Lee enfield accuracy question

[CINDERS]

We are a bit off track as BAR said, we could go further and talk about why David Lloyd George disliked Haig, Anthill and the NEK fiasco on Galipolli, Jutland, Frommelles or the criminality of Britain being so short of all types of artillery munitions at the start of hostilities. THE FACT IS; the Lee Enfield Rifle was designed for one thing to bring about the demise of an enemy which it may not have done as good as some but better than others. And once the 174 grain MkVII projie started hitting them that was another game changer.

[Frederick303]

My apology for getting things off track.

Actually I seem to recall an article of a chap shooting 1911 MK IV ammunition and it gave very good mid range accuracy out of SMLE rifles. As in no vertical stringing.

[CINDERS]

The 215RN nickle tended to from what I can gather was adequate but of course was only loaded to about 2,200fps where as the VII was at 2,440@ the back sights had to be re-calibrated for the flatter trajectory but the real bonus was the MKVII projectile was it becoming inherently unstable once it hit you. It was a pretty much desirable design having the aluminium nose filler with the weight or CG of the lead core of projectile to the rear hence when it hit and the nose deformed which de-stabilized the round and it proceeded to tumble end for end as the rear portion being heavier overtook the front. There were all sorts of accusations from the other side citing certain sections of the Haig (I think) convention about the use of dum-dums which was not the case it was just a good wounding/killing bullet.
I used to go roo shooting with my Uncle who has a sporterized Lee Metford using MkVII ammo, I did not see any roo's that were hit in the heart lung area hop to far if they did not drop on the spot I unfortunately did not get the rifle when he died the son in law did I got a Slazenger Mod-12 .22 rifle with the 10 shot mag I remember that as a child as well as accounting for a fair swags of 28 parrots and Galahs in my hands

As a footer - given the ranges fought in WWI and even WWII the Lee enfields accuracy was quite good enough (My 4's and MkIII's are pretty good to 5-600m if I do my bit) I think the real successes of the rifle was the fact it had a good rate of fire and with the 10 round mag gave it at least with a squad the ability to put a good deal of rounds in your direction, reliability, pretty crunchie proof from the fiddlers.
The proof is in the real longevity of the design even today I think India still has MkIII's and 4"s as policing weapons besides old as a 303 rifle round and gun is it will still do the business it was originally designed for...........
Also Canada is still using 4's for the Forrest Rangers but I hear they are going to replace them soon hopefully the rangers will get a chance to buy them at a good price otherwise they will probably be chopped up?

[Eaglelord17]

The proof is in the real longevity of the design even today I think India still has MkIII's and 4"s as policing weapons besides old as a 303 rifle round and gun is it will still do the business it was originally designed for...........
Also Canada is still using 4's for the Forrest Rangers but I hear they are going to replace them soon hopefully the rangers will get a chance to buy them at a good price otherwise they will probably be chopped up?

There is still tons of bolt actions of all types in use around the world. The Sirius patrol in Greenland uses M17s, I imagine there is still plenty of places where a Mosin Nagant will be a staple for a while, the Carcano is still in use in places of Libya. None are really used as a main issue weapon by nations, however they are still all around in some capacity.

[Frederick303]

Back round 1998 the K98K and M48 rifles were still seeing some use by the insurgents in the Muslim Kosovo/Montenegro separatist movements.

My understanding was (don't quote me on this) that the K98s claim to fame was that with the powerful 7.92x57 round and its rather good penetration, it was popular for taking one or 2 potshots at the Serbian/Montenegro police/MP patrols. Any more shots than that and the shooter would be identified. The body armor and soft vehicles used by the police were not protection against the 198 gr projectile.

Of course it could also be that was all they had.....

Now rather than take the discussion off course any more, here are some objective accuracy figures at mid and long range with thee SMLE of regulated fame in the pre war period. Taken from the 1929 handbook of small arms and some publications in that same period making reference to it:

During the late 1920’s when the manufacture was at its peak and the accuracy considerations were at the forefront of production (much as they were in the US during this period) the acceptance criterion for 20 shot groups of .303 MK VII ball at 600 yards was a figure of merit (read approximately equivalent to mean radius for Americans) of 8’ inches or less. This corresponds to expected maximum group size, according to British sources of 28 inches for a 20 shot group. No adjustment was made for horizontal deviation due to wind, though tests were conduced under same conditions where possible. If the results exceeded the test specification due to high horizontal deviation the lot could be reproved under more benign conditions. Because the .303 service rifles used in these tests were mounted on a rigid metal mount, damped with lead, no compensation due to barrel flex was incorporated in the results. The test distance was 600 yards.

While this was the outer limit of acceptable accuracy, The expected “normal” accuracy of .303 Ball under these test conditions was a 24 inch or less vertical grouping and under a no wind condition a horizontal grouping of approximately 18 inches or less. This corresponded to a MR of approximately 5.7” to just under 6”, depending on the particular pattern of shots on the target. Previous to 1910 when the MK VI ball accuracy was tested at 500 yards the expected average MR was 5.25”.

The .303 MKVII SAA chosen for match use was selected from those lots that showed superior accuracy during test, unfortunately records regarding the expected accuracy of MK VII cartridges used during the yearly Bisley meets and other important competitions are lacking. The nearest historical documents we have the relate to this come from the 1929 Textbook of Small Arms, which documents how accurate a SMLE could be regulated (adjusted by a Match armourer) and how it compared to the standard issued rifle, comparing the most accurate production lots with typical ammunition lots. The results were tested for 6 conditions:

a) True Mann test barrel with standard chamber and bore
b) SMLE barrel configured as used in cartridge proof test
c) Fully regulated SMLE rifle by expert (i.e. best available) fired off of 6 point rest which allows return to battery with each shot
d) Fully regulated SMLE rifle by expert (i.e. best available) fired off of sandbag rest with aperture sight used for sighting
e) Selected SMLE rifle (i.e. like new service rifle) fired off of 6 point rest which allows return to battery with each shot
f) Selected SMLE rifle (i.e. like new service rifle) fired off of sandbag rest with aperture sight

Each of the above test conditions were tested with two types of ammunition: the very best selected lots of issue ammunition and selected ammunition that was at the expected level of standard ball accuracy. The groups were ten shots per string, slow fire at a distance of 500 yards under constant wind conditions. The results achieved were as follows:

Test condition Best Ammunition Selected Ammunition
10 shot groups in inches 10 shot groups in inches MOA equivalent
A 6” 10" ~2.0
B 7” 12" ~2.4
C 7” 12" ~2.4
D 7” 12" ~2.4
E 11” 18" ~3.6
F 11” 18" ~3.6


Now in comments referencing the above the following was noted in various articles I have read form the period from 1924 to 1935:

1) SMLE rifles that had no issue with service bedding could result in vertical dispersion at 300 yard as great as 14~16 inches with non selected service ammunition. The notes seem to indicate this was attributed in the middle to late 1920s to 1) point of aim changes as the wood heated up and 2) known variations in muzzle velocity that resulted in vertical stringing at 200/300 yards.

2) In 1924, when packing had just been introduced and was the only method generally used to tune the SMLE beyond the service bedding a good result was a rifle that would result in vertical groups of no more than 6 inches at 200 yards with postwar Kynoch ammunition.

3) The efforts to get better mid range performance seem to have lagged, sufficient so that after 1928 Parker hale showed there test results at 100 yards with their regulated match SMLE rifles guaranteed with their selected ammunition the rifles would hold 2 minutes of angle at that distance.

4) by 1934 with the additional methods learned Parker Hale asserted that as rifles left their works they would hold 1.5 MOA and if requested the rifles could be tested at 100 yards in the presence of the buyer. In the same sentence the say they cannot guarantee that level of accuracy on the rifle range, due to ammunition and forend issues.

5) in regards to the minimum required vertical dispersion of MK VII ammunition at 600 yards (28 inches, 24 normal), this same ammunition fired out of a regulated SMLE was expected to hold under 30 inches of vertical spread at 1000 yards. Now one would expect out of a mauser action with the 3.25 pound weight match barrel the spread to be around 34~37 inches, while the mauser could be expected to do something on the order of 15~19 inches at 600 yards. The reduced dispersion was due to compensation of the SMLE, which is why it held on as a long range match rifle at Bisley until the late 1950s, the last year it took the queens finals I know of being in the early 1960s.

[ssj]

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

This sounds similar to the target rifle shooters complaints of the same period. A good battle rifle does not need to be a good target rifle, especially if its battle capability is then compromised, which is why the P14 wasnt developed after WW2 I suggest, the SMLE proved better in combat. The P14 or at least my one is 100 years old and still shoots 1 3/4moa but its long and cumbersome compared to the SMLE/no4 but yes seems way more stable and accurate out of the box still. The downsides of the SMLE is its not as accurate and seems to go pretty in-accurate over time, ditto the No4 especially if tuned to make them suitable as target guns. But for fighting distances of 100yds at most 300yds its accuracy was OK, as its other attributes counted for more. So sure from what the old timers tell me you can make SMLE's and especially the no4's sing at 1000yds but the tuning/bedding and upkeep is painful they will then outshoot the P14s. Targets have also shrunk over the decades btw so now I think the X at 300yds is about 2inches across, I do not think any Enfield is going to clock 50's today.

Its almost like making a VW Beetle do 150MPH, you can do it but its insane and may not hold up for long (says he having done a water cooled 1.9l turbo'd one...)

[AradoAR234]

Well, after all this time ( got diagnosed with metastatic cancer, operated on, chemo and radiation , recovered, now back at work full time) I finally got back to this thread I originally started......great discussion in the middle of the horrors of war etc, but back on topic by the end. Pretty well answered my question though, and thanks to every one for their contribution.

To conclude, it looks as though if you tweak a No1 Mk 3 properly, it will shoot pretty well, and a No4 rifle will do even better. As a standard issue they were good enough for the job, and history will define them as an excellent combat rifle regardless. The P14, by default of WW1, simply got relegated to 2nd place and was never really given the chance it probably deserved. Declared obsolete after WW2, while the No4 Lee Enfield went on to serve in 7.62 NATO as a sniper rifle for many years to come.

All my life I have heard tall tales and true about the 303 rifle, in all its guises, but there is no doubt it has cemented its place in History.

[Bruce_in_Oz]

I recall posting this Rifle, No1, Mk 111 (*) tech spec stuff previously, but it bears repeating:

42. Rifle, testing of, - Every rifle will be fired at a paper target, with full sight, leaf and slide down, at a range of 100 feet, from a mechanical rest. trial shots will be fired, if necessary, and the foresight will be adjusted for lateral deviation, or will be replaced by another foresight to correct vertical deviation. Then five rounds will be fired from the magazine; if the rifle fails to put four shots out of the five into a rectangle 1- inch broad and 1 1/2- inch high, or if the blade, foresight, requires to be set more than .03-inch to one side of its normal position, the rifle will be returned to the manufacturer.

That works out, at best, as 3 inches wide and 4 1/2 inches high at 100 yards, with "best-grade ammunition"; close enough for government work.

From: SA 462P, 1938

[CINDERS]

Welcome back Arado.

[browningautorifle]

Well, after all this time

Good to see you back...