Wonder wot an H barrel sporter is cappable of?

[bigduke6]

RJW & Bruce,

Measurements from the muzzle to the first step then every 6" up to start of the taper on the knox form would do, just need a rough idea compared to the standard barrel if possible.

Cheers

[Bindi2]

Wow, I bet that response brings in a few incoming mortar rounds Bindi!

Having gone through the range shooting game at the time of H barreled Mk111s, 2,4 + grooved No4s the 7.62 conversion a heavy barrel, the lack of 303 ammo was the deciding factor. We were not allowed to reload then. Why did the Brits refuse to let the Aussies use H barrels at Bisley. They were Australian army issue.
The H barrel is a standard Long Lee shorten to SMLE length and the muzzle turned down to take the SMLE fore sight.

[RJW NZ]

OK, measurements; the stock barrel is on a 1918 Lithgow, and the H barrel is stamped MA 62, installed on a 1907 no1.
Taking the join where the barrel meets the receiver as 'zero' ... measurements made with calipers, each 2 inches toward muzzle, with a extra measure right at the step down, top and bottom.
No1 Mk3 MA 62
Z 1.149 1.150
1 .746 .789
2 .727 .766
3 mid point of site base
4 .692 .715
5 .678 .703
6 .660 .693
7 .646 .686
8 .630 .681
9 .624 .676
10 .6035 .673
11 .590 .668
Barrel at the step .578 .670
Low at the step .570 .576

Weights anybody?

[Bindi2]

OK, measurements; the stock barrel is on a 1918 Lithgow, and the H barrel is stamped MA 62, installed on a 1907 no1.
Taking the join where the barrel meets the receiver as 'zero' ... measurements made with calipers, each 2 inches toward muzzle, with a extra measure right at the step down, top and bottom.
No1 Mk3 MA 62
Z 1.149 1.150
1 .746 .789
2 .727 .766
3 mid point of site base
4 .692 .715
5 .678 .703
6 .660 .693
7 .646 .686
8 .630 .681
9 .624 .676
10 .6035 .673
11 .590 .668
Barrel at the step .578 .670
Low at the step .570 .576

Weights anybody?

2lb 7.25ozs H
2lb 2.5ozs standard

[RJW NZ]

2lb 7.25ozs H
2lb 2.5ozs standard

Amazing what a difference 5 ozs makes ...

[Jc5]

I have a set of key dimensions somewhere in the dungeon; might have to dig them out.
[COLOR="Silver"]

I would also be grateful to see these dimensions if you dig them up. Additionally, does anyone know the dimensions of the MLM/MLE cavalry carbine barrels? Also, the MLM MkI is supposed to have had the thickest barrel of all. Does anyone know how those dimensions compare?

Thanks!

[bigduke6]

I would also be grateful to see these dimensions if you dig them up. Additionally, does anyone know the dimensions of the MLM/MLE cavalry carbine barrels? Also, the MLM MkI is supposed to have had the thickest barrel of all. Does anyone know how those dimensions compare?

Thanks!

Jc5,
will get back to you on that either tomorrow or Thursday, measurements wil be talken off a LEC (cavalry carbine)

[Frederick303]

Regarding the debate over a regulated No 4 and the Australian heavy barrel SMLE.

It is true that prior to WWII the heavy barrel rifle was not legal at Bisley. However in 1948 it was made legal for use by both the Australians and New Zealanders. UK and other commonwealth shooters were allowed to use the heavy barrel SMLE starting in 1950, albeit those rifles could not have the rear sight attached for some reason.

While some did go to the heavy barrel SMLE at Bisley, most of the winning SMLE rifles in the Kings finals and then the Queen’s finals after 1951 retained the service weight barrel. There seem to be two reasons, one the regulation SMLE barrel shot better at 900 and 1000 yards when using ammunition with typical velocity variations, (properly regulated) and 2) the heavy barrel had a tendency to string the shots vertically more than the light barrel when the ammunition was wet, as it often is @ Bisley. After 1958, with one exception in 1961 or 1962, the Queens finals were won with the No 4 until 1968 when such competition ended (being replaced by TR). I may not be correct, but other than the great Australian Percy Pavel in 1948, I do not think there was but one other year in which the heavy barrel SMLE won the Queens finals @ Bisley ( I think that was a BSA barreled rifle). The No 4 won first in 1949 or 1950, then 1954, then in 1959, 1960, 1961 or 1962 through 1968, if my off the top of my head recollection is correct ( I am of the age that when I do not have my notes in front of me that I do at times have memory errors). So at least in England the heavy barrel does not seem to have had a consistent winning streak even against a well regulated No 1 and certainly not against the No 4 rifle.

In Australia, at least in those histories I have read, the No 4 slowly replaced the SMLE HB after 1960~1961 when these rifles were first allowed. While I do not have the information at my fingertips, I seem to recall by 1968 it was the general opinion of most of the competitive shooters in NSW that the No 4 was the more consistent shooter, day in and day out. I also seem to recall that the New Zealanders were pretty much of the same opinion. Of course that knowledge is entirely from what I have read, but I have visited both countries and in talking to competitive shooters at Malabar I did not see any disagreement with that opinion.

If there is a feeling that this is not the case, I would be curious as to why. I would caution that most of the winning, well-regulated No 4 rifles were “used up” and that there might be more excellent condition SMLE HB rifles about in the land down under. Most of the No4 target rifles I have seen had well worn, cordite eroded bores. I seem to recall some years ago that it was still possible to get new HB barrels from a Sydney dealer (I bought a few) while new target quality No 4 barrels are very rare to non-existent. If you have observed better accuracy with SMLE HB rifles, that might have something to do with your observation.

[BushyFromOz]

I know nothing about the history of service shooting, but with there being a 16 year difference in the time the H barrel was introduced in Australian service until it was allowed at Bisley (1932 - 1948) I would have to argue that the H barrel missed its opportunity as by the time it was acepted, it had been superceded by the No4, i'm not saying this was intention / conspiracy, but perhaps if had been there in the 30's the record would be different.

[Bindi2]

The first part of my post is about the two rjfles set up to range shooting specs as at or near the end of the 303 era. Military bedding , aperture rear sights, MkVII ammo in Australia. Members of the club that i shot at were most unhappy about a member who was selected to represent australia was not allowed to use his own rifle but had to use the issued one. That rankled for along time. Having used both i still believe the H barrel was a little better over all.