Quote Originally Posted by Bindi2 View Post
The pam. as you say don't define the ammo you will have to look at the ammo spec sheets and see if or when Canadaicon changed to Mk7z.
I think that would fall more into the realm of the military historians and collectors here; and you'd probably have to have some reach into DND as well as the desire to know.

For the purposes of my original question after it appeared that at least one of the zeroing criteria had to be wrong, there is simply no way that the Canadian military pam's instructions on zeroing the No4 Mk1 in 1945 can be correct. Even with some other variant of the ball round.

As I related above, you have to cut muzzle velocity back about 250 fps, and the ballistic coefficient back to being in the low .400's before a +8.5" zero at 100 yards is at point of aim at 300 yards.

I wonder what was going through the minds of those Canadian musketry instructors at the battle schools and all those infantry regiments back in 1945, 1946, 1947, etc as that pam was pushed out to the schools and they attempted to zero rifles using the specified criteria? And, I assume, they probably had a different zeroing criteria during the war years 1939-1945 prior to the pam being published and distributed.

Locally, I have no doubt that many would have chucked the pam and figured out their own procedure for properly zeroing the assorted backsights within the ranks. But there must have been a few that started sending dingers up the line asking questions and pointing out that the official military pam on zeroing the issue rifle was wrong.

I will see if I can track down a few of the Canadian Rangers that are on other forums and ask what they remember of anything resembling a pam or a similar document specifying zeroing criteria for their Lee Enfields. If I come up with anything from that angle, I'll post it up here.

Thanks Bindi