Print Page | Close Window

Why is my ammo tumbling?

Printed From: Enfield-Rifles.com
Category: Enfields
Forum Name: Enfield Rifles
Forum Description: Anything that has to do with the great Enfield rifles!
URL: http://www.enfield-rifles.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=5727
Printed Date: March 28 2024 at 2:27am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Why is my ammo tumbling?
Posted By: Enfields4Us
Subject: Why is my ammo tumbling?
Date Posted: February 03 2013 at 1:56am
he!!o. New to the forum here. We have 4 Enfields, from vintage 1916 to 1935. We picked up some "Cheap" ammo at a local gun store. When we fired it, the bullet made an imprint on the paper. It actually looks like it was tumbling, for the actual shape of the bullet can be seen. Is this the gun (the Enfield is new to us) or the ammo? I have attached a photo. It did not do this on every shot, but out of the whole box, there were a few.

thanks!



-------------
Criminal Control. Not Gun Control.



Replies:
Posted By: Target
Date Posted: February 03 2013 at 4:33pm
Did this happen with all 4 guns or just one? If it happened with all 4 guns then I am inclined to believe it was the ammunition having a seriously undersized bullet. If it only happened in one rifle then the barrel is just worn out. So far so that the bullet doesn't properly engage the rifling and the bullet just leaves the gun un-stabilized and decides it wants to see the world at a different angle as it travels towards the target.

Key-holing is the word.


Posted By: Enfields4Us
Date Posted: February 03 2013 at 9:44pm
We only used that ammo on that one gun. I did some research and it seems like the ammo I used, which was "Hotshot" made in Serbia, is a "hot" load, a little stronger than it should be. Something like that. Does that make any sense? I am not a gunsmith, but the rifleing looked pretty normal compared to the other 3 rifles we have. I guess the only thing to do is get some of the stuff I had been using, and see if it still does it. Is this something dangerous? Or just a strange annoyance?
 
thanks!
 


-------------
Criminal Control. Not Gun Control.


Posted By: Shamu
Date Posted: February 03 2013 at 10:21pm
This may be an absolutely classic case of some Lee-Enfields hating boat-tail bullets!Censored
 
Is the rifle in question a 2-groove bore? Were the bullets the 174 or 180 grain ones?
 
Let me do a quick explaination. Some worn 2-groove bores absolutely hate boat tails & so they exit tumbling violently. The classic symptom is a sideways bullet impring at even close distances (25 Yds or so) with horrible accuracy. Unfortunately the 174 & 180 Gr bulllets from this ammo are boat-tail, but the 150 gr ones are flat base!


-------------
Don't shoot till you see the whites of their thighs. (Unofficial motto of the Royal Air Force)


Posted By: Shamu
Date Posted: February 03 2013 at 10:30pm
More detailed stuff here!
http://enfield-rifles.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=5701&PN=2" rel="nofollow - http://enfield-rifles.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=5701&PN=2
 

Boat tail bullets & Lee-Enfield bores.

If you have a 2-groove bore (you can tell by looking down it from the breech end) you might have a problem. Not you must, but you might. If you have a 4, 5, or 6, groove bore don't worry about it. The problem seems to be made up of 2 parts. Manufacturing tolerances, some bores are bigger (wider) than others. Wear from use can erode the inside of the bore to make it wider & less defined. This is more obvious & pronounced with 2-groove bores because there are less "edges" so they wear faster. The problem is worse with the 2-groove bores, but its a combination of makers errors & use combined so its an indivdual rifle's preferences thing. It would be nice if you could have a blanket definition, but the only way to tell for sure is to test yours & see.

How to tell? Simple, fire a couple of shots at a large paper target at 25 yds. If the bullets go through sideways (Keyholing) & scattered everywhere your rifle doesn't like boat-tail bullets. The dislike is that blatant, you'll know instantly, trust me!

Why aren't boat tails better in the Lee Enfield?

Because its a really old design, flat base, round nose & even un-jacketed hard lead rounds & black powder propellants were part of the early development in the 1890's & all development ended in about 1943, even though manufacture continued for a while into 1955.

