does not hold together well when penetrating solid wood such as a tree trunk or log. Every main Battle cartridge I've tested on wood penetrates far better than the .303 MkVII.
When body armor and rifleman's shields were tested during WW1 the .303 MkVII was found to be the least likely to defeat these primitive armors compared to other Main battle catridges of the day.
The WW1 era .30-06 load did not have the maximum extreme range of the .303, but the .30 M1 Ball addressed that shortcoming. In any case the .30-06 was inarguably the more accurate that ranges where the individual rifleman could be expected to engage individual enemy targets.
This thread has drifted all over the place, and some seem to believe that pistol caliber SMGs and rapid firing subcaliber carbines like the M1 carbine could take the place of a full powered infantry rifle. Thats just not the case.

And the 03 did not have glaring faults to it's leary days..some that persisted to the end of production.
Peep sight vs raindrops...*** ?.
Never seen a small diameter peep sight apeture blocked by a rain drop? it can happen, and any of a number of battle field debris can get caight in the apeture. The No.5 Jungle Carbine battle sight apeture is much larger in diameter to reduce the possibility of it holding a drop of water.

[quote]
Consensus of jungle fighters of the day ... *** ?.
Thats according to what I've read on the various objections to the apeture rear sights. As I've said many still prefer the open sight when they can get it. But of course you use the rifle you are issued and there was no recourse.

Nothing personal but it sounds like some stuff out of a comic book. I have been actively collecting military rifles for 30 years.... new alot fo WW2, Korean , Vietnam and two Great war veterans.... never heard such things from them or any book or mil publication.
Then you aren't as well read as you think you are.

Have you ever had an 03A3 loose it's rear sight assy under rapid fire.. I have
Another objection to the apeture sights as used with the 03a3, exposed to damage. the 03a3 rear sight was a supposed improvement that had its short comings mainly because it was not part of the original design as the apeture sights of the M1917 and No.4 sights were.

Have you ever seen an 03 pierce a primer and shoot the 2 peice firing pin out of the back of the bolt like a bullet...I have twice and it was'nt pretty on the first occassion.
never saw it but have heard that it could happen. Just as broken Enfield bolt heads maiming and killing shooters and bystanders has happened in the past but is unlikely to happen these days if good quality ammo is used and the rifle is in good order.

Have you ever encountered an 03 or 03 A3 with damaged front sight blades
Thats why they manufactured a removanble sight guard for the 03.

blades...can't tell you how many I have as they are delicate. And I have reapried or rpelaced a handfull of 03 rear sights as they were either worn to the point of moving when shooting or simply damaged...worst combat sight I can recall off the top of the dome.
I believe I mentioned earlier that I considered the SMLE MkIII rear sight to be the best of its kind. I've also had to replace the broken rear sight of my 1915 SMLE, the slender windage adjustment threaded shaft is a weak point. I've seen nothing that would lead me to believe that the Springfield 03 rear sight is any more prone to damage than any similar rear sight of its kind even though it doesn't have the thick steel rear sight guards of the SMLE.
In Hesketh Pritchard's book "Sniping in france" theres a section on the P-14 rifle. He warned against carrying that rifle with the ladder sight in the up position, because the sight could be damaged when exposed.
The same would apply to the No.4 ladder sight or any similar sight, you just had to learn to fold the sight down when moving about.
Its not uncommon for the apeture of the Garand rear sight to break off if it gets hung on something, like a webbing strap, or bumped against a limb.

Ever hear of 03's blowing up..I sure have and have seen one personally that let go.Kid survived with cuts & brusies and a bit of a permanent flinch.
Sure, I mentioned the poor metalurgy and brittle receivers of low number Springfields, and how the metalurgy was greatly improved for subsequent production. Some rifles were made using a Nickel steel alloy much like that used for the M1917, and others used even stronger alloys.
In the records of the Canadian House of Commons theres a record of dozens of Lee Enfield action failures and ruptured barrels during a two year period. The rifles blew up on a target range and in almost all intances the ammunition was high quality freshly manufactured ammo produced in Canada.
Every rifle ever produced has gone through stages of improvement in design and manufacturing processes.

Ever come across 03's with stocks cracked at the wrist... a bunch , for I have.
I've replaced quite a few broken Lee Enfield stocks, some butt stocks split lengthwise along the tunnel for the stock bolt. Early SMLE butt stocks are drilled out above and below the butt trap weakening the butt and these often show splits along the sides. Late butt stocks do not have the same drilled out areas.

While the stock bolt does usually prevent the grip from breaking the fore ends are not nearly so strong. I've repaired broken fore ends and rebuilt the insides using accraglass gel due to the open end grain of the rear of the Enfield fore end drawing oil into the wood and causing oil perishing. Chips of wood can break free of the draws and jam the sear, the wood around the action body can warp to the point that the bedding can't be corrected. On several the fore end warped in a twist with the front sight ears leaning quite a bit to one side.

Only veteran I ever met that carried an 03 in battle was in italy as an infantry captain. After the first big close up shootout with the enemy he got into ...he tossed it and picked up an M1 rifle.... he felt way undergunned with all the automatic weapons the germans used.
Yet the majority of those German troops still carried the K98 Bolt Action rifles.
I believe I mentioned that the Garand was a much better battle rifle than the competition, both bolt action or autoloaders. I simply mentioned objections to the rifle that came up at the time.

I have yet to hear of an enfield let go ,
Then you haven't looked far enough into the rifle's history.

blow bolt bits back in a shooters face , have easily damaged sights and or stock.
I can look up the links to discussions on the Enfield rifle's safety in the British Parliament and Canadian House of Commons if you like.
There were several incidents where shooters or bystanders were injured both by blown out bolt heads and in one case the right hand rear receiver wall breaking away.
A civilian shooters journal of the turn of the century quoted a London Gun maker as saying that replacing Lee Enfield action bodies that had broken clean through was a major part of his business.
Records of a NRA match of the time told of many civilian owned Lee Enfields being destroyed when the Ministry of Defence supplied the shooters with defective ammunition.

Few if any of the shooters of the day, either civilian or military, did not recognize that the Lee Enfield action was not as strong as the actions that used forwards mounted locking lugs.

Records on such accidents are not easy to find, unlike the carefully compiled list of low number Springfield action failures that can be found in Hatcher's Notebook.

According to the foreward of Reynold's Book of the Enfield the Ministry of Defence had destroyed almost all its records on the development of the Lee Enfields before that book was written in the 1960's.
Reynolds had to rely on bits and pieces of documents that some officers had kept in their personal files.

I've run across a great many badly damaged SMLE rifles over the years, most I suspect were damaged by use of Mk8z MG ammo or aircraft gun ammo loaded to pressures beyond the rifle's safety margin.

A Member of another board served as a Range Officer at the NRA UK match abd witnessed the blow out of an Enfield bolthead. A bystander received a minor wound to the neck. Suprise , Suprise, the accident never got splashed across every news paper front page and they didn't even run a banner under the Fox TV news reports.

Which reminds me. In the Canadian House of commons debate they asked if the dozens of incidents of blown out Enfield bolts had made the newspapers, the answer was "no, but they might tomorrow".

Only M1's I have ever heard of giving problems were those that hand rolled ammo on tweaked match guns and had out of battery discharges due to the outside operationg parameters of the rifle and ammo as they did.
As I said the Garand reached a high level of development before being issued in large quantity to our troops.
Some of the Garands early teething problems were the breaking away of the heel of the receiver, this was addressed by annealing the heel by dipping in molten lead.
Another was the Seveth round jam situation caused by an initial boring step cutting away part of the clip guide inside the mag rails. They caught this problem and changed that step in the machining process, and affected receivers were repaired by welding up and re cutting the guides.
Several versions of grenade launcher attachments were tried before they developed a reliable launcher that did not damage the rifle or interfere with its normal operations. Till then grenade launching was left up to the Springfield 03.

One cause of out of battery slam firing is the bolt striking the heel of the receiver if the gas port pressure is too high. The rear of the bolt can become peened and cause the firing pin to jam in the forwards position.

I can snap shoot with V notch or peeps...but it's super hard with those tiny 03 krag like rear and front sights. You could almost say the same of the SMLE...but with the front and rear sight ear protectors for snap shooting those buggers work wonders...miles above all comers. Snap shooting is soemthing you either are a natural at or can only garner from lots of practice. With the M16A1 when I wa sin uniform we put tape over the rear sight and had to learn to naturally point to hit. Having hunted alot for me it was a no brainer and easy peasy.
Anyhow I give up goobering on this thread anymore.

I prefer a ghost ring for snap shooting. I drilled out the L sight apeture of my No.4 Savage and threaded it for a brass disc apeture for target work in good daylight. With that apeture removed the sight acts as a ghost ring that allows a good sight picture in low light.
Some folks can't get used to the apeture sights at all, and a too small apeture is basically unuseable in low light.

During the Vietnam era they for a time tried training troops in point shooting using a purpose made Daisy air gun and hand thrown targets. Never heard how well that worked.

PS
The mention of Garands damaged by handloads reminded me of another objection to autoloaders in those days. Like the Revolver the Bolt Action rifle will continue to function even if its ammunition is of poor quality or degtaded, so long as no bullets get stuck in the bore anyway. The Garand functioned well but not with all types of available .30=06 ammunition. The garand worked best with M2 ball. Cartridges loaded with powders that burned slower than 4895 could cause excessive gas port pressure which damaged op rods.
The Bolt action rifles could digest just about any ammunition so long as it was not loaded to extreme pressure levels, and a weak load would not cause a jam. If a case got stuck in the chamber the bolt actions had much greater leverage for extracting a stubborn case. It was also much easier to get to the chamber to use a broken case extractor. The Garand barrel could not be so easily cleabed from the breech as the Springfield. You could use a pull through from the breech but a rod had to be inserted at the muzzle , which is the major cause of muzzle wear and crown damage. The autoloaders also required more complicated cleaning methods than a bolt rifle.

perotter

05-25-2011, 08:40 AM

The 1911A1 outlasted the Carbine by some years as an issue weapon.

They are both still issued, just not by US.

spqrzilla

05-26-2011, 12:29 PM

Books will use terms like turn the tide of war. We stopped loosing battles is what it amounts to. You are just being argumentative.
I'm not the one being argumentative.

India was never invaded. We fought in Burma and allies lost something like 38,000 men there. I used to eat lunch every day for about eight years with a man who marched over 800 miles up through Burma. 124th Texas Cav. A Texas NG Regiment. Half of his Company died one night. In the morning The Army AF bombed the Japs with Napalm from P-61 Black Widow‘s.. No Japanese survived. Meral said the whole mountain top went up in a fireball. They named the mountain there White Mnt after there Captain. They had M1 Garand and carbines plus 03’s. It was soldier choice as to what to carry. He did say the carbines jammed up a lot that night. After over 800 miles drug through the jungle.

Actually, the Japanese offensive in 1944 reached the city of Kohima in India's Nagaland state. The Battle of Kohima took place from April through June of 1944. Simultaneously, the Japanese reached the Indian city of Imphal to the south of Kohima. These were on the border with Burma but were in India proper.

Multigunner

05-27-2011, 04:18 AM

The M1 Carbine was more of a suppliment to the 1911 than a replacement.
No matter how much training you could give a soldier a large percentage will never catch onto handling a handgun effectively. Those officers and Non Com normally expected to carry a handgun had to stay in practice or forfiet a pay allowance that hinged on passing regular certifications.

When frontline crew served guns like medium machineguns, light mortars, etc, required that some troops carry far too much equipment to be expected to carry the infantry rifle as well, it was a choice of arming them with a handgun or arming them with a carbine that was light and handy enough to not get in the way of their duties.

Of these enlisted men some could learn to handle a handgun effectively while others could not hit the ground with one if they dropped it. Training tens of thousands more personel in pistol craft was not cost or time effective.

A Navy Surgeon wrote of the many ADs aboard ships, almost all involved "Ninety Day Wonders" officers with no civilian experiance with handguns and very little training in handling the 1911. He partly blamed the poor condition of some of the handguns being issued. Many badly worn or many times rebuilt 1911 pistols were being issued because there just weren't enough new pistols available for every officers much less those lower ranks who might require a PDW type firearm.

When hundreds of thousands of recruits are being called up most had some previous experiance with small game rifles at the very least. Even the city boys had at least tried their hand at shooting galleries. So practically any soldier could quickly learn to shoot a light shoulder arm well enough to protect himself and his position if necessary.

The British often issued the STEN Gun in much the same manner as we issued the M1 carbine. Both were often issued as fighting weapons as well as PDW, but neither could do the job of the infantry rifle. They just didn't have the range or accuracy potential, and more often than not required multiple hits to put an enemy out of the fight.
One source I found awhile back told of how before the STEN Gun began to show up in large quantities some officers would trade their handgun to the squad mortar man in exchange for his issued STEN Gun. Both were happy with the trade, since the Mortar man had less to get in his way, and the officer had a more effective close combat weapon.

Another point thats seldom considered was the quality of the helmets of the Germans and Japanese. Both used manganese alloys that were superior to the standard Hadfield Manganese alloy used by the US and Britian.
Pistol and SMG bullets often bounced off the Axis helmets. In jungle fighting, and in deep woods, you might only get a glimpse of a hunkered down enemy, most often no more that his eyes and helmeted head, the rest hidden behind a stout log. You'd need a rifle capable of penetrating the enemy helmet or shooting through that stout log in order to kill the enemy before he got you.

gew98

05-27-2011, 11:36 AM

Multi ; Your long winded posts here on this topic are so much opinion than historical fact..I dunno. Seems like you read some books and you make conclusions based on your opinions and not actuality of what happened. Sort of like your interjecting Mk V11Z ball to defend germans not using the enfield due to muzz blast... I must admit that gave me one helluva laugh for that non sequitir.MK8z ammunition blowing up enfields? Same powder charge as Mk7z, the only difference was the bullet, flat base vs boattail. the boat tail gave longer range in Machine guns
While its true Mk8z has less muzzle flash, so does Mk7z and Mk8z could be used in rifles.
And having been a collector of german small arms for way over a decade or two to include foreign arms utilized by them and their ammunition I can say no german produced 303 ball is out there. I have seen german repacked lots of captured brit made 303, French 8mm lebel and Russki 7,62 .... they were meticulous like that.
The defects of the 1903 rifle far outweighs it's benefits. As well your trying to establish SMLE ,No4 's and Patt'14 having more delicate sights was ridiculous. If you took any one of those three rifles and tossed them down a little rocky hill they would almost certainly have a functional rifle... the 03 eh, not so much. I have had 03's rear sights wander while shooting...loose,worn out , damaged or bad combat design..all four. I have never had my peep sight on any of my so equipped rifles "blocked" by water.... and I carried an M16A1 and A2 while in the army & guard in some nasty wet environments.
You know the french did some really crazy things wiht their small arms because they adopted the mindset not to use anything " not invented here". You know like the lebel , berthier and Mas36 bolt rifles have no manual safety and are at best marginal battle rifles , though the 7,5 frenc cartridge is good and the rear sight on the MAS36 is rather decent.
On that vien the US adopted the 03 in such a way buy such people it was farcical. The US Krag is a pleasent and accurate range rifle..hardly would want it in combat....and same goes for the 1903. There is a reason why the Enfield rifles continued on in such large issue... they were cheap , sturdy , accurate and more reliable than any issue bolt rifle out there.
You do realize that the Us caliber 30 M1906 bullet was a near blatant copy of the german S patrone bullet of 1903 , but the german cartridge had a 200 fps faster bullet in it's issue loading. I can load to spec both with original bullets and the 7,92 S patronen load outperforms the 1906 bullet loading by a good margin. Another thing to look at is the sniping rifles the US fielded with the 1903...they were delicate jokes. The british and german sniper kit were practical and serious affairs, and damn more effective.
When I worked in a junkyard as a kid I had many gobs of US Helmets brought in by US Naval weapons station Earle. We spent alot of time shooting these with our P08's , P38's Hi-powers and GI 1911's and my S&W 1917 revolver. At 50 feet it was a rare thing to have ANY pistol bullet hole a helmet.... but that old 230 grain 45 pill bashed the snot out of it..would have sent the wearer down with a concussion if on his noggin. I have seen detailed US military wartime reports on captured german helmets their alloys , and weaknesses. German helmets like their japanese kin if HEAT treated properly were good helmets but in no way bullet proof as that was not it's purpose. Those reports as well found heat treat quality of the German helmets examined all over the place... inconsistent Q&A.
The "no amount of training" given to soldiers that a "large" percentage will fail to meet standards is nutz. You seem to infer that only combat handgunners can handle a pistol for self defence , after all the pistol in US Military use was meant as a close quarter defence..not some IPSCA shooting contest against rifles and SMG's , right ?.
Before the US military took our 1911's away I had been issued many with alot of "miles" on them...but NEVER encountered an unsafe 1911..... those 90 wonders were the problem in negligent discharges. I've met some "educated" types that when they see a worn finish and or dinged up old military rifle/pistol they automatically think aloud "it's in bad shape..is it safe"... they are better off sticking to their learned trade in most respects.
The Infantry rifle was basically rendered hors de combat due to change in artillery and automatic small arms advancements. The days of the high powered combat rifle were numbered after experiances on all fronts in the 2nd war. The germans and russian proved that when lighter automatic weapons were introduced up front and in contact they were superior in firepower where it counts..at the sharp end. The days of standing off enemy formations at hundreds of yards was mythical..the first war proved that , and it took the 2nd war to drive that home.
You look at the span-Am war and you will find that the flatter shooting higher velocity smaller caliber charger loaded mausers thoroughly kicked the Krag rifle's **** if handled by good troops. Same thing happened in the Boer war. The great war stopped alot of such innovations to smaller higher velocity calibers .
After WW1 the germans went to the sS patronen as it supplied superior long range performance and it was fairly a good copy of the french bornze Balle D bullet. The US being a good follower copied with the caliber 30 M1 bullet.. a .308 version of the sS patrone bullet.
But unlike the germans the US dropped the superior bullet and went back to the M1906 bullet and redisgnated it Cal 30 Ball M2..
Anyhow I digress. But note that you will find good old enfields trucking along all over the world giving meritous service...but not 03's and it's not because of the caliber of the bullet but the "caliber" of the rifle design.

spqrzilla

05-27-2011, 12:27 PM

Some interesting points, Multigunner. Although I would partially disagree with you regarding the effectiveness of submachineguns in combat. Tactically, the advantages of bullet squirters like the Sten were recognized as early as WWI in assault situations where the purpose of the arm was to suppress the enemy while the squad or fireteam advanced. There were some deadends developed for that role like the BAR but the SMG's utility for that role was recognized in a lot of armies. Another advantage of the SMG was its ease of manufacture. That's what led the Soviets as well as the British to issue so many.

perotter

05-27-2011, 01:39 PM

Some wrote that the Winchester SL 1905 rifle would never make the cut as a front line military weapon in WW1. In .30 carbine, one passed all the US Army tests in May of 1941 for the Light Rifle tests. There was concerns that the chamber wear would cause problems down the road. If it would have been good enough for WW2, he'd say that it would have been good for WW1.

Multigunner

05-27-2011, 04:39 PM

Multi ; Your long winded posts here on this topic are so much opinion than historical fact.
Same can be said for your post.

.I dunno. Seems like you read some books and you make conclusions based on your opinions and not actuality of what happened. Sort of like your interjecting Mk V11Z ball to defend germans not using the enfield due to muzz blast... I must admit that gave me one helluva laugh for that non sequitir.MK8z ammunition blowing up enfields? Same powder charge as Mk7z, the only difference was the bullet, flat base vs boattail. the boat tail gave longer range in Machine guns
While its true Mk8z has less muzzle flash, so does Mk7z and Mk8z could be used in rifles.
The Lithgow SMLE was never authorized for use with Mk8z ammunition.
The No.4 with its marginally stronger action was authorized to use Mk8z when supplies of MkVII ammo ran short.
The Manufacturing tolerances for Mk8z and the maximum standard deviation resulted in some entire lots producing excessive pressures wuithin the limitations of the Vickers gun but not within the limitations of the SMLE.
Mk8z used in high temperature regions could produce pressures over 60,000 CUP, enough to cause concern to machine gun companies and leave case heads with the markings blurred and primers flattened till they appeared painted on.
To Damage does not always mean "blow up".
Like far too many you seem to believe that only a catastrophic failure can put a rifle out of action.

Of the many millions of SMLE rifles manufactured many are still in good condition, but a great many have been relegated to DP status due to acculated damage that compromised the rifle's safety margins.
You should read the Armorers instructions on what the look for when judging if a rifle is worth repairing or should be demilled and DP'ed.
First sign of excessive pressures is a loose charger guide bridge, indication of cracking of the action body.
When the Action body has flexed beyond its ability to spring back to shape the lugs can no longer make equal contact. There are special gauging bolts used to determine when the action has stretched.

And having been a collector of german small arms for way over a decade or two
Call back in about thirty more years, when you have some real experiance under your belt.

PS

DWM
Deutsche Waffen Und Munitionsfabrik, Karlsruhe, Germany produced both ball and blank .303 cartridges.
http://www.dave-cushman.net/shot/303headstamps.html

Results of 1948 testing on penetration of M1 Helmet by 9mm ammunition.

SUMMARY:
M1 helmets were fired at using different 9mm ammunition to determine the greatest penetration range. A Canadian 9mm Parabellum ammunition having a velocity of 1250 f/s penetrated the M1 helmet at 130 yards, which was further than any of the other ammunition tested.

1. Weapons
a. Browning FN 9mm Pistol, HP Inglis-Canada, Serial Number 8T2367
b. Colt Automatic Pistol, Cal .45, 1911A1, Serial Number 1651407

2. Ammunition
a. Special 9mm Parabellum cases and Cal .38 S&W Special Bullets (Metal clad, 158 grains) and loaded to a velocity of 850 f/s.
b. Winchester 9mm Parabellum, 116 grain bullet, Lot WRA22026, 1,150 f/s instrumental velocity at 53 feet.
c. Cartridges, Ball, 9mm M1, 116 grain bullet (Parabellum) (Code T2CAB) Lot DIL- 617 (Canadian) 1,250 f/s instrumental velocity at 53 feet.
d. Pistol Ball Cal .45 M1911, Lot E C S25250.

3. M1 Helmets

4. Outdoor range facilities

RESULTS:
1. The special 9mm Parabellum case with a Cal 38 S&W bullet penetrated the M1 helmet at 50 yards, but not 60 yards.
2. The Winchester 9mm Parabellum (1,150 f/s velocity) penetrated the M1 helmet at 120 yards, but not at 130 yards.
3. The Canadian 9mm Parabellum (1,250 f/s velocity) penetrated the M1 helmet at 130 yards, but due to lack of longer range facilities was not fired beyond this point.
4. The Cal .45 ammunition penetrated the helmet at 30 yards, but not at 35 yards.

I noticed awhile back that some recently manufactured commercial 9mm FMJ ammo has very little penetration compared to milspec or even older 9mm commercial FMJ ammo.

Many of the Stalhelm helmets on the market are actually mild steel training helmets. These were cheap alternative helmets never intended for combat. The Irish at one time used a similar mild steel helmet that looks almost identical to the German Stalhelm.
U S Training films on pistol craft demonstrated the lack of penetration of the German helmet by the .45 ACP fired at close range. These films are available on the net if you want to look for them.

If the SMG could replace the infantry rifle there would have been no need for the development of the assault rifle. The SMG is a close combat weapon, and of limited value in many situations due to lack of penetrating power.

1hole

05-27-2011, 07:59 PM

BruceB

05-27-2011, 08:42 PM

duplicate

BruceB

05-27-2011, 08:45 PM

[QUOTE=1hole: It's ugly, impossible to make an attractive sporter....."

Now, just HOLD ON THAR, Pilgrim!

Go to www.auctionarms.com and do a search for 9059436 ....

If that's not an attractive sporter, I suggest that someone's taste is severely lacking. I've used the various British-type .303 rifles for upwards of fifty years to date, and THIS is the best-looking of the whole bunch.

I've cherished this rifle since the day it arrived at my home.

Of course, I still think an as-issued #4 is a fine-looking rifle, so maybe it's MY taste that is suspect???

Multigunner

05-27-2011, 09:34 PM

The British military wanted a cost effective, moderate range bolt action battle rifle, not a target rifle or hunting rifle. The got what is aguably the best such rifle ever to take the field. It's ugly, impossible to make an attractive sporter and not highly accurate but neither were most of its users. But it held 10 rounds of very effective ammo, fed reliably, was brute tuff as a rifle or a club and it worked well in virtually any environment. It was what they needed, when they needed it, and that's praise enough.

Thats the way I look at it as well.
Theres no need to gild the lily, or denigrate other fine rifles as some feel compelled to do.

PS
While there are many butt ugly sporterized Enfields out there, there are also many fine sporters that look as good as any other type.

gew98

05-27-2011, 09:48 PM

Same can be said for your post.

The Lithgow SMLE was never authorized for use with Mk8z ammunition.
The No.4 with its marginally stronger action was authorized to use Mk8z when supplies of MkVII ammo ran short.
The Manufacturing tolerances for Mk8z and the maximum standard deviation resulted in some entire lots producing excessive pressures wuithin the limitations of the Vickers gun but not within the limitations of the SMLE.
Mk8z used in high temperature regions could produce pressures over 60,000 CUP, enough to cause concern to machine gun companies and leave case heads with the markings blurred and primers flattened till they appeared painted on.
To Damage does not always mean "blow up".
Like far too many you seem to believe that only a catastrophic failure can put a rifle out of action.

Of the many millions of SMLE rifles manufactured many are still in good condition, but a great many have been relegated to DP status due to acculated damage that compromised the rifle's safety margins.
You should read the Armorers instructions on what the look for when judging if a rifle is worth repairing or should be demilled and DP'ed.
First sign of excessive pressures is a loose charger guide bridge, indication of cracking of the action body.
When the Action body has flexed beyond its ability to spring back to shape the lugs can no longer make equal contact. There are special gauging bolts used to determine when the action has stretched.

Call back in about thirty more years, when you have some real experiance under your belt.

PS

http://www.dave-cushman.net/shot/303headstamps.html

Results of 1948 testing on penetration of M1 Helmet by 9mm ammunition.

I noticed awhile back that some recently manufactured commercial 9mm FMJ ammo has very little penetration compared to milspec or even older 9mm commercial FMJ ammo.

Many of the Stalhelm helmets on the market are actually mild steel training helmets. These were cheap alternative helmets never intended for combat. The Irish at one time used a similar mild steel helmet that looks almost identical to the German Stalhelm.
U S Training films on pistol craft demonstrated the lack of penetration of the German helmet by the .45 ACP fired at close range. These films are available on the net if you want to look for them.

If the SMG could replace the infantry rifle there would have been no need for the development of the assault rifle. The SMG is a close combat weapon, and of limited value in many situations due to lack of penetrating power.

I don't know where to begin. The MK 7 & 8 Z can and have been used in rifles regularly. It was often use dby brit snipers due to it's consistency and better long range properties.... in all climates.
Where do you get this mild steel training helmet thingy ?. The germans NEVER made a training helmet... officers did at times before the war procure aluminum mad eissue pattern helmets for easy parade wear.. but steel training helmets...nobody did that as it was'nt cost effective and trainees train with the real field gear.
DWM disappeared before WW2 , so the ammunition you cite was commercial contract for places like estonia , finland etc etc..... not german made for captured british rifles which did not exist in their hands before 1939. As well the germans never produced 303 in the great war.. only 7,62 russian and 8mm lebel. The germans apparently decided the Enfield was just too british for them.
Hmmm... I used WW2 canuck surplus ball , WW2 german ball and a mix of green lacquer sealed S&W ball way back then when we had a plethora of M1 steel pots to shoot at... rarely did we get a penetration with the 9mm and neevr with a 45.. though the 45 as I noted would bash the helmet and but good..most assuredly ringing the gong of anyone wearing it had it been struck. On a sidenote I have met one veteran whom directly related to me a 6,5 jap bullet entering his helmet and spinning around between it an dthe liner..where he later retrieved it...and he carried that bullet in his wallet ever since as a good luck charm. I do believe ernie pile even recounted a similar event with a bullet to the helmet ladged between it and the liner.
So how did the SMG & pistol calibers enter into this discussion about the greatest military bolt rifle fielded..when it especially has o bearing on the qualilty of said enfield rifles ?.

Multigunner

05-27-2011, 11:19 PM

I don't know where to begin. The MK 7 & 8 Z can and have been used in rifles regularly. It was often use dby brit snipers due to it's consistency and better long range properties.... in all climates.
The Mk8z ammunition production quality varied greatly, the cartridge was intended for maximum range indirect fire not target accuracy. Some lots of Mk8z were very accurate, while others were not particulary accurate at all. Any rifle that had previously been used with more than a few hundred rounds of MkVII ammunition couldn't hold a group using Mk8z, bullets keyholed as often as not.
A Sniper rifle that had previously been fired with very few rounds of MkVII could be very accurate with the best quality of Mk8z ammunition.
All that can be found in the manuals.
Even Vickers Machinegun barrels were segregated and marked so that Mk8z would not be fired in a barrel previously used with MkVII ammunition.

The SMLE was not sturdy enough for a steady diet of Mk8z ammunition, and use of the Mk8z with the No.4 was officially restricted to emergency use only.
The fact that some thought they knew better is no doubt why so many fine rifles have ended up being junked for parts or demilled as Drill Rifles.

Where do you get this mild steel training helmet thingy ?. The germans NEVER made a training helmet... officers did at times before the war procure aluminum mad eissue pattern helmets for easy parade wear.. but steel training helmets...nobody did that as it was'nt cost effective and trainees train with the real field gear.
If you are going to collect WW2 militaria you should read up on the faked WW2 stahlhelms made by painting fake emblems on the mild steel training helmets, they still show up occasionally.
The German M40 Stahlhelm was manufactured using Maganese Silicon alloys, far stronger than any previous alloy used. The M35 was very nearly as tough.
The mild steel training helmets showed up years ago and were often used as movie prop helmets. Last I heard most came from Spain, a plastic training helmet has also been noted, not sure where they came from.
Similar plastic versions of the U S M1 and French Adrian Helmet have been used by military police as a riot helmet.

DWM disappeared before WW2 ,

DWM underwent a number of name changes following World War I and the subsequent disarmament phase. DWM was no longer allowed to produce military equipment after World War I (although they continued on a smaller and somewhat secret scale) and the first name change was to BKIW (Berlin-Karlsruher Industriewerke or 'Berkawerke') in 1922. After the national-socialist takeover of power in Germany, the company added 'vormals Deutsche -Waffen und Munitionsfabriken' (former DWM) to the company name in 1933. In 1936 DWM reverted to its old name.

