From what was this bullet fired?

I picked up this bullet many years ago on an old shooting range while on an exercise with my commando in the Natal Midlands. At that time we were still equipped with the No.4. The range was used by both the military and the local target shooting club.

Both its appearance and weight strongly suggest that it is an older .303 Mk.VII. I have often wondered from what firearm it was shot and have periodically tried to find out. The only guess that I've had so far is a Lewis Gun. Can anybody on this forum provide any certainty?

The first two photos are of the bullet itself and the third shows it in comparison with a more recent Mk.VII picked up at the same time on the same range and two Boer War Mk.IIs found on a nearby battlefield - Lee Enfield and Lee Metford.

Lewis guns had conventional rifling. I'm sure of it. That's more like a Metford rifling.

Looks like it's been fired from a Whitworth Rifle.

Looks whitworth to me too!

Five-sided Whitworth rifling!

At least the fouling can't hide in the corners!

Heckler and Koch did it all again in the fifties and sixties with their "polygonal" rifling.

Glocks have something similar, though you have to swap a "real" Glock barrel out for a "conventionally" rifled one if you want to hit anything with cast (non-jacketed) bullets.

With the advent of buttoning and hammer-forging, you can have any form of rifling you want, fairly quickly.

So, back to the bullet in question; was the 'Whitworth" company busy making VERY custom Lee Enfields, or did other adventurous makers offer this sort of thing?

Well, the mystery remains. However, it would seem that South Africa may have developed a Lee Whitworth!

We did start manufacturing .303 barrels during the Second World War and perhaps this bullet could have been fired from an early prototype. We should remember one of our sayings: " 'N Boer maak 'n plan"...........

If so, the idea was obviously soon dropped since I have never seen a South African barrel with such rifling or found reference to it in the Military Archives. Perhaps the recoil was was found to be excessive?

We, and I'm sure Simon agrees, that it LOOKS like whitworth poly rifling. Not saying that it's from a whitworth rifle. Clever that those sprinboks are, they weren't that clever then!

I should think it could have been fired at practically any time from anything. Yes, Whitworth, but the only criteria would be .303. Doesn't have to be a military pattern at all I should think.

I recently sold a pair of barrels from a percussion express rifle built in Chicago, probably in the 1860s or 70s with Whitworth form rifling of about .45" bore. The barrels might well have been made in the UK, but the smith was a British immigrant to the USA, so was probably keeping in touch with home developments. Weighed over 9lbs those barrels.

But that bullet appears to be jacketed AND the lands are quite distinctly projecting into the bore in very different way from a typical Whitworth, which could be said to have no lands in the modern sense of the word. It really looks like Enfield form rifling lands in a Whitworth sort of bore, which is a pretty odd combination.

Would be interesting to know more about this.

Five sided Metford?

According to Bury's Manual of Rifleing and Rifle Sights, It was fired from a Henry rifle, picture on page 42. and is listed as a mechanically fitted bullet fired from Mr. Henry's gun, with a pic. of a section of rifled barrel.

Hi Muffett,

Many thanks and very interesting! At last we seem to have a lead. Would it be possible to post the information from Bury's Manual? What exactly is a mechanically fitted bullet and the process?

Terry

IIRC "Mechanically fitted to bore" means that the bullet head is manufactured to the same profile as the rifling as in the Whitworth rifle. A bit like a bolt is mechanically fitted to a nut I guess

Pre-rifled bullets!!

How do you line them up in the chamber?

Brunswick balls?

The Whitworth Rifle of my brief acquaintance, (no, I wasn't issued one as a recruit), was a "small-bore" .451" and fired hexagonal bullets that matched the hexagonal rifling.

Apparently, one of the Italian makers does a nice reproduction for those who like their charcoal burners a little different.

Thinking on my feet BinO..... If it was a single loader, then you feed the hex headed bullet/cartridge into the chamber by hand and it'd find its own geometry as the hex bullet engages with the hex rifling and slightly rotates as it enters the leed. Not something you'd trust if it were a machine gun feed but.......... Complicated yes. Not my forte of course and am out of my depth but just a thought.........

Reminds me of my Anti Tank days, running a 106RCL shoot when a round was incorrectly loaded in a hot gun.
Stuck solid, rayon bag beginning to smoke and the safety officer screaming for us to get out of there.
Told him to p... off, hooked a toggle rope around the base and heaved it out.......no blow ups on my watch mate!

Terrylee, not really much there, here are the pages that are.
Attachment 51202Attachment 51203

Dear Muffett,

Again many thanks for the information on the Henry bullet. This thread is really holding my interest! However, I have the advantage of being able to examine the bullet itself and rather doubt that Henry's system is the answer.

As mentioned previously, the bullet is almost certainly a cupro-nicol jacketed Mk.VII, while the Henry appears to be a cast solid to be used in a muzzle-loader. Bury's text even refers to a "nipple".

The bullet in my possession has obviously experienced considerable force in being extruded into its present form. I here refer particularly to my second photograph. It seems that the base has undergone a slight flanging effect. Is this not consistent with an original circular cross-section being violently forced into its current peculiar shape?

Terry

That made me chuckle Muffer. We had the same with the little 84mm Charlie Gustav (the Charle-Gee). Some over enthusiastic gunner, usually a Gurkha on Ashan ranges, desperate to get a second shot off at one of the old Japanese tank hulks or Bren Gun carriers (no other Armour out there.....) would whack the round into the breech and miss the alignment cam. The miss-hit would/could loosen that and send a big chunk off the rim of the round only to jamb it in the open breech.

Apparently, according to the bomb jockeys (the ammo teccies) this whacking could upset the delicate whatsits inside the rocket and they'd stop firing and.......... What a palava. And we were always sweating our cobblers off, covered in dust and cr........, er....., other detritus

The only phrase I learned in Urdu '............. not a-xxxxing-gain........' or words to that effect!

Ah, yes, the mighty Charlie G.

Firing illumination rounds is a hoot! The barrel is pointed almost vertically on "launch". Gunner and number two are then enveloped in a massive ball of fire as the back-blast from the venturi strikes the ground and bounces back, along with a few kilos of dust and crap, around the crew. They are LOUD!! Plugs AND muffs are a a good start.

As for the good old 106 beasties, the backblast leaves the Gustav for dead. On one shoot at Tin Can Bay, back in the "good old days", it was discovered that these guns were excellent fly-killers. No, not from hitting them with the projectle, though it seemed at times that the insects were of that magnitude, but every time the thing fired, the squadrons of flies that had just been driving the crew nuts were instantly rendered "inert" by the pressure wave. There was, however, a seemingly endless supply of "reserves".

Same as out 120mm BAT guns. 120mm of back blast. I was walking back from one once after curing the M8C spotting rifle. No ear defenders. I tapped the gunner on the shoulder to tell him it was OK and walked out to the left for several yards and then to the rear as per the safety brief. Just then he fired off a couple of rounds from the M8C, I heard the word 'HIT....' and then the main gun opened up. The noise from the back blast blew my ears in.............

One fine day after a fine night, I was tasked with running the rocket range for recruit training. I had one of those stinky hangovers that just won't give up. I found there's no place to put your head that won't hurt when between the two 84mm firing points. One fire, two fire, load, change round...finally one of the others relieved me. The background activity area was only a bit better.

The trouble with the Charlie Gee was that it was a vicious, instant CRACK. We didn't have illumination ammo and I often wondered how it would work, firing pretty well upwards!!!!!!

We never had that stuff either.

Did you have the 'flash-bang' round that sat in the rear of the sub-calibre adaptor mechanism. It was meant to replicate the flash and bang of the real McCoy when the sub-cal round went 'futtttttt' down the range.

No, just the 6.5 gallery and tracer. No flash bangs. Later the 7.62 sub cal.

The lack of a canellure suggests that it is a commercial match bullet, as all military bullets are canellured for a positive case mouth crimp. I would suggest that it is from a civilian match rifle from the pre-WW1 period when various makers were experimenting with various forms of rifling.

How did we get from hexagonal bullets to the 84mm Charlie Gee to the 120mm Mobat - and back again!

Next thought:

How many "grooves" does a 7.7 x 58 Type 99 Arisaka have?

Type 38 and 99 Arisakas used "polygonal" / "Metford" style rifling. Type 99s are, apart from the "last-ditch" models, also supposed to have chromed bores.

Before they are fired, the bullets externally resemble the .303 Mk7 projectile . However, whilst having a few different Japanese 7.7 cartridges in my little collection, I have never actually owned an Arisaka rifle.

One of the "funnies" that an uncle of mine had was a Type 99 Arisaka, "personally liberated" during his government-sponsored tour of New Guinea and the South-West Pacific. This particular one had been "re-chambered" in Oz to run bog-standard .303 ammo. The chamber was sleeved, a new chamber cut and the bolt face was opened up to suit the larger rim. Not the slickest of feeders, it worked well enough for a "farm gun", which is just what it became, full stock and all (bayonet optional).

Over to the forum!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

How did we get from hexagonal bullets to the 84mm Charlie Gee to the 120mm Mobat - and back again!

---

We're well travelled...

All type 99's I've seen were 4 groovers.