2 Groove versus 5 Groove Long Branches

Nabs

Nabs

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 99.6%
267   1   1
Location
Somewhere...
I heard some rumours about the 2 groove LB No 4s having bad accuracy issues when compared to their 5 groove sister rifles. Technically makes sense but what are the thoughts and experiences from collectors who have shot these two groove rifles before ?

The reason I am asking is I am looking at some of the LB Ishy rebuilds at Ellwood epps. I enjoy working and cleaning on milsurps that have not been cleaned or taken apart in a long time. I would like to add a LB made rifle to my collection that has lots of history behind her but needs some love and attention to be brought back. I had the chance to briefly inspect a Savage made No 4 Mk I * Ishy rebuild at Ellwood epps and it looked pretty good for the places it has been to. She was also filled with lots of old packing grease and dirt, just the way I like them. The price also seems a bit high for a rebuild as well. Any thoughts here ?

Thank you CGN.
 
2 groove or 5 groove makes little difference in practical accuracy. 2 groove rifles shoot just fine.
Haven't seen the rifles at Epps, but have seen some of the ones from Trade Ex. The ones I saw were original condition, never rebuilt. British.
 
As far as I understand, a 2 groove bore and 5 groove bore are similar in accuracy, unless you are using a very low pressure loading, then you may get a bit of inaccuracy in the 2 vs the 5, but otherwise they are comparable, to my knowledge. I agree with tiriaq, in practical accuracy, there is little difference.
 
tiriaq said:
Haven't seen the rifles at Epps, but have seen some of the ones from Trade Ex. The ones I saw were original condition, never rebuilt. British.
Click to expand...

I saw those, very tempting too. Anyone know if they have Long Branches mixed in or is the stock purely British made No4s ?
 
The inherent difference in accuracy between two-groove barrels and five-groove barrels when they were newly manufactured is unlikely to be as important as how worn the barrel is on the actual rifle you buy, two or five-groove.
 
Nabs said:
I heard some rumours about the 2 groove LB No 4s having bad accuracy issues when compared to their 5 groove sister rifles. Technically makes sense but what are the thoughts and experiences from collectors who have shot these two groove rifles before ?
Click to expand...

We had a recent discussion about this topic and received input from Peter Laidler (senior Armourer in the UK Military, now retired, but based as a Technical Officer at the UK Military Small Arms School), as well amongst other experienced armorers on the site. If you use the Google CSE (Custom Search Engine), there's dozens of related threads with pics and technical data that essentially support what Peter comments on. ;)

Peter Laidler said:
2 versus 5 groove barrelhttp://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=24781

One thing I do remember from the trials we did was that the amount of grooves was really academic because it was the pitch of the spin imparted to the bullet that gave the bullet its accuracy and not the amount of grooves. The two groovers also lasted longer but gave more friction. Absolute accuracy was a judgemental thing with a lot of variables but all in all, one was as good as the other

You can get into deep technicalities too but as I said, the two groovers were as good as the five
Click to expand...

Hope that helps .. :)

Regards,
Doug
 
2 groove vs 5 groove

Both the American and the British Government ran tests on the accuracy of various barrel grooves, and came to the conclusion, that, using available Military ammunition, there was no practical difference in accuracy for military usage.

Some of the cast bullet shooters are finding that a two groove barrel can be very accurate with the right loads.

As mentioned, bore condition is the primary concern.

.
 
When I started getting into shooting, we had a large and vociferous contingent of DCRA shooters in this town, nearly all of them WW2 veterans. Their more-or-less leader was William J. (Bill) Brown, who held Sergeant's rank in the Militia and something rather higher in substantive "pull": not many Sergeants can just phone up the RCAF and borrow a small transport plane for a week or 10 days to take the shooting team to Ottawa.

Around here, the 2-groove was regarded as the equal of a 5-groove, out to and including the 600-yard mark. Leaving the 600 mark and out to 900, the 5-groove Number 4 was the rifle. Starting about 900 and going out to 1100 or 1200, it was the SMLE, usually with a Parker-Hale Ball-Burnished 5-groove barrel (a $60 touch in a day of 70-cent minimum wage) in a Fulton Regulated rifle, generally with AG Parker or AJ Parker sights. The 6-groove Savage barrels were regarded as excellent out to 600 or so but were criticised for wearing quickly. The barrel that everybody wanted to try was the 6-groove Canadian barrel made on Bren Gun machinery, but they were few, far between and expensive.

Even with the Parker-Hale Ball-Burnished 5-groove in the SMLE, these guys regarded a barrel's 'break-in' period as 100 to 300 rounds, all (very) slow fire. This idiot idea of "fire-lapping" a barrel had not yet been promulgated, thankfully. The competition life of such a barrel was taken as about 1500 to 2000 rounds, following which the barrel (still almost perfect by most folks' standards) was relegated to practise use only.

These guys were SERIOUS and they had the trophies to prove that they knew their onions. You don't get carried in a chair, half a dozen "Bisley" patches for your jacket and a letter from The Queen for being a lousy shot!

