303.....what happened

G

gwes2003

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
50   0   0
Location
Vancouver Island, British Columbia
Was at the range today and a friend brought out an old Enfield in .303 British. I had never shot one and was surprised at how accurate and fun it was.
A little googling on the old interweb shows it to be an old military round that's also a proven hunting round capable of taking deer, bear, and Moose. Kinda along the same lines as the 30-06.
So why do Remington, Winchester, Browning, ruger, tikka, weatherby etc not offer a bolt action chambered in 303? What am I missing here?
 
I can think of a few reasons.

Most of those companies focus on the US. The 303 was a British round, former collonial power, and they have the 06, 08, and 223 in military rounds.

Rimmed round. Typically pushing a 180 gr projectile sub 2400/sec.

Competition with millions of LE that while gaining value now, 10 years ago were dirt cheap. How does one manufacture a rifle that can compete with a $250-400 rifle, and make a profit.
 
gwes2003 said:
Was at the range today and a friend brought out an old Enfield in .303 British. I had never shot one and was surprised at how accurate and fun it was.
A little googling on the old interweb shows it to be an old military round that's also a proven hunting round capable of taking deer, bear, and Moose. Kinda along the same lines as the 30-06.
So why do Remington, Winchester, Browning, ruger, tikka, weatherby etc not offer a bolt action chambered in 303? What am I missing here?
Click to expand...

About 125 years of history, give or take a few. ;)

No ammo manufacturers left in Canada that sell to the public; that's the main problem.
 
Last edited:
Nothing much wrong with the venerable 303 British. [I have 3, two standard 303's plus a 303 Epps]

Rimmed case can be a nuisance to feed under some scenarios.
Case is quite tapered, something you do not see much of in "modern" case designs.

Many of the older Lee-Enfields were tough on brass, due to generous chambers and springy [not weak] actions.

However, in a front locking, strong action, the 303 is really just a rimmed 308 Winchester with a slightly oversize bullet.
Case capacities are virtually identical, and yield similar results, ballistically.

Sadly, the old "Brit" has been cast aside in favor of the newer "###ier" designs by most shooters.

Regards, Dave
 
every rimmed cartridge was replaced with a rimless version that has better ballistics and feeds more reliably from a magazine.............
 
yodave said:
every rimmed cartridge was replaced with a rimless version that has better ballistics and feeds more reliably from a magazine.............
Click to expand...

54R is still going strong, still in active service with Russia and many other militaries, numerous magazine fed rifles use it...

Granted, rimless is a whole lot easier to deal with for mag fed rifles.

But ballistics and accuracy? .303 has plenty of punch, a flat enough trajectory, and can be as accurate as any of the other traditional 30 cal rounds still in service.
 
In 1888, the British introduced the black powder .303 load for their service rifles. Even though it was updated to keep pace with changes in ballistics & propellants technology, it's still considered an obsolete design. The only reason ammunition manufacturers still make ammo for it is the fact that there are so many serviceable rifles around still chambered in that calibre. Returning veterans from 2 world wars needed an inexpensive big game cartridge and they could buy military surplus Lee Enfields for peanuts. For a minimal cash outlay, they would wind up with a rifle they knew and were comfortable with, as well as teaching the next generation how to shoot with them and ammo was everywhere. Like many people who love that cartridge, I reload for it. I have 3 Lee Enfields, 2 collectibles and one sporterized hunter. Depending on the load, it'll take just about anything in north America. I load 150 gr. for deer and 180 gr. for moose or bear. I even have some of the old Dominion 215 gr. soft point ammo. I still remember buying milsurp ammo for .18 cents/round! Those days are long gone!
 
yodave said:
every rimmed cartridge was replaced with a rimless version that has better ballistics and feeds more reliably from a magazine.............
Click to expand...

Show me ANY rifle that feeds more reliably than an SMLE.

Feeding issues don't exist with the SMLE, operator error does though, as with ANY other action. However, the rimmed cartridge adds the issue that the operator must pay attention when loading his/her rifle. That doesn't sound like a bad idea either!

I take issue with the ballistics statement as well. I think you will find the barrels have more to do with this idea.

To prove that, we need to find a modern rifle chambered for both a rimmed and rimless version of the same cartridge, where case capacity and shape was not changed. For example, is the pretty much dead 30 Rem superior to the 30-30? Nope. There are very small differences, but nothing that can't be attributed to small changes in case capacity etc. We can look at the 307 Winchester, but it's not chambered in a bolt gun, it's case is substantially different, and it's under loaded.

Now, if you were to for example take a 308, in a given rifle, fire it, record the ballistic performance, then take and cut space for a rim on that chamber, and produce a 308 case of identical proportions to the original case, but with a rim, you could make the comparison. I doubt you'd find any difference.
 
Last edited:
John Y Cannuck said:
Show me ANY rifle that feeds more reliably than an SMLE.

Feeding issues don't exist with the SMLE, operator error does though, as with ANY other action. However, the rimmed cartridge adds the issue that the operator must pay attention when loading his/her rifle...

... We can look at the 307 Winchester, but it's not chambered in a bolt gun, it's case is substantially different, and it's under loaded.
Click to expand...

Mauser 98. When used with the cartridge it was intended for, nothing feeds as smoothly or reliably, and you will never get a rim jam. You may call the feeding problems of the .303 operator error, but a good design would remove the chance of operator error. The .303 was due to be replaced in 1913 by the British army, by a rimless .276 (7mm) cartridge. The war of 1914 intervened, and it just wasn't practical to change calibres in the middle of a war. The .303 was retained, and the Enfield rifle was reworked to use that cartridge and became the substitute standard P14. After the war there was no political will to invest in a new rifle and cartridge after having spent billions of pounds on the last war.

As for the .303/.307, the cases are similar enough that the same dies are used to reload both, only the shell holder changes. My understanding is that the brass is somewhat thicker than .308 commercial brass, and it is loaded to lower pressure in deference to the M94 action.
 
9.3mauser said:
Mauser 98. When used with the cartridge it was intended for, nothing feeds as smoothly or reliably, and you will never get a rim jam. You may call the feeding problems of the .303 operator error, but a good design would remove the chance of operator error. The .303 was due to be replaced in 1913 by the British army, by a rimless .276 (7mm) cartridge. The war of 1914 intervened, and it just wasn't practical to change calibres in the middle of a war. The .303 was retained, and the Enfield rifle was reworked to use that cartridge and became the substitute standard P14. After the war there was no political will to invest in a new rifle and cartridge after having spent billions of pounds on the last war.

As for the .303/.307, the cases are similar enough that the same dies are used to reload both, only the shell holder changes. My understanding is that the brass is somewhat thicker than .308 commercial brass, and it is loaded to lower pressure in deference to the M94 action.
Click to expand...

the P13 was being developed before ww1 and when the they hit the production stage and started giving rifles to the brits in .276, the britts told the manufacture "your crazy we are not switching rounds in the middle of the war, rechamber them in .303.
The the manufactured guns were rebarreled in .303 and the remaining production was called "Pattern 14" and was rolled out in .303. there was not a lot of these rifles made in comparison to Enfields... and due to the non interchangeability of parts, they were not front line guns. In the end the adoption of the rifle was dumped by the brits and they just kept making enfields, come WW2 the P14 in service were negated to home defence units inside britain and surplus shortly after the war.
The P17 chambered in 30-06 however saw great use in WW2 as a americain sniper rifle.

It is truly a great action... I find it more a joy to shoot then an enfield, and much better accuracy. I know people that rechambered the gun in .50 alaskan , 300WM, and a few other big boys... that action is tough as nails.
 
I the United States the .30-40 Krag also known as the .30U.S.Army, is the equivalent of the .303 British.Some reproduction Winchester Model 1895 and Krag rifles have been made for the U.S. market in the more popular there, 30-40 Krag/.30U.S. Army .The market for a .303 British rifle more popular in Canada is too small of a market for most manufactures to both with.
 
LordEvilPepper said:
the P13 was being developed before ww1 and when the they hit the production stage and started giving rifles to the brits in .276, the britts told the manufacture "your crazy we are not switching rounds in the middle of the war, rechamber them in .303.
The the manufactured guns were rebarreled in .303 and the remaining production was called "Pattern 14" and was rolled out in .303. there was not a lot of these rifles made in comparison to Enfields... and due to the non interchangeability of parts, they were not front line guns. In the end the adoption of the rifle was dumped by the brits and they just kept making enfields, come WW2 the P14 in service were negated to home defence units inside britain and surplus shortly after the war.
The P17 chambered in 30-06 however saw great use in WW2 as a americain sniper rifle.

It is truly a great action... I find it more a joy to shoot then an enfield, and much better accuracy. I know people that rechambered the gun in .50 alaskan , 300WM, and a few other big boys... that action is tough as nails.
Click to expand...

Mark me down as a fan of that action. I had one in a 300wm and still have one in a 338wm. Heavy, strong rifle; just what is needed to help absorb some of that 338 recoil. Fits my use; a rifle chambered in a strong caliber, in a rifle i can use without regard of scratching some high grade furniture.
 
nowarningshot said:
Mark me down as a fan of that action. I had one in a 300wm and still have one in a 338wm. Heavy, strong rifle; just what is needed to help absorb some of that 338 recoil. Fits my use; a rifle chambered in a strong caliber, in a rifle i can use without regard of scratching some high grade furniture.
Click to expand...

There is a bunch in our family, I have a Rem. Mod. 30 in 35 Whelen, a 404 Jeffery on an Enfield, # 1 Son has a 404 and a 416 Rigby and I think a Weatherby chambering of something.
Brother's estate had Enfields in 500 Jeffery, 510 Wells, 505 Gibbs among others.
He loved building the big stuff on Enfields and they worked well for him.
 
I love the .303 British cartridge and I've got a Ruger #1 in 303, but there is no getting around that rimmed (and belted for that matter) cartridges in bolt action rifles are obsolete and the SMLE is an obsolete combat rifle for a modern military.

The big manufacturers would be silly to offer the 303 in a modern bolt action as their current models likely wouldn't work on a rimmed cartridge without tweaking them. Extra expense for a limited market.

Ballistically, the .303 case has as much or more capacity than the .308 so could be loaded to .308 speeds in a modern rifle. The .311 bullets may be less aerodynamic than .308 but not enough to matter under 300 yards.
 
9.3mauser said:
Mauser 98. When used with the cartridge it was intended for, nothing feeds as smoothly or reliably, and you will never get a rim jam. You may call the feeding problems of the .303 operator error, but a good design would remove the chance of operator error. The .303 was due to be replaced in 1913 by the British army, by a rimless .276 (7mm) cartridge. The war of 1914 intervened, and it just wasn't practical to change calibres in the middle of a war. The .303 was retained, and the Enfield rifle was reworked to use that cartridge and became the substitute standard P14. After the war there was no political will to invest in a new rifle and cartridge after having spent billions of pounds on the last war.

As for the .303/.307, the cases are similar enough that the same dies are used to reload both, only the shell holder changes. My understanding is that the brass is somewhat thicker than .308 commercial brass, and it is loaded to lower pressure in deference to the M94 action.
Click to expand...
Frankly, the 303br worked so well in both wars, that it was left in service, it's fantastic rate of fire proved it had no feeding issues, properly loaded, it is every bit as good at feeding as any Mauser ever made.
The very fact that it would feed the terrible ammunition the Brits produced in WW1 proves that as well.
As to the 308/307, any difference in capacity, is still a difference that will affect performance. Just sticking a rim on a case doesn't change ballistics.
Ask the owners of the Ruger #1's in 303British how they shoot.

I'm not saying that the rimmed cartridge isn't outdated, it most certainly is, but, it's not inaccurate, and it does feed, if the shooter does his part, and has a modern rifle in good condition.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom