Wait for M1903 or buy this Enfield?

[LVSteve]

Thanks Noonster. I didn't know of that option and the skinny front sight always bothered me on my 1903a3. I just ordered one.

1903 A3 Springfield USMC #10 Front Sight Blade Reproduction Made in U.S.A.

Liking that! The only drawback is the fixation on the 100 yard zero. 30-06 doesn't strike me as a 100 yard cartridge.

 

[PALADIN85020]

If you have always longed for Cinderella, you wouldn't settle for one of her ugly sisters, would you?

Wait for the real deal. When it comes along, you will never be sorry!

John

 

[rockquarry]

Liking that! The only drawback is the fixation on the 100 yard zero. 30-06 doesn't strike me as a 100 yard cartridge.

Using the lowest sight setting these rifles will generally shoot high at 100 yards with anything comparable to ball ammo. The sight was designed that way for combat use. Someone shooting at paper targets at 100 yards might prefer a sight setting that will align point of impact much closer to the point of aim.

With some work, you could come up with a load that would make the 100 yard point of impact coincide with the sights and leave the original sights intact, or do sight work and use any load. There would still be far more adjustment in the sight than necessary for use at much longer ranges. No fixation involved. Many like to shoot at 100 yards even if the cartridge is capable at longer distances.

 

[Rifleman harris]

Rifles used in combat

I imagine any rifle that was actually used in combat, and by that I
mean issued to an Infantry unit would have been through an arsenal rebuild which I think would negate it's "having been used in combat."

Any weapon used in combat would be beat to hell. I was in an Infantry platoon in VN when we were issued new M16's and in a matter of weeks they were already showing very hard use. They get cleaned but they have the hell abused out of them. I have a revolver I carried and people always comment about how beat up it is. I'd just find a nice rifle of the type I want that's in good condition.

 

[AJ]

I imagine any rifle that was actually used in combat, and by that I
mean issued to an Infantry unit would have been through an arsenal rebuild which I think would negate it's "having been used in combat."

Any weapon used in combat would be beat to hell. I was in an Infantry platoon in VN when we were issued new M16's and in a matter of weeks they were already showing very hard use. They get cleaned but they have the hell abused out of them. I have a revolver I carried and people always comment about how beat up it is. I'd just find a nice rifle of the type I want that's in good condition.

Pristine collectors guns seldom have any real history behind them. True combat pieces at times look like 10 miles of bad road outwardly. Internally they are usually well maintained. If you can find them, look at pictures of field repair facility's taken in WW II in Europe. Mounds of weapons that looked pretty trashed. Some poor armorer using the bits and pieces to make functioning combat weapons out of the piles of scrap.

Found one!

 

[SF VET]

My 1918 MKIII

After reading this thread, I was motivated to shoot my first rifle, a 1918 Enfield, which I bought at Five & Dime store (Kresgi) for ten bucks, in 1959. Rode my bike up with my lawn mowing money, and bright it home, and went back the next day for a pristine Argentine 7.62 Mauser. Got a long bayonet for my Enfield, and used that for wacking brush along a canal. I shot it occasionally over the years. A nice rifle, but had a shot out bore, so about two years ago, found a specialist who re-barreled it with a new barrel, moving the sights over and such. Mine has a serial number matching magazine.

I have a perfect MK5, which I reload for, so took out a batch of my own 303 loads and shot them for first time in my MKIII with the new barrel.

I couldn't group better than a foot+ at 50 yards, because I can't locate the in-focus front sight blade in the fuzzy, indistinct rear sight. A problem I have all these sorts of mid-barrel sights. I don't know how the British soldiers of the first War cold have had such a reputation for sniping. Maybe my 76 year old eyes with bifocals are the reason. I could have done better if I had filled my 303 cases with number 9 bird shot.

So I quite and broght it home, and probably won't waste ammo in it again. But tomorrow I am going back with my MK5, which has a rear peep, and in the past has been superbly accurate.

By the way, British 303 is almost the same as 7.7 Jap bullets. For instance my 174 grain loads use .3105 Hornady bullets. Since 303 headspaces on the rim, in the roomy military chambers, if you full length re-size case head separation is likely. I only neck size.

I also shot my really nice 1943 Smith Corona A3, and with its peep, it would group in one inch at the same 50 yards. Peep sights work for me. My MKIII did not want to chamber, so I will check tgo see why, maybe too long, too pointy bullet? My A3 was smooth and flawless. Here, my MkIII, and my A3.

Back to the range tomorrow, with my Jungle Carbine, and my Win 70 in 270.

SF VET
[url=https://postimg.cc/2b8Zdbjm] [/URL]
[url=https://postimages.org/] [/URL]

 

[SF VET]

I suspect all of us here have had to make "now or later" decisions for things. Me, there were other surplus rifles in those barrels, but even ten bucks was a substantial cost when I was mowing yards for .75 cents. I often reflected on that K98, the Jungle Carbine that I never went back for at that store. Plus, when I bought my 1022, for decades I wanted its sister, the 44 mag. So about a decade ago, I began my search for good examples of these and eventually they came to me. For more than ten bucks each. So my advice, is to be patient until precisely what you want falls into your hands, and acquire what interests you in the interim. Here my MK 5 "Jungle carbine" i am going to shoot tomorrow.

SF VET
[url=https://postimg.cc/FY634g46] [/URL]

 

[JohnRippert]

Here my MK 5 "Jungle carbine" i am going to shoot tomorrow.

Ah, the old recoil enhancing rubber pads on the No5's.

I always said that if I was going to shoot one a lot I would change out the buttstock to one with a regular No4 plate. Much easier on the shoulder.

 

[biku324]

Here's a P17 Eddystone Enfield in my grandfather's hands.

 

[LVSteve]

Ah, the old recoil enhancing rubber pads on the No5's.

I always said that if I was going to shoot one a lot I would change out the buttstock to one with a regular No4 plate. Much easier on the shoulder.

Don't forget the special geometry of the flash hider to give the recoil a bit more kick.

 

[DWalt]

Using the lowest sight setting these rifles will generally shoot high at 100 yards with anything comparable to ball ammo. The sight was designed that way for combat use. Someone shooting at paper targets at 100 yards might prefer a sight setting that will align point of impact much closer to the point of aim.

With some work, you could come up with a load that would make the 100 yard point of impact coincide with the sights and leave the original sights intact, or do sight work and use any load. There would still be far more adjustment in the sight than necessary for use at much longer ranges. No fixation involved. Many like to shoot at 100 yards even if the cartridge is capable at longer distances.

I have worked up some light loads using M1 Carbine 110 grain bullets with 2400 which shoot to the lowest '03 sight setting at 100 yards. They don't group too badly, around 2". And they feed from the magazine OK. I used that load in the '03 to break my granddaughter into shooting anything bigger than a .22.

 

[smoothshooter]

Liking that! The only drawback is the fixation on the 100 yard zero. 30-06 doesn't strike me as a 100 yard cartridge.

But a hