Best Service Rifle in the World

[PoliSci]

Grenade launchers are,of course,famed for their accuracy over the distance quoted,and the .50 calibre is far heavier than the Enfield.and no more accurate in the right hands.


Owdun.

Well in Afganistan both these weapons are invalable when dealing with these long range (but direct fire) mortar and rpg attacks. If you want accuracy then you have the L96 which is very well distributed to the whole army:



An accurized palma rifle from good old Bisley ranges... I competed on the un-ruggedized civilian version: the sportco 7.62mm. Now thats a sport...

[PoliSci]

But in places like Afghanistan, with miles of wide open desert areas,there has to be a requirement for distance shooting over the 300 metre accurate range of most automatics,and thats where the Enfield and SLR and good marksmanship would come into their own.

Good marksmanship can and is achieved with assault rifles. However they also give you increased firepower when required, ie winning the firefight. Plus they are flexible enough to be used at close quarters. If bolt action rifles were a better option then small arms would not have evolved past them.

I'm sure however, that the Lee Enfield would still make an awesome sniper rifle.

The M16A2 is just as accurate as a Lee Enfield, the G36 is more accurate. The Lee Enfield also has too much of an arch in its balistics unless you like calculating bullet drop at less that 400m. Also the .303 is a slow round that depends on tissue damage to kill. The 5.56mm depends on speed to kill (although the bullets actually separate front and back to double the wound damage and create two exit wounds) and you can carry twice as many into the fight. The US army did complain about the lower stopping power of the 5.56mm because they were using shorter barrels in Iraq so they went for a heavier grain round for one and the other solution was to purchase a 6.2mm upper reciever for a heavier round.



On the left you have the regular 5.56mm rounds, then you have a tracer and finally the new 77 grain heavier bullet.



This is not me but just to show: a 77 grain can drop a male deer at 300m no problem. (Stopping power was first calculated by shooting goats but a deer is bigger and heartier).



On the left is the new 6.8MM used by the US special forces, and on the right is the old 5.56mm



In the middle is the 6.5 Grendel and on the right is the old 5.56mm again.

The main reason for beefing up the size of the rounds is that with these shorter rifles these days the round has less chance to pick up power in the barrel and has to make up for it with size to have the same kinetic force on impact.

[PoliSci]

If I may add something else, I do think that the whole 5.56mm round gained popularity because it was always the west versus some bush guerrilla nation. As we start to fight more developed countries and perhaps even one another again we will need to head back to the 7.62mm since most soldiers like to wear body armor... my two cents.

[Greenronnie]

It's all very well discussing various calibres and ammunition types mate, but that decision is eons above any soldier's pay scale.

As for dealing with mortar attacks, generally sniper weapons aren't much use against indirect fire weapons, as the mortar won't usually be within line-of-sight. They are usually better dealt with by another mortar, artillery or air. That's from my experience anyway.

[PoliSci]

It's all very well discussing various calibres and ammunition types mate, but that decision is eons above any soldier's pay scale.

As for dealing with mortar attacks, generally sniper weapons aren't much use against indirect fire weapons, as the mortar won't usually be within line-of-sight. They are usually better dealt with by another mortar, artillery or air. That's from my experience anyway.

I agree that you cant use direct fire weapons against indirect fire. But from the expieriance of Afganistan the taliban usually use the mortar in the direct fire role. Meaning that they are looking at you from a KM or so away behind some bushes. They dont use the radios and forward observers that we would use. If they do our heavy artillery will triangulate them and then they get killed. They also use rpgs the same way; Launching them in an arch from farther away than we would use the RPG.

For that reason, automatic grenade launchers that can also fire in an arch, .50 cal machineguns, and sniper rifles are the best way for the average platoon plus patrol to deal with these threats.

A Canadian sniper killed an afgan with a crew served weapon at the greatest distance ever recorded by a sniper.

[London Boy]

I'm sure however, that the Lee Enfield would still make an awesome sniper rifle.

Indeed it did, the 7.62 mm converted SMLE No 4 Mk I (T) (military designation: L42A1) that I used in the early 80s was an extremely accurate long-range sniper rifle.

[Greenronnie]

I agree that you cant use direct fire weapons against indirect fire. But from the expieriance of Afganistan the taliban usually use the mortar in the direct fire role. Meaning that they are looking at you from a KM or so away behind some bushes. They dont use the radios and forward observers that we would use. If they do our heavy artillery will triangulate them and then they get killed. They also use rpgs the same way; Launching them in an arch from farther away than we would use the RPG.

Mate, I've been there so I know how they work. And when we were getting hit with mortars every day for weeks, they always fired from behind buildings etc. As we had no indirect fire to call from, then they couldn't be conveniently triangulated and killed. The 51mm mortar was our only response available, other than air.

As for mortars in the direct fire role?? It's an indirect fire weapon, shit bust. If they were mad enough to fire whilst in view of course they would be brassed up using direct fire weapons, but they aren't that stupid. And contrary to what you might have read, yes they do use observers with radios.

London Boy, yes I know that the converted Lee Enfield was used for many years as a sniper rifle, I'm sure it was top notch.

[PoliSci]

I agree that you cant use direct fire weapons against indirect fire. But from the expieriance of Afganistan the taliban usually use the mortar in the direct fire role. Meaning that they are looking at you from a KM or so away behind some bushes. They dont use the radios and forward observers that we would use. If they do our heavy artillery will triangulate them and then they get killed. They also use rpgs the same way; Launching them in an arch from farther away than we would use the RPG.

Mate, I've been there so I know how they work. And when we were getting hit with mortars every day for weeks, they always fired from behind buildings etc. As we had no indirect fire to call from, then they couldn't be conveniently triangulated and killed. The 51mm mortar was our only response available, other than air.

As for mortars in the direct fire role?? It's an indirect fire weapon, shit bust. If they were mad enough to fire whilst in view of course they would be brassed up using direct fire weapons, but they aren't that stupid. And contrary to what you might have read, yes they do use observers with radios.

London Boy, yes I know that the converted Lee Enfield was used for many years as a sniper rifle, I'm sure it was top notch.

Well, since you have personal experiance I stand corrected.

[Skeav]

And when we were getting hit with mortars every day for weeks, they always fired from behind buildings etc.

Quick question GR if its ok? Were the crews just lacking the skills to use them effectively? Or were you all just incredibly lucky not to get hit?

Cheers

Skeav

[Greenronnie]

And when we were getting hit with mortars every day for weeks, they always fired from behind buildings etc.

Quick question GR if its ok? Were the crews just lacking the skills to use them effectively? Or were you all just incredibly lucky not to get hit?

Cheers

Skeav

Bit of both really. I doubt if the Taliban do a decent mortar cadre! However plenty of people have been hit by them. Don't forget that we were also quite responsive to them too, we took out a pickup packed with bodies, with fire directed from an A10 just after one particular attack.

[Tab]

The problem can arise at times the larger the round the fewer you can carry.

[anglo-saxon]

The M16A2 is just as accurate as a Lee Enfield

Hmmm, I'm afraid I just can't resist...

That is a rather vague and sweeping statement that requires some significant defining of criteria in order to be approach being valid. For instance, because you have not offered criteria for comparrison, one must assume you are working on the premise of "all things being equal", such as bullet construction (obviously not weight) sighting systems, range, weather conditions, etc., etc. In which case, the following should be noted...

1. Yes, the 5.56mm is significantly faster than the .303 at the mussle and at short to moderate ranges. However, over distance the gap in speed difference narrows dramatically to the point (at 500m) where it is almost negligable (certainly between the 180gr .30 cal and the 55gr .223. Albeit that the 70gr .223 with its greater ballistic co-efficient holds its own a little better). However, ...

2. The energy retained by the repective bullets is quite different. At 500m, the 55gr .223 is a mere 157 ft-lbs, compared to the 180gr .30 cal at 517 ft-lbs.

3. As for trajectory: Bullet drop of the .30 cal is around twice that of the .223. While some folk do like to throw around the "lob" word when talking about .30 cal rounds (incl. .303 LE, .308 Winchester (7.62 NATO), etc.), as said elsewhere here you just need to be able to shoot. And it's not some onerous maths scenario. You just need now your rifle, know your ammo, know your distance and adjust accordingly. How hard is that?

The Lee Enfield also has too much of an arch in its balistics unless you like calculating bullet drop at less that 400m.

Or "trajectory" even.

So, the thing is, you always have to calculate bullet drop at some point with any ammunition, unless you have a Gucci newfangled $$$$$$$ rangefinder/scope that adjusts the reticle for you at the push of a button (dastardly unsporting!). It's precisely why the Correct Zeroing Point is higher than the Point of Aim when firing the weapon on a 100m range for a 200m battle zero. If zeroed at 200m, a 70gr .223 Remington (5.56mm NATO) bullet will drop 22 inches by the 400m mark. So, your bullet will drop almost two feet below your point of aim at 400m. In other words, if you want to hit centre of mass, aim at the top of the melon (on flat ground, shooting at a standing, kneeling target). Not rocket science, just practice! It's why we go to the ranges!

As for Billy Bob the redneck and his M4/Bamby phot...

This is not me but just to show: a 77 grain can drop a male deer at 300m no problem. (Stopping power was first calculated by shooting goats but a deer is bigger and heartier).

First of all, large game rarely "drop". In most instances they will flinch, and often turn their heads violently towards the entry wound, followed a split second later by them bolting away from the ground location where they were shot. They might make it 20m or they might make it 200m. Invairiaby, they will then lie down, often in cover, as they don't know what is going on, other than they're pretty messed up. As they blead out/fail to breath properly due to the internal organs being a mess, they will start to loose consiouseness and their head will start to "nod" and then arch back which usually causes them to roll over on their side. After this, the old death throws kick in and the nervous function goes wild, often accompanied by a stiffening or possibly a thrashing of the legs and sometimes a loss of bowel/bladder control. This can last for a minute or so before they finally expire and appear to relax. I have shot a LOT of big game. I would never consider using a .223 on deer. The smallest round I have used on deer was a .243 Winchester (just a .308 Win/7.62mm NATO "necked-down" to 6mm (.243")). A good, flat-shooting round and with 85grain ballistic tips, I have taken a good few smaller deer (Alberta foothills mule deer). However, my choice of all-round carteridge for big game is the .308 Win/7.62 NATO. It is extremely versatile and because I make my own ammo, I can get the very best out of it, approaching to within a hair of what the .30-06 can achieve (which I have also used for deer). The biggest I've used ws a 45-70. The bullet weight was 400 grains!

Secondly: The guy in the pic is highly unlikely to have shot the deer with a FMJ bullet, such as troops are constrained to use in military assult rifle during combat. He likely used a .223 cal hunting round; either a hollow point, or a semi-jacketed soft point, or a nylon ballistic tip configuration. They are all designed for controlled expansion to produce as much internal tissue damage as possible among the vital organs (and hopefully producing an "ethical quick kill"). For light skinned game, like the white tail buck he shot there, the bullet would be fairly lightly constructed, with a thinner jacket than those for heavier game. FYI, though, in most provinces in Canada and in many of the US states, it is illegal to hunt big game with .223/5.56mm because they lack the general ability to produce the requisite terminal effect in a consistent manner. In other words, to use such a light round on big game relies far too much on correct bullet placement (i.e. being able to put the bullet through the vitals and not gut-shoot the poor beast) and therefore also relies too much emphasis on the skill of the hunter to be able to consistently do so. The pic shows a broadside shot. That would be the ideal; however, if the animal was "quartered" to the shooter - standing at 45 degrees or thereabouts - you may well have to put the bullet through the shoulder to get to the vitals. Appart from a waste of good meat, that is not a good scenario for a wee little .223, which would simply not be up to the task at the 300m you mention. The only exception I would consider, would be here in British Columbia, where some of the deer (black tails) are very small. Even with that, the smallest legal round to use in hunting them is the.22-250, which is essentially a .223 with a larger carteridge behind it and therefore a larger powder charge, which translates into more energy/terminal effect.

I have used .223/5.56mm a lot for hunting, but not for big game for reasons stated above. It is an excellent round for ground squirels (gophers), foxes, coyotes, badgers, beaver, porcupine, etc. (see where I'm going with this?). If I'm hunting deer, I want it dead as quickly as possble, so the meat doesn't get all full of lactic acid because it's run off on me. If I shoot the thing with a .223, chances are it would get pretty far!

FYI, I have only ever seen two deer drop where they stood. They were both shot with .30cal rounds (one a 30-06 and the other a .308) and they were both shot under 100m away from the firer.

Finally, in addition to the USSF taking on the 6.8 SPC, many US Army units have also adopted a practice of incorporating Springfield Armoury .308 rifles at a ratio of 2 per squad for precisely the same reasons as they are also talking a long-hard look at .40 S&W and .45ACP vice 9mm Luger in their pistols.

[UKfighter]

Where the hell is the L85 and the M4 in this poll

[Artist]

L 42. 7.62mm (rechambered 303 Lee Enfield) loved it bigtime!



Once at Tregantle Ranges, In Cornwall, for a bet between guys from 40CDORM and 42CDORM (I was in 40 at the time, also served in 42) I acheived a 2 inch group on a figure 12 target with five rounds just using the iron sights from 1500 meters. Loved the weapon big time. As in I trusted it 100%. Made a few quid an all! Later on that night I spent my winnings on me Oppos whilst down Union Street in Guz. Oh Happy Dazed/Days.

I am to this day not a Gun Lover. As in I don't cream me nicks over such and such a weapon or such and such a round used by such and such a weapon. Most guys who have been at the pointed end don't. To me people who get a hard on about weapons really need to get out more and try and get on with the opposite sex in all honesty. In a nutshell I find weapon Lovers a bunch of total sadsacks who really need to stop w*nking over pictures of rifles and make friends with the opposite sex ASAP!!!!

Artist

[Doc]

What if she shags like a belt fed wombat? Does that combine both passions?