FWIW boat tails only actually do anything at distances beyond about 300 yds or so. Under 300 flat fase & BT are about the same in terms of performance out to 300yds or so. All a boat-tail does is reduce drag slightly.

 

 

 

 



-------------
Don't shoot till you see the whites of their thighs. (Unofficial motto of the Royal Air Force)


Posted By: Enfields4Us
Date Posted: February 03 2013 at 11:16pm
Hmm, actually I think they were 174 grain (for some reason I was thinking 147, but that seems wrong)

-------------
Criminal Control. Not Gun Control.


Posted By: Enfields4Us
Date Posted: February 03 2013 at 11:19pm
Was there a particular time frame for the 2-grooves? This is a 1935 Enfield, and our other ones, from 1916-1918 have no problems. Ill have to check the grooves when I get home. I was shooting at 50 yards. Oh, and not ALL the shots did this...most, but not all.

-------------
Criminal Control. Not Gun Control.


Posted By: 303Guy
Date Posted: February 04 2013 at 12:31am
My two-groove likes the PRVI Partisan 'boat tail' 180gr.  It has a shorter nose than the imprint from your bullet.  Yours has a long tapering ogive by the look of it.  I wouldn't expect such a bullet to work in the Brit.  And being cheap ammo, I'd wonder if they used 308 bullets?  But why would they when they make the cheap .310 bullets in Serbia in the first place.  Ah - .310 is the diameter of those PRVI Partisans.  I have several 303's with bores in the .313 range.  That's bore diameter!  I only plan to use cast, paper patch bullets in those.

-------------
303Guy


Posted By: Shamu
Date Posted: February 04 2013 at 12:56am
IIRC most of the 2-groove ones were WW2 timeframe it was a wartime expediency deal. If its a No4 Mk1* there's a good chance it's a 2-groove.
Can you measure the bullet diameter at home with a caliper, or better still, a micrometer?
Has the bore been slugged for internal dimensions, some go way way out to 0.314", & that's another possibility.
Try a bullet test at the muzzle as well. It's possibly a cord worn (oval) muzzle.


-------------
Don't shoot till you see the whites of their thighs. (Unofficial motto of the Royal Air Force)


Posted By: Enfields4Us
Date Posted: February 04 2013 at 2:17am
Hmm.. So you think that cheap Serbian ammo might actually have a .308 bullet instead? That makes the most sense now...

-------------
Criminal Control. Not Gun Control.


Posted By: muffett.2008
Date Posted: February 04 2013 at 4:44am
If it is a 1935 Enfield, it will not be two groove, unless rebarreled with one(unlikely in service)
 The bore on these rifles is .311, with a varience +/- 1 thou. if a bit worn, or on the larger size, a .310 round will be a bloody loose fit.
 The rifle should perform, even with the old throat erosion, if the last few inches of the bore are good.
 However, keyholing becomes a factor if there is muzzle erosion, excessively worn barrel, low muzzle velocity(caused by the two forementioned conditions or poor ammunition or soft reloads) or excessively hard jackets and throat erosion(not allowing sufficient bump to create a good seal)
 I'd suggest trying some milsurp ammo to check, if the barrel is cactus you will need to replace it or if it has matching serial numbers and you are a collector, it becomes a safe queen.


Posted By: Shamu
Date Posted: February 04 2013 at 6:17am
Do yourself a favor, measure before panicking!Wink I've had some of the Prvi ammo & its good stuff. Igmann/Hotshot was Prvi until recently & they have some good brass, (PPU, or nny headstamped) don't let just the price fool you it might be good stuff.
Its a good idea to try a box of another brand with flat base bullets, just to get a working load for you. You mention having just bought it, can you use that (& the keyholed targets) as "leverage" for a free, or discounted box of a different brand from the shop? Even some old MilSurp would give you a comparison.
I hate to ask this but how filthy is the bore? I've seen some horrible "shot out" bores that were just impacted with huge amounts of crud. Regular cleaning was nowhere near enough they darn near needed roto-rooter. Real deep cleaning has fixed up several of them for me.


-------------
Don't shoot till you see the whites of their thighs. (Unofficial motto of the Royal Air Force)


Posted By: Enfields4Us
Date Posted: February 04 2013 at 7:10am

Could this be causing the key-holing (tumbling). It looks like the crown here is a little out of round.





-------------
Criminal Control. Not Gun Control.


Posted By: Canuck
Date Posted: February 04 2013 at 7:40am
THAT would do it I would think! That muzzle needs to be re-crowned or counter-bored if the out of roundness goes too deep.


Posted By: SW28fan
Date Posted: February 04 2013 at 8:16am
I have read that the five groove barrels can become unfriendly to boatails if a lot of cordite loaded ammo has been fired through them. If the barrel was oversized to start with it does not help. If you can find it try some Sellier & Belloit FMJ they are loaded with a 180 grain flat base.  If you reload there are a number of flat based bullets in the 174-180 grain range.  My if all else fails load is the Hornady 174 gr round nosed pushed to about 2000 fps. 

-------------
Have a Nice Day
If already having a nice day please disregard


Posted By: muffett.2008
Date Posted: February 04 2013 at 4:53pm
You have another problem there beside the muzzle, the forewood is not seated correctly, there should be 3/16th to a 1/4 inch of barrel protruding out from the noescap.
 If the forewood is loose and not seated tightly in the draws, this rifle will scatter rounds worse than a shot out barrel on a M60 GPMG.
 Give us a full side view of the rifle and one showing the line at the wrist on the forewood side.


Posted By: Enfields4Us
Date Posted: February 04 2013 at 9:31pm
Hmm. I don't know. I have seen plenty of Enfields with a "flat" nose, just like mine, with only that round metal thing protruding out. If you are correct, is this something that can be fixed?


-------------
Criminal Control. Not Gun Control.


Posted By: Shamu
Date Posted: February 04 2013 at 10:20pm
The muzzle of the barrel is absolutely recessed when it shouldn't be. Something isn't kosher there.
As for the out of round it might be the "cord wear" I was mentioning earlier. If thats the case its definitely not a good thing. Can it cause the tumbling? Maybe! The escaping gasses will vent on the open side first & that may well be the problem.


-------------
Don't shoot till you see the whites of their thighs. (Unofficial motto of the Royal Air Force)


Posted By: Enfields4Us
Date Posted: February 04 2013 at 10:27pm
Hmm. This seems to be getting worse every minute :-(
 
Ok, lets say that something ISN'T right...can this be fixed? What if we continue to use the rifle? Did we just buy a really expensive wall-hanger?
 
 


-------------
Criminal Control. Not Gun Control.


Posted By: Shamu
Date Posted: February 04 2013 at 10:45pm
Sorry, I'm having internet connection problems this morning, bear with me.

-------------
Don't shoot till you see the whites of their thighs. (Unofficial motto of the Royal Air Force)


Posted By: Shamu
Date Posted: February 04 2013 at 10:48pm
Its hard to say exactly by remote like this, but probably yes.
If its just the very tip of the muzzle recrowning is fairly inexpensive & will work. If it goes deeper you need counterboring, which will fix it, but cost more.
As for the odd muzzle position I don't really know what is wrong, so its hard to say. Can you get 2 pics for us.
One of just the end cap & muzzle from the side, & another showing all of the front end wood from the receiver ring to the muzzle?
This will help us to figure out whats out of place & where.


-------------
Don't shoot till you see the whites of their thighs. (Unofficial motto of the Royal Air Force)


Posted By: Enfields4Us
Date Posted: February 04 2013 at 10:56pm
Yes. I can take some photos of that tomorrow when I am off.
 
Thanks so much for all the information. I hope this works out. I really won't know for sure until I shoot some good ammo through it, and then maybe we'll know right away!
 
Can any gunsmith do the work you mention?
 
 
 


-------------
Criminal Control. Not Gun Control.


Posted By: Shamu
Date Posted: February 04 2013 at 10:58pm
It should be a simple job which any decent one could do. recrowning is actually something you can do yourself if you are reasonably co-ordinated & own a power drill, or electric screwdriver.

-------------
Don't shoot till you see the whites of their thighs. (Unofficial motto of the Royal Air Force)


Posted By: Shamu
Date Posted: February 04 2013 at 10:59pm
Do try swapping ammo though, you may find the problem is really simple. Try some of the hotshot in a different gun & some different ammo in this one. See if the problem transfers with the ammo or the gun.

