- Location
- Beaverlodge, Alberta
Hey guys I'm looking for .303 Brit MkVI specs. COAL, bullet diameter and weight, type, etc. Also if anyone knows the original spec for rim thickness that would help a ton too. Thanks!
MkVI .303 cartridge specs?
- Thread starter flying pig
- Start date
No changes to the casing from a Mark VII: .063 rim thickness for both.
BULLET was 215 grains, RN type, FMJ, diameter .312"
COAL was 3.05", MV was 2060 ft/sec
It was basically a re-creation of the (formally obsolete) Ball Mark II.
Hope this helps.
BULLET was 215 grains, RN type, FMJ, diameter .312"
COAL was 3.05", MV was 2060 ft/sec
It was basically a re-creation of the (formally obsolete) Ball Mark II.
Hope this helps.
- Location
- Beaverlodge, Alberta
Sure does Smellie. I figured if anyone would know it would be you. Pm sent.
Blastattack
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Winnipeg MB
Any factory .303 will work in your gun. If you're worried at all, keep your reloads on the light side.
bdft
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
An excellent soliloquy by Smellie on the subject in this somewhat confused and derailed thread. http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?943800-303-ballistics-a-question-for-the-experts
An 1896 LE Carbine would have been used mainly with the Ball, Cordite Mark II round. This had a RN FMJ bullet of 215 grains weight.
The various bullets of the ill-famed "Dum Dum" series (Marks III, IV and V) would just have been in development phase and did not last long in actual Service due to the Hague Convention.
No matter: they all had 215-grain bullets at similar velocities: 1960 to 2060 ft/sec. The Ball Mark VI largely was a re-creation of the Ball Mark II, which had been declared officially Obsolete at the introduction of the short-lived Dum Dum bullets.
The next big CHANGE came in 1910 with the introduction of the Ball Mark VII round with its lighter 174-grain bullet at 2440 ft/sec. Rifles which were altered and tested for this load generally will be marked on or just behind the Rear Sight with "HV" for "High Velocity", indicating that the sight RAMP has been ground to comply with the improved ballistic performance.
Hope this helps.
The various bullets of the ill-famed "Dum Dum" series (Marks III, IV and V) would just have been in development phase and did not last long in actual Service due to the Hague Convention.
No matter: they all had 215-grain bullets at similar velocities: 1960 to 2060 ft/sec. The Ball Mark VI largely was a re-creation of the Ball Mark II, which had been declared officially Obsolete at the introduction of the short-lived Dum Dum bullets.
The next big CHANGE came in 1910 with the introduction of the Ball Mark VII round with its lighter 174-grain bullet at 2440 ft/sec. Rifles which were altered and tested for this load generally will be marked on or just behind the Rear Sight with "HV" for "High Velocity", indicating that the sight RAMP has been ground to comply with the improved ballistic performance.
Hope this helps.
One point that is often overlooked is that when the Mark VII was approved in March 1910 it had a 160 grain bullet to design RL 15572.G(1) with a longer aluminium tip.
It was only when these rounds started failing accuracy proof in August 1910 that manufacture was suspended and the design of the bullet was reconsidered. The 174 grain bullet was approved in November 1910 to design RL 17146.
The mark number was not increased to avoid awkward questions in Parliament and the press.
The 160 grain loads are hard to find as they can only be distinguished by weighing the round. I was fortunate to find a full charger of them a while ago. The bullets have no cannelure so are quite distinctive once out of the case.
Picture attached with 160 grain bullet on right.
Regards
TonyE
It was only when these rounds started failing accuracy proof in August 1910 that manufacture was suspended and the design of the bullet was reconsidered. The 174 grain bullet was approved in November 1910 to design RL 17146.
The mark number was not increased to avoid awkward questions in Parliament and the press.
The 160 grain loads are hard to find as they can only be distinguished by weighing the round. I was fortunate to find a full charger of them a while ago. The bullets have no cannelure so are quite distinctive once out of the case.
Picture attached with 160 grain bullet on right.
Regards
TonyE
Last edited:
Marvellous!
Thanks very much for posting.
Have you sectioned one of the 160-grain bullets?
I am thinking that the Aluminium nose plug must be about 6 grains in these: double what it is in the regular Issue bullet.
Perchance, can you post this Specification for us?
Thanks much.
Thanks very much for posting.
Have you sectioned one of the 160-grain bullets?
I am thinking that the Aluminium nose plug must be about 6 grains in these: double what it is in the regular Issue bullet.
Perchance, can you post this Specification for us?
Thanks much.
I have not sectioned one, but I have a very nice original Royal Laboratory drawing of the bullet which is attached.
As you can see from the scale ruler, it is a large document and the bullet is shown at 10:1.
I think I have the weight of the aluminium tip of the 160 grain bullet somewhere in the files so I will check for you.
BTW, the bullets were loaded in Greenwood & Batley rounds.
Regards
TonyE
As you can see from the scale ruler, it is a large document and the bullet is shown at 10:1.
I think I have the weight of the aluminium tip of the 160 grain bullet somewhere in the files so I will check for you.
BTW, the bullets were loaded in Greenwood & Batley rounds.
Regards
TonyE
Thanks very much, TonyE.
That is a very interesting bullet. I can understand what they were trying to do and I can see why it didn't quite work: right on the border between working fine..... and wanting half a million new barrels.
Slightly slower bore twist would have cured most of the problems and still left them with something impact-unstable.
Thanks for posting. Every mistake is a learning experience, and this proves it!
That is a very interesting bullet. I can understand what they were trying to do and I can see why it didn't quite work: right on the border between working fine..... and wanting half a million new barrels.
Slightly slower bore twist would have cured most of the problems and still left them with something impact-unstable.
Thanks for posting. Every mistake is a learning experience, and this proves it!
