Krag versus SMLE

[Rearlugs]

what is a good question is how much nationalism comes in when British people talk about the Lee Enfield, I for one highly doubt the 38 rounds in a minute on a 12 inch target story (appreatnly there is no record of that either) also is the Springfield 1903 not a more accurate rifle?, which is why the yanks tend to use Springfield type rifles at there comps which are open to all rifles of the era. I suppose to responds to how certain armies train there solders and what tactics they used. but I find it hard to believe that the lee Enfield is the best rifle at everything yet we (and the commonwealth) are the only people who used it.

The 38 rounds per minute record is true - it was only 2 or 3 rounds over what was considered normal good performance - its just the range, target type and method that have not been recorded. Best guess by military historians and weapons collectors is that the rapid fire practice was on the contemporary human figure target at 200 yards, and that the scoring zone was in fact a 12" wide strip down the length of the target (which would be the "kill zone").

The rapid fire ability of the Lee Enfield is also true: in formal tests it achieved a rate of fire fully twice that of mauser-actioned rifles (e. P14, Mauser 98, Springfield). That test included the reloading time.

Absolute accuracy is harder to gauge. No1 rifles have fairly variable accuracy within their c. 3 MOA acceptance criteria, with some being average, and some capable of match shooting. Mauser-actioned rifles tend to be a bit more accurate, but are also prone to exaggerated claims - Mauser G98 and K98s for example are not noticeably more accurate than a No1.


"we (and the commonwealth) are the only people who used it" Er, that is a very disingenuous statement. Over 4 million No1s alone were made - and they were all used. Lets not forget that, in the years the No1 served, the Empire and Commonwealth constituted about 1/3 of the entire globe, and included over 100 separate territories. There were very few other countries left to buy Enfields, with the Russian Empire using Mosins, and the Americas dominated by Mauser's dumping policies. Don't forget that Britain actually chose not to sell advanced small arms, as it had direct experience of the regional instability this could inflame.

[rufrdr]

what is a good question is how much nationalism comes in when British people talk about the Lee Enfield, I for one highly doubt the 38 rounds in a minute on a 12 inch target story (appreatnly there is no record of that either) also is the Springfield 1903 not a more accurate rifle?, which is why the yanks tend to use Springfield type rifles at there comps which are open to all rifles of the era. I suppose to responds to how certain armies train there solders and what tactics they used. but I find it hard to believe that the lee Enfield is the best rifle at everything yet we (and the commonwealth) are the only people who used it.

The U.S. military vacillated between the target shooters and the volume of fire types over the decades. The 03 was from the target shooters camp. It is a beautiful rifle, superbly accurate and reasonably durable and with the A1 stock it is a joy to shoot - on the range. For combat use the rear sight is fragile as is the blade front and with the battle sight being set at 547 yards I imagine a lot of shots sailed right over the heads of the Huns. The S type stock is ill fitted and uncomfortable to shoot and pounds a shooter after a hundred rounds or so. My father went through the Air Corps small arms school during WW2 and said that after shooting a hundred or so rounds on the range through an 03 from the prone position he was so sore he could barely move his shoulder the next day. I feel that for practical purposes both the #1 and #4 are superior to the 03 although the #4 gets the nod as the all around better rifle design than the #1. All that said, I love to shoot my 03, it has the feel of a precision fitted machine.

[rufrdr]

It was definitely a test of the shooter rather than the kit. We were intrigued by the statement that the Krag had to be reloaded one round at a time: it's simply ain't so. On a Krag - the Norsqueegian version at least, it's very easy to pop the magazine open, drop in 5 rounds and close the lid again. The guide and follower automagically align and feed the rounds correctly - faster than loading with a stipper clip !

Springfield Armory came up with a 5 round clip to load the Krag with as a last ditch attempt to salvage the Krag rifle but it had too many other flaws to keep it in production. Dropping 5 rounds in the Krag magazine works on the range but not when you are on the move or laying in a ditch and being shot at I imagine!

I have owned 4 Krags over the years: An 1892 rifle, 1896 carbine, 1899 carbine, and a sportered Krag rifle. Beautiful firearms one and all.

A couple pictures of Krags in action from one of my favorite movies "The Wind and the Lion"

[Ares590]

The 38 rounds per minute record is true

I actually find that very difficult to believe,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP9q7918DQI
same poster as the original video on this thread, but he makes some good points, and logically I'm struggling to believe that someone could fire 38 rounds in a minute on target of 12 or even 36 inches at 300m when you factor in all the other variables e.g. reload time, time it takes to pull the rifle back onto target after the recoil of each shot.

[Sandgroper]

The 38 rounds per minute record is true

I actually find that very difficult to believe,

From http://historicalfirearms.tumblr.com/po ... ing-in-the

The record for the most hits on target during a ‘Mad Minute' stood at 38 hits in 60 seconds, set in 1914 by an Instructor Sergeant Alfred Snoxall. It has not been beaten since. Hitting the target 38 times would require him to fire the 10 rounds pre-loaded in the SMLE’s magazine and then reload 6 times with 5 round stripper clips. Add onto this that the rifle was a single shot, bolt action rifle which required the user to push up and retract the bolt and then return it forward pushing a new round into the chamber, then aiming and fire. All while maintaining his cheek weld and line of sight. This means Snoxall must have averaged around 1.5 seconds per shot to hit the target 38 times in a minute. Quite a feat.

and here http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/tag/snoxall/

[kennyc]

The 38 rounds per minute record is true

I actually find that very difficult to believe,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP9q7918DQI
same poster as the original video on this thread, but he makes some good points, and logically I'm struggling to believe that someone could fire 38 rounds in a minute on target of 12 or even 36 inches at 300m when you factor in all the other variables e.g. reload time, time it takes to pull the rifle back onto target after the recoil of each shot.

you don't "pull" the rifle back onto target after each shot, this would have been shot standing or possibly kneeling, not prone, the recoil would have absorbed into the reloading action and the barrel weight would have been allowed to drop the sight back onto the target, there would have been no "aim" as such, the soldier would have relied on practise and training to fire the shot as soon as the sight picture was right how much recoil do you see in this film?

[Rearlugs]

The practice used by LERA and HBSA starts with the shooter in the standing alert position, rifle loaded with 10 rounds and safety on.

Upon the appearance of the targets, the shooter drops to the prone unsupported position, and engages the targets.

In this practice, the better shooters can get about 25 or 26 rounds onto a Fig11 at 200 yds.



The details of the original British Army practice have not yet come to light. However, since the assumption at the time for both shooting and military fieldworks was that the soldier would be shooting from the firestep of a trench, its reasonable to assume that the range practice involved the shooter being in the "trench supported position" - ie standing in a firetrench and using a sandbag for support.

Using this "firetrench supported position", the rate of fire is significantly increased because of the much greater manual dexterity available - the elbows and upper body are not supporting their own weight (as in the prone supported position), and the sandbag supports the weight of the rifle. Hence all the motion range and muscle effort of the arms and upper body can be utilised in handling the rifle.

In this assumed practice, the soldier also starts with 10 rounds loaded. As he is not changing position (as with the LERA/HBSA practice) he will also gain a few extra shots. The modern civilan practice of changing position probably costs at least five shots.

Using the "second finger" trigger pull, palming the bolt, closing bolt on chargers (it is not necessary to take a charger out before closing the bolt - they eject automatically) and charging on top of just one or two rounds (ie never having more than about 7 rounds in the mag) all offer small speed enhancements.

The last factor is that, of course, professional soldiers would be a lot fitter than the average modern shooter, and musketry instructors would have had thousands of rounds of practice with which to hone their skills.


If someone wants to donate me about 5,000 rounds of .303 ball for practice, I'd be confident of exceeding 30 rounds per minute eventually!

[tackb]

The 38 rounds per minute record is true

I actually find that very difficult to believe,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP9q7918DQI
same poster as the original video on this thread, but he makes some good points, and logically I'm struggling to believe that someone could fire 38 rounds in a minute on target of 12 or even 36 inches at 300m when you factor in all the other variables e.g. reload time, time it takes to pull the rifle back onto target after the recoil of each shot.

you don't "pull" the rifle back onto target after each shot, this would have been shot standing or possibly kneeling, not prone, the recoil would have absorbed into the reloading action and the barrel weight would have been allowed to drop the sight back onto the target, there would have been no "aim" as such, the soldier would have relied on practise and training to fire the shot as soon as the sight picture was right how much recoil do you see in this film?

none but then blank ammo isn't known for being hard on the shoulder!

[kennyc]

OK wrong video to make the comment about recoil, firing rate is the point, heres one with live rounds for you (I know its not as fast, this isn't a trained specialist in Lee Enfields, just an enthuisiast )

[tackb]

I wasn't dissing you kennyc and for the record I think it would be very possible by someone whos had a smle in his hands and used it for real during his service life like the small arms instructors would have back then?