Lee Enfields and Boat Tailed Bullets

[vintage hunter]

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?

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Parashooter]

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.


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.

[muffett.2008]

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.

[smelly sam]

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

[Beerhunter]

I read quite often that L.E.'s won't perform well with boat tail bullets.

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.

[tbonesmith]

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.

[Brian Dick]

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.

[Peter Laidler]

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...............

[Brian Dick]

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.

[David TS]

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 shot my newly acquired 1954 Faz Mk II for the first time last Saturday.

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