-------------
Don't shoot till you see the whites of their thighs. (Unofficial motto of the Royal Air Force)


Posted By: statcat67
Date Posted: February 05 2013 at 1:31am
times4
You might also take a look at the bullets if they are a copy of the mk1v ball, they will have a alum filler in the front of the bullet. this destablizes the bullet its made to tumble on impact to create a more serious wound channel aka dum-dum. pull the bullet and take your dreamel tool and cut the bullet in half to see if indeed it has a alum filler.

-------------
Charles R Heard II


Posted By: Shamu
Date Posted: February 08 2013 at 3:36am
That shouldn't effect the bullet in flight! It should actually make it more stable in a thin environment like air, a bit like the hollow point does in target ammo. Its only after the bullet strikes a solid or liquid object MUCH (like a few hundred times) more dense than air that it starts whipping about.
 
 
Hey, where'd he go? I hope we didn't scare him off!


-------------
Don't shoot till you see the whites of their thighs. (Unofficial motto of the Royal Air Force)


Posted By: statcat67
Date Posted: February 08 2013 at 9:01am
After serving 18 years in British army and shooting in matches we found the ball made at that time had this effect even on light paper targets it did a job on flesh also.

-------------
Charles R Heard II


Posted By: muffett.2008
Date Posted: February 09 2013 at 5:32am
Got to say, STATCAT4, I am at odds with your view, the reason for the aluminium nose filler was to specifically stabilise the bullet, by moving the centre of mass to the rear.
 I would suggest you read B.A Temples books on the 303 round or any other of the many authors that have written about these rifles and ammunition.

 As a practicing Armourer, I find that most keyhole problems come back to excessively worn/damaged barrels and/or low velocity.
 The odd variable being loose bedding, especially forewood fit on these particular rifles.
 
 I have recently experienced the problem myself but overcame it simply by increasing the powder load, this in turn increased the 'bump' to the bullet base, creating a better seal and reducing loss of energy through blowby, caused by throat erosion.
 In my service days, I watched millions of rounds of all calibres sent down range, the effects of barrel wear on projectiles was very noticable during night firing exercises, a MG that started with a good barrel would start to gradually spray, until finally the rounds looked like a fireworks display.
 I was always fascinated by watching the projectile shadow pushing up a red hot barrel and exiting the muzzle.
 But I digress, to the OP, can we see those photo's requested?


Posted By: LE Owner
Date Posted: February 10 2013 at 6:02am
The light nose filler may have contributed to the long range aerodynamic stabilty of the bullet but it definitely contributed to rapid loss of stability on contact with flesh at any range.
All bullets yaw on leaving the muzzle, some yaw more than others. How rapidly the bullet stabilizes after leaving the muzzle governs how well it will penetrate at closer ranges.
A bullet striking the target at 200 yards is more stable than the same type bullet striking at 100 yards.
 
The nose filler was a development bought from Wesley Richards,  the destabilizing effect on the bullet when striking flesh was well known long before then.  The bullets with filler plug had been trade named "Velopex", and intended for light weight bullets at higher velocity than could normally be used in the old express rifles. 
The 174 gr MkVII bullet has the same long streamlined profile as the much heavier 225 gr "Swift" matchgrade bullet.
The Japanese achieved a similar effect by using bullets with extremely thick jackets at the nose, displacing lead to the rear. They had originally designed that bullet to give better penetration on frozen bamboo, which was a common obstacle in mountain fighting in China.
 
PS
The destabilizing influence on contact with flesh of a lightweight nose, either by use of filler or by leaving a nose cavity is well know. The Russian "poison bullet" and the open point Sierra Match King are prime examples.
 
In both latter cases the use of these bullets in warfare required the same arguments and excuses the British used to justify use of the MkVII bullet.


Posted By: muffett.2008
Date Posted: February 10 2013 at 6:51pm
A couple of inconsistencies LE, the Velopex was designed and patented by Holland and Holland, the only thing Westly Richards had to do with it was to winge, not that it stopped him using it in his own rifles. (My reference: The Holland and Holland story.)

 As to your comment on tumbling on contact to increase the wound, this quote from B.A Temple, Vol.1 Identification Manual on the .303 British Service Cartridge, page 5, para.3,  "Contary to popular belief that this compound core was intended to make the nose light so that on impact the base would try to overtake it and so cause the bullet to tumble, and thus make a more severe wound, it was actually designed to allow the bullet weight to be reduced without a corresponding reduction in length." end quote.

The profile of the Mk.VII projectile is not like the Swift Match bullet at all, the Swift was a long bearing boat tail projectile, versus the flat base of the Mk.VII, the Mk.8z projectile doesn't even resemble the swift, being slightly more boattail in shape with a smaller bearing surface. references: B.A Temple, Fred. A. Datig, British War Office, L.O.C'S.


Posted By: Enfields4Us
Date Posted: February 10 2013 at 11:09pm
Hey guys. Still here. Have not yet made it to the range to re-shoot. I did get a photo of the muzle area. Ill try to post that...


-------------
Criminal Control. Not Gun Control.


Posted By: Enfields4Us
Date Posted: February 10 2013 at 11:15pm

 

 

 

Here's a photo of the muzzle....I have another one if needed.



-------------
Criminal Control. Not Gun Control.


Posted By: Enfields4Us
Date Posted: February 10 2013 at 11:21pm
This shows a little more of the front.


-------------
Criminal Control. Not Gun Control.


Posted By: Shamu
Date Posted: February 11 2013 at 1:30am
I've done a bit of searching elswhere in the Enfield online community to try & help out here & there is a consensus that there is definitely a problem with either the wood, or the metal. Now we have to figure out which!
Take a look at the angle formed by the sheet metal on the front handguard, right behind the cast nosecap.
Others who know the SMLE far better than I do have commented that it seems canted downwards at the front when it should be parallell to the bore axis. What we can't see is why its angled like that.
How does the wood to metal fit look at the rear end, back where the receiver ring is?
There's been some thoerizing that the problem showing up At the front is actually caused at the rear, the whole stock being slightly too far forward because of possible internal damage to the internals have allowed the wood to "slide forewards".
Another suggestion is that the bore has actually been cropped off at the muzzle to repair a damaged muzzle & the oval you see in the bore is the leftovers of a more serious problem caused by something right at the original muzzle which has been shortened slightly to get round a problem.
Can you drop a cleaning rod down into an (EMPTY) rifle & measure exactly the length from the closed bolt face to the current muzzle?
 


-------------
Don't shoot till you see the whites of their thighs. (Unofficial motto of the Royal Air Force)


Posted By: Enfields4Us
Date Posted: February 11 2013 at 2:26am
Hmm. Interesting. This is all very weird. I have another Enfild, its a 1917 SMLE. It has absolutly no top part of the stock. I know, sounds weird. But, there is the bottom stock, that goes all the way to the end of the muzzle, like it's supposed to. But someone took off the top part of the stock. The barrel is complety exposed. Now, this particualr gun shoots great! I was getting good grouping with good solid hits at 50 yards. Oh, and that was good, new, fairly expensive ammo.
 
the plot thickens!
 
I can't wait to just get my hands on good ammo and try this problem child again! Damn blizzards!


-------------
Criminal Control. Not Gun Control.


Posted By: muffett.2008
Date Posted: February 11 2013 at 3:45am
Those new photo's only confirm my view that you have a serious issue with the forewood, the top front handgaurd is actually being bowed, there are only two causes of this, excess packing at the front or incorrect seating at the draws.
 As everything regarding performance and accuracy evolves at the rear correct set of the forewood, I would suggest again, post pictures of the rifle side on showing the wood fitment at the wrist.
 
 I do not think this barrel has been recrowned, it looks like the original military rolled crown.


Posted By: Enfields4Us
Date Posted: February 11 2013 at 4:12am
Ok, I can do that.


-------------
Criminal Control. Not Gun Control.


Posted By: LE Owner
Date Posted: February 11 2013 at 9:40am
Wonder if it may have previously been set back a thread and chambered in 7.7X54R, then rechambered to .303 after it was no longer a requirement?
That or set back and the chamber freshened to deal with a badly eroded throat.
 
I do agree that a fore end problem is more likely, but other possibilities come to mind.


Posted By: LE Owner
Date Posted: February 11 2013 at 9:54am
Originally posted by muffett.2008 muffett.2008 wrote:

A couple of inconsistencies LE, the Velopex was designed and patented by Holland and Holland, the only thing Westly Richards had to do with it was to winge, not that it stopped him using it in his own rifles. (My reference: The Holland and Holland story.)

 As to your comment on tumbling on contact to increase the wound, this quote from B.A Temple, Vol.1 Identification Manual on the .303 British Service Cartridge, page 5, para.3,  "Contary to popular belief that this compound core was intended to make the nose light so that on impact the base would try to overtake it and so cause the bullet to tumble, and thus make a more severe wound, it was actually designed to allow the bullet weight to be reduced without a corresponding reduction in length." end quote.

The profile of the Mk.VII projectile is not like the Swift Match bullet at all, the Swift was a long bearing boat tail projectile, versus the flat base of the Mk.VII, the Mk.8z projectile doesn't even resemble the swift, being slightly more boattail in shape with a smaller bearing surface. references: B.A Temple, Fred. A. Datig, British War Office, L.O.C'S.
The Velopex bullet was designed by Leslie Brown Taylor who worked for Wesley Richards. The British government paid Wesley Richards 1,000 pounds for manufacturing rights.
L B Taylor's Patent.
http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US914992?printsec=drawing#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow - http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US914992?printsec=drawing#v=onepage&q&f=false
Holland & Holland did develop a .375 Magnum cartridge called the "Velopex" but whether they used the Velopex Bullet by Taylor is not known to me.
No source I've seen on the Swift Bullet as designed by Captain Hardcastle mentions any boat tail.
The Boat tail long range match bullet for the .303 was designed by Lord Cotteloe (T F Freemantle) after much experimentation.
edited to add
Quote
A certain Captain Hardcastle (whose name was to become quite familiar in the shooting world) had access to bullet making plant at the Chilworth Gunpowder Company and, on reading an account of the German results, went straight out and... 'took the heaviest bullet used in .303 and put onto it the best point that I could hear of.'

The result was the 'Swift' bullet. This bullet had a 14 caliber tangent ogive nose whose point had a radius of .020". It was flat based, (the advantages of boat-tails were not discovered until much later), and weighed in at 225 grains. Its ballistic coefficient was 0.67, giving it only two thirds the drag of its 'Palma' counterpart.

http://www.border-barrels.com/articles/art1.htm" rel="nofollow - http://www.border-barrels.com/articles/art1.htm

In other sources Hardcastle mentioned having a French Balle D bullet in his collection, but he mentions the boat tail no further till his patent aplication of 1913.
In those patent drawings are some boat tail designs but the central drawing, Figure 10, is a bullet that fits the description of the Swift bullet. The profile and length are aproximately the same as those of the MkVII but the bullet has a solid lead core.
Its possible that a later incarnation of the Swift bullet by Kynoch may have incorporated a boat tail.

 
As I said the Velopex was designed to allow lighter weight bullets to be fired at a higher velocity, the use of the light nose plug accomplished this while keeping the bullet long enough for a streamlined profile.
 
The well know increased wounding effect may have been an unintended benefit, but it was well known long before the MkVII bullet was designed and adopted.
The first run of MkVII bullets were of 160 gr, but failed accuracy trials. They withdrew those bullets then upped the weight to 174 gr and got reasonable accuracy and greatly improved long range performance. Apparently some of the early 160 gr MkVII bullets survive in collections.
 
PS
Some background material
Quote

Service Rifle—Muzzle Velocity, etc.

HC Deb 22 October 1908 vol 194 cc1321-2 http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1908/oct/22/service-rifle-muzzle-velocity-etc#column_1321" rel="nofollow -
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1908/oct/22/service-rifle-muzzle-velocity-etc#S4V0194P0_19081022_HOC_20" rel="nofollow - - MR. COURTHOPE http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/constituencies/rye" rel="nofollow - - 1322 bullet of 150 grains; and what are the length in calibre of the point of the bullet, the point-blank range, the ballistic coefficient, the time of flight for 1,000 yards, and the deflection at 1,000 yards for a wind of ten miles per hour.

(Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) As regards breech pressure, a mean pressure not exceeding 18¼ tons would be exerted. No pattern of 150-grain bullet has yet been decided upon, and it is not therefore practicable to give any information as regards the length in calibre of the point of the bullet or the ballistic coefficient. As regards point-blank range, the range in which a 150-grain bullet, at 2,600 f.s. velocity, would not rise more than five feet above the line of sight would be about 700 yards. The time of flight for 1,000 yards would be about two seconds (calculated), but this varies with different designs. The deflection at 1,000 yards for a wind of ten miles per hour would be about 12½ feet (calculated).

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1908/oct/22/service-rifle-muzzle-velocity-etc#S4V0194P0_19081022_HOC_20" rel="nofollow - http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1908/oct/22/service-rifle-muzzle-velocity-etc#S4V0194P0_19081022_HOC_20
Link is probably dead, the Hansard site has moved to a new provider.
 
PS
Quote
.303 British Service cartridges response
I refer to the information and interesting column by Barry Wilmot in the December issue of the Australian Shooter concerning the ubiquitous .303 Mk VII. Some 30 years ago, I was called as an expert witness in a court case to rebut evidence given by a police witness that all military ammunition is vastly different from that designed for sporting use. I testified that in 1909, the firm of Westley Richards was paid the sum of £1000 sterling for the use by the British Government of the patented 174-grain VElopex projectile designed specifically for use on ‘pot’ game on the African savannah. With an internal aluminium nose cap ahead of a lead core, that round was designed to tip on impact, imparting a wound, which facilitated the tracking of a wounded animal.
The British Government estimated that a wounded soldier required 17 personnel to care for him, whereas only a few were needed to bury the dead. It was a clever stratagem to counter the inequality of the British as against the continental armies, and it was so effective that the system continued on into WWII.
Further information could be obtained from Phillip B Sharpe’s monumental tome on reloading.
John Doherty, Qld
http://www.ssaa.org.au/shooter/letters-2011.html" rel="nofollow - http://www.ssaa.org.au/shooter/letters-2011.html
 
And George Leonard Herter wrote in 1963.
Quote
                                           Aluminum Nose Tumbling Bullets
 
   The British did a great deal of research on bullets. They found that the spitzer bullet itself with a full jacket often tumbled in flesh causing severe mushroom type wounds. The balance point of spitzer bullets is, of course, towards the rear and causes such bullets to tumble in flesh. Actually a spitzer military full jacketed bullet will rarely go straight through a large animal. I have seen not a few but actually hundreds of moose, deer, bear, and antelope killed with them and they usually have a very good stopping effect on the animals.
    To make sure that their military bullets tumbled every time, the British took the "Velopex" hunting bullet designed by Leslie B Taylor who worked for the gunmaking firm of Westley Richards Ltd of Birmingham. This was a spitzer bullet with the nose of the bullet filled with wood or fibers or for that matter anything light in weight. The British army decided to use aluminum in the nose of the bullet. When the bullet strikes, because the weight is way to the rear it tumbles. Centrifical force has no effect on these bullets at all. They just tumble end over end against centrifical force. The wounds that they produce are tremendous.  
 
Phillipe B Sharpe also attributes the Velopex design to Taylor of Westley Richards.
http://www.castpics.net/subsite2/ClassicWorks/complete_guide_to_handloading%20-%20sharpe%20-%201937.pdf" rel="nofollow - http://www.castpics.net/subsite2/ClassicWorks/complete_guide_to_handloading%20-%20sharpe%20-%201937.pdf
Page 123 onwards.
With excerpt from Textbook of Small Arms 1929 where the massive wounding ability of the MkVII bullet is recognised.
 
Right click and save as, then open.


Posted By: Homer
Date Posted: February 11 2013 at 7:06pm
Sorry, I've just made comment on this rifle but in another thread not knowing this discussion was happening. As has already been pointed out the fit of the forend, nosecap and handguard are poor but we would also need to see a side view of the forend mating up to the action socket, or, just pull the forend off and have a look inside.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2021 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net