Lee Enfield "more accurate" at 600m - fact or fiction?

[Tudenom]

Today I was reading an article on No4 bedding and I came across, yet gain, the comment that Lee Enfields are "more accurate" at 600m. Now, I'm having a real problem with this concept and I was wondering if anyone can explain it to me.

How can a rifle shoot 2 MOA at 200m but 1.5 MOA at 600m?

I just don't get it. I've read/heard this from multiple sources and my B/S meter flashes everytime I hear it. So far I've never heard a reasonable explaination on how this works, only that it does, which makes this theory smell like an urban legend to me.

 

[buffdog]

Accuracy

Accuracy is a relative thing. It is usually measured in group size, and minute-of-angle.

For example, if a Lee Enfield made 2 inch groups at 100 yards, 4 inch groups at 200 yards, etc., you could reasonably expect 12 inch groups at 600 yards. However if the rifle actually did 8 inch groups at 600 yards, it could be considered "more accurate at 600 yards".

When a bullet is fired, it actually is very slightly unstable, and tends to yaw a very tiny amount around it's axis. Depending upon the design of the bullet, some have greater stability as they slow down a bit, which would be farther down the range. This is known as "going to sleep". The lowering velocity decreases the yaw around the axis of the bullet, and it flies truer. This would account for the increased relative accuracy at longer ranges.

There is also a factor known as "compensation". Simply put, when you fire a rifle the barrel actually vibrates. Depending upon lots of factors, a barrel may simply shoot better at different ranges, and whether the vibration of the barrel is sending it down, or up in the vibration cycle. If you changed the length of the barrel, this vibration cycle would change, and affect accuracy.

From a personal point of view, I always preferred the No.4 rifle for ranges up to 600 yards, but used the No.1 Mark III for ranges of between 600 and 1000 yards on the range, because I believed (and I am not alone on this ) that the No.1 Mark III rifle compensated better at the longer ranges.

This is a brief explanation. You have to look at accuracy relative to range of the target. For example, I have a Stevens .223 that shoots 60 grain Hornady handloads in the 9/16 inch area at 100 yards, about 1 1/2 inches at 200 yards, still stays about 1 1/2 inches at 300 yards, and about 3 inches at 400 yards.

Lets say this rifle does 3/4 minute of angle. (although a minute of angle is slightly over an inch, we will use one inch here). At 100, 200, and 400 yards, I am still about 3/4 minute of angle even though I am shooting larger groups. However my 300 yard groups are in the 1/2 minute range, so I could say that my rifle is more accurate at 300 yards.

Hope this helps.

 

[rtracer13]

Accuracy is a relative thing. It is usually measured in group size, and minute-of-angle.

For example, if a Lee Enfield made 2 inch groups at 100 yards, 4 inch groups at 200 yards, etc., you could reasonably expect 12 inch groups at 600 yards. However if the rifle actually did 8 inch groups at 600 yards, it could be considered "more accurate at 600 yards".

When a bullet is fired, it actually is very slightly unstable, and tends to yaw a very tiny amount around it's axis. Depending upon the design of the bullet, some have greater stability as they slow down a bit, which would be farther down the range. This is known as "going to sleep". The lowering velocity decreases the yaw around the axis of the bullet, and it flies truer. This would account for the increased relative accuracy at longer ranges.

There is also a factor known as "compensation". Simply put, when you fire a rifle the barrel actually vibrates. Depending upon lots of factors, a barrel may simply shoot better at different ranges, and whether the vibration of the barrel is sending it down, or up in the vibration cycle. If you changed the length of the barrel, this vibration cycle would change, and affect accuracy.

From a personal point of view, I always preferred the No.4 rifle for ranges up to 600 yards, but used the No.1 Mark III for ranges of between 600 and 1000 yards on the range, because I believed (and I am not alone on this ) that the No.1 Mark III rifle compensated better at the longer ranges.

This is a brief explanation. You have to look at accuracy relative to range of the target. For example, I have a Stevens .223 that shoots 60 grain Hornady handloads in the 9/16 inch area at 100 yards, about 1 1/2 inches at 200 yards, still stays about 1 1/2 inches at 300 yards, and about 3 inches at 400 yards.

Lets say this rifle does 3/4 minute of angle. (although a minute of angle is slightly over an inch, we will use one inch here). At 100, 200, and 400 yards, I am still about 3/4 minute of angle even though I am shooting larger groups. However my 300 yard groups are in the 1/2 minute range, so I could say that my rifle is more accurate at 300 yards.

Hope this helps.

Wow, thorough answer! thanks!

 

[fat tony]

There is a bit of info about this in Hatcher's Notebook, with accompanying pictures about penetration tests in oak timbers at various ranges.

 

[Riflechair]

THIS THREAD SHOULD BE STICKIED


I can tell you from personal experience that at 500m the No4Mk1 starts to realy shine. This is especially true when shooting poor quality ammunition - another painful experience... I’ll attempt to explain why.

I have chronographed variability in muzzle velocity within some IVI lots of +/- 120 fps with Ball Mk8Z ammunition . That is an unacceptable standard deviation and indicates significant issues with Quality Control at Industries Valcartier Inc. Having said that these were older lots from the early 1990’s. The good news is that IVI has significantly increased ammunition quality since then .

The way this works is as follows. Only caveat is that you keep an open mind . This might not be the answer you’re expecting.

Fast bullets exit the barrel sooner than slower bullets. There is normally some degree of standard deviation in cartridge formulation (powder charge, crimp strength, primer quality, etc) . The relationship is as such: "The longer it takes for a bullet to exit the muzzle the higher the point of impact will be at shorter distances".

“Why" ? you ask...

As the slower bullet proceeds down the barrel the muzzle continues to rise due to recoil and barrel harmonics. This actually starts at the rear bolt lugs, through the action and continues on through the barrel. The No4 rifle is especially subject to this internal ballistics phenomenon – where-as the No1Mk3 SMLE is less prone to it because the forestock and nose cap play a limiting factor in barrel rise (where it doesn't in the No4Mk1). Remember the No4 require 5 to 7 lbs of downwards foretip pressure for a few reasons, partially as a result of this and for shooting with bayonette attached.

At short distances this translates why we can expect bigger group sizes when using poor quality ammunition. Slower bullets impact high and faster bullets impact low (vertical relationship not horizontal). There is an exception though and this occurs at longer ranges.... Starting at about 500m the slower and faster bullets start to impact at the same point. Groups start to get smaller at long distance in relation to the shorter distances to target.

Mind blowing stuff eh!
Now get out there and start practicing....

PS: I think we need more smilies

 

[Dryzen]

Good point on the Minute of Angle.

 

[tootall]

An NRA publication called British Enfield Rifles (printed in 1990), made up of reprinted articles from the American Rifleman magazine covered this. The explaination is basically what Buffdog and Riflechair say above. The gun flexes somewhat on firing, and low powered shot go slightyl high and high powered shots go slightly low, so that at 900 or 1000 yards, there is less vertical dispertion. No effect on horizontal dispertion though.

 

[Juster]

If you can't measure something you can believe anything. Let's see someone shooting a Lee Enfield through 2 paper targets simultaneously. One at 200m, one at 600m. And let us enjoy the smaller groups at 600m. Until then, feel free to imagine whatever you want. Even parallax .

 

[Riflechair]

Interesting idea but I know this stuff has been worked out a long long time ago.

If you can't measure something you can believe anything. Let's see someone shooting a Lee Enfield through 2 paper targets simultaneously. One at 200m, one at 600m. And let us enjoy the smaller groups at 600m. Until then, feel free to imagine whatever you want. Even parallax .

 

[smellie]

Juster, there happen to be some very interesting spark-gap photographs of precisely this phenomenon. They are displayed prominently in the TEXT BOOK OF SMALL ARMS - 1909, formerly available from His Majesty's Stationery Office, London.

I think they could be out of stock on this item.

That said, I happen to have an original copy and have been working away at scanning it, page for page. When this project is finished, it will become available, along with other manuals from my collection, on a CD-ROM disc.

I started shooting with a Number 4 Rifle at our local rifle range, 'way back in the days when the XII Manitoba Dragoons still had a Firefly parked downtown at the old Armoury (now long gone, Armoury and Firefly both). I was informed on turning out that the Number 4 was a fine rifle and that it generally was expected that a 2-groove barrel would 'keep up' with a 5-groove at ranges up to 600 yards. I then was informed that if I really wanted to play with the big guys, that I had better get my hands on an SMLE.... for precisely the reasons that Buffdog and Riflechair both have explained.

Perhaps I should point out that the man who said this was a 6-time Bisley veteran, had Captained the Canadian team... and had a very nice handwritten letter from HM the Queen on the wall of his den.

The SMLE was preferred by all the long-range shooters.... and I mean the guys who regularly shot 600, 800, 900, 1000 and 1100 and 1200 yards, and did it with iron sights and issue ammo. The more-or-less standard rear sight was the Parker-Hale Number 5, the front sight was 'issue'. The rules at that time said that you could do almost anything you like with your rifle BUT you had to be able to put it back to 'issue' condition using NO tool other than a screwdriver.... and you could be challenged on that, too, and DQ'd if your rifle didn't meet the specs.

This was, I think, some of the most difficult target shooting ever, and it all was undertaken with Number 4 Rifles for the close-in stuff (600 yards and under) and by the old SMLE for the longer ranges out to 1200 yards, which means that they were shooting iron-sight battle rifles at targets slightly more than 1097 metres off. People today think this is something which only can be done with a 24x scope and a rail gun in a Magnum calibre.

It was done with World War One veteran rifles. Bulls averaged 2 to 3 MOA and on the comparatively-bigger bulls (at 600) you were issued 17 rounds and you shot a 15-shot string with 2 called rounds ONLY for sighters/warmers. I marked a target for a man in a vicious switching wind one afternoon, blowing at an angle across the range and gusting. His score was 73/75 and he was upset because he felt the rifle had got away from him on one shot: his score should have been 74/75 and he was angry with himself.

But that's how it was done.

And I must emphasize that ALL of this was done with random-issue Service ammunition. Even the Imperial and Commonwealth Matches at Bisley were done with selected lots of Service ammunition. Special Match ammunition, as the Americans made up for Camp Perry each year, was NOT manufactured. These shoots were a test of what the MEN and the RIFLES could do, using ammunition which they might be issued in a combat situation, i.e., ammunition which already was in store in sufficient quantity that everyone used the same Lot.

When they said a rifle was 'regulated', they MEANT it.

Remember, the only rifle which ever outshot the Lee-Enfield on a consistent basis was the Ross. When the backup organisation for the Ross disappeared, the rifles followed.

The information here is straight goods, believe me.

 

[H4831]

If you can't measure something you can believe anything. Let's see someone shooting a Lee Enfield through 2 paper targets simultaneously. One at 200m, one at 600m. And let us enjoy the smaller groups at 600m. Until then, feel free to imagine whatever you want. Even parallax .

Right on! Since no one will try to prove the point with your two target idea, the imagination can run wild.

 

[Mk VII]

In the days when competitors had to draw the (indifferent quality) ammo on the line, and use it too or be DQ'd, it was true. With match ammo or handloading, the compensating feature no longer deserves such weight.

 

[green]

In the 1930s the P14 rifle was allowed to be used in British NRA service rifle matchs. It was found to be accurate but at 600 yds and beyond the SMLE shot better.
I have done some experimenting with the following handloads, 123 gr@2650fps, and 215 gr @2000 fps in a No4 sighted for Mk7, 174 gr @2440 fps.
At 50m the 123 gr load shot low and the 215 gr shot high which is the opposite of what would be expected.

 

[smellie]

Friend GREEN is getting precisely the barrel-whip effect described earlier and he is proving that it does exist. Thank you, friend Green.

Mark VII, if matches were shot your way, they wouldn't be matches at all. I run my Ross at 2335 ft/sec with a Sierra 180 seated out to Mark VII specs, but I run my 1918 SMLE at 2250, otherwise the same. My Number 4 really likes the 180 at about 2350 and my P.-'14 wants a Hornady 150, seated 'way to hell and gone OUT there, at about 2650. You can only have a REAL match if everyone is shooting the same stuff; otherwise it becomes a handloading match, not a RIFLE match.

As to the indifferent quality of the old ammo, I happen to have unopened boxes here of Dominion Arsenals 1950 and 1951 both, in each case the same Lot number as the Dominion Matches were shot with. This ammo has been well stored, it is 60 years old and it will STILL shoot a pretty decent target. This was the preferred ammunition for the long-range shooters in this area, up until the very last of the old-timers passed away, about 5 years ago.

The question, in this day of telescopic sights and bipods, is this: "Is there anyone left who is good enough to USE this ammo, rather than just waste it?"

 

[Lee Enfield]

snip...
And I must emphasize that ALL of this was done with random-issue Service ammunition. Even the Imperial and Commonwealth Matches at Bisley were done with selected lots of Service ammunition. Special Match ammunition, as the Americans made up for Camp Perry each year, was NOT manufactured. These shoots were a test of what the MEN and the RIFLES could do, using ammunition which they might be issued in a combat situation, i.e., ammunition which already was in store in sufficient quantity that everyone used the same Lot.

snip....

I've accumulated @50 rounds of DCRA ammo issued in @'37 or '38.

It's that pretty "banded" stuff.

I've been considering shooting it for group and chronographing for velocity;

Unfortunately I also realize that that wouldn't prove anything, as I can't prove how it was all stored, and it didn't all come from the same source...

 

[tiriaq]

Velocity variation causes long range groups to open vertically. The groups are oval rather than round. The compensation effect of a Lee Enfield resulted in rounder groups, fewer lost points high and low. Compensation was only relevant with ammunition with velocity variations - like much regular service ball. As soon as quality ammunition became the order of the day, Lee Enfields pretty much vanished from competition.

 

[desporterizer]

Velocity variation causes long range groups to open vertically. The groups are oval rather than round. The compensation effect of a Lee Enfield resulted in rounder groups, fewer lost points high and low. Compensation was only relevant with ammunition with velocity variations - like much regular service ball. As soon as quality ammunition became the order of the day, Lee Enfields pretty much vanished from competition.

So what did replace it?

 

[desporterizer]

The question, in this day of telescopic sights and bipods, is this: "Is there anyone left who is good enough to USE this ammo, rather than just waste it?"[/QUOTE]

I just wish they still made that ammo or at least the bullets so I could get some decent practice. How the hell are you supposed to get a benchmark to start from if nobody make the damned ammo these rifles are SUPPOSED to shoot? UMC isn't even close & most bullets for hand loading are closed base.

 

[tiriaq]

So what did replace it?

DND stopped supplying service issue ammunition for DCRA/PRA competition.
At first, the organizations arranged for a supply of commercially obtained ammunition. Then competitors became responsible for bringing their own. The improvement in ammunition quality was dramatic. At the same time that ammunition was getting much better, serious modern target rifles also emerged.
The Lee Enfields and service ball were left in the dust.
As far as compensation goes, the improvement in accuracy was the result of reducing vertical spread in the groups. There was no reduction in lateral spread. Lee Enfields did shoot service ball better at long ranges than the other rifles available at the time shot service ball. But comparing a Lee Enfield shooting IVI 7.62 ball with a Barnard or RPA shooting premium .308 handloads is comparing apples and oranges.

 

[enefgee]

The question, in this day of telescopic sights and bipods, is this: "Is there anyone left who is good enough to USE this ammo, rather than just waste it?"

I just wish they still made that ammo or at least the bullets so I could get some decent practice. How the hell are you supposed to get a benchmark to start from if nobody make the damned ammo these rifles are SUPPOSED to shoot? UMC isn't even close & most bullets for hand loading are closed base.[/QUOTE]

I have to agree, could someone (anyone) please produce a 174 grain Flat Based Jacketed bullet (.311 or .312) with an exposed base!!!