Interesting

[CINDERS]

I was going through some old files on the comp and came across this.
The engineering drawing for the Mk VII ball projectile which gives you its dimensions and construction.
You can see the reason why it had a reputation for causing nasty wounds with the aluminium filler in the front of the projectile.
Once the nose deformed the heavier rear of the projectile tended to end over the projectile as it continued through the err enemy.

Now there is somethings that I did notice well a couple actually one being that it has no cannular on the copper jacket to lock the core and the neck crimp stab.
The other one, well I'll leave you to discover that one as it caught me by surprise as I had always been told something entirely different.
Use the + to get it to 146% makes it easier to see now its up to those that know these rounds to see what I saw which I do find interesting

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.

[Bindi2]

Cinders
That to me is not a Mk7, the weight is wrong at 160gns

[Alan de Enfield]

The other one, well I'll leave you to discover that one as it caught me by surprise as I had always been told something entirely different.

Bullet weight NOT 174 grains ?

[hayboy]

Regarding the bullet weight shown on the drawing, I'm not 100% sure but I think I've read something that there was an interim step between Mk VI and what Mk VII finally ended up at, which is what this drawing shows.
Upon testing the 160 grain didn't work and they upped it to 174 grain, but (although they would have up-issued the drawing) they didn't upgrade the mark of bullet.

[Alan de Enfield]

By 1915 (if not earlier) the bullet was 174g

[CINDERS]

Yes your on the money its to do with the bullet weight at 160 Gn but also at the top of the drawing you can read what ever the acronym S A C Minute (Could stand for Small Arms Committee ?) 4409 VII underscore then under that we have 8-12-09.

So as stated it appears that this drawing is for the trailed 160 Gnr as hayboy suggested in due course proceeded with the 174 grainer I'm not sure the No. 4409 is the number of listed changes that have been made at that point 8-12-1909 in time with regards to the small arms in service.
So I learnt something today not only from the drawing which I think I snaffled off the web years ago and never paid any attention to the weight nor the date of the drawing also the fact that the site here contains very knowledgeable personnel who are onto it.
I did a PL thing dangled half a carrot to see what turned up, I mean this in a good way, thanks guys hope this was just a little bit of fun for you.

[Alan de Enfield]

Added to which, once it became a 'production' item it had the '3-idents'.

[Bruce_in_Oz]

Note the aluminium inner "cap", in both the "experimenta"l bullet and in ALL Mk 7 bullets.

Somewhere along the line, it was decided to make the overall bullet length similar to the Mk 6.

It was also a mechanical requirement to have an overall cartridge length VERY similar (and no longer than) Mk 6, otherwise a LOT of small arms, particularly machine guns and most importantly maxim and Vickers Belt-fed types, would r4equire re-engineering of their feed system components.

By designing a "spitzer" bullet, a lot of weight went away, nut not quite enough, Hence the internal lightweight "cap". The boffins had settle on the concept of a high-velocity bullet and a spitzer shape was a good start. Shaving a bit more weight of would get the muzzle velocity and hence trajectory they also wanted.Because the Mk 7 retained the length, the RIFLING twist of 1:10 inches was, conveniently "a good thing".

That the bullet was "base-heavy" and thus destabilized on transition from air to more "wet" targets, the "body-counters" were probably overjoyed that terminal results were suitably gruesome even though the bullet met all the conditions of the Hague Convention. While forward "velocity is shed rapidly in flight, the ROTATIONAL rate of a bullet barely changes after leaving the muzzle., so, being struck by a Mk 7 bullet, at extreme MG ranges, and thus subsonic, will DEFINITELY 'leave a mark".

Interestingly, Mk 8 bullets do NOT have that lightweight inner cap, but they have a reasonable "boat-tail" Hence a weight of 180 gn, and the boat-tail contributed to less dispersion at trans-sonic and subsonic speeds. . Derived from pre-WW2r experiments with bullets for long-range target shooting.

[CINDERS]

Alan ages ago I posted a pic of a MKVII round I think it was a MW (Munitions Welshpool) it had a roll crimp instead of the normal stab crimp I've never seen another one and I never got an answer back from anyone regarding so did they trial roll crimping say for ease of production.
If anything it would have been an Aussie thing I'll have a scrounge and see if I can find the picture again and post it cannot vouch for quality as I only had an I-Phone IV at that point I upgraded last year to an 11 I think!

Postscript,
I found the round on my desk so took some better pics, you can see faint stab marks but the roll goes right around the neck at the same depth so maybe a machine adjustment don't know anyway something to discus.
It is a ball round not a reload I was correct it is a MW VII 44.

[Alan de Enfield]

Alan ages ago I posted a pic of a MKVII round I think it was a MW (Munitions Welshpool) it had a roll crimp instead of the normal stab crimp I've never seen another one and I never got an answer back from anyone regarding so did they trial roll crimping say for ease of production.
If anything it would have been an Aussie thing I'll have a scrounge and see if I can find the picture again and post it cannot vouch for quality as I only had an I-Phone IV at that point I upgraded last year to an 11 I think!

Postscript,
I found the round on my desk so took some better pics, you can see faint stab marks but the roll goes right around the neck at the same depth so maybe a machine adjustment don't know anyway something to discus.
It is a ball round not a reload I was correct it is a MW VII 44.

Interesting indeed - If I have ever seen one, it has not registered, so, for me, another 'weird' bit of Enfield history.