Fellows. Any idea what model Enfield was considered to be the "most" accurate of the various models produced. I am considering using a Long Branch model I have to shoot in the CMP Vintage Sniper Rifle matches.
Printable View
Fellows. Any idea what model Enfield was considered to be the "most" accurate of the various models produced. I am considering using a Long Branch model I have to shoot in the CMP Vintage Sniper Rifle matches.
That question is so wide open, there just isn't a good answer.
You are asking a question that amounts to asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. What ever the answer is at a point in time when they were built, has no bearing on accuracy potential of rifles today after at least fifty years of use/abuse. Each rifle and ammunition has to be evaluated on it's own merit.
But if I had to throw in an answer, it'd be the .276 Pattern 13.
Interesting Peter...... Would you consider it more accurate than one of the "Fab 4" (L39/L42, Enforser, Envoy)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
They didn't built SMLE's with Heavy barrels prior to WW1 so the "most accurate Enfield model" was never made :lol:
Friend of mine used to train Canadian Cadets. The Corps decided to use 303 rifles for shooting competition. He acquired 5 No. 4s, all different makers. 2 were like new, 2 were very good, and 1 was beat up and worn. The best shooter of the 5 was the beat up one. You can't tell by appearance or maker. Try out several, if possible, and go with the one that gives the best results.
This is just my experience, but my vote is for my Lithgow ShtLE Mk III*H.
Cheers!
I think most of them are more accurate than I am.
I'm the weak link in the chain.
If I had to vote it would be :
.22rf calibre = BSA No7 Mk1
.303 calibre = No4T
7.62 calibre = Enforcer / L42
Although my Savage No4 Mk1* doesnt do bad :-
75mts (82 yards) lying prone, Prvi Partisan 174gr FMJ factory load. standard Mk1 'iron' sights, 10mph wind right to left.
2 Sighting / warming shots then 5 rounds.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...LENo4Mk1-1.jpg
Hard to say but in my collection my Longbranch two groove is the most accurate. It looks like it was rode hard and put up wet but has a nice bore. My 1955 No4 Mk2 might be better but it is unfired and will remain that way....chris3
Depends on the distance you are shooting. I'm thinking a No.8 in .22 might be the most accurate if you stay within normal .22 cal range ;)
My 1907 BSA MkIII shoots very well (rollies) with good groups, however, in the rain the shots start moving off to the right & off target (as in "miss the whole thing") in 5 shoots, elevation remains constant, tried it 3 times in a row with the same result, normal service resumed when the sun came out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Claven2
I find my No8s to be very accurate, if you miss with them "i was aiming to do that!" is the only explanation you can give that would make any sense:lol:
CMP Sniper Matches are for center fire I think.Wondering about this myself.Don't think you could go wrong using your Long Branch but that is kind of a go with what you have answer.Need to look up their rules.
Seems like they are wanting original style mounts for scoped rifles but I'm not sure as of yet.Myself,I would prefer a no gunsmith mount.Weaver k4 would be an easy find.
Of my "standard issue" rifles the LongBranch CNo.4Mk1* with the 6-groove barrel is the most accurate with mil-spec reloads. My Faz No.4Mk2 is a close runner up. I have a 1945 Lithgow No.1MkIII* that comes close too. However out to 100 yards my BSA No8Mk1 will beat them all with just about any .22rf that chambers.
Talking of No8's............ Has anyone out there in Forumland done an accuracy comparison with the two No7 variants, a No8 and a N9? Just out of interest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
I recently took my No8s & N9 to my local indoor smallbore rifle range, i found i couldn't get the N9 to group as good as the No8s, i was using the smallbore targets & with the No8s was able to keep the shots in the black, with some very good groups, the N9 was in the black with the occasional shot falling just outside, this result i put that down to the different trigger setups, the test rig at this range is just a tad to brutal on stocks to use, i can refinish the stock on my target rifle, but not the trainers.
FWIW of my 2 No8s, one has a nice clean & crisp trigger, but the other proved to be the slightly more accurate one.
In My experience over 30 years, The P14 with a tight bore has been the most accurate that I own. I am going to the Local Military rifle match with this one. Using Privi 174 Grain ammo, she groups right around MOA at 100yrds, right to point of aim....
My most accurate grouping is my Longbranch 1943 with non matching bolt and receiver but the serials are soo close I THOUGHT it WAS matching when I bought it. That will do two inches or thereabouts at 100 yards in 10 shots with a decent Shooter (not me) and S&B ammo - not even handloads. It's beaten up, and dinged all over, and has a two groove barrel. I cannot for the life of me get it to group ON the X though - that is an EYe / focus problem with the black and front sight blade, not the rifle.
Average group size for my aperture-sighted No.8 is about 1/2" @ 50 yards if I'm wearing a fresh set of contact lenses. I've got British No.7 cobbled together from a "new" barreled receiver, misc. parts and a repro "T" mount. This was fun to shoot with a 2.5X Weaver scope and when I plopped a 3-9X on it I was pleasantly surprised with 3/8" five shot groups. Wolf brand ammo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
How did you get the 'T' body pads to miss the ejector block on the No7 Steve H? I thought of putting a set on my No7 many years ago, before someone told me that they were are rare as rocking horse manure.
The Army did have about 100 or so BSA made/converted .22" No4T's for use on the indoor gallery ranges. We had some here at Warminster many years ago and the telescopes were specially stopped-down/focussed to cater for the short 25 yard range
No ejector on mine, just a cover plate. I contoured the front pad to clear that area. Like I said, cobbled together but it shoots well.
I haven't done a comparison with the #8 but I have compared a UK built C7 against a Longbranch C7 and those against a martially C broadarrow marked Martini Cadet with a .220 marked barrel and a commercial No1 rifle built as a 22rf for clubs. Surprisingly, it doesn't shoot well at all. In the ten years I've owned it, I haven't been able to find a combination it likes. The bedding seems fine the upwards pressure spring is free. Oh well, it may forever remain a mystery. To bad because it's in excellent condition inside and out.
The Martini won hands down. Both the C7s are ammunition fussy but with ammunition they like, they will both win 100 yard egg shoots.
On paper, the Martini shoots the tightest groups. At 25yards, 10 shots go into one ragged 3/8inch hole with standard velocity ammunition. Both of the C7s shoot very similarly at the same range.
At 50 yards, the Martini groups open to about a half inch and the C7s around 5/8 inch. At 100 yards, the Martini is still shooting into 5/8 to 1 inch while the C7s both shoot around an inch, sometimes less.
As my eyes age, my shooting ability declines. The one thing that is shared by all 4 rifles, is that they all like "Standard Velocity" ammunition
Well i understand that the 6.5x55 L42's were very good althought i have never shot one.
Does the Model of 1917 count? It is one of my more accurate. And the 2A1 is good, too. My accuracy problem probably stems from the fact that I don't reload so am at the mercy of what ever ammunition I can find. Some is very good, some, not so much.
Do you mean something like this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Claven2
Attachment 18731
This 50 meter group is high - the sights were set for 100 meters.
Or this?
Attachment 18732
Or this?
Attachment 18733
- from the RWS test range in Fürth, just in case some suspicious person doesn't believe the first two pics! However, please note that not just the type of ammo, but even the batch, can influence results. In the bottom test, all shots touch a 3mm circle at 50 meters.
Conclusion:
The Enfield No. 8 is the most accurate small-bore trainer ever, bar none!
QED
Now someone prove me wrong!
:wave:
It's a .22, not a .303. The "vibes" in the barrel are completely different. Just for laughs and out of (my) experimental curiosity, try temporarily removing ALL the fore-end woodwork, bands etc, so that you have an oddly naked looking rifle with a free-floating barrel.* It may group very much better, although the position of the group on the target will be significantly changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by bearhunter
:wave:
*And try shooting with the naked barrel/knoxform resting on the palm of your gloved hand - that produces better damping than a sandsack!
Thoughts on accuracy in general, and Enfields in particular
My last posting referred to a suggestion for a simple, reversible experiment on any .22 Enfield of the No. 2/6/7/9 varieties. It was based not on any armchair theory, but my own experience that a No. 8 shoots better up to 100 meters than just about every full-bore service rifle, every other small-bore trainer, and even quite a few modern target rifles. And that is not merely my subjectively inflated opinion, but the sober judgement of the RWS test facility, which tested both my No. 8s and my 1880s French trainer.
Add to this my further experience that my No. 1 MkV shoots best in the "naked" configuration that I recommended for test purposes, and I begin to think along the following lines:
Towards the end of the 18th century, great efforts were imade to improve clocks for maritme timekeeping. The problem of determining longitude had become the limiting factor in marine navigation. Ingenious solutions were propsed, and tested. One, involving measurement of lunar eclipses, was even judged superior to chronometric measurement, but was, of course, useless for everyday use.
The clocks made by Harrison were initially ever more refined versions of the pendulum clock - a device that does not respond kindly to the motion of a ship at sea. The later versions were masterpieces of ingenuity, with compensation for balances for variations for other compensations.... etc etc to the nth degree. It was only when Harrison abandoned the pendulum principle in favor of superbly made spring escapement actions that the whole chronometry problem was solved, and the introduction of Harrison's marine chronometer can be considered a breakthrough similar to inertial navigation for aircraft in the 20th century.
Dear readers, forgive me for the diversion, but I see a certain parallel with the tuning methods applied to Enfield (and other) rifles. The whole methodology of setting up the fore-end wood as a kind of cantilever, with concerns as to upward pressure, screw tension, bits of wood and cork with bands inner, outer, up, down, left and right... reminds me of those ingenious, but ultimately unsucessful, marine pendulum clocks. A rifle barrel is also a piece of springy metal that receives a heavy shock when the cartridge is fired. There is no way that one can avoid that shock, but one can vary its amplitude and interaction with the barrel. As I have no wish to regurgitate what others have thought out and described in detail, I recommend all those irritated by apparently perfect rifles that just will not group to dig around for the topic "Optimum barrel time" and try it out. It reduced the group size on my M1917 from a barely acceptable 3-4 MOA at 100 meters to 1 MOA (but only with a scope - I just cannot point iron sights that accurately!).
So bearhunter, strip everything off the front end, as I suggested, and try out a 50-pack of every type of standard-load or competition-load 22 ammo you can. But as you already correctly noted, forget the hotter, varmint/Stinger-type loads - they just stir up the bad vibrations in a barrel that is comparatively long for a 22. When you have found the best ammo for the "naked gun", then you can gradually put back the fore-end "decoration" (Oops - a bit of provocation there!):lol:
:wave:
In my experience, No8s are consistently more accurate than No7s and No9s.
Its quite remarkable that cadet No8s in school shooting teams were fully competitive against clubs using Anschutz and other purpose-built modern rifles.
I had an Anschütz once.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderbox
I sold it.
My best ever score with a No. 8 was 100.8. That is to say, 10 tens and 8 of those eliminated the dot in the middle. The 25 yard target that was used can be found on the HRAC website. It looks similar to the present day 10-meter air rifle target. To put that into easily understood terms for other shooters: Imagine Dirty Harry pointing his 44 at you from 25 yards away- the No. 8 would put all 10 shots down his barrel, with 8 out of ten not even touching the sides.
I still have the trophy as Best Cadet, but not, alas, the target. OK, I admit that was half a century ago. The eyeballs can't hack it any more, but the rifles still do.
:wave:
My No8 is a great shooter especially when my son uses it. Like some age and eyesight are starting to fail and that is very frustrating. My other Lee Enfield 22's shoot very well but can't hold a candle to the No8. It has not had a easy life from the looks of it but that has not had any effect on its accuracy.
Now the strange thing is the No8 has no problem with whatever ammo we feed it, high velocity, hollow point HV, standard velocity or subsonic?
We have never tried to see how it will group at 100 yards but shoot regular clays with it then proceed to shoot the pieces of the clays 'till they are too small to see.
Not to hijack this but my Cooey 82 will probably shoot as well as my No8 but again my eyes prevent me from shooting it that well.
my grandads lithgow mod12.
Not an enfield, but their barrels are made from SMLE blanks.
On the general question of accuracy:
On Saturday I tested two rifles - an Ishapore 2A1 and an FN-built K98k Israeli Mauser
Both in .308WIN.
Both fitted with aperture rear sights, as I wanted to test the rifles, not my eyes.
Two loads were tried at 100 meters. Not bothered about position, just grouping.
The results illustrate what I wrote in my previous posting.
Attachment 18837
The "Ishy" groups loosely but acceptably enough for an untuned service rifle. Note that the two types of ammo have very different POIs.
The Israeli has none of the tricky stuff with inner/outer bands, springs etc. Just trigger guard screws very carefully tightened up (NOT bedded) so that the barrel is not binding anywere. The group width is astonishingly good for iron sights - about 5/8" - and you cannot tell separate the two types of ammo - the POI is the same.
The height, however, shows the weakness of the Mauser foresight for target shooting - it is easy to hold the horizontal position very precisely, but one only has a vague idea where the top of the inverted-V blade is. So the vertical stringing is worse than with the squarer Enfield blade. The best answer for open sights is, of course, to use a square blade on a Mauser - it's the Carl Gustav, M1896, Swedish Mauser - call it what you will, it's good.
:wave:
Ha ! My Israeli does almost the exact same grouping as yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick