Difference in POI between Mk V11 & Mk V1 ammo?

Morning Gents.
Recently I replaced the barrel on my cordite -washed out Long Lee.
The replacement is a lightly used BSA Commercial Long Lee, and fit perfectly to the 1896 BSA action.
New barrel really shows promise, but with SA ball ammo,(174 gr) I find I need the sights set to 500 yards to hit POA at 100 yards. Would the Mk V1 ammo shoot more to point of aim?
The new barrel has the dovetailed in fore-sight, so I can either file it down or change it, but I would have no sight left to bring it up the required amount.
The rear sight seems to have a blade a little higher/deeper than the sight on the old barrel.
(Yes, 'new' barrel came with sights.)

Any help /daylight on this will be greatly appreciated.


BTW, the barrel replacement was more or less anti -climatic. After making an action wrench, one good belt on the handle and the old barrel unscrewed by hand.
New barrel was tighter but indexed perfectly, and headspace lovely.
Trial groups (only 3-shot -5 shot up to now) seem around 2" or a bit less at 100 yards.

Richard.

Richard: Something weird about this- why would a rifle shoot way too low with higher velocity ammo than the sights were originally calibrated for? I've found exactly the same thing with a '96 MLE and a Citadel Martini Enfield- at least a foot below POA at 100 yards with Mk VII velocities. Also weird, I noticed the rear sight cap on another MLE ('98 and stamped HV) was substantially taller than the one on the first rifle. When I swapped them it yielded a near perfect zero (at 100 yrds) with any ammo I tried. None of my references seem to mention different sizes of sight caps and I would have assumed any recalibrations of sights for different ammo would have relied on different ramp profiles on the rear sight. I hope someone can explain this.

Ridolpho

Very nice to hear from you, Mr. B!

This is an odd issue, and am glad I am not the only one running into it.
The new barrel is marked HV in front of the rear sight.

I don't understand how swapping the taller sight -cap for the lower one brought about a perfect zero. What are we missing from the equation?
I do see how a faster bullet may leave the barrel at a different point of the barrel flip, so may cause a difference in POI, but this much?

I will look at these different sight caps;
I wonder if the taller cap has less 'meat' on the underside, so though taller, actually sits lower?

The Commercial barrel came from N-Z, and is marked twice on the knox form, "K&H" as well as BSA & the stacked rifles logo. Any ideas on "K&H"?

Very best wises and come for a shoot sometime!

Richard.

You mention that the front sight has a dove tail insert?

As far I remember, all MLM and MLE long rifles have a fixed front barley corn on their sight ramp. Maybe some late models had different sight ramps?, but what I am suggesting without seeing pics, is that if this is not a custom made sight, the other possibility is that it is the front sight set up for a Charger Loading Lee Enfield. They had a dove tail to accept a considerably taller front sight insert to match with the taller windage adjustable rear.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...hcLyJ2Qw-1.jpg

I have a naval marked MLM that has a HV SC marked barrel and the rear sight cap is considerably taller, I figured sighted for the Mk.VII round. Some Naval long rifles were resighted. Away from my library, but I'm thinking that there was a conversion program around 1914
Does your rear leaf have graduations to 1900 yards? Does it have CL stamped at bottom right of leaf?

If the front sight is too tall, your aim will be too low. Even more so if you have a regular rear sight bed and leaf, which is lower than CLLE. That would compound your problem.

Charger loading leaf on left, regular leaf shown aginst regular leaf.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...V1TS4r_q-1.jpg

Does your blade insert have numbers and letter marked? eg. 878E which denotes blade tip 0.878 inches above the centerline of the bore and for Enfield riflng.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...QR4KWnA6-1.jpg

Does the front sight ramp have a drilled hole to accept the screw for the sight protector bunny ears?

Richard: Regarding the taller sight cap, nothing unusual about its shape- it raises the base of the notch up at least 0.020" at a given range setting. Bang on for my calculation of the change in sight height that would be required to bring the POI up to where it should be. MLE's were, of course, used with Cordite marks I-VI but I know nothing of the velocities of the pre-Mk VI loads though I would assume they were possibly slower? Mine is, with the switched cap, zeroed at 100 and 200 yards but it would be nice to try it on your range at greater distance. I'm occupied right now in an attempt to improve my Snider loads in hope of being a bit more competitive next year. Regards.

Bill

Edit: just saw englishman's comments after posting. The '98 I took the higher cap off of also has the atypical dovetailed front sight block with removable and non-pinned insert. As mentioned it has HV stamped in front of the rear sight and also saw Naval use (did they possibly use the MLE a bit longer than Army?). As of LoC 10393 (1900) there were 3 options for altering the sights- the 2nd involved the fitting of a "removable barleycorn"........"pinned into the foresight block as in the Mk I* Lee-Metford". Perhaps there are some late MLE modifications that aren't documented? But since my '96 has original, unaltered pre-Boer War sights, it seems strange that fitting the taller cap solves the zeroing problem. Sorry for the verbosity!

I think it is a combination of ramp height/profile and barrel harmonics. I once shot a .303 Martini Artillery carbine in a 200 yard rapid fire competition. With MkVII ammo and sight set to lowest point I had to aim beneath the feet of the humanoid target to hit the chest. I swapped to 215 grain .303 commercial soft point (but as near as damn it MkVI spec.) and the shots rose 3.5 feet and shot to point of aim point of impact. BES in the UK make MkVI bullets.

This is all why military rifles are "regulated" for the ammo, not the other way around; see also machine-guns. For each rifle / machine-gun manufactured, how many cartridges are made?

Hand-loaders have been chasing this phenomenon for ever.

Tweaking the issue sights in service, is a LOT easier, on a military scale, than "individualizing" the ammo.

And then there are the interesting effects of altitude and air temperature on ballistics.

When the Sht.LE became the first line weapon and was issued to the British Army, many of the long Lees became hand me downs to the Royal Navy. Most of them went through refurbishment in the Navy's own workshops at Portsmouth, Plymouth or Chatham

The majority of the MLE Mk.I* rifles that I encounter in Canada tend to be naval marked.
The Mk.I* was never general issue here, Canada having purchased some 40,000 MLE Mk.Is in 1896.

So yes, the Navy did use long Lees until much later years than the Army.

Late reply, just got in. Was baling hay until wheel fell off the baler.

Thanks for the replies all!

E-man,

The rifle is a Canadian Mk 1 by BSA. (1896) This new barrel is a commercial BSA, but appears set up for the CLLE, as it does have the hole through the ramp for sight protector.
It also has the taller rear sight cap as in your Comparison photo.
The dovetailed front sight has no numbers stamped on it, but is lower than the one in your photo, more like a L-E No 1 Mk 111 sight.

I am sure you have hit the nail on the head though,..............that this barrel would have had a windage adjustable rear sigh fitted at one time. It came with what appears to be a CLLE rear sight, and I presumed it had worked with that front sight. I can try a few rounds with the 215 gr, to see where they print, but would like to shoot the easier to find 174-180 gr if possible.

Thank you again for all the help.

Bruce Ozman,

Yes, we're closer to 3,00- ft than 2,000, and I know this can add to the equation. :-)

I'll let you know what transpires.....and any suggestions for the nice outside but very pitted and cordite washed old barrel? (It'd been chopped by an inch at some time)

Thanks again to all !
Richard.