Printable View
Aside from the trajectory not matching the drums on the scope is there any reason I shouldn't use 2013 CDN made mk8 ammo in my T?
Found a great article on enfield rifles.com explain8ng how all mk8 isnt made equal and it encouraged me.
But still like to hear what everyone here has to say.
You are referring to the IVI made Ranger issue ammunition? No reason not to use it. Good non-corrosive Boxer primed ammunition. It isn't Mk. 8 machinegun ammunition, if that is what you are wondering.
Yes thats the stuff!Quote:
Originally Posted by tiriaq
Whats it loaded with?
Absolutely, that was why they made it. Made to shoot in #4 rifles...turn it to empty brass...Quote:
Originally Posted by tiriaq
They'll never let that info out.Quote:
Originally Posted by jonh172
Ill pull a bullet and see.
Thanks guys!
We Rangers are currently issued soft point ammo.......not ball anymore. From my experience I was able to get better groupings through my various Enfields with the ball than the soft point.Quote:
Originally Posted by tiriaq
Yes, that is the Ranger issue ball.
The only real difference is the boat tail projectile vs the Mk.7 flat base. As long as your throat erosion isn't extreme from the use of cordite, it should shoot fine.
Nice, thanks guys!
"...Mk. 8 machinegun ammunition..." Nope. It's just the designation of the standard ball ammo used from 1938 and beyond. Smokeless powder load. Boxer or Berdan primed(originally). 175 grain, pointed, boat tailed, bullet. Muzzle velocity of 2440 fps.
DA made ammo was far better than any of the stuff made by IVI. Best .303 Ball I ever fired was made by DA in 1944. Shot the stuff in the early 80's.
The IVI Mk. 8z Ranger issue ammunition is not the same as the earlier Mk. 8z ammunition. There is an interesting story why not, but that isn't relevant to the OP's question.
Ammunition intended for use in rifles was Mk. 7 or 7z, loaded with 174gr flat based bullet; the sights were calibrated for it. The boattailed Mk. 8 bullet gave significantly longer range, advantageous for machinegun use.
As far as quality goes, DI ammunition shot better than DA. In addition, DI was Boxer/NC, as opposed to Berdan/C.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiriaq
Now Im interested in the story why not!!
Me too. Please indulge us. I had no idea that there were two different types of Mk8z ammo. I presumed the one & only type was that produced with the BT bullet for use in the Vickers. It would seem, if I have it correctly, that there is also Canadian Mk8z, as per the subject of this thread, of recent manufacture, which is somehow different. Is this so, & how is it different to 'old 8z'?
Mk.7 = 174 grain flat base projectile, cordite loaded
Mk.7z = The same as Mk.7 with nitro powder instead of cordite
Mk.8z = The same as Mk.7z except with a 174 grain boat tail projectile.
Mk.8z was designed for use in the Vickers MMG.
I'd like to read the story too. I'm a skeptic as the differences are subtle and the reasons cut and dried.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...7/5bbw2b-1.jpg
Heres a pulled bullet. Using my 505 beam scale it weighs in at 175gr.
Anyone know a rough BC on these?
Thanks chaps. I'm reasonably clued up on the various marks & differences between cordite & NC loads, bullet profile, & so on (I started collecting 303 ammo when I was nine years old; I'm now 60!). The only thing I'd like to know is if there really is more than one type of Mk8z, or, as I suspect Brian is alluding to, the differences are minor & more likely related to production expediencies in the various different factories around the globe in which this ammo has been produced over the years. Can someone enlighten us?
The Canadian Rangers were the last users of No. 4 rifles. Long Branch made rifles were standard issue, often brand new; ammunition issued was late WW2 production.
Then the supplies of both ran out.
W-W commercial 180gr soft point ammunition was procured and issued as a stopgap measure.
Long Branch rifles were sourced on the surplus market. Eventually EAL rifles were issued in quantity, and No. 4s of other manufacturers were acquired. Hence the British No. 4 Mk. 2 rifles in service.
Ball ammunition was desired. Much Ranger issued ammunition is used for hunting purposes; the softpoint is fine for that. Generally Provincial and Territorial game departments disapprove of ball ammunition for hunting. There is also an issue with softpoint being issued for military purposes.
Anyway, IVI was the sole supplier of issue ammunition to the Cdn. Gov't, and was contracted to supply .303 ammunition. Mk. 7/7z .303 ball had not been produced for decades, let alone Mk. 8. Don't know when Canada phased out Vickers guns, and started issuing 1919A4 Browning guns.
The story I was told is that IVI was supplied with the specs for 8z ammunition, this being the last, most recent, Mark of .303 ball designed. The order was made without knowledge of the different applications for Mk. 7 and Mk. 8 cartridges.
Someone then realized that 8z ballistics and No. 4 sight calibrations were not in harmony, and the load was tweaked so that trajectory and sights would agree at 200y.
IVI was also contracted to supply .303 softpoint ammunition. Similar brown boxes, but quite different labelling.
Incidentally, not only is that IVI 8z good ammunition, it was also quite costly. A sole source supplier and relatively limited production will drive up the cost.
7.62x51 rifles are now replacing the No. 4s in Ranger service. I do not know the last date that might be found on the.303 headstamps.
Many thanks for the clarification.
Yes thank you, very interesting!
So thay being said, my T drum setting at 200y should at least be spot on?
Whatever you sight it in for will be dead on.
The windage and elevation for other distances may not.
Right, but with what Tiriaq said how the ammo was curtailed to be on at 200 with the iron sights, wouldnt that mean their guns are zeroed at 100 then 'on' at 200 once set on the sight?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Enfield
The same would go for a T sniper optic zeroed at 100, no?
If they zeroed at 200 then the ammo wouldnt need to be changed, just their front sight.
That is the kind of silly error made when institutional memory is lost. Still, it only took them 20+ years to decide on the new Ranger rifle, so perhaps we should compliment them on the promptness with which they selected the wrong ammo type, changed the loading to better approximate MkVII and then neglected to change the markings on the boxes!Quote:
Originally Posted by tiriaq
I've probably got a few specimen rounds, should put some over the chronograph, see what the velocity is, if it matches Mk. 8 specs.
If you stop and think about it, there is absolutely no good reason to order Mk. 8 ammunition when it was intended solely for use in No. 4 rifles.
Did you mean to say it was intended solely for use in MGs?Quote:
Originally Posted by tiriaq
No, the ammunition supplied to the Rangers was intended solely for use in rifles.
Roger on that, I see how the sentence could be read either way!Quote:
Originally Posted by tiriaq
Just adding to the mk7 vs mk8 confusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by tiriaq
Thanks for the info, I will fire with confidence!