The SMLE rifle was a well liked and reliable weapon in the First World War , but apparently it thin barrel did not handle being overheated ,and accuracy suffered in action , how much of a improvement was the heavier barrel No.4 when it got hot
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
SMLE barrel vs No.4 barrel
- Thread starter x westie
- Start date
Hi X westie. This is the first time I have heard of a problem with overheated barrels in any Enfield. I believe the first thing that happens is cracked SMLE handguards (mostly rear). Thats why you had factory installed lateral reinforces spliced across the grain after WW1 for the SMLE. 50years ago at DCRA in Ottawa I saw one of the more experienced shooters with both SMLE and No.4 in his car. So I asked why. The response was the No 4 up to 600yds and the SMLE after. I had my No.4 front handguard longitudinally crack but that was rare in a No.4. I just can't see how accuracy would suffer. Obviously I never used either rifle in service conditions in tropic heat and never did rapid fire. So I doubt anyone has any first hand overheating experience with either model on this site. Interesting question though. I wonder how anyone could judge accuracy in the WW1 trenches in action. JOHN
Hi X westie. This is the first time I have heard of a problem with overheated barrels in any Enfield. I believe the first thing that happens is cracked SMLE handguards (mostly rear). Thats why you had factory installed lateral reinforces spliced across the grain after WW1 for the SMLE. 50years ago at DCRA in Ottawa I saw one of the more experienced shooters with both SMLE and No.4 in his car. So I asked why. The response was the No 4 up to 600yds and the SMLE after. I had my No.4 front handguard longitudinally crack but that was rare in a No.4. I just can't see how accuracy would suffer. Obviously I never used either rifle in service conditions in tropic heat and never did rapid fire. So I doubt anyone has any first hand overheating experience with either model on this site. Interesting question though. I wonder how anyone could judge accuracy in the WW1 trenches in action. JOHN
I was thinking of the rapid continuous fire at the Battle of Mons & Le Cateau in 1914 when the out numbered British Expeditionary Force held of swarms of the Kaiser’s men ,
- Location
- Western Manitoba
X-Westie - your scenario is one example. Consider the British Army requirement for the "Mad Minute" during training - my experience is that after 10 rounds rapid fire in either rifle - the barrel is much too warm to hold your hand on it. Did not really seem to be a "thing" that you ask about - back then?? I might be incorrect, but I think the "Mad Minute" required 15 hits within the time allowed - pretty sure those barrels were "warm"...
I do not know, but I suspect the No. 4 heavier barrel was less susceptible to vagrancies of production bedding - for sure, I have heard the same from Palma shooters, as reported above by jtaylor - the No.1 lighter barrel, with appropriate bedding, would respond more favourably in "compensation" for varying muzzle velocities of standard lots of military ammo - nominally 2,440 fps but as low as 2,400 fps and as high as 2,480 fps were acceptable - made a difference out there on targets ...
You should also consider the use of machine guns - so hundreds, possibly thousands, of rounds expended in a short period of time - "accuracy" becomes a relative thing, I suspect. Not likely to pull off a "cold bore" 700 yard single shot into a man's chest with a Lewis - but if you sent 50 rounds, likely got to where you intended to.
I do not know, but I suspect the No. 4 heavier barrel was less susceptible to vagrancies of production bedding - for sure, I have heard the same from Palma shooters, as reported above by jtaylor - the No.1 lighter barrel, with appropriate bedding, would respond more favourably in "compensation" for varying muzzle velocities of standard lots of military ammo - nominally 2,440 fps but as low as 2,400 fps and as high as 2,480 fps were acceptable - made a difference out there on targets ...
You should also consider the use of machine guns - so hundreds, possibly thousands, of rounds expended in a short period of time - "accuracy" becomes a relative thing, I suspect. Not likely to pull off a "cold bore" 700 yard single shot into a man's chest with a Lewis - but if you sent 50 rounds, likely got to where you intended to.
Last edited:
