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!

HE117

LE
Some folk have crackers for Christmas...

Others however...

IMG_1877small.jpg
 
More views of the Sterling conversion :)

1609063004767.png

1609063015981.png

1609063030322.png
 

4(T)

LE


Looks like a private project build using the full Sterling kit. The "original" rifles (whoever converted them) have a semigloss/gloss suncorite finish on the mags and receiver that replicates the typical Faz service rifle. The unbuilt kits and the mags found "loose" for sale all have a different matt finish.

Nice to have all the bits, especially the charger guide.

The wood looks like Savage birch? Receiver finish looks a bit matt for Suncorite?
 
Has anyone ever used the volley sights on a Lee Metfield or Lee Enfield if so how far did they shoot and did it do any damage when it got to the target?
 

HE117

LE
Has anyone ever used the volley sights on a Lee Metfield or Lee Enfield if so how far did they shoot and did it do any damage when it got to the target?
I suggest that using volley sights on any rifle would break the range template for most UK ranges!

The problem would be recording the strikes on targets past 1200m. You might be able to find the odd proof and trials range with the appropriate instrumentation, but the chances of getting to use them are pretty slim...

Calling @rickshaw-major .. are you aware of any such trials from your dim and distant?
 
Looks like a private project build using the full Sterling kit. The "original" rifles (whoever converted them) have a semigloss/gloss suncorite finish on the mags and receiver that replicates the typical Faz service rifle. The unbuilt kits and the mags found "loose" for sale all have a different matt finish.

Nice to have all the bits, especially the charger guide.

The wood looks like Savage birch? Receiver finish looks a bit matt for Suncorite?

It is matt, but the receiver was scrubbed and refinished prior to conversion, which is really going above and beyond the capabilities (or extent of bothering) of a random gunsmith. Also the barrel is unfired and was in the grease. Both of which to me speak towards it having been done by Sterling rather than a rando.

Wood is post-war Mk.2 beech. Probably what was already on the rifle when it was FTR'd to a Mk.1/2.
 

4(T)

LE
Has anyone ever used the volley sights on a Lee Metfield or Lee Enfield if so how far did they shoot and did it do any damage when it got to the target?


I've used them at about 2000 yds out of curiosity (African bush!), but there is no way as an individual shooter to assess the result. The volley sights don't give you a precise point of aim, so its not as if you can try to place a shot on a target as you can with the normal sights out to 1,200 yds..

The volley sights were intended to be used by massed riflemen laying down fire on a large indicated target, and thus creating what we'd call a beaten zone. E.g. on the NW Frontier they were used to shift enemy groups off hill tops, and at Omdurman they were used at 2,000+yds on the mass of the approaching Mahdi army.

The ranges on the volley sights were carefully worked out, and are capped at the maximum effective range of the aforementioned massed riflemen. By effective, they meant sufficient density of rounds arriving on the target. A 303 round will travel something over 4000 yards, but trials at Hythe concluded that maximum effectiveness was about 2,400 for Mk1 ammunition, and 2,800 for cordite ammo, when fired by a company-size group in tactical formation.
 
I suggest that using volley sights on any rifle would break the range template for most UK ranges!

The problem would be recording the strikes on targets past 1200m. You might be able to find the odd proof and trials range with the appropriate instrumentation, but the chances of getting to use them are pretty slim...

Calling @rickshaw-major .. are you aware of any such trials from your dim and distant?
I am indeed and conducting such trials was easily possible. But I never did it as there was no reason to. It could easily have been done at SHB. We fired 155mm L15 on Charge 8 at maximum range so SAA would be no problem for a Range Trace as long as you weren't firing at 45 degrees. Strike indication is easy; we used electronic indicator plates for fragmentation velocity measurement. They acted like a PCIED with time zero being activated by projectile detonation.

Such a trial would be 'kin expensive.
 
I am indeed and conducting such trials was easily possible. But I never did it as there was no reason to. It could easily have been done at SHB. We fired 155mm L15 on Charge 8 at maximum range so SAA would be no problem for a Range Trace as long as you weren't firing at 45 degrees. Strike indication is easy; we used electronic indicator plates for fragmentation velocity measurement. They acted like a PCIED with time zero being activated by projectile detonation.

Such a trial would be 'kin expensive.
Just to clarify please - are you saying that maximum range for Small Arms Ammunition is achieved by firing at an elevation of 45 degrees ?
 
Just to clarify please - are you saying that maximum range for Small Arms Ammunition is achieved by firing at an elevation of 45 degrees ?
For any projectile in simple theory yes. In practice no! In practice it is much more complicated particularly if the launch point is not on the same level as the point of impact. Ballistics coefficients make the mathematics a damn sight harder as they take into account projectile density and shape and stability factors.
 

4(T)

LE
I am indeed and conducting such trials was easily possible. But I never did it as there was no reason to. It could easily have been done at SHB. We fired 155mm L15 on Charge 8 at maximum range so SAA would be no problem for a Range Trace as long as you weren't firing at 45 degrees. Strike indication is easy; we used electronic indicator plates for fragmentation velocity measurement. They acted like a PCIED with time zero being activated by projectile detonation.

Such a trial would be 'kin expensive.


Apparently Hythe just used some house-size paper targets, and literally marched an infantry company away along the beach, turning and delivery volley fire at incremental ranges. Thats how they deduced the maximum range for suitable combat effect.

Patching out between each detail must have been a grade one pain in the butt, but I suppose nothing beats actual trial and error experimentation!
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
Patching out between each detail must have been a grade one pain in the butt, but I suppose nothing beats actual trial and error experimentation!
That's what defaulters, along with the sick, lame and lazy, are for...
 
For any projectile in simple theory yes. In practice no! In practice it is much more complicated particularly if the launch point is not on the same level as the point of impact. Ballistics coefficients make the mathematics a damn sight harder as they take into account projectile density and shape and stability factors.
With due respect, maximum range from small arms is achieved by shooting at an angle of about 32 degrees from the horizontal. 45 degrees would be the optimum in a vacuum. Gravity works at a constant rate, regardless of the velocity of the projectile, but the velocity is dropping off from the moment it leaves the muzzle, thanks to air resistance. As a result, a bullet's trajectory is slightly hockey-stick shaped rather than being a symmetrical parabola.

Gunner officers, who are all blessed with far more brainpower than me, assure me that artillery projectiles are less subject to this effect, due to the reduced effect of air resistance at the altitudes that the shell flies through much of it's trajectory, and that the optimum angle (for range) is much nearer to the 45 degree elevation.

But SAA ? 32 degrees, +/- a degree or so.
 

HE117

LE
Apparently Hythe just used some house-size paper targets, and literally marched an infantry company away along the beach, turning and delivery volley fire at incremental ranges. Thats how they deduced the maximum range for suitable combat effect.

Patching out between each detail must have been a grade one pain in the butt, but I suppose nothing beats actual trial and error experimentation!
Where on Hythe would you get sufficient distance to do this.. the site is only about 600m deep and a couple of K long.. not doubting you.. just interested!
 

4(T)

LE
Where on Hythe would you get sufficient distance to do this.. the site is only about 600m deep and a couple of K long.. not doubting you.. just interested!

The anecdotes about this don't give any details. AFAIK the trials report itself hasn't turned up yet.

It would have been 1879-88ish, so much of modern civilian Hythe would not have been there. Perhaps they found a suitable line of fire from the marsh/farmland 4,000 due west of the current range complex.

Being the 1880s, they may even have considered it perfectly safe to have overhead fire from the firing point(s) to the target end. The ballistic arc would have been quite high over any civvies in the middle! In this era they were still using Wimbledon and Woolwich commons for arty and SA practice.

Of course "Hythe" is also the generic term for the musketry school and its instructors, so they may have carried out the experiments elsewhere.
 
With due respect, maximum range from small arms is achieved by shooting at an angle of about 32 degrees from the horizontal. 45 degrees would be the optimum in a vacuum. Gravity works at a constant rate, regardless of the velocity of the projectile, but the velocity is dropping off from the moment it leaves the muzzle, thanks to air resistance. As a result, a bullet's trajectory is slightly hockey-stick shaped rather than being a symmetrical parabola.

Gunner officers, who are all blessed with far more brainpower than me, assure me that artillery projectiles are less subject to this effect, due to the reduced effect of air resistance at the altitudes that the shell flies through much of it's trajectory, and that the optimum angle (for range) is much nearer to the 45 degree elevation.

But SAA ? 32 degrees, +/- a degree or so.
Oh I'm not arguing with you but if you read what I said I said in simple maths theory. Different projectiles have different drag, shape and stability factors and a considerable effort has been put into understanding these variables, that's why there are so many differing ballistic coefficients.

However from a range safety trace perspective the largest range possible would be used in the calculations.
 
And this is why I come to this place first,, no messing about, answer and then some
 

Latest Threads

Top