"mankiller" lee enfield
- Thread starter cz858hunter
- Start date
The OP stated that some shots go high, others low.
From what I have read here and on milsurps.com, the Mk2 sight for the No4 rifle is intended for use with a bayonet. The Mk1,3, and 4 sights are not. No idea about the No1 rifle though.
To the OP: Have you noticed vertical stringing when shooting different bullet weights?
From what I have read, heavier bullets will tend to shoot higher than lighter bullets due barrel harmonics and differing velocities. Perhaps one of the gurus here can correct me on this or clarify. It has been a while since this was brought up.
From what I have read, heavier bullets will tend to shoot higher than lighter bullets due barrel harmonics and differing velocities. Perhaps one of the gurus here can correct me on this or clarify. It has been a while since this was brought up.
Bullet impacts
With the .303 Lee Enfield, you are correct. When a rifle is fired, the barrel vibrates, and tends to move up and down slightly as the bullet progresses down the barrel.
The time of the bullets passage in the barrel can affect the impact point. A heavier bullet is generally slower than a lighter one, and can exit the muzzle when the barrel is pointed in a slightly higher position due to the harmonics of the barrel. It was found that the Mark VII load with its 174 grain spitzer bullet at a higher velocity did shoot lower than the old Mark VI 215 round nosed bullet when fired in the same rifle.
At some point downrange, this can be an advantage. We found (generally) that the Number 4 rifle was a bit better up to 600 yards, but if you wanted to shoot with the big boys out to 1000 yards, you had better find yourself a good Number 1 Mark III rifle, as it compensated better at longer ranges.
.
With the .303 Lee Enfield, you are correct. When a rifle is fired, the barrel vibrates, and tends to move up and down slightly as the bullet progresses down the barrel.
The time of the bullets passage in the barrel can affect the impact point. A heavier bullet is generally slower than a lighter one, and can exit the muzzle when the barrel is pointed in a slightly higher position due to the harmonics of the barrel. It was found that the Mark VII load with its 174 grain spitzer bullet at a higher velocity did shoot lower than the old Mark VI 215 round nosed bullet when fired in the same rifle.
At some point downrange, this can be an advantage. We found (generally) that the Number 4 rifle was a bit better up to 600 yards, but if you wanted to shoot with the big boys out to 1000 yards, you had better find yourself a good Number 1 Mark III rifle, as it compensated better at longer ranges.
.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
This isn't the first time I've heard of those sights being referred to as man killers. The first centerfire rifle I owned was a Chrurchill Arms #4 Sporter with the original flip-up battle sight/graduated target sight. When I got it home I was quite proud of this thing. It had surprisingly good wood, a deep blue finish, and was generally free of tooling marks. Anyway, I take it over to a pal's place to show it off, and his ole man pretty much chased me off the property saying those things were only good for killing people and never to come back with it. If I wanted a real gun I should find a .44/40. I didn't let on that I had a pretty good idea that more than a few men were killed with .44-40s, or maybe I did, I don't remember now. Anyway, that rifle was pretty faithful, and taught me about shooting with what later became coined as a ghost-ring and post sight. Perhaps my front sight was a might high as rather than being 6" high at 100 mine was more like 3". I never bothered with the graduated flip up peep sight. My best shot with that rifle was on a running fox moving right to left about 150 yards out. I killed my first bear with it too, but thats another story.
Halger280HVMag
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- B.C. XMU Local .454
What about when the enemy might be lying down or even sitting???
seems to me that holding the rifle sideways, or at least canted at 45degrees, would do the job.
A scope would do it. some have both a vertical and a horizontal line.
Some have a round spot, obviously to shoot at round targets. Such as small fat soldiers.
Strangely enough, when I was shooting a Lee-Enfield as part of a military rifle team.
All the targets had a round bulls-eye.
I even managed to hit it enough times to make me believe that luck was not entirely responsible.
1000 Yds. 24" bull.
As I remember, the bull was said to represent a man's chest/upper torso area.
A few other things were discussed also. Things like windage, and accurate ranging. I don't recall the instructors telling me that I should move to the appropriate distance dictated by the sight settings. instead I should adjust my (adjustable) sights to the correct position to engage the target.
But that was almost 60 years ago. And I've probably forgot all that ever entered my head.
seems to me that holding the rifle sideways, or at least canted at 45degrees, would do the job.
A scope would do it. some have both a vertical and a horizontal line.
Some have a round spot, obviously to shoot at round targets. Such as small fat soldiers.
Strangely enough, when I was shooting a Lee-Enfield as part of a military rifle team.
All the targets had a round bulls-eye.
I even managed to hit it enough times to make me believe that luck was not entirely responsible.
1000 Yds. 24" bull.
As I remember, the bull was said to represent a man's chest/upper torso area.
A few other things were discussed also. Things like windage, and accurate ranging. I don't recall the instructors telling me that I should move to the appropriate distance dictated by the sight settings. instead I should adjust my (adjustable) sights to the correct position to engage the target.
But that was almost 60 years ago. And I've probably forgot all that ever entered my head.
Last edited:
Odd. In forty years of shooting with a rear aperture and a front post (FN C1, FN C2, C7, C8, Lee Enfield, plus others) I was unaware of the deathray like capabilities of such iron sighted rifles and LMGs. Kindy allow me to reassure you that the application of basic marksmanship principles is still necessary to achieve any kind of useful standard.
Pardon the pun, there is no magic bullet solution to shooting with iron sights achieved by the use of a front post vice a front aperture (such as seen on some target rifles), or any other front sight.
fat tony
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
I very much like shooting and handling my LE rifles. The only thing that prevents me from bringing them out more often is the fact I am not reloading for them right now.
Last edited:
Well I was speaking generally of course, the basic design for your average man and not a marksman veteran. (remember when war was about drafting of unwilling, untrained man).
I wasn't trying to say these are the best or foul proof. Just the design made it simple to shoot men-like sillouettes at reasonable distances.
Of course you still have to know basics of shooting a rifle or weapon, but its still a proven design. no?
I was just saying that the old man in the OP story, wasnt really pulling his leg. He said some truth about the men-killer sights.
