Bullets for the .303?

[Frank LE]

Had a look on the Kynamco Limited homepage. They are offering the Mk VII in 50 round boxes. Does anyone know the price per box?

[David TS]

Had a look on the Kynamco Limited homepage. They are offering the Mk VII in 50 round boxes. Does anyone know the price per box?

£35.40/50 for the ones I bought a few months back

[Dr. Strangelove]

I have a sample of BES bullets and was a little disappointed in the variance in total length. They ranged from 1.207" to 1.246". Most were around 1.230" but the lack of consistency makes me wonder whether they're worth it over another brand.

Will the difference in length make a difference? I assume it would but don't actually know!

[Nigel]

Found some pics of my testing of the 174 grain BES Bullets - see my earlier response to this thread. Target was shot with a No.4(T) at 100 yards. Also a pic of their 215 round nose Mk6 profile bullets.

[muffett.2008]

Bugger....heres one of my No.1 Mk.III HT on a bad hair day.
Attachment 33981 100yds.

....and that with peep sights, using the 174gn Sierra FMJBT.

Attachment 33980

[Norton1]

I'd have to question the validity of rifling that is made for flat based bullets. Rifling does not care what goes down it, only that it fits correctly. My 44 (T) shoots Hornady 174 grn Boat tail bullets, measured out at .3105, and I shot 10 groups at 100 yards. The largest group was 1.007 and the smallest was .376. Stock rifle all of the way down the line. I have worked very hard at making the trigger super crisp, all parts fitting correctly, and the stock set as it is supposed to be.

I have, however, shot a lot in long range competition and sniper's matches so I understand how to shoot a rifle. That and 8 years in the Marine Corps shooting at folks that shot back have kept me in pretty good shape for shooting. Lapua is supposed to be the creme de la Creme of bullets but I would not waste money on them. Highly overrated in my opinion. The best thing one can do with a No4 is to match the speed of the bullet to what the original speed was. I use Vihtavuori N140 Powder behind the 174 grn bullet with a standard rifle primer and my SD is 8. And the FPS is what the rifle was built for.

The British were not able to tune the rifle to a powder amount as the ammunition was all the same for the 303 so they tuned it by using down pressure to compensate for differences in rifles. With hand loading one can replicate the original fps of the bullet and the rifle will shoot true. If the rifle is set up according to the original standards. My old (T) will hold sub MOA up to 1000 yards. And at $28 a hundred for bullets it makes for a lot less expensive shooting.

[Rumpelhardt]

I don't think the problem with boat tail bullets is the rifling itself rather rifling that is worn to the point that it does not engage the bullet enough to fully stabilize it. Flat base bullets generally have more barring surface than boat tail bullets of the same weight so they can better engage the rifling. I could be wrong but this is how I understand the problem.

[Norton1]

Yes - that is what is being talked about is that a longer place of contact makes up for a worn out barrel. And at risk of beating a dead horse - once a barrel is worn to the point of not fully engaging the bullet it does not matter what size or type of bullet you use. The rifling will not engage any better with a long bullet once it has hit that point.

The ONLY remedy is to replace the barrel.

I think the only reason I am pointing this out is that folks can spend a lot of money on what they believe is a fix when it isn't even a band-aid. I've spent enough money on what I thought were fixes only to have to return to the original premise and replace the item in question.

And if one puts too large an oversize bullet in a worn out rifle it is possible to be too large to really go down the barrel and excessive pressure could build to the point of destroying the rifle and possibly parts of your body. The grooves only have so much depth and once the rifling wears to the point of not engaging the bullet you're chancing stuffing a bullet into too tight a space. I have seen destroyed rifles where we were not certain what really caused the problem. Just a theory but I'd rather be safe when it comes to shooting.

[muffett.2008]

The end choice, is it a collectable or a shooter, you can't have both, when it's worn out it ceases to be functional unless repaired, which detracts from it's collectable status.
Our problem is we want both, decisions, decisions.

[Bruce_in_Oz]

The standard .303 Mk7 bullet has a diameter of .311".

The "Standard" .303" barrel has a bore diameter of 0.303"-0.304". Groove depth is specified at 0.005" to 0.008". Thus one can have an "in spec" barrel with a GROOVE diameter up to .320". Width of lands: 0.0936"

This dimensional difference is the big issue.

Interestingly, the original spec for the Metford barrels specified a 0.303" bore with rifling depth of 0.004", width of lands, 0.023".

Furthermore, until fairly late in the game, SMLE barrels were throated to accept the old Mk6 round-nose bullet: ie. the throats were longer and had a different "short cone" than required for Mk7. This was so because military forces and clubs were still shooting off stocks of Mk6 for a long time after it was superseded. From a military point of view, being able to handle any service ammo was a bonus. There is some similarity to the 5.56 x 45 caper. The M16A2 family with the 1:7" twist will fire M-193 (55gn) ball reasonably well, but it is not optimal. The older A1s with the 1:12" barrel will fire the SS109/M855 ball but the bullet is essentially unstabilised and it is "keyholes all the way".

Remember that the original twist rate for the M-16 was 1:14". This worked fine except for some complaints of stability problems in the Arctic. The 1:7" is too fast for the SS109/M855bullet, but it is specified because of the ludicrous length of the tracer bullet. Thus, the 62grain SS109 is effectively overstabilised and this can be seen by the erratic behaviour in the 500-600yard zone.

.303 barrels kept the 1:10" twist needed for the older ammo (Mlk6 etc) because, whilst the bullet was lighter, it was the same length, give or take a whisker. It was kept at the same length for reasons of feed in both rifles and machine-guns. The SMLE magazine was modified very shortly after the Mk 7 came into service because of problems with cartridge retention and feed alignment resulting from the change of bullet shape. Note the mysterious auxiliary spring in the front of the magazine case. It serves two purposes. Firstly, it provides a smooth, hardened surface for the projectile meplats to bash against during recoil. Secondly, it takes up space both inside and outside the magazine case that was previously occupied by the strange "C" spring in the earlier Lee-Enfield magazines. It was a case of re-engineer the receivers or fiddle with a piece of thin spring steel.

The old Mk6 bullet has a fairly heavy nickel alloy jacket: they are HARD. Somewhere in the dungeon is a box containing several that were dug out of the stop-butt of a range about thirty years back. There is very little distortion of the bullet evident. Mk7 bullets dug out at the same time are usually bent and sometimes partially ruptured, generally at the canelure.

Finally, boat-tails really have no effect on accuracy per se. They do provide a small small amount of drag reduction during supersonic flight. The primary source of drag whilst supersonic is the pressure cone that forms off the front end (meplat). That pressure cone is what you hear as a loud, sharp crack as bullets go overhead whilst pulling targets. (And in other, less-friendly situations). It is basically a baby sonic boom. However, as the bullet slows into the trans-sonic region, the shock wave becomes a little less conical and moves rearwards. See photos of aircraft as they break the sound barrier: there is often a "condensation ring" that forms where the air is being subjected to massive pressure fluctuations.

Anyway, as the bullet becomes sub-sonic, the shock wave basically disappears and the base turbulence becomes a major factor. This is where boat-tails come into their own. Look at "traditional" aircraft design: they had a blunt front end, usually with a lumpy engine attached. The tail was always thinner and streamlined. Compare that with the classic Dassault Mirage or SR-71A.

Does anyone have the firing tables for a Vickers using Mk7 and Mk8 ammo? That will tell a very interesting story.