1. It appears that you are you're enjoying our Military Surplus Collectors Forums, but haven't created an account yet. As an unregistered guest, your are unable to post and are limited to the amount of viewing time you will receive, so why not take a minute to Register for your own free account now? As a member you get free access to our forums and knowledge libraries, plus the ability to post your own messages and communicate directly with other members. So, if you'd like to join our community, please CLICK HERE to Register !

    Already a member? Login at the top right corner of this page to stop seeing this message.

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 14
Click here to increase the font size Click here to reduce the font size

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Legacy Member pocketshaver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Last On
    09-23-2020 @ 04:17 AM
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    229
    Local Date
    07-01-2025
    Local Time
    03:49 AM
    Thread Starter
    well dreyse realized/discovered that the charge of black powder combusted back to front, and used the ENTIRE barrel as a combustion chamber. Typically wasting powder by tossing it to burn outside of the barrel. LOTS of muzzle loaders have seen that. Its why I don't use 3 pyrodex pellets, last one loaded ALWAYS burns outside the barrel and acts like a tracer. First time that happened it scared the crap out of me.

    Although more powerful then most front loading rifles of the period, dreyse and chassepot were more powerful and seemed to have better accuracy. They did use the same bullet technology that every one else was adopting to muzzleloaders.

    I guess a better test example would be what would be more enherently accurate, a P53 Enfield Rifleicon muzzleloader versus an identical P53 that was turned into a snider
    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.

  2. #2
    Advisory Panel Patrick Chadwick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last On
    06-25-2023 @ 06:36 AM
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,032
    Local Date
    07-01-2025
    Local Time
    10:49 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by pocketshaver View Post
    I guess a better test example would be what would be more enherently accurate, a P53 Enfield Rifleicon muzzleloader versus an identical P53 that was turned into a snider
    It was tested at the time. I don't know where the results are, but have the impression that the difference wasn't great. I may be wrong, have to get searching....

  3. #3
    Legacy Member Ridolpho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last On
    09-27-2022 @ 11:12 PM
    Location
    Province of Alberta, Canada
    Age
    67
    Posts
    1,019
    Local Date
    07-01-2025
    Local Time
    02:49 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick View Post
    It was tested at the time. I don't know where the results are, but have the impression that the difference wasn't great. I may be wrong, have to get searching....
    One of the requirements set out in the original competition (for a system to convert the P53) was that accuracy would be as good as the P53. How good was that? During the testing a benchmark average Figure of Merit for several P53's was 1.19 feet at 500 yards. For any not familiar with it, the FOM of a "group" is the average deviation of all shots from the calculated MPI. With on the fly ammunition changes (by Boxer) during the testing the Snider was just able to meet the requirement. I have data from a comparison test between Snider and Martini from several years later that has the Snider managing a 1.0 ft FOM at 500 yards, only fractionally behind the Martini. So, the answer is that conversion of the P53 family of rifles to breechloaders left accuracy unchanged. Modern Snider shooters seem to have improved short range accuracy of the Snider by using larger diameter bullets that are "forced" onto the rifling. The Boxer Snider ammunition used a bullet that, while larger in diameter than the P53 service bullet, still required expansion of the bullet upon firing to take the rifling.

    Ridolpho

  4. Thank You to Ridolpho For This Useful Post:


+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Accuracy Standards for No. 4 Mk 2 Rifles
    By cprher in forum The Lee Enfield Knowledge Library Collectors Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-06-2015, 09:42 AM
  2. A bevy of Ross rifles...and a bunch o' other battle rifles
    By RangeRover in forum The Ross Rifle Knowledge Library Collectors Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-09-2013, 09:57 PM
  3. REME Precis No. SA/Rifles/3 (Zeroing of No.1, No.3, No.4, No.5 Rifles)
    By Badger in forum The Lee Enfield Knowledge Library Collectors Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-13-2008, 10:15 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts