Lee enfield accuracy question

[AradoAR234]

Although this should probably belong in the LE forum, I thought it too broad to post it there. After reading an Article by a fellow named Marc Gorelick of the Virginia Gun Collectors Assosciation, about the P14/M17 Enfield ( A short history Etc...), I thought I may leave it open for discussion for who ever is interested. It is full of comments regarding the superiority of the P14 over the SMLE ( ie "accounted a better battle rifle" ) and "it was ( the P14) found to be more accurate and reliable than the SMLE sniper rifles". It also stated by 1917 that the SMLE was not accurate enough "even with a telescopic sight".

Any one care to comment?

I was under the impression that the SMLE and Mk VII .303 cartridge pretty well proved itself as THE bolt action combat rifle of the 20th century, in the mud of Flanders and the sands of Libya. But as a sniper rifle??? The commonwealth service rifle clubs put up some very impressive scores with the SMLE at 1000 yds prior to WW1, so I'm wondering if any of you historians out there could enlighten me as to why it would be deemed "not accurate enough", cheers

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.

[Paul S.]

I'll comment. Mr. Gorelick is full of soft, brown, smelly stuff unless he can document credible citations for his comments. Possessing both types, I have found no difference in accuracy between the two. I will say the peep sights on the P14/M1917 may be more useful, marginally if that, for accurate shooting at longer ranges than the open sights on the SMLE. However, the open sights seem to offer an advantage for snap shooting.

[Eaglelord17]

A P14 with a excellent bore, will perform better than a No. 1 Mk. 3 with a excellent bore in the accuracy department. Its like how the Ross destroyed the Lee Enfield on the range, one is just simply more accurate. The reason being the forward locking lugs and better chamber dimensions (when I get new brass left at the range, it takes a ton of effort to full length size it if it was shot from a Enfield, as opposed to my P14 which has a proper sized chamber). That being said, accuracy at the range and accuracy in the field are two different things, one you just need to hit the target and the Lee Enfield is certainly capable of that.

The P14 certainly is a great rifle, and it was what the British were looking to replace the Enfield with (though in a rimless round). Biggest issue with the rifle though is weight, as they are solid heavy guns (certainly overbuilt for the .303 round). The Enfield has the advantage of quicker lock up time (60 degree bolt throw), ability to recock if you failed to detonate the primer without opening the action, lighter, larger magazine capacity (though I don't see that as much of a advantage unless they had 10rd chargers), I find them easier to load as the P14 has the sights in the way, and the generous chambers help with a variety of ammo (though I have never heard of issues with the P14s chamber). Also as a lefty it is easier to use a No. 1 Mk. 3 than it is to use a P14, as again the sights get in the way of my awkward cocking method.

Both have there advantages and disadvantages, and a some of the features of the P14 were carried on into the next generation of Enfields the No. 4 Mk. 1s (mainly the sights).

[CINDERS]

Given the proximity of the enemy between 10yds to 200yds in the front trenches snap shooting was pretty much it as you had 2 seconds max a fleeting glimpse at most to smack a round at a figure in WWI it was sniping by arty really. A dedicated sniper may favour the P-14 over the Lee for obvious reasons he does not need fire power just 1 shot at a high value target and they fetted their rifles accordingly. In the trenches when the brown stuff flew and they were marching onto your trench get the rounds out as fast as you can.
At that terrible day on Galipolli when the Turks charged the trenches the rifles ran so hot the soldiers could not hang onto them as fire power was needed not accuracy a 5 shotter just won't win the race there, each rifle had its good and bad points and I guess they complemented each other helping the war effort.

A German attack on a British trench in WWI withered under the fire power of the troops manning that trench such was the rate of fire poured from the smellies the germans thought they had run into a MG Battalion!
The Brits trained their troops to a very proficient state of rapid accurate fire with the Lee Enfield, us Aussies were just naturals at it given we will blaze away at anything and when a shot goes by we will stand up and say "Now where did that come from?" as was the rumour put out around the trenches at Galipolli.

[Eaglelord17]

The Brits trained their troops to a very proficient state of rapid accurate fire with the Lee Enfield, us Aussies were just naturals at it given we will blaze away at anything and when a shot goes by we will stand up and say "Now where did that come from?" as was the rumour put out around the trenches at Galipolli.

This didn't last too long though, as by the end of 1915 pretty much all the well trained regulars from the beginning of the war were dead, and the time it takes to get someone to that degree of proficiency is years.

Another advantage for the P14 is the ease of manufacturing, only 59 parts in the rifle as opposed to the at least 67 parts for the Lee Enfield which all require fitting.

I imagine if WWI had looked like the Boer War, they would have ended up with the P14 in the end, but since it was shorter ranged the Lee Enfield showed its advantages.

[Sentryduty]

These 1 kind of service rifle is better than another usually boil down to "my black cat is blacker than your black cat" kind of arguments/discussion, in the end both are still "black cats" and do their job well.

However they are an interesting discussion maker beyond basic facts and statistics.

( the P14) found to be more accurate and reliable than the SMLE sniper rifles". It also stated by 1917 that the SMLE was not accurate enough "even with a telescopic sight".

Accuracy, there is an undefined term, we can of course define it scientifically, and compare the Extreme Spread of groupings compared to one rifle or another and conclude one is more accurate than another, but what is field accuracy really all about to the soldier in the field?

Speaking to modern terms, because that is where I am trained and knowledgeable, we shoot at a Figure 11 target;

Ah, here we go, take a look at our old friend "Crazy Ivan" charging at you with bayonet fixed.


A figure 11 target measures out at 44 inches = 1114mm and 17 inches = 432mm or so, and speaking with regard to basic reality, a hit is a hit. So in blackboard theory, a rifle (and the soldier running it) need only shoot 8.5 MOA (17"/2) to score on this target at 100 yards. In that regard even the worst Service rifle is accurate enough to do the work.

But that Crazy Ivan is a crafty sort, sometimes he drops prone or fights from fire trenches, we are trained for that as well, enter, the Figure 12.

Thought you could fool us by showing up without legs, we are on to your tricks Ivan.


This target is 21.5 inches = 546mm and 17 inches = 432mm, and still takes a rifle and shooter a combined 8.5 MOA to score a hit.

Any typical front line soldier is trained to aim "Center of Mass" we deal in hits and misses, we do not aim for parts of an enemy, we aim for the part that gives that largest probability of a hit. We do not train to make kill shots or wound shots, or tight groupings, we train to make hits. An enemy killed is good, and enemy wounded is also good, but the key it to stop that enemy from exerting combat power against you. Using the rifle, hits of any sort are what do that.

The rule is aim center of mass, and do it consistently, and even a bad shot can connect.

Doing a rundown, (Personal Weapons Test Level 3, covered at bottom of post) as your heart rate increases, the run tires you out, and the timer ticking away, making tight groups transitions to close enough, center of mass, squeeze the shot off, make good hits.

But what of the Sniper's?

Those guys who creep around with their ghillie suits and No.4 (T), Parker-Hales, Accuracy Internationals, or Prairie Gun Works, the ninjas of the battlefield.

They have their own target as well, the Figure 14, the Hun's head:



I don't have the scoring circle size available, and I have none in stock to measure, but the circle is larger than you might think, it is certainly not the sub-MOA world of modern target shooters/civilian sharpshooters.

But back to this whole business of a service rifle "not being accurate enough" is nonsense, some rifles perform better than others but all perform well enough to do the work, otherwise they would not have been adopted at all. Speaking very generally, a Diemaco C7 rifle with service ammunition and an average shooter delivers performance is the 2-8 MOA range, sure some are better, and some are worse, but on the whole that is real world range results from a modern platform. In my experience any service rifle of the last 100 years that I have shot was more than capable of delivering 2-8 MOA, however different rifles were easier to deliver those shots, or faster to shoot well, or easier to load, or perhaps better balanced etc.

PWT Level 3:

SIGHTING (any position)
100m
fig 11
5 rds

GROUPING (prone)
100m
fig 11
5 rds
best 4 rds count
6"=5 pts 8"=3 pts

APPLICATION (prone)
200m
fig 11
5 rds
1 pt per hit
tgt falls when hit

SNAP SHOOTING
200m
fig 11 (on stick)
1 trial exposure
2 rds per exp, 1 pt per hit
2 exp of 5 sec in prone
3 exp of 8 sec in kneeling

RAPID FIRE (trench or prone)
200m
fig 11
15 rds 1 pt per hit
40 sec exp
rifle loaded w/10 rd mag, change mags

APPLICATION (prone)

INFANTRY ONLY
300m
fig 11
5 rds
1 pt per hit, tgt falls when hit

SNAP SHOOTING (trench or prone)

INFANTRY ONLY
300m
2 fig 11‘s
10 rds
1 pt per hit
5 exp, 2 rds at each exp

FIRE MOVEMENT (run down)

INFANTRY ONLY
14rd mag+20 rd mag
1 pt per hit
400m in the prone....tgt appears 45 sec exp

Run to the 300m
2 fig 11‘s
3 rds into each tgt in the prone
tgt goes down....tgt appears 45 sec exp

Run to the 200m
2 fig 11‘s
4 rds into each tgt in the kneeling
change mags
tgt goes down....tgt appears 45 sec exp

Run to the 100m
2 fig 12‘s
4 rds into each tgt in the prone
tgt goes down

Stand up
alert position
tgt appears(fig 11 on stick)
5 sec exp
kneeling posn
2 rds tgt goes down

Advance
75m
tgt appears(fig 11 on stick)
5 sec exp
standing posn
2 rds tgt goes down

Advance
50m
tgt appears(fig 12 on stick)
5 sec exp
standing posn
2 rds tgt goes down

Advance
25m
tgt appears(fig 11 on stick)
2 exp
3 rd burst each exp

SCORING
Infantry C7
First Class Shot - 80
Marksman - 68
PASS - 56
FAIL - below 56

NIGHT SUPPLEMENT
INFANTRY ONLY
1. fig 11
prone
10 rds double tap for MPI
no score (range is at limit of night visibility)

2. fig 11
prone
10 rds
5 exp 5 sec each
2 rds at each exp

3. fig 11
prone
10 rds 20 sec exp

Mandatory for all INF regardless of day score.
1 pt per hit = 20 pts
PASS 50% 10 pts

[philb]

I once shot a 4 inch group at 600 yds at bisley with my made up No4T, using ww2 ammo, witnessed by others. I was quiet impressed

[CINDERS]

Same here sentry we shoot on those 3 targets center hold for the 11-12 and 14 we put the 14's on a stick and had a go at 600m with our T's with them against the sand they were hard to define but who cares it was fun trying.

[henry r]

talking about targets, these are the ones i'm looking forward to using.

second class figure targets, as used in the mad minute testing.

[Frederick303]

The reason for that description, is as noted prior, the sniping of WWI was for the most part at close range 150 to 500 yards. Now the No 1 because of its rear locking lugs, was not so good for short range, where it shows negative compensation and a rifle that has not been regulated will show vertical stringing from around 150 to 500 yards. So while the No1 was, once properly regulated a very good match rifle at long range (800 to 1000 yards, distance of the Bisley finals) it would show a marked tendency to string vertically at the critical 200/300/400/450 yard range.

The SMLE firing MK VII was not the award winning long range rifle at Bisley prior to WWI, it was post WWI that its reputation was made, prior to the war the long lee/CLLE with its 29 inch heavier weight barrel firing the MKVI was the rifle of competition.

In addition, as is noted in any of the competitive books written back in the 1920s and 1930s, within living memory of the first great international debate, changes in the moisture content of the forend on the SMLE will affect zero, which is a very important thing for a sniper who is making one shot attempts. The north western portion of the western front (Ypres area) was fairly wet and subject to high humidity. Because of the 4 internal barrel interface points of the SMLE forend this is a real issue, in the 1920s they went to the extent of keeping the rifles covered in the sun and would not put the rifles on one side on the ground because of various fears about zero displacement. This tendency was thoeroirized to exist because of the very thing forend profile of the highly routed out forend. There is not all that much wood there.

The simple fact that the SMLE snipers was all broken down after WWI, to the extent they virtually none survived should kind of show this was the case. The various different versions were all more or less deemed failures in that role and it was not until the Australians used the heavy MLE weight barrel in WWII that the rifle was deemed sufficient for that purpose. That was after the Australians had about 6 years of range work (1934 to 1940) to figure out how to make them shoot.

The advantage of the Pattern 1914 was the longer slight radius, the very heavy barrel and the one piece walnut stock. Sealed correctly with linseed/wax mixture it is fairly stable. The heavy barrel only contacts only at the forend tip, and No 1 rifles that have had the barrel free floated do not shoot poorly, the P14 had about the heaviest weight barrel of any service rifle in the 1900 to 1980 time frame. The Pattern 14 F with only a fine adjustable sight was deemed a better sniper rifle than a SMLE with a scope.

Now if a SMLE fan does not know this because they have not done the research or are not aware of the competitive history of the SMLE does not mean the author of that article was wrong or off. He was correct, if you need ta basic source, try Skennerton's 1983 "The British Sniper" book, some of the details are in there. To get to the real reasons one should read all of the issues and solutions tried to make the SMLE rifles shoot well at the shorts in the 1920s to 1934, when the packing regulations were opened up. The technical theories and adaptations made to the SMLE bedding after WWI would take a long time to describe, and most of the techniques use (graphite and packing), were not used in WWI or known in WWI.