No. 4 Rifle; Zeroing Instructions Data Inconsistency?

[Rick]

Some members here have jumped on that Greek HXP I found currently being offered for sale on the Web:

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=81181

If any of them are curious enough to see if that Greek HXP Mk VIIz ball sights in correctly for a 300 yard zero when using the 1945 Canadian military pam's instructions, all they have to do is affix a bayonet and give it a try.

(How could anyone NOT have a proper bayonet for their No. 4 rifle? How else could you zero!)

I bought a bayonet when I bought those case lots of 1950 Long Branch No. 4 rifles originally 30+ years ago for two reasons:

1. Curiosity to see whether the rifle grouped better or worse with the bayonet attached.
2. Curiosity at how much the POA=POI at 300 yards differed after removing the bayonet after zeroing with Mk VII ball

So I already had the bayonet when I tried zeroing with military ball again, using the instructions in the 1945 pam.

The results, on paper, across the range after zeroing following those instructions, showed me the zeroing instructions in the 1945 Canadian pam do not match their zeroing instructions. Not even close.

But... I could still be missing something!

[Alan de Enfield]

(How could anyone NOT have a proper bayonet for their No. 4 rifle? How else could you zero!)

Reading thru the "Techincal Training School REME" Document "Zeroing of Rifles" I note that the use of the bayonet for zeroing is limited the the No4 rifle with the Mk2 rear sight.

No mention of bayonet use for the other Mks of rear sight.

[Rick]

No mention of bayonet use for the other Mks of rear sight.

Thanks Alan; I'm pretty restricted on a loaner laptop, with my computer undergoing triage and hopefully repair since it thundered in about four days ago.

Without access to all my files and saved data, I think all the Brit pams from the war years i.e. the 1940's only specified bayonet fixed for the No. 4 rifle, but also did not specify any differences to what Mk of rear sight might be on the rifles i.e. the other models with an adjustable slide versus that two position sight.

I do know from memory that the second volume of the 1950 Armourers Wing Precis contains the table you see multiple times in related REME documents, where there are two fields for the No. 4 rifle; one with the Mk 2 back sight and another field for when it is one of the other backsights mounted on the rifle.

The zeroing data anomaly aside concerning the Canadian pam, I'm equally as intrigued that the wartime Higher Niner Puzzle Palace decided the best conditions for zeroing the new No. 4 infantryman's weapon would be with bayonet fixed at 300 yards.

Not a lot of contact distance bayonet trench and house clearing going on at 300 yards distance and beyond. Higher Niner believed the rifles grouped better at 300 yards and all ranges beyond with the bayonet affixed, firing from fixed defensive positions?

Or how about fixing bayonets prior to beginning an ordered platoon/company deliberate advance to contact? The doctrine would be to fix bayonets for a deliberate attack that would almost certainly begin well beyond 300 yards from where the enemy positions were likely to be?

But there won't be any deliberate 300+ yard precision rifle fire going on within sections and platoons moving forward attacking in an advance to contact, and after coming under effective enemy fire, fighting through the objective. And after coming under effective fire, the supporting sections providing cover fire for the maneuver sections fighting through the positions would have ample time after moving into firing positions to fix bayonets if that provided more precise fire.

All the questions I could have asked infantry veterans of those years back in the 80's when I got into the same biz, while supporting them at events and ceremonies... but I didn't know back then what I know now to ask questions about.

For those who served careers as Death Techs in the infantry, much of what is seen in these pams (and other pams unrelated to rifles i.e. The Infantry Section In Battle) makes sense as the documentation of lessons hard learned in battle, much of which still survives in the pams of today, 80+ years later.

But some of it does make an infantryman wonder what their predecessors were thinking and/or applying with what they wrote back then?

Those pams were written by wartime Higher Niner with the background of the infantry they were written for fighting and dying in a brutal proving ground at the time.