greyman441
CGN Regular
- Location
- Wasaga Beach, ON
Like the title says. Is there really that much of a difference in accuracy between a 2 groove enfield and a 5 groove enfield?
Is there really that much difference between 2 groove and 5?
- Thread starter greyman441
- Start date
greyman441
CGN Regular
- Location
- Wasaga Beach, ON
There is alot of mixed reviews on the 2 groove wearing out faster. Is it true?
greyman441
CGN Regular
- Location
- Wasaga Beach, ON
I checked on here and couldnt find much. Ill take a look on milsurp. Forgot about that site.
Thanks
Thanks
Lee Enfield
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Republic of Alberta
bore diameter is more important than groove numbers
Weapontech
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- On my way to Hell in a handbasket
This was hashed out over on MILSURPS in the Lee-Enfield forum in a long, long thread regarding accuracy potential of the Number 4 vs the SMLE.
Back in the '60s, the DCRA shooters regarded a decent 2-groove barrel as the equal of a 5-groove barrel for what they called "short-to-intermediate' range shooting. They meant out to and including 600 yards. This was with issue barrels, of course, not the diamond-lapped, Ball-burnished and 6-groove barrels of the Pros who went to Bisley EVERY year.
I have SHOT a 2-groove at 600. I was using a war-weary Number 4 that I got at the hardware store for $10.66, equipped with a 25-cent sling and a second-hand Mark 4 rear sight which I was given. Bullets arrived at the target, also, but not in as tight a group as I would have wished. The PROBLEM, of course, was the Loose Screw Behind The Buttplate: ME. For some unknown reason, the rifle shot a LOT better when Bill Brown used it!!!! But then, he DID have that little letter of congratulation from Her Majesty, up on the wall in his gun room.
Perhaps if the Queen had sent me a nice letter, I might have shot a better score.
Or is it the other way around?
Getting old now, hard to remember........
But a 2 WILL keep up with a 5, out to 600.
GROOVY!
.
Back in the '60s, the DCRA shooters regarded a decent 2-groove barrel as the equal of a 5-groove barrel for what they called "short-to-intermediate' range shooting. They meant out to and including 600 yards. This was with issue barrels, of course, not the diamond-lapped, Ball-burnished and 6-groove barrels of the Pros who went to Bisley EVERY year.
I have SHOT a 2-groove at 600. I was using a war-weary Number 4 that I got at the hardware store for $10.66, equipped with a 25-cent sling and a second-hand Mark 4 rear sight which I was given. Bullets arrived at the target, also, but not in as tight a group as I would have wished. The PROBLEM, of course, was the Loose Screw Behind The Buttplate: ME. For some unknown reason, the rifle shot a LOT better when Bill Brown used it!!!! But then, he DID have that little letter of congratulation from Her Majesty, up on the wall in his gun room.
Perhaps if the Queen had sent me a nice letter, I might have shot a better score.
Or is it the other way around?
Getting old now, hard to remember........
But a 2 WILL keep up with a 5, out to 600.
GROOVY!
.
Twosteam says 700!
No, the rates of twist were exactly the same: ALL .303s were 1 turn in 10 inches, usually left-hand. Ross was the same twist but radically different right-hand rifling on some, a left-handed type much like a Mauser but with Ross's tweaking for the Mark III. But they were all 1 in 10 inches, which works FINE for slugs through the whole 150-to-215 range and a bit above and below.
What happened was that the accuracy fell off beyond 600 with the 2-groove, not radically but enough that the 5-groove had an advantage at the target. We were shooting an 18-inch Bull at 600: 3 MOA at 600, but the Bull stayed the same at the next ranges, meaning that it actually got smaller in terms of MOA for the shooter. For the longest ranges, a larger Bull was used, but at 600 and thereabouts, the 18-inch was what was used.
Remember, the old-time shooting was strict under Service Rifle rules. Your Rifle had to be able to be returned to combat condition with no tool other than a screwdriver. And we were shooting "issue" ammo: no handloads, no commercial stuff. You run what the Quartermaster brung, and that was it. It would be a Match Disqualification if you were found with a different type of ammo on the firing line. Ammo for the big shoots (the Provincial, National and Commonwealth at Bisley) was supplied from regular stocks supplied by whatever military installation was close and had enough of ONE LOT in good condition and accuracy TESTED. It HAD to meet military standards, even though it well might be several years old. For example, DA 1952 VII was issued at Ottawa for the 1962 shoot; I am rather happy to have a couple of boxes here. Might almost be time for a test!
But there was NO MATCH AMMO, quite unlike the American shoots in which special ammunition crafted to very high standards is nearly always used.
But the shoots, even the international matches, were FAIR. For the Provincial, National and Bisley shoots, you took your own rifle, which was liable to a complete examination at any time and was VERY likely to be examined carefully by the Armourers if you did something spectacular, such as set a new 1200-yard record. But for the PALMA Match, things were entirely different. If Canada were hosting the shoot that year, the Americans sent a TEAM but no rifles. BOTH teams, Canadian AND American, then picked their rifles completely at random from a big rack of tuned and tested Number 4 rifles which had been specially prepared for the shoot. When the Americans returned the favour and hosted the Canadian team, the Americans supplied all the rifles and everyone picked from a big rack of specially-prepared US Service rifles. And some Americans DID learn to master..... and appreciate, the Number 4 Rifle; they are the ones who would never write disparaging remarks in gun magazines. So the rifles were good, the ammo was good but what the match determined was how good the SHOOTERS were.
Sadly, it is a style and type of shooting which has become old-fashioned and very nearly forgotten.
It would be nice if it could be revived, what with the current interest by so many in the old military rifles.
.
No, the rates of twist were exactly the same: ALL .303s were 1 turn in 10 inches, usually left-hand. Ross was the same twist but radically different right-hand rifling on some, a left-handed type much like a Mauser but with Ross's tweaking for the Mark III. But they were all 1 in 10 inches, which works FINE for slugs through the whole 150-to-215 range and a bit above and below.
What happened was that the accuracy fell off beyond 600 with the 2-groove, not radically but enough that the 5-groove had an advantage at the target. We were shooting an 18-inch Bull at 600: 3 MOA at 600, but the Bull stayed the same at the next ranges, meaning that it actually got smaller in terms of MOA for the shooter. For the longest ranges, a larger Bull was used, but at 600 and thereabouts, the 18-inch was what was used.
Remember, the old-time shooting was strict under Service Rifle rules. Your Rifle had to be able to be returned to combat condition with no tool other than a screwdriver. And we were shooting "issue" ammo: no handloads, no commercial stuff. You run what the Quartermaster brung, and that was it. It would be a Match Disqualification if you were found with a different type of ammo on the firing line. Ammo for the big shoots (the Provincial, National and Commonwealth at Bisley) was supplied from regular stocks supplied by whatever military installation was close and had enough of ONE LOT in good condition and accuracy TESTED. It HAD to meet military standards, even though it well might be several years old. For example, DA 1952 VII was issued at Ottawa for the 1962 shoot; I am rather happy to have a couple of boxes here. Might almost be time for a test!
But there was NO MATCH AMMO, quite unlike the American shoots in which special ammunition crafted to very high standards is nearly always used.
But the shoots, even the international matches, were FAIR. For the Provincial, National and Bisley shoots, you took your own rifle, which was liable to a complete examination at any time and was VERY likely to be examined carefully by the Armourers if you did something spectacular, such as set a new 1200-yard record. But for the PALMA Match, things were entirely different. If Canada were hosting the shoot that year, the Americans sent a TEAM but no rifles. BOTH teams, Canadian AND American, then picked their rifles completely at random from a big rack of tuned and tested Number 4 rifles which had been specially prepared for the shoot. When the Americans returned the favour and hosted the Canadian team, the Americans supplied all the rifles and everyone picked from a big rack of specially-prepared US Service rifles. And some Americans DID learn to master..... and appreciate, the Number 4 Rifle; they are the ones who would never write disparaging remarks in gun magazines. So the rifles were good, the ammo was good but what the match determined was how good the SHOOTERS were.
Sadly, it is a style and type of shooting which has become old-fashioned and very nearly forgotten.
It would be nice if it could be revived, what with the current interest by so many in the old military rifles.
.
I still don't understand why the accuracy fell off on the 2 groove more so than the 5 groove. If the rate of twist is the same, theoretically the bullet should be spinning at the same speed as it leaves the muzzle.
Could it be that the 5 grooves barrels tend to wear slower? Are they generally tighter?
Could it be that the 5 grooves barrels tend to wear slower? Are they generally tighter?
I'll venture a radical guess... Imagine the shape of a bullet exiting a 2 groove barrel. The bullet will have two opposing rifling marks which actually "flatten" the bullet, albeit slightly, as it will be wider measured across the groove marks than it would be 90 degrees from them. Compare this to a 5 groover which would have a relatively equal spatial circumference all the way around = better spinning balance... think of a football.
I would guess that the better balance of the bullet with 5 grooves is the reason for the enhanced performance at longer distances. The "flattened" two groove bullet would start to become less and less stable the further It flew from the muzzle.
Just my hypothesis. Although a very groovy one baby yeah!