Shooting was whatever, whenever, never called for weather or wind or heat. To see some of these guys in the middle of Summer, shooting in 85 above with a switching wind and a running mirage, doing it with iron sights at 800 or 900 yards, and hammering them into the bull round after round, was pretty awe-inspiring, especially when you were the guy with the $10.66 hardware-store 2-groove Number 4. Ammunition was whatever the Army handed out, generally Cordite and corrosive as the Devil's saliva, as was competition ammo in Canada and at Bisley. Preferred ammnition was DA-1950, DA-1951, both of which had been used at Ottawa and (surprise, surprise!) DI-1944, which could be reloaded.

But for PRACTICAL accuracy in the field, the 2-groove and the 5-groove in the Number 4 were regarded as equals out to 600 yards.

I know this is somewhat long-winded, but I do hope it helps. Buffdog can confirm a lot of what I am saying; he shot against some of these guys in competition in his early (and their late) years. They are all gone now.
.
 
I took a 1941 Long Branch with the original 2 groove barrel to the range a couple of years ago with a box of factory Remington UMC FMJ ammo. Shooting over the bench (on my elbows, no rest) with iron sights, my first group of 3 shots was right around 1.5". I don't think this is too shabby.
 
Cordite s a hotter propellant than most of the NC powders, which is why the loads with NC powders are about a third more than with Cordite to get the same performance.

The original Cordite Mark I was so erosive that it burned the rifling, especially at the throas, right out of the old Lee-Metfords. That is why the rifling was changed in 1895/6 to the new "Enfield" pattern, even though that one also was designed by Metford.

The next change came in 1910 with the advent of Cordite MD-T. The proportions of nitroglycerine and nitrocellulose in the Cordite were reversed, the new composition becoming 57% nitrocellulose rather than the original 58% nitroglycerine: much cooler when it burned. As well, the new powder was tubular rather than a stick powder, meaning that the burning rate was more controlled. The new sticks were .050" OD and .020" ID, hence the dimensioning in inches at (in hundredths) 5-2 and the powder was called Cordite MD-T: Modified, Tubular. This was the powder used in both World Wars.

It was tough, reliable, lightweight and powerful enough to do its job, but it was also more erosive than the pure NC powders with which the Defence Industries ammunition was loaded. This means, of course, that it also was more erosive than almost any of the modern canister-grade powders available for handloaders.

Still, an Enfield-rifled barrel was tested in 1908 and ran 12,000 rounds with Cordite Mark I before arriving at "toast" grade. This improved by better than 25% with the introduction of the MD-T powder, even though it was used in higher-velocity loading in the Mark VII cartridge.

One thing that was settled, though, was the matter of boat-tailed bullets in the rifles. Boat-tailed bullets reduce barrel life by at least 15% and the erosion pattern is such that switching back to a flat-based bullet does not restore accuracy. Flat-based bullets are best for use with Enfield rifling and, I suspect, they well might shine when used in the modern 5R rifling which is copied from the Enfield rifling.

Hope this helps.
.
 
Last edited:
Thank you all, your opinions and experiences are really appreciated. I am now not opposed to getting a LB with a two groove bore.

At the moment, I have my sights on three LB rifles. Living only 10 minutes from the old Longbranch factory site makes you really want one after a while, it is near impossible to resist!
 
I just noticed this on two LBs I am looking at out of the three. Both are 1943 dated but one has a rear sight that I have seen on the No5s with the adjustment circular tab on the top and ladder graduations. The other Lb has a simple flip up sight but looks to have the provision for the longer ladder sight. Could someone help me figure this out one ?

Also, one LB has a safety knob with a hole drilled through the middle whereas the second one has the safety knob that I have seen on a few Lb reference pictures with no hole drilled through it. Any idea if the first safety knob is British or perhaps a later LB made one ?
 
I have a 1944 No4 RCMP target rifle with a 6 groove on it. I always wondered what the story was with that. It's the only 6 groove I have in my collection.

Any idea how to tell if it's Savage, or Bren?
 
smellie said:
When I started getting into shooting, we had a large and vociferous contingent of DCRA shooters in this town, nearly all of them WW2 veterans. Their more-or-less leader was William J. (Bill) Brown, who held Sergeant's rank in the Militia and something rather higher in substantive "pull": not many Sergeants can just phone up the RCAF and borrow a small transport plane for a week or 10 days to take the shooting team to Ottawa.

Around here, the 2-groove was regarded as the equal of a 5-groove, out to and including the 600-yard mark. Leaving the 600 mark and out to 900, the 5-groove Number 4 was the rifle. Starting about 900 and going out to 1100 or 1200, it was the SMLE, usually with a Parker-Hale Ball-Burnished 5-groove barrel (a $60 touch in a day of 70-cent minimum wage) in a Fulton Regulated rifle, generally with AG Parker or AJ Parker sights. The 6-groove Savage barrels were regarded as excellent out to 600 or so but were criticised for wearing quickly. The barrel that everybody wanted to try was the 6-groove Canadian barrel made on Bren Gun machinery, but they were few, far between and expensive.

Even with the Parker-Hale Ball-Burnished 5-groove in the SMLE, these guys regarded a barrel's 'break-in' period as 100 to 300 rounds, all (very) slow fire. This idiot idea of "fire-lapping" a barrel had not yet been promulgated, thankfully. The competition life of such a barrel was taken as about 1500 to 2000 rounds, following which the barrel (still almost perfect by most folks' standards) was relegated to practise use only.

These guys were SERIOUS and they had the trophies to prove that they knew their onions. You don't get carried in a chair, half a dozen "Bisley" patches for your jacket and a letter from The Queen for being a lousy shot!

Shooting was whatever, whenever, never called for weather or wind or heat. To see some of these guys in the middle of Summer, shooting in 85 above with a switching wind and a running mirage, doing it with iron sights at 800 or 900 yards, and hammering them into the bull round after round, was pretty awe-inspiring, especially when you were the guy with the $10.66 hardware-store 2-groove Number 4. Ammunition was whatever the Army handed out, generally Cordite and corrosive as the Devil's saliva, as was competition ammo in Canada and at Bisley. Preferred ammnition was DA-1950, DA-1951, both of which had been used at Ottawa and (surprise, surprise!) DI-1944, which could be reloaded.

But for PRACTICAL accuracy in the field, the 2-groove and the 5-groove in the Number 4 were regarded as equals out to 600 yards.

I know this is somewhat long-winded, but I do hope it helps. Buffdog can confirm a lot of what I am saying; he shot against some of these guys in competition in his early (and their late) years. They are all gone now.
.
Click to expand...

That's intriguing information. What did they attribute the older SMLE's greater accuracy to?
 
Your RCMP rifle, friend, would likely have been built up as a target rifle post-war, using a Canadian barrel. The only Savage 6-groove barrels I have seen all were on very early Savage production Number 4s. You can check by looking for barrel markings: the squared-S stamp will identify a Savage barrel. I don't know what markings were on the barrels made by the Inglis machinery, but I would suspect a stylised maple leaf and CAL.

The SMLE was held in very high regard by the long-range crowd despite its lighter barrel for a number of reasons, one being that more was understood about how to make it shoot. The Number 4 was not all that long in competition use when compared to the SMLE, which dated in its final form from 1907 while the vast majority of Number 4s (99% PLUS) were wartime production. When target shooting got organised again following the Second World War, the SMLE had 40 solid years of match use to its credit and a huge amount of work had been done on tuning them, bedding them, regulating them and so forth, work which had not yet been done on the Number 4. Because of the constraints of time, this work never would be done on the Number 4, for the FAL became the official rifle only 11 years after the war.

Nabs, any Number 4 will accept any of (IIRC) seven different issue rear sights. The original Mark 1 sight was the one with the micrometer screw adjustment. It was a splendid sight. It was also the biggest single bottleneck in production. All other Number 4 rear sights were efforts to produce something serviceable but also faster to produce. The little double-peep flip sight is the Mark 2, which was followed by a variety of stamped sheet-steel ladder sights: Mark 3, Mark 4, C Mark 3 et cetera. Following the end of the War, every effort was made to rid the world of the lowly Mark 2 and great efforts were made to re-equip with the Mark 1. The rare one of the lot is the Mark 3: the adjustment catch was fragile and in a most-exposed position.
.
 
Last edited:
Thanks George, that makes sense with what I have seen on the LB No4s I am considering. One is a 1942 with what appears to be a Mk 1 rear sight, the next is a 1943 with a Mark 2 rear sight, and the last is another 1943 with what looks like a Mk 1 rear sight but it is difficult to see clearly.

The 1942 I am looking at, and considering quite heavily, has what appears to be a sold out of service mark on the receiver (twp opposed broad arrows). I cannot make out any c broad arrow mark on the receiver in relation to my reference pictures as the picture provided is centered on the rear sight.

I may have the chance to go and personally inspect the 1942 in a week or so, any ideal places to look for C broad arrow markings ? The wood looks to be original to the rifle with some handling and storage marks but is quite dirty from filth and packing grease. There appears to be some sort of number on the left side of the butt stock. The butt stock is also fitted with a steel butt plate. A cross screw is present as well and it is advertised as an Ishapore re-build. I feel she has some potential to be brought back but I am always interested in hearing and reading more about the No 4 Mk I *s made at Long Branch factory so when I come across them, I know what to look for.

By the way, the bolt head is marked "2" so I am assuming she has been shot quite a bit in her service life.

Thank you for the help.
 
Once again, Smellie, you have me in awe.:D

You really make me wish I was 19 again, of sound body and keen eyesight and able to step into that world of DCRA with you and your friends.

What an experience that must have been to shoot with marksmen of that caliber and learn what they know.

I really hope you are writing a book about all the info you know on the subject of the Enfields, among other things.

Cheers!:)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom