My No.1 Mk3 is minute of coke can at 100 yards, and has been minute of dead deer for 3 generations of my family. lol It's a JC Penny special made in 1944.
As much as I want to root for the American guns of WWII, being American myself, I cannot ignore the superior quality of a Long Branch Lee Enfield No.4 Mk1*... they're just too damn impressive to not claim them to be the best bolt guns of WWII. It is what it is. The zero-grit actions on these alone has spoiled me rotten. My uncle proudly presented his new Styer Scout to let me shoot it, and normally I'd be drooling over such a rifle, but the moment I felt that bolt, that coarse, sand-paper-like bolt, it was really difficult to maintain my excitement and smile so as not to offend him. I also feel this way about many other bolt guns, WWII or otherwise. So many have grittiness in the bolt, and you have to move your head off sight picture to cycle them. Yeah, many have better triggers, but so what? It's a trigger. If you pull it back smoothly without jerking stuff, doesn't matter what trigger you have. Maintaining sight picture, cheek weld, grip, and shoulder weld are way more important, and the No.4 series has that in spades. Also, what other bolt gun in WWII can let you fire 10 aimed rounds past 100 yards in less than 20 seconds, and even as fast as 10 aimed rounds in 5-6 seconds at close range? Certainly not a Mauser, K98, Mosin, Carcano, Springfield, or any other bolt gun I'm aware of. Never underestimate the importance of superior sustained firepower, even in your bolt action service rifles.
I picked up a sporter 1943 Long Branch Lee Enfield No.4 Mk1* for $200 at my local AR-15 and Glock shop off the consignment rack. I don't think they realized what they had, and whomever sold it to them probably didn't know, either. It may have a sporter stock, the serial numbers are mismatched, and it didn't even have iron sights, but the barrel is original full length - bayonet lugs and all, and the action I'm sure has gone through extensive lapping and fitting, because it cycles so smoothly it feels like it's floating with zero friction and no vertical or lateral play whatsoever. It's also been drilled and tapped to perfect specifications to mount a proper WWII era scope mount. The bore is also immaculate, not a single sign of damage to the rifling or chrome lining, and looks like a mirror inside after I cleaned it, with perfect 2 groove rifling. I spent an additional $100 on a new old stock set of milled Mk1 rear irons and a front sight assembly (screw type with solid front sight post base) plus front sight guard, bringing my total up to $300. Next, I bought a rear ribbed hand guard and the rear ring that seats it at the base of the barrel (around chamber), adding about another $30 to the bill. Since the sporter stock won't accommodate a middle barrel band, I just tore about 20" of 2" wide Gorilla Tape lengthwise down the center creating two strips of tape measuring 20"L x 2"W. The first strip I carefully wrapped around the handguard and stock about 1" behind the front end of the handguard, making sure to make it tight so as to eliminate play between the handguard and the stock, and wrapping it slightly staggered (creating a 1.5" wide base). I then took the second strip, and applied it in a manner so as to be well dressed and not tightened, as this will secure the tight base layer while keeping the dressing layer from creeping if also tightened. Finally, I hand load my ammo, setup for big game hunting. That's a topic for another time, but I will say I'm using match primers, quality brass, and quality bullets. Once sighted in, I fired from a friend's gun vice, and we found this particular rifle will shoot consistent 1" to 1.5" groups at 100 yards. It shoots a bit higher than the milled rear sight indicates, so I'll try ordering a bayonet to affix while shooting, as I've heard that can correct the barrel harmonics issue I'm having. I'd like to get a full size fore stock and restore this puppy to the way it was intended to be, but alas, I've had no luck finding full sized fore stocks. The sporter fore stocks are easy to find. I understand the principles of bedding and also know the No.4 Mk1 is intended to have about 5 pounds of pressure applied to the underside of the barrel via full size fore stock. If the bayonet doesn't solve the high shooting, I'll just make a note to adjust the rear sight 50 yards farther than my target (so if aiming at a target at 300 yards, set to 350 yards). Not ideal, but like the Gorilla Tape, it works. So I basically ended up with a dang nice rifle that shoots 1"-1.5" at 100 yards with my particular hand loads, has an action so smooth it makes guys with $3,000 bolt guns drool, all for about $330. Seriously, the action, zero grit, buttery smooth, almost unreal feeling, like it's defying physics. An absolute pleasure to shoot! I also tried some speed shooting! Did 10 rounds in about 12-13 seconds while maintaining a 4" group at 25 yards. Not bad at all, but I know it can be done way faster! I've seen people do 0.6 second split times, or about 10 shots in 5-6 seconds. No idea what their grouping was like, but it'll be fun to get faster! And at about $0.72/round, my hand loads are actually cheaper to shoot than 5.56 at this time. I hope others get as lucky as I did!
