Printable View
I read about the poor performance of the MLE's against the Boers with their 7x57 Mausers and that the accuracy specification for the MLE was rather loose.
What is the truth?
I know the Boers were in their element and that their environment developed their eyesight and their shooting skills, not to mention their guerilla warfare skills and tactics.
Only a small percentage of new production arms were tested for accuracy in those days plus the introduction of Enfield rifling left troops with rifles that were woefully inaccurate due to the lack of sighting-in.
And also were not the MLM's and MLE's basically regarded as single loaders in the doctrine of the time, with the magazine kept in reserve?
A rifle might not need to be a tack-driver if its method of employment is by firing of controlled volleys against a massed target of standing, charging attackers. Different story when your enemy sensibly takes cover behind trees and rocks to shoot back at you with his own (charger-loading) rifle.
Don't have the specs on the early L-E rifles to hand, but I do have the SMLE stuff.
In the 1938 Acceptance Specs, para 42 says:
....Every rifle will be fired at a paper target.......at a range of 100 FEET, (not yards), from a mechanical rest.
Blah, blah, adjustment, blah etc.
Then five rounds will be fired from the magazine; if the rifle fails to put four shots out of the five into a rectangle 1 inch broad and 1 1/2 inch high, or if the blade, foresight requires to be set more than .03 inch to one side of its normal position, the rifle will be returned to the manufacturer.
(Mk Vll ball is the standard in 1938).
Back in July 1903, with Mk6 ammo, the spec reads:
Every rifle will be fired ......at a range of 100 feet, from a mechanical rest. on the paper target will be a rectangle 1 1/2 inches broad and 2 inches high, bottom of rectangle to be 1 inch immediately above the point aimed at.
Some adjustments later..................
.......................If the rifle fails to put four shots out of the five into the rectangle, or if the foresight requires to be set more than .03 inch to one side of its normal position, the rifle will be returned to the manufacturer.
Basically we are looking at group requirement of 3MOA wide and 4.5MOA high.
Good enough for government work.
Interestingly, both specs call for the ammo used in testing to be itself specially selected for a good "figure of merit" (small groups, no fliers).
A marginal rifle with sub-standard (or NON-standard) ammo is likely to be a real dog.
The experience with the Boers and 7mm brought on the P13 in .276. The 7mm is still kicking *ss and i love my 303s and 308s. Might have to put a 7mm together for the range only when i get tired of getting my *ss kicked by a certain shooter wont happen for awhile yet. Wish i could source .276 brass. I have a No1 Mk3 chambered for .276 dont know if it is Pederson or Enfield.
I often wonder when I read all these stories about the Boers being crackshots at 5 miles etc etc. I wonder if they are the same stories that our fathers used to read about the hill tribes in Pakistan. And more recently about the shooting abilities of the Afghanistan hill tribes who could bring down a Soviet helicopter at 5 miles with a Lee Enfield. I don't know about them being crack shots, but their kit and shooting is so poor that they are best known as crap shots! Squirt and pray merchants.........
As for some/most of the ammo that is siezed...........
Quote:
Originally Posted by 303Guy
Bearing in mind that the "truth" in these matters is difficult to establish more than a century later, I have often read that 1) the Krag was(is) a beautifully smooth rifle to operate, but 2) the Krag users suffered badly at the hands of the Spanish with their 7x57 Mausers in San Juan etc, whereupon 3) the Springfield '03 appeared not long after. A matter that, BTW, involved a royalties argument with Mauser.
Two major colonial powers both came to the conclusion that man-for-man they were being outshot by forces they had considered inferior and both, in their way, did something about it. Both were reluctant to reduce the caliber down to anything considered truly "small-bore", and both would have been better armed for accuracy a decade earlier if they had buried national pride and manufacturing interest a decade earlier and bought, for instance, Swedish Mausers, or at least made a licensing arrangement to keep the national factories occupied.
---------- Post added at 05:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:47 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz
I know a musket shooter who can manage that *. OK, he is/was (?check that) world champion, but as a acceptance standard for a nitro-driven cartridge rifle on a mechanical rest it's not exactly world-class, is it?
*And kept one of his targets after a competition, to demonstrate to others what a musket can do.
There are many and varied reasons why the .303 MLE was blamed for the poor performance vs. the Boers. It certainly suited the mood of the era for the press and politicians to blame the rifle. Similarly, the Zulu victory at Isandhlwana was conveniently blamed on ammo boxes...
But I find it noteworthy that in none of the Boer accounts of the ABW which I have read (and I think I have read them all...) does the Boer writer speak disparagingly of the MLM/MLE. Indeed, Boers willingly used captured .303 rifles and ammo after the Boer cities fell (that is, for 2 yrs after June 1900).
In addition, you may note from photos how many Boers preferred to carry carbines, which are not noted for their accuracy. Boers were also fond of using captured LECs and Martini Enfield carbines.
What is certain is that the Boers (being used to hunting antelope) were able to judge distance well, use cover well, and above all, take snap shots on briefly-appearing or moving targets. I don't think the superior accuracy of the Mauser was considered as important at the time as it subsequently became.
Having said all that, the Boer Mauser is a more accurate rifle in my hands; I regularly shoot 3 Boer Mausers, 2 MLEs and a ME rifle. And it's not just me - each year for the last 5 yrs our club (HBSA) has held a competition called the Siege of Ladysmith, which comprises 5 x 3 sec snaps and 1 x 20 sec exposure during which you fire 5 times.
The target is a head-and-shoulders at 200 yds. Every year a Mauser has won.
see link below an interesting thread regarding a P13 .276Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindi2
Building a P-13 Enfield in .276 Enfield
From my reading it seems the problem with the MLE was zeroing not "accuracy". Rifles were sent out that would print a foot off target and no easy way to remedy- no windage adjustment on rear sight like the one added to CLLE 1* later. Also, it seems the British target fraternity were upset about the replacement of the MLE by the SMLE which suggests they found the MLE a useful target rifle? On the other hand, in the middle of the Pegler book on WW1 sniping and he makes the statement that all G98's were expected to shoot MOA and rifles that exceeded this standard!!! were selected as sniper rifles. There are some definite innacuracies regarding the firearms in this book so I don't know how accurate that MOA comment is.
Ridolpho