[edit] Deutsche Waggon- und Maschinenfabriken

Main article: Waggon Union

In the 1950s the Berlin branch of the company started using the name 'Deutsche Waggon- und Maschinenfabriken GmbH', but still using the original DWM logo. The new name reflected the fact that the Berlin branch had switched to the renovation and building of railroad and public transport equipment following the war. The Berlin branch eventually became Waggon Union, a manufacturer of rail vehicles and bus bodies.

Hmmm... I used WW2 canuck surplus ball , WW2 german ball and a mix of green lacquer sealed S&W ball way back then when we had a plethora of M1 steel pots to shoot at... rarely did we get a penetration with the 9mm and neevr with a 45.. though the 45 as I noted would bash the helmet and but good..most assuredly ringing the gong of anyone wearing it had it been struck.
Ill take the results of military testing over plinking in the junkyard with unkown quality ammo.

So how did the SMG & pistol calibers enter into this discussion about the greatest military bolt rifle fielded..when it especially has o bearing on the qualilty of said enfield rifles ?.
Because the thread drifted and some seemed to believe the Submachine gun could somehow make the battle rifle obsolete.
Though fact is the .303 MkVII also proved the least effective against the various body atmor and trench armors fielded during WW1.
The Japanese also used body armor to a limited extent during WW2. Besides the helmet and breastplates they also had greaves to protect the legs.
The .30-06 could walk through all of that like it was tissue paper.

waksupi

05-28-2011, 01:53 AM

Due to the good history being posted here, I have made this a sticky.

Multigunner

05-28-2011, 04:51 PM

Heres a link to a free download of "Helmets and Body Armor in Modern Warfare"
http://books.google.com/books?id=6OeO9_g_6n4C

It only goes up to the post WW1 era.
I found a link to U S Tests of Japanese WW 2 body armor.
Some photos of Japanese officers show them wearing what appears to be the WW1 Japanese breastplate armor.
I'll find it again and post it here.

Some of the WW1 body armor was suprizingly effective, even against rifle fire at a distance, and proof against pistol bullets and grenade fragments.

PS
This site has a report on Wound Ballistics
The link is to a page that has the Japanese armor evaluations and links to original photos of captured body armor.
http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/woundblstcs/chapter11.htm

spqrzilla

05-28-2011, 07:43 PM

Multigunner, touring some museums near WWI battlefields in Europe, I saw some armor shield like equipment that looked surprisingly like modern SWAT team entry team shields. They were made for protecting soldiers rising above the trench line for observation.

gew98

05-28-2011, 07:51 PM

The Mk8z ammunition production quality varied greatly, the cartridge was intended for maximum range indirect fire not target accuracy. Some lots of Mk8z were very accurate, while others were not particulary accurate at all. Any rifle that had previously been used with more than a few hundred rounds of MkVII ammunition couldn't hold a group using Mk8z, bullets keyholed as often as not.
A Sniper rifle that had previously been fired with very few rounds of MkVII could be very accurate with the best quality of Mk8z ammunition.
All that can be found in the manuals.
Even Vickers Machinegun barrels were segregated and marked so that Mk8z would not be fired in a barrel previously used with MkVII ammunition.

The SMLE was not sturdy enough for a steady diet of Mk8z ammunition, and use of the Mk8z with the No.4 was officially restricted to emergency use only.
The fact that some thought they knew better is no doubt why so many fine rifles have ended up being junked for parts or demilled as Drill Rifles.
If you are going to collect WW2 militaria you should read up on the faked WW2 stahlhelms made by painting fake emblems on the mild steel training helmets, they still show up occasionally.
The German M40 Stahlhelm was manufactured using Maganese Silicon alloys, far stronger than any previous alloy used. The M35 was very nearly as tough.
The mild steel training helmets showed up years ago and were often used as movie prop helmets. Last I heard most came from Spain, a plastic training helmet has also been noted, not sure where they came from.
Similar plastic versions of the U S M1 and French Adrian Helmet have been used by military police as a riot helmet.

Ill take the results of military testing over plinking in the junkyard with unkown quality ammo.

Because the thread drifted and some seemed to believe the Submachine gun could somehow make the battle rifle obsolete.
Though fact is the .303 MkVII also proved the least effective against the various body atmor and trench armors fielded during WW1.
The Japanese also used body armor to a limited extent during WW2. Besides the helmet and breastplates they also had greaves to protect the legs.
The .30-06 could walk through all of that like it was tissue paper.

My god man... I have used a large quantity of # 7 & 8 nitrocellulose loaded surlus ball and have found it much more accurate than cordite loaded ammuntion. You do know that ammo loaded for aircraft MG's was superior quality than infantry designated ball for obvious reasons right ?. Large lots of US & German ammo of dubious quality and or mixed lots were NOT allowed for training and combat use for overhead fire due to that very inconsistency. It's very old hat in th enfield world that rifles used "alot" with cordite ammunition had their throats of the bore adversely deteriorated by the greater heat generated by the cordite propellant , all the more reason for snipers to want something less aggressive to their bores that was more accurate and had better qualilty and long range properties.
You are quite mistaken that nitrocellusoe loaded ball was restricted for pressure reasons and the bunk that the SMLE or No4 could not handle it is an old wives' tale of the highest order. By restricting use of the more expensive Cellulose loaded ball to the MG's was to insure more accurate longer range fire..this had zero to do with safety or pressures.. that's a fact.
So you revert to movie prop helmets...made many years after the war...stick with what you know before you 'blow'. As I stated the germans NEVER made training helmets...any other country that copied the "style" of the german helmet is nor will not be part of this regarding your assertion as they ARE NOT relevant to this discussion .
What does post WW2 plastic helmets have to do with anything ?. For US military for one thing Riot control was the standard M1 pot with a plastic visor attached via an aluminum ring & spring. I know I was there and did that training. The typical US M1 pot liner was a sort of plastic affair often worn by MP's without the steel pot when on duty on posts..but what does that have to do with combat ?.
I do not care if you take "tests" over my own experiances of using surplus ammo 25 years ago...your experiances may differ and mileage will vary.
What does body armor which in the great war was only a german thing and so very limited in use during WW2 have to do with anything ?. You do know of WW1 american accounts of encountering wurttemburge troops assaulting them with body armor, and that bullets hitting the armor did not penetrate .. right ?. You are really reaching and avoiding your points of contention which have been proven bunk.
All told the cal.30 cartridge is a good one as good as any other..but it is in no way the "most awesome ever boolit" and the problem as I see it was the US got saddled with a below par rifle with a good caliber... the delicate abomination called the 1903 and later marks of inferiority. On a target range the oooh ahh 03 was oh so nice...in combat...well history has a different story.

PAT303

05-29-2011, 12:26 AM

We shot Mk8z rounds through our Mk111's for years here in Oz,mine has shown no distress in shooting it and it was always held in reserve for the longer yardages as it outshot the normal Mk7's we used.The standard Mk7 round would not shoot through armour as the fibre tip would mash and the bullet would splatter and the aluminium tipped type wasn't much better but thats what armour piercing ammo is for.We used to nip the tip off with square faced cutters so it turned into a hollow point and on pigs/goats the bullet would blow holes through them. Pat

Multigunner

05-29-2011, 06:20 AM

My god man... I have used a large quantity of # 7 & 8 nitrocellulose loaded surlus ball and have found it much more accurate than cordite loaded ammuntion. You do know that ammo loaded for aircraft MG's was superior quality than infantry designated ball for obvious reasons right ?.
The Lewisgun ran better with Nitrocellous powder, because it was gas operated. The French liked to dump the cordite charge from MkVII ammo and replace it with Powdre B for use in the Lewis gun.
Cordite was prefered by the RAF during WW2 for use in the recoil operated wing guns because the tracer compound then in use required the higher temperature of Cordite. The RAF main wing guns of WW2 was a scaled down copy of a U S .50 design. The mechanizm had to be altered to fire with an open bolt to avoid cook offs due to the high temperatures of cordite. The muzzle bushing also had to be redesigned because of hard baked carbon build up from the Cordite.
Aerial gun ammunition intended for synchronized guns had to meet very strict testing of the primers and ignition times, ground MG ammo (which is where the British Snipers obtained their MkVIIIz) did not have to meet the same specifications.
US Target shooters once prefered surplus .30-06 aerial gun ammo, especially the AP ammo. The very consistent ignition improved accuracy.

It's very old hat in th enfield world that rifles used "alot" with cordite ammunition had their throats of the bore adversely deteriorated by the greater heat generated by the cordite propellant , all the more reason for snipers to want something less aggressive to their bores that was more accurate and had better qualilty and long range properties.
Of course the Single base powders have a lower flame temperature, and the best lots of MkVIIIz were more accurate than MkVII. If the British had believed that the MkVIIIz cartridge was suitable for the No.4 rifle they would have issued it to their snipers, but they didn't so Snipers that wanted to use that ammo had to scrounge for it.

As I stated the germans NEVER made training helmets...
Then what would you call the M17 Transitional used during the pre war training?
I've seen these heavily dented and the dents beaten out, the metal used was certainly not very tough and appeared to be thinner than that of the M16 Coal Shuttle or later models .
They also made a lightweight aluminum version of the M34 helmet. These were used by various police and fire fighting units. There was also a Plastic version of this helmet.

What does post WW2 plastic helmets have to do with anything ?. For US military for one thing Riot control was the standard M1 pot with a plastic visor attached via an aluminum ring & spring. I know I was there and did that training. The typical US M1 pot liner was a sort of plastic affair often worn by MP's without the steel pot when on duty on posts..but what does that have to do with combat ?.
I mentioned those in Passing, I did not say that the Plastic copy of the M1 helmet was used by American MPs.
The ones we had here were blue plastic and may have been used by the South Koreans.
The helmet liners you speak of would give little protection in a riot situation, its a liner not a helmet and is for show more than anything else. The MP might as well wear a hat for all its protective ability.
They did produce limited quantities of a thicker balistic nylon helmet liner towards the end of WW2 to improve the protection of the M1 helmet.
A member of an old forum posted a photo of his father displaying the helmet he was wearing when hit by an explosive bullet from a Japanese machinegun. His helmet was one of those fitted with the ballistic liner. The Shell of the helmet was split wide open with a hole just above the brim four inches across. The liner was shredded but stopped the fragments of bullet and helmet from penetrating the man's skull. He spent awhile in the hospital recovering from the concussion and minor cuts, but survived with no lasting harm.

I do not care if you take "tests" over my own experiances of using surplus ammo 25 years ago...your experiances may differ and mileage will vary.
Mileage would certainly vary for WW2 surplus ammo fired 25 years ago. the ammo would have been forty years old.
[/quote]

What does body armor which in the great war was only a german thing and so very limited in use during WW2 have to do with anything ?. You do know of WW1 american accounts of encountering wurttemburge troops assaulting them with body armor, and that bullets hitting the armor did not penetrate .. right ?. You are really reaching and avoiding your points of contention which have been proven bunk. [/quote]
Still burning because your assumption that DWM went out of business and disappeared before WW2 was proven false? If you were that far wrong what else are you wrong about?
Read the book I linked to. Its very enlightening. The British, Russians, Japanese, and Italians used body armor and bullet proof shields during WW1.
The Japanese continued to use body armor on a limited basis during WW 2. They used it often enough that the U S tested captured Japanese armor and attempted to field an armor of our own.
The Russians also used armored breastplates to some extent during WW2. Said to be able to stop a bullet from an MP40 at one hundred yards and stop .32 and .380 bullets at close range.

I have seen a photo of U S troops displaying captured German Lobster shell armor. The Soldiers were wearing the armor and mugging for the camera. So the Armor was in use by the Germans in battle against U S forces.

The Book on Helmets and Armor describes tests run on this and the other armors in use. Some would stop the .30-06 Ball at 200 yards, some performed even better. One Italian breastplate would stop a Mannlicher bullet at full muzzle velocity.

All told the cal.30 cartridge is a good one as good as any other..but it is in no way the "most awesome ever boolit" and the problem as I see it was the US got saddled with a below par rifle with a good caliber... the delicate abomination called the 1903 and later marks of inferiority. On a target range the oooh ahh 03 was oh so nice...in combat...well history has a different story.

Sounds like sour grapes because you picked a worn out rifle and fed it defective ammunition.
Of the photos of blown up Springfields I've seen, none had blown the firing pin out. I suspect a rifle that had been dry fired alot could end up with a cracked striker tip.
As for combat effectiveness "tell it to the Marines", they used the Springfield to great effect till enough Garands were produced that the Marines finally got their share.
Most of the Springfields used by the Marines were low number rifles. some were given the "Hatcher Hole" to allow gas to escape should a defective casehead rupture. Many if not all the low number rifles were re-proofed at 75,000 CUP after WW1.
At the Internet Archive site they have the records of a Congressional investigation into defective ammunition produced during WW1. The result of that investigation was a kick in the pants for ammunition manufacturers and WW2 ammunition was of overall very good quality.

That match grade accuracy of the Springfield came in very handy in both World Wars. The Germans were very impressed by the marksmanship of the US Marines during WW1. You might ask the Japanese about the accuracy of the Springfield but very few that ran up against it survived to tell any tales.

By the way the Acceptable Figure of Merit (Mean Radius) for British .303 ammunition was about twice that of the .30-06. The U S Cartridge was consistently more accurate than the .303.

gew98

05-29-2011, 12:38 PM

I had a RIA 9/18 that had the hatcher hole and original USMC front and rear sights w/original USMC front sight cover..but thankfully it was'nt a low number handgrenade.
Sour grapes on 1903's because the US could have done better and adopted a real mauser not a halfbreed with too delicate of a nature. It is indisputable that the 1903 was pretty sad for a battle rifle. I have fired 03's aplenty alongside mauser 98's , and various enfields and the 03's were the only one's that consistantly supplied myself and friends with problems like roving rear sight bits , easily damaged to include the Front sight blade. I even had one 1903 that the screw fell out of the front sight and the blade literally fell off , and another one where it backed out and the only thing that prevented the Front sight from falling off was the sheet metal protector. Many 03's I have handled have evidenced cracked stocks at the wrist.. more so than any german or brit rifle . As well as having 03A3 rear peep sights fall off the receiver bridge...seen and experianced that more than once. Reminds me of the First M14's fielded. They were an absolute disaster and had to be recalled and reworked. My late father as a US Navy 'CB' was in Gitmo during the cuban crisis and they had their M1's pulled and were given brand new 14's right out fo the crates. And in short order rear sights loosened and became useless to some actually popping off of the rifles while shooting , and gas system loosening up causeing malfunctions. They boxed them right back up and reissued the M1's. The M14 had the distinction of being the shortest lived Service rifle. But I digress. "match grade" accuracy is all good and well if it's practical and durable...and since the 03 was'nt well executed with those factors not considered it was less than ideal. In Roy Dunlap's book "ordnance went up front" he recounted where some US troops preferred to carry captured japanese type 38 carbines over the 03's, and this is mentioned in "Shots fired in anger" by JB george as well.
And again the germans never made "training helmets" What police and or fireman wore and what effete officers wore for parade has zero to do with combat so why muddy the water there , they were not soldiers and those were not combat helmets.
You have to take alot of what was supposedly 'admired' by the germans of the USMC in the great war with a grain of salt due to propaganda of the day. Like the fantasy legend of "teufel hunden" ...the germans never said such a thing. Soldiers like Alvin York and H.W. McBride were rarites in the US forces of the time.
On that note though the USMC had a high standard of marksmanship akin to the pre 1914 british regular army. The majority of US 30 caliber ball produced during the great war had sever quality problems..cupronickel jacket fouling excessively and brass that was not annealed properly or at all.
Being there was no nitrocellulose IMR type powder loaded 303 in the great war excepting the 303 ball made in the US for great Britain...I had at one time over 100 rounds of that 1915 dated US made ball and it had the same Q/A that period US ammo had. I don't see how where the french would have wasted their time pulling bullets down and plucking out the cordite as they had more pressing problems to worry about.
I have to disagree on accuracy of cartridges. Of all the bolt action military rifles I have owned and do the most accurate issue rifle with NO tweaking is the Patt'14 by and far. I can put it next to the minty Model 1917 rifles on hand and it will outshoot those 30-06's all day long. I have encounterd beat up Patt'14's with good bores that can shoot tight little groups consistantly with surlus ammo , and better yet with handloads. I have done great shooting with the Model 1917 rifle too..but they are not in the same league as the Patt'14 in that regards. I have had and have No1 MkIII's that shoot ungodly accurate...better than any 03 I have owned..and I've had a bunch of them when I was trying to get to like them.
Remember as well the lame attempts to scope out 03's as sniping rifles in both wars . There is a great account of a US Sniper at Anzio whom got a close up shot on a german drying a blanket..and he snuck up to his kill and found the german had a gorgeously scoped mauser..considerably better quality than the 03A4 he had. He ditched the 03A4 and carried that german sniping rifle from then on , and he related he did some serious murder with that german rifle until he was badly hit by shrapnel ( The Rock of Anzio" by Flint Whitlock ).
As you can tell I'm no fanboy of the 03 debacle.
I have taken noob shooters and laid out your typical used No4 and an 03A3 as they had similar type peeps. And they always shot better with the enfield every time.
The Browning MG's in 303 were near identical to their 30 cal M1919 brothers , both very reliable and effective MG's.
More japanese were killed with MG's and artillery so the bravado of asking japanese such a question is silly . It woul dbe like asking how many US troops were killed by MG42's or somesuch silly line of thought.
If I had my choice of taken a proven sturdy and accurate rifle over one that has been known to go kaboom as well as having easily damaged sights...I'll take the former all day long as would any sane man.

PS ; DWM did cease to be after the NAZIS took it over and renamed it ( after sending it's jewish owners to a deathcamp ). The last DWM marked ammo made was dated 1938 and very early 1939 for the SS VT. Those will be the last DWM marked amm to be found as it was by then totally nazi owned and they put their own brand on iterasing DWM from use thereafter. Bfore during and after WW1 DWM was a huge exporter of arms and ammunition across the world , but being jewish owned marked it for nazi siezure during the dark years in germany. Just like Simson werke was taken over literally by the nazi party and became Gustloff werke making weapons for the german military at direct monetary benefit to the nazi party..the actual NSDAP owned Gustloff (bcd code ).

Multigunner

05-29-2011, 06:44 PM

DWM was placed in charge of cartridge production at the FN plant in Herstal Belgium during the German occupation, and likely managed other munitions plants in occupied countries as well.
The Ammunition produced under DWM management did not carry a DWM headstamp, it was number or letter coded.
The temporary name changes did not make the company "disappear", The Versalles treaty did result in greatly reduced production and clandestine production by subsidiaries through the 1930's before the gloves came off.

I don't see how where the french would have wasted their time pulling bullets down and plucking out the cordite as they had more pressing problems to worry about.

I learned of this from a Lewisgun collector. The French used the Lewis gun in .303 on many of their aircraft, and found that Cordite loaded ammo did not work well in an exposed gas operated gun at high altitude due to the hardened carbon fouling. Cordite produced less fouling but the temperature caused the fouling to bake onto the metal and was very difficult to remove. The BREN Gun of WW2 had the original Czech gas system greatly modified in order to work with Cordite, which is one reason that MkVIIIz was seldom used except in low light conditions. No effective flas suppressant additives were ever developed for Cordite and its bright muzzle flash was a continuing problem in giving away the positions of weapons using it. British night fighter pilots even had flip up filters on their gunsights that engaged whenever the guns were fired to avoid temporary night blindness from the muzzle flashes of their own guns.

Many 03's I have handled have evidenced cracked stocks at the wrist.. more so than any german or brit rifle .
Geez have you never seen an Enfield that wasn't a safe queen? Most of what I know about repairing stocks came from repairing split Lee Enfield stocks. I've even repaired a Jap stock that was broken at the wrist and the only reason the butt stock didn't fall off was the iron straps of the extended trigger guard and the insert behind the receiver. Wood can break, big deal.
The Two piece stock of the LE is an advantage in many ways, but makes proper bedding a chore and is the major cause of loss of accuracy other than cordite erosion.

The P-14 has a great reputation for accuracy, so much so that the British continued to use it as a sniper rifle up through the early stages of WW2 and perhaps longer.
They also experimented with several versions of shortened and lightened P-14 short rifles as a possible replacement for the SMLE should they resume production, by contract, of the P-14 actions.
The M1917 also had a sterling reputation as a target rifle, and prototype sniper rifles using the M1917 action were made.

It appears to me that you got soured on the .30-06 and the 1903 by your experiances with worn out rifles and degraded or substandard ammuntion.
The facts of cartridge acceptance standards can be found if you look for them. British ammunition production ranged from excellent to abysimal, with much of their ammo so far out of spec it could not be chambered in anything other than an SMLE. Remington produced .303 was as bad or worse and machinegunners were cautioned not to use it.
The Ground machine gunners gauged the ammo when delivered and segregated it as to quality. Ammo that was considered within dimensional specs was marked with a green cross or green spot, thats the ammo snipers liked to rogue when possible, and was the origin of British green Spot matcgrade ammo.
The Royal Flying Corp and later RAF had such poor luck with the issued .303 that they contracted for their own dedicated ammo from the best companies from 1918 onwards. The RAF ammo was marked with a Red label.

As well as having 03A3 rear peep sights fall off the receiver bridge...seen and experianced that more than once.
The only time I've run across an 03a3 rear sight removed by a gunsmith he had to cut the sight to get it off.
Sights can break, I've seen practically every type of sight broken off including mauser tangent sights. Its not that uncommon to find a No.4 with the stanchion for the rear sight pivot pin broken completely off the action body, the key hole broken out of the pin, or the pin itself bent or broken. Theres a lively trade in spare parts for the Enfields for a reason, parts break if the rifle is abused as almost every rifle used in combat was abused at one time or another.
Theres also a fairly large supply of spares for the Enfields due to so many becoming worn out or damaged and being broken up for spare parts.
Unfortunately many wartime manufacture spares that are available are found to be out of spec or poorly heat treated. When possible out of spec parts were caught in inspection and those parts set aside and marked for use on DP rifles.

bydand

05-29-2011, 08:18 PM

Where to start? so much Bull shiet;
Captured Enfield rifles in store in china. Almost, the chinese nationalists were shipped enfield rifles which were later captured by the communists. I have the buttstock of one with chinese characters on it that say "for instruction purposes"
Considering that the Enfield rifle was first issued in 1891, WHICH "springfield" were you referring to? The last trapdoors or the KRAG?
The "power of the 30-06"? There are a LOT of dead germans, japs, Italians, and other nationalities that found out that the .303 was good enough!

As stated, Mk8z was designed for machine guns BECAUSE the boat tailed bullet gave longer range for the SAME powder charge. You can change a machine gun barrel with no problem in a few minutes. If used in rifles that had not been fired with cordite (ie: Sniper rifles) it worked well. Mk7z also used flake powder.
Lewis guns didn't work well with cordite? BULL PUCKY. They were used with cordite loaded ammunition in TWO world wars. Matter of fact, a lewis gunner brought down Richtofen.
Enfield stocks are weaK? just WHERE did you come up with that fairey tale? I should point out that the british made several lengths of buttstocks so they could be adjusted to fit the soldier. If you break a mouser or 03 stock, you have to replace the WHOLE BLOODY THING
Now we come to the ridiculous. "penetration in wood." Wood doesn't shoot at you, PEOPLE do.
But lets get to those "weak" enfield actions. Ever heard of the Indian 2a and 2a1? How about the L39A1 and the L42A1. BOTH use the 7.62 round, not to mention the numerous No4's converted for target work
Last of all since the Enfield was first issued in 1891, why would I be surprised there were not changes over the years? Even your precious 03 underwent changes

While I am at it. PLEASE tell me about all the 03's and M1's used for purposes other than drill teams and colour guards. The enfield is STILL in service in some countries.

I will leave you with this
The Germans made the best hunting rifle
Americans made the best target rifle
And the British made the best combat rifle
We are talking about bolt actions

Multigunner

05-30-2011, 02:47 AM

Where to start? so much Bull shiet;
Well bring on the BS then.

Captured Enfield rifles in store in china. Almost, the chinese nationalists were shipped enfield rifles which were later captured by the communists.
Those would be the Long Branch contracted rifles that weren't delivered till the last months of the war.
Besides the huge mountains of Enfield rifles the Japanese captured in Singapore and practically every other island and city in the region where the UK had a presence , the Chinese themselves had bought tons of surplus Enfields and P-14 rifles before the war began. Many of those ended up in storage as well.
The only time I've heard of the Japanese issuing captured Enfields was to a few POW camp guards.

The "power of the 30-06"? There are a LOT of dead germans, japs, Italians, and other nationalities that found out that the .303 was good enough! so would you agree that you have to hit em to kill em, and that the more accurate a rifle is the more likely you are to hit them?

If used in rifles that had not been fired with cordite (ie: Sniper rifles) it worked well. Mk7z also used flake powder.
As I said.

Lewis guns didn't work well with cordite? BULL PUCKY. They were used with cordite loaded ammunition in TWO world wars. Matter of fact, a lewis gunner brought down Richtofen.
A ground gunner brought down Richthofen.
I said the Lewis gun gas system didn't work as well with cordite at high altitude.
If you have no idea of the bitter cold of high altitude flight and its effects on equipment of all sorts then theres not enough room on the entire forum to get you caught up on it.
The Lewisgun worked okay with cordite under normal near sea level conditions, but those are not the conditions you'll find at 10,000 feet. Richthofen BTW wore an electrically heated flight suit he had taken from a British POW from one of the aircraft he shot down. It can be colder than a polar bears feet up there.
Ever wonder why almost all aircraft MGs are recoil operated or driven by an outside power source?

PS
If the ambient temperature at sea level is 59 degrees the temperature at 10,000 feet would be 23 degrees. Add to that the wind chill factor of an airflow over the exposed portions of the aircraft of 100 MPH and you get -4 degrees F.
Steel cools very quickly under such circumstances so any carbon fouling in the gas systen can set up like cement in a few minutes.

Enfield stocks are weaK? just WHERE did you come up with that fairey tale?
Just where did you come up with the fairy tale that I said the stock was weak?
I pointed out that all wooden stocks can break, and will be broken if abused.
If you've never seen a broken Enfield stock or a stock set patched with bits of wood held in by glue and threaded copper rods, then I'd have to believe you are a fondler of safe queens who has yet to see a rifle thats seen much if any combat.

Some of the WW2 era wood used for No.4 stock sets and replacement stock sets for refurbed SMLE rifles was barely useable, Birch, Beech, Shesham, and Who knows what. Wood was often poorly seasoned and shrunk before the rifle got from the factory to the field.
At one point they stopped trying to get an even bearing at the action strap and just fitted the fore ends with a thin air gap. On the theory that it was better there was no contact rather than unequal contact.
I've also run across dozens of Lithgows with the butt stock broken just behind the cocking piece. Most likely due to excessive force used to turn the stock bolt down tight, coupled with a brittle Coachwood stock.

Due to the open end grain of the portion of the grip that enters the butt socket, and at the area of the fore end, I've had to leech out oil by the cup full and rebuild the oil perished wood using accraglass resin. Rifles brought in from India are usually the most oil soaked, but most no matter where they served got oil soaked at one time or another.
When petroleum based oils soak deeply into wood the wood becomes mushy and the fibers break down. This oil perishing also destroys the draws, usually they are the first to go. Then you can end up with broken away chunks jamming the trigger mechanism, which can be a very dangerous situation.

I should point out that the british made several lengths of buttstocks so they could be adjusted to fit the soldier. If you break a mouser or 03 stock, you have to replace the WHOLE BLOODY THING
Those are some of the advantages I spoke off, theres no free lunch and the two piece stock has its draw backs as well.
If the two pice stock was such a great hit, why did the Canadian lightened No.4 use a No.5 type action modified to be housed in a one piece stock?

Now we come to the ridiculous. "penetration in wood." Wood doesn't shoot at you, PEOPLE do.
Man you are really getting out on that limb now. People don't pop up in full view like characters in a video game, they take cover and they build field fortifications to hide behind while they shoot at you.

But lets get to those "weak" enfield actions. Ever heard of the Indian 2a and 2a1? How about the L39A1 and the L42A1. BOTH use the 7.62 round, not to mention the numerous No4's converted for target work
The M80 NATO Ball generates 48,000 CUP, only 3,000 CUP higher than the MkVII ammo, and even then the Lithgow actions couldn't handle it. The 2a used a more modern alloy and seems to handle most 7.62 and .308 loads okay, but most of those loads generate no higher pressure than the M-80 Ball or the British 144 grain Ball.
In recent years the NRA UK has had to issue warnings against use of some 7.62 and .308 ammo in converted No.4 rifles. They now require re proofing of any converted No.4 too be used on the NRA range at Bisley. The new proof standard is much higher than the proofing of the L42 rifles.
The Enfield Enforcer police rifle is exempt if unmodified, because the those rifles were built to take higher pressures than the L42.
The Metropolitan Police armorers found that near a third of the L42 rifles they had leased from the MOD were badly degraded and unsafe to fire. This spurred the development of a purpose built .308/7.62 Police rifle, using only receivers of the best quality and tested to be sure they would hold up to continued use of the .308. More actions and parts failed and were destroyed than there were parts that could pass the rigous testing.
The NRA UK provides the ammunition used for these matches, and they contracted for the present standard target loads after the MOD stopped providing the 144 grain boat tail ball cartridges. The present target round is loaded for best trajectory at ranges up to 1200 yards, and generates close to the maximum allowable pressures for the .308.

The .308 commercial 150 grain sporting ammo is usually equal to the NATO Ball. Much of the modern long range target ammunition greatly exceeds the standard operating pressures of the NATO standard infantry ball.

Last of all since the Enfield was first issued in 1891, why would I be surprised there were not changes over the years? Even your precious 03 underwent changes
Exactly who are you really aguing with, your replies seem so standardized its like you never actually read what I posted, but instead are regurgitating patent answers to things not said.

While I am at it. PLEASE tell me about all the 03's and M1's used for purposes other than drill teams and colour guards. The enfield is STILL in service in some countries.
Where is the Enfield still issued as an actual combat weapon?
Canadian Rangers aren't front line combat troops so their use of the No.4 while patroling the north woods can't be considered combat operations.
The Mumba incident when SMLE rifles were used by Indian police reflects very poorly on the rifle, so I doubt you'd want to bring that up.
The Indian ordnance factory still manufactures MkVIIz ammunition for use in the few remaining unaltered BREN guns and Vickers guns still in use, and they export some ammo. For the most part the police are only allowed relic ammo manufactured in the 50's and 60's, which is why they can't seem to hit anything, that and the fact that most Indian police that are issued an SMLE are given only ten rounds and may never get the chance to actually fire the rifle in order to learn how to hit with it.
The Canadian Rangers have lately been issued Pakistan Ordnance factory No.4 rifles, even the Pakis consider the rifle obsolete, and last time I looked they had dropped .303 ammo from their list of miltary ammo manufactured by POF.

I will leave you with this
The Germans made the best hunting rifle
Americans made the best target rifle
And the British made the best combat rifle
We are talking about bolt actions
As if I never heard that before.
You will then agree that the 1903 Springfield is the more accurate of the three?

This

Even your precious 03 underwent changes
Reveals your true mindset. From praising the Lee Enfield the thread turned into a bash the Springfield set to.
The original Lee action rifles were first used by the U S Navy as far back as the late 1870's, the 1899 Lee, which has four locking lugs instead of two saw limited use by a national guard company in the U S.

The LE was an evolution of the Lee Metford, a black powder era design.
The Krag was always called the Krag as far as I know.
The Springfield incorporated some features found on the Mauser rifle, those protected by patents were the stripper clip and guide, not the bolt itself, dual opposed front mounted lugs had been in use by a number of rifles other than the Mauser. The extractor and the method used to secure it to the bolt is much like that of the Mauser, but isn't brought up in discussions of Mauser features.

The Springfield stock is no more prone to breakage than the Mauser stocks that are made from similar wood. The Laminated K98 stock is very resistent to breakage, and the British once attempted to produce a similar stock for the No.4 rifle, but couldn't get the process down pat before it became academic.

When I restored my 1915 Enfield I went to great effort and expense to obtain an unissued EFD fore end of English Walnut. I got tired of draining oil from used Enfield fore ends and repairing broken away sections. Better to start out with fresh well seasoned wood that had never been fitted to another rifle.
I also fitted a new old stock BSA bolt body and new bolthead while I was at it. When I get around to it I'll mount my PH5A target apeture rear sight with six position rotary apeture drum and sunshade.
I don't screw around when I restore or rebuild a rifle. I take my time and don't mind investing in parts if thats what it takes.
As Townsend Whelen once said "only accurate rifles are interesting".

PS
GEW 98 said that only american MkVIIz ammo was manufactured during WW 1.
I remembered something I saw on another board awhile back.

MkVIIz round - 1918 Greenwood & Batley.

The link to an image of the headstamp was dea unfortunately.
While Dupont powder was used for MkVIIz ammunition, any manufacturer could buy the propellent.
How many British manufacturers produced MkVIIz during WW 1, I have no idea.
I know that many British target shooters prefered single base and low nitro double base powders long before WW 1.

bydand

05-30-2011, 10:55 PM

Well gee, I really appreciate you telling me what I KNEW years ago about Enfields.
I was not bashing your precious 03 just pointing out that it had ALSO undergone changes over the years , but you chose to see that as "bashing" The one stupid thing our ordnance department didwas the Pedersen device. The idea being to walk forward and pull the trigger each time your left foot hit the ground. The german Maxim gunners would have been delighted at such stupidity. Fortunaly it was never tried out in combat.
As for The Remington Lee, I have owned and fired them, no news there.
Black powder? that only lasted three years before being replaced by cordite, However the Metford barrels had to be replaced on just about all the rifles with barrels with Enfield rifling since the barrel was designed for BP, The rifles soldiered on for years with their new barrels, into WW1 and even later after Dunkirk when ANYTHING that would chamber a .303 round was pressed ino service.

I don't know about the Springfield stock, but I personaly have seen a couple of M! stocks broken on the assault course
Oh I noticed you did miss the point about the Krag, Let me put it this way, the enfield was in service BEFORE the O3, NOT while the springfield was being developed.

OOH, you got a PH5a target sight. I have them also plus other A.J.Parker sights and Parker hale sights, not to mention some australian ones.

My concern is NOT with the Springfield but RATHER your "bashing" as you put it, of the Enfield that is still in use. Does Afgnanistan ring a bell? Now the bit about the No4's having to be re-proofed if barreled to 7.62. If you change the calibre in the U.K. it has to go through proof again, EVEN if you rebarrel it to 25-20. That is the law, and NOT a sign of weakness. You might note that if a military rifle was on the range one day and surplused out the next, it STILL has to go through proof before being sold on the civillian market.

Just because you got a rifle with an oil soaked stock, that doesn't mean ALL enfields have oil soaked stocks.
You replaced the bolt body AND the bolt head? WHY? not pretty enough? Headspace off? that's corrected by changing the bolt heads, and if you used SAMMI gages to check headspace instead of military gages, you may have spent the money for nothing.

I have owned 03's over the years, as well as 35 trapdoors. They were all fun, but I went in another direction with the collection so around 200+ Sniders, Martini's and Enfields from Metfords to the SLR.

Using the Mumbai incident? COME ON, that was ROTTEN training on the part of the police not a reflection on the rifle.

I am curious that you say only American MkVIIz ammo was manufactured in WW1 Obviously someone forgot about CANADA.
Note also that the American made Mk7z was only used in ground guns NOT aircraft guns as it was not reliable enough. Shooting off one's propellor was not a good idea.

Multigunner

05-31-2011, 04:16 AM

I was not bashing your precious 03
When did it become MY 03???
I don't even care for the rifle myself.

[/quote] just pointing out that it had ALSO undergone changes over the years , but you chose to see that as "bashing" The one stupid thing our ordnance department didwas the Pedersen device. [/quote]
The Pederson device was pretty inovative for the day, and plans were in the works to adapt it to the SMLE as well. The British even developed a similar system during WW2 to convert SMLE rifles to fire the 7.62X25 and 7.63 Mauser pistol cartridges.

I don't know about the Springfield stock, but I personaly have seen a couple of M! stocks broken on the assault course
You beat a wooden stock bad enough and it breaks, big deal.

Oh I noticed you did miss the point about the Krag, Let me put it this way, the enfield was in service BEFORE the O3, NOT while the springfield was being developed.
Well if you want to bring up the Krag then you might be suprised to find that the German remark about thinking rifle men firing as fast as they could were armed with machineguns first appeared after the Spanish American War when a German military observer said this about the Krag.
Also though the Krag did not have a clip charger system, neither did the Lee Metford or the Lee Enfield rifles in use at that time, the Charger didn't come along till the SMLE MkI .It was actually faster to reload the Krag with a handful of cartridges than it was to reload the LE magazine one round at a time. Both used magazine cut offs to hold the contents of the magazine in reserve and were used as single loaders as often as not.
The .30-40 and .303 cartridges in use at the time were nearly identical in performance.

OOH, you got a PH5a target sight. I have them also plus other A.J.Parker sights and Parker hale sights, not to mention some australian ones.
Good for you, then you recognize the worth of a windage adjustable sight. The MkIII* non windage adjustable sight greatly reduces the efficiency of the rifle in my book.

My concern is NOT with the Springfield but RATHER your "bashing" as you put it, of the Enfield that is still in use. Does Afgnanistan ring a bell?
The US CIA bought every cheap LE they could find to arm the Muji and when they used their heads it worked fine for ambushing the Russians, ammo quality was abomnible, once read a report on investigations into the guy they got the ammo from. After the Russian set to the only ones using the SMLE were those that couldn't pony up 50 bucks for an AK 47.
Often as not the SMLEs still found there are Darra made copies, made from old rail road tracks.

Now the bit about the No4's having to be re-proofed if barreled to 7.62. If you change the calibre in the U.K. it has to go through proof again, EVEN if you rebarrel it to 25-20. That is the law, and NOT a sign of weakness.
The re-proofing is of rifles previously proofed for the old standard 7.62, which was 19 Long Tons, the .303 Proofing was to 18.5 Long Tons. Some time back the L42 rifles and all converted No.4s had to be re-proofed again to 20 Long Tons.
The recent Re-proofing requirement is in line with CIP guidelines for the .308 commercial cartridge and many UK LE owners are hesitant to subject their rifle to that pressure level.
US SAAMI proof specs for the Commercial sporting rifle in .308 are over 80,000 PSI.
That gives you an idea of how the 7.62 and .308 have evolved from the relatively mild cartridge of the late 50's to the present high intensity loadings.
Converting a Enfield to the mild pressure levels of the original NATO spec ammo was never the big deal people seem to think it was, even 1895 Mausers could handle those pressures, which were on the level of the original .30-06 ball cartridge of WW1.

Just because you got a rifle with an oil soaked stock, that doesn't mean ALL enfields have oil soaked stocks.
If you ever sorted through rifles from India you would think so. The open end grain of the two piece stocks soak up oil, no two ways about that. The same applies to any two piece stock.
If you are only familar with rifles that saw little or no use in the field you might not recognise that.

You replaced the bolt body AND the bolt head? WHY? not pretty enough?
Excessive side play and bolt kick up. The headspace remains the same, it was already on the close side at .068.
If not for the wear to the threads of the bolt body , caused by it being fitted with an early SMLE style notched bolthead which has a slightly different thread than that used later on I'd have much rather kept the bolt as it was.
I still have that bolt and if I run across a bolt head with shank wide enough to take up the slack I'll use it instead of the BSA bolt.
As it is its better to have an un numbered bolt than a bolt with non matching number.
From the looks of the old bolt it was a scrubbed and force matched retread any way.

I am curious that you say only American MkVIIz ammo was manufactured in WW1 Obviously someone forgot about CANADA.
I wasn't the one who said that. I was commenting on Gew 98 having said so.
I posted about the British headstamped 1918 MkVII ammo to show that there were other sources besides the US made ammo.

Note also that the American made Mk7z was only used in ground guns NOT aircraft guns as it was not reliable enough. Shooting off one's propellor was not a good idea.
I commented on gunners being warned not to use Remington ammo.
Later on Winchester .303 ammo was also marked not for syncronized guns. Much Winchester .303 ammo that British inspectors turned down was given to the U S Coastguard for use in Ross rifles they were temporarily armed with. Some of this ammo turned up in a long forgotten storage site several years ago, still in the original shipping crates and boxes.

If you look into the effects of heat and moisture on military ammo in the field and in storage you'd appreciate the necessity for a wide safety margin in the strength of an action.
The 7.62 NATO is a case in point. When lighter bullets of 144 to 159 grains are used in infantry ball the maximum deviations in pressure are small.
When heavier bullets are loaded into that same case at the same OAL the operating pressure rises of course maximum deviations also rise considerably.
The operating pressure of M80 Ball is 48,000 CUP, the Operating pressure of M118 is 52,000 CUP, the Max deviation of the M118 is 57,000 CUP.
An action that was designed for pressures of 45,400 CUP subjected to pressures of 57,000 CUP will be over stressed. Some modern .308 Long range target loads have working pressures of 59,000 CUP. Thats why the NRA UK has required re-proofing of rifles once proofed at the lower 1950's levels.

The .303 is fine as it is, so long as the ammo is not degraded and pressure levels stay at the designed maximum.
When wartime pressure on manufacturers caused loosening of the inspection process the ammo quality suffered across the board. Some of the best and some of the worst was produced during wartime, which is why the British ended up dumping hundreds of millions of rounds in the North Sea after each war.

I think the main misunderstanding of the Enfields is when some buy into the glamor and don't take into account the realities.
Theres a pretty good evaluation of the rifles used by the major powers of WW1 , printed in 1915. The title is "Rifles and Ammunition, and Rifle Shooting". That and the updated 1915 Regulations for Musketry with actual wartime experiances can dispell misconceptions pretty throughly.

BTW
Penetration was very important in any infantry rifle cartridge then and now, as arms designers are finally catching onto after spectacular failures of assault rifle cartridges to get the job done in recent combat have brought home.
Unlike home defense theres no such thing as over penetration in combat, and theres no such thing as "more accuracy than you can use". Modern body armor and enemies well versed in use of cover have made these old saws obsolete.

PS
I forgot to mention Hong Kong, a Crown Colony at the time but still part of China.

gew98

05-31-2011, 12:44 PM

Multi , thanks fo the laughs. Penetration is an issue even today... as the M855 ball in the poodle shooter tends to over penetrate without causing fatal wounds...unlike the M193 ball which did cause grievous wounds.
Ammo quality in every war by EVERY country suffers... the US glorious 30 cal ball was no exception. I've shot thousands of US surplus 30 carbine , 30-06 , 5,56 , 7,62 ,50 cal BMG and 45 auto.... it ain't all it's cracked up to be quality wise. I've had overlength brass , improperly annealed brass , pierced primers to duds etc etc. Sort of like 1903 rifle quality..or lack thereof which is historical fact.
As well I must note your continual jumping about and non squitir points to prove your contentions ...disjointed in the least.

gew98

05-31-2011, 12:50 PM

The 1917 Enfield was another copy of the Mauser & not an improved Lee.

Vut it was better auser than the 1903... and better rifle.

Multigunner

06-01-2011, 03:38 AM

Vut it was better auser than the 1903... and better rifle.

Since you like the Mausers so much theres a book on these you might find interesting. A gun smith left his copy with me and then had photo copies made of about a hundred pages or so for me to study, unfortunately I've lost track of those copies or I'd scan and Email them to you.

He blueprinted mauser actions, among others, for long range match rifles and varmint rifles and had studied them for decades.

One section of the book was on Mauser rifle blow ups, some as impressive as the old photos of low number Springfield blow ups in Hatcher's Note Book.
There were sectioned receivers showing the variations in the carburized layer and other defects. There was also a really dangerous central european copy of the 98A small ring short rifle. They had used a small ring but threaded for a large ring diameter barrel shank. The receiver was thin as a finger nail. Apparently these didn't last long in service and if you tried to rebarrel one the receiver usually broke, which sounds like the best way of avoiding a future accident.

Also theres an article in one of my old books that condemned roundly the post WW1 influx of Mauser actioned sporting rifles, listing a slew of defects.
The main problem was that many of these rifles were not assembled by Mauser, they were made from late war manufactured Gew 98 receivers with lousy heat treatment from way too soft to way too brittle. Sights fell off and barrels developed splits etc, triggers became unsafe due to poor or no heat treatment.

So even a very good design can suffer from poor heat treatment, in those cases probably due to decimation of the German work force by the Spanish flu, which made its way behind German lines with striken American POWs and killed more civilians than four years of war had killed soldiers.
The Spanish Flu was what brought the Germans to their knees more than anything else. It also devasted nearly every country in the world killing tens of millions and making further war efforts near impossible.

Also someone asked about present day use of the Garand. While I have seen a few Garands in the hands of African insurgents a few years back, the countries the U S supplied with Garand rifles during the Cold war all have their own thriving arms industries these days and their armies are armed with the most modern weapons. The Garands occasionally coming from South Korea have been in storage for many years, they were selling off these and M1 Carbines long ago as well as their own arms industry got up to speed.
Some of the Countries that Britian supplied with the Enfield are either barely clawing their way into the twentieth century or have already slid back into the stone age if they ever really left it.

Another factor is the U S militaries habit of torch cutting hundreds of thousands of perfectly good rifles. The DCM used to sell off surplus rifles dirt cheap to NRA members, $20 for a good M1 Carbine for example.
The CMP has managed to get good surplus Garands into the hands of shooters, but every so often the government goes on a gun destroying rampage for no apparent reason. Import laws are a problem as well, some perfectly good Springfield 03A3 rifles could only be brought back to the U S after total demilling and cutting away chunks of the receiver so they could never be reactivated. These wouldn't even make good movie props.

Unlike the UK where every gun owner has to jump through hoops to own a working rifle, theres no way of even estimating how many Springfields are in civilian collections or resting in granpa's closet.
In the UK the paperwork for a rifle is such a hassle many prefered to have a rifle smooth bored so it could be classed as a shotgun or demilled as a wall display.

While its nice to know that there are still a few Enfield out there doing battle, the hands they are in doesn't garner any honors for the rifle.
The 1895 Malicher Straightpull rifles showed up in a documentary of one african tribe several years ago. The tribe which had bullied neighboring tribes for centuries began trading for these rifles. They traded goats of all things. The rifles didn't cost that much, but they also had to trade one goat for every cartridge or five goats for a five round clip.
Of course they didn't get much target practice.
A neighboring tribe tired of being picked on hired a band of mercenaries armed with AK47s to deal with the problem. The Goat herders were pretty much wiped out. They would have actually done better if they had used their spears, which they were very adept with.

bydand

06-01-2011, 04:55 PM

This is getting interesting. Lets start with the japs issuing captured enfields. While they certainly didn't use them, their Indian turncoats did. Not many of those wound up in prison camps if captured by the indian army.
Now tell me about the Lee Enfield blow ups as compared to some 03 low serial number failures. but saying that, we did fight WW1 with low number 03's

Bolt kick-up? Yeah, they all do that if you dry fire them WITHOUT a round in the chamber. I'm sure the Pedersen device was "innovative" in it's day, BUT we lost enough people without getting the stupid thing into combat. Pershing saw to that, by repeating the mistakes both sides made in 1914-16. We were not fighting Phillipinos or mexican bandits but rather well trained troops. You might also note that while the Brits may have come up with a similar conversion, they were smart enough not to put it to the test. Now if you want innovation, The italian villa Perosa had much in common with the Pedersen device in making the soldier a target.

The british dumped millions of rounds into the north sea after the war because they didn't think they were going to fight another one, and it was cheaper than storing them. The only .303ammo I have seen go bad is Pakistani or ammo stored in Pakistan. They were not exactly brilliant in their storage methods.
"you beat a wooden stock bad enough and it breaks, big deal"? So WHY do you make such a "big deal" about enfield stocks?

When did it become "my 03"? When you used it as an example of how superior it was to the lee-Enfield. "If anyone was buying into the glamour"? (a snide comment) to impress us "common folks"

Oh by the way there is no such thing as "force matched." If a bolt is replaced with another, and re-numbered to the reciever by an armourer, that is a legimate replacement part. NO "force" was employed in the process.
Now we get to the windage vs non windage sights. It was found that soldiers rarely adjust their sights when in combat, with the exception being snipers. People are much larger targets than paper bulls eyes and targets are not tryng to kill you.
While rifle ownership in the U.K. is difficult, people still own rifles there.
What the M95 straight pulls have to do with Enfields is beyond me.

Now about smooth boring rifles, That was done because you could get a shotgun licence for 50p from any post office and they were used as "garden guns" for eliminating pests. That is no longer the case with current regulations.
As for rifles resting in "Grandpa's closet" Could you please tell me how many closets in the U.K, you have peeked into?

gew98

06-03-2011, 01:15 AM

Wow.. you are really reaching here. "Mausers" were made by oodles of countries of varying flavors and quality...like your pet 03's..right ?. Your reference to an article "condemning" cheap german exports of mausers between the war I am very familiar with . The author of that article was your typical ****** that loved only what he was familiar with and as a paid stooge by american arms manufacturers did'nt like the cheaper priced but every bit as qualitative if not more so product.
You are absolutely nuts about the gew98. The ONLY thing that suffered in 1917-1918 was fit and finish or parts that in no way detracted from function. Apparently you confuse WW1 with WW2...especiaully since in mid 1917 gew98 production was considerably slowed in preference to Carbine & MG production as german tactics had evolved...superior tactics of note which did not require a delicate target rifle to win the day.
The Influenza of 1918 is not what brought germany to it's knees...man are you reading propaganda or what ?. Germany simply bit off entirely more than it could chew and was about bled white financially , supply wise , food wise and fuel wise , and lastly by ever mounting odds in material support arrayed against them from the USA.
What does another country's laws on gun ownership have to do with Garands or enfields...nothing. Again another misdirection by you of nonsensical proportions.
As well what does the DCM have to do with any of this...nothing again.
So where do you see M1 garands still in a shooting war...you don't. Where do you see 03 rifles in a shooting war...you sure won't. Bu tthere are plenty of No1 & No4 enfields serving ..still putting round holes in square heads in combat long after the demise of the 03 debacle.
And the armed mercenaries Vs spears tangent... can you hold a line of thought wihtout diverging so broadly so often with these non sequitirs ?.

Since you like the Mausers so much theres a book on these you might find interesting. A gun smith left his copy with me and then had photo copies made of about a hundred pages or so for me to study, unfortunately I've lost track of those copies or I'd scan and Email them to you.

He blueprinted mauser actions, among others, for long range match rifles and varmint rifles and had studied them for decades.

One section of the book was on Mauser rifle blow ups, some as impressive as the old photos of low number Springfield blow ups in Hatcher's Note Book.
There were sectioned receivers showing the variations in the carburized layer and other defects. There was also a really dangerous central european copy of the 98A small ring short rifle. They had used a small ring but threaded for a large ring diameter barrel shank. The receiver was thin as a finger nail. Apparently these didn't last long in service and if you tried to rebarrel one the receiver usually broke, which sounds like the best way of avoiding a future accident.

Also theres an article in one of my old books that condemned roundly the post WW1 influx of Mauser actioned sporting rifles, listing a slew of defects.
The main problem was that many of these rifles were not assembled by Mauser, they were made from late war manufactured Gew 98 receivers with lousy heat treatment from way too soft to way too brittle. Sights fell off and barrels developed splits etc, triggers became unsafe due to poor or no heat treatment.

So even a very good design can suffer from poor heat treatment, in those cases probably due to decimation of the German work force by the Spanish flu, which made its way behind German lines with striken American POWs and killed more civilians than four years of war had killed soldiers.
The Spanish Flu was what brought the Germans to their knees more than anything else. It also devasted nearly every country in the world killing tens of millions and making further war efforts near impossible.

Also someone asked about present day use of the Garand. While I have seen a few Garands in the hands of African insurgents a few years back, the countries the U S supplied with Garand rifles during the Cold war all have their own thriving arms industries these days and their armies are armed with the most modern weapons. The Garands occasionally coming from South Korea have been in storage for many years, they were selling off these and M1 Carbines long ago as well as their own arms industry got up to speed.
Some of the Countries that Britian supplied with the Enfield are either barely clawing their way into the twentieth century or have already slid back into the stone age if they ever really left it.

Another factor is the U S militaries habit of torch cutting hundreds of thousands of perfectly good rifles. The DCM used to sell off surplus rifles dirt cheap to NRA members, $20 for a good M1 Carbine for example.
The CMP has managed to get good surplus Garands into the hands of shooters, but every so often the government goes on a gun destroying rampage for no apparent reason. Import laws are a problem as well, some perfectly good Springfield 03A3 rifles could only be brought back to the U S after total demilling and cutting away chunks of the receiver so they could never be reactivated. These wouldn't even make good movie props.

Unlike the UK where every gun owner has to jump through hoops to own a working rifle, theres no way of even estimating how many Springfields are in civilian collections or resting in granpa's closet.
In the UK the paperwork for a rifle is such a hassle many prefered to have a rifle smooth bored so it could be classed as a shotgun or demilled as a wall display.

While its nice to know that there are still a few Enfield out there doing battle, the hands they are in doesn't garner any honors for the rifle.
The 1895 Malicher Straightpull rifles showed up in a documentary of one african tribe several years ago. The tribe which had bullied neighboring tribes for centuries began trading for these rifles. They traded goats of all things. The rifles didn't cost that much, but they also had to trade one goat for every cartridge or five goats for a five round clip.
Of course they didn't get much target practice.
A neighboring tribe tired of being picked on hired a band of mercenaries armed with AK47s to deal with the problem. The Goat herders were pretty much wiped out. They would have actually done better if they had used their spears, which they were very adept with.

Multigunner

06-03-2011, 11:43 PM

Well this at least should shed light on the difference in pressure between MkVIIIz and MkVII amunition.
From the Dave Cushman site

In 1938 the .303 Mark VIIIZ round was approved to obtain greater effective range from the Vickers Medium Machine Gun. This round had a nitro-cellulose powder charge with a 175 grain boat tailed, streamlined, steel jacketed bullet having a muzzle velocity of 2550 fps. Chamber pressure however, was higher at 20 - 21 tons per sq" compared to the 19.5 tons per sq" of the Mark VII round.
Long Tons being 2240 lb 21LT would be 47,400 Pounds per square inch , with the base crusher method used comparable to CUP. This would make MkVIIIz comparable to M80 Ball chamber pressures of 48,000CUP.

The Spanish Flu

Andrew Price-Smith has made the controversial argument that the virus helped tip the balance of power in the latter days of the war towards the Allied cause. He provides data that the viral waves hit the Central Powers before they hit the Allied powers, and that both morbidity and mortality in Germany and Austria were considerably higher than in Britain and France.[13]
As I said Germany was hit harder than the Allies.
The Spanish flu unlike most pandemics had the unsually effect of killing young outwise healthy men even faster than it killed the very young or the elderly.
It devastated wartime industry.

Excerpt from Price Smith's book

In chapter 2, I analyze the effects of the infl uenza pandemic of 1918–
19 on various affected societies. In the domain of demography, the
chapter illustrates the differential mortality generated by the waves of
contagion that swept the planet. The chapter then examines the possibility
that the pandemic affected the various combatants in World War I
in different fashions, based on the statistical data presented herein. Previously
unpublished data from German and Austrian archives reveal the
malign effects of the virus on the military forces and the people of the
Central Powers during this period. Analysis of the data suggests that
the epidemic eroded the Central Powers’ capacity to continue the confl
ict, and that it may have accelerated their capitulation and/or disintegration.
The data presented herein also raise the possibility that the fi rst
serious episode of infl uenza-induced mortality occurred in Austria in the
spring of 1917, not in the United States in the spring of 1918.

For twelve days in May, the British Grand Fleet remained docked; 10,313 British sailors were sick. During three days in June, P.U.O. (Pyrexia of Unknown Origin) sent three thousand British soldiers to hospital in Etaples, France; at British G.H.Q., seven hundred were sick. On the other side of the Hindenburg Line, Germans were failing at their posts as well. Some flu?ravaged divisions were down to fifty men. The commander of the German forces, General Erich von Ludendorff, complained: "It was a grievous business, having to listen every morning to the Chiefs of Staff's recital of the number of influenza cases, and their complaints about the weakness of their troops." Ludendorff later blamed the failure of Germany's July offense (which nearly resulted in German victory) on the reduced strength and morale of his troops, due, in part, to influenza.

http://jbaker.cafekyoto.com/spanish_flu.htm

German Army and Germany as a whole: “ one estimate places the number
at 14% of the 1.2 million men under arms-about 168000 deaths. Another
source states that Germany suffered an estimated 2.75 million cases
with 186,000 deaths in the military and 400,000 civilian deaths...
[death rate of 21%!]
Loss of 186,000 troops and hundreds of thousands ill to a greater or lesser degree certainly had a deletrious effect on the ability of Germany to continue the war effort.
Also 400,000 dead from the work force (young healthy men died at much higher rates than the children and elderly)would make resupply of war materials difficult.

PS
I finally found a few works on the Lewis Gun that gave some useful information.
The Early problems were due to the intitial free travel of the piston being too short.
The result was the action began to open while chamber pressure was still high, which gave the same effect as excessive headspace and increased the speed of the moving parts.
The Lewis Gun was not originally chambered for the .303 as many sources state.
The original Lewis Gun prototypes were in .30-06, (one of these .30 guns was used to fire the first machine gun in the air from a Wright Flyer) but suffered so many breakages that further work was done using the .303 British cartridge with its lower chamber pressures.
One source I found long ago, but haven't found again as of yet, said the prototypes in .303 tested in the U S used Canadian manufactured ammo, which may have meant they used single base powder, as the proto type .30 guns would have.
The French after some experimentation achieved the highest rate of fire with the aircraft mounted Lewisgun that did not produce stoppages, perhaps due to their choice of propellent.

The only Japanese Headstamped .303 aircraft Lewisgun ( A excellent copy) ammo I could find mention of was two versions using single base propellents, though the Japanese used Cordite for other 7.7 machine gun ammunition.

The Lewis Guns in every form were subject to stoppages, so long as parts were not broken or jammed tight it could be put back in action quickly. Some procedures for clearing fouling related stoppages would not be possible in an aircraft, much less during aerial combat.

I'll add some links to free downloads Of works on the Machine Gun by Chinn and Hatcher later.
Probably best to put those in a thread on Machine Guns in general.

bydand

06-04-2011, 04:07 AM

gew98

06-04-2011, 07:13 AM

gew98

06-04-2011, 07:25 AM

Well yes, the Lewis gun had some early problems BUT the Marines solved them. Unfortunately The chief of army ordnance HATED Lewis and blocked procurement by the army. He got his comeuppence at a congressional hearing after the war and was forced to resign. His cood friend general Pershing, blocked procurement and saddled our military with the chauchat.
Since you mention Col Chinn, he wrote that the worst machine gun ever developed was the french chauchat. We had to order twice the number of them as many were dumped in shell holes or wrapped around trees. It may have worked for the French, but is was a DISASTER in 30-06
Oh by the way, I once met a man at a gun show who was on the gunboat Panay and fired a lewis at the jap planes that sank it.

My grandfather as a grunt in the AEF related to me that the french abomination was often called "the no show, show show". And as you note quite often discarded in the ditches.
Remember in Elmer Keith's book where he had a superior that insisted..ordered that bolts and baolt parts be blued/parked on BAR's. EK disagreed and proved the folly for what it was...but the guy got away with doing it and EK related how he was told by a soldier that found a blued bolt BAR in a ditch in italy.
The germans made good use of captured Chauchat MG's by using them in a direct assault mode in "Sturm Kompagnies". As well in the great war the germans prized captured Lewis guns and went so far as to equip MGK's with them. Bounties were paid to troops that captured such allied MG's.

Multigunner

06-04-2011, 02:59 PM

The Spanish Flu

Quote:
Andrew Price-Smith has made the controversial argument that the virus helped tip the balance of power in the latter days of the war towards the Allied cause. He provides data that the viral waves hit the Central Powers before they hit the Allied powers, and that both morbidity and mortality in Germany and Austria were considerably higher than in Britain and France.[13]

Right there ...controversial argument..OPINION and not fact. Since I seem to have several hundred books on the great war....Not one of them uses such a controversial 'theory'. Don't put all of your eggs in one basket when making such a statement.
Opinion based on careful research.
Theres a lot that happened in Germany and Austria during the Pandemic that won't be found in the average history book, and Von Ludendorff certainly agreed that the initial outbreaks among his troops stalled out the German offensive.

I guess you don't recall the history of "black march".The internal workers strikes , The absolute stupified german troops in allied rear areas finding huge quantities of food and booze that to wit caused mass glutony and boozing as they had not seen such fare in years of privation. And when the exausted german troops finally shot their wad the allied counterattack proved unstoppable..not due to influenza at all. I don't mind discussing "controversial theories"....but let's be frank the great war was not won nor lost due to it. Germany simply did not have the resources available to her as the adversaries she took on did. And just as WW2 proved no matter how good your equipment can get.... if you don't have enough of it to beat the odds.... you lose.
And when you work force is dying like flies food and weapons don't make it to the front. You seem to believe Germany had no industrial ability at all, some sort of third world starveling ,when in fact they were very advanced. There was no massive bombing campaign to destroy Germany's ability to produce war materials as there had been in WW2, the Spanish Lady did that job quite well.
Whatever other problems Germany had the Pandemic pushed things over the edge for them.

The Spanish Flu has been the subject of a great deal of research in recent years. Perhaps you'd benefit from looking into it.
Some relatives survived the Spanish Flu but I never heard of it other than a few short dry accounts in school books till the subject resurfaced in recent years. No one wanted to remember that sort of heart break.

Well yes, the Lewis gun had some early problems BUT the Marines solved them.
The Marines did not solve the early Lewis Gun's problems, engineers at BSA solved the problems and managed to put the gun in proper working order.
Savage, using the information supplied by BSA , once more redesigned the Lewis Gun to handle the .30-06 as the original prototypes had done. The greater chamber pressure and OAL of the .30-06 required that the weapon be beefed up considerably and the weight went up. These guns were still in limited service when my Dad was in the U S N during WW2.

The deployment of Rifle Caliber LMGs itself points out that the SMG, even had it been available to every soldier on the line, could not supplant the full powered infantry rifle. The SMG has even more limited applications in todays combat, and the assault rifles are showing their shortcomings as well.
The re issue of M14 and other main battle rifles as designated marksman weapons and for other purposes were the greater effective range and penetration of the main battle cartridge are needed, plus the development of newer cartridges that fit the assault rifle platform yet increase its power and range, brings this home well enough.

The best designed and manufactured gas operated light automatic rifle caliber weapon of WW1 was the BAR, but due to the unexpectedly truncated war the BAR and several other weapon systems didn't make it to the front in quantity.
I say the best as in best of its class, which at the time it pretty much had to itself, the BAR was not an LMG and wasn't intended to fill that role, it was at first called a "Machine Rifle".
Which reminds me, the BAR has been adapted to a great many military cartridges, but the BAR when tested by the British in .303 failed due to the highly erosive qualities of cordite .303 ammunition. Had they used only MkVIIz ammunition the BAR might have worked well despite the rimmed case.
All British .303 autoloaders had to be capable of performing with the standard MkVII ammunition, so long as that remained the standard cartridge.

The basic operating system of the BAR is still in use in some form, and it proved capable of extreme high rates of fire when adapted to a beltfed aerial gun by poland.
Belt fed and quick change barrel versions of the BAR were developed but the U S stuck with the 1918 and 1918a2. Many thousands of the 1918 BAR were used by U S Marines in island fighting during WW2.
BAR were recalled from police organizations and civilian owners to be refurbished and sent to the Pacific theatre, and it performed quite well in Europe as well. The BAR is still one of the favorites of Fillipino pirates. They like to use homemade 40 rounds mags and use these to riddle the wheel houses of smaller ships that try to out run them or resist boarding.

perotter

06-04-2011, 04:01 PM

The deployment of Rifle Caliber LMGs itself points out that the SMG, even had it been available to every soldier on the line, could not supplant the full powered infantry rifle.

The deployment of LMGs points out that the bolt action rifle was obsolete when WW1 started. The increase in the deployment of LMGs & the new designs predate the invention of the SMG. Most of the time spent during WW1 on small arms development was on auto loading guns and not bolt actions.

Multigunner

06-04-2011, 08:07 PM

The deployment of LMGs points out that the bolt action rifle was obsolete when WW1 started. The increase in the deployment of LMGs & the new designs predate the invention of the SMG. Most of the time spent during WW1 on small arms development was on auto loading guns and not bolt actions.

Gee then why didn't every soldier on the line carry an LMG.
There weren't any reliable semi auto rifles of major calibers and very few one man portable machineguns of any type available at the begining of WW1. You might as well claim that the Maxim Gun made the individual rifleman unimportant.

A autoloading rifle suitable for mass production and wartime issue on anything like a mass scale just didn't exist. The Mondragon was as close as it got, and these when bought by the Germans proved unable to handle the conditions of the trenches.
A similar claim would be that the WW1 Eindecker monoplane and similar pre ww1 monoplanes made the biplane obsolete, since monoplanes of WW2 were superior and the monoplane is theorectically superior. But well engineered monoplane designs and manufacturing techniques and materials that would exploit the benefits of the design just did not exist.
20/20 hindsight doesn't even apply because there was nothing to see.

The reason so much effort went into automatic weapons designs during WW2 was because the few available before the war were limited in application at best.
And when the MG or LMG was in operation it was the infantry that most often took them out using rifle fire and grenades.
Whenever possible, after light man portable LMGs were developed. these could engage enemy MG positions while riflemen advanced within range to drop rifle grenades on that position.
I don't think any SMG before the 1950's was capable of launching a grenade.

When the first jet powered aircraft appeared they did not make propellor driven aircraft obsolete overnight. It took years of development before the jet was suited to air combat.

Perhaps its a matter of definitions

ob·so·les·cent (bs-lsnt)
adj.
1. Being in the process of passing out of use or usefulness; becoming obsolete.
as opposed to

ob·so·lete (bs-lt, bs-lt)
adj.
1. No longer in use: an obsolete word.
2. Outmoded in design, style, or construction: an obsolete locomotive.

All the bolt action rifles of WW2 were obsolescent but lack of ability to mass produce the tens of millions of semi auto and selective fire weapons that could have replaced them in the hands of troops of the major powers before and during the early years of WW2 prevented these admittedly antiquated designs from becoming truly obsolete.

dromia

06-05-2011, 01:54 AM

Theoretical verses practical obsolescence.

gew98

06-05-2011, 02:47 AM

Opinion based on carefull research you say. Well it is opinion as such you admit and as such when opinions differ it's just that in the end...opinion.
Germany ... Heimat... was being starved ... food , clothing you name it .The great sacrifices to continue the war. You have a direct quote from ludendorf detailing the failure of his offensives to influenza that are historically verifiable ?. Seeing as the poor sod had a mental breakdown when his planned offensives failed .verification is the order of the day.
The word "Ersatz" is rather common in english today from the great war. Why you may ask...because of all the substitutes the germans devised to put off shortages of everything from guns to butter, oddly enough nothing to do with the influenza. Maybe you should do some more research on the avain flu fo those times...as big as a killer as it was it did not stop nor turn the tide of the great war. Had the great war gone along another year...history owuld be your queen on this, but it is not as it did not.
You seem to forget that the concept of a machine pistol was quite alien to the thinking of the day , to most beligerents. You may want to explore the evolution of german and french assault troop tactics and formations. Both of which used varying MG's and grenades considerably more effectively than your belived big game battle rifles. The germans brought the "feurer waltz" almost down to a science with mathematical precision with the likes of George Bruchmueller. With formations of troops armed with automatic weapons, carbines , pistols and grenades on the heels of such timed fires the full bore battle rifles became rather obsolete... don't you think ?. The long ungainly slow firing battle rifle was quite obsolete...just technology to produce the better weapon was not quite perfected then...but the future was seen and tasted.
The only reason the M14 was pulled out of stores and given another facelift is due to economics as we still had thousands on hand that the politicians had yet not given away or destroyed. It was the cheaper alternative to utilize ( so they thought ) to modify and issue for the afghanistan conflict. A dear fiend serves in A'stan presently wiht the M14 EBR...and when on home on leave I introduced him to an L1A1. Half the price and eevry bit as effective and considerably more reliable. If he finds one over there he will carry it in place of the pimped out EBR of which he is not happy with.
The BAR was revolutionary for it's day...but expensive to make and maintain. And for it's weight belt fed MG's of better quality were available...sort of like the US attempt to reverse enginner the MG42 for cal.30 that the engineers farked up and the US still stayed with the more cumbersome 1919 series of MG's.
You do know that the later Bren gun was considerably more versitile and reliable than the BAR... whether in 303 or 7,62 calibers .
Other than the "light johnson" the Marines had nothing else to draw from for such a weapon... and as is so typically american the US military was saddled with older weapons longer than needed due to finances and neglect. I knew peronally a USMC veteran whom won a silver star on Okinawa with a Light johnson...he loved that gun..so much more than a BAR. Had he not been severely wounded and woke up in pearl harbor many days after that combat he would have sent it home. As well more than one USMC veteran of the pacific lamented on the superiority of the 6,5 & 7,7 japanese copies of the british bren ( type 96 & 99's )..... short of a lack of ammo they did not stop going bang like the BAR's did, and they had 30 round magazines.

Opinion based on careful research.
Theres a lot that happened in Germany and Austria during the Pandemic that won't be found in the average history book, and Von Ludendorff certainly agreed that the initial outbreaks among his troops stalled out the German offensive.

And when you work force is dying like flies food and weapons don't make it to the front. You seem to believe Germany had no industrial ability at all, some sort of third world starveling ,when in fact they were very advanced. There was no massive bombing campaign to destroy Germany's ability to produce war materials as there had been in WW2, the Spanish Lady did that job quite well.
Whatever other problems Germany had the Pandemic pushed things over the edge for them.

The Spanish Flu has been the subject of a great deal of research in recent years. Perhaps you'd benefit from looking into it.
Some relatives survived the Spanish Flu but I never heard of it other than a few short dry accounts in school books till the subject resurfaced in recent years. No one wanted to remember that sort of heart break.

The Marines did not solve the early Lewis Gun's problems, engineers at BSA solved the problems and managed to put the gun in proper working order.
Savage, using the information supplied by BSA , once more redesigned the Lewis Gun to handle the .30-06 as the original prototypes had done. The greater chamber pressure and OAL of the .30-06 required that the weapon be beefed up considerably and the weight went up. These guns were still in limited service when my Dad was in the U S N during WW2.

The deployment of Rifle Caliber LMGs itself points out that the SMG, even had it been available to every soldier on the line, could not supplant the full powered infantry rifle. The SMG has even more limited applications in todays combat, and the assault rifles are showing their shortcomings as well.
The re issue of M14 and other main battle rifles as designated marksman weapons and for other purposes were the greater effective range and penetration of the main battle cartridge are needed, plus the development of newer cartridges that fit the assault rifle platform yet increase its power and range, brings this home well enough.

The best designed and manufactured gas operated light automatic rifle caliber weapon of WW1 was the BAR, but due to the unexpectedly truncated war the BAR and several other weapon systems didn't make it to the front in quantity.
I say the best as in best of its class, which at the time it pretty much had to itself, the BAR was not an LMG and wasn't intended to fill that role, it was at first called a "Machine Rifle".
Which reminds me, the BAR has been adapted to a great many military cartridges, but the BAR when tested by the British in .303 failed due to the highly erosive qualities of cordite .303 ammunition. Had they used only MkVIIz ammunition the BAR might have worked well despite the rimmed case.
All British .303 autoloaders had to be capable of performing with the standard MkVII ammunition, so long as that remained the standard cartridge.

The basic operating system of the BAR is still in use in some form, and it proved capable of extreme high rates of fire when adapted to a beltfed aerial gun by poland.
Belt fed and quick change barrel versions of the BAR were developed but the U S stuck with the 1918 and 1918a2. Many thousands of the 1918 BAR were used by U S Marines in island fighting during WW2.
BAR were recalled from police organizations and civilian owners to be refurbished and sent to the Pacific theatre, and it performed quite well in Europe as well. The BAR is still one of the favorites of Fillipino pirates. They like to use homemade 40 rounds mags and use these to riddle the wheel houses of smaller ships that try to out run them or resist boarding.

spqrzilla

06-05-2011, 02:13 PM

As Multigunner outlines, the BREN (derivative of the Czech ZB26 ) and the BAR were not really equivalents. The BREN was a light machine gun, albeit magazine fed and the BAR was an automatic rifle intended for a different tactical purpose. The main problem with the BAR was that the tactical role for it was conceived was not really realistic and so the US Army was saddled with a poor arm for use as a light machine gun. Further development of the automatic rifle concept, the Fallschirmjagergewehr 42 was a dead end as armies realized that the goal was not going to be found in the full power rifle cartridge realm.

The Lewis gun was problematic but even with better development, the magazine configuration was always going to be a deadend. The only surprise was how long the Soviets used the derivative DP series.

John Barry wrote a great book on the "Spanish Influenza" ( so called because US news censorship delayed newspaper coverage of the epidemic and the first news reports of it came from Spain long after it began ravaging the US ).

Multigunner

06-05-2011, 03:46 PM

The BAR was revolutionary for it's day...but expensive to make and maintain. And for it's weight belt fed MG's of better quality were available...sort of like the US attempt to reverse enginner the MG42 for cal.30 that the engineers farked up and the US still stayed with the more cumbersome 1919 series of MG's.

Mind naming a belt fed LMG of WW2 that weighed no more than the BAR 1918a2?
The Germans did experiment with a shortened and lightened MG34 that weighed in at a hair under 20 lbs unloaded, about the same weight as the BAR 1918a2 with bipod. The Lightened MG34 was intended for paratroopers, but its aluminum alloy parts and thinned steel parts didn't hold up to combat conditions.
Attempts to lighten the Browning MG also led to a version with aluminum receiver, this also failed endurance testing with some of the remaining test batch being adapted to firing low impulse marker rounds for aerial gunner training.
And as said earlier the BAR was not intended to act as an LMG, the 1918 didn't even have a bipod. The heavier Calvary model of 1922 was a beefed up version that could act as an LMG, but was limited by its magazine capacity and didn't catch on.
The Swedes and Poles developed their own versions, a belt fed version for the Polish version and a quick change barrel for the Swedish version, neither were produced in quantity.

The Fg42 and MG42 were not available at the begining of WW2, the 42 is date they were developed. As noted the FG42 was even less usable in full auto than previous light autorifle designs and its flimsey bipod further limited it.

The Johnson LMG held promise but it was also far too light to be controllable in full auto, and like the FG42 its side mounted mags could be a problem.

I've only run across one beltfed LMG in development in the US during WW2 that would have been an improvement over existing models. That gun used a BAR locking system and resembled the FN MAG58. It might have gone into production had the war lasted longer.

The Lewis Gun could be operated by one man, but to maintain the weapon on the battlefield required a five man squad. The No.1 carried and fired the gun, No.2 carried tools and spare parts to fix whatever could be fixed in the field, and three riflemen who carried extra ammo and covered the gunner while he changed positions. The Lewis Gun squad was exempt from any other duties that did not involve the gun since they must remain in a state of readiness and not fatiqued.

Multigunner

06-05-2011, 04:28 PM

Well yes, the Lewis gun had some early problems BUT the Marines solved them. Unfortunately The chief of army ordnance HATED Lewis and blocked procurement by the army. He got his comeuppence at a congressional hearing after the war and was forced to resign. His cood friend general Pershing, blocked procurement and saddled our military with the chauchat.
Since you mention Col Chinn, he wrote that the worst machine gun ever developed was the french chauchat. We had to order twice the number of them as many were dumped in shell holes or wrapped around trees. It may have worked for the French, but is was a DISASTER in 30-06
Oh by the way, I once met a man at a gun show who was on the gunboat Panay and fired a lewis at the jap planes that sank it.

Crozier served as Chief of Ordnance till 1918 when he left that post at the age of 63. I have yet to find any notification of his having resigned due to any controversy over the Lewis Gun, though the newspapers of the time were having a field day at his expense, just as they do these days when they have no information and only rumours to go on.
The Lewis Gun submitted for testing was a jammomatic dog that broke parts right and left. It was not suitable for adoption when presented to the Army, and only a crash program by BSA engineers made it useable at all.
The Gun suffered bent parts and breakages just from riding in the back of a truck during Calvary tests.
The Savage manufactured .30-06 Lewis Guns were diverted to the Air Corp for use on bombers. This may have led to the few in ground service being pulled and replaced by the Chaut chaut.

perotter

06-05-2011, 05:08 PM

Multigunner

06-05-2011, 09:37 PM

Well lets look at modern military thinking on the necessity for adequate penetration in an Urban Combat situation.

h. Attacking Man-made Structures. Usually man-made structures must be attacked before
enemy personnel inside are attacked. Weapons and demolitions can be chosen for employment
based on their effects against masonry and concrete rather than against enemy personnel.
i. Modern Buildings. Modern engineering and design improvements mean that most large
buildings constructed since World War II are resilient to the blast effects of bomb and artillery
attack. They may burn easily, but usually retain their structural integrity and remain standing.
Once high-rise buildings burn out, they are still useful to the military and are almost impossible to
damage further. A large structure can take 24 to 48 hours to burn out and become cool enough for
soldiers to enter.
j. Building Types. The most common worldwide building type is the 12- to 24-inch brick
building. Table 7-1 lists the frequency of occurrence of building types worldwide.

b. Weapon Penetration. The penetration that can be achieved with a 5.56-mm round depends on
the range to the target and the type of material being fired against. The M16A2, M4, and M249
achieve greater penetration than the older M16A1, but only at longer ranges. At close range, the
weapons perform the same. Single 5.56-mm rounds are not effective against structural materials
(as opposed to partitions) when fired at close rangethe closer the range, the less the penetration.
(1) 5.56 mm Maximum Penetration. For the 5.56-mm round, maximum penetration occurs
at 200 meters. At ranges less then 25 meters, penetration is greatly reduced. At 10 meters,
penetration by the M16 round is poor due to the tremendous stress placed on this high-speed
FM 3-06.11 Chapter 7
http://155.217.58.58/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-06.11/ch7.htm (3 of 47) [11/24/2002 6:56:04 PM]
round, which causes it to yaw upon striking a target. Stress causes the projectile to break up,
and the resulting fragments are often too small to penetrate.
(2) Reduced Penetration. Even with reduced penetration at short ranges, interior walls made
of thin wood paneling, Sheetrock, or plaster are no protection against 5.56-mm ball
ammunition rounds. Common office furniture, such as desks and chairs, cannot stop these
rounds, but a layer of books 18 to 24 inches thick can.
(3) Wood and Cinder Blocks. Wooden frame buildings and single cinder block walls offer
little protection from 5.56-mm rounds. When clearing such structures, soldiers must ensure
friendly casualties do not result from rounds passing through walls, floors, or ceilings.

c. Protection. The following common barriers in urban areas stop a 5.56-mm round fired at less
than 50 meters:
l One thickness of well-packed sandbags.
l A 2-inch concrete wall (nonreinforced).
l A 55-gallon drum filled with water or sand.
l A small ammunition can filled with sand.
l A cinder block filled with sand (block will probably shatter).
A plate glass windowpane at a 45-degree angle (glass fragments may be thrown behind the
glass).
l
l A brick veneer.
l A car body (5.56-mm rounds penetrate but may not always exit).
d. Wall Penetration. Although most structural materials repel single 5.56-mm rounds, continued
and concentrated firing can breach some typical urban structures (see Table 7-2).

Fragmenting bullets are lethal in flesh but first you have to hit flesh, and theres a lot of opportunity to find effective cover in Urban combat and in jungles and forests.
The WW2 US Army training film on effectiveness of infantry weapons makes a point of demonstrating the Garand busting through a four inch concrete wall and shooting through a tree large enough to hide behind while retaining lethal velocities.

The experianced Chechen guerillas taught both Taleban and Iraqi Insurgents how to make use of available cover in urban enviriments, the Taleban already knew how to find a huge rock to hide behind.
Experiance taught the Iraqi insurgents the value of 7.62X54r rifles and LMGs and .308 bolt action sporting rifles in defeating the most common US body armor that would stop a 5.56 or 7.62x39 cold.

The 5.56 depends on fragmentation for stopping power, yet the M4 Carbine with its short barrel seldom delivers the bullet at sufficient velocity to produce fragmentation.

The Spitzer bullets of the .30-06 of WW1 and M2 Ball of WW2 did not need fragmentation to be deadly, the spitzer holds a fairly straight course through solid objects, but tumbles in flesh producing large temporary and permanent wound cavities.
The fast twist of WW1 era rifle barrels was a holdover from earlier much heavier bullets. The 1:10 twist of the 03 barrel , coupled with the increased velocity of the 150 gr bullet compared to the old 220 gr bullet results in a very high rotational velocity that adds to the wounding effect at all ranges.
Due to the much greater energy of the Main Battle cartridges these bullets can defeat some very thick cover and still kill the enemy.

The pathetic penetration of the 55gr 5.56 led to continuing development of bullets that could offer at least some penetrating power.
As it is troops armed with 5.56 caliber weapons have to call on anti-tank rocket launchers or 7.62 MGs to deal with enemies that have any substantial cover. A wait that can cost lives and allow the enemy to escape.

When the Germans developed a tungsten core 7.92 AP bullet for the MG34 they issued one five round clip of this ammo to each infantryman, to be used against allied armored cars and gunshields if needed. They ran low on tungsten so this ammo was not produced in quantity after 1943.
When the .30 Browning was supplanted by the .50 for most aircraft gun positions huge stocks of 168 gr hardened steel core AP were freed up for ground use. The AP could be hard on a Garand oprod but seems to have worked okay. The BAR 1918A2 was upgraded to use the 172 gr M2 Ball already so it was commonly used in europe and was especially effective in urban combat as well as in the forests where much fighting took place.

http://www.modernsurvivalonline.com/Files/weapons/Articles/FM3-06_Urban_Combat.pdf
http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/marques.pdf

Early in the first Gulf War it was found that almost all the old stocks of 7.62 AP ammo had been used up in training and not replaced. One well to do Company commander ordered $30,000 worth of AP from a European manufacturer out of his own pocket so his men could effectively engage lightly armored and unarmored Iraqi vehicles at a distance with MG fire rather than waste a depleted uranium anti tank round they were sure to need later on when they ran into tanks.

PS

William Crozier
Major General, United States Army
William Crozier was born February 19, 1855, at Carrollton, Ohio. He grew up in Kansas. He graduated from the United States Military Academy in 1876 and was commissioned a Second Lieutenant, 4th U.S. Artillery.
After three years of campaigning against Indians on frontier he returned to West Point as Assistant Professor of Mathematics and was promoted to First Lieutenant in the Ordnance Corps in July 1881. In 1887, he was assigned to the office of Chief of Ordnance, where he developed an interest in siege and coastal defense guns that led to his invention of a wire-wrapped gun of large caliber and, with General A.R. Buffington, later chief of ordnance, of the Buffington-Crozier disappearing gun carriage, later adopted for coastal guns.

Promoted to Captain in June 1890, he served as Inspector General of the Atlantic and Gulf Coast defenses during the Spanish-American War and, with the Volunteer rank of Major, as Inspector General of Volunteers for several months in 1898.

He was a delegate to the International Peace Conference at The Hague in 1899. In 1900 he was in the field in the Philippines Insurrection and in Peking Relief Expedition. After few months as an instructor at West Point, November 1901, he was appointed Chief of Ordnance with the rank of Brigadier General. He retained that post until 1918, with brief absence in 1912-13 when he served as president of Army War College. As Chief of Ordnance, he gave particular attention to the use of federal armories as testing grounds not only for new weapons but for new industrial techniques. In his search for efficiency in manufacturing he even consulted Federick W. Taylor, pioneer in efficiency engineering. His work contributed greatly to army's readiness for World War I. His rank as Chief of Ordnance was raised by statute to Major General in October 1917. During the war was a member of Supreme War Council. His opposite number in the British government, with whom he had a close working relationship, was Winston Churchill.

In July 1918, he was promoted to Major General of the line, and became Commander of the Northeastern Department in Boston, and he retired in January 1919. He died at Washington, D.C., November 10, 1942 and was buried with full military honors in Section 30 of Arlington National Cemetery.

His wife, Mary Williams Crozier, died in August 2, 1955, and was buried with him.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CROZIER, WILLIAM
MAJ GEN US ARMY RET
DATE OF DEATH: 11/10/1942
BURIED AT: SECTION EAST SITE S-28
ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY
CROZIER, MARY WID/O WILLIAM
DATE OF DEATH: 08/02/1955
BURIED AT:
ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY
WIFE OF WILLIAM CROZIER, MAJOR GEN USA

A long and illustrious carrer unmarred by the blown out of proportion flap over the Lewis Gun.
No resigning in disgrace there.

Could be some gunwriters have confused the US Chief of Ordnance with the British General of the same name who was forced to resign in disgrace.

According to this article printed when General Crozier first was appointed to the position of Chief of Ordnance he had already stated that he planned to retire in 1919.
http://www.mysearch.com/search/redirect.jhtml?qid=d578d2afe8c486fc3b3f6882fe45ef4 8&searchfor=general+william+crozier&action=pick&pn=1&si=&ptnrS=FK&ss=&st=bar&cb=FK&pg=GGmain&ord=6&tpr=&redirect=mPWsrdz9heamc8iHEhldEcZB526vjsBLtPtRAwT5p scRgGQ0V%2B6J6r%2FOuHRFpf2r5CydGWvewdL%2BJEafezUTZ gR3uFv%2FmCmvP8n%2FDU4jPwDG4hRSWUXYdswGuwNkUaqDhKU VuSsD2J7esdsX8zhkWA%3D%3D&ct=AR

Multigunner

06-06-2011, 01:12 AM

"obsolete

Definition

No longer appropriate for the purpose it was obtained due either to the availability of better alternatives or change in user requirements. "

The bolt action rifle in WW1 fits in here very nicely.

The French did arm entire squads with LMGs late in the war. As a hint, one regiment that had a 250% casualty rate in 1915 when armed with bolt actions had a casualty rate of 65% in 1918 when they had been changed over to shock troops.
The roundly hated Chaut chaut no doubt

The French shock troops engaged at a range of 200 yards. One hardly needs a full powered cartridge at that range. As the Winchester SL that were in production before 1915 were able to pass US mil test in 1941 they would have worked fine in WW1.
A Winchester SL was tested during the M1 Carbine testing, the modified Winchester did not garner any laurels that I remember hearing of.
Do you honestly think exposing your troops to concentrated fire from main battle rifles and MGs for at least 300 yards before reaching the effective range of your own weapons would be very prudent.
Also your troops in the trenches would be completely unable to place effective fire on the enemy trenches while the enemies mausers rained bullets on your guys all day long with no possibility of return fire.

A Winchester SL sold for about $30 at that time. I believe the the US gov spent $50 for '03 Springfield. The bolt action rifle was very expensive in both blood & money.
Not sure about the final cost but I've read that the production cost of the 1903 at the government owned arsenals during WW1 was $16, the SMLE cost 12 pounds sterling. The Remington produced WW2 1903 rifles cost just under $50. I'll check those figures.

But the members of most armies are government workers. Plus, as Hatcher wrote, there is more picking a rifle than what is best. There is a lot of room under the table.
And not listening to people who think a lightly constructed sporting carbine could stay up with the big boys when the Marines were using the standard issue 03 to pick off individual Germans at 600 and 700 yards.

gew98

06-06-2011, 01:07 PM

Wow...

You do know that the HIGHLY trained british Army that was bled white ( kitchner's mob ) in the 1914 battles out shot in accuracy and quantity with the lowly 303 any combatant before or since in that war. The germans facing them were cut down in droves and some assumed the brits were to a man equipped with emma gees.
The USMC for the most part that got to europe was a highly trained old school force..and got bled white somewhat in 1918 like the british did in 1914.
But to think somehow that little bit of shooting turned the tide alone in the battle you speak of..poppycock. I wonder how many yanks got sniped by proficient german snipers using real and sturdy mausers. I do know the short time my grandfather spent in the trenches before he was wounded stated those killed by german sniping were not small in number sadly.
With the evolved tactics used by the majority of all combatants in 1918 the high powered as you put it infantry rifle was obsolete. Very few troops had the trained skills to utilize fine delicate sights while under an artillery or MG barrage at any range. The unwieldly length of the rifles in trench warfare was another hinderance. For snap shooting the Gew98 and the SMLE were certainly the best ,.The barley corn 'V' sights of the gew98/kar98a lend themselves to very effective minimal time to train for such. The SMLE with it's front and rear sight guards work wonders for snap shooting..and either rifle if dropped would easily survive such. The 03 on the other hand is markedly harder to snap shoot due to the tiny rear notch and fine front blade , as well the rear sight is considerably easier to damage and or get fouled with mud. The front sight picture can be mucked up rather bad if the usually wobbly front sight cover is in place and as usual shifted left or right in it's small loop when not packed with mud and when not in place almost certainly the easiest damaged front sight blade on any combatant rifle of the great war.
MG's were a real killer in the great war with direct or extreme range indirect fire. That is why artillery became the queen of battle..to stomp such thorns in ones attack and "soften up" hard spots. As the countless offensives across expanses of mud and barbed wire entaglements took untold hundreds of thousands of casualties of troops from MG's and not super duper target rifles.
The evolution of stormtroop tactics the germans and french utilized to great effect nullified the advantage of high powered rifles like the 03. Walking on the heels of a barrage and flinging grenades by the score armed with pistols , LMG's and MG08's with expedited portable mounts , Flame throwers and even SMG's proved considerably more effective than ANY long range rifle fire.
The postwar apathy and no desire to spend coin on advancing military small arms is the end result of most wars and this was no different here. With huge quantities of these old school bolt rifles on hand it was too costly to change and hardly anyone cared .

The roundly hated Chaut chaut no doubt

A Winchester SL was tested during the M1 Carbine testing, the modified Winchester did not garner any laurels that I remember hearing of.
Do you honestly think exposing your troops to concentrated fire from main battle rifles and MGs for at least 300 yards before reaching the effective range of your own weapons would be very prudent.
Also your troops in the trenches would be completely unable to place effective fire on the enemy trenches while the enemies mausers rained bullets on your guys all day long with no possibility of return fire.

Not sure about the final cost but I've read that the production cost of the 1903 at the government owned arsenals during WW1 was $16, the SMLE cost 12 pounds sterling. The Remington produced WW2 1903 rifles cost just under $50. I'll check those figures.

And not listening to people who think a lightly constructed sporting carbine could stay up with the big boys when the Marines were using the standard issue 03 to pick off individual Germans at 600 and 700 yards.

Multigunner

06-06-2011, 05:01 PM

gew98

06-06-2011, 08:46 PM

The German Snipers used telescopic sighted sporting rifles at first, telescope sighted Military rifles were produced later on, picking off British Officers like a pairie dog hunt. The SMLE never had the accurate range of the Mauser or the Springfield 03. The MkVII ammunition had such poor penetration that British Snipers put out a call for civilian sporting rifles in major game calibers including .350 caliber Mauser african game rifles in order to defeat both armored loopholes and common obstacles. It took some time to get proper .303 AP ammunition into the hands of the troops. It wasn't till 1916 that the SMLE MkIII (T) got into the hands of British Snipers, and the British never considered it the equal of the best German Sniper rifles.[QUOTE]

The germans from the get go utilized select gew98's with optical sights of varying manufacture type commercially available scope systems. When this did not prove to deliver enough in the hands of the front line troops they requisitioned any service caliber optically sighted rifles as registered by their awesome gun control laws until military scharfschutzengewehr98's were produced in sufficient numbers by late 1915 . The german snipers went after anyone poking their heads up...sniping officers was not the rule then.
The Mk VII 174 gn bullet had not supreior range ballistics than the german 154 gn and the US 152 gn bullets you say ? ....you are simply nuts on this...do the math heavier bullets with their relative close diameter difference and close commonality in bullet velocities will always outperform lighter bullets at longer ranges. I guess you missed that class.Remember the german sS bullet copy of the french Balle D to be able to deal with the ballistically superior longer range french bullet in MG fire. Sort of like shooting the 55 gn .223 bullet over 350 meters...it RAPIDLY lost velocity and tumbled...the heavier bullets lost velocity too of course but by nature followed a predictable stable path...at longer ranges.Hence the increased range/accuracy with the 62.5 gn bullet. Akin to Something the 152gn 30 cal bullet was not capable of in similar comparison. There was no equal in quality to the german sniping rifles until the Patt'14 rifle was optically equipped with a german type mounting system and scope as the patt'18. It was far above anything the 03 was ever capable of with issue ammunition , especially considering the lame attempts at optically equipping those delicate 03 rifles. You do realize that the loophole steel plates of the day utlized by snipers and observers were bullet proofed from EVERY standard issue caliber ...right ?. The brit ability to adapt and overcome those loophole plates with big game calibers was typically british and typically effective. Something the 03 could'nt do either...but oh I forgot it's so uber accurate a typical soldier could put that 30 cal pill in the slot wihout such improvisation, righto cheerio move on then.

[QUOTE] The long range volley fire that worked well in initial stages proved unworkable as the highly trained old school riflemen and their experianced officers were killed off. By 1916 the volley sight was no longer part of the SMLE MkIII* rifle specifications, and when post war revamping restored the Windage Adjustable sight and magazine cut off they did not return to the volley sights.[QUOTE]

Long range volley fire was devoloped because of the british colonial experiance with massed ranks of attacking fuzzy wuzzies. It proved useless in continental warfare with like trained and equipped foes. The aspect of windage adjustable sights was another over delicate endeavor which proved excessive and hardly needed for combat of the day.. hence the 03's very delicate and easily damaged/walked rear sight never being addressed by realistic experiances. The brits realized quickly on the volley sights and windage adjustable sights could and were expended in the name of simplication and durability in that era of modern combat. Something the US should have taken to heart but did not do so. Oh and volley sights were still retained as well as magazine cutoffs for some empire troops in india and australia post WW1. And being the 03 never got rid of it's lethargic cutoff when it only held 5 cartridges...what's the point there ?.

[QUOTE] Till the Lewisgun reached a level of development where it could be kept in action by highly trained gunners with their No.2 the MG was a heavy static weapon that could not be redeployed to another position quickly without vehicles and the vehicles available could not negotiate no mans land.
Artillery then, as in the WW2 Pacific Theatre, could not insure that the enemy lines were devastated. Even after hours of shelling the Germans came out of their holes ready resume their firing steps and continue to fight. [QUOTE]

Silly huh. All MG troops of the day were highly trained specialized troops due to the very mechanical nature of their crew served weapons in such horrid environments. You know like that colt potato digger junker that everyone hated irregardless of 303 or 30 caliber , whilst the MG08 and vickers chugged right along putting rounds downrange. And of course the german fascination with ever more portable MG's that did make them use every captured lewis they got their hands on to include madsens even. The germans created special Scharfschutzen Maschinengewehr Abtieling companies...these highly trained elite troops mastered the MG in all aspects of defence and attack air and ground. NOBODY had such in depth specialized troops in that regards and it paid dividends for the germans. The canadians pioneered long range MG interdiction fire in the great war with their vickers MG's in the lowly 303 caliber no less.

[QUOTE] Rifle grenades used by both sides far out ranged the hand thrown grenade, and in one night long duel German and British grenadiers exchanged fire using tens of thousands of rifle grenades.
The French tactic for taking out German MG positions required rifle grenades not hand grenades.
When an MG was taken out by a hand thrown grenade it was considered a great feat of daring in both world wars, and often as not the man who threw the grenade never lived to see his medals. Congressional Medal of Honor citations bear this out.[QUOTE]

So do tell what battle that night of the thousands of rifle grenades did take place.. I'd sure like to know.
The french tactic... seriously you jest as the french vivien bessiure cup discharger did not come about until mid to late 1916 and was a high angle of approach munition. Being most MG positions were through embrasures such munitions were pretty much worthless in attack on such the typical MG position. Taking out any hardpoint is a great feat of arms... ask the many US marines and Army troops that died doing it in both wars. Funny thing is in the vast majority of such it was loads of sustained automatic fire directed directly a tthe firing ports to keep the enemy buttoned up and approaching close enough to finish them off with a greande or explosive charge... not a rifle grenade. I've known several from a couple conflicts that have survived such up and close personal contacts doing such as you propose so foolish. You miss the point of how dangerous war is.. I guess a guy with an 03 could sit back several hundreds of yards and shoot the eyeballs out of the guys in the bunkers or pop the uber accurate 03 rifle grenade equipped peice with target accuracy into an embrasure cause the 03 was so so uber accurate in anything it did.
The germans emulated the VB discharger for rifle use as the M1917 cup discharger , and found it mediocre. That is why german stoss truppen attacked with special bags filled with handgrenades to such deadly effect. Missed that did'nt you as it did'nt take the uber 03 to toss that "grenaten".

[QUOTE] Which brings back the subject of body armor. The British had issued 20,000 sets of body armor by late war. A British Officer was awarded a medal when he threw himself on a German grenade tossed among a number of sleeping men by an infiltrator. His body armor saved his life. Not something that always worked then or now.[QUOTE]

But if that british guy had picked up an 03 rifle from a dead yank.... he could have snap shot that grenade out of the night sky ...right ?.

[QUOTE] Night raids on German positions did not capture ground, at best they disrupted communications or allowed guns to be spiked. Getting back alive was a feat in itself. [QUOTE]

Do some more reading ... your generic grandious statement here is ...well befuddling.

[QUOTE] Now a few points I forgot to address earlier.
The Bolt kick up of a worn SMLE or No.4 bolt is ordinarily no big deal, but combined with older milsurp .303 the bolt is not always held closed by the chamber pressure of a fired round because even a momentary hangfire allows the bolt to kick up before ignition. This leaves the full force of the charge working against only 2/3rds the normal locking lug contact surfaces. Each time this happens shortens the useful life of the action body, reduces potential accuracy, increases effective headspace promoting case cracking and separations, and in case of a pressure excursion can compromise safety margin.
heading off this sort of situation was the job of the armorer, when a bolt head showed side play and bolts kicked up they rectified the situation.
Its actually not uncommon to see bolt kick up when a Enfield rifle is fired, others have noticed this as well, its the extent of kick up that determines whether its a potential safety hazzard.
Side play in the SMLE bolt head can lead to the shank of the bolt head shearing off, the No.4 redesign added an unthreaded shank portion moving in an unthreaded cylindrical seat to prevent this. The SMLE bolt head shanks are threaded all the way up and the threaded section leaves that part of the shank vulnerable to side forces. The earlier Maleable Cast Iron bolt head has extreme resistence to compression but little shear strength, which led to bolt heads made after 1938 being made from steel.
So long as the parts are properly fitted they do the job, Ignoring signs of wear will lead to the rifle becoming worn beyond economical repair and it becomes no better than a DP, which it would have become if still in service and condemned by an armorer. [QUOTE]

Are you an engineer with no practical experiance with enfield rifles or hands on mechanics ? .

[QUOTE] Another point.
Someone claimed the BAR was more difficult to produce. During its few months of production before the end of the first war 85,000 BARs were manufactured. The total number of Lewis Guns in service on the Western Front was 50,000 though it was in mass production for years.[QUOTE]

You simply do not understand the manufacturing base of the countries involved and or the politics and available raw materials to get such things done. Had you you would not state such "authortarian" drivel. The USA had a HUGE manufacturing ability beyond all the combatants then and in the 2nd war.

[QUOTE] It seems theres been a tendency to ignore possible faults in any weapon not built in the US while exagerating perceived faults in weapons built in the US.
The FAL vs M14 for example. Both use a twenty round magazine, as did the BAR. No one seems to consider the FAL magazine capacity to be a drawback, yet the BAR and M14 are dissed as having limited capacity.
The Johnson autoloader designs allowed topping up of the magazine, that considered a plus over the Garand, the M14 magazine could be topped up with stripper clips, the FN FAL mag can not be topped up while in the rifle, but this is never mentioned.[QUOTE]

So the FAL.... considerably more ergonomic and a better instinctively handled/pointed rifle of more modern methods and materials compared to the troubled start of the "garand round 2"... what ?. I don't recall any version of the FAL having rear sights loosening and falling off , gas regulators doing the same. And with an adjustable gas system can handle any 7,62 nato ammo in the pipeline reliably unlike it's archaic 7,62 M14 buddy. In modern combat NOBODY tops off a magazine...you drop and insert a fresh one...common sense and SOP for anyone in the heat of battle with such a rifle and 'arf a brain mate. And if you had an enfield and acquired a spare magazine or two you could swap to a fresh 10 rounder quicker than you could pull a 5 round charger out of your belt for your '03...right ?.
The Johnson rifle was not the premier choice but the johnson light - select fire 30 cal weapon was a very reliable and welcome LMG when used by the marines - it carried 30 rounds in a side mounted magazine and allowed the user to get closer to momma earth when the SHTF with the ability to keep rounds going downrange...much like the bren or FG 42.

[QUOTE] All weapons have shortcomings, some more so than others. Most can be dealt with , but only if recognized.

Did you get a patent on that awesome statement...?. Why must you reiterate something so common sense like an earth shattering revelation ?.

gew98

06-07-2011, 11:16 AM

Oh and for the record I was mistaken about DWM being dismantled totally by th enazis. I broke out my old FN Highpower book and they indeed worked operating the largess of occupied FN Herstal. I also contacted a collector friend Ken huddle and he as a studied ammunition collector affiremd no 303 british was manufactured by "DWM" at FN. In fact he supplied me with a list of what was produced by headstamp. He as well would really like to see these 'cartons' of 303 that you state have turned up that are wartime production as you allege.
The cartridges w/ DWM headstamps that are verifiable 1939-45 production:
(by headstamp/case material/box label)

.22 long rifle -flaming bomb -BWS/CWS cases -military boxes w/code & date.
7.65x17 -DWM B B 479A -lacquered steel case
" -DWM 42 479A "
" -DWM 43 479a "
" -DWM 44 479A "
7.65x22 -DWM B B 41 -brass case
7.63x25 -DWM B B 403 -lacquered steel case
9x19 -DWM 40 B 2 -brass case
9x19 -DWM B B 41 -brass case
9x19 -DWM Y A 1939 -brass case
9x25 -DWM Y A 1938 -brass case
9x25 -DWM 1941 ?
9x25 -DWM 1944 ?
7.9x57 -DWM 1939 SS -brass case
7.9x57 -DWM 1939 SS-TV -used by guards at SS tv
7.9x57 -TV 1939 SS -DWM made though not on h/s
7.9x57 -DWM * * 1944 -lacquered steel case
8x50R -DWM 8x50R -lacq. CWS
8x57J -DWM 8x57J "
8x57J -DWM * * 8x57JS "
9,3x72R -DWM 9,3x72R

bydand

06-07-2011, 10:52 PM

So the FN is inferior to the M14? How many countries have adopted the FN, and how many countries use the M14?
Now my memory may be a bit fuzzy here, but the only country I know of that adopted the M14 was the U.S. while just about every country in Europe this side of the Iron curtain used the FN. I suppose they were ALL Wrong? You might also add Argentina and a couple of other South American countries to the list.

Now as for the German snipers. At the start of the war, they did inflict a lot of casualtiies UNTIL The British got their act in gear and then the germans were on the recieving end.

At the beginning, Sniper rifles were issued as "trench stores" with no training, but that changed drasticaly with the inception of sniper schools.

Now as to bolt kick up with older ammo. The only **** ammo I have encountered is PAKISTANI. (POF) otherwise know as "poor old fodder" Either click-bang or simply click.
I have fired 1916 dated Mk6 British ammunition with no problems though now I keep the remainder as its worth more to collectors than shooters.
The BAR, did not get into action in WW1, so lets compare it to the BREN gun. 20 round mag vs 30 round. Fixed barrel to quick change barrel. The Bren also served in Desert Storm one.One
By that time the BAR was history.

doubs43

06-08-2011, 11:46 AM

The BAR did see action in WW1 and was used extensively in the Meuse-Argonne Offensive.

A family friend used one throughout WW2 from D-Day until Germany surrendered. He knocked the front sight off at Omaha Beach and didn't replace it until the war was over. He claimed that when something happened, it was close and so fast that sights were not an issue. This is the man prior to going to Europe.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3563/3577178344_93399ec01e.jpg

Multigunner

06-08-2011, 03:45 PM

Gew 98
I won't bother quoting your replies and answering point by point.
You don't seem to have even understood what I actually wrote to begin with so answering your posts has become a waste of time.

Both the Germans and French commandeered telescope sighted sporting rifles for use as sniper rifles early on. The British had mainly used apeture sighted target Enfield rifles for sharpshooters and had few if any telescope sighted SMLE rifles till 1916.
The MkVII bullet had little penetration on the trench armor and common obstacles. The British did use civilian sporting rifles, including commercial mausers, in heavy game calibers to defeat German armored loopholes. Only after an accurate AP bullet was developed did the .303 have the penetration to deal with German snipers hidden in the cover of the wreckage of buildings and behind armorered loophole plating.

The standard FN FAL magazine holds 20 rounds, just as the standard M14 and BAR magazines hold twenty rounds. A 40 round BAR magazine was developed but withdrawn from service. Homemade 40 rnd BAR mags have shown up in photos of Fillipino pirates in recent years. A 40 rnd magazine for the Canadian Squad Auto version of the FAL can be found, but that rifle never caught on because it was too flimsey to be a true squad auto.

By 1918 everyone expected the Great War would last another several years. Enormous stocks of war materials had been built up and production was at its highest rate.

The BAR saw limited action at the end of WW1 as it was the new kid on the block and had to prove itself before being issued on a massive scale.

The FN FAL proved to be a jammomatic in the Mid East, just as the early production BREN Guns had. Both were modified to operate in sandy conditions. The early production BREN Guns were found to have been manufactured with closer tolerances than the prototypes and designer drawings had called for. A honcho at the factory had thought he knew more than the designers and changed the specifications. Those guns worked fine in Europe but jammed worse than Lewis Guns in the North African desert. The Long range Desert Patrol Group prefered Vickers K aircraft MGs modified for vehicle mounts, and the Lewis Gun for dismounted use.
The FN FAL rifles were subject to a number of modifications to allow them to function in the deserts. Sand Cuts were milled into the bolt bodies to clear away debris. The Sterling SMG also has this sort of sand cut that is angled to channel debris away from the bolt and inside of the receiver. The Nigerian Contract FN was probably the most reliable.
The Sniper versions of the M14 were in use in the Middle East for longer than the FAL was in use as a infantry rifle. There are still M14 rifles fitted out as scoped designated marksman rifles in use with our forces in Afghanistan.
When the British decided to adopt a new 7.62 autoloader as a sniper rifle they chose not to use the FAL platform, instead they chose a recent design rifle similar in construction to the old AR10.
I've used the FAL and had no problems with it. The only odd thing about it I found was the tendency to nearly rip off the rims of Winchester matchgrade ammunition, even when the regulator was turned down to its lowest setting. I'm told that the FAL gas system does not work efficiently with Ball Powders, and the Australians only used single base powders for their 7.62 NATO rifle ammunition because of this.

Austria built many FAL rifles under the designation STG58. I've examined the kits and rifles built from them. Despite the fact that Austria fought no wars during its service, the parts kits are often badly worn, though a good gunsmith can mix and match to build a decent rifle on a commercial receiver. The STG 58 was dropped in 1977.
Argentine sniper rifles built on the FAL have garnered few laurels. They saw use in the Falklands but no one seemed to consider these to be a true sniper rifle, more of a designated marksman rifle. A British sniper has reccounted using a captured Argie FAL to great effect after his L42 lost its zero and began to seize up, most likely from firing wet ammunition in the chilly rain. He threw the useless L42 in a creek to prevent it being captured should he be over run, which was a distinct possibility at the time.
Thats a documented case, not anecdotal.
A BAR found in a ditch could have been there for a great many reasons other than a malfunction. Stretcher bearers were ordered not to move any US weapons found with wounded men, and troops were ordered not to collect weapons found on the ground. Troops trained in weapons retrieval dealt with these. It was common for both Germans and Japanese to boobytrap weapons found on the battle field.

The L42 had been showing up on the surplus market long before that, so the few still in service were getting long in the tooth.
The Metropolitan Police refused surplus L42 rifles leased to them by the MOD when police armorers found that they were seriously degraded and thirty percent were unsafe to fire.

The M14 and M1A1 civilian versions are still highly thought of for their consistent high level of accuracy.

Thwe BAR locking system is still in use in modern designs, if the the BREN locking system is still around in a modern design (not rebarreled BRENs) lets hear about it.
The Modified LEWIS Gun locking system of the M60 is considered its worst feature, and the cause of chronic bolt head chipping.

gew98

06-09-2011, 01:31 AM

Gew 98
I won't bother quoting your replies and answering point by point.
You don't seem to have even understood what I actually wrote to begin with so answering your posts has become a waste of time.

.

I will agree the same of you as the admiral of armchair manualistics.

I understand fully the pontifacatory vain personality of yourself.

You state how loved and great the M14 is... why by golly once it's tricked out and toleranced up it's a gee whizz shooter. As a straight issue rifle it had serious issues for quite some time. The only reason the US got saddled with it was politics of the old guard. The "EBR" of late .. oh man I could tell you some stories about that clunker.. one of my buds is carrying one presently in A'stan and let's just say..he wishes he had something less problematic. You do know that spec ops brits/aussies and Kiwis use scoped and/or suppressed SLR's over in A'stan right now and have been..you do know that put's it still longer in service than the mediocre M14 right ?. The only reason the 14 is still in th epicture is as there is still enough in store not destroyed yet with the need for a 7,62 rifle for the nature of the war in A'stan , hence it's cheaper to take old junk out and make it up to speed ( allegedly ) and soldier on with what kit your given.
To this day you see all manner of FAL's in th emid east soldiering on...but whose the only dopes still walking around with the occassional tricked out M14...yeah the USA.
What does Rambo phillipino pirates with home made BAR magazines have to do with anything..afterall it's not in a manual..right ?.
Never heard of a 40 rd mag for the FAL...the "bitch" used 30 round mags and depending on it's intended application that rifle was fairly effective in vietnam from user level accounts of such..same can't be said for the M14 in FA trim.
You do realize that the vast majority of FAL's the commenwealth had have been destroyed and sold off as kits...good old government can't let it's peeps have such things. Plus they make money off the scrap to buy awesome bullpoop rifles of just sheer jammomaticness.
Well you know I have seen all manner of FAl kits from rhodesian , Brit , belgian , german , austrian... from new to well worn...duh... they were used for combat and boot camp...so your obersvation merits what on this..oh yeah catolog it under " I observed kits" , good eye man !. You do know the FAL's you have been shooting in the USA are all kit guns because just like the M14 there are ohh so bad illegal as they have full auto capable receivers. And with less than 3 thousand REAL FAL's being let in before big government stepped in I'd say you were shooting a kit gun assembeled by one of your manual reading smithy gods. I have owned several and do still FAL's and they shoot excellently with 147 gn bullets fueled by H335 and 2230 ball powders..for thousands of rounds worth and counting ..practical experiance..trumps "engineer" experiance again...right ?.
Funny you talk of penetration... I have shot all manner of iron/steel/wood with 174 gn 303 ball , 7,92 154gn ball and 30 cal 152 gn ball...... none out do the other in anything of merit to support your claim of ohh ahh bad penetration blah blah blah. You do know the germans in the great war accused the very nature of the 303 bullet to cause undue grievous wounds.... and the brits and the french saw what the higher lighter velocity 7,92 did too when it hit flech and turned turtle.
All very lethal to do what was intended KILL. When hard targets presented themselves the germans and the brits went to special purposes munitions such as AP. And guess what...you don't need a manual to tell you AP will punch holes in wood or Iron considerably more efficiently than ball ...right ?.
You do know that the M60 has the feed cover of an MG42 and the gas/bolt design of the FG42 which was not designed for sustained FA fire like a squad automatic must be. I served with M60's and fired tens of thousands of rounds out of them ( again no manual but practical experiance ) and the M60's major failure was the op rod extension that rode up into the bolt and worked the firing pin. It chipped/fractured regualraly rendering the MG a pile of dead weight. As well their extractors woudl wear out unusually so , the gas piston seemed real finicky in the sand too oddly enough. I carried a screwdriver , pliers and a small ball peen to keep my guys M60's rolling.... anything less and nothing went downrange. Now the 240 tank and infantry MG's...I can't say enough good about them !!!. The 249's.... Oh god man decades of changes and they still are not on par wiht the reliablity of the 240 . The early 249's were the absolute worst !!!!. I bashed many an example so it could be DX'ed.....don't even get me started on them.
It's pretty rare to find any of the 7,62 brit enfield rifles in any serviceable condition as the brits used the snot out of them ..to good effect mind you. If you collect brit kit you will note how the brits use up kit & equipment often beyond expected service life before they sell it off as surplus.... same goes for the majority of anythign military surplus out of England. They are frugal enough to put the germans to shame on many counts !.
Apparently you have not Read Elmer Keiths' memoirs on his time working for US Army ordnance during WW2. The Bar needs to be fited and finished a particular way to function reliably... he fought to have it doen so and as manual loving bureaucrats oh so love to have their version of events go many got done in such a dreadful manner. Read his memoirs...he was not ever known for exaggerating or ever telling a lie. He also hated the M1 rifle oddly enough.
Where do you get this "orders" not to move weapons of the wounded and or dead bunk from ?. I've known countless veterans tht got their best weapons and equipment from the wounded and or dead. No such orders... c'mon man. Vets I knew that served in the pacific carried a length of wire/rope with them to drag dead japs about to see if they were rigged. Same for their own dead if they chose too. You read another "manual" on that again and never talked with any of the guys on the sharp end ?. So do tell ...what "rifle" out there is in use sporting old BAR technology... I'm willing to learn something here , do tell .

gew98

06-09-2011, 02:37 AM

OK ; so you steal off to the manuals again and state the really freakin obvious ..why ?.
The 55 gn m193 ball was meant to kill...it was not meant to be as all soldier carried rifles are some kind of AP shoot through the moon awesome bullet.
The M4 is a dumbed down slower heavier poodle shooter bullet and wih tthe 14.5" barrel simply loses all it has going for it in range and velocity.
I like your Iraqi insurgents know how to find a BFR to hide behind..... oh man oh gawd... so when wa syour last romp through the sandbox..oh I forgot you pulled it from a manual...ah I got it now , my bad. You know anyone that had a sapi plate or ACH stop a 7,62x54.... I do. Never heard of or seen of a 308 sporting rifle turn up in Iraq...not too many hunters or things to hunt there....and I did'nt read that in a manual or stay in a holiday inn.
Oh you messed up their big guy... The SMK ammunition was originally developed in late 1914 early 1915 , almost two decades before the Mg34 was born. It was intended for breaching loopholes and static defences. It was later used in MG08's by the belt to stop tanks.
It was later intended - hoped that infantry troops in france could each be issued a 5 round charger of SMK ( Spitzgeschoss mit Eisenkern ) cartridges but alas it was a very time and costly munition to manufacture and very rarely doled out to infantry troops due to such.
As well the first order for 15,000 optically sighted gew98's was put in late october 1914 with the SMK cartridge at the time to be specific to their use then when applicable and as the original german document/order read " to be used wisely and not given away".
The effect of high velocity light bullets is well known.It is also known that slower twist rates are necessary for longer heavier bullets to be stabilized properly. The 1/10 twist rates were kept as they were quite adequate for the bullets and their diameters as used .... unlike the 1/14 to 1/12 twist rate change when it was found with the poodle shooter that the former rate would not stabilize the little 223 bullet in adverse cold weather properly. But I digress.
Ah you forgot that te Cal.30 M1 ball 172 gn boat tailed bullet was no longer produced for some years before WW2 ...you do know that right. The 152 gn cal 30 M1906 bullet was reintroduced ( tah dah ) again and redesignated Cal.30 Ball M2.
The cal.30 AP bullet was nominally 165 grains.... and no I did not read that in a manual... I got that from having thousands of pulled 30 cal AP bullets on hand ( still ). They work best in a 300 wthby mag if you could'nt guess !.
Man you mean all thosde years in uniform and not seeing any 7,62x51 AP ion training... where was I ?. Ap ammo has always been on the rare as hens teeth for training as it's farking expensive. You will very very rarely see it in a training environment..... and yeah I was in uniform back in 91 so I speak from hands on not another manual. So when it's not around it's simply due to it's low priority in procurement due to mission and cost.That's why the US military relies so much on M33 mild steel cored Ball 50 caliber ammo...and by god it works real good for thinny skinny wheeled jobbers.
With no aircraft using 50 calibers other than select helicopters the only specialized 50 cal out there is the SLAP & API rounds...and they are expensive. I never saw them on anything but sniping uses.

Well lets look at modern military thinking on the necessity for adequate penetration in an Urban Combat situation

Fragmenting bullets are lethal in flesh but first you have to hit flesh, and theres a lot of opportunity to find effective cover in Urban combat and in jungles and forests.
The WW2 US Army training film on effectiveness of infantry weapons makes a point of demonstrating the Garand busting through a four inch concrete wall and shooting through a tree large enough to hide behind while retaining lethal velocities.

The experianced Chechen guerillas taught both Taleban and Iraqi Insurgents how to make use of available cover in urban enviriments, the Taleban already knew how to find a huge rock to hide behind.
Experiance taught the Iraqi insurgents the value of 7.62X54r rifles and LMGs and .308 bolt action sporting rifles in defeating the most common US body armor that would stop a 5.56 or 7.62x39 cold.

The 5.56 depends on fragmentation for stopping power, yet the M4 Carbine with its short barrel seldom delivers the bullet at sufficient velocity to produce fragmentation.

The Spitzer bullets of the .30-06 of WW1 and M2 Ball of WW2 did not need fragmentation to be deadly, the spitzer holds a fairly straight course through solid objects, but tumbles in flesh producing large temporary and permanent wound cavities.
The fast twist of WW1 era rifle barrels was a holdover from earlier much heavier bullets. The 1:10 twist of the 03 barrel , coupled with the increased velocity of the 150 gr bullet compared to the old 220 gr bullet results in a very high rotational velocity that adds to the wounding effect at all ranges.
Due to the much greater energy of the Main Battle cartridges these bullets can defeat some very thick cover and still kill the enemy.

The pathetic penetration of the 55gr 5.56 led to continuing development of bullets that could offer at least some penetrating power.
As it is troops armed with 5.56 caliber weapons have to call on anti-tank rocket launchers or 7.62 MGs to deal with enemies that have any substantial cover. A wait that can cost lives and allow the enemy to escape.

When the Germans developed a tungsten core 7.92 AP bullet for the MG34 they issued one five round clip of this ammo to each infantryman, to be used against allied armored cars and gunshields if needed. They ran low on tungsten so this ammo was not produced in quantity after 1943.
When the .30 Browning was supplanted by the .50 for most aircraft gun positions huge stocks of 168 gr hardened steel core AP were freed up for ground use. The AP could be hard on a Garand oprod but seems to have worked okay. The BAR 1918A2 was upgraded to use the 172 gr M2 Ball already so it was commonly used in europe and was especially effective in urban combat as well as in the forests where much fighting took place.

http://www.modernsurvivalonline.com/Files/weapons/Articles/FM3-06_Urban_Combat.pdf
http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/marques.pdf

Early in the first Gulf War it was found that almost all the old stocks of 7.62 AP ammo had been used up in training and not replaced. One well to do Company commander ordered $30,000 worth of AP from a European manufacturer out of his own pocket so his men could effectively engage lightly armored and unarmored Iraqi vehicles at a distance with MG fire rather than waste a depleted uranium anti tank round they were sure to need later on when they ran into tanks.

Multigunner

06-09-2011, 03:58 AM

http://www.americanrifleman.org/videos/johnson-model-1941/

Videos of Johnson LMG explaining it many faults and why the Browning Automatic Rifle was the Better weapon.
Theres some real wicked jams in these video clips.

After using the Johnson LMG on a limited basis during WW2 because it could be easily broken down into a package suitable for airborne operation U S Paratroopers found the BAR was the better weapon. Immediately after the war the Paratroopers devised a method for straping the long heavy BAR to the gunners body and leg with muzzle down for parachute jumps.

When the Israelis built a copy of the Johnson LMG they found it had more opening that let sand in than let sand out. It was a true jammomatic and totally unsuitable for battle in the middle east.

I've no doubt that the specially trained Marine paratroopers and special forces gunners could keep one running, and that those who could keep it going should be proud of their expertise.
The gun had too many quirks and out right flaws to ever be a general issue weapon.

gew98

06-09-2011, 12:05 PM

Well multi , the veteran I knew, George Decher , USMC ,Silver star recipient on okinawa , carried a "light johnson" he picked up from some poor sod whom "did'nt" need it anymore and he much preferred it over the BAR. He got his silver star for attacking japanese bunkers with his johnson and explosives , and got a 6,5 bullet to the forehead for his efforts..but he survived with a metal plate to hold his skull together.

nanuk

06-09-2011, 01:15 PM

:groner: :not listening:

bydand

06-09-2011, 07:56 PM

Multigunner

06-09-2011, 09:31 PM

Heavy sporting rifles were used by the British BECAUSE of the german armoured loopholes. It is doubtful if either a 30-06 or an 8mm could have penetrated those armour plates. However the 303 did an excellent job on german officers and observers. One sure way to know if you scored a hit was if the german binoculars fell outside of the trench. You should try reading "Sniping in France" Unfortunately I have loaned it out and I can't remember the author.
Hesketh Prichard I think his name was, an excellent book.
If you've read the book you'll know that the British didn't catch up with the Germans in sniping expertise till 1916 , for two full years the British officers fell like timber to German snipers.
Many German Snipers were life long hunters, game wardens, and foresters, they also made great use of cover and camouflage.

The MkVII bullet had the least effect on any type of armor of any standard Ball used during the Great War, thats a matter of record.

In any case, the german snipers were eventualy put on the losing end by the British who employed Scots "Ghillies" who were adept at stalking deer, Germans were just a different game to stalk. Now please tell me who would be able to tell the difference between being shot at 2410 FPS and 2800FPS
At the muzzle no one, but unless you are inches from your target muzzle velocity means less than retained velocity and energy.
Much was made of the long range volley fire and the increased extreme range of the MkVII bullet, but if you read the test results they found that due to transonic shock at the extreme ranges most bullets over turned and stabilized side on or base down just as when fired straight up and simply falling to the ground.
In many cases even those bullets that struck point on did not have enough remaining energy to penetrate a cardboard target backing, and many were found just lying on the ground.
While deady up to a point, past that point mass volley fire had only a pyschological effect, and only on those who hadn't encountered it before.
The British dropped the practice soon enough.
Now this is at the maximum extreme range , not at reasonable combat firing ranges or even at ranges out to one thousand yards where the rifles of all the major powers might still deliver their bullets with some degree of accuracy if the shooters skills allowed for it, and bullets retained enough energy to produce deadly or disabling wounds.
In fact, before WW1 reseach by ballisticians had determined that the best all around infantry cartridge should have a 150 gr bullet and muzzle velocity of 2600 FPS, which by coincidence is very close to my favorite handload for my No.4 rifle.
The major advantage a WW2 high velocity infantry rifle cartridge had over the older cartridges was that the less curved trajectory meant higher hit probably on a mansized target when the shooter could not be absolutely sure of the exact range. The more flattened the trajectory the less effect miscalculations in range would have on the point of impact in the vertical plane.

he GEW98 had a much longer barrel than either the SMLE or the 1903, so it was expected to have a higher velocity than either. The Velocity of the 154 gr German Ball from the Gew 98 is near exactly that of WW2 .30 M2 Ball and the 7.62 M80 Ball with bullets in the same weight class.
The longer barrel also allowed for a somewhat longer usable bore life than the shorter barrels even if using the same sort of propellents. Long range accuracy (from 600 to 1000 yards) would suffer if the throat became eroded, but it remained accurate enough for combat purposes well past 19,000 rounds.

