MilitaryForums.co.uk

Yep, its a proper solid rifle and fantastically well made. One hit with the brass butt plate in the nads and you're a gonna!

It's one of those rifles you feel you could hit anything with, especially looking down them irons.

I remember it had a bit of a kick on it from my days as an Army Cadet, a bit scary for a 13 year old!

I'd say...

I remember first handling one in '89 and as you can imagine, to a 5yo it was a monster of a rifle! I didn't get the chance to fire one until a good few years later, but I have the same feelings and respect towards it now as I did then.

With a .303 you're in good company, a real man's rifle.

I remember first handling one in '89 and as you can imagine, to a 5yo it was a monster

Getting worried about you Doc, did Eddie convert you on your course or what?

Doc what's come over you these past couple of days? In fact, do I want to know the answer... probably not!

Actually my "joke" above is related to the course, Eddie, another ex-PF, a 9 Sqn lad and 2 ex-blades, but due to Opsec and my own embarresment I can comment no further!

I read back through this thread, just for $shit$ and giggles (read "lunchtime boredom"). Appart from the last few pages, what a buch of crap being spouted by people who havent' even handled M16s and AKs (fairly obvious by the drivel spouted). Bloody cadet syndrome again..."a frind of a friend of mine, who read a book, said that in his considered opinion..."

By the time we were issued with the SA80, I had been using the SLR for around nine years. My SLR was older than I was, yet it was capable of putting 3 out of 5 rounds onto a Fig 11. (half the size f the foresight blade) at 600m (which we did regularly on Ash and Lydd ranges). In the hands of a better shot, it could no doubt have performed even better. So the boxes full of broken SA80 handguards that appeared in our lines in short order were nothing short of embarrassing, and the fact that silly little covers had to be "glued" on to stop the mag release catch from being accidentally pressed was a damned joke!

I have never been a fan of the 5.56 for military application, period. (Neither have I ever been a fan of the FMJ-only rule, the rule being over 100 years old when ballstics were understood per their scientific understanding and capabilities of the day, and taken from data provided from the American Civil War and such like - but that's another story). Having said that, it's a damned fine varmint hunting round. Up there with the .222 Rem Mag and the .204 Ruger and far more readilly available components for reloading and such like. The little 55 grain FMJ, though, is just not much of a man stopper. 7.62 cal Springfield carbines are in prolific evidence in the US military in theatre right now for good reason!

I have a 1942 Lee Enfield SMLE No. 1 Mark III. This is something of an anomaly as an Enfield and was produced by the Lithgow factory in Aus' and eventually made its way to Canada. Thus it has Aus', Brit, and Cdn markings on the action. It's a nice old gun. Fun to fire. The 180 grain spire point boat tail is lobbed like a mortar, compared to the flatter, more modern rounds, but it's got lots of character. I only have ten round mags for it right now and am about to get some (legal 5-rd mags), after which I'll be able to hunt with it. Reloading with a significantly lighter bullet and perhaps a hotter load should flatten that trajectory out nicely. I also just discovered a comapny in Ontario that markets scope brackets for this rifle, so I'll throw a Simmons 3-9 X 40 on her and see how she does. That brass butt plate is not as comfortable as modern guns, but the rifle doesn't kick anything like my Marlin Guide Gun in 45-70. With that bugger, you need to check yer fillings are still there.

One piece of info I discovered a while back that has bearing on today...

Back when the debate was on for the replacement for the 7.62 x 51 NATO , the .243 Winchester came up for serious consideration. The .243 (or 6mm as it would likely have become known in mil parlance, had it been adopted instead of the 5.56) is simply a "necked down" 7.62 (known commercially as the .308 Winchester). They use exactly the same case; in fact, I can put mil spec 7.62 mm ammo (still used in our C6's (GPMG)) and put it through my reloading press to produce a .243. The result is a potent, very fast, and very flat-shooting round.

As an asside...the most accurate round ever developed (to date) is the 6mm PPC. This is a "necked-up" .220 Russian which, funilly enough, is a necked down 7.62 x 39 Soviet. The round is easily capable of "one ragged hole" ( a 1/4" group) at 100m - a fact about which any serious benchrest shooter would not bat an eye. Most are hand load. Some even make their own brass, but the factors involved in the accuracy of this round include more than the immediately obvious (such as powder sharge and bullet weight/style/composition). Other elements, such as case shoulder angle, primer seating uniformity, primer flash hole unitformity, powder type, and case neck length all contribute significantly. ... but I digress.

Then, as if it's some sort of epiphony, along comes the 6.8mm Remington SPC. So let me get this straight...it took 30 years for the wizards who insisted that we should all use 5.56mm to realize thay were wrong? Wht crap!

Anyhoo, having worn out yet another soap box, here are a couple of decent ballistics comparison tools for those interested. For those, not so inclined...quit spouting effluent about whcih you know the square root of fark all! (Bless 'em!)

http://www.remington.com/products/ammun ... allistics/

http://www.norma.cc/htm_files/javapagee.htm


My .303...

Hey anglo, this link may be of interest to you regarding scoping an SMLE. Judging by your pics you have a nice example too.

http://surplusrifle.com/reviews/onehots ... /index.asp

Theres a lot of other good articles on that site so you might want to browse it, found it while searching for scoping solutions for my No.4.

http://surplusrifle.com/reviews/cadtechnikno4/index.asp

SO19: Thanks for the links. Decent sites.

That No. 4 looks great. Looks like a Simmons scope on it. I have a 3-9 variable Simmons on my NEF .243, with the same Butler Creek quick release lense coves shown in the pic.

I had to put my car in the shop this morning to get a front end wobble fixed. What better way to while the time away than in the gun shop. D'oh! $600 later I come out with a New England Firearms single shot Ultra Vamint. (The Mrs already has one nut, she might as well have both!)

Nice little gun. Heavy fluted barrel, adjustable Choate stock. I'm just putting a cheap Tasco 6-24 x 42 mildot scope on it for now, but with a decent Harris bipod that allows a few degrees of cant for rough ground.

Here she is (company phot, sans bipod)...



Anyway, we'd better knock it on the 'ead or someone of the genus scousus horriblis will have a hissy fit.

Anglo Saxon your .303 looks just to good to be true, after 64 years the woodwork looks almost brand new as if it has never been issued. Looking at the photo of the markings on the breach the cuts in wood along there look almost new. Also looking at the sights on the rifle they are not standard so have you changed them or did it come with those.

Tab, I would suspect it's been re-finished at some point.

Gents: I don't know the history of the rifle. It was given to me by one of our WO's just after I joined the unit back in '90 (fresh off the boat, as 'twere). His Mrs had told him to get shot of it when their first kid was starting to crawl around the place.

There was a pull-through stuck very firmly in the bore. Our armourer put s screw device down the barrel and out it popped. He gave the rifle a very good look over and declared it sound to fine.

The iron sights on it are original, I believe. Bear in mind that this a 1942 No. 1 Mn III, not a No. 4. The Ausies kept the No. 1 through WWII (so I am told). The sights are quite inaccurate. I have only ever "plinked" with it, really. They go up to 2000 yds, which I found amusing.

The wood isn't in bad shape. But the pics look better than the real thing. It certainly has had some work done as it is sporterized, now (stock reduced for hunting), so it looks more like an L42 without the adjustable cheekpiece.

I may well pull it all apart and give a good seeing-to before I mount the scope etc. The barrel needs to be re-parkerised in places and I am sure that is true "below the wood line".

The Mk 3 Enfield was basically the same as a Mk 4 Enfield Except the Mk 3 had a leaf sight mounted half way along the wooden barrel covering. It was the Mk 5 that had much of the woodwork removed and a shorter barrel but due the a lot of the gases from the cartridge not being burnt of they had to fit a flash eliminator to the barrel. Because these gases had not been proper ply then gun had a bigger kick to it and it the gun was notoriously inaccurate even after the sights had been set up properly.
I would suggest that you Mk 111 has been substantially altered for sporting purposes

Anglo Saxon....You say the gun is not that accurate, well I would be at all surprised. See that they have removed most of the fittings that hold the barrel firmly in place I would expect the movement from it every time it was fired. If look at the picture of Mk 3 above you should see how the barrel is firmly locked down from the fore sight to the breech, well remove that and just what is hold it in place.