Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Rifles Hot or Not - Show us yer kit!

Isn't this basically Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg?

Advance troops for about a mile over open ground vs rifled muskets (many of which were indeed P53s)?


Might be interesting to look at significant repeating rifle vs P53 engagements in the US civil war. IIRC Spencer rifles were used in quantity by infantry units at the battles of Chickamauga and Nashville.

The major difference with the US civil war is the level of training though, which is why many engagements were typically fought with rifle muskets at smoothbore ranges. When your first shot is fired live in actual combat, there's no way to train troops to the level of marksmanship that the British Army was trained to, rendering them capable of delivering fire at substantial ranges (as show in the Crimea and in India). This changes the calculus with respect to any US civil war comparison somewhat.
 
View attachment 511505

another nice day at 300m on Century. It may be a side pull but I can live with it.

It shoots really well and the suit makes a world of difference as I'm sure you can imagine. 300m with iron sights was a bit of a lark given the aperture on the rear sight feels about the size of ten pence piece when you look down the range through it.

I was worried about the straight pull as it was as stiff as **** for the first 100 rds and an absolute bugger to cock (and extract). It was absolute murder, to the extent that I was concluding I'd just torched £2k on a piece of junk, which is a lot to burn for a few memories. As I say though, after the first 100 rds, it is now a gem - cocks, extracts & chambers with no problem what so ever, and with ease + with the suit, I'm landing the rounds in a nice tight grouping slap bang in the centre of the target at 300m. Really pleased I bought it.

I wished I'd caught the reg NCOs drooling on Wednesday, if I'd seen them I'd have been tempted to have a wander over. Looking at their ages though, I suspect the nearest any of them will have been to an SLR was in their regimental museum looking at it through a pane of glass. Still - I'm sure the sharp shooter is cracking weapon now they finally have something to blat with a bit of stopping power.
 

HE117

LE
I was thinking about doing a Gedankenexperiment with Chappie about how you'd fight British vs Prussian infantry in that era, with P53 Enfields vs Dreyse needleguns. The P53 massively outranges the Dreyse, but is 3 rpm max. Plus the soldiers were trained to get best use out of it. The Dreyse is massively advantageous in defence, with at least double the rate of fire of the P53, but only out to about 200m.

Initial thoughts are, and assuming little or no arty support on either side:

UK attacks Prussian position:

- Stand outside Dreyse range and soften them up with a number of volleys, then one unit presses the attack as quickly as possible under supporting fire from a flank. Flanking units then press home the attack as a second wave once the main force has got too close to the position to permit supporting fire.
- Prussians can't do much other than take cover and then give rapid fire once the attackers come into range and try to cut them down.

Prussians attack UK position:go

- Prussians have to close the distance and get to the bayonet as quickly as possible. They are outranged so can't provide supporting fire unless they can work skirmishers under cover to within 200m or so.
- Brits have to cause Prussian attrition from maximum effective range (picked shots starting on the attacking force from 900 yds or so, or max visibility if less) and then increasing fire cadence as they get closer, hopefully stopping the attack with a few crashing volleys from 300 yds inwards.

Thoughts @HE117 ?
Interesting one...

I think the issue is somewhat Plevnaesque /Afrika Corpsian in that the forces are asymmetrically balanced as one gains the other weakens, and vice versa! It is probably the perfect example of the range v rate of fire argument..!

The other thing I was playing about with on Saturday was some proper Enfield cartridges made to these specs:


I have a couple of Enfields, a PH Musketoon (proper Brum one, not one of the later ones..) and a Two Band by DIckson, and have always hand loaded them with RCBS Minie bullets. I finally bit the bullet got around to getting a proper Pritchett bullet mould that would cast paper patchable bullets. I also got some Clearprint 1000HP design vellum as recommended by Britishmuzzleloaders.. (yes I was that bored!) The results however were very interesting... the reload speed is much better, and with consistent lubrication the fouling and accuracy were much improved. Using the vellum paper as the outer wrap makes it much easier to tear off the end tab and break off the bullet in the muzzle...

The main difference is really the issue of reloading positions.. you can load a Dreyse prone, although it is more fiddly than a Chassepot/Snider/Martini, but you need to stand to load a P53.. I could probably load my two band kneeling as it is shorter, and the musketoon is certainly loadable sitting or kneeling..

I think in practice it would be down to training and tactics, and particularly the location/ground! I would not like to put money on the result...

Interesting to consider if this was the argument that led to the MH and the Werder, which pretty much optimised the range/speed of loading for a single shot...

...then Alf von Kropatschek took everyone down another rabbit hole!
 
Last edited:
I may have posted this before :)

1603647849025.png
 
I used to have a BSA made Lee sporter with dust cover, 5 rnd magazine, leaf sights, ribbed barrel, something like this, I still get teary-eyed thinking about selling it.

Lee-Speed-and-BSA-No1-Mk3.jpg
 

Tyk

LE
I used to have a BSA made Lee sporter with dust cover, 5 rnd magazine, leaf sights, ribbed barrel, something like this, I still get teary-eyed thinking about selling it.

View attachment 515039

Do those proper made sporters have a quite different barrel to the service rifles that required the proper bedding (as pointed out on several occasions) which is lost in the "bubba" sporterisations?
 

4(T)

LE
Do those proper made sporters have a quite different barrel to the service rifles that required the proper bedding (as pointed out on several occasions) which is lost in the "bubba" sporterisations?


Yes. The old sporters are all based on the Long Lee family of rifles, which were an evolution of the old way of making rifles and muskets - a barrel strapped to a wooden forend (solid bedded).

Lee Speed/ Metford/Enfield sporters tend to have either a shortened Long Lee military barrel - which has quite a heavy and stiff profile - or a similar profile commercial barrel, often with a solid rib along the top.

The No1 rifles came later and had a very light barrel that opened up the can of worms that we now know as barrel vibration, "harmonics" and bedding. This was all new stuff, which is why the No1 has such a weird and experimental bedding method. The No4 was an evolution based on new knowledge, and thus had a free-floating barrel with some vibration damping at the muzzle.

No1 and No4 sporters produced post-war mostly have shortened military barrels. Barrel/bedding knowledge had progressed by that stage and, based on the example of the No5, these sporters all have free-floated barrels.
 
Yes. The old sporters are all based on the Long Lee family of rifles, which were an evolution of the old way of making rifles and muskets - a barrel strapped to a wooden forend (solid bedded).

Lee Speed/ Metford/Enfield sporters tend to have either a shortened Long Lee military barrel - which has quite a heavy and stiff profile - or a similar profile commercial barrel, often with a solid rib along the top.

The No1 rifles came later and had a very light barrel that opened up the can of worms that we now know as barrel vibration, "harmonics" and bedding. This was all new stuff, which is why the No1 has such a weird and experimental bedding method. The No4 was an evolution based on new knowledge, and thus had a free-floating barrel with some vibration damping at the muzzle.

No1 and No4 sporters produced post-war mostly have shortened military barrels. Barrel/bedding knowledge had progressed by that stage and, based on the example of the No5, these sporters all have free-floated barrels.

Said "new knowledge" being the 1903 Springfield, and having also been applied to the P13 and P14 rifles ;)
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
My latest lockdown distraction:

1604570157836.png


7.62x51 Parker Hale T4 with Hawke Vantage 4-16 x 50 glass. Pristine rifling, crisp action and it's a later model so it has a classic line forestock instead of the massive boat-shaped abortion of the older models. I'm now looking for a Harris bipod or similar to install, as that heavy barrel is, well, heavy.

All I need now is an open range.... dammit.
 
My latest lockdown distraction:

View attachment 517827

7.62x51 Parker Hale T4 with Hawke Vantage 4-16 x 50 glass. Pristine rifling, crisp action and it's a later model so it has a classic line forestock instead of the massive boat-shaped abortion of the older models. I'm now looking for a Harris bipod or similar to install, as that heavy barrel is, well, heavy.

All I need now is an open range.... dammit.
Is it a real P-H built one or a gunsmith made one do you know?
 

4(T)

LE
My latest lockdown distraction:

View attachment 517827

7.62x51 Parker Hale T4 with Hawke Vantage 4-16 x 50 glass. Pristine rifling, crisp action and it's a later model so it has a classic line forestock instead of the massive boat-shaped abortion of the older models. I'm now looking for a Harris bipod or similar to install, as that heavy barrel is, well, heavy.

All I need now is an open range.... dammit.


Thats the first model. with the narrow forend and flat bolt knob. Its the later model that has the very wide beaver-tail forend fitted with a rail for screw-in accessories, and the metalwork is often parkerised instead of blued.

AJ Parker did an identical rifle to the first pattern PH T4, called the Excel. They even have PH T4 marked barrels and PH scope blocks and PH Sile furniture - must have been quite incestuous in the gun trade in those days!

Still lots of T4s around in almost unused condition. Great rifles, still easily good enough for most casual club TR.

Isn't that scope too high for a sight line? Even with the Monte Carlo butt, the best scope option I can get on a No4 action is a Simmons whitetail classic 1-4x20 (ie straight tube) in PH low mounts on PH blocks. Thats still higher than a No32. Everything else sits far too high to get a cheek weld on the butt.
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
Is it a real P-H built one or a gunsmith made one do you know?
As far as I can tell it's a pukka T4, it has the flattened bolt handle with PH engraved, the barrel is marked "Parker Hale", and the forestock profile is an exact match for this line drawing from a PH sales brochure for a later early (thanks, @4T !) model.

1604573321639.png


If it isn't PH built, it looks like a very, very good gunsmith job. Range time will tell, I guess!

Isn't that scope too high for a sight line? Even with the Monte Carlo butt, the best scope option I can get on a No4 action is a Simmons whitetail classic 1-4x20 (ie straight tube) in PH low mounts on PH blocks. Thats still higher than a No32. Everything else sits far too high to get a cheek weld on the butt.

I picked it up earlier this week, and it's sitting in my gunsafe until the weekend (working from home is still working sadly) I didn't notice any problem, but I might be wrong ....I'll let you know. Many years ago I fired a friend's No5 tricked out with a mahoosive scope and no added cheek pad, and IIRC found it very comfortable in the prone so hope springs eternal.
 

Hexi Bloke

Old-Salt
Mossberg (LC) MVP .308/7.62 NATO AR10 Compatible. Vortex Crossfire II.
20190807_115006.jpg

Had to remove the muzzle break at the rifle club, apparently its too loud.....ordering a sound moderator
 

Hexi Bloke

Old-Salt
Ive got this lovely little Mauser Model 201 in .22 win mag. Its circa 1980's and is stamped made in West Germany. Problem I have is that the magazine is damaged and consistently fails to feed. Ive searched online but can't seem to find where I can get hold of a replacement for it?
20201128_143458.jpg
 

HE117

LE
Mossberg (LC) MVP .308/7.62 NATO AR10 Compatible. Vortex Crossfire II.
View attachment 524419
Had to remove the muzzle break at the rifle club, apparently its too loud.....ordering a sound moderator
I do understand the issue with using muzzle brakes on gallery ranges.. and applaud your decision to get a moderator!

I completely get the science and reason for using muzzle brakes for launching high energy rounds from a light gun to engage extended range targets, but I really do wonder why folk feel they should use them on tight ranges under 400m? These are specialised tools for use in specific situations..

It's a bit like doing wheelies with a Lamborghini in an urban housing estate to be honest..! I think it is a bit inconsiderate and unnecessary!
 

Latest Threads

Top