my long branch no4 mk1 is shooting 1.25" moa average at 100 meters using Hornady 174gr .3105 FMJ bullets with IMR 4895, using the iron sights. Great rifles.
Same with my Long Branch! No.4 Mk1*, made in 1943. No one at the range thinks anything of it until I bring the paper back and suddenly everyone wants to know what Old Ones I've been sacrificing children to to get those groups with a 77-year-old milsurp rifle, lol! Paid $330 for mine.
My family has been using a 1918 for deer hunting for 4 generations. It was picked up off the battlefield by my POW escaping great uncle, shot down during the big push. I love it ! My dad use to hunt black bear, and cougar as 2nd job in the 60’s.
About 25 years ago I met a fellow whose Dad worked at the factory (in Canada) where No.4s were made. Rifle barrels cannot be built to meet a certain performance. They simply manufacture barrels and test them for shooting accuracy. There is a randomness in the manufacturing so it cannot be predicted how any specific barrel will perform. There were 4 classes. 1 -those with high accuracy... these top performers were assigned to sniper rifles. 2. Those OK for combat, corresponding to the 2 inch circle in this video. 3. Substandard, and these were used in rifles that were not intended for combat... base or camp guarding, cadet drilling, hometown parades, auxillary units like transport or artillery etc and 4. Rejects... those that didnt meet the grade were scrapped. They simply manufactured barrels and selected out those that met the required standard.
That isn't the way Long Branch Arsenal did it. Nor did any other manufacturer of these rifles do that either. First clue is the extremely small number of T sniper rifles made in total from all the tens of thousands of these rifles that were manufactured. Second clue (should be) that wartime arsenals did not have anything resembling enough time to accuracy test every single rifle produced by each shift each day.
Thank you . It annoys me to see people banging away with an old 303 and claiming that the groups they are getting are as good as the Enfield can shoot . I have two Fultons regulated Enfields , one SMLE mk3 and one NO4 mk1 , The SMLE is the best sorted and my favourite target rifle . In target rifles I also have a 1902 Long tom . for military shooting I have a NO4 mk2 in very good condition , but my overall favorite is my post WW2 Lithgow SMLE , it always makes me look good . think and its a hit . ( it has a factory heavy barrel )
I have a MKIII BSA 1917 that was re-barreled in 1943. The barrel looks new. It is one of the Canadian issued rifles that was re-arsenaled after WWII and given to Crete. They just came back into Canada. The arsenal tag still attached. It shoots 1 1/2" groups at 100m. That's 5 shots in a group, bench rest. It matches my Finnish VKT M39. I also have a 1918 BSA MKIII that is capable of a 2 1/2" group at 100m. And a 1942 MKIII BSA Dispersal that is closer to a 3" group at 100m. The barrels are good in all three. But the barrel in my 1917 is like new. I am an avid shooter. Been going to the range for a couple years two or more days a week, so I am never out of practice. Nearly all I shoot is WWI and WWII military bolt action rifles. So I assure you I am not exaggerating my claims.
When I was a kid, I used to think that 'Short Magazine Lee Enfield' indicated that it only had a 10 round magazine instead of something that would hold more...
I have 3 LE's, 2 of them are #1 Mk3's and an ex Turkish Mil #4 Mk1*. The No4 has a 2 groove barrel, and only shoots ok with FMJ 174's. The 2 No1's both have Lithgow heavy barrels in them, the carbine is 18.5" long (a rescued range barrel) and the long gun is normal 25.1". The carbine will shoot UNDER ONE INCH @ 200 metres with my handloads, and the long gun will do a single 5 shot hole @ 50M. (My handload is a Winchester case loaded with 42.5 gns of ADI AR2208 topped with a Sierra 150 gn soft point and Sellier and Bellot primers.) It is considered a mild load, but is EXTREMELY accurate in both rifles. The long gun will get a Addeley Precision scope mount to replace the bastard bridge mount that keeps shifting. The carbine is easily Minute of Man to 500 M and the long gun good for 800M. The trick to loading for the LE is to find a "sweet spot", not the most powerful load. AR2208 is a little too slow for the short barrel, but it shoots impeccably well. This load is more suited to the long gun for max velocity and accuracy, but both guns shoot it equally well.
so it is possible for me to get my cheap budget sporterised and scoped lithgow #1 mk3 down to 1MOA with some work then. i am not going to restore it as i am going to leave it as a hunting rifle and i am going to get an original later.
First things first. Try and find some Footscray (Melbourne) made Mk 7 military FMJ ammo, take the rifle to a range and set up with a GOOD rest and a target at 50M. With a CLEAN barrel, take your time and fire 5 shots, as carefully as you can. Ausiie Mk 7 ammo should be the best for accuracy testing. If the gun can shoot better than a 1" group at 50M, it's probably a good shooter. If it cannot group well at 50M, sell it and find another one. It will either shoot well, or it won't. If it doesn't don't waste time with it.
These rifles are influenced enormously by the projectiles the propellant load. I have No 4 Mk 2s and they shoot extremely accurately with a 120 grain projectile, loaded to give approximately 1950fps. I shoot 700 meter targets and can group 10-12". If I use 165 grain projectiles, giving 2600fps, the trajectory is flatter but the accuracy slightly suffers. My rifles have Parker Hale vernier sights, and honed triggers. The rifles were made in 1943 by Long Branch (Canada) and I understand they have double spiral rifling. I have tried various WW2 K98 rifles and not found them to be as accurate as the Enfield. If a rifle has to use powerful telescopic sights, gyroscopic stabilization and a multiplicity of rests and stabiliser wires, it's useful for a professional sniper but would be pointless in battle conditions. Enfields work with rain, dust and mud - in hot or cold weather. You can't put a price on that. - K98s jam with small amounts of grit. That's a death sentence in a firefight. A reasonably accurate rifle that always works is infinitely more effective than a superbly accurate rifle that jams. We are too focused on accuracy. The limiting factor in greater than 99% of shootouts is the soldier. (Most of whom can't hit a ban door at ten paces). Add the stress of someone shooting back at you and suddenly the gun's 1.5 minute of angle accuracy becomes utterly meaningless.
"The limiting factor in greater than 99% of shootouts is the soldier. (Most of whom can't hit a ban door at ten paces)." That's amazing news to people who have actually served in the infantry - even those who unlike me didn't spend 30 years in the infantry. A soldier who supposedly can't hit a barn door at ten paces is going to have a hard time passing the basic rifle PWT that has targets at 300 meters, different positions, run downs, etc. The musketry standards for the British military going all the way back to WWI are available to read and download of the internet. The CURRENT standards for the military can be downloaded and read from the internet What did you do for a living during your lifetime as a civilian - other than offering your evaluation of those serving in an infantry uniform?
.303 British is itself comparable to .308 or 7.62 Nato. Just a wee bit weaker. Mk.VII Ball .303 is a 174gr bullet going 2,440 ft/s from a 25" barrel. M80 7.62 Nato (Used by the US Military) is a 147 or 150gr bullet going 2,800 ft/s from a 24" barrel. If you popped off that 150gr bullet from the M80 and replaced it with a 174gr bullet, I wager the velocity would come down to around 2,500-2,550 ft/s. For more comparison, M2 Ball .30-06 for the M1 Rifle was, like M80, around 150gr bullet going 2,800 ft/s from a 24" barrel. 7.62x54r Light Ball from an M91/30 if memory serves is around 147-150gr going 2,850 ft/s. S.S. Patrone 1934 or whatever it was called; the 8mm Mauser cartridge used in WWII, was somewhere around 197gr going 2,500 ft/s from a 24" Kar98k, and is to my knowledge, the hottest loaded standard rifle cartridge used in the war. I believe Japan's 7.7x58 Arisaka was ballistically similar, possibly identical, to Mk.VII Ball .303 British. 6.5x55 Arisaka (Edit: I meant 6.5x50, thanks for the heads up, mike C), used in WWI and still in use throughout WWII, was ballistically similar to 6.5 Grendel, however due to the Type 38's 32" or so barrel, yeah even longer than the M91/30, it still had ballistics to qualify it as a weak rifle cartridge. Chop that barrel down to 15-20" or so, like on the Federov Avtomat, then yeah, you're talking intermediate ballistics. Anyways, I've heard some foolish individuals try to claim that .303 British is too weak to hunt moose with, that you need at least a .308. Fact is, ballistically, there's not much difference, and that's reflected in the fact that my family have hunted moose in Newfoundland for generations with the good ol' .303.
mike C Good eye, I missed that mistake. There's so many cartridges and so many numbers, it can get confusing at times. The fact I also enjoy typing comments while drunk probably doesn't help.
If they think a .303 won't take a moose, they wouldn't believe that professional hunters in Africa used 6.5mm Mannlicher to take a lot elephants. It penetrated deep reliably.
they are a battle rifle and that being said you won't win any accuracy comps with one , if you can get the lead in a 12 inch square a couple of hundred yards out that was good enough.
With better sights (peep or scope ) a 2 " at 100 is usual I have found so far. I used to shoot 6" groups on a range (club shoots ) at 1000 yds with a MK 111 with a heavy barrel ( military issue sniper ) on a calm day fairly easily.
A battle rifle, a rifle issued to an infantryman to actually fight needed to hit a 12'x18' rectangle (the average size of a human torso) at ranges where one could see, identify and hit an enemy soldier. A sniper rifle or infantryman would be expected to do better. @300 yards that rectangle I mentioned would measure 4x6 minutes of angle (MOA). 400 yards reduce it to 3x4.5 MOA. I noted the narrator mentioned certain measurements at certain ranges. No mention of minutes of angle nor radians. Perhaps the military deciders of the day didn't think in such terms? Did anyone else note the standards tightened with range for the No 4, mk1T?
These are the acceptance standards for a brand new rifle of each type. The actual actual accuracy in the hands of a service member was totally different due to shooter error. The actual qualification was based on a roughly man sized target ( the target the British used for a standing man was 45 inches tall and tapered from 11 inches at the base to 8 1/2 inches at the top , with the "torso" being about 18 inches wide). 12"x18" that you mentioned corresponds to the "service rectangle" or the zone that was scored the highest though all hits on the figure were scored. They also had kneeling, prone and behind cover targets. The no.1MkIII and no.4 had it on sights that obscured more of your target as range increased. Add to that ammunition performance varies between lots and in the same lot , so you could be adding 2 " inches or more per hundred yards in addition to everything else. So you start with a rifle that was capable of 4"@100 yards from the factory with one lot of ammo, add ammo that has a mean radius of 2", so you are somewhere between 5"-6"( 5-6 moa) and you have 50% shooter error. That already has you at a potential 10"-12" (10-12 moa) per 100 yards. There is also the fact that each bullet takes a different path to the target so you end up with a conical dispersion pattern, which can be 36 " wide and 45" in height. The idea was to center the target in the cone of fire and that is what they still do today. They did use minutes of angle and mil radians but with an iron sight and the human eye , those weren't practical. Your eye can only pick out detail of something that .02 of the distance you view it at and a mil radian is 20 times smaller than that and there are approximately 3.6 minutes of angle to each mil. And there is a good reason the standard tightened with the no.4 mk.I (T). It was a scoped rifle for sniper use.
