Anyone one ever actually tried their Volley Sights?

[AD-4NA]

Okay, so tennis ball launching looks like fun but the next question is has anyone actually tried to use their volley sights? Granted it would take a really long range and repeated observation with a "large" target (about a whole county), but has anyone actually had a chance to give it try?

Was going to give it a shot myself next trip out shooting but then I looked at where the sight scale started again as a reminder...Yikes!

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[mmppres]

0 please let use know with pictures if you do it

[Ridolpho]

According to several accounts, they tested volley fire with huge sheets of canvas at the desired range. They would fire one or more volley's then count holes in the sheets- the percentages were often not very high. The volley sights were probably used more as a "level" than a normal sight as the "target" might be out of sight over a hill, etc.

Ridolpho

[cprher]

Volley fire is reputed to be very effective if done correctly. It was not "indirect fire" such as firing over a hill at an unseen target, but rather used for "plunging fire" such as against a trench complex. Normally effective only if done at the Battalion level (roughly 400-500 personnel) and directed from a central location, normally command headquarters. An aim point would be selected, as was a range setting and then fired in unison. If done properly it would drop over the parapet into the trenches at an angle sufficient to cause casualties. It was often claimed to be more effective than machine gun fire at the same target, but far less effective than artillery fire, then as now the "King of Battle."

Keith

[jmoore]

I think I tried the volley sights mounted on the .22 trainer at Ft. Benning, but it was over 10 years ago! Too hard to see the tiny splashes in the sandy soil to get a good feel for them, but lowest setting hit about 600m out IIRC.

[Peter Laidler]

You'd really need a sandy field firing range to even see the splashes I would imagine. When we were doing the last acceptance trials of the GPMG v the Vickers MMG role, it was the stability and operation of the buffered tripod v the solid Vickers Mk4B tripod. To get into the large beaten zone, a Saracen APC was slightly up-armoured, painted in yellow with black stripes (think long lorry marker board here.......) and driven cross country into the beaten zone to ascertain the different areas, extreme areas etc etc. This was in the early 60's of course and the Saracen was heavily bullet riddled. It didn't take long to lose radio contact as the aerials were shot off in the heavily beaten area

[Beerhunter]

I would question "more effective than machine gun fire at the same target". Several machine guns (the norm), would produce a beaten zone as least as effective as volley fire but crucially could keep it up all day, if required to do so, and with many less soldiers needed to serve the guns.

Indeed, the reason that the volley sights were deleted from British Army rifles was the advent of machine guns available in large numbers.

BTW, volley sights were introduced by the British Army long before tench warfare became the norm. (And withdrawn during biggest trench war of all time.) Prior to the Great War, the British Army was primarily an Imperial Police Force that rarely came across an entrenched foe. Far more likely to be used against large gatherings of "natives" in the open.

[Eaglelord17]

Even early WWI they had a use for them, its just by 1915 they had all dug in. Virtually all the rear sights of the time go the same distances the only difference being the British recognized it is difficult to shoulder the firearm with the rear sight at the top so they put volley sights on for the really far distances so they could still shoulder it comfortably. I could see early on the rifles being more effective than the MGs at that point in time because the MGs of that time being all tripod mounted and fairly fixed in place vs a group of rifleman who would all be hitting different areas at the same time, they would also be more mobile and easier to adjust to fire (not having to lug around 100lbs of MG PLUS ammo). It wouldn't be as good for sustained fire, but it would still be effective for short bursts. You also have to remember that when WWI broke out there were so few MGs amongst the British it wouldn't have been the best for indirect fire as well.

[Colonel Enfield]

My understanding has always been the same as cprher's - namely, the volley sights were for a form of "indirect fire" involving a large(ish) number of troops.

Look at it this way: What's the furthest target you, as an individual shooter, have fired an SMLE (or a No. 4) at using iron sights? I've fired at targets 1km away on a range with an iron-sighted SMLE and I could barely see the target with the front sight over the bullseye - and they were large targets designed for long-range target use (admittedly with a scope, but even so).

At 2km (about the 2000yd range mark found on the standard sights) you'd want to be shooting at something pretty sizeable*, and at the 2600 yards range the volley sights start at, I'd have to take your word there was anything there for me to be shooting at - which means I wouldn't be shooting at it, because what's one of the cardinal rules of gun safety?

That's right, positively identify your target. Which is a bit hard to do with iron sights at about 2.5kms unless you're shooting Godzilla, in which case you've probably got significantly more important things to worry about, like fleeing. Especially because shooting Godzilla with a .303 is just going to make him mad.

*Perhaps a Voltron-like amalgam monster of elephants, bears, tigers and werewolves; the result of a mad scientist's experiment gone awry.

[AD-4NA]

Okay on the to do list then, but I think it'll have to wait for a trip to the desert rather than the local dense forest! Maybe a use for that snazzy video feature that comes on all the still cameras nowadays.

I kind of figured that .303 tracer might be the only way to even make it observable if they even burn that long (1700+ yards). On the other hand, I always get annoyed at the "delayed" (100m) tracers in extraneous civilian use since they feel like a waste of money!

I always presumed volley sights, aside from the variables of external ballistics and the limits of human vision, were another step down in accuracy from the bore mounted sights just on the basis of mechanics and design due to mounting in the furniture and looser dimensional tolerances. I kind of wanted to find out how much though.
I do think that it is often forgotten that MGs can lay down a lot of fire under the control of one or a few gunners but if you have say 10 men with rifles, all 10 are each independently picking and choosing targets and firing on them if you have the manpower for the latter. (At least back in the day when accuracy and marksmanship counted for something)

But if nazis attack on T-Rex's, I guess we'd have a use for volley sights again.

I know its perfectly safe but I don't think I'd want the job of driving that Saracen that day!