Lee Enfield SMLE No.4 Mk.II and others.

[Panzerknacker]

Nice video of the main british infantry gun in the WW2, the recoil seems to be mild.

http://media.putfile.com/SMLE-No4-Mk1

[Trooper]

We still had them when I was in the Army Cadets back in the early 70's. To a 13 year old the recoil was like a kick from a mule!

Back then, even so long after the war, all our issued kit was ex-WW2, including battledress and 37 pattern webbing.

[SS Tiger]

Cool video, thanks for uploading and posting! I would love to fire a rifle other than an air one, just to get a good idea of the recoil.

[George Eller]

-

Thanks for the video clip Panzerknacker.

I have always enjoyed shooting my Lee-Enfield No 1 Mk III and No 4 Mk 1*. They are fun to shoot.

-

[Panzerknacker]

I have always enjoyed shooting my Lee-Enfield No 1 Mk III and No 4 Mk 1

Lucky guy, I always like the Lee-Enfield although the Mauser M-1898 action is more strong.

We still had them when I was in the Army Cadets back in the early 70's. To a 13 year old the recoil was like a kick from a mule

That much..? , you better dont try a 12 o 16 gauge shotgun.

[DerMann]

I have always enjoyed shooting my Lee-Enfield No 1 Mk III and No 4 Mk 1

Lucky guy, I always like the Lee-Enfield although the Mauser M-1898 action is more strong.

We still had them when I was in the Army Cadets back in the early 70's. To a 13 year old the recoil was like a kick from a mule

That much..? , you better dont try a 12 o 16 gauge shotgun.

The action of the Mauser is stronger than the Enfield, however, they both have about the same amount of recoil. The action on the Enfield is infinitely more enjoyable than that of the Mauser, by far.

A Mauser kicks more than a 12 gauge. Also, most shotguns have a rubber recoil pad. Most Mausers and Enfields (with the exception of the No.5) have metal butts.

[Panzerknacker]

Yes the kick in the Mauser is healty even manageable, looking at the video again it seems more powerful than the Lee-Enfield, at list in the argentine M1909 variant.

The action on the Enfield is infinitely more enjoyable than that of the Mauser, by far.

You mean more light to handle...?


A Mauser kicks more than a 12 gauge. Also, most shotguns have a rubber recoil pad.

Teorically, I have a single shot, 28 inches full choke barrel 16 gauge shotgun for hunting duck......I asure you that it kick like a mule.

[George Eller]

Yes the kick in the Mauser is healty even manageable, looking at the video again it seems more powerful than the Lee-Enfield, at list in the argentine M1909 variant.

The action on the Enfield is infinitely more enjoyable than that of the Mauser, by far.

You mean more light to handle...?


A Mauser kicks more than a 12 gauge. Also, most shotguns have a rubber recoil pad.

Teorically, I have a single shot, 28 inches full choke barrel 16 gauge shotgun for hunting duck......I asure you that it kick like a mule.

-

I have not fired a Mauser before, but I used to own a Springfield 1903A3. The Springfield definitely had more felt recoil than either of my Lee-Enfields. The Lee-Enfields have a shorter bolt travel since the lugs lock towards the rear rather than at the front of the bolt like the Mauser and Springfield. The bolt handle is also positioned farther back in relation to the trigger than on the Mauser and Springfield actions. In addition, the Lee-Enfields have a turned down bolt handle - many of the earlier Mauser bolt handles were straight making them more awkward to cock. The action Lee-Enfield is quicker and thus have a faster rate of fire.

Of the Lee-Enfields, I like the feel of the earlier No 1 Mk III. It seems to have better balance and the action seems to be smoother. Although the barrel on the No 4 Mk I is heavier and stiffer. My No 4 Mk I seems to be more slightly accurate than my No 1 Mk III, but the rifle itself feels more "club-like".

I have an Ithaca 12 gauge slide-action riot gun and it kicks far more than the Springfield did. Like getting slugged in the shoulder really hard.

-

[Panzerknacker]

Yes the early Mausers including the M1909 had a straight bolt handle, pretty akward, off course the K-98 had not this disavantage.

http://www.armsbid.com/ot47-auction/ot47-web/416.jpg


The best caracteristic of the SMLE in my opinion...?...the 10 round magazine.

I have an Ithaca 12 gauge slide-action riot gun and it kicks far more than the Springfield did. Like getting slugged in the shoulder really hard.

He,he, I am more than sure about that, and you dont even try one of the new ultralighweight over and under shotgun firing a 12/ 3 inch full hunting load. :wink:

[DerMann]

When I first bought my Mauser, it had a converted straight bolt (it was bent, but kinda weird). I bought a replacement bolt (the bolt on the Vz.24 is supposed to be straight) and I found the straight bolt on the Mauser to be much more enjoyable than the curved bolt. But I guess it's just personal tastes.

What I meant by being "infinitely more enjoyable" was that working the bolt is almost effortless.

And as for the recoil on the 12 gauge vs. the Mauser, I might have just grown accustom to them, and I can't tell the difference anymore.

[Panzerknacker]

Well probably you are right in the handling thing, I think that is needed more up force to unlock the bolt in the german rifles.

A video of the K-98K to compare, by the way there is no need to manually extract the clip in the mauser like this guy do, this is ejected automatically.

http://media.putfile.com/k98Movie

[George Eller]

The Lee-Enfields have a shorter bolt travel since the lugs lock towards the rear rather than at the front of the bolt like the Mauser and Springfield. The bolt handle is also positioned farther back in relation to the trigger than on the Mauser and Springfield actions. In addition, the Lee-Enfields have a turned down bolt handle - many of the earlier Mauser bolt handles were straight making them more awkward to cock. The action of the Lee-Enfield is quicker and thus has a faster rate of fire.
-

When I first bought my Mauser, it had a converted straight bolt (it was bent, but kinda weird). I bought a replacement bolt (the bolt on the Vz.24 is supposed to be straight) and I found the straight bolt on the Mauser to be much more enjoyable than the curved bolt. But I guess it's just personal tastes.

What I meant by being "infinitely more enjoyable" was that working the bolt is almost effortless.
-

From: World War I Trench Warfare (1) 1914-16, Dr. Stephen Bull, Osprey, ISBN 1 84176 197 4, 2002, p 9:

British Regulars were arguably the best all rounders, professional soldiers who were taught 'volume' fire, rapid fire, snap shooting and fire from cover as well as simple accuracy. Their efficiency was aided by the .303in Short Magazine Lee Enfield, a weapon developed as a universal arm for infantry and cavalry in the wake of the Boer War. Its useful features included a handy length, a bolt which could be manipulated without taking the gun away from the aiming eye, and a ten-round magazine which could be swiftly loaded from five-round chargers from the top. Fifteen rounds a minute was a perfectly feasible rate of fire; speed trials at Hythe actually reached 28 rounds under ideal conditions.
-

From: Death From Afar: Sniping During the Great War, Martin Pegler, Guns & Ammo: Surplus Firearms, 2005, pp 51-52:

In terms of performance, the Mauser was believed to be marginally better in terms of long-range shooting ability, partly due to its longer barrel and superior scope mounting system. About 600 yards was believed to be the maximum range to ensure a body hit with the Mauser and 500 yards with the Enfield, although the Enfield's bolt was thought to be faster and smoother to operate.
-

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/5213/rifle3td.jpg

-

And as for the recoil on the 12 gauge vs. the Mauser, I might have just grown accustom to them, and I can't tell the difference anymore.

DerMann, if you are using a semi-automatic 12 gauge, the recoil would be milder than say a double-barrel or slide-action (pump).

-

Yes the early Mausers including the M1909 had a straight bolt handle, pretty akward, off coruse the K-98 had not this disavantage.

http://www.armsbid.com/ot47-auction/ot47-web/416.jpg :
-

Panzerknacker, you might find the following article interesting from Guns & Ammo: Surplus Firearms, 2005, pp 38-42:

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/1225/rifle023my.jpg

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/5904/rifle036rg.jpg

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/2483/rifle043ln.jpg

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/2007/rifle059dg.jpg

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/2522/rifle060tg.jpg
-

He,he, I am more than sure about that, and you dont even try one of the new ultralighweight over and under shotgun firing a 12/ 3 inch full hunting load. :wink:

Ouch - I can see the bruises already. :D

-

[Panzerknacker]

Panzerknacker, you might find the following article interesting from Guns & Ammo: Surplus Firearms, 2005, pp

I know that many would prefer to see pamela Anderson in underwear...but the Mauser images that George had post make the same phisical effect on me. :mrgreen:

Many thanks G.E

Sadly many of these fine rifles was butchered to make sporterized Hunting Weapons, I ve see one of these converted for a caliber large as the .458 Win Magnum, the bolt s face diameter is the limit because the action is strong as hell, seems that nobody enjoy target shooting with a military jewelry.

http://www.fullaventura.com.ar/sitios/gunshop/fotos/gunshop41_34(1).jpg

[Panzerknacker]

Enfield jungle carbine video, check the muzzle blast.

http://media.putfile.com/Carabina-de-jungla

[SS Tiger]

George that's a great article! Thanks for posting!

That rifle seems to have some power PanzerKnacker! :shock:

[George Eller]

George that's a great article! Thanks for posting!

That rifle seems to have some power PanzerKnacker! :shock:
-

You're welcome SS Tiger :)

Later, when I have more time I will dig into my old issues of Guns&Ammo and post more on the Enfield and Mauser rifles. (Right now I am pretty tied up for time).

-

[SS Tiger]

Thank's, I'd really appreciate that! ;)

[Panzerknacker]

That rifle seems to have some power PanzerKnacker

And a lot of noise too, look at the chav next to the shooter criying for his ears hehehe.

By the way, the 1909 had two more Variants, the Engineesr carbine wich resembled very much to a K-98k with his twisted bolt and 24 inches barrel and the Cavalry carbine with 24,5 inch barrel and the stock to the muzzle. This last one remember me the SMLE used in the WW1.

[Panzerknacker]

Video of the WW1 Enfield, this time used by a left handed shooter.

http://www.worldwar.it/armi/video/Enfield_n1_mk3.wmv

[2nd of foot]

Interesting video, the firer is not very competent with the action. It should be a lot smoother than that. He is jerking the bolt and making the loading look very hard.

[Panzerknacker]

Well, is left handed after all...no military rifle of the ww1 was designed for him.

[Tony Williams]

Last week I put in some range time at a UK military/academic facility, and as well as modern stuff had the chance to try some interesting weapons form their museum (only a couple of shots with each, sadly).

This included a .303 Lee Enfield No.4 and a Mauser Kar 98k. I preferred the Lee as the aperture sight was much better to use and the action was shorter and slicker. There was also less muzzle flash and blast and the recoil felt a bit softer.

I also got to shoot an Fg 42 and an MKb 42(W) :D :D :D

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[Doug 1956]

Hello Tony, yes it's Doug who departed from that other forum about 6 weeks ago.

Like Trooper our high school cadets has SMLE in the 1970s, some one which dated back, according to the stamp on the receiver, to 1898. Of course these may have been much modified since that date as our rifles were obviously 'short', of the length that came into service after the Boer war. Even as 13 year old I didn't find the recoil excessive, but as in most situations we had to fire from prone.

It was only later that a bunch of us, sent on an inter-school competition at age of 16, fired the weapon from a standing position, without any formal training in doing so. When in 1972 a few of us got the chance to fire SLR (L1A1) I noticed that the recoil seemed negligible in comparison to the SMLE.

Our SMLE also had the original form of sight.

[Khristiensan]

Hello guys, I'm new in collecting the Enfields and I have a few questions regarding the Lee-Enfield No.4 MkI Rifles, please help me answer some questions, thanks so much !! I'm into WWII so I only purchase small arms that are historically (or appearance-wise) accurate to the WWII-era.

1. What does "Savage Lee-Enfield" mean? I know they are the ones made in the States (correct me if I'm wrong) but are they different from the Enfield No.4 MkI's Britain used during WWII? If they are different can you tell me where?

2. Can you tell me what kinds of wood were used for the stock of a No.4 MkI ? Because I've seen them in dark wood but also some in lighter color wood stocks.

3. Can you please tell me which year was the last WWII-ish No.4 MkI made? Because I know they still makes the No.4 MkI in the 50's and the 60's I believe but was told they made some alterations and the magazine was made to be more square looking in shape. So if I'm looking for a No.4 MkI which is exactly identical to the 1940's ones made in 1950's, will it be possible?

Sorry for my noobish questions guys, just that I'm really new in collecting :oops: Please help if you can, thanks !!

[Man of Stoat]

1. The early savage rifles are identical to the British production. There are not many of these around, and they are worth a fortune. The majority of the US production were the no.4 mk1*, the difference being the method of release of the bolt head -- the Mark 1 has a release catch at the rear of the bolt way, the Mark 1*has a cutout towards the front of the bolt way. The majority of the Canadian produced rifles are also Mark 1*.

2. Beech, Birch, walnut, occasionally maple, and sometimes even other random woods.

3. The Mark 1 was not produced into the 50s and 60s, from about 1946 onwards, if I remember correctly, the Mark 2 was being produced, the last mark 2's being produced in the mid-1950s. I may look it up for you later. Externally, the only difference is in the small metal piece at the rear of the forend, internally, the mark 2 has a trigger mounted on the receiver and not on the trigger guard.

Go and get yourself a copy of "The Lee Enfield Story", by Ian Skennerton, then you will know all.

[Mk VII]

see also http://69.41.147.2/cgi-bin/lee-enfield/lee-enfield.pl where much discussion of these takes place
and http://enfieldrifles.profusehost.net/ for reference material

[Panzerknacker]

The SMLE in the sniper role.


http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/3961/inglesbc0.jpg


Extracted from "Military sniper from 1914" by the argentine ilustrator Ramiro Bujeiro.

[Man of Stoat]

That is not an SMLE, but a No.4 Mk. I (T)

[redcoat]

That is not an SMLE, but a No.4 Mk. I (T)
Its still one of the SMLE family of rifles.
Its full title is,
Small, Magazine, Lee-Enfield, Rifle, No.4 Mk.1 (T)

ps, The small refers to the length of the rifle, not the magazine ;)

[Tony Williams]

It's actually Short Magazine Lee Enfield, as the barrel was shorter than earlier models.

But the SMLE designation was officially dropped in 1926, so the proper name of the WW2 gun was simply Rifle, No.4, Mk 1, .303"

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[Panzerknacker]

Incidentally... what variant was this? Is the one used in the Malvinas/ Falkland War.


http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/9595/dibujodp7.jpg

[DerMann]

I also got to shoot an Fg 42 and an MKb 42(W) :D :D :D

You lucky dog. An FG 42 AND an MKb 42, so lucky...

[Man of Stoat]

Pzknacker: it's an L42, it is essentially a No.4 Mk I (T) re barrelled in 7.62 mm NATO with a heavy barrel and the forend cut back to slightly beyond the lower band. The scope is still the same No. 32. It was in mainstream use until the mid-1990s, when it was replaced with the Accuracy International L96. Some reports indicate that THEY sometimes still use the L42, possibly with the scope from the L96.

If anybody ever question is what the best sniper rifle during the Second World War was, the fact that the No.4(T) soldiered on into the 1990s with just a re barrelling and calibre change as the L42 has to mean that it takes the prize.

In other news, Tony -- you beat me to it!

[Panzerknacker]

Thanks, in the original photo the soldier was pictured near the HMS Sir Galahand.

[GermanSoldier]

This gun was very great. I would love to have this gun in the war. At least on the British side of battle. I never would trust this gun except on the british side.

[George Eller]

-

Various video clips of Lee-Enfield rifles:

TOP TEN:Combat Rifles - Lee Enfield No4 (No.3)
Briton's classic rifle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ck66O0osLhQ

Air Cadets Shooting .22 No 8
Cadets shooting the Lee Enfield No 8 Rifle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzHwVaQZqjU

Savage Enfield No. 4 rifle
1943 Savage Enfield No. 4 MK I. It's all original. All Savage.
I don't think there is a bolt action that can be cycled faster!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euWiKTqlhWo

Enfield No. 4 MK I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oE4J2acE8Z0

Lee Enfield #4 MK.1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpetT6gZXF8

Lee-Enfield No.4 Mk.II Bolt-action rifle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XozgC-hr3Q

Lee Enfield No4 shoot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stqj7y3dYGQ

Lee Enfield No4 MK.1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1ojKYn7fXQ

Jeff's Lee Enfield
No.4 Mk.1* 1945 Long Branch Lee Enfield (Canadian)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndgtKorF9uQ

British Enfield
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-xpYA65eHw

Lee Enfield (possibly Indian in 7.62 NATO - magazine is more square)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQIVnY6e5tk

LERA - Mad Minute - SMLE 100 Year Anniversary
This is how it was done. They're all aimed shots and a good grouping.
This chap was the winner of the LERA (Lee Enfireld Rifle Association)
competition especially for 100 years of the SMLE taken on a
military range in England.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m1yN-3n0FU

WW1 Enfield SMLE Rapid Fire
WW1 Enfield SMLE Rapid Fire at 300m. Royal Ulster Rifles Re-enactment group
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCNfcta9kzo

Lee Enfield SMLE shoot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gektT9x0nzI

Lee Enfield SMLE shoot 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzTJogE4Rio

Lee Enfield SMLE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THiHqDKvbG8

Lee Enfield SMLE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXo8UkX6Yp4

-

[Panzerknacker]

The recoil seems to be mild in comparative with the K-98K clips I had seen. :!:

[RifleMan20]

yep this gun is a fine weapon i wish i could buy this litle baby with a slight recoil,good accrucy,and a 10 round clip (i think)i havent even shot it and i think its a weapon still

[Tony Williams]

The recoil seems to be mild in comparative with the K-98K clips I had seen. :!:
I shot both the Lee Enfield and the K98K side-by-side last year, and yes, the recoil of the Mauser is slightly harder.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[Panzerknacker]

The De Lisle carbine

The De Lisle was one of the more unusual weapons of World War II
The weapon was designed by one William Godfray De Lisle who was, in 1943, an engineer in the Ministry of Aircraft Production, During that period he patented a
silencer for a 5.59-mm (0.22-in) rifle, and this attracted the attention of persons interested in producing silent
weapons for use during the commando raids which were then being conducted around the coasts of occupied Europe.


Further development of the basic De Lisle silencer resulted in a drastic
modification of a Lee-Enfield No. 1 Mark III rifle to accommodate the
firing of an 0.45-in (11.43-mm) pistol cartridge. The basic bolt action was
retained, but in place of the large box magazine a small magazine casing was substituted. Forward of the bolt action was the silencer itself, and this comprised a series of discs held within a tubular housing that allowed the gases produced on firing to 'swirl' around beforethey were discharged from ports around the muzzle.

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/8411/dibujotg8.jpg


Firing the subsonic0.45-in (11,43-mm) pistol cartridge with this silencer system produced very little noise at all, and even this sounded
quite unlike a firearm being discharged. There was also no flash.