@@OldManMontgomery a lot of the complaints about " that rifle isn't accurate" come from unrealistic expectations about how accurate any given rifle is, the ammo and most importantly the shooter's actual ability. I used to work with a guy that wanted to buy a SMLE that he saw in a gun store and use it for hunting deer. He had never fired one so I let him shoot a 1918 no.1 mkIII* that I owned at the time. With iron sights, he would not have put meat on the table, even using loads I had worked up for that rifle. He was expecting pinpoint accuracy and that wasn't going to happen with that rifle. 6-8 moa with handloads , a little more open with factory ammo made any shot beyond 150 yards with irons not practical with that rifle for deer. Also with military shooting, the standard is a 50% probability of hitting a man sized target once shooter error, ammo consistency and mechanical accuracy has been factored in. That is overlooked many times and contributes to people complaining that a rifle isn't accurate. Same goes for civilian rifles except what the acceptable accuracy standard. That is determined by what the shooter wants for their intended use. Any combination of rifle, ammunition and sight ( iron or optic) is only as accurate as the shooter.
@@jasondarby2749 Exactly my point, sir. Rifles for an infantry man has a different purpose and therefore level of accuracy than a best rest competition rifle. Also ignored is the use of the rise and fall of the bullets path (trajectory for us geeks) to insure hits at differing distances within certain limits. The gentleman you mention probably knew little or nothing of either.
@@OldManMontgomery He really was unfamiliar with a military surplus rifle and the SMLE in particular. That is why I let him try mine out. I knew what I could do with it but only because I had the time shooting it and working up a load for it. He never mentioned if he had bought the one he had seen so after firing one , it must have not been his cup of tea. The different levels of accuracy needed for different purposes does seem to be overlooked quite frequently. Just like the external ballistics seem to be also. I understand about looking at trajectories. I sight my rifles in using the maximum point blank range. So trajectory is very important to put the shot in the vitals and have enough energy to reach them. I have enjoyed this conversation, so please forgive if I came off as being a bit preachy at first.
So me and my Gramps' took our rifles to the gun range some years back (when I was a fresh shooter), me with my .300 & 8x40 Leupold and Gramps with his .303. At 100 yards I had a 1-1/2" spread with 5 rounds. Gramps takes off his glasses and fires off his 5 rounds, matching my spread. Not exactly inspiring confidence in my accuracy
I'm a strong believer in that you don't need a scope for targets within 200 yards; irons will do the job if you understand how to use them and have good fundamentals of marksmanship. Personally, from the bench, I can tag 8" poppers at 450 yards with my AR-15 with about 40% accuracy using a A2/A3 rear carry handle sight, and a Magpul MBUIS Pro front sight (has narrow precision sight post). Offhand with sling, I can tag 8" poppers at 200-300 yards almost every shot. Only been shooting about a year now, but I learned how to do it right. These principles translate across all firearms. The US Army Marksmanship Unit has an excellent classroom series here on RU-vid. It's very dry and technical, but if you follow their principles, you can become a marksman, too. It also helps to have a friend watch you and let you know if you're making mistakes, as it's not always apparent from your own perspective. Here's a link to the first video in the Marksmanship Unit's classroom videos: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-QAZP0QvFBy0.html I HIGHLY advise you watch them over and over, like before and after each trip to the range. Drill it into your brain. Have your friend watch it, too, so they can see if you're doing stuff right. You should see immediate improvement first time out after watching, if you are following all the steps. I tightened my groups by more than 75% first time to the range after watching the series. Not a substitute for a proper training class, but it will make a huge difference!
I get a 1/2" group at 100 meters 4 shots and 1 "flier" to make 1" group with 150gr SPBT PPU ammo with open sights. (pretty much every time) First time I picked up that rifle (was my first 303) No4 MK1* Felt like I'd done this before. Couldnt explain it I know it sounds crazy but everything just fit so darn well .. Ive also heard that I can get even better accuracy with hand loading. Have a new recipe that I cant wait to try :)
I do handload and it's through this, that my experience is based on the .303. I in no way disagree with what you say, of course a rifle if is inherently off is off. But with my 10 years of hand loading I can confidently say that you can take a really shitty rifle and make it shoot better than it did. You are assuming what I said was that "one can make any rifle a bench rest champ by hand loading", absolutely not!! Read my comment it simply states "hand loading makes an immense difference" .... do you read? ; )
Are you one of those people that love to impose your opinion on others regardless of what the subject is or what was said originally. Why are you arguing? You KNOW I said nothing wrong but in arguing you try to push my original statement with descriptions attached, as you hear in your mind. Then you argue it out, please read statements carefully, don't read "into" them, at least pick and choose. Is this how you are in life (I can tell for 100% certainty that you are certainly not a professional). If you are you must be very unhappy in your job and life. I made a broad statement which you echo in this second statement "Handloading CAN make an immense difference" ... so what are you going on about NOW. Do you really have all this time on your hands to split hairs on the internet? Polishing turds and daring me to make video's of me making 1/2 groups. I impress myself daily why would I need your approval to continue what I do happily. Obviously you are the type of man to "prove" to strangers how good you are by sending video's of yourself .... isn't that the epitome of creepy .... or actually sad. We are strangers to one another. My original statement had nothing to prove or disapprove. It was a subjective statement that had no value to be picked upon. Seriously ..... how do you get along in life buddy. Does it do your heart glad or gain satisfaction over analyzing a statement made by a stranger and constructing a whole story behind a simple statement then tearing it down. Be mindful of what you say and stay happy my friend. Chill ..... life will be so much better and happier. Now IF you caught me in one of those times when I would take the time to write back but I don't extend this practice to inconsequentiality all the while. IF you feel sore about being told off I realize you have to answer and be as scathing as possible, because god forbid a stanger on social media has put you in your place. What will the million of unknown folk think of you (the unknown hero) so fire away ..... but I also hope you think about what I say here. P.S. - I never knew my father, my mother walks the streets, I'm illiterate and a bum. I am not worthy of even shinning your shoes and can't shot 1/2 groups even from a bench rest from 25 yards (..... there, there ... does that make you feel better).
P.S. Oh boy ..... LMAO .... I checked DEERMEYER1 out .... man are you gonna have to come down on me hard. You are a professional! I stand corrected, you are a professional youtube commentator. Holy crap .... this IS your life. I am expecting something that will kick like a 600 Nitro. : )
The M1 Garand is a semi-auto rifle known to throw the first round "wide" thanks to differences in headspacing with the bolt being "slapped" home by hand vs. being "driven" home with the function of the rifle. M1 Garands were also all "accurate enough" as you put it "out of the box" for "sniper rifles" and were pulled from the inventory/assembly line for fitting with scope mounts and scopes with no "test-firing" to find the "most accurate" rifles required. What is the source of your "standards" for Garands, by the way?
I shot a Lee Enfield 303 as an Army Cadet in 1971 at a range at Kingsbury in Warwickshire. I hit a large target at 600 yards. The target was man shaped maybe 2 feet wide by 5 feet tall. In the early 1970s most ACF (Army Cadet) units had Lee Enfields and Bren guns, a few had FN SLRs.
