Jungle carbines are LOUD...

[Jim K]

Around 50 years ago, I fired my first No.5. The owner had removed the flash hider, and it was late afternoon, getting dark. I touched off a round of cordite ammo and the result was a blue, purple, yellow, orange, and red ball a good three feet in diameter and (from later observations) almost five feet long.

That, dear reader, is when I figured out that the flash hider is not intended to keep the enemy from seeing your muzzle flash, but to keep you from being blinded by it. (The doctor says I will probably get my sight and hearing back any time now.)

Jim

[Patrick Chadwick]

There are two obviously ineradicable myths concerning the No. 5, which are passed on endlessly by people who just do not know what they are talking about.

The first is, of course the flash hider. I don't know or care who was the first twit who proposed that the flash hider was to hide the muzzle flash from the enemy. One moment's thought with a few active brain cells would have told hime that the only way of hiding the flash from a person in the line of fire was to build a bloody great wall between the shooter and the enemy, thus rather defeating the purpose of the rifle. Who cares if the enemy is blinded (could even be a useful psychological side-effect)? - The shooter doesn't want to be blinded.

The second is the notion that the flash hider is some kind of a muzzle brake. Now for the kind of person who believes this there is no point in waffling on about Venturi tubes (where the velocity reduction produces an increase in pressure) and not many people understand the action of the steam injector typically used on steam locomotives, so I tell them this: Just stand the No. 5 upright with the muzzle down on a table. That ought to remind you of something - the exhaust nozzle on a rocket standing on a launchpad. Something that is intended to produce a large pressure, not to reduce it. The flash hiding effect is produced not only by the barrier between the shooter and the muzzle blast, but also by the sharp velocity and temperature reduction produced by the expansion of the gases in the cone. (Thank you Peter Laidler for pointing that out on the old forum.)

The trouble with the "people who just do not know what they are talking about" mentioned above is that they sometimes get into positions where they try to control the rest of us on the basis of their ignorance. According to your present mood you may laugh, cry, or just plain despair at the following:
On the main DSB (Deutsche Schützenbund) website there is a link to an paper drawn up for the guidance of scrutineers at DSB competitions.

It includes the following gem (I give just the sense, not an exact translation):
"The flash hider (= muzzle brake) on the Enfield No. 5 must be removed for DSB competitions." So much for only permitting original service rifles as issued!

This is just the worst example. There are others.

Patrick

[mozark]

A few years ago I built myself a hunting rifle in 9.3x62. It's a Mannlicher, so short, 21.5" barrel, and light, something like 7 3/4 lbs without a scope, which is usually how I hunt with it. I built the provision for a detachable scope foreward, "scout" style scope into the express sight base, but I like hunting in the woods with iron sights. At any rate, this rifles gets ones attention, and I load it relatively sedately. It's actually a very good hunting rifle, as you're not thinking about how it's going to kick the ****e out of, and deafen, you, when your pointing it at game.

My point is that the weight and dimensions of that rifle are reminiscent of a
No. 5, and while I like my No.5, and have occasionally hunted with it, it spends a lot more time gathering dust. There is something wicked and cruel about a short, light weight, high powered rifle, that also has a rounded slippery butt and butt-plate that never shoulders to quite the same location.

MM

[Son]

Took my position on the mound one day between a No5 (with a bogus looking stainless barrel) and a No4 with a globe sight and no bayonet lugs. It seemed they were both .223 conversions. At the order "fire" I let rip with a MkVII round through the faithfull old Faz No5 and caused both gents to roll away off their aim. One exclaimed "what the hell is that thing?" I told him, the same as his was before he'd had it neutered.

I've never had an issue with my No5. I fired my new (1970) target rifle yesterday, not knowing what to expect. 7.62 out of a 20" barrel. I found that like the No5, it will hurt if you are not set properly. I only mucked up once. No problems after that. Once I got it on target I printed a fair group. Using sporting ammo, just under an inch at 100m sitting, off a rolled up jacket.

[me2]

Patrick, you are dead on with the rocket theory. That flash hider is a perfect built-in rocket nozzle and I know cause where I work we turn them on a cnc lathe specially dedicated to that process exclusively for an air-to-ground missle for U.S. defence dept. They are made from a ceramic/carbide blend and are on the nasty side to machine. I surmise that cone shape on the #5's tends to change the initial shape of the muzzle blast from a large ball to a rather enlongated stream of fire which would help the shooter and to some extent reduce the visibility of it to an opponent. Would be interesting to know the amount of R&D that went into the British adapting the final shape of them.

[Jim K]

The comparison of a rifle to a rocket is interesting because there is an exact comparison. A rifle recoils because a mass (the bullet and propellant gas) moves forward under gas pressure and the rifle recoils to the rear. In a rocket, a mass (a huge quantity of gas and burning particles) moves rearward, and the rocket recoils, moving forward. The rocket does not "push" on anything, which means that it will work in a vacuum, the same as a rifle will recoil in a vacuum. Essentially, man went to the moon on recoil.

Jim

[Peter Laidler]

On a similar vein, the original flash eliminator for the Bren was changed prior to manufacture from the original straight taper of the ZB design to a stepped double taper dreamed up at Enfield. However, this caused considerable build-up of carbon within the chamber that a special scraper was designed to scrape it out due to the carbon build-up affecting the free flow of exhaust gas and then, the accuracy of the projectile.

It didn't take long for Enfield to get back to basics and by mid 1940, the stepped taper flash eliminator was redesigned and a straight taper was introduced. That's the reason your Mk1 Bren barrel (with stainless (?) steel muzzle end) can have a stepped or straight taper flash eliminator.

This is a great thread. Incidentally, has anyone worked out the inclusive angle of the No5 flash eliminator. I think it is/should be 29 degrees as a figure that sticks in my mind somewhere. If it's not handy, I'll do it at work later in the week with a lathe, DTI and compound slide.............

[Alan de Enfield]

The comparison of a rifle to a rocket is interesting because there is an exact comparison. A rifle recoils because a mass (the bullet and propellant gas) moves forward under gas pressure and the rifle recoils to the rear. In a rocket, a mass (a huge quantity of gas and burning particles) moves rearward, and the rocket recoils, moving forward. The rocket does not "push" on anything, which means that it will work in a vacuum, the same as a rifle will recoil in a vacuum. Essentially, man went to the moon on recoil.

Jim

And they say "its not rocket science" - well it look like it to me !!!