Gunboards Forums banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,704 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Not wishing to contaminate Swede63 post re Australian Enfield Accuracy, I though the UK Military requirements for 'acceptance' of the rifles might be of interest.


SMLE TESTING
For the SMLE All rifles were tested for accuracy by the Small Arms Inspection Department at 100ft, and 10% were also tested at 600 yds. All rifles were fired from a special mechanical rest, known as an Enfield Rest, and a special Telescope layer was used for laying an aim. The Enfield Rest was designed to simulate the conditions under which a rifle would be held when fired from the shoulder, and was provided with hand wheel adjustments for laying an aim. Trial shots were first fired and, if necessary the foresight was adjusted laterally, or replaced by one of a different height, until the shots on the target were within the required limits. Five rounds were then fired, and four of the five shots had to be contained in a rectangle 1 inch broad by 1½ in high. Rifle which failed this test were rejected. At 600 yds 10 shots were fired, nine of which had to fall within a 2 foot circle.

No 4 RIFLE TESTING
For the No 4 Rifle, the accuracy test was the same at 100ft ten per cent of all rifles were then fired at 200 yds when six of seven shots had to fall in a rectangle 6in x 6in , the point of mean impact having to be within 3 inches of the point of aim in any direction. Ten per cent of rifles fired at 200 yds were again fired at 600 yds when 6 out of seven shots had to be in a rectangle 18 inches x 18 inches the permissible deviation of point of mean impact being 9 inches up or down, or left or right. Two per cent of rifles were fired from the shoulder, ten rounds being fed into the magazine by charger and fired rapid to test “feeding up” and ejection. After these tests the barrel was inspected to ensure that there was no expansion in the bore or chamber and that it shaded correctly from end to end. (Was not bent)

No 5 TESTING
The firing test to which the No 5 rifle was subjected was the same as that for the No 4 at 100ft. It was not tested at 200 yds but 10 per cent were tested at 600 yards when the acceptance was ten out of ten shots contained in a rectangle 36 inches x 36 inches. Two per cent of the No 5 rifles were also submitted to the same functioning test as the No4 rifle.


The Layers rest (Picture from "Rifleman.org.uk)


Screenshot (384).png





Throughout World War 2 much of the accuracy testing was done by women shooters who quickly became proficient at the job. To speed up the procedure, the telescope layer was dispensed with, and aim was taken in the normal way through the back sight. The .1 inch aperture in the back sight was too large for easily laying a correct aim at 100ft, and a small spring steel adaptor was used.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,603 Posts
And (from memory) before the SMLE there was no accuracy acceptance standard?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,704 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
And (from memory) before the SMLE there was no accuracy acceptance standard?
There was, but it is not well known :

"With 10 ranks, of 'fuzzy wuzzies' with each rank consisting of 100, approaching you at walking speed, you must be able to hit one of them at 50 yards."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,648 Posts
There was, but it is not well known :

"With 10 ranks, of 'fuzzy wuzzies' with each rank consisting of 100, approaching you at walking speed, you must be able to hit one of them at 50 yards."
Well now, how things don't change. Most rec fire days I run a range, I see most shooters shooting all the way to 50 yards and hitting someone else's target. This is not an exaggeration. From what I see, if America was a nation of riflemen, that ain't todays American. Sad note dammit.

As to No.5 accuracy at 600 yards being 6 MOA ( all rounds inside a 36x36 inch box) : kindly go to this link.


2.2 inch accuracy or 2.2 MOA for 600 yds with my match 303 load, iron sights, No.5 rifle back in 2013. That is significantly better accuracy than the "standard" 6 MOA official accuracy.

The problem with the No.5 which I have been associated with since 1959, is in my view the following :
a. Harder recoil equals flinch : degraded accuracy
b. Iron sights: lack of training with issue iron sights degrades accuracy
c. Most "tests" be it the military or rifle owners is with military grade ammo and many times in degraded
condition: Thus degraded accuracy
d. Tons of No.5 are in less than wonderful condition which promotes degraded accuracy.
e. Wandering Zero #1: if the rifle is in heavy use condition, its no wonder the zero and point of impact moves about.
f. Wandering Zero # 2: Harder recoil equals flinch with degrading accuracy. I call this "wandering flinch".