The first De Lisle carbines were produced in one of the tool rooms of
the Ford works at Dagenham. From there the early prototypes were taken
for field testing in commando raids along the north French coast. They
proved themselves remarkably successful, and even these early weapons
were used in what was to be their main operational role, a form of silent sniping to pick off sentries or other personnel
during the early stages of a raid. As the De Lisle carbine fired a pistol cartridge its maximum effective range was limited to 250 m (275 yards), but this was usually more than enough for raids carried out on dark nights.

With trials successfully completed, a production order for 500 carbines was placed and this was later increased to 600. The 'production' programme of modifying the Lee-Enfield rifles was
carried out by the Sterling Armament

Some were used in the Far East, having been designed for paratroops. The
early model (below) has been cut away to show the silencer mechanismWorks, also in Dagenham, but when the programme got under way things had changed.

By the time the De Lisle carbines 220 were being produced it was mid-1944 and the invasion of Europe had taken place. With the Allies safely ashore
there was far less need for a silenced commando weapon and the order was
cancelled. By then about 130 had been completed and issued, but as they
lacked arole in Europe most were sent to the Far East, where they were used by specialist units in Burma and elsewhere. Many were retained in the area after the war to see action once
more during the Malayan Emergency. Some of these weapons did not have
the solid butt of the earlier weapons,having instead a metal butt that folded
under the weapon, This version had originally been produced for parachute
troops, but only a small number was ever made.
Very few De Lisle carbines now exist, even in the most comprehensive
small-arms collections. Most of them appear to have been destroyed during the post-war years, probably as the result of their potential as assassination weapons.

Specification

De Lisle carbine
Calibre: 11.43 x 23 mm (0.45 ACP)
Length: 895 mm(35.25 in)
Length of barrel: 184 mm (7.25 in)
Weight: 3.74 kg (8.25 lb)
Muzzle velocity: 253 m (830 ft) per second
Magazine: 7-round box

[Tony Williams]

A 250m effective range is optimistic, to put it mildly. It would certainly kill at that range, but the trajectory of the low-velocity bullet would be so curved that aiming would be little more than guesswork.

[Panzerknacker]

Yea, probably between 50 or 100 meters were the most used shooting distances.

[Hunter]

Hi guys I read in a book the lee enfeild .303 was used by soilders in WW1 and they used the lee enfeild for mass firing at 1000m and by snipers with scopes at 2000m. I want to get a lee enfeild as my first deer gun and I am wondering about the kick whats it like? I have got a u&o shotgun and a semi auto shotgun I can handle them with ease I know how to shoot rifles having a .22 and joining a rifle club for a few years. Also how much does the ammo cost? Like a packet of 50 rounds?

[Man of Stoat]

No, they didn't use sniper rifles at 2000 m.

[Hunter]

ok but did they use it for mass firing at 1000m?

[Man of Stoat]

The professional BEF at the start of the war did indeed use it for mass firing at 1000 yards and beyond.

During the retreat in 1914 there was even a counter-attack over 1000 yards of open ground, classic fire-and-manoeuvre stuff, and the musketry was so fast and so accurate that the Germans hardly got a shot in return, since whenever one of them stuck their head up they caught one.

The pre-1917 SMLE had an auxiliary set of sights for massed firing at even longer ranges, up to, if I remember correctly, 3600 yards. of course no real accuracy can be expected at this sort of range, especially given the nature of the auxiliary sight, but it was there. Post-1917 it was deleted because it was useless for the type of warfare they were doing at that point, and for conscript troops.

[Jenkin]

the Mk 5 jungle carbines were an absalute beast, with the sights continue to wander off, as the wood did not allow it to shoot straight, when the barrel heated up, the weight was aquivalent to that of a M-92 mauser, but alot shorter, and the kick was abtrusivly large and kind of hellish to shoot, so the british army opted for the 150 grain FMJ instead of the 174 FMJ. but the Mk I* and the MkIII*, are my favorite to shoot, and both extremly accurite for their age and use.

[Tony Williams]

the Mk 5 jungle carbines were an absalute beast, with the sights continue to wander off, as the wood did not allow it to shoot straight, when the barrel heated up, the weight was aquivalent to that of a M-92 mauser, but alot shorter, and the kick was abtrusivly large and kind of hellish to shoot, so the british army opted for the 150 grain FMJ instead of the 174 FMJ. but the Mk I* and the MkIII*, are my favorite to shoot, and both extremly accurite for their age and use.

??? I have comprehensive references on the military .303 cartridge and there is no mention of a 150 grain ball load in any of them. The two final ball loadings were the flat-based 174 grain Mk VII (in service from just before WW1 until the .303 was withdrawn) and the high-pressure, boat-tailed Mk VIII for the Vickers MG.

[Man of Stoat]

Anyone who refers to the No.5 as the "Mk 5" is already off to a bad start...

The "wandering zero" thing most likely came about by civilian armourers, post-war, setting the beddings up incorrectly , attempting to get six pounds muzzle pressure like the No.4 instead of free float.

Remind me again, which is the "M-92" Mauser?

[Rising Sun*]

the Mk 5 jungle carbines were an absalute beast, with the sights continue to wander off, as the wood did not allow it to shoot straight, when the barrel heated up,


Just to demonstrate my ignorance, why did the wood overcome and misdirect the metal when the barrel heated up?

What heat was required, caused by how many rounds in what time in jungle warfare?

If the heated barrel was sufficiently soft to be moved by the wood, wouldn't it be drooping anyway and inaccurate in another plane over the foresight?

Also, given that jungle carbines were, in jungle, generally used at ranges from about five to twenty five yards, where sighting along the barrel was reasonably adequate, how did the claimed effects on the sights from heating the barrels interfere with day to day infantry use?

[Man of Stoat]

Since I know what I'm talking about, I will respond to those questions.

The bedding, i.e. the relationship between the metal and the wood, is the single most important aspect of rifle design. the barrel gets a fair deal longer during firing, more than you might expect. Wood, under heating, also expands and sometimes twists.

A badly bedded rifle results in inconsistent contact and pressure between barrel and woodwork.

Barrels also vibrate an awful lot while firing: essentially, they act as a tuning fork. As the bullet travels along the barrel, the barrel is vibrating, and at some point spits the bullet out. If the vibrations are constant from shot to shot, the bullet will always leave the barrel at the same point -- result: accuracy. if the vibrations are not constant from shot to shot, then the muzzle portion of the barrel will be pointing in a different direction each time -- result: crap accuracy.

In the vast majority of rifles, optimum accuracy is achieved with a free floated barrel, i.e. the barrel does not touch the woodwork at all. Military rifle barrels tend to be a little light and whippy for this, so they are often bedded either along the whole length (which is dire, and probably the most common), or to contact limited places with a controlled force. The number 4 rifle had the most advanced bedding of its day, with a six pound downwards muzzle pressure on about 2 inches of barrel at the very end of the woodwork. This successfully damped vibrations adequately and if done correctly was unaffected by barrel heating. I once had a number 4 rifle which was badly bedded, and the point of impact would change remarkably from shot to shot, and the shots would string vertically (on a bad day over about 10-12 inches at 100 yards!) I had it re-bedded correctly, after which it shot very well.

Now, in the case of the number 5, the shorter barrel was stiff enough to be free floated, and it shot very well like that. Civilian gunsmiths would try to bed it like a number 4, at which point it would not shoot consistently and you ended up with "wandering zero", which was entirely a range problem and was never complained about in the field, as far as I'm aware . This was one of the BS reasons why it was made obsolescent. They should have just admitted "we have about 4 million number 4 rifle is in charge, we're not going to standardise again on a different bolt action rifle when we will probably be adopting a self-loading rifle in the near future anyway".

[Rising Sun*]

Since I know what I'm talking about, I will respond to those questions.

The bedding, i.e. the relationship between the metal and the wood, is the single most important aspect of rifle design. the barrel gets a fair deal longer during firing, more than you might expect. Wood, under heating, also expands and sometimes twists.

A badly bedded rifle results in inconsistent contact and pressure between barrel and woodwork.

Barrels also vibrate an awful lot while firing: essentially, they act as a tuning fork. As the bullet travels along the barrel, the barrel is vibrating, and at some point spits the bullet out. If the vibrations are constant from shot to shot, the bullet will always leave the barrel at the same point -- result: accuracy. if the vibrations are not constant from shot to shot, then the muzzle portion of the barrel will be pointing in a different direction each time -- result: crap accuracy.

In the vast majority of rifles, optimum accuracy is achieved with a free floated barrel, i.e. the barrel does not touch the woodwork at all. Military rifle barrels tend to be a little light and whippy for this, so they are often bedded either along the whole length (which is dire, and probably the most common), or to contact limited places with a controlled force. The number 4 rifle had the most advanced bedding of its day, with a six pound downwards muzzle pressure on about 2 inches of barrel at the very end of the woodwork. This successfully damped vibrations adequately and if done correctly was unaffected by barrel heating. I once had a number 4 rifle which was badly bedded, and the point of impact would change remarkably from shot to shot, and the shots would string vertically (on a bad day over about 10-12 inches at 100 yards!) I had it re-bedded correctly, after which it shot very well.

Now, in the case of the number 5, the shorter barrel was stiff enough to be free floated, and it shot very well like that. Civilian gunsmiths would try to bed it like a number 4, at which point it would not shoot consistently and you ended up with "wandering zero", which was entirely a range problem and was never complained about in the field, as far as I'm aware . This was one of the BS reasons why it was made obsolescent. They should have just admitted "we have about 4 million number 4 rifle is in charge, we're not going to standardise again on a different bolt action rifle when we will probably be adopting a self-loading rifle in the near future anyway".

Thanks for that.

Brings back some completely forgotten stuff from about 40 years ago when I used to read a bit on such things, at a very amateur, and largely uncomprehending, level. You've explained it very clearly.

How did they manage to get consistency in wood? I know a little about that as an amateur woodworker. No two pieces of wood are identical and there's a whole range of problems with wood changing its dimensions dependent upon humidity, heat, cold and so on, and other factors such as how and how long it's been dried before use. The barrel still ends up being attached to the wood, free floating or not. Or was it just the heat of firing that mattered?

Would it be a case of some rifles just being sweeter because of a nice piece of wood and some not?

Re the downward pressure on the end of the barrel, it's decades since I've seen a .303 but I recall that there's a metal band near the end of the forestock? Which I assumed was just to hold them together. Is that the part that's engineered to apply the pressure?

[Nickdfresh]

The professional BEF at the start of the war did indeed use it for mass firing at 1000 yards and beyond.

During the retreat in 1914 there was even a counter-attack over 1000 yards of open ground, classic fire-and-manoeuvre stuff, and the musketry was so fast and so accurate that the Germans hardly got a shot in return, since whenever one of them stuck their head up they caught one.

The pre-1917 SMLE had an auxiliary set of sights for massed firing at even longer ranges, up to, if I remember correctly, 3600 yards. of course no real accuracy can be expected at this sort of range, especially given the nature of the auxiliary sight, but it was there. Post-1917 it was deleted because it was useless for the type of warfare they were doing at that point, and for conscript troops.

I'm just reading about this now. I guess the Germans often thought that the British had far more automatic weapons available than the did, due to the accurate and sustained fire of the professional British Army in the BEF toting Lee Enfields, that had a higher rate of bolt action fire that the Mauser. Keegan states that the British troops frequently practiced on the range, much more so than any other army, and that soldiers were given incentives for marksmanship on top of the normal ones of promotion and bragging rights; decisively allowing their survival against the advancing German mass which was often shocked and panicky when faced with such determined accurate fire...

[Man of Stoat]

Thanks for that.

Brings back some completely forgotten stuff from about 40 years ago when I used to read a bit on such things, at a very amateur, and largely uncomprehending, level. You've explained it very clearly.

How did they manage to get consistency in wood? I know a little about that as an amateur woodworker. No two pieces of wood are identical and there's a whole range of problems with wood changing its dimensions dependent upon humidity, heat, cold and so on, and other factors such as how and how long it's been dried before use. The barrel still ends up being attached to the wood, free floating or not. Or was it just the heat of firing that mattered?

Would it be a case of some rifles just being sweeter because of a nice piece of wood and some not?

Re the downward pressure on the end of the barrel, it's decades since I've seen a .303 but I recall that there's a metal band near the end of the forestock? Which I assumed was just to hold them together. Is that the part that's engineered to apply the pressure?

The action in contact with the wood is far less critical than the barrel itself. But yes, good quality timber properly seasoned is a pre-requisite for good and consistent accuracy, particularly over long periods of time. Free-floating minimises this, and free-floating with a glass bedding more or less eliminates problems due to timber (glass bedding is a post-war development, and only really worthwhile on rifles with a slightly stiffer barrel than would be normal on a Second World War rifle.) The bedding design on the number 4 is designed to give the best results with what they could do at the time. There is a later technique for the number 4 called "centre bedding", where the bedding is set up differently (free at the muzzle and in contact around the middle band), but it requires epoxy/glass bedding and was developed later. .

As for the wood, yes, they had great difficulty with it. They had to develop whole new techniques of kiln drying, but the wood on a wartime rifle is typically not as good as pre-/post-war. Basically, they allowed standards to slip. Quite understandably.

Some rifles are just sweeter per se, but you are right, a nice piece of wood really helps matters. (sweet metalwork in crap woodwork equals crap shooting, crap metalwork in sweet woodwork equals crap shooting, crap metalwork in crap woodwork equals really really bad shooting. The first two are generally acceptable for service use!)

Downward pressure: no, the band is just there to keep the front top handguard on. Getting the pressure right is a nontrivial job and relies on adding/removing wood around the front of the action/Knox form of the barrel where it is in contact. centre bedding involves building that area up with epoxy and making an extra bedding of about 2 inches out of epoxy under the front band, leaving the barrel clear at the muzzle.

[Jenkin]

??? I have comprehensive references on the military .303 cartridge and there is no mention of a 150 grain ball load in any of them. The two final ball loadings were the flat-based 174 grain Mk VII (in service from just before WW1 until the .303 was withdrawn) and the high-pressure, boat-tailed Mk VIII for the Vickers MG.

alright, i was educated that the No. 5 used a 150 Grain Pill instead of the common 174 Grain Bullet.
I only know the No. 5's as the Mk. 5, as i have had relitives fight on the Kakoda Trail during the war, and they have always refered to them as the Mk. 5 not the No. 5. but the round used before the barrel heating up varied from rifle to rifle. as thousands went down them anyway, the barrels tended to droop and flick around as the rounds went down the barrel. but the common distance was maxed out at 100 yards anyway with Jungle Warefare. and as common soldiers didn't know and didn't mind this as they brought down the enemy anyway.

[Rising Sun*]

I only know the No. 5's as the Mk. 5, as i have had relitives fight on the Kakoda Trail during the war, and they have always refered to them as the Mk. 5 not the No. 5.

I'll happily be corrected by the gun experts here, but my understanding is that the No. 5 wasn't available until around mid-1944. If so, nobody used it on Kokoda.

The Kokoda Track (Trail is the American term, which has been adopted by a lot of, perhaps most, Australians as part of our general adoption of American culture in preference to our own) campaign was finished by the end of 1942, with Kokoda being recaptured in early November 1942. The Buna - Gona - Sanananda beachheads which were the start and end of the Japanese advance and retreat along the Kokoda Track to capture Port Moresby, and which was the larger campaign, were recaptured in January 1943.

but the common distance was maxed out at 100 yards anyway with Jungle Warefare.

Rarely on Kokoda. Try about a quarter or less of 100 yards for a lot of encounters.

[Rising Sun*]

As for the wood, yes, they had great difficulty with it. They had to develop whole new techniques of kiln drying, but the wood on a wartime rifle is typically not as good as pre-/post-war. Basically, they allowed standards to slip. Quite understandably.

This raises some interesting questions about sourcing and manufacturing the wooden components. You might know the answers to some of these questions.

Was only one species of wood used in WWII?

Do you know what it was, or which they were?

Overall during the SMLE's life, were different species of wood used and is one regarded as the best? Why?

With the wartime demands, I'd imagine that it'd put pressure on forests to get trees of a suitable age for the best wood if they all came from England, with most European sources largely closed.

It's asking a lot of relatively small pieces of timber with some fairly thin sections to perform consistently from just below the Arctic to the Equator. Do you know if there were problems with the wood in Middle East / Asian / Pacific service that weren't encountered in Europe? I'd expect the humidity to cause the wood to swell, while dry heat could dry it out, with both altering the dimensions and shape of the wood.

Was anything done to try to protect the wood from climatic influences, such as factory treatment or standard field service of the wood?

[Man of Stoat]

The British used lots of different types of wood during the war. Off the top of my head, and certainly amongst others, walnut, beech, various Canadian hardwoods including maple. the Australians also used boxwood and various other Antipodean hardwoods. Laminates were also tried, but deemed unsuccessful since they de-laminated readily in the tropics. The Germans, not terribly bothered by the tropics, used laminate as standard.

Walnut has always been preferred, since it is the most resistant to distortion, and is nice and hard . as protection, it was typically impregnated with linseed oil. I would imagine that in desert and tropical service they did not perform as well as it more temperate climes.

[Rising Sun*]

The British used lots of different types of wood during the war. Off the top of my head, and certainly amongst others, walnut, beech, various Canadian hardwoods including maple. the Australians also used boxwood and various other Antipodean hardwoods. Laminates were also tried, but deemed unsuccessful since they de-laminated readily in the tropics. The Germans, not terribly bothered by the tropics, used laminate as standard.

Walnut has always been preferred, since it is the most resistant to distortion, and is nice and hard . as protection, it was typically impregnated with linseed oil. I would imagine that in desert and tropical service they did not perform as well as it more temperate climes.

Thanks for that.

Sounds like a bit of a mish mash, but there was a great deal of knowledge in those days about natural wood so they probably didn't do too badly, with what they had.

I'm just old enough to remember using boiled linseed oil on wood. Talk about a waste of time compared with anything in the last thirty years!

[Man of Stoat]

The Russians used a lot of shellacked, grease impregnated Arctic Birch. The wood was terrible, and very soft, but shellac gives a good sturdy finish. you see a lot without any shellac on though.

Nothing comes close to the beauty of a well executed Tru-Oil finish though.

[Jenkin]

Man of Stout; the Australians commonly used Queensland Coach wood (or Box wood) and Victorian Ash for their Lithgow 303, but the only problem was people that over oiled the Coachwood, it had a tendincy to crumble and split, as my 303 wood is doing the same, but this also placed a burdain on gluing the wood back together, as the oil, which was commonly Linseed oil, did not allow any glue to bond with the wood. but to overcome this problem, either the oil can be boiled out, or seeped out with shelite. both take months to do, but finish in the same base to fix/repair. but i have no idea what wood the germans and italians had used for their rifles!

[Jenkin]

Rarely on Kokoda. Try about a quarter or less of 100 yards for a lot of encounters.[/QUOTE]

i was using this as a max distance, not as a general.