In Sniping in France the author warned against attempting head shots past 400 yard with the telescoped SMLE. His reasoning was that chances of sucess were far too low and the limited peak accuracy bore life of the SMLE (T), which he gives at as little as 500 rounds in some cases and between 600 and 1500 at best would mean every wasted shot put the rifle closer to becoming useless for long range sniping.

I read "Sniping in France" in the late 50's and had completely forgotten it till the illustrations jogged my memory. A great read, and free PDF downloads are available on the net.

BTW
I just read an old American Rifleman article on the Remington model 8. It seems Pershing put in an order for thousands of these rifles and .35 Remington cartridges with armor piercing bullets. For some unknown reason the order was never filled. The more powerful Remington cartridges would have put that rifle in the Assault Rifle class, though not a true assault rifle since it was not selective fire.
The .30 remington if handloaded with a 125 gr bullet has ballistics near identical to those of the 7.62X39 Russian.
Extended bannana magazines were produced for the Model 8, for police and probably some military orders.
The Winchester SL was better for most purposes than a contemporary SMG but its low velocity which was in the same class as the 9mm, and its trajectory meant it had no real long range applications.
I'd like to see a replica of the Winchester chambered for common modern pistol cartridges. A few were converted to 9mm and fed by the artillery luger snail drum, I've seen a photo of one of these that was used during the Cuban revolution.
I've also seen a motion picture prop weapon made from the Winchester, it was dolled up to look like a 1921 Thompson and fired blanks full auto, so a full auto conversion is possible.

PS
I just reread part of "Sniping in France". The wording of a few passages is a bit confusing, but While the Germans had many scoped military rifles "the Duke of Ratibor" obtained thousands of civilian sporting rifles and shipped these to the front for use by their snipers.
Also Prichard states that early on the few telescoped rifles available to British snipers were civilian owned hunting rifles contributed by Scottish hunters, many of those rifles being Mausers and Mannlicher rifles. The Mauser and Mannlicher hunting rifles saw only limited used due to lack of ammunition in the sporting calibers.
He also states that the British snipers had only the "Blunt open sights of the service rifle".

Before a proper scoped SMLE sniper rifle was developed Australian snipers occasionally used rifles fitted with apeture target sights. During WW 2 at least one top competitive shooter used his personal match rifle while serving in the Australian navy to detonate mines.
Springfield 03 rifles were also prefered for detonating mines during WW2, and many were in use on Naval vessels for that purpose among other duties.
The WW1 British Admiralty also ordered thousands of commercially manufactured rifles from old school gunmakers for detonating mines.

A very odd alternative to the conventional telescopic sight was tried out. This was a Gallelean open telescope sight, with lenses mounted on the front and rear sight to give a slightly magnified and sharper sight picture.

gew98

06-10-2011, 12:12 AM

[QUOTE=Multigunner;1297821]Hesketh Prichard I think his name was, an excellent book.
If you've read the book you'll know that the British didn't catch up with the Germans in sniping expertise till 1916 , for two full years the British officers fell like timber to German snipers.
Many German Snipers were life long hunters, game wardens, and foresters, they also made great use of cover and camouflage.[QUOTE]

Wow... so the germans got the upperhand right off as we allknow. And what exactly did it have to do with rifle or bullet ...nothing. So your pontification again is well noted.

[QUOTE]
The MkVII bullet had the least effect on any type of armor of any standard Ball used during the Great War, thats a matter of record. [QUOTE]

Really ?. If any merit what has this to do with anything here ?. Really I'd like to know.

[QUOTE] At the muzzle no one, but unless you are inches from your target muzzle velocity means less than retained velocity and energy.
Much was made of the long range volley fire and the increased extreme range of the MkVII bullet, but if you read the test results they found that due to transonic shock at the extreme ranges most bullets over turned and stabilized side on or base down just as when fired straight up and simply falling to the ground.
In many cases even those bullets that struck point on did not have enough remaining energy to penetrate a cardboard target backing, and many were found just lying on the ground.
While deady up to a point, past that point mass volley fire had only a pyschological effect, and only on those who hadn't encountered it before.
The British dropped the practice soon enough.
[QUOTE]

The brits dropped "volley fire" as after the mons battle it was a superbly rare occassion to catch massed troops in the open for use of such , no more fuzzy wuzzies but huns . But they used indirect MG fire with those as you like to believe piss poor 174 gn bullets at extreme ranges with very telling effect. The canadian colonial troops really pioneered this and well as history shows at thousands of yards those "tumbling" 303 bullets wreaked havoc on german rear areas and when in assembly for attack.

[QUOTE]
Now this is at the maximum extreme range , not at reasonable combat firing ranges or even at ranges out to one thousand yards where the rifles of all the major powers might still deliver their bullets with some degree of accuracy if the shooters skills allowed for it, and bullets retained enough energy to produce deadly or disabling wounds.
In fact, before WW1 reseach by ballisticians had determined that the best all around infantry cartridge should have a 150 gr bullet and muzzle velocity of 2600 FPS, which by coincidence is very close to my favorite handload for my No.4 rifle.
The major advantage a WW2 high velocity infantry rifle cartridge had over the older cartridges was that the less curved trajectory meant higher hit probably on a mansized target when the shooter could not be absolutely sure of the exact range. The more flattened the trajectory the less effect miscalculations in range would have on the point of impact in the vertical plane.
[QUOTE]

What the hell ? ... you are saying ..or convoluting what ?.

[QUOTE] The GEW98 had a much longer barrel than either the SMLE or the 1903, so it was expected to have a higher velocity than either. The Velocity of the 154 gr German Ball from the Gew 98 is near exactly that of WW2 .30 M2 Ball and the 7.62 M80 Ball with bullets in the same weight class.
The longer barrel also allowed for a somewhat longer usable bore life than the shorter barrels even if using the same sort of propellents. Long range accuracy (from 600 to 1000 yards) would suffer if the throat became eroded, but it remained accurate enough for combat purposes well past 19,000 rounds.[QUOTE]

You have lost your marbles. The 4 inches plus the gew98 had in length did not in anyway encourage or extend bore/barrel life or "allow for such" as you again assert without merit .What have you been smoking lately ?. Hell an enfield or your pet 03 would not have gained a thing from another four inches of barrel. The typical S patrone loading with 154 gn bullet was about 2,850fps and the typical 30 cal 152 gn bullet about 2,700fps and the 303 174 gn bullet 2,440fps.
The gew98 had longer service life simply because the germans designed the lands vs groove to give such..irregardless of propellants etc etc. But at the same token the germans and the brits each had a combat rifle of very sturdy proportions..and not a tawdry shame of a delicate target rifle for war. So for combat purposes an enfield not suited for precise sniping after 900 rounds was not suited/accurateenough for combat purposes ???????????. Contradictions..oh how they do tell.

[QUOTE] In Sniping in France the author warned against attempting head shots past 400 yard with the telescoped SMLE. His reasoning was that chances of sucess were far too low and the limited peak accuracy bore life of the SMLE (T), which he gives at as little as 500 rounds in some cases and between 600 and 1500 at best would mean every wasted shot put the rifle closer to becoming useless for long range sniping. [QUOTE]

Wow..and the warner swazey prism rig worked so awesomely on the 1903's that fielded such goober-rific optics so late in the war were any better ?. The fact is the british training of snipers overcame these pet peeves of yours in spades and not the 03 abortion. We all know the quality of the german optically sighted gew98 rifles was way above all comers.... but the lowly 303 put them in their place before the rambo-rific 03 rifle shooting the chuck norris 30-06 got to france.

[QUOTE]
I read "Sniping in France" in the late 50's and had completely forgotten it till the illustrations jogged my memory. A great read, and free PDF downloads are available on the net.[QUOTE]

Got the book and have had it for many years...your skewed view on it adds nothing to this but your obvious bias.
You just keep proving the point of lack of practical experiance and love of one thing blindly over reality. You come across as one of those red hat donkeys that led lions to the slaughter in the great war. All talk...but just that..talk.

gew98

06-10-2011, 12:32 AM

Before a proper scoped SMLE sniper rifle was developed Australian snipers occasionally used rifles fitted with apeture target sights. During WW 2 at least one top competitive shooter used his personal match rifle while serving in the Australian navy to detonate mines.
[QUOTE]
So wow..really ?. The brits issued fine adjustment blunt iron sights for the Patt'14 too in the great war , and they were apeture type...what's your point here..the 03 had nothing on them.

[QUOTE] Springfield 03 rifles were also prefered for detonating mines during WW2, and many were in use on Naval vessels for that purpose among other duties.
The WW1 British Admiralty also ordered thousands of commercially manufactured rifles from old school gunmakers for detonating mines.[QUOTE]

Whom preferred 03 springy steel rifles for mine detonation ?. Could it have been the US navy...the same service branch that did not get issued combat rifles like the marines or army and had to do with "old stock items" in the supply chain ? , which more or less is all they had..but hell they could have used the chuck norris BAR sight hold and done in a minefield with one magazine !.
You do knwo that the british Navy was hamstrung and stuck with multitudes of second class rifles like winchester lever guns , japanese 6,5 arisakas so that SMLE's would be in turn funneled to the frontline troops. So how or what do you infer in your illogical assertion ?.

[QUOTE]A very odd alternative to the conventional telescopic sight was tried out. This was a Gallelean open telescope sight, with lenses mounted on the front and rear sight to give a slightly magnified and sharper sight picture.

Wow ; you don't say..was it much different from ther Goerz long eye relief optic the germas tried too... which I'd bet either more effective and sturdier than the junk "optics" the 03 wore in the great war. And no I did not read that in a manual or stay in a holdiay Inn express.

Multigunner

06-10-2011, 02:56 AM

Although when first I became a sniping instructor,
I used to have some firing practice at five and six
hundred yards, when I went to the First Army School
I gave this up. The chances of hitting a German head
at six hundred yards with a telescope sight, if there is
any wind blowing at all, are not great, for, as I have
repeatedly said, a sighting shot is not possible, and I
came to the conclusion that continual popping
away with telescopic-sighted rifles at six hundred yards
simply wore out their barrels. After all, a rifle only
lasts at its highest efficiency for, in certain cases, as few
as five hundred rounds, and every shot taken through
a telescope-sighted rifle shortens the life of the barrel.
We, therefore, until warfare became more open,
never went back further than four hundred yards, and
our greatest difficulty was to teach the snipers to appreciate
the strength of the wind.

...what's your point here..the 03 had nothing on them.

Why don't you start a "I hate the 1903 Springfield" thread?
Only reason anyone is even seeing your rantings is because they visited this thread hoping to learn something about the Enfield , few here could care less about your busted Springfield and your cracked stock and stripped sight screw.

The Pattern 14 is spoken of in Prichard's book. It proved to be far more accurate than the SMLE. A few fine elevation adjust rear sights were fitted to winchester P14 rifles, those being the most accurate. No windage adjustable rear sight was available for the P14 at the time.
A windage adjustable rear sight was developed for the M1917 for range work post war. A very similar sight was later mounted on the post war BAR.

The British ungraded many SMLE MkIII* rifles in the 20's by bringing back the MkIII windage adjustable sight, but far more retained the wartime expediant non windage adjustable MkIII* rear sight.

Speaking of post war upgrades, they also returned the magazine cut off to some MkIII rifles.
By 1915 the troops were being told not to use the cut off for single loading. They had found that if the extractor had to snap over the rim instead of the cartridge being fed normally from the mag with rim sliding under the extractor, undue stress was placed on the extractor and its spring leading to distortion and breakage.
Deleting the mag cut off was not such a bad idea, its usefulness was limited once charger loading made holding rounds in reserve un-necessary.
It might have been handy when launching grenades, but photos generally show grenadiers with cut off in the open position.

When the long rod type rifle grenade was in use they found that if the rod became warped the breech could blow out. When they shortened the rod any jammed rod just split the barrel or snapped it off clean at the point were the end of the rod had been.
This reminded me of many claims about actions holding up when fired with blockages in the bore. A 1920's Encyclopedia article on WW1 rifle grenades said that when the bore is blocked the pressure wave has to back up in order to deliver the high pressure to the chamber. The pressure wave that breaks off the barrel instead is localized to the area and when the barrel snaps or splits the pressure drops before it can damage the action.
The further back the blockage is the more of the pressure that backs up to the chamber before the barrel could blow out so the action blows out instead.

Most other combatants had already dropped the rod grenade and shifted to dedicated launcher tubes afixed to the muzzle and grenades with tubular shafts.

gew98

06-10-2011, 12:14 PM

Multi ; I already mentioned how the brits did retained some SMLE's after the great war with cutoff's and windage rear sights , you missed that .
The Enfield is very forgiving in use with the cutoff. Whereas the 03 would break extractors at a considerably higher rate like approaching 100% had the US military been foolish enough to train to use that feature.
You really have not studied rod grenades much . The germans used them until 1917 when they transitioned over to their improved version of the french VB cup discharger. The german rod grenades like any rod grenades were hard on the bores. I have encountered gew98's that have unusual bulges ahead of the chamber and severe muzzle wear. They usually exibited considerable recoil crossbolt setback and sometimes notcieable lug setback of the bolt. Get a copy of Michael Heidler's work "Deutsche Gewehrgranaten und ihre Abschussgerate bis 1945" . There is not a better work on german rifle grenades from WW1 through WW2. And typically german they took it to a form of art and knew to use worn rifles as dedicated rod/cup discharger launchers when at all possible.
Oh , and the swiss designed grenade launcher using a tube clamped to the muzzle was not around in WW1.
Imagine a rod grenade launch in a class C steel 03...likely suicidal even then. And since the US used rod grenades in the great war until the end , and the US ordnance even had the babbitt rod grenade from 1911 on. And of course the VB type was used..But I've only seen pics of the M1917 rifle with either in place for use..maybe because as a stronger & safer rifle the choice was obvious.

Multigunner

06-10-2011, 07:45 PM

The VB (Viven-Bessières) grenade
, appeared in 1916, was the most famous of the French rifle grenades.

It was shot using a grenade-sleeve fixed on the Lebel rifle, using a traditional ammunition. A hollow cylinder having the exact diameter of the rifle bullet ball was passing through the grenade axis, and the detonator casing was parallel to this same axis.

When shooting, the bullet went through the central tube, hit a small lever placed on the external part of the detonator, starting the mechanism of firing, and then left in the air. The ejection gases, accumulating in the sleeve propelled the body of the grenade up to 180 m.

A small brass cap, with a bullet hole in the center, was generally covering the head of the grenade to protect the lever system from accidental firing

This grenade was so efficient that it changed the tactics of the French infantry. Each company had 16 VB men, giving a powerful and very manoeuverable firepower for both attack and defense.

Weight 475 gr., 60 gr. of cheddite

Well I guess the Sleeve could be considered a cup rather than a tube.

Whom preferred 03 springy steel rifles for mine detonation ?. Could it have been the US navy...the same service branch that did not get issued combat rifles like the marines or army and had to do with "old stock items" in the supply chain ? , which more or less is all they had..but hell they could have used the chuck norris BAR sight hold and done in a minefield with one magazine !.

Just shooting the body of a mine won't set it off, to ensure detonation they had to hit the horns. Also, "Could it have been the US navy..." . Now you seem to be dissing the Navy as well as the Marines. Who else would be detonating floating mines in mid ocean other than the Navy ?

The Enfield is very forgiving in use with the cutoff. Whereas the 03 would break extractors at a considerably higher rate like approaching 100% had the US military been foolish enough to train to use that feature.
They didn't let the 03 extractor snap over the rim of a cartridge when single loading. They cupped the balance point of the rifle with the left palm and used their fingers to compress the extractor spring then eased the bolt closed. The same process works well with the Mauser.
I've seen 1895 Mausers with the extractor beveled to allow single loading when used as training rifles, the spring was limp from this sort of use. they may have deliberately bent the spring to reduce resistence when chambering.
I can see now why so many worn SMLE rifles have extractor pivot scew holes wallowed out in an oval and why some can't maintain a grip on the rim long enough to extract much less eject. They printed the admonission against using the mag cut off in 1915 yet still some have never heard of it or believe they know better.

PS
From Regulations for Musketry

Section 28.—Use of the Safety-Catch and Cut-Off.
1, Troops armed with rifles fitted with safety-catches
will invariably set the catch to safety before movement.
The use of the cut-off is to be confined in their case to
occasions when they are not actually engaged with the
enemy. Then it may be employed for the purpose either
of charging the magazine without inserting a cartridge in
the chamber, or to unload the rifle while retaining cartridges
in the magazine.
2. The cut-off is never to be used to enable the rifle to
be used as a single loader, and is not to supersede the use
of the safety-catch. In the case of rifles which have no
safety-catches, the cut-oS will be pressed in and the rifle
unloaded on all occasions when the safety-catch is ordered
to be applied in these instructions. In an advance in
extended order, however, these rifles may be carried during
movement at the slope instead of being unloaded.

gew98

06-11-2011, 12:20 PM

There you go wit hthe manuals again and no practical experiance. Funny I have shot many hundreds of rounds in particular Enfields using the cutoff and singly loading...nary a damaged or worn extractor or extractor spring.
You just try single loading an 03 with the cutoff engaged and see if you can manage the act of extractor compression while closing without breaking the extractor or extractor collar.
Wow of the oodles of SMLE's and No4's I have handled and shot I have yet to see these elongated holes and every enfield I have ever had that had an extraction issue was 99% of the time the extractor spring , the other 1% the extractor itself.
Some fellas believe everything they read without practical hands on experiance. I feel sorry for such armchair commandos.
Oh , and I have seen the hollywood movies where they shoot the percussion points on the mines. An old WW2 tin can vet I worked with back in the early 80's told me when they encountered japanese mines adrift they turned 50 caliber and or 20mm guns on them... considerably more efficient and quicker.
Sleeve - cup. It is called a cup discharger....not a sleeve discharger , no semantics there.

Multigunner

06-11-2011, 09:15 PM

There you go wit hthe manuals again and no practical experiance. Funny I have shot many hundreds of rounds in particular Enfields using the cutoff and singly loading...nary a damaged or worn extractor or extractor spring.

Sure you have, you wouldn't be the first to not know they are screwing up their extractor.

You just try single loading an 03 with the cutoff engaged and see if you can manage the act of extractor compression while closing without breaking the extractor or extractor collar.
Try it yourself, I'm still wondering how many times your 03 was dry fired before you put that defective cartridge in it and broke the firing pin.
Some people can break anything, those who ignore the orders clearly stated are the ones most likely to break stuff.

Wow of the oodles of SMLE's and No4's I have handled and shot I have yet to see these elongated holes and every enfield I have ever had that had an extraction issue was 99% of the time the extractor spring , the other 1% the extractor itself.
I did say that that snapping the extractor over the rim put undue strees on both.
Tell us o' guru, just what exactly about the normal controled feed stroke of rounds being fed from the magazine could weaken or break the extractor spring?
Was it gremlins by any chance?
Since any Soldier who followed orders did not use the magazine cut off for single feed, only those rifles subjected to this practice would be subject to bent , broken or distorted extractors and springs.

Some fellas believe everything they read without practical hands on experiance. I feel sorry for such armchair commandos.
You sound more and more like one hoss.

Oh , and I have seen the hollywood movies where they shoot the percussion points on the mines. An old WW2 tin can vet I worked with back in the early 80's told me when they encountered japanese mines adrift they turned 50 caliber and or 20mm guns on them... considerably more efficient and quicker.
So the Australian marksman I spoke of and the biographers and australian military history sites are liars, because you say so.

Sleeve - cup. It is called a cup discharger....not a sleeve discharger , no semantics there.
Then why was it called a sleeve?
A Tube is open at each end. A Cup is open only on one end. Also the French term was Tromblon, translated to English as Blunderbuss. Not a direct translation but the terms each used for the flared muzzle shotgun.
Also the Tromblon used among other types a fin stabilised grenade with central tube to allow firing with a ball cartridge. The gas trapped before the bullet emerged from the opening in the nose of the grenade propelled the grenade. Not a successful design at the time but not the last of its type.

You don't seem to mind when the Germans outright steal from the French, yet diss the U S for using Mauser features for the 03 and paying for the right to do so.

BTW
Theres a nice photo of a 1903 Springfield firing a rod grenade in "Notes on Grenade Warfare" 1917 U S Army War College.

And for someone claiming the speak only from personal experiance, almost everything you post is something you claim some old veteran told you.
Get real bud.
You didn't fight in WW1, all you could know would be what you read and what others have told you, same as almost everyone in the world. Also just how much weight would your meanderings carry with the Ministry of Defence or any real life military organization.
Theres more than a few posturing phoneys around, and collectors who never read a manual much less every handled a rifle that had not already been repaired by someone who actually did read the manuals, and throw around wild guesses expecting their claim to be taken as unimpeachable true skinny.

Now tell us exactly how many Springfield 03 rifles burst when firing hand grenades, if you don't have "Documented Evidence" then we can use the same methodology as the tree huggers do when it comes to non rabid wolves attacking humans, and those who will still occasionally claim that no Lee Enfield ever blew up when firing service ammunition.
Years ago I bought into the glamorised bull so many collectors dish out about their favorite smokepole, but close examination, and laborous searches through government records opened my eyes.
It took years to find even one collector who was even interested in the alloy used for the SMLE rifles. Then he got interested and did the homework, and it wasn't easy.
Most internet gurus I ran across never knew that early SMLE rifles had a reverse taper bore, even though its mentioned early on in Reynolds book. They may have read this but never caught on to what it meant.
I've seen alot of potentially very dangerous bull passed on by supposed authorities, and in recent years seen the claims they made shot down by the Birmingham Proof House and the NRA UK.

spqrzilla

06-11-2011, 10:01 PM

There you go wit hthe manuals again ...

The manuals that were issued reflect the institutional experience, and the official intended policies and practices to address that experience. At times, the institutional experience is based on misunderstandings, either tactical or technological, but they have great evidential value in understanding the design, employment and support of arms.

Multigunner

06-11-2011, 11:26 PM

The manuals that were issued reflect the institutional experience, and the official intended policies and practices to address that experience. At times, the institutional experience is based on misunderstandings, either tactical or technological, but they have great evidential value in understanding the design, employment and support of arms.

At last someone with a bit of good sense.

When the information was not available I would be as likely to accept the myths and legends as anyone else.
One thing I found out about war stories long ago, if you get more than one old vet talking about the same situation, even if both or all were there on the same day at the same hour, the Roshoman effect is as pronounced as it would be at a package store hold up.
The Ancient Greeks developed a method for cutting through the bull when judging word of mouth accounts of battles, the U S Army uses the same method today in its "Oral History" projects.

PS

Offshore, Marines were positioned high in the superstructures of American warships in the English Channel. From their lofty perches, the riflemen fired at and detonated floating mines as the ships moved in close to "bombardment stations" along the French coastline. It was reminiscent of the Old Corps during the age of sail when sharp-shooting Marines climbed the masts and riggings and battled enemy crews from the "fighting tops."

— A former U.S. Marine infantry leader and paratrooper, W. Thomas Smith Jr. is a freelance journalist whose work has appeared in a variety of national and international publications.
http://old.nationalreview.com/smitht/smith200406040851.asp

First I'd heard of Marines involved in D-Day, but then again I'd been suprized to learn that the U S Coast Guard manned close in fire support vessels on D-Day till a Coast Guard Vet brought over some photos from the beaches.

Multigunner

06-12-2011, 02:53 AM

Now heres a bit on busting mines with a rifle.

On the 15th of February 1917 HMS Goshawk, an Acheron Class destroyer, spotted a mine at the entrance to Cork Harbour, indicating that a new minefield had been laid in the frequently swept channel. This mine was one of 10 that had been laid by the German U-boat UC-33 on February 12th 1917.

The crew of HMS Goshawk attempted to destroy the mine with rifle fire. This was one of the most effective ways of exploding a floating mine at that time.The attempts failed however and the signal was given to send out the minesweepers.

http://iol.ie/~mkeniry/iiclifton.htm
Good photo of mine sweeper crew shooting at mines.

BTW
The compensation factor of the SMLE barrel kicks in between 600 and 800 yards to reduce vertical dispersion, it has no effect at all on horizontal dispersion.
Compensation is not cartridge specific, it a function of barrel harmonics and bedding.
The No.4 has less compensation and the compensation it does have is inconsistent from one rifle to the next.
The British screwed up the compensation of the No.4 by adjusting bedding to reduce shift in POI when the spike bayonet was afixed.
At some point the convergence ceases and divergence resumes.
almost every high powered rifle has some level of compensation, the range at which it kicks in differs.
Theres alot you find in the sorts of links you posted that one should take with a grain of salt.
Britian never won another Palma Match while using the Enfield against the .30-06 Springfield 1903 after it first appeared in competition. So explain the discrepancy if you can.
http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com/2010/08/history-history-of-palma-match.html
Even the old Krag took them to the cleaners more than once.

I can find nothing on any 2300 yard rifle match. If its not a fantasy then post some solid information.
If you read the regulations for muskety you'll find theres no sich animal as group size at anywhere near that range, they call it a "Beaten Zone".

If not for the bull you spout I might put some faith in your claims, but you post like a twelve year old thats sneaking time on dads PC. If thats due to some PTSD go see the VA doctors, I'm sure they have meds that can help.

Did I forget to mention everything I know I read in a book cuz I was studying to be an engineer while I stayed in a Holiday Inn Exrpess ?.

That sounds closer to the truth, I doubt you could kill or let nothing die.

PS
From the NRA UK Journal spring 2010

SAFETY NOTICE
ENFIELD NO 4 RIFLE CONVERSIONS TO 7.62MM
A safety warning concerning the use of Enfi eld No 4 Rifl e actions converted to 7.62mm
was published in the Summer Journal.
After further consideration of all factors infl uencing safety of these conversions and
consultation with the Birmingham Proof Master, the following advice must be adhered
to in respect of the use of Enfi eld No 4 conversions:
• Owners of Enfi eld No 4 actioned rifl es converted to 7.62mm currently
proofed to 19 tons per square inch are strongly advised to have them reproofed
to the current CIP standard (requiring a minimum mean proof
pressure of 5190 bar) which allows the use of CIP approved ammunition
with a Maximum Average Working Pressure (MAWP) of 4150 Bar.
• Conversions retaining their original Enfi eld barrel or a replacement barrel
as manufactured by RSAF Enfi eld are safe to use with commercial CIP
approved ammunition, which complies with a MAWP of 4150 bar, loaded
with any weight of bullet, providing they carry a valid proof mark, and
are still in the same condition as when submitted for proof.
• Conversions fi tted with any other make of barrel (such as Ferlach, Maddco,
Krieger etc) should be checked by a competent gunsmith to determine the
throat diameter of the chamber/barrel fi tted before further use.
• Conversions where the throat diameter is less than the CIP specifi cation
of 0.311” but not smaller than 0.3085” must not be used with ammunition
which exceeds 3650 Bar MAWP when fi red in a SAAMI/CIP pressure
barrel.
• Conversions which have been checked and found to comply with Rule 150
may safely be used with any ammunition supplied by the NRA including
the 155 grain Radway Green Cartridge, 155 grain RUAG Cartridge or other
commercial CIP Approved cartridges loaded with bullets of any weight
provided that the ammunition pressure does not exceed 3650 Bar when
measured in a CIP standard pressure barrel.
• Owners of Enfi eld No 4 actioned rifl es converted to 7.62mm who are
uncertain as to the proof status of the rifl e should have it checked by a
competent gunsmith.
• Owners of Enfi eld No 4 actioned rifl es in any calibre are strongly advised
not to use them in wet weather or without removing all traces of oil from
action and chamber prior to shooting.
• Enfi eld No 4 rifl es converted to 7.62mm calibre or any other 7.62mm calibre
rifl es which are fi tted with a barrel which has a throat diameter less than
0.3085” must not be used on Bisley Ranges.
• Ammunition loaded with bullets of any weight which are of greater diameter
than the throat diameter of the barrel must not under any circumstances
be used on Bisley Ranges in any rifl e or barrel of any manufacture.

Vulch

06-12-2011, 10:20 AM

I must thank Bill and John for a darned good laugh and chuckle for the last few pages, and Sam for cut and paste, cut and paste, cut and paste cut and paste, cut and paste, cut and paste and cut and paste!

I have onwed a good deal of original sniper rifles over the decade plus half I have been collecting. I currently only own ONE - a K98 High Turret (GENUINE of course), and it is THE best bar none. I have also restored others for people, and I extensively shot them all.

Some impressions:

1. I helped restore an original 03A4. I then got to fire it. It simply ranks as the most horrid piece of "sniping" equipment I have ever had the displeasure of shooting! I thought the Zf41 equipped K98 was bad... that darned 03A4 has a scope on it at home on a kiddies .22! FOR SHAME USA!

2. I had the opportunity to fire a Unertl equipped original USMC M1903. Again, just what was being thought here??? Drop that contraption just once and you have a useless sniper. Finnicky, awkward, delicate, fragile... all adjectives for this absolute ***.

3. I have had the "privilege" of examining an original Warner-Swazey in an advanced collector's collection. I just won't comment. I simply won't... just no words come to mind to express the ineptitude.

4. Lithgow SMLE III* HT - I have owned 3 now. Shot every one of them. Whilst not in the same class as a No4(T) or ANY Mauser sniper, it is still remarkably effective. Had no problem keeping 10 in 6 inches at 300 yards using MkVII (NOT Z). VERY stable platform (of course, it was copied from the P'14(T) which of course was copied from Mauser's claw mounting system) and utterly reliable. I even shot 215 grn Mk VI out of one on several occasions. Now that's fun!

5. No4(T) - utter sophistication. Superlative sniping rifle. Solid, unbreakable, built to shoot. Even with the "weak and feeble" (HA HA HA HA HA) 174 grn Mk VII.

6. Oberndorf Kar98K High Turret sniper - mine is "last ditch" Kriegsmodell (a byf 45, 3 digit serial, no suffix). Kahles "cad" scope. Even in it's "last ditch" guise, this is a superlative piece of sniping equipment. INCREDIBLE scope mounting system built around the BEST rifle of all history (yes, I like my 98's more than SMLE's). Scope is INCREDIBLE quality, even for LAST DITCH.

It's unfortunate the US has been laden with some of the WORST firearms in history...and all because of bureaucracy and engineers who had NO practical experience.

doubs43

06-12-2011, 12:40 PM

Multigunner

06-12-2011, 01:44 PM

To the best of my knowledge, many - if not most - US Navy ships have a detachment of Marines stationed aboard. Therefore, reports of Marines on ships during the D-Day invasion are likely accurate.

What I do know for a fact is that my uncle was a Marine on duty at the US Embassy in London throughout the entire "Battle of Britain". The local newspaper ran a story about him during that time and somewhere I have a picture of him holding a car door open for Elenore Roosevelt at number 10 Downing Street. The picture below was taken about 1943 or 1944.

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i99/doubs43/GranddaddyUncleCarrollinUniform.jpg

Your Uncle may well have met the granfather of a close friend. Her Grandfather was on embassy duty after WW1 then married a upper class English lady and remained in England for the rest of his life.
They wouldn't have served at the embassy at the same time but might have met at some functions there.
He was an old school "Leatherneck".
When my friends family recieved a large shipment of antique furniture left to them in the will she found his early style full dress uniform among the bequests.
I should get some photos of it, its still in excellent condition.

To the best of my knowledge, many - if not most - US Navy ships have a detachment of Marines stationed aboard. Therefore, reports of Marines on ships during the D-Day invasion are likely accurate.

What I do know for a fact is that my uncle was a Marine on duty at the US Embassy in London throughout the entire "Battle of Britain". The local newspaper ran a story about him during that time and somewhere I have a picture of him holding a car door open for Elenore Roosevelt at number 10 Downing Street. The picture below was taken about 1943 or 1944.

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i99/doubs43/GranddaddyUncleCarrollinUniform.jpg

Your Uncle may well have met the granfather of a close friend. Her Grandfather was on embassy duty after WW1 then married a upper class English lady and remained in England for the rest of his life.
They wouldn't have served at the embassy at the same time but might have met at some functions there.
He was an old school "Leatherneck".
When my friends family recieved a large shipment of antique furniture left to them in the will she found his early style full dress uniform among the bequests.
I should get some photos of it, its still in excellent condition.

5. No4(T) - utter sophistication. Superlative sniping rifle. Solid, unbreakable, built to shoot. Even with the "weak and feeble" (HA HA HA HA HA) 174 grn Mk VII.

"Unbreakable"?
Sure are a lot of broken ones on the market these days, of course those already repaired or fully restored are fine rifles and sought after since few survive.
Odd that a rifle that was supposedly infalable should have the most work put into correcting bedding problems while in service. A three MOA acceptance standard for a rifle assembled by a premier gun making firm doesn't seem to speak well for the MkVII ammunition, or the fact that British snipers obtained the Mk8z ammunition whenever they could find it to make up for the shortcomings of the MkVII and try to reduce the effects of cordite erosion that destroyed accuracy.

The British didn't think much of the German sniper rifles, but then again they could only run comparitive tests with captured German rifles at a range.
The P-14 with scope served well early on before the No. (T) was produced in sufficient quantity, and by all accounts maintained its reputation for superior accuracy compared to the No.1 and No.4.

The Scope and mount of the No. (T) was designed for the Bren Gun and adapted to use on anti-tank guns. Solid as a rock. Only busted one I've examined looked to be battle damage, the horizon wire broken loose at one end. The mount was twisted at one of the screw holes, front I think it was, must have taken terrific force to do that.
The Scope is definitely a good one, though not unbreakable or immune to wear and the elements, and there are those who spe******e in repairing them.

The 03A1 with its higher magnification scope and an over all more accurate rifle with less finicky bedding had as good a rep as any. It had its limitations but the Marines made good use of them any way.

I suppose we should discount all the instructions on correcting the bedding issues of the service No.4 rifles, including the No.4 (T) because the few remaining examples babied and never being exposed to the elements since resoration still shoot well on the range.
Or assume that the record of MkVII eating up bores should be ignored since rifles used by snipers who prefered other types of ammunition whever possible managed to reduce accuracy destroying erosion.

I don't mind giving the Lee Enfield its due when its actual good qualities are the subject, I like mine and have put in the work to make them shoot well. But to ignore the rifles quirks and actual shortcomings, then go on rants against other fine combat rifles just lowers the reputation of the rifle and those who collect and fire them.

The repairs, Refurbs, rebarreling, constant inspection and rectification of worn parts, and the destruction or DP'ing of rifles that were beyong economical repairs, has led some of those who do have LEE Enfields that are still in good condition to believe that all the rifles held up as well as theirs appears to.
Little embarassments like 30% of the L42 rifles leased to Metropolitan police being found unsafe to fire won't be found in the glowing tributes we see here.
Continued downgrading of the repair process during wartime and after parts became less easy to find has also had an effect. Some collectors think a SMLE bolt head with up to 20 degrees overclocking is unworn and that all were supposed to be that loose. Or believe that a matching number on a bolt, without matching Proofed Action Assembly numbers would mean the bolt was not a replacement of unknown origin and quality and that it should not be replaced when found worn to a possibly hazardous condition as outlined by the Instructions to Armorors.

Then theres the progression of apologia. If the rifle is not more accurate than the contemporaries, then accuracy is of no importance. If the penetration of the service ball is less than contemporay service ball, then penetration must be of no importance, despite every source that has proven otherwise.

The early production low number Springfield rifles that did suffer from brittle receivers are pointed at as making all low number Springfields extremely dangerous, while theres the pretense that no Lee Enfield ever failed unless with hand loads.
Yet I found no deaths involving Low Number Springfield failures, but at least two deaths and several life threatening injuries involving blown out Enfield Bolt Heads, and injuries to bystanders on rifle ranges when with two exceptions (one "riflite cartridge' and one Federal sporting round) only fresh milspec ammo was used, the fatal incident involving the Federal cartridge was found not to be due to the cartridge.
So if recorded deaths and serious injuries due to action failures count for anything, the Lee Enfields have a worse record than the Low Number Springfield, and it can't be blamed on the metallurgy.

I'm still waiting for a viable excuse for why no .303 Lee Enfield ever won a Palma Match after the .30-06 came into the competition.
Accuracy doesn't count if if you can't brag about I guess.

I don't mind playing Devil's Advocate , since unrealistic expectations can cause more harm than good to the shooting sport and safety of young shooters who are even more prone to taking glamour as fact than old fogies with too high an opinion of themselves.

Now to get back to attempting to present actual relevant information on the Lee Enfield rifles that aren't safe queens or have seen little if any combat use since refurbs or rebarreling.

From Sniping in France

CORDWEAR :
Is caused by misuse of the pull-through, and
usually occurs at the muzzle, but in cases of
extreme negligence it may be found in the chamber.
When it occurs at the muzzle, gases escape
through the cord groove as the bullet is leaving,
thus forcing it in the opposite direction. If
in the chamber, it is a source of weakness, and a
burst chamber may be the result.
Till I ran across John Crosman's account of the fatal accident I had not even given any thought to cordworn chambers. I've seen many cordworn muzzles but those only affect accuracy (which seems to be of so little importance to a few of the Enfield Pundits) rather than safety.

Cordwear is partly due to grit caught in the pull through cord itself, but the annealed iron wire gauze is probably the worst method of cleaning a bore ever.
Theres been quite a bit of interest in obtaining the original issue cleaning equipments, but I would not use the pull through if I valued the condition of the bore.

WARPED WOODWORK I
The fore-end is fitted so as not to influence
the barrel when firing. The barrel must be able
to lie perfectly straight as each shot leaves it.
If the fore-end is warped (and warped fore-ends
are common) the barrel will be unable to lie as
was intended, and erratic shooting will result.
224
The seperate fore end by itself is a good deal more difficult to replace and get the bedding right than a complete one piece stock, no one ever denied that accept the least honest Lee Enfield apologists.
Bedding issues increased greatly during wartime production when the best quality well seasoned wood became scarce.
WW2 substitutes like Beech is not so bad if the fore end has seasoned in place without shrinkage (much luck there) Beech has the property of showing its faults early, if it doesn't warp within six months of being finished and fitted it probably never will, but no matter how stable the blank looked once milled uneven stress can send the grain twisting in all directions.
Coachwood is stable but brittle compared to other woods used. Splintered wood at the draws can jam the trigger or sear causing ADs or failures to fire. Chunks broken away from the inletting are fairly comm with any of the woods used after decades of service use. Repairs aren't that simple but are doable. Many collectors either never take a look inside or send the rifle to someone who can do the work, like Fultons or others who have a better understanding of bedding issues.

No.4 fore ends
According to Reynolds lack of skilled labor to properly fit fore ends, plus the lack of properly seasoned wood led to the wartime expediant of no longer trying to obtain equal bearing on the butt socket. They instead left a air gap of no more than .01 at that point, no bearing being less harmful than unequal bearing. I've seen plenty like that, both No.4 rifles and wartime restoked No.1 rifles. A common enough temporary fix was gluing plain brown paper or thin gasket material to the interface. Glass bedding would make that un needed but Vintage match rules usually don't allow bedding materials or repairs not used when the rifles were in service.

How a pampered rifle performs on a target range gives little concept of how it would perform in the field, either in wartime or in rough country hunting situations.
I was not suprized to hear how degraded many Canadian Ranger No.4 rifles had become, especially when it was revealed that some believed the No.4 never needed cleaning. Thats never a good sign.
At least the Canadians learned their lessons about Cordite MkVII and don't use it anymore.

gew98

06-12-2011, 05:02 PM

Hey mutlit-tool. I don't ever recall an 03A1 having a scope. Was nto the A1 referrign to the target like pistol grip added to the stock right ?. And yes the A4 scope was a joke the US sadly got saddled with.
You do seem to forge tthat the brits being so frugal USED their equipment up and quite often required FTR's with their limited resources to acquire more new items. Hence finding a period correct awesome condition anything brit sniper rifle wise is a collectors dream.
Read up on American military sniping from WW2 through mid vietnam. It was a dismal display of inept equipment.... the US ordnance guys were too busy fighting amongst themselves and keeping the status quo for their pet items to get serious like the brits , germans and Russians did about smiping rifles. The russian PU & PE equipped rifles bettered anything the US had until mid vietnam involvement sadly.
Don't get me wrong , I like the 30-06 caliber and shoot it fairly often in an M1. But had I had my marbles I'd want a No4 (T) for serious sniper work , or a good 98 mauser like a HT or LSR set up. You drone on about palma match this or that... did'nt fare to well in the field though did it. I personally have known target shooters , benchrest shooters and all manner of paper puncher types. Take them to the field to hunt rabbit , deer or turkey and you would be saddened by how few can manage a live moving target with a target rifle shootign mentality.
I recall while in the Army that the E6, E7 & E9's told the O1's and above how & what to do on a regular basis..... their practical experiance beat the highly educated by the manul types about every time.
As a note the germans captured No4 (T) rifles and used them..as they were effective.

gew98

06-12-2011, 05:30 PM

The British didn't think much of the German sniper rifles, but then again they could only run comparitive tests with captured German rifles at a range..

Ah multitool.... you have read veteran accounts of brits and canuck snipers and of course you are aware of books like "sniping in france " , "The german Sniper" , The british sniper" , "A rifleman went to war"...to just name a few. The brits respected and admired the quality of german optically sighted rifles.... and when captured intact were used against ther former owners in both wars. The germans produced the best quality scopes and mounting systems ...hence the No3 (T) borrowng so much form the german experiance to have been so excellent at what it did .
The aussie No1 heavy barrel sniper was another lesson learned from the german experiance by the scope & mounting system employed on it.

Oh and here's an excerpt from "Out of Nowhere, History of the Military Sniper" Page 110........ " A .303 inch Bullet travelling at 2440 feet/sec moves up the rifle bore with a pressure of 18 tons per square inch behind it , spinning at a rate 2,900 revolutions per second. The energy generated is impressive when translated into practical terms. At 100 yards it is capable of penetrating 9 inches ( 228mm ) of solid brickwork , 14 inches ( 355mm ) of the lime mortar used to bind the bind bricks together , 18 inches (457mm ) of hard packed earth or sand filled sandbags or four and a half feet (1.37 meters ) of loose piled earth "
This is attributed to : National Archives of Canada, extract from lecture notes for sniping NCO's at the shcool , 2nd Army , 4 April 1917 HQ General staff folder 107 , file 2.
So what was that about penetration you went on about last ?.

Multigunner

06-12-2011, 06:29 PM

Ah multitool.... you have read veteran accounts of brits and canuck snipers and of course you are aware of books like "sniping in france " , "The german Sniper" , The british sniper" , "A rifleman went to war"...to just name a few. The brits respected and admired the quality of german optically sighted rifles.... and when captured intact were used against ther former owners in both wars. The germans produced the best quality scopes and mounting systems ...hence the No3 (T) borrowng so much form the german experiance to have been so excellent at what it did .
I was speaking of the WW2 testing of captured German Rifles recounted in reynold's book. Those tests have been quoted many times in the literature to bolster claims of supposed superiority of the N0.4 (T).
If you went only by the acceptance standards that the Germans themselves applied you'd agree with the British at that time.
The No.4 (T) wasn't around during WW1 so comparasions to the rifles of that era are limited, the No.4 (T) by all accounts was superior to the SMLE MkIII (T).

Also if you go only by autobiographies and biographies of great snipers, the Springfield 03 was no slouch in that department, in either 03A1 or 03A4 form, the A4 was not as good as the 03A3 of course and only when limited to M2 Ball ammo was it dissed by snipers used to much better performance when using the M1 Ball and 168 grain AP ammo.

The aussie No1 heavy barrel sniper was another lesson learned from the german experiance by the scope & mounting system employed on it.

Oh and here's an excerpt from "Out of Nowhere, History of the Military Sniper" Page 110........ " A .303 inch Bullet travelling at 2440 feet/sec moves up the rifle bore with a pressure of 18 tons per square inch behind it , spinning at a rate 2,900 revolutions per second. The energy generated is impressive when translated into practical terms. At 100 yards it is capable of penetrating 9 inches ( 228mm ) of solid brickwork , 14 inches ( 355mm ) of the lime mortar used to bind the bind bricks together , 18 inches (457mm ) of hard packed earth or sand filled sandbags or four and a half feet (1.37 meters ) of loose piled earth "
This is attributed to : National Archives of Canada, extract from lecture notes for sniping NCO's at the shcool , 2nd Army , 4 April 1917 HQ General staff folder 107 , file 2.
So what was that about penetration you went on about last ?.

My comments were limited to the actual penetration testing on German Armor, the MkVII bullet with its two piece core being the least likely to penetrate the armor or helmets ar equal ranges.
I can check your figures, which do not include wooden barriers or trees used as cover and does not state whether they spoke of the MkVII bullet.

So long as you had no reason to quote penetration figures you seemed to belive penetration had no value at all on the battle field.

I guess that Urban combat manual finally made you think twice.

Vulch

06-12-2011, 06:29 PM

Shall we refrain from calling Sam "Multitool" please, as it implies he has a variety of uses - which he does not.

Brits didn't admire the German sniper rifles.... where, pray-tell, did you dream that bit of shinola up from? As has been pointed out MANY times already, and is found in nearly every sniper reference book, the British COPIED the German sniper claw mount system to make the P'14(T), and the Lithgow SMLE III* HT Sniper is a copy of the P'14(T) system. Imitation is the best form of flattery.

An also interesting side note about your beloved *** Springfield M1903 - my Great Grandfather - 2nd Lt. Thomas Endymion Lewis MM - was seconded in late 1917 to get the newly arrived Yanks up to scratch in tactics, MG use and the like. His diary CLEARLY states "the yank rifles were done away with, and they were issued our rifles"... well, that can only mean SMLE's considering he was Australian Infantry. He went on to be awarded the MM and was recommended for the Croix de Guerre, being mentioned in Dispatches many times (and one particular effort recommended him for the CdG).

I'd also like to point out a picture for you - and I have borrrowed this from Mike Steve and Bruce Karems excellent book. Note what rifle the G.I is carrying on the cover - yes, it's a High Turret K98 sniper.... those GI must have really thought very little of the K98 eh... silly GI's with practical experience.

http://kriegsmodell.com/images/finaldraft.jpg

You keep bringing up Palma, and here I thought we were talking about military rifles. Oh well. Back to the impractical target rifles, where you can hang any measure of fragile stuff you want off them, cause they will be babied.

And you also keep claiming that every No4(T) or SMLE is a safe queen or repair or overhauled or seriously rebedded or....yet, of course, your rifles are the only NON-Safe queens out there. You really must live in a world of cottonwool and jellybeans if you think this Sam, because simply, what you state is WRONG. Yes, No4(T)'s were used until they died... your beloved M1903A4 was used in WW2, then a little in Korea then POOF, it's gone. The No4(T) lasted all of WW2, Korea, reincarnated as the L42, Falklands... and so on. Gosh darn it, militaries rebuild rifles. How silly of them - practical experience has shown that military rifles get abused and hard knocks, unlike a rifle range. Golly gosh darn. Just tell me how many times your average M1903A4 has been rebuilt, juding by how many have repair cartouches, overhaul cartouches etc... oh, you didn't know about the RA-P cartouche? A-A? P2? Oh, silly Americans, using things outside a rifle range and rebuilding them with new barrels, refinishing them, new stocks. SILLY, SILLY, SILLY. Considering how many stocks 03's and 03A4's break during their service, I suppose they have to. You do know how well documented stock cracking behind the tang on 03's are of course, having read all the technical documents.... how it was promulgated to create a gap between the tang and the stock inletting to try to prevent recoil splitting the wood at the tang due to the 03's VERY inadequate bedding and recoil management... I am sure you have read this...

Sam, let's face it - you are a librarian with NIL experience whatsoever beyond a computer and a few books. You continually mention Reynolds in regards to Lee Enfields, whilst those of us with PRACTICAL experience KNOW his work is SEVERELY outdated, inaccurate, grossly WRONG on many counts and many of his claims have been repudiated and as such, the book, as a whole, is a COLLECTIBLE book only - no practical use anymore.

I find it amusing you still have not made any mention of the 2 HIGH NUMBER, SUPPOSEDLY safe 03's I had fail. Since they both fall outside the "book numbers" I guess they both were a figment of my imagination and that of the experts that researched my rifle's failures. SHAME on them. Shame shame.

Yes, yes, every Lee Enfield is a safe queen... yes, yes, every collector dreams of owning never rebuilt ones. Gosh darn it Sam, you are so right. I must send this memo out to all my fellow Lee Enfield collectors who have OODLES of ORIGINAL, unrebuilt rifles to have them rebuilt to the technical manual specifications. I am sure they'd love it.

Multigunner

06-12-2011, 08:00 PM

penetrating 9 inches ( 228mm ) of solid brickwork , 14 inches ( 355mm ) of the lime mortar used to bind the bind bricks together , 18 inches (457mm ) of hard packed earth or sand filled sandbags or four and a half feet (1.37 meters ) of loose piled earth "

The only penetration tests of the MkVII bullet that I've found in Reynolds book are comparasions to the MkVI bullet.
The MkVII bullet had better penetration on some hard materials but turned sideways when trying to penetrate soft materials, neither showed much effect when fired against "Shingles" though theres no telling what sort of shingles they meant, possibly slate or fired clay, who knows.
Testing against body armor and helmets showed the British bullet to be least effective of all tested.
I have to say I rather doubt the claims quoted above could refer to the MkVII bullet, but I have an open mind.
The M2 Ball at 2750 fps can penetrate up to 18 inches of oak at 200 yards with a 13 inch minimum, and .1" of a 1/4 hardened armor plate, also four inches of concrete.
The M2 ball is comparable to the WW1 154 gr German bullet and the 1906 Ball cartridge used in WW1.

The two piece core of the MkVII bullet was at first made from aluminum, then wood pulp was substituted for the filler.

Reynolds comments on inferiority of WW2 German sniping equipment in on page 172.
They also did not like the Garand M1C Sniper rifle that much, but the Garand was recognized to be less suited to scoped use than the 1903. No where in this text is there any claim of the No.4 (T) being in any way superior to the Springfield 03A1 or 03A4 sniper rifles.

For those who consider the WW2 German sniping equipment equal too or superior to the No.(T) then your argument is with Reynolds and the sources he quoted not with me.

Since acceptable accuracy for both the M1917 and 1903 infantry rifles without any special bedding or barrel work was two MOA, and acceptance stands for the No.4 (T) was three MOA, I have no reason to belive that the No.4 (T) was actually superior in accuracy to either when scoped. The No.32 scope itself is a nice one, though limited in magnification. The rather coarse post reticle is easier to use in poor light than cross hairs. I've shot a Swedish Mauser which had the damaged No.32 sight mounted on it for tests, its a good scope. The broken horizon wire did not disable the post, the horizon wire does not elevate its only for leveling your sight picture.

BruceB

06-12-2011, 08:22 PM

Vulch

06-12-2011, 08:47 PM

There we go, Reynolds again... one man's limited account from 80 years ago, now proven many times in many aspects to be WRONG.

waksupi

06-12-2011, 09:09 PM

This is a good thread so far, so keep any demeaning remarks out of it.

David todd

06-12-2011, 09:36 PM

Multigunner

06-12-2011, 11:04 PM

It's a very good thing that this thread is 'stickied', because a LOT of interesting info has come out in the course of this back-and-forth tennis match. I've just been an interested spectator until now, but I can relate an incident concerning penetration.

I was woods-bumming north of Yellowknife NWT one day, when I ran across an old riveted-construction boiler at an abandoned mine-site. The wall thickness of the old voiler was about 1/2", perhaps a bit more.....this was about 45 years back, so forgive the shaky memory, please.

I had some Mk .303 VII surplus loads with me, as well as my "hunting load" CIL 180-grain RNSP.

Backing off about 25 yards, I fired both loads at the boiler.

Three rounds of Mk VII only removed the rust...there was NO dimpling or any other disturbance of the iron surface. The soft-points PENETRATED CLEANLY right through the iron, leaving behind the typical cratered hole that we are accustomed to seeing when bullets meet steel.

I took this to be a result of the well-known instability of the long 174-grain Mk VII bullet with its lightweight filler component in the nose. Whatever, it was a most interesting and dramatic comparison.

I was extremely suprized when a round of POF MkVII with the compressed wood pulp core would not go all the way through the door of a 70's automobile.
The bullet shredded on the way through the sheet metal and shattered the rolled down window but fragments barely penetrated the inner door liner.
The lead part of the core turned into molten rat shot sized droplets.

Heres what the "Box O'Truth" found in testing four kinds of .303 ball ammo.

Lessons learned:
1. As expected, the Greek solid lead filled bullet stayed together pretty well.

2. The bullets with the light weight front cores bent or broke apart, as designed. The action to the Waterbox was violent.

3. All of the bullets deviated from the straight flight path upon hitting the water jugs. We lost a couple of them out the top of the box and had to re-shoot because they left the Waterbox.

As Reynolds reported and as my own rather unscientific experiments revealed.
The MkVII Bullet has terrific killing power but lousy penetration.

I did find it would punch a hole through the web of a structural steel I beam, the bullet disintegrated of course. My 150 grain Honady soft points at 2600 FPS also punched a neat hole and the disintegration was the same. The 147 gr Soviet steel core at the same 2600 fps punched through yet enough remained intact to heavily dent the next girder in the stack.
The POF MkVII would not penetrate a 14 inch wooden beam (can't say what sort of wood it was) but the steel core sailed through two of them with energy to spare.

On the suprizing ability of a soft point hunting bullet to punch a neat hole in structural steel I was told by a Coast guard armorer's asistant that such a neat hole , larger in diameter than the bullet was due to the lead spreading and acting like a black smiths punch on hot iron pushing the steel out in a disc. The heat that weakened the steel was supplied by compression.
I guess he had seen lots of bullet holes in steel plating on his job.
The insides of the holes were bright and shiny as if polished.

No source I've ever seen in print ever attributed any respectable level of penetration to the MkVII bullet.
The solid core bullets on the otherhand would have similar performance to M118 7.62 NATO bullets at a somewhat longer range.
Solid core bullets would likely be cheaper to manufacture, and wouldn't raise Hague Convention issues, the Germans did murder captured British and other UK troops on several occasions when outraged over the mutilations caused by the MkVII bullet.

PS
While Reynolds information came from long ago, the laws of physics don't change over time, and least not within the last couple of centuries.
The Bullets tested by Box O'Turth were not from WW1 but were of the same type available to Hesketh Prichard who also found the MkVII with two piece core had little in the way of penetration.
The extensive testing in the Book on WW1 body armor and helmets confirmed this as well.

Also the reason the MkVII bullet didn't even dimple that old boiler was likely due to yaw at close range. If the bullet had not settled in the point would be swinging arond in a tight circle, and could not hit dead on, especially on a curved surface.

The I beam web was flat and I hit it dead on, so the bullet didn't have space to glance before collapsing into molten metal.
Some U S .30 AP of WW1 had a glob of lead fused to the nose. This apparently acted to guide the nose into a plate. They pulled this ammo because it looked like a soft point bullet and might result in claims of inhumane bullets.

The Germans were already loudly protesting the MkVII bullets. Without anti biotics fragmentng bullets increased the likelyhood of deadly infections making even wounds to the extremities fatal.

gew98

06-13-2011, 05:32 AM

There we go, Reynolds again... one man's limited account from 80 years ago, now proven many times in many aspects to be WRONG.

Lewis , Is Reynolds all sam knows ?. It seems a patern that only the data he likes to use to fit his arguments. Flawed data , flawed arguments.

gew98

06-13-2011, 05:55 AM

.

As Reynolds

While Reynolds

Some U S .30 AP of WW1 had a glob of lead fused to the nose. This apparently acted to guide the nose into a plate. They pulled this ammo because it looked like a soft point bullet and might result in claims of inhumane bullets.

The Germans were already loudly protesting the MkVII bullets. Without anti biotics fragmentng bullets increased the likelyhood of deadly infections making even wounds to the extremities fatal.

Well you only hit on your pet reynolds twice this time around...jolly good show !. Guess the source from a brit manual on the 303 for instruction of sniping regarding 303 penetration is irrelevant as reynolds did'nt write or cite it huh.

The brits and the french loudly protested the S patrone bullet too..it's 2,900 FPS caused some serious wounds.... and often turned turtle like M193 5,56 bullets do.

If such exterior lead tipped 30 cal AP ever existed it was a silly folloy of an experiment. AP ammunition of about any caliber utilizing solid shot/projos has always been experimented with various alloys in the tip to help the initial 'dimple' if I may and become the lubricant for the core to pierce more easily.On field guns and tank guns they called such things "piercing caps" when they were used on 'big guns' back then. As many thousands of 30 cal AP bullets I have put into engine blocks , structural steel and plate , to include Railroad tracks and they're tie plates you will find the penetration 'hole' jus ta wee tad bigger than the core that went through it. You will always find heavy soft point same caliber bullet make aconsiderably bigger and more blunt hole for obvious reasons. Some of the best AP rifle ammo I ever had was 1930's Polish 7,92 AP...man did it punch some holes through thick stuff !.

doubs43

06-13-2011, 12:59 PM

I was given a #1 Mk III rifle (LSA 1916) for Christmas, 1960. In the Spring of 1961 I posted a target on a maple tree growing on the bank of a creek. Some 25 yards behind the tree was a fallen tree and not far beyond was a high hill; the perfect backstop. At the target level, the maple tree was between 18 & 24 inches in diameter.

All I remember about the cartridges is that they were WW2 British surplus that came from "Ye Olde Hunter" (later "Hunter's Lodge") at a cost of 5 or 6 dollars a hundred.

I shot from a distance of about 80 yards and I saw that the limbs on the fallen tree were jumping with almost every round. Was I missing the target tree entirely? Nope. Every round went straight through the maple and the exit holes weren't much larger than the entrance holes.

Now I wish I could recall more about the cartridges. I still own the rifle.

gew98

06-13-2011, 01:33 PM

I have had clear penetration on deer with hornady 174 gn RNSP's... and they always dropped them on the spot. I have as well had superb luck with Hornady 170 RNSP's in the 8mm mauser caliber too.
The first time I ever shot an enfield the old timer had a bandolier of mixed ball and silver blue tipped bullets. At the time I had no idea what they were ...they made shower of sparks & smoke with everything we hit with them.
The 'neatest' 303 surplus I ever had was a partial 32 rd carton of "Day Tracer". Most ignited and man at night they were something else...and on overcast days you more or less had a smoke trail very visible even if they did not actually ignite the trace element on those old rounds. If you go to gunboards.com and search for username there "SOLMAN" he has done alot of documentation on his shooting of various 8mm AP and the like. Good old fashioned fun with pics !.

bydand

06-13-2011, 02:37 PM

Just an add. British extractors broke when single loaded? Of course you NEVER heard of the Long Lee's that were single loaded for a very good reason. rounds were loaded singly in the magazine just like the Krag. Thiis was before clips/chargers. Troops were ordered to single load untill the enemy got close or in case of a cavalry attack, You then opened the cutoff and had the full magazine in reserve. Now PLEASE tell me WHY the 03 had the SAME cutoff long after the Brits did away with it? The mouser certainly did not.

The 303 had poor penetration? thousands of Germans, Italians, and Japanese found out it had more than enough. Oh by the way, none of the said targets consisted of steel beams, Boilers, or other ferrous material

The British fought one hell of a lot more wars with the Lee-enfield rifle than we did with the springfield. If it, or the cartridge was lacking, they certainly would have done something about it. And PA-Lease don't bring up the Pattern 13, That was a non starter for two reasons.
1. the cartridge had lots of problems
2. There was that little disagreement with Germany in 1914.;)

Just to make you happy, we did fight WW1 with LOW NUMBER Springfields.

Now on that bit about Americans being issued Enfields while training with the British, The reason was solely because of resupply of ammuniution. They got their 03's and M1917's back after they ended their training. AND FAR MORE had the M1917. A BRITISH design.

spqrzilla

06-13-2011, 02:47 PM

Now PLEASE tell me WHY the 03 had the SAME cutoff long after the Brits did away with it? The mouser certainly did not.
Obsolete tactical doctrine created the requirement for the device. Conservative ordnance specification practices retained it.

The 303 had poor penetration? thousands of Germans, Italians, and Japanese found out it had more than enough. Oh by the way, none of the said targets consisted of steel beams, Boilers, or other ferrous material

So you think infantry arms never had to penetrate hard cover, or disable vehicles and equipment? Odd.

The British fought one hell of a lot more wars with the Lee-enfield rifle than we did with the springfield. If it, or the cartridge was lacking, they certainly would have done something about it.
The British began to modernize their infantry small arms calibers on several occasions, but the cost of manufacturing replacement ammunition, and building and issuing new arms usually was an insurmountable obstacle. British military budgets were never as lavish as ours through out the 20th Century.

Just to make you happy, we did fight WW1 with LOW NUMBER Springfields. Well, of course. The problem with the heat treat arose during wartime manufacturing. It took some time to identify the problem and correct it. Springfield transitioned to the new heat treat in early 1918. Rock Island in August of 1918. The war ended in November of 1918.

Multigunner

06-13-2011, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by Multigunner
.

As Reynolds

While Reynolds

Some U S .30 AP of WW1 had a glob of lead fused to the nose. This apparently acted to guide the nose into a plate. They pulled this ammo because it looked like a soft point bullet and might result in claims of inhumane bullets.

The Germans were already loudly protesting the MkVII bullets. Without anti biotics fragmentng bullets increased the likelyhood of deadly infections making even wounds to the extremities fatal.

Well you only hit on your pet reynolds twice this time around...jolly good show !. Guess the source from a brit manual on the 303 for instruction of sniping regarding 303 penetration is irrelevant as reynolds did'nt write or cite it huh.

If Reynolds wrote anything about U S .30 AP of WW1 I haven't noticed it.
Theres a lot more sources of information on ammunition than you'll find on the net.

If the claims of penetration you quoted referred to MkVII bullets why didn't it say so?
No .303 MkVII ammunition I've fired or seen fired would penetrate even as well as a soft point.
No test results I've found would dispute that.

You might as well try claiming that test results for 168 grain AP represent the penetration ability of commercial softpoint ammunition.

I've still got most of a box of HXP .303. First thing I did was section a bullet. After the ridiculously poor penetration of the POF with its wood pulp filler, which BTW looked like shedded brown paper towel when picked apart and had a very sharp chemical smell when the saw went through it, I had to see what was in these bullets before trying them out.
All the other recent .303 ammo sold as a equivalent to MkVIIz that I've seen so far also has a solid lead core, and acts no differently than 7.62/308 Winchester FMJ Matchgrade loads with comparable bullet weights did when fired from a FAL.

I seriously doubt that as much MkVII ammo was used (in comparasion to the various solid core and AP bullets, as well as MkVIIz and Mk8z) as people may think, and certainly not in any situation where penetration was important.
The British did insist that all .303 automatic weapons adopted just before WW2 should cycle with the standard MkVII ammunition, like the U S they had hundreds of millions of rounds of the old ammo in stock. Un Like the U S Britian never could manufacture enough ammo to fill her wartime needs and had to buy hundreds of millions of rounds from Canada and the U S companies in both wars.

Quote:
The 303 had poor penetration? thousands of Germans, Italians, and Japanese found out it had more than enough. Oh by the way, none of the said targets consisted of steel beams, Boilers, or other ferrous material

So you think infantry arms never had to penetrate hard cover, or disable vehicles and equipment? Odd.

I've posted links to U S military evaluations of Japanese Infantry body armor used during WW2 yet he still comes up with this video gamer first person shooter reaction.
We were all better men back in our John Wayne days, and some may have slipped into their second (maybe third) childhood.
With bullet riddled truck bombs still crashing checkpoints you'd think everyone realises the value of a bullet capable of penetration of metal obstacles. The Military has certainly taken note of the poor penetration of 5.56 ammo even with penetrators.
Theres been more than a few incidents where lack of penetration power has cost the lives of U S Troops.
The only real advantage the M16 had over the AK47 was its accuracy, but it doesn't do much good if the enemy has spent decades fighting Russians in Chechnya and knows how to make use of cover that the 5.56 can't defeat and resources to buy even the cheapest Cold War era surplus body armor. Some of the old Soviet body armor can be imported here as collectors items, but only with the titanium plates removed.
When the Russians first invaded Afghanistan they sent in heavily armored hit squads with Stechkin select fire pistol carbine to take out key Afghan personel.
The armor included a titanium helmet much like the old Knights Helm or Reckless Ned Kelly's homemade armor. A simple open topped cylinder with view slit, that 9mm bullets bounced off of like BBs.

The present day 7.62 M80 Ball has its own penetration problems at close range, due to bullet fragmentation and tumbling. At longer ranges it penetrates better, when the yaw damps out and velocity drops a bit.

Since the '06 bullets of any comparable weight move faster than the same class of bullet from the .303 the advantage is clearly with the '06.
The Germans had even better AP early on. Till tungsten ran short in 1943 the Germans issued five round clips of a heavy ball AP developed for the MG34 for emergency use by their riflemen. The Germans knew you had to shoot through things to get to an enemy who was smart enough to not expose himself like a pop up target.

PS
I would not post personel info on the internet, and have few adventures I even care to remember much less brag about. I made my bones secure in my flesh long ago and thats all I got to say about that.

MBTcustom

06-13-2011, 04:10 PM

I've still got most of a box of HXP .303. First thing I did was section a bullet. After the ridiculously poor penetration of the POF with its wood pulp filler, which BTW looked like shedded brown paper towel when picked apart and had a very sharp chemical smell when the saw went through it, I had to see what was in these bullets before trying them out.
Hey Multigunner, could you post a picture of that sectioned boolit?

Vulch

06-13-2011, 05:36 PM

I am still not sure why Sam keeps bringing up Pakistani ammunition - considering it is all post-WW2, all made for and used by...PAKISTAN...and every surplus shooter knows to avoid it like the plague, why bother mentioning it? We all know it is VERY sub-standard ammunition, hence the derogatory name of Poor Old Fodder. It was not always the click-bang nature of this **** ammunition, it was the projectiles also.

Mk VII was DESIGNED to yaw end over end upon impacting a target, maximising internal destruction (and be perfectly Hague Convention legal since it was spitzer) - it was not designed to bust bunkers or shoot through engine blocks - that is what AP was for. And of course Mk 8 was ORIGINALLY intended for "ALL 303 arms", but when the erosion issues presented themselves, relegated for MG use only. That sure did NOT stop soldiers using Mk 8 whenever they could get their hands on it by whichever means.

Yes, the British had to procure lots of ammunition from the USA and Canada. By golly, gosh darn it, I don't remember the last time the USA was actively bombed, let alone Canada. Oh, those little floating Jap balloons caused SO much havoc... and those submarines occasionally shelling the coastal towns. USA and Canada had NO fear of being bombed... England did daily for MOST of WW2, be it the Blitz, raids post-Battle of Britain, or the V1's and V2's... OF COURSE BRITAIN asked for help. Most absurd rationale you have ever used Sammy. Chest Beating Yanks always come out with this "we supplied the world" stuff... yes, you did, because you weren't getting your ass kicked on the home front like Britiain, France, Belgium, Poland, and Russia were. It's easy to make stuff when your life is not at threat.

I have shot more rounds of Mk VII and even Mk VI than I care to remember. I don't ever recall a penetration problem in any of the targets I hit, be it an old car that DID smash right through the doors, or steel plates or fallen tree trunks. Sure, not as good as 8mm, but dead is dead - does it matter if it exits cleanly or not? Does it matter if it had an aluminium tip vs a cellulose fibre tip, vs a tenite tip, vs solid lead? Mk VII did what it was DESIGNED to do, not what you WANT it to do 101 years post. It's not a concern except for armchair commandos and small-endowed ubermen who feel the need for an Ackley Wet Dream...

Sam, I now recall completely why I banned you on the Gunboards forum and with the FULL blessing of the owners and other moderators.

fishhawk

06-13-2011, 06:00 PM

I'm getting real tired of the snipping back and forth here on this thread, if it continues this will be locked and maybe even deleted, it's up to you how it goes. steve k

nicholst55

06-13-2011, 07:27 PM

:popcorn:

gew98

06-13-2011, 10:23 PM

If Reynolds wrote anything about U S .30 AP of WW1 I haven't noticed it.[QUOTE]
Well that may be because there was NO us 30 cal AP in the great war...the US were late comers and hardly prepared.

[QUOTE] Theres a lot more sources of information on ammunition than you'll find on the net.[QUOTE]
Brilliant , simply brilliant stating the obvious. It's a good thing I have a large library stocking my shelves, but I'm lacking reynolds biblical work...so , oh well no matter. Cheerio !.

{QUOTE] If the claims of penetration you quoted referred to MkVII bullets why didn't it say so? [QUOTE]
Well if you must know the brit snipers were pretty much exclusively using No1 MkIII rifles made for Mk VII fodder and to a smaller extent Patt'14 rifles in the same chambering . Other than the oddball express rifle caliber or two or three for bashing in loophole plates and that rare .280 ross a canuck or two used.

[QUOTE]No .303 MkVII ammunition I've fired or seen fired would penetrate even as well as a soft point.
No test results I've found would dispute that.[QUOTE]
Really...where is your data to support your contention..it's gotta be in a manual or something right ?.

[QUOTE] You might as well try claiming that test results for 168 grain AP represent the penetration ability of commercial softpoint ammunition.[QUOTE]

What caliber and vintage are you talking about here ?.

[QUOTE] I've still got most of a box of HXP .303. First thing I did was section a bullet. After the ridiculously poor penetration of the POF with its wood pulp filler, which BTW looked like shedded brown paper towel when picked apart and had a very sharp chemical smell when the saw went through it, I had to see what was in these bullets before trying them out.[QUOTE]

You won't find any lovers of paki or Iraqi ammo of any caliber here..or anywhere..so the point of it is ?.

[QUOTE] All the other recent .303 ammo sold as a equivalent to MkVIIz that I've seen so far also has a solid lead core, and acts no differently than 7.62/308 Winchester FMJ Matchgrade loads with comparable bullet weights did when fired from a FAL. [QUOTE]

Point being ?.

[QUOTE]I seriously doubt that as much MkVII ammo was used (in comparasion to the various solid core and AP bullets, as well as MkVIIz and Mk8z) as people may think, and certainly not in any situation where penetration was important.[QUOTE]

You have some inside skinny on the issue ratios of specialized ammo over ball... do tell.

[QUOTE] The British did insist that all .303 automatic weapons adopted just before WW2 should cycle with the standard MkVII ammunition [QUOTE]

Last I checked it did...where are you going with this ?.

[QUOTE] like the U S they had hundreds of millions of rounds of the old ammo in stock. Un Like the U S Britian never could manufacture enough ammo to fill her wartime needs and had to buy hundreds of millions of rounds from Canada and the U S companies in both wars.[QUOTE]

You do know that in the great war the US made 303 was of very poor quality just like the cal 30 made for the US government then. The canuck fodder was good stuff...and seeing the canucks used 303 rifles too...what is the point you are going for here ?.

[QUOTE] I've posted links to U S military evaluations of Japanese Infantry body armor used during WW2 yet he still comes up with this video gamer first person shooter reaction.[QUOTE]

You lost me on this... I don't do video games..I lweave that to the little ones, nor do I do airsofter or armchair commando combat. But I do hunt and reload a bunch....but it's been a while since I've been in a holdiay inn express though.

[QUOTE] We were all better men back in our John Wayne days, and some may have slipped into their second (maybe third) childhood. [QUOTE]

?....??.....???.

[QUOTE] With bullet riddled truck bombs still crashing checkpoints you'd think everyone realises the value of a bullet capable of penetration of metal obstacles. The Military has certainly taken note of the poor penetration of 5.56 ammo even with penetrators.[QUOTE]

Boy , that's a given. But you are mixing considerable apples and oranges comparing anything to the poodle shooter bullets....sort of going off topic a bit.

[QUOTE] Theres been more than a few incidents where lack of penetration power has cost the lives of U S Troops.[QUOTE]

I think you will find that's all combatants in all conflicts.

[QUOTE] The only real advantage the M16 had over the AK47 was its accuracy, [QUOTE]

It's a little bit more than that , practical experiance speaking here.

[QUOTE] but it doesn't do much good if the enemy has spent decades fighting Russians in Chechnya and knows how to make use of cover that the 5.56 can't defeat and resources to buy even the cheapest Cold War era surplus body armor. Some of the old Soviet body armor can be imported here as collectors items, but only with the titanium plates removed. [QUOTE]

Wow titanium plate body armor..I guess the sapi plates used are just so deficient and old technology , considering they only stop 7,62x54 LPS slugs. Last I saw the chechens were pretty much armed with 5,45 AKM's and have been getting their collective ****'s handed to them with the better trained troops the russians have been using there for some years now.

[QUOTE]When the Russians first invaded Afghanistan they sent in heavily armored hit squads with Stechkin select fire pistol carbine to take out key Afghan personel.[QUOTE]

You got a source for that..last afghan war russki vet immigrant I talked to had a rather completely different take on such things.

[QUOTE]The armor included a titanium helmet much like the old Knights Helm or Reckless Ned Kelly's homemade armor. A simple open topped cylinder with view slit, that 9mm bullets bounced off of like BBs.[QUOTE]

Never seen such pic of such a knob cove let alone heard of oner..please enlighten me on such a hun like russki hat as I'd like to see it !. Whom was that guy in oz , ned something or other that made boilerplate helmet & armor to defeat bullets...but it was his undoing in the end.

[QUOTE]The present day 7.62 M80 Ball has its own penetration problems at close range, due to bullet fragmentation and tumbling. At longer ranges it penetrates better, when the yaw damps out and velocity drops a bit. [QUOTE]

You do realize ball is meant like the old 303 ball for people killing. The M80 147 bullet loves to tumble and or simply pancake and flip. I've recovered handfulls of such bullets form various ranges at military posts way back in the day. And nothing has changed in that regards as it still does what is asked of it. And as I mentioned before never saw a single round of 7,62x51 AP while as a grunt.... that's why we had 50 caliber MG's and the "magic phone" to call in arty or air support for 'hard targets'.

[QUOTE]Since the '06 bullets of any comparable weight move faster than the same class of bullet from the .303 the advantage is clearly with the '06.[QUOTE]

Seriously you jest right. The 174 gn 303 bullet had considerably better long range charachteristics than the M1906 .30 caliber 152 gn bullet. Geez did you forget where I schooled you on how the germans produced the sS patrone to mimmick the long range capability of the french and brit MG's...something the US was not capable of doing until after the shooting war was over. And being the 30 cal did not have tracer nor AP made for it in the great war I'd say it was a bit more than handicapped for that war on most applications.

[QUOTE] The Germans had even better AP early on. Till tungsten ran short in 1943 the Germans issued five round clips of a heavy ball AP developed for the MG34 for emergency use by their riflemen. The Germans knew you had to shoot through things to get to an enemy who was smart enough to not expose himself like a pop up target.[QUOTE]

Ah you are reiterating a falsehood to a large extent. The Smk bullet loading in the great war was pretty much exclusively issued to snipers and later to select MG troops after tanks appeared in quantity. It was hoped to issue them out by the five round charger ( clips? ) but alas it was simpy too expensive to issue out such expensive ammunition like that and they did not do so. That is why WW1 dated SMK cartridges are fairly rare. During WW2 the SMK loading was 99% of the time a semi AP ( shortened core ) bullet loading with lechtspur ( tracer element ). From 1942 onward the majority of bullets for general issue in german 7,92 rifle cartridges was the economized sS patronen ( S.m.E. )loading with a mild steel core to preserve lead with a bullet nominally weighing 178 gns. Nothing spectacular in AP qualities but definately punched better holes than 30 cal 152gn ball. That's why the germans left the 154gn bullet behind after WW1 and never went back to the 'lighter more frangible bullet' like the US ordnance did when they dumped the Cal.30 M1 bullet and re-introduced the 152 gn bullet as the M2 loading.

[QUOTE]PS
I would not post personel info on the internet, and have few adventures I even care to remember much less brag about. I made my bones secure in my flesh long ago and thats all I got to say about that.

uh ah ?.

bydand

06-13-2011, 10:52 PM

I'm getting real tired of the snipping back and forth here on this thread, if it continues this will be locked and maybe even deleted, it's up to you how it goes. steve k

Just why would you want to lock a thread when we are having so much fun with it?:mrgreen: It's generated more interest than any other one. And may I add, MORE information..

Multigunner

06-13-2011, 11:55 PM

Some can't stand any perceived criticism of sacred cows.
1. Must never explode the myth that no Lee Enfield action ever failed other than when fired with handloads.

2. Must always take the word of "some guy on the net" over clear instructions from the British military as found in their own regulations and manuals.

3. Must never reveal that all criticisms of the strength and durability of the Lee Enfield and its ammunition originated with the British marksmen, engineers, and the manufacturers who developed the rifle and stated that the bolt was "weak and unscientific" rather than being a slur cast by some mythical "American gunsmith".

4. Also one must never post warnings from the British and Australian National Rifle Associations. Afterall they may be in league with the "American Gunsmith" who has some dark conspiracy going to prevent the British from bringing back the SMLE to counter the fabled Afghan snipers.

5. Also one must base all judgements of American weaponry on third hand tales and misread news paper articles passed on as fact.

6. Also since the Lee Enfield can never possibly fail, you must never replace a part worn beyond safe limits, headspace is of no importance to accuracy anyway despite all evidence to the contrary and accuracy is of no importance anyway. Just because a bolt head overclocks or shifts to one side due to extractor spring pressure, don't worry because all the deaths and injuries caused by blown boltheads are just a myth cooked up by American gunsmiths who traveled back in time to insert false information into the records of the Canadian house of Commons and the British Parlement.

BTW
Penetration is of no importance, U S troops wear all that body armor because it just flat out looks great.

Doesn't that about sum it up?

.
PS
I wonder why they sent me this Emaill?

Dear GunnerSam,

We have now activated your account at the Gunboard's Forums. The forums can be found here:

http://forums.gunboards.com/index.php

Your login details are as follows:
Username: GunnerSam
Password: as you entered it when you registered

Don't forget that your password is case sensitive.

To edit your profile, please visit this page:
(redacted)
All the best,
Gunboard's Forums

I use a different username with every board I visit , it cuts down on internet stalkers and attempts at character assasination by those who can't hold up their end of an argument.

Also since the self proclaimed authorities pull such elementary boners as assuming the Blot heads must overturn by ten to twenty degrees, then admit they never bothered to ever check just how far the BH of any of their 190 rifles overclocked, at least that stimulated the collector to actually take a closer look at his safe queens.
If whatever info I throw out there stimulates actual hands on examination and evaluation then thats more than all the regurgitated mythology of the yesmen and fanboys ever accomplished.

gew98

06-14-2011, 12:41 AM

Sammy ; sounds like sour grapes on your end. Nobody accused the enfield of being perfect...but it sure does surpass the 1903 rifle and has done considerably tougher service and still is. Putting round holes in square heads previous to 1900 and still going as the old saying goes.
As for your continual deviation from subject matters at hand and bouncing about it is tiring and has proved hard to follow at times. I'd say it's asafe bet more have been killed/maimed by 1903's then Enfields afterall it was the first million plus 03's made that are known to have quality issues regarding kabooms.
When you compare bullets that are very much alike , yet one heavier by 22 grains you have to know it will have more stable and accurate trajectory at longer ranges. The french figured this out before anyone , hence the Balle D bullet to replace the earlier long flat nosed ball bullet. The germans when they copied the french Balle D bullet they even loaded it in 8x50 Lebel cases they manufactured for use with french MG's and rifles in the great war. The french confiscated a large quantity of this ammunition in german depots at the wars end when they examined german depots.
The only reasoning why the US went to the 172 gn copy of the sS patrone bullet after WW1 and dropped it before WW2 that I am aware of was training concerns due to greater range and penetration than the 152gn bullet and it's higher cost. The japanese 7,7 light & heavy MG's always outreached and afforded more penetration than the 30 caliber 152 gn bullet with their heavier bullet.
As is typically US military until of late the US stuck with some small arms and equipment out of lethargy and neglect. An in depth look at the inside battles in Ordnance when the M14 was adopted and then when it was replaced by the M16 series. Huge screw ups on both counts as to end product and ammo was allowed to be dumbed down to save costs which got alot of troops killed.
I learned to like the M16A1 I was issued...hell I had an AR15 at home so it was not unfamiliar to me. Do I wish I had a bette rifle..hell yes , do I wish I had an AK , hell no. At one time during the early clinton years South africa was going to import FAL's ( R4's I think they called them ) in 5,56...and I was in line to get one...but politics prevailed and they never got imported due to bubba et al. Oh well I digress .

Vulch

06-14-2011, 01:25 AM

Gee Sam, I just going to have to ban you again. Seems your ban expired by me pushing the wrong button. OOPS!

If you'd only kept quiet.

303Guy

06-14-2011, 01:35 AM

I had some Mk .303 VII surplus loads with me, as well as my "hunting load" CIL 180-grain RNSP.

Backing off about 25 yards, I fired both loads at the boiler.

Three rounds of Mk VII only removed the rust...there was NO dimpling or any other disturbance of the iron surface. Perhaps it was the milsurp that was shaky? But then you would have felt and heard the difference? Something must have been wrong there. I've fired ordinary cast boolits through steel plate (from a 303 Brit) and the difference was not really noticeable compared to FMJ's. mind you, it the cordite had burned much slower than it should have, it would have produced a compensatory muzzle blast that might have disguised the lack of recoil - maybe?

303Guy

06-14-2011, 01:41 AM

I own a Long Branch #4 that my brother used to win at Bisley in 1966, it STILL shoots better than 1.5MOA!
We shoot our Enfields all the way out to 1,000 yards, but I have not used cast bullets in it yet.
The last time we had it out it shot a 5 shot , 1MOA group at 1,000, but three if them were inside that!Hey, I missed that post! ('Till now). Holy Cow!:holysheep

You know, in the part's I came from the ranges were shortened to 800 meters when the 7.62 became the standard Bisley round. It seems the 7.62 with it's lighter bullet just didn't do that well at 1000yds. Not sure about that one - that's what I was given to believe. It went sonic at those ranges and lost accuracy or something.

Multigunner

06-14-2011, 02:08 AM

Gee Sam, I just going to have to ban you again. Seems your ban expired by me pushing the wrong button. OOPS!

If you'd only kept quiet.

Why in the world would I "keep quiet", afraid they'll find out you never once in all those decades of collecting ever took a close look at the bolt heads or ever even looked up the specs?

They sent requests for me to return to that board many times, with the gurus and pundits in charge who would really care.

You've already shown your hole card, now lets watch you rep hit the skids even more.

.303 Guy
They shoot .308 out to 1,200 yards last I heard. The increased pressures of more modern .308 Matchgrade ammo is why the NRA banned use of converted No.4 rifles that have not been reproofed to CIP standards. The older rifles are now limited to 3650 BAR, which is around 53,000 PSI. The NRA buys its ammo in bulk and the ammo used in these matches is hotter than the old 144 grain Radway Green ammo.

My no.4 will keep within 1 MOA out to three hundred yards, but that took a lot of work and taylored handloads. Modern Sniper rifles that can't hold sub MOA from the factory are looked down on these days.
How well a pampered match rifle shoots at the range is no indication of how well it would shoot after four months in the jungle, or even one good dunking while making a river crossing.
Look into the recurring bedding problems of the No.4 after a few months in combat, Hesketh Prichard had given a pretty good summary of SMLE bedding problems in his book on Sniping. Theres very little difference in potential bedding issues between the SMLE and No.4 despite the No.4's thicker barrel.
Check the Canadian Instructions to Armorers, theres a section on preparing a No.4 rifle for competition.

Just checked the Canadian Instructions to Armorers gives acceptance standards for the No.4 telescoped rifle at 7.62 centimeters by 7.62 centimenters three by three inch group size. Nothing changed in all those years it seems.
If you want any real accuracy out of a No.4 you have to work at it, or hire a firm like Fulton's of Bisley to do the work.

heres the link, check section 5.
http://www.euroarms.net/EFD/manuali/No4Mk1Arm.pdf
Since the Canadians found some of the best methods of correcting the bedding problems of the No.4 rifle, I doubt anyone will be claiming one should ignore what this one has to say.

303Guy

06-14-2011, 02:59 AM

303Guy

06-14-2011, 03:10 AM

By the way folks, this thread has had over three thousand (3,000) viewings and is a sticky :awesome: so what is said here is actually rather important. Many interested folks - including new members and potential new members - will be reading it. Just thought I'd mention that.:roll:

Meaning, that we should all be mindful of being civil, polite and respectful of one another. Thank you all. :drinks:

Multigunner

06-14-2011, 03:37 AM

Thanks for that.

At the time the rounds were the standard (Nato?) 7.62 146gr FMJBT as supplied by the military. It's those, I think, that didn't do too well at 1000yds. Nothing to do with the cartridge capability, just the loading of the day. I think they had to be standard military rounds. The heavier and slower MkVII could shoot further. Must have been able to since some folks were shooting The Mile with the Mk VII in SMLE's?
The U S military match shooters, and most civilian match shooters used bullets of 172 grains or better as well.
To my knowledge no U S Sniper rifle or target rifle type or brand has ever had a problem with the hottest available .308 ammunition.
The only problems U S military target shooters had with the .30-06 was the rather stupid situation of using mobil lubricant on the old Tin can bullets of the 1920's.
Some shooters just stuck the bullet in the lube and got this thick slimy lube in the chamber and ended up wrecking a few actions.

I have a supician (unconfirmed) that the SMLE was a rather good extreme range rifle due to its slinny barrel and particular fore-end packing and of course the Mk VII bullet. Something to do with the way the bullet was launched into a spiral path that dampened out down-range. Those are just impressions I have been given, not facts!

Reynolds wrote of the barrel compensation factor, he stated that this was widely accepted as fact but there was no documented evidence to back it up.

The compensation factor involved the angle of the muzzle when the bullet left the bore, not the rotation or yaw.
The slower bullets left on the upswing, the faster bullets on the downswing.
This compensated for variations in velocity from shot to shot.
Most barrels have a compensation factor. It was never a designed capability, it was a very beneficial discovery first noted in the older longer barreled rifles.

I'd hate to think I had to rely on a cork packing in the handguard to maintain accuracy of a combat rifle.
The most radical bedding methods seem to have also been those that most easily got out of kilter.

Speaking of long barrels. The 30 inch hammer forged Walther barrel with very close tolerances are very accurate. Using the group sozes of rifles carrying those barrels to judge the accuracy of a No.4 with a bore that might be far oversized ,and with the stess lines caused by the machining of the bayonet lugs, won't give a good picture.
The best of the No.4 (T) rifles were Savage Built No.4 trials rifles. I'm not sure but but the early No.4 (T) rifles built from trials rifles may have been withdrawn at a later date due to incompatability of parts.
If I were interested in a No.4 a Savage with cut off plate and six groove barrel would be nice. The six groove Savage barrel blanks (with .308 bores of course) were also used by High Standard to make barrels for Smith Corona 03a3 rifles. A rare barrel type.

PS
I'll play nice when the internet stalkers finally give up like the previous situation.

Vulch

06-14-2011, 04:29 AM

Why in the world would I "keep quiet", afraid they'll find out you never once in all those decades of collecting ever took a close look at the bolt heads or ever even looked up the specs?

They sent requests for me to return to that board many times, with the gurus and pundits in charge who would really care.

You've already shown your hole card, now lets watch you rep hit the skids even more.

I really hate to burst your self-esteem bubble Sam, but actually there were MORE requests for you to be banned than there was for Ed Horton!!!!

I quote directly from Gunboards (link:http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?114740-***Headspace-reloading-ammunition-pressures-et-al-ALL-GOES-HERE!***) :
GunnerSam is banned too BTW...

As I mentioned, his actions and members complaints to the Powers That Be alerted them to it and it was THEIR decision to remove them. Jon and I do not have that ability.

Ed had been warned continuously over a 1 year period. Ed insulted and bitched to The Boss more times than any member to date. He was lucky he was allowed THAT much grace.

I was kind of surprised at the time too, because except for the cut and paste ad nauseum, SOME of the info is good and shed some good light on the subject, but when the BAD information cropped up - WELL debunked by DocAV amongst others, well, you know the rest. DocAV by the way is a forensic ballistician with in excess of 30 years industry experience - what he says is right, and if he said someone was talking out their rear, well, I tend to accept it. Ibid:

Correcting some Mis-statements by Gunnersam...
Relating to Aussie manufacture and use of IMR designed Powders.... and these cannot go uncorrected...I leave to others to correct any other "clap-trap" which the late and not sadly missed person may have made...

Firstly, Australia (MF, Footscray) never Loaded VIIZ .303, except in experimental and Contract lots for (Civilian) Purchases in the late 1950s...Australia used Cordite till the very end of .303 Mark VII production in 1959 (Army) and 1962 (Airforce and Navy)...after that until the mid-1970s, they bought Indian (K^F) .303 Mark 7 (Cordite) for use in Jungle training and Recruit training (Vickers and Bren Overhead Fire courses, which ceased in the late 1980s ( they finally retired the Vickers, mostly to the Iron Furnaces.).

The DuPont-designed Plant at Mulwala, was established with a view to making 20mm Cannon powder, and other Pure Nitrocellulose Artillery Powders, for the increased number of US-designed Shells being made during WW II in the Pacific. The IMR 4740 made ( similar to IMR 3031) was found, after WW II, to be a good "all-round" Powder for cases from .222 Rimmed all the way to some of the larger Military cartridges ( .303 amongst them), then being reloaded by Aussie Shooters. Aside from the Imported US and British Powders, the Surplus # 4740 was the only economical Powder available to Aust. Shooters till the late 1960s, when cheap Ball Bowder from Israel ( IMI655, similar to W748) came in for rifle use.

At the same time, Mulwala was working on a new 7,62 Nato Single based Powder, and they developed AR2201 ( Aust. Rifle, #2201).

BTW, Mulwala never made Cordite, it was made by the separate 1890s era "Cordite Factory" at Marybyrnong (outer suburb of Melbourne); Berdan primers were made at St.Mary's ( Sydney) and during WW II, at an annexe in Tamworth (Nth. New South Wales)

MULWEX ( now Thales-ADI Mulwala Explosives) is the supplier of Many US "sellers" of Powders (Hodgdon, Alliant (ex-Hercules) and "IMR"), not "makes a copy of"....as stated.

Hope these "cleans out the Stables" ( a herculean Task).

The Official manuals tell it all as far as Pure Military SOP is concerned, and all shooters should start there. Then take into account the "different "pressure test criteria used", and get away from the US paranoia about Headspace gauging and so on... The .303 Lee Enfield was designed as a Combat rifle, for better or worse ( for the enemy, at least) and Reloading did not come into the traditional Military equation ( until they ran into the natives of Africa and especially the Afghans and Pathans, that is).

Add to this mix variations in Case manufacturee techniqies ( differences betqween Military case specs and Civilian (read US ,mostly) case internal design) and another problem of "case Life" rears its head.

Enuff said, "A nod's as good as a wink to a blind Horse)

best regards,

Doc AV
AV Ballistics
Brisbane Australia.

NOTE:.303 shooter since 1963, reloader since 1967. Some 1/2 million rounds later( of .303 Ball and Mostly Blank) after 40 years, I think I have learned ( by experience and research) a thing or two about the ubiquitous .303 cartridges, and there are a lot of people out there that know more than myself....!!!!

DocAV

Hmmmm.

Well, it's all there to be read - and as can be seen, nothing "made up" or fantasised"