Observations with No.5 in my experience:
a. Wear a PAST shoulder pad and recoil / flinch moves off the radar.
b. Match grade ammunition: Great ammo with top tier bullets shoot better
c. 95 percent or better condition & all matching # jungle carbines will shoot as good or
better than 1 MOA at 100 yds and 3 MOA at 600 yds.
d. What I just noted ..a to c above is hardly conditions British military had when using these
rifles so my "range" observations merely address the accuracy potential of the No.5. Ideal conditions
for shooting...they're going to be surprisingly accurate. In military use , not so much.
e. I'm still on my butt, I have not taken my No.5 to 800 yds, the max range on its rear sights
so I am going to have to light a fire under my ass and complete my tests but I am 8 yrs older
now and will have to buckle down and do the basics in a disciplined manner.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,704 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Well now, how things don't change. Most rec fire days I run a range, I see most shooters shooting all the way to 50 yards and hitting someone else's target. This is not an exaggeration.

I only ever did that once (that I know about), We were a group of Boy Scouts and shooting on a range with 22rf, when it came to 'count-up' my target was missing a hit. The problem was that the guy next to me (non Scout) was particpating in a National postal match. He had the requisite number of 'holes' AND an 'extra one'. It appeared that his aim had slipped and he'd put one in the 8 ring, all his others, and (apparently) my 'missing' one had gone in his X-Ring.

He was not best pleased.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,648 Posts
👀 being the only one here with a passion for Enfields, I am compelled at times to flag their accuracy potential.

I could not resist to flag No.5 accuracy potential and I have satisfactorily proven to myself on 1000 yd line my No.4 accuracy potential is outstanding. Both being original rifles in 99 percent condition . I cannot yet comment on No.1 Mk III * potential as those tests not attempted yet. I do not have any doubt my two British 99 percent condition examples...both FTR in 53 and with mint unfired barrels will show amazing accuracy but as much as I am sure of that, the fat lady ain't sung yet. I do intend to take both 100, 300, 600, 800 and 1000 yds in near term. I got the match 303 British load developed and it replicates the original MARK VII trajectory so my No1MkIII* rear sight increments will be valid. I may just skip going "across the course" and just shoot 600 and 1000 yds and drill down to accuracy potential that way.

In reality that is all academic, these rifles are far more accurate than they need to be for the military requirements intended. Brute tough, totally reliable and drop enemy flat anywhere tested on planet earth.

👍 All my Enfields' condition is "as never found in Ethiopia ".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
670 Posts
The question which occurs to me is: was there a specification for the ammunition used in production testing of the rifles? The quality and, therefore, accuracy of British wartime ammunition was known to vary considerably. If there was a specification for ammunition accuracy for the rifle testing program, what was it, and how was it derived?

PRD1 - mhb - MIke
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,704 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
The question which occurs to me is: was there a specification for the ammunition used in production testing of the rifles? The quality and, therefore, accuracy of British wartime ammunition was known to vary considerably. If there was a specification for ammunition accuracy for the rifle testing program, what was it, and how was it derived?

PRD1 - mhb - MIke

I'm sure there was (because the Winchester ammunition failed to meet the specification and was relegated to 'ground rifle practice only) but I don't think I have any information as to what the specs were.

I'll have a look and see what I have in the depths of the archives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PRD1

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,603 Posts
At 600 yards "the acceptable average FoM of all the groups fired is 8 inches" see link
.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,704 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Thought this may interest some whilst we are in navel gazing mode :

The developmemt of the Short LE, the 1904 tests and accuracy comparisons (Figure of Merit) with other rifles of the time (Mauser 1898 0.311 / Belgium Mauser 0.276 / French lebel 0.315 / Italian Mannlicher 0.256 / USA Krag Jorgensen 0.30)

Screenshot (396).png




Troop trial results and useful snippets of information in the Pdf.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,603 Posts
Alen de, a great insight and surprising also just how well the Krag compares, though not perhaps when you think about the fantastic build quality of that rfle. Long round nose bullets rule here!

Would any of the rifles tested have used a spitzer bullet in 1904?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,668 Posts
Doubtful the British would have access to the German S round. The Imperial cabinet approval for the order to produce the round was dated 24th March, 1903 and the effective date for introduction 1st October, 1905, per Storz pg. 303 in Rifle & Carbine 98.
The Lebel round would be a different kettle of fish, balle D being adopted in 1898.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top