Accuracy Specification for the Lee Enfield

[Paul S.]

I often wonder when I read all these stories about the Boers being crackshots at 5 miles etc etc.
...........

I once knew a professor who said that history is often distorted by fable. At least one in depth history of the Boer War that I read a few years ago questioned the veracity of the Boer's superior marksmanship and suggested that simply employed better tactics, field craft and 'battle space' (use of geography) use.

[Bruce_in_Oz]

A No1. chambered for 276?

Had my sticky paws on one of those back in the early eighties; had to hand it back to the owner.

The .276 in question was .276 Pederson. The rifle was a near-mint BSA. The magazine was a bog-standard .303 type; so, single-shot only.

Not sure why this rifle was built in this calibre; possible 2nd line use, balllistic testing? Remember that the Pederson rifle was a hot contender in the late 1920s. The cartridge was considered sufficiently worthwhile that the prototype Garands were built around it. Note that the Pederson used a double-stack, 10 round en-bloc clip that preceded the Garand. Vickers tooled up to make a test batch, at least one of which made it to Australia.

That BSA SMLE was definitely 276 Pederson; my one example of that cartridge neatly dropped into the chamber of the rifle. The .276 "Enfield" is a somewhat bigger critter, almost as big as the 8 x 68 sporting cartridge.

See: Google Image Result for http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerdog/cgnmilsurpknowledgebase/britishpedersensemiauto/cartridges.jpg
for a comparison pic.

[5thBatt]

From my reading it seems the problem with the MLE was zeroing not "accuracy". Rifles were sent out that would print a foot off target and no easy way to remedy- no windage adjustment on rear sight like the one added to CLLE 1*
Ridolpho

Just what i was trying to say but being a complete plonker i used wrong wording.

[303Guy]

From my reading it seems the problem with the MLE was zeroing not "accuracy". Rifles were sent out that would print a foot off target and no easy way to remedy-

That was my understanding.

Something the Boers did was pre-plan the battle field by selecting an ambush point on high ground with cover then range marking the exposed entrapment area where the British troops were expected to advance. I'm quite confident the Boers could shoot. The British were allegedly trained in the controlled volley fire tactic and not so much for pin point individual fire. The Boers also grew up in the open and bush with less reading so had well trained eyes while the British grew up in towns and the class room. Not good for eyesight. I'm not sure how long it would take in the African bush and hills for ones eyes to improve but it would depend on how one uses one's eyes in the hills and bush. I grew up in the hills and bush and I could consistently pick out things that others couldn't. I also grew up with a gun in my hands, spending every weekend hunting small game just like the Boers would have done. All the good shots I knew had grown up similarly.

[spentprimer]

Don't forget the bayonet charges!

For the last 10 months I have been reading as many free e-books that I can find on the 2nd Boer War and there are many. A great source can be found on the Gutenberg Project website under 'Categories' then click the 'Wars' section. Many of the books there are compiled correspondence from newspaper journalist that were there and traveling wih the beligerants.

I am enjoying reading this thread very much given what I have been reading of late. There are a number of references to having a loaded magazine in reserve and firing singly loaded cartridges by the UK Forces. The volley shooting continues to remind me of the scene in Braveheart when they call up the archers!

[5thBatt]

Page93 TLE (Page78 LES) has a bit on the sighting issues of the LongLee during the Boer War.

[Peter Laidler]

In 100 years time we'll (well not us, but others.....) will be hearing stories about the freedon fighters in Afghanistan, fed on a bowl of rice a day and using 100 year old Lee Enfields at 10 miles (the range increases with the telling, age and inflation.....) to fight the invading poms and other infidels.

It's a fact that so-said, the other sides kit and weapons are ALWAYS better than our own

[303Guy]

True. I sometimes used to hear about the superiority of German weapons in WWII. Better tanks, better guns (artillery), better armed aircraft, not sure what else. The Boers I believe were better shots and used better battle tactics. They also had more to lose and were fighting on their home turf which they knew well. The Brits on the other hand would have been seriously disadvantaged if their rifles weren't sighted in right. They also would have had less well defined targets a lot of the time.

Been reading up on the Boer wars and while Boer marksmanship and tactics making use of the terrain are repeatedly cited nothing is said of the weapons accuracy.

Found this in a write up on the Lee Enfield;

In 1899, both the MLE and the cavalry carbine version saw service during the Boer War in South Africa. During the conflict, problems arose regarding the weapon's accuracy and a lack of charger loading. Officials at Enfield began working to address these issues, ..... and vastly improved sights.

[5thBatt]

True. I sometimes used to hear about the superiority of German weapons in WWII. Better tanks, better guns (artillery), better armed aircraft, not sure what else. The Boers I believe were better shots and used better battle tactics. They also had more to lose and were fighting on their home turf which they knew well. The Brits on the other hand would have been seriously disadvantaged if their rifles weren't sighted in right. They also would have had less well defined targets a lot of the time.

Been reading up on the Boer wars and while Boer marksmanship and tactics making use of the terrain are repeatedly cited nothing is said of the weapons accuracy.

Found this in a write up on the Lee Enfield;

As i said before, read page93 TLE
They took Ten rifles of each manufacturer of earlier manufacture that were available, plus Ten each of new manufacture, Sparkbrook was the worst with a deflection of 20 inches to the right at 200 yards the rest 6 to 12 inches at the same, all rifles were undersighted.

[303Guy]

Page93 TLE (Page78 LES)

I'm not familiar with TLE and LES. What you've said explains the problem. It's quite scandalous.

When I got my first Long Tom it had a badly rusted bore. I was told that they had a "reputation for accuracy, possibly due to the long sight radius". I was also told by an armourer that they had good barrels. Sadly, with the use of cordite ammo with corrosive primers the barrels didn't fare well with time and Lee Enfields had a reputation for poor barrels which wasn't deserved of course. The steel was being blamed.