An Experiment

[Neuraleanus]

My No. 1, Mk III rifle tends to shoot high at 100 yards. It is my understanding that the presence of a bayonet affects the height accuracy.

Real 1907 pattern bayonets are rather scarce and expensive, but I noticed that Sarco has 1907 bayonets of modern manufacture, not original, for only $75 USD:

https://www.sarcoinc.com/british-enf...with-scabbard/

I went ahead and purchased one these and it appears to fit the rifle quite well:



Both the weight and dimensions look correct. This should be adequate for my experiment. Once the weather improves, off to the range to try this out. Choice of ammo may also make a difference. In contrast to my No. 4 rifles, I achieved better results using 150 grain versus 174 grain bullets.

[Bruce_in_Oz]

See if you can find a copy, real tree-ware or electronic, of the training "pamphlet" for the rifle and bayonet..

With the bayonet attached to the nose-cap, a piece of gear which is part of the bedding system, it might be an interestingexperiment.

The later No4, with the bayonet directly attached to the muzzle, was known for "shifts" in impact with the bayonet fitted.

Of course, all of this was carried out with proper Mk 7 ball ammo...........

[Bindi2]

It will be interesting to see the results .
There is no mention of this in the manuals for the No1 Mk3. I am sure the Boffins would have tested this.
A taller front sight is the order of the day. This change is in the manuals. Where you are aiming is to be taken into account.

[Alan de Enfield]

There is no mention of this in the manuals for the No1 Mk3. I am sure the Boffins would have tested this.

Tests have been done and the results printed in the manuals (you just need to find the correct manual):


Comparisons in the difference between MKVI and MKVII ammunition with / without the bayonet fitted :


There are several pages but this is a good summary :

Source :
“Musketry Regulations Part 1”
1909 (With Amendments 1914)
Issued by the General Staff – War Office.

Summary :
With a SMLE & with MkVI ammunition there is no effect to the POI when the bayonet is fixed.
With a SMLE & with MkVII ammunition there is a 4 feet Rise in POI at 600 yds when the bayonet is fixed.
With a Lee Metford, or CLLE there is a 6 feet drop, and 2 feet to the right change in the POI at 600 yds when using MkVI ammunition with the bayonet fixed.
With a Lee Metford, or CLLE there is a negligible effect in the POI when using MkVII ammunition with the bayonet fixed.

YES – that is correct – with the CLLE / Lee Metford the POI is NOT AFFECTED when using MkVII with the bayonet fixed, but with the SMLE the POI is NOT AFFECTED when using MkVI with the bayonet fixed..

[Bindi2]

A d E
I knew you would nail me to the fence. I was smiling to myself when i posted that.
But were they testing Lithgows better rifles you know.

[Alan de Enfield]

A d E
I knew you would nail me to the fence. I was smiling to myself when i posted that.
But were they testing Lithgows better rifles you know.

If Lithgows were so good why did they produce 5 'grades' of rifle instead of just one 'perfect' grade ?
(Apparently according to one author the D /|\ D 2 marking is for a second grade rifle, so then we have D /|\ D 3 thru to 5 as well)

[Bindi2]

A d E
As the Aussies know that marking is actually referring to the MD and never to 2nd or 3rd class rifles though we did receive a lot of British rifles in returns that were not that flash.

[Neuraleanus]

My No. 1, Mk III rifle tends to shoot high at 100 yards. It is my understanding that the presence of a bayonet affects the height accuracy.

Real 1907 pattern bayonets are rather scarce and expensive, but I noticed that Sarco has 1907 bayonets of modern manufacture, not original, for only $75 USD:

https://www.sarcoinc.com/british-enf...with-scabbard/

I went ahead and purchased one these and it appears to fit the rifle quite well:

https://www.milsurps.com/vbpgimage.p...1&d=1734288880

Both the weight and dimensions look correct. This should be adequate for my experiment. Once the weather improves, off to the range to try this out. Choice of ammo may also make a difference. In contrast to my No. 4 rifles, I achieved better results using 150 grain versus 174 grain bullets.

Finally got to the range. I can conclude that the inclusion of the 1907 bayonet made no difference whatever in accuracy. The Brits said it wouldn't and it didn't.

However, I discovered something else. I spent some time comparing my recently acquired No 1, Mk III* Enfield to the No 1, Mk III BSA. The Mk III* is a bit of a hybrid in that I suspect the stock is an Indian replacement. At 100 yards, it shot very well, measurably better than the Mk III. I wonder whether something is not setup right with the Mk III. I understand that there is a spring loaded screw at the nose cap and another right after the rear sight that might have something to do with this. Any adjusting advice?

[Bruce_in_Oz]

The rather "exotic" bedding of the No 1 Mk 3 rifle is at play.

Your Basic No 4 is a totally different beast. "upward " pressure on the barrel right at the front end.

No 1 bedding is "multi-point. The llast eight ot so inches are the fancy bit. Starting from the middle of the barrel:

The "inner Band(the cute little (internally tapered) band that fits closely around the barrel, is pulled DOWN by the associated SPRING and screw.

Then there is the tiny spring-loaded plunger that eats near the rear of the nose-cap . It applies UPWARD pressure.

Finally, there is the muzzle aperture in the front of the nose-cap. This applies DOWNWARD pressure to the barrel, right at the point of departure of the bullet.

NOTE: Some nose-caps have a tiny "extra" cut-out at the top of this aperture, Some do not.

Thi s "extra" bit means that the muzzle is "centered" by the two "points, formed by this aperture "extension.

No 1 Mk 3 bedding was designed to tune the RIFLE to the "issue" ammunition. (One round to rule them all! As it were). Millions of rifles; tens of billions of a very specific cartridge.

Replace a damaged fore-end? LOTS of potential "tweaking" to get acceptable group size within the specs for allowable "deflection". DEFINITELY NOT "Bench Rest' territory.. At the time, the rifle was seen as an expensive handle for the real weapon, the BAYONET.. One look at the wrist of the butt will confirm that. (See also the P-13 / 14, etc.

[Neuraleanus]

The rather "exotic" bedding of the No 1 Mk 3 rifle is at play.

Your Basic No 4 is a totally different beast. "upward " pressure on the barrel right at the front end.

No 1 bedding is "multi-point. The llast eight ot so inches are the fancy bit. Starting from the middle of the barrel:

The "inner Band(the cute little (internally tapered) band that fits closely around the barrel, is pulled DOWN by the associated SPRING and screw.

Then there is the tiny spring-loaded plunger that eats near the rear of the nose-cap . It applies UPWARD pressure.

Finally, there is the muzzle aperture in the front of the nose-cap. This applies DOWNWARD pressure to the barrel, right at the point of departure of the bullet.

NOTE: Some nose-caps have a tiny "extra" cut-out at the top of this aperture, Some do not.

Thi s "extra" bit means that the muzzle is "centered" by the two "points, formed by this aperture "extension.

No 1 Mk 3 bedding was designed to tune the RIFLE to the "issue" ammunition. (One round to rule them all! As it were). Millions of rifles; tens of billions of a very specific cartridge.

Replace a damaged fore-end? LOTS of potential "tweaking" to get acceptable group size within the specs for allowable "deflection". DEFINITELY NOT "Bench Rest' territory.. At the time, the rifle was seen as an expensive handle for the real weapon, the BAYONET.. One look at the wrist of the butt will confirm that. (See also the P-13 / 14, etc.

Found the potential cause, the spring loaded stud in front by the nose cap was missing. It's now replaced.