Printable View
I read quite often that L.E.'s won't perform well with boat tail bullets. Is this a proven fact or is it based on the experiences of a few? I've read through all the old threads in the attempt to find out but so far I've found nothing conclusive. If it is a proven fact is there a known reason why?
Like other rifles, Lee-Enfields can perform well with good boattail bullets dimensioned to fit the throat and barrel. If undersize for either or both, they have a greater propensity to yaw and engrave off-axis, because they have relatively less bearing surface than flat-base bullets of the same weight and a portion of their mass lies aft of bearing. A bullet launched off-axis is unstable and detrimental to accuracy.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../2unulu9-1.jpg
The basic idea.
Since some L-E barrels and throats are significantly oversize for commonly-available commercial bullets, yaw is a problem when such projectiles (especially boattails) are used.
I have several L-Es and they all perform perfectly well with boat- tailed bullets. (In fact the PPU 174 gn. work very well indeed.) However if you have a worn barrel then you will have problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by vintage hunter
I shoot .303's all the time with boat tails, as does just about everyone else who reloads FMJ projectiles. They shoot fine. I suppose that flat base bullets might be better when your barrel is worn, but until it's had HEAPS of rounds through it they handle boat tails just fine and dandy.
If the throat has erosion from cordite, there's a good chance that boat tail bullets won't stabilize properly. I learned this with a Vickers MMG when I switched from Mk.7 to Mk.8Z ammo using a good but well used barrel. The Mk.8 was keyholing at 100 yards. A new barrel cured the problem. Many SMLE rifles will have this problem considering the ammo used and length orf service. No.4's probably not so much but there was still allot of cordite loaded ammo in service through WWII so you just have to try and see.
That's a great comparison there Brian. In fact, I'm going to use your note and figures as an example about bore wear in a lecture early next month. Thanks for that...............
I've met many folks who insist on buying 174 grain Sierra Match Kings and other boat tail bullets to shoot in their well used Lees and the results are usually disappointing. Folks shooting the new ROF(F) Mk.2's and other rifles in exceptional condition are having good success with them. I always tell them to switch to 180 grain Sierra Pro Hunters or comparable flat base bullets from other manufacturers and there's always noticeable improvement in accuracy from average, well used rifles. Remember that the Mk.7 was the specified rifle ammunition and the Mk.8 designed for use in machine guns. I'm guessing the boat tails were preferred for long range fire from the Vickers MMG. A story about their use in Korea comes to mind not to mention all of the Mk.8 I've ever acquired over the years was cased and on Vickers belts.
I think you will find that MkVIII boat-tails had a unique feature ... a skirt ring half way up the tail end which lengthened the contact area to keep it stable, there was a name for it but I can't remember. Don't think anything like it is now produced.
I shot my newly acquired 1954 Faz Mk II for the first time last Saturday.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Dick
I know nothing about its past other than the fact it went into store after being built, was sold as surplus to the USA some years ago, bought at auction and repatriated to the UK in the wrap by EFD Rifles last year. They stripped and cleaned it, and then I acquired it.
I haven't shot an Enfield on range (nor any other full bore rifle) for 40 years. I had fitted it with an AJP Twin Zero aperture sight, and hadn't had the chance to zero it before going straight on the 600 yard range after lunch, so it hadn't fired a shot in my hands previously. With my shooting partner spotting for me I adjusted the aperture sight by guesswork as he spotted each shot on the first five shots fired; and with the second 5 shots I had (not in this order) a vbull, bull, inner and two outers!! I stopped fiddling with it after that......
I was using PRVI Partizan 174gn boat tail ammo (cheap and cheerful), so I reckon you can say this works well in a good barrel!
http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/f...g/DSC_0030.jpg
Pray tell where you get it "cheap"Quote:
Originally Posted by David TS
All things being relative, I meant cheap at £61/100 (basically Krank's price, ordered from my local RFD), as opposed to the £100/100 Sako and Remington .308 factory deer loads I buy ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerhunter
Good deal David. I'll bet that rifle visited me last year before heading back to the UK! There's some more on the way too so you guys over there save up some Quid and get one when they're available. Enjoy 'em while you can.
Notes on boat-tailed bullets from Gale McMillan (McMillan Barrels):
“If you consider the way a boat tail bullet is made you will understand that it is an impossibility for the tail of the bullet to be inline with the body. If the tail is formed in the upper punch it will always be off by half the amount of the clearance between the punch and die. If it is made in the lower punch it will be a wider tolerance since there is more clearance in the lower punch. With the tail of the bullet being off center by at least 1/2 a ten thousandth of an inch, this keeps the bullet from flying true.”
“That is the reason you don't see them used in competition (Bench Rest, that is). We will hear a loud cry from long range shooters and all I can say is the ability to lay on ones belly and shoot 1/10 moa is an impossibility so they can get away with using them since the error factor is still smaller than the shooters ability. There was a remark made above about a flat base shooting better in a factory barrel and I will change that and say any barrel! My favorite saying is the records speak for its self. Show me a national benchrest record shot with a boat tail bullet. One thing that clouds the issue is that no high power match bullets are made with a flat base so they can only be compared with custom match bullets made with flat bases of which there are few.”
“I will say that the small amount of loss of accuracy is off set by the ability to overcome conditions due to decreased flight time at ranges of 600 and beyond.”
I will dig out some more of my notes on the subject shortly. There is a lot of interesting stuff about the Mk7 vs the Mk8 projectile, rifling dimensions and exterior ballistics buried on one of my hard drives.
Aren't 2-groove bores a major factor? This seems to be the main problem in BT topics at Surplusrifle, Gunboards etc.
Bought two Longbranch rifles (my first) last winter. The previous #4 is an ROF (F), which has more grooves.
Using new Prvi Partizan 174 SP BTs in both LBs, one made some really bad "keyhole" slashes from 100 yards, but the other made clean, round holes.
My Fazak. with its four or five grooves has never made any keyholes, and has used a good bit more of the exact same factory ammo, plus reloads with 147-grain bullets (38 gr. IMR 4064 powder).
Both LB bores are equally bright and both appear to have equally good rifling, but with my bore light, it is very difficult to determine what the difference might be-never mind how to check the 'leade' etc.
Some observations on bullets:
Whilst a bullet is traveling at supersonic speed, the air turbulence at the base of the bullet is a somewhat less important factor in drag than the shock wave at the point. However, during the trans-sonic phase, the base turbulence becomes significant as the airflow becomes laminar. During subsonic flight, smooth, stable laminar airflow is essential to maintaining stability and minimizing velocity loss. This is where boat tails come into serious play.
A down side to boat-tailed bullets is to be encountered at the point of starting the bullet in the rifling. Because of the reduced parallel bearing surfaces on the bullet, starting alignment is more critical. Couple this with “oversized” groove dimensions and a “generously” throated chamber and there will be trouble.
A quick look at the development of the .303 Service cartridge is instructive. Up to and including the MkVI version, the .303 was loaded with flat based, round nosed bullets. (The MkII hollow-point was a bit of a creative deviation.) After the Germans introduced their spitzer (pointed) bullet in the early years of the 20th century, almost everybody followed suit. The MkVII .303 cartridge was the British response. The designers had to keep the same overall length of bullet and cartridge as the 215grain MkVI for several reasons. A shorter projectile would have required radical re-engineering of the feed mechanisms of automatic weapons chambered for the MkVI and previous cartridges. As it turned out, the magazines on the Lee Enfield rifles had to be redesigned, especially around the front lips, to achieve greater reliability of feed with the new ammo. Rear sights were also adjusted.
Thus the 174grain MkVII has an aluminium filler element at the tip of the core. Had the core been solid lead, there would have been less ballistic improvement over the MkVI it replaced. (Muzzle velocities: MkVI – 2060fps, MkVII – 2440fps.) This filler also contributed further to the rearward shift of the centre of gravity of the bullet. This and the bullet length meant that the 1:10” twist had to be retained; how convenient!
The MKVIII cartridge was developed as extended range machine gun ammunition. The boat-tailed bullet did not require a nose filler as the weight removed from the tail (as a result of the boat tail form) enabled the overall length of the bullet to remain the same as for the MkVI and MkVII bullets. Thus the weapon mechanisms stayed the same, only the firing tables had to be rewritten. Changing to a granular nitrocellulose propellant also made a difference.
Essentially, boat tailed bullets were developed to extend the effective range of machine guns, not to provide increased accuracy in rifles.
The MkVIII bullet was not actually designed as a military bullet at all - it was in fact the last iteration of the "303 magnum" long-range match target ammunition project run by a Bisley/Kynoch/BSA committee between the wars. By 1929 they were using a 9o stepped boat-tail "streamliner" bullet in the match round, and this round (the committee had also reverted to the .303 case by then) was more or less adopted as the MkVIIIz military round in 1938.
And another thing:
The rear end of a boat-tailed bullet spends relatively more time "exiting" the muzzle than a flat based one and so there is more time for the bullet to be disturbed. A good, even crown will ensure that the gas flow over the bullet is even. ANY bullet eccentricity (as per McMillan's notes) will have an effect, even with a "perfect" crown. Given the condition of a 70 year-old barrel with a crown cut under wartime conditions and attacked by cord wear and erosion, it's a miracle that we can even hit the backstops, let alone the bullseye with some of these rifles.
The 11 degree, so called "Bench Rest", crown used on many match barrels is promoted as having a good interface with the boundary of the shock wave from the escaping gases, (so the theory goes), and so minimizes turbulence. I have cut both square and 11 degree crowns on quite few barrels. I suspect that the real key is the accuracy of the machining, especially the finish on the very ends of the lands. if the run-out of the lands into the crown face is not perfectly symmetrical, the gas flow will also be non-symmetrical. The result will be yaw and subsequent precession, resulting in enlarged groups.
We are talking differences in the nano-second range when discussing the transit of the base of a bullet moving at almost 2,500ft/sec. However, given the forces involved, it appears to be significant.
And then there is the fact that a cartridge containing a bullet of different shape and weight, driven by a propellant with a different burn rate and resultant pressure curve MUST produce vibration and stress patterns quite different from those created by the Mk7 cartridge for which the rifle was regulated.
And then there is the fact that a cartridge containing a bullet of different shape and weight, driven by a propellant with a different burn rate and resultant pressure curve MUST produce vibration and stress patterns quite different from those created by the Mk7 cartridge for which the rifle was regulated.
Well said, Bruce! Fellow shooters often used to ask me why I push my handloads (usually 174gn HPBT Matchkings) at the MkVII spec. I had given up trying to explain that the standard rifle with a light barrel and to an even greater extent, the snipers and "range pattern" No1's with H barrels were set up for best performance with MkVII ball. I proved a few "light loads" (whimpy little 150gn'ers) even though giving less felt recoil, and at their best, were actually less accurate than my MkVII equivalents. Not to mention the advantage of the rifle's sight graduations being true!
On the topic of boattails vs flat base, I considered the smaller variation in projectile weights of the well made Sierra's compared to two or three others at the time, would help more with longer range accuracy than any (usually unperceivable anyway) inaccuracy caused by the boattail itself. With the exception of the Taipan 170gn HP (which were very hard to get) The Sierra was the best pill for the job (in the hands of a middle of the road B grader anyway)
Thankyou for your insight here, Bruce. Perhaps your posts can be stuck together to form a MKL entry on the topic?
Here's a magic picture taken by a mate of EFD 3 Band at the instant of projectile exiting the barrel. The colourfull smoke goes far to illustrate the forces of the gas escaping around the projectile. Mr Bannerman kept a copy of the pic for his lesson on intermediate ballistics...
Was that Scobie Bannerman by any chance Son? An old instructor at Bandiana. Give him my regards although he never actually taught me as I was already been an apprentice
That's the man. The one and only... Will do, at next opportunity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Did you strike him over there or here?
In Oz.......... Was he a former pom? I never knew that! I hope that you're enjoying the Easter break one and all
Aside from throat and muzzle condition there's another thing that i believe affects how well a given rifle handles BT bullets,or any bullet really, is the shape of the bullet itself. Particularly the radius of the ogive and to a lesser degree the length and taper of the boat tail. How a bullet enters the bore has a much creater effect on accuracy than how it leaves it. I don't see where muzzle wear has that much effect on accuracy. I have a no.4 T with a very worn muzzle, including a groove from a cleaning rod that makes the muzzle oval shaped, that consistently produces 3 shot groups at 100 yds averaging 1'' with no fliers. I also have a factory built Win. M70 HB in .243 that has rode muzzle down in a truck so long that the muzzle is worn off at an angle. It shoots M.O.A. out to 600 yds with Sierra 100gr BT Gamekings. It won't shoot FB bullets anywhere near that well. Then theres the sporterized M24 Yugo in 8x57 with barely visible rifling that shoots sub M.O.A. at 100yds w/ 225gr Sierra BT Gamekings. Any thoughts on these anyone?
Everything about the bullet's path from ignition to exiting the barrel will effect it's accuracy. Sure, quite a lot of things like throat erosion, wear, rust, pitting, cord wear and crown could be conditions that are not ideal in the search for small groups. The main thing to remember is that accuracy is achieved by having the rifle and projectile react to every shot exactly the same. We can control a lot of the other variables with the precision of the loads, ensuring the barrel has reacted the same every time. If all other influencing factors are doing the exact same thing from shot to shot, then accuracy is achievable. I would suggest any variations in loads (shot to shot) would probably print a bigger group in barrels like you describe above than in one of good condition.
Sometimes you can just get lucky. One of my No1 rifles goes from MOA to 4moa with half a turn on the rear nosecap screw.
I hope this has made sense...
---------- Post added at 09:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:31 AM ----------
I recall someone saying he came over in the second fleet....Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Not sure, mate. I think so..
Thanks to all, very interesting and lots to digest. Seeing as I have 500 Sierra BT 174 gr I sure hope my No4 likes them. I will be very diligent on reloading specs. If they shoot well I will report back, if not will sit in a corner and cry.
Good Luck!Quote:
Originally Posted by enfield303t
Post your results no matter what- there may be other things to try...
All this stuff is good and interesting, but in the absence of steady supply of Mk VII or much other military surplus .303 ammo, most people like me and you are forced to handload, and depending on your range and club rules may be forced into using FMJ's or equivalent match ammo (Quote:
Originally Posted by enfield303t
ie. sierra matchkings) most/all??? of which is boat tailed. You needn't be too bothered about it because if your barrel is good, and your bedding is good, then they will shoot very well.
BTW has anyone else tried the .312 hornady matchkings? I gave them a run in a No4Mk2 that had just started shooting the .3105 hornady FMJ's like an absolute pig (it had previously loved them), and it was good as gold! Heaps of throat wear and all!
Today I am going to load the Match Kings with 36gr. of CR17 and a overall length of 3.045". I could have them a little longer but the milspec ammo I have are that length so it will be a good place to start.
The Lee Enfield is a Savage No4 that is a double and I always wanted a scoped rifle so used a S&K mount which I will have to shim as it is shooting high. The scope is a older Leupold 6X that my son donated from his M14. It actually looks pretty good on the rifle. They eyes just aren't what they used to be so the scope is the answer.
I have two complete No4 T's but consider them too sacred to shoot.
Took it out yesterday and used some 150 grain SP reloads I did a couple of years ago. They were loaded with 39gr of 3031 with a OAL of 2.905 for a different No4 that is a pretty decent shooter. Now the unbelievable thing is at 300 yards it shot groups of 1.5" and 2". My son and I just stared at each other when we went to check the target, hard to believe and we only hope it will do that with the Sierra's.
I bought the gun from bearhunter and when talking to him last night told me the gentleman he bought it from said it was a good shooter, that might be a understatement if this type of accuracy continues.
Probably won't get out to try the new loads for a couple of weeks as the Kamloops Gun Show is next week and it is a must attend.
BrianQuote:
Originally Posted by Brian Dick
As you deduced, it did indeed pass through your hands :)
I said at the time that I didn't think there were any markings on it from when it arrived stateside, I was wrong. In very small engraved letters at the rear right of the receiver is E W Mil, Fraser Mi (which I believe is East West Military Inc) :)
East West Military in Michigan was the importer to the USA. I think he's out of the import business now but still maintains a shop. He always had nice stuff.
He closed his shop a number of years ago. I don't see him at the MAAC shows anymore. Too bad he's a nice guy.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Okay I need help!
Went to the range today and the 174's did not shoot that well. The guns shoots 150's so well it is unbelievable but I now need it to shoot Match King 174's.
I used 36gr of CR17 which is virtually identical to 3031 with a OAL of 3.045 inches.
At close range pretty good, not happy at all at 300 yards where I want it to be very good.
So if someone on this forum has had accuracy using Match King 174 please tell me what powder you used, how much and the OAL you used.
Any suggestions would be appreciated as I am now determined to get this gun accurate at 300 yards and beyond, I know it is possible.
Thanks
I've never tried Sierra 174's, but have had excellent results with Hornady 174 BTHP's in my no.4T over 40.5gr Varget. Cartridge O.A.L. 3.030''. Also had good results with 40.7gr IMR 4064, same O.A.L.. Try seating the bullet out as far as you can and still have it feed from the magazine. Sierra has max O.A.L. at 3.075''. MK's can be picky about seating depth.
vintage hunter, thanks for your information and I will try what you recommend. The OAL will not be a problem as I am using it as a single shot and not mag fed.
I have some 4064 and will buy some Varget as I really want this to work.
I am open to any suggestions and short of buying a pound of every powder made will try all suggestions 'till I find a winning combination.
Will post results.
I use 46.1 grain of ADI2209 behind sierra 174 match kings with good results. Want to try the 180grain pro-hunters with the flat base. To see if the boat tail vs flat base argument rings true in my 3o's
Hello gentlemen,
I am reading your posts with great interest.
What i missed with your comparisons between reloaded ammunition with flat and
boattail bullets.
Is that i would recommend you to measure the rim thicknes of the case first make batches of the same size to obtain an equal headspace
then do the comparison between the bullets.
Thats in opinion the most honest way instead of blaming a boattail for beeing a bad performer while the culprit
lies in the headspace.
With friendly regards.
Hans.
I have loaded 10 each of the following.
38gr. of RX 15
39gr. of RX 15
39gr. of Varget
40gr. of Varget
All with the Sierra Match King 174 gr. bullet.
I will post results when I get time to shoot them.
Next weekend my best friend from Poland arrives with her husband who is a Capt. in the Polish Commandos and got back from Afghanastan in Nov. 2010. My friend and I have been friends since 2005 and I have only talked to her husband Matt on the phone a couple of time.
I presume he is a pretty good shot and for sure will have some fantastic stories as I know the base he was stationed at (Warrior) was attacked by Taliban several times.
This will be there honeymoon so will take them to Banff and Lake Louise two beautifull places which I know they will enjoy.
PS.
If you ever want a great holiday go to Poland, inexpensive and my friend took me all over the country to see historic sites. Have met so many wonderful people who have really made me feel welcome.
According to the manufacturer of Varget (AR2208) the maximum load in the .303 w/174gr bullets is 42.0 gr so you have a little room to experiment with slightly heavier charges. If the profile of .303 174 mk's are anything like .308 175 MK's the closer you can get them to the rifling the better they shoot. Good luck.
Thanks for this, I am starting out low and will work up to higher charges as necessary. I have a little room left for a longer length but to be honest the 150gr. that shot so well were under 3.0.Quote:
Originally Posted by vintage hunter
I really want this to be a very accurate long range gun and I think with help from others it will happend. Son sent me his information and I am going to use what he told me in a PM.
Ive been using federal hot-cor factory ammo (i think its a speer projectile) and have been thoroughly impressed
Try 42.5 grains Reloder 15 in HXP brass with the Sierras. It matches service velocity in most rifles. I'd start at 41.5 and work your way up. This load works for me at 600 yards in my No.4(T). Shot a 48 ex 50 on the McQueen sniper target at 200 yards two weeks ago. That means 8 of ten shots were in the 4 inch bull with a 3 sec exposure of the Huns Head in one of ten different positions - you don't know which of the ten positions the next exposure will appear at. Sequence is - spot it, move, aim, fire. I imagine the group would have been smaller if I'd have had the time to slow down a bit. Same load in a P14(T) achieved 46 ex 50. I've been using this load for about 14 years.
I'm not sure what the situation is in England with regards to the price of prvi partizan ammunition or projectiles, but in Australia it is packaged and sold as "Highland" brand. It represents very good value for money. I shoot the combined services discipline here and have had no problems with boat tails. Prvi partizan projectiles sell for about the same as the bulk unpackaged Hornady projectiles at the moment.
Have used sierra 175 gr. boattails in competition on target rifle targets back to 1000yds with no problems, elevation settings not much different from my 7.62 target rifle, score was'nt as good though but in mid 40/50 consistantly. Might be an operator problem not doing better.
On military type C targets at 300yds consistantly pull possibles.
Well we are off to the range today to try what I loaded. It is a beautiful day with no weather conditions that should cause any problems at all. Will do my best to post some results tonight.
You can get the PP bullets here, there's a Cloggie who comes over twice a year with quantities of most of their bullet types and sells them at the Bisley gun show. I'd like to get a flat base one but the Portuguese FNM one is the only one I can think of and they don't turn up very often.
Any American bullets are very expensive here, hunting types you cannot use at all and State is so difficult with issuing export licenses that many importers don't expect to get more supplies for months.
Went to the range today and the results were very good.
All of the loads I used were accurate but the most accurate was the loads using 39gr of RX15 so I will now start with that as a base and try to figure out what powder charge will be the very best.
I will now load 10 each of 40 and 41 gr. of RX 15 to see how they group. One thing is the recoil from 39gr. was quite mild and I could have shot all day without getting beat-up.
Shot a few sighters at 100 then went to 300 yards for the balance.
PS.
Thanks to all for your suggestions, much appreciated.
Talk to the Enfield boysQuote:
Originally Posted by Mk VII
"...there's a Cloggie who comes over twice a year with quantities of most of their bullet types and sells them at the Bisley gun show. ..."
The outfit is called Bold Action. He will bring over special requests to the Bisley shows, I expect he'll be at the Phoenix later this month. Certainly the cheapest I have found; but no flat base at present.
website: Welcome to Bold Action, Gunbags, Ammunition Components
email: info@bold-action.com
One question...I just picked-up some Herters .303 brass and wonder if anyone has ever used it? I have about 90 and of that I think possibly 15 appear to be once fired, the balance are new empties.
Would be interested what people think of this brass.
I neck sized all of it today and it appears to be good quality.
Thanks in advance for any feedback.
I loaded 10 rounds of each using 40 and 41 grains of RX15 today and hopefully will go shooting tomorrow.
I've never seen any. Is it the old original Herter's brand from the '60's or the newer stuff sold by Cabela's? I did have several boxes of the original Herter's 174gr .303 bullet long time ago. They were very close to the profile of the mk.VII projectile and shot very well. Wish I could find some more.
It is old Herters and wish they had been loaded but I will settle for reloading them and hope they are good cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by vintage hunter
Remember that there was a change in ammunition going from the 215gn (Mk VI) to the 174gn (Mk VII) along with the introduction of Cordite replacing black powder. To get the best out of the new shorter Mk VII ammunition the chamber was redesigned, reducing the throat length / leede, the 'cone', so that there was less distance for the projectile to travel before engaging the lands, which is why (along with canting / yaw shown by Parashooter) that most MLE, Mk. I / II shoot like crap using 147 - 174gn boat tail / flat base spitzers. Using 180 - 200 gn flat base seated very long in the neck of the case helps get over this, but won't load from the magazine, thus it is a targeteers single shot solution, you can forget rapid fire).
The new barrels came into service late in 1916, with the 19th Bn AIF being the first Australians to receive the new Mk. III* rifles which had HV SC (High Velocity, Short Cone) stamped on the barrel to indicate it was set up for Mk. VII ammunition which soldiers immediately took to as they knew they could kill more Germans more accurately than during the transition where they had the older technology barrels using the newer technology ammunition that shot all over the place. They were very pleased by this.
Looking at the pictures one can clearly see that the bearing surface of the 215gn round nose is significantly more than the 174gn spitzer, as well as the distance from the case mouth to where taper commences on the projectile. The bearing surface for a flat base projectile with the cannula / canular / cannelure (the crimp groove) is obviously greater than that of a boat tail, but in reality this often proves not to be the case as the tapered end is noticed on pulled military projectiles from WWII as well. Go work that out.
The throat of the MLE and Mk I / II was specific to the 215gn round nose, which meant that the rifling started at a point that would allow for some freebore to exist. This freebore would obviously be excessive for the new 174gn spitzer being shorter in length, which accounts for the accuracy problems owners of the older Marks experience (in most cases). Again, the amount of wear to the bore is another significant contributing factor which is why to slug the bore is a wise thing to do and then think about swapping over to cast projectiles sized one or two thousandths of inch over the groove size measured. Gas checks also make the world of difference to performance as well. Be careful about the velocity to hardness, as the softer lead will coat the bore if pushed too fast along it. If into casting, like all things Enfield, there will be a unique set of characteristics suited to each rifle, as no two by now (because of use and abuse) can be expected to perform the same.
The photos show the three 215gn projectiles in use before the soft and hollow point Mk. VI designs were banned because they were considered too inhumane and were replaced in the Mk. VII by a 174gn spitzer, which with its light tip proved to be vastly more effective than the previous Mk. VI at being inhumane. To make it even more humane, the replacement tips in pressed wood pulp / fiber were autoclaved so as to prevent infection, another great advance from the English command mindset of the time.
In summary, if shooting any Mark previous to the Mk. III* then consider longer projectiles - heavier or cast. The barrels _do not_ have 'HV SC' on them instead (I think) you will find many have 'Nitro Proofed' to indicate Cordite use with the newer Enfield rifling design and as all rifles are generous in chamber and throat dimensioning you do well to slug them out to exactly determine which fodder is best to feed them for maximum accuracy and pleasure.
Safety Note: Do not use Mk. VI ammunition in a Mk. III* rifle as the projectile will most likely jam up into the lands preventing the necessary initial free movement on firing. This in turn can dangerously increase chamber pressure, which is not good for the rifle or the shooter as at some stage something will give and when it does it will not be pretty. Also, the Mk. VI ammunition is worth more $$ to a collector than it is to shoot it off.
Attachment 23259Attachment 23260Attachment 23261Attachment 23262
Went to the range today and used the 174 BT's with 40 and 41 gr of RX15.
Both shot well, and I think I will stick with 41gr. for now.
The No4 is sure a "shooter" and I am very happy with it. Will do lots of little things to keep it consistent and am looking at a different custom made butt as it is impossible to get a cheek weld with the scope mounts I am using even though I have a lace on to raise the comb.
I won't drill into the stock using a No4 sniper cheek piece and have found a CGN member that is making a high comb custom stock for his Lee Enfield and for a reasonable price will make one for me.
It will look a little strange but should solve aiming problems.
Thanks again for all the hints on BT's
Make your own cheeck pad out of wadding or very dense foam rubber be very nice to a sewing person much better and easier than mucking around with the butt.
To have a cheekpiece without drilling the stock, I recommend use a repro cheekpiece stuck on with some of that (phenomenally strong) double-sided tape.
---------- Post added at 09:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:25 PM ----------
Is it correct that the light tip of the Mk VII was put there so it would be less humane (i.e. turn sideways on impact)? I have heard this factoid several times. But I have also heard that it was to move the point of balance rearward so as to stabilise the bullet in flight. Does anybody know the truth?
Careful with the tape, the chemicals can cause permanent staining in a very short time, especially on light color wood. If your going for function over form there's several good cheek pieces on the market that use straps to secure them and the height is adjustable. I've had one on my M1A for 12 years and it really does the trick. I've never read anything that said the tip filler of the mk.VII bullet was there for any other reason than to increase the length, but, the filler in the 7.35 Carcano bullet IS there for the sole purpose of making it yaw on impact.
The filler in the Mk7 bullet has an interesting technical origin.
When the Germans threw the small arms world into a tizz with their spitzer bullet in the early 20th Century, there was a frenzy of research to catch up.The Swiss ended up with the magnificent GP 11 cartridge, the US had to rejig their new rifle and come up with the .30-'06. The Brit's answer was the Mk7.
The trick was to get the muzzle velocity and down-range trajectory and performance without having to totally redesign their entire small arms suite. Note also that at the same time they were cooking up the outrageous P-13 with its "magnum" sized .276" cartridge.
A complete Mk7 cartridge is essentially the same length as the Mk6 that it replaced. This meant that the basic designs of rifle magazines and machine gun feed mechanisms did not have to be re-engineered. Small detour:
In your trusty SMLE magazine there should be an “extra” bit of metal clipped onto the front wall of the box. This is the “auxiliary spring” As a wee lad I was mystified by this, even after the instructors told us that it could be clipped onto the standard “W” job for some extra lift.
Not too sure about that explanation. The magazine of the Lee Enfield rifles (long ones) had a strange “U” shaped follower spring that clipped to the front of the magazine case. The spring was pretty much flattened against the front wall of the mag when 10 cartridges were inserted. Being spring steel it would also have been harder and smoother than the actual mag case..When something better (the “W” shaped spring) came along, BUT the same EXTERNAL case dimensions and cartridge length had to be retained, that little auxiliary spring was fitted, both to take up the space and to provide a tough but smooth surface against which projectile meplats could bear. The front lips of the magazine for the Mk6 ammo did not retain the Mk7 projectile very well; hence another redesign.
The "Short Cone" was an issue, but optimising it for the Mk7 round was not quite as good an idea as it sounded, as the Mk6 was still in use at the end of WW1, hence there had to be a compromise in that area.Then of course, there was a serious need to have sights with increments that bore some relationship the cartridge du jour.
Thus, for quite a while, the general production barrel for SMLEs had a “universal” short cone. Note also that the twist stayed at 1:10” because the bullets were the same LENGTH, despite the weight difference: See Greenhill’s formula.
Back to the Mk7 bullet:
The bullet had to be 174 gn or less to allow it to be driven at the velocity required to achieve the trajectory and range that the ballisticians wanted. A solid lead, or even a lead alloy core would not allow this. Making it a “super-slinky, VLD shape” was probably too much of a technical ask, not to mention being a retention and feed-control nightmare. The solution was to insert a filler of light material in front of the lead core. This had the “interesting” side effect of greatly increasing the tendency of the bullet to tumble upon striking anything much harder than relaxed muscle tissue, especially at short ranges whilst it was still precessing to some degree.
Phew................ You can see and understand why Armourers never touch ammo and Ammunition technical bods never touch firearms now!