Lee enfield accuracy question

Seaspriter,

I have been very cautious about Pierre Berton since I read Vimy many years ago, because some of what he says is plain horsefeathers.

I think he liked to be controversial. I also remember he wrote of barbed wire with 4 inch barbs!
As far as the rifle goes, just read about the early battles, and how the rifle held off hoards of the enemy without much help from artillery or snipers.
Also, "Symbol of Courage" by Max Arthur, .......The men behind the medal, ...winners of the Victoria Cross, has countless anecdotes of men in both wars doing sterling service with the rifle and bayonet.

I think Mr Berton does all those who served a disservice, the implication being that they might as well have not been there!
For myself, the No 1 Mk 111 with the 1903 bayonet would still do the job. :-)

Best,
Richard.

People outside of Canada probably aren't aware that Berton was quite a TV celebrity. He was a prolific writer but considered by some to be purely an amateur historian. The bios I've seen indicate that, as a soldier in WW2, he never saw combat or active assignment (unless you count training in England in '45).

As to the question of better rifle, it's always baffled me a bit as to why the Pattern 14 rifles didn't immediately find their way to the front in large numbers. I've read the silly comments like "they weren't liked because they weren't made in England" but there's got to be more to it than that. The Model of 1917 seemed to give good service to the US.

Personally I only own two P14's and I find them to be a little awkward and stiff compared to the SMLE and no more accurate but, to be fair, they are well used old guns.

Ridolpho

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ridolpho

People outside of Canada probably aren't aware that Berton was quite a TV celebrity.

---

I am reasonably well read, and inside of Canada, but have never heard of this person prior to now. In fact I had to reference the wikipedia to figure out who he was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ridolpho

As to the question of better rifle, it's always baffled me a bit as to why the Pattern 14 rifles didn't immediately find their way to the front in large numbers. I've read the silly comments like "they weren't liked because they weren't made in England" but there's got to be more to it than that.

---

My idle speculation, perhaps it was that the manual of arms for the SMLE was different compared to the P14 as were the capabilities, perhaps it was a matter of not wanting to re-equip the front line in piece-meal while the war was underway. Looking at the First World War, it did not embrace and foster the same level of technological competition as the Second World War. As a general statement, the "old" ways, traditions, and thinking were still much adhered to until such a time that they were woefully and deadly obsolete.

From a capability standpoint, a P14 does not offer any distinct advantage over the then current issue SMLE, it fired the same round, had half the magazine capacity, was 0.7 lbs heavier, and would require a completely different set of parts for field repairs and spares.

I think the lack of adoption was purely a simple logistical and tactical decision.

I've always wondered why the supposed 'better' accuracy of the P'14 over the No1 or better accuracy of the No1 over the No4 etc etc wasn't reflected in the technical accuracy test usually carried out on the layer. The layer....., that's our expression for the Enfield rest which eliminates all human contact and interference. Except when the firer presses the trigger of course but due to its construction you can just pull the trigger without any thought for the consequences. Even the lock time is irrelevant.

Here's another querie that's always puzzled me about the super duper supposed legendary accuracy of the No1 rifle between 600 and 900 yards......... Surely if the bullet is in free flight the moment it has left the influence of the barrel and the influence of the propellant gas that overtakes it immediately after its departure from the muzzle........ How can it suddenly become super dooper accurate when it reaches 600 yards? Does it suddenly come under the spell of a gyroscopically stablised earthly enlightening force that imparts wisdom to its otherwise free flight path?

What Darren says above is dead right. What a field Army wants is standardisation. Nobody goes off to war with a mixed fleet if he can help it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CINDERS

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

---

The reason is they envisioned having troops formed up in squares fighting off cavalry. With the P07 bayonet on the Mk III it brought you to about the same length as other nations long rifles with bayonets. They also believed having more reach is better for bayonet fighting, and the Mk III with the P03 bayonet would have been much shorter than all its contemporaries.

One of the less reported but more macabre comments in the OB requirement for the trials of the No1 Mk6 or soon-to-be No4 Mk1 suggested that a bayonet that penetrated any further than the heart was too long. Another play on the phrase that '.....you can only kill a man so dead'. Mind you, that was back in the 30's. You'd need the 17" long one to do the same to some of those I've see walking around in my local supermarket recently

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

You'd need the 17" long one to do the same to some of those I've see walking around in my local supermarket recently

---

:rofl:

And they were just off duty RLC! :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

I've always wondered why the supposed 'better' accuracy of the P'14 over the No1 or better accuracy of the No1 over the No4 etc etc wasn't reflected in the technical accuracy test usually carried out on the layer. The layer....., that's our expression for the Enfield rest which eliminates all human contact and interference. Except when the firer presses the trigger of course but due to its construction you can just pull the trigger without any thought for the consequences. Even the lock time is irrelevant.

Here's another querie that's always puzzled me about the super duper supposed legendary accuracy of the No1 rifle between 600 and 900 yards......... Surely if the bullet is in free flight the moment it has left the influence of the barrel and the influence of the propellant gas that overtakes it immediately after its departure from the muzzle........ How can it suddenly become super dooper accurate when it reaches 600 yards? Does it suddenly come under the spell of a gyroscopically stablised earthly enlightening force that imparts wisdom to its otherwise free flight path?

What Darren says above is dead right. What a field Army wants is standardisation. Nobody goes off to war with a mixed fleet if he can help it!

---

From what i have read on the topic it had to do with the inconsistancy in velocity of each round & the tendancy for for the SMLE to 'whip' this resulted in lower velocity round leaving the muzzle on a higher trajectory as they left on the upwards 'whip' while the higher velocity round left on the downwards 'whip' these different trajectories would converge at longer range but caused "stringing" at short ranges

5th Batt has it precisely. I took a refresher on the details of 'compensation' in a Textbook of Small arms 1929 (pp 55, 56 & 57) & it explains it exactly thus, only I couldn't think of a way of putting it into words as concisely!

For the sake of discussion:

The science is all there, certainly, but of what magnitude is the true effect on the performance of rifles fired by a soldier in the field?

A 1mm variance in muzzle whip during firing is only a dispersion of 1 cm at 100m distance. How much does a SMLE barrel whip with Mark VII ball, and what is the extreme spread of velocity of the service ammunition? Is our stringing only on the vertical axis? If so, does that seem reasonable? High speed footage of rifles being fired typically show that a barrel not only travels on the vertical plane but oscillates in a wiggling, circular fashion. That alone should suggest an equal magnitude of horizontal axis spread as well.

I would consider in real life of shoulder fired rifles that the individual soldier would induce more error from the core fundamentals of marksmanship than velocity spread and barrel harmonics. Outside of a laboratory environment or the test sled that Peter describes I think any vertical stringing would not be outside what is acceptable for putting rounds on a Hun.

Quite probably the change in sight radius between the SMLE and the P14 the single largest factor in an improvement in practical field accuracy.