Lee enfield accuracy question

The accuracy - or not - of a service Lee Enfield, including the snipers is dictated solely by the criteria laid down by the technical handbook part of the EMER's. There is no other criteria that any other Armourer, gunsmith, gunmaker, enthusiastic amateur, tinkerer, home fiddler, or even bubba needs to work to. Every good shot in the world has his own ideas and theories.

The rifle is deemed accurate and passes the accuracy test when:-......... Chaps, sorry to be blunt but it's a mass produced battle rifle, just as some mass produced MGB cars cars are faster than other MGB cars.

to go with previous post 7#......it was a converted long branch No4 set up following Peters book, repro mount & pads fitted by Fultons and scope rebuilt by Peter

To be honest there never was any single 'official pattern' of SMLE sniper during WW1 - the PPCo rifle, the Aldis on Purdey & Holland & Holland mounts, & the A5 on Whitehead mounts are believed to be the most numerous, but there is thought to be twenty odd different variations of WW1 SMLE sniper that were produced, often in very small numbers - so there was no consistency even before we start looking at the relative merits of the two rifles. However, I think there is no doubt, as has been suggested above, that the 'average' P'14 (if one can define such a beast) at shorter to medium ranges will out perform the 'average' SMLE, whereas the SMLE will hold its own at 700 - 800 & beyond. Most sniping during WW1 was carried out at ranges of no more than 500 yards or so, & often considerably less, so the P'14 would have had the edge. This is not to suggest the SMLE is not a supreme battle rifle - it is perfectly accurate enough for the job it was generally called upon to do. In 1917 the fine adjustment equipped P'14 was found to have excellent accuracy & the search for a 'standardised' sniper's rifle eventually led to the P'14, with F sight, & the anglicised Hensoldt 'light' telescopic sight, which morphed into the Model 1918 scope. Presumably the authorities felt the P'14 was the way to go, at least when it came to sniping.

Having said all that the SMLE was, is, & always will be, my favourite rifle, bar none. You can't quantify charisma.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

Having said all that the SMLE was, is, & always will be, my favourite rifle, bar none. You can't quantify charisma.

---

I concur Roger she ain't no oil painting so will never win a beauty quest but one thing will be said for her and that is the S.M.L.E has had more torture tests in actual combat than allot of other weapons out there even today they are found still out in the fields. How many troops in Flanders or to the deserts in North Africa thanked their lucky stars the S.M.L.E was not as fussy about being in the mud or sand and at least it tolerated it a bit better than the Mausers.

As PL stated there are MGB's that just go together a bit better than the next car in the line as that's the way mass production works sometimes and the Lee was no different one rifle just happened to be a smidge more accurate as that's the way it was, also they were one of the most produced I heard a figure of 20 million of all marks from the very start but cannot vouch for that figure some one else may have that figure.
I reckon the SMLE will still be going in another 100 years from now

The SMLE was most certainly the best battle rifle fielded in WW1 bar none. That comment will get the Mauser guys' panties in a wad but so be it! It's a fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Dick

The SMLE was most certainly the best battle rifle fielded in WW1 bar none.

---

As a student of history and a retired member of the pointy end of the spear, and having the luxury of 100 years of looking back at the First World War, given a choice, it would be my selection of period rifles for period work.

Only complaint at this point would be the full length 1907 bayonet, looks impressive, but a tad too long as bayonet design evolution has shown us.

I think if I had to choose a WWI main issue rifle (not carbines) I would go with either a M91 Carcano or a Steyr M95. Both easy to load (much easier than a Enfield), no risk of rimlock in both, easier for me to use as a lefty, both light for there size (same weight as a No. 1 Mk. 3), and in the Carcanos case easier to load more rounds than a Enfield (6rds a reload instead of 5 per charger). Both are very reliable as well, and both have reasonable sights for short range shooting. This is just me though, and being a lefty likely has a bit to do with it (cock on closing with the down turned bolts is brutal from the left hand).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sentryduty

As a student of history and a retired member of the pointy end of the spear, and having the luxury of 100 years of looking back at the First World War, given a choice, it would be my selection of period rifles for period work.

Only complaint at this point would be the full length 1907 bayonet, looks impressive, but a tad too long as bayonet design evolution has shown us.

---

Grand-dad was happy with it during his time in France, and it served my dad's generation well. The bayonet (fixed) was too long for the confines of the trenches, but it served the purpose for the ALH at Beersheba.

I've just finished reading the excellent book "Vimy" (by Pierre Berton) about the Canadian victory at Vimy Ridge in 1917.

The author (a war veteran who taught at the Royal Military College) comments about the potency of the Mills Bombs (thrown and fired from grenade launchers), Lewis guns, and the artillery. He states: "Few soldiers were well enough trained to fire the Lee Enfield with any accuracy..... It's safe to say that most of the enemy killed or wounded by rifle bullets were killed by snipers using the Ross or were hit at close quarters in the hand-to-hand fighting that took place in the trenches. But even here the rifle was an awkward weapon to handle in a narrow ditch full of struggling opponents....The rifle was a psychological weapon, not a practical one -- the soldier's friend whose presence certainly gave him a sense of security. In the monotony of trench life the infantryman worked out his frustrations by banging away at an elusive enemy. But in the trench raids across No Man's Land, it was the Lewis light machine gun and the Mills bomb hand grenade, clearing a German trench in seconds, that did the job..... 75 million Mills bombs were thrown at Germans during the Great War."

The author, who is clearly an authority on war, comments that the Lee Enfield was used more as a defensive weapon to protect the grenadiers (who launched grenades with their Lee Enfield shooting blanks with their cup launchers attached) and Lewis gunners.

While I have found many conflicting statistics about the causes of casualties during the war, it seems that the artillery barrages (which opened enormous craters and blew people apart instantaneously) accounted for between 60%-75% of the casualties. Machine guns accounted for the next largest percentage, followed by grenades. The rifle seemed to account for a only a small percentage of casualties. Gas warfare seems to have caused about 3-5% of the casualties.

Does anyone have any accurate data about what percentage of casualties were actually caused by rifle & sniper fire?

Artillery bombardment was Apocalyptic. For example, during the Somme the British bombardment consisted of 1,537 guns firing over 1,500,000 shells over a period of 168 hours averaging 8,929 shells fired per minute. During Vimy, the Canadian bombardment was so intense, 3,000 shells were fired PER SECOND. In March 1918, the Germans launched the first of their 'hurricane bombardments' involving artillery & aeroplane bombing. Code-named 'Michael', it involved over 1,500 aircraft & 6,608 guns firing 3,200,000 shells over only 5 hours averaging 640,000 shells fired PER MINUTE!

Shooting the lee with that blade on the end certainly alters the geometry of the weapon it certainly wants to drop its nose, in reply to Seaspriter WWI was an Arty war as inept Generals struggled with 19th century tactics and 20th century weapons. Vimy, Ypres (Wipers), Passchendaele, Bullecourt, Soisones, the french forts pretty much all the conflicts required masses of Arty to prepare the way.

What the arty did was plough up the ground to an extent it became featureless troops easily lost with many meeting a horrible death by falling into a flooded shell hole and drowning, casualties from arty will never be known as some were just vaporised and ceased to exist.
In one of my books I think it is in Monashes victories in France they actually under the cover of darkness over a period of time removed the cannons and calibrated them far from the front I think they were allowed 3 rounds, then brought them back at night just a few at a time. Then the fire plan was worked out to a T with the calibration for each cannon so when the attack was sprung there was no predatory bombardment nor ranging shots prior to the troops advancing and so good was the firing plan and the charts the troops followed allot more closely to the creeping barrage the Germans were decimated and overwhelmed.

Post - In reply to Richard I have often wondered why they did not just put the '03 on the Mk III as I have tried both types from my collection and the 03 bayonet is far handier either on the rifle or in the hand much better than the '07