Malcolm Coghill At last another 70's cadet. I smile at some of the comments about the 303. From 13 years old in the cadets we shot from 100 to 600 yards with it. At and hitting the targets you describe. Half that size up to 300 yards. What fun the last bit of range time. We were given loads of rounds to get rid of as they were getting rid of the war stocks to be replaced with the 7.62. I joined the regulars in 1974 and loved the SLR.
I found it was very important to have a very correct, very firm grip. Do you have a sling.At the correct tension and around the supporting arm properly it provides a lot of stability. You can get away with thin rope.
terryjosie no i dont have a sling at the moment, i just stripper my rifle and noticed a ding at the end of the barrel plus my front sight was drifting quite a large amount to the left. but i think your right, im going to try and hold the rifle alot tighter to my shoulder.
They started by having us aim at the target, closing our eyes for 10 seconds. Open your eyes again, if the rifle is positioned/ held correctly it will still be on target. The sights sound like a concern.
I've got a N04 Mk2 (T) [Actually I need to check if it is a Mk1 or Mk2 ] but I hit clay pigeons at 550 metres demonstrating it on an Army Sniper's course. Not too shabby for an Old .303!!!
5 rounds 1inch at 30 yards is easy for my Enfield. idk what you are banking about. but at 100 meters 3" group is military accuracy of 99% of the battlefield rifles. however there are ones that are tack drivers. as my mosin and Enfield as well as my m1 garand at 30 meters can do.
I had a finland made 303, with five grove barrel, 20 to 20.5 inch barrel. I got it for $30 in a barrel of guns in a pawn shop. Put a scope on it, and at 100 yards it broke paper. I had it set at either 200 or 250 yards, shot a little high at 100 and a little low at 500. The closest I have ever shot a deer was 200 to 230 yards. Where I was hunting the deer are very wild, if they smell you , they are gone, there is no way to sit in a blind, and have them come to a feeder 50 yards away. I think at 500 yards at the range, it opened up to a 1 to 1.5 pattern, but if I got into prone position I imagine that would tighten up a bit. My son has the rifle now, always wondered what type it was, it had M/47c on it. ?? anyone might know?
Have heard that the bores could be as great as .315, while bullets are what, .311 or .312? Some of the poor reputation might have could be the result of this? Of course bullet & bore tolerances might work well together sometimes, while not so well other times. A few fellows have been casting hard lead bullets a bit oversize to accommodate their larger bores, reportedly with good results. My best #4Mk1 group 4" using .312 150 grain jacketed reloads. Very fun to shoot though!
No4? So were talking about a two grove barrel developing that kind of accuracy at 100yrds? Can somebody please confirm that were talking about a two grove barrel because my no4 mk1 has a scope and a bipod and the barrel is pitting free and clean but my curiosity is aroused
Ruben Gilmore my understanding is that testing showed that the rifled performed similar with 2 grooves. You may lose a little but it’s not sheep stations
I can shoot about 6" groups at 350 meters with my no4 mk1 with irons. That is shooting 137gr .308" bullets. I know it would shoot twice as well with a better shooter behind the trigger and .312" bullets. I just figure 6" at 350 is good enough for plinking ammo and I can't afford to buy the damn 312's cause they are so expensive..
The last time I fired a Lee Enfield I would have been 15 and it felt like there was someone smacking the end of the muzzle with a sledge hammer…….. loved it, real kick, not like the L1a1 SLR
Yamaha...6" at 350 is OK, you must have a tight barrel. That's "minute of deer", and most shooters can't hit a deer at that range (really!). Yes, I know.,some can; however I have found that most hunters that can't stand on their hind legs and hit a 10" paper plate (that's about the same size as a deer's "boiler room") ten times out of ten with ANY rifle capable of good kills Let's leave the .22s out of it shall we?... I think that 6mm (.243) is minimum for humane deer kills in the field.
@Plight_of_Icarus Nope. Proven in the 200 yrd competition. New-old stock Irish сontract with handloads does the same grouping as pre-war mosin with chinese surplus ball ammo.
