Having shot a Mosin Nagant '44 carbine with the bayonet folded and without, and seeing the incredible difference in where the round ends up, I began to wonder the effect of firing an SMLE with or without bayonet. I've never tried shooting one with the bayonet on and wonder how much it changes things. If it does, how was it dealt with back then?
SMLE with bayonet question
- Thread starter bogusiii
- Start date
my no4 is influenced greatly by it. The two stage battle sights are 400/600 without. And 300/600 with the pokey bit. I may be a bit wrong on the numbers . It makes a difference, yes.
I can't find the references, at the moment, that show the effect on mounting the spike to the No.4.
As I recall reading, the boffins were rather happy when they finalized the SMLE and the then current Mk of .303 (again, cannot recall the details) as it was found that there was no appreciable effect on accuracy mounting the bayonet. I believe that changed when Mk. VII came online, though.
As I recall reading, the boffins were rather happy when they finalized the SMLE and the then current Mk of .303 (again, cannot recall the details) as it was found that there was no appreciable effect on accuracy mounting the bayonet. I believe that changed when Mk. VII came online, though.
The Magazine " Surplus Firearms ", by Guns&Ammo, November 14, 2008 did a bayonet, no bayonet comparison.
In the case of using a No.1 Mk.1 with Hansen ammo with180 grain spitzers, the groups overlapped.
The article states they used the long sword bayonet, not the original short bayonet that the rifle was originally issued with.
A brief history of Enfield bayonets. = https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=4601
In the case of using a No.1 Mk.1 with Hansen ammo with180 grain spitzers, the groups overlapped.
The article states they used the long sword bayonet, not the original short bayonet that the rifle was originally issued with.
A brief history of Enfield bayonets. = https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=4601
Last edited:
The later issue bayos for No4 rifles were blade types. No9 and Mk 7 IL
I don't profess great knowledge on this subject or what would be considered later issue but I know for sure that during the late 1950's when I was in an army reserve regiment the issue bayonet for our no. 4 rifles was the spike. Never saw anything different and this was near the end of the Lee Enfield service, regular forces were already converting to the FN and we were to be next. Bayonet training was basically designed to use your rifle at close quarters as a pikepole. Many many hours on the range over two years, never fired a shot with bayonet attached, it wasn't part of the training.
Last edited:
My service was in the FN FAL era, mostly in the British Army. After we zeroed our rifles we normally finished with attaching bayonets and firing a short practise to discover any change of zero with the bayonet. It was believed any change was due not to the bayonet affecting the rifle directly but to how the individual shooter's hold was changed by the extra weight at the far end of the rifle and we were supposed to remember and compensate for it when firing with bayonet fixed. In my experience normal range practise and annual personal weapons test was fired without bayonets but I suppose individual units could vary according to the whims of their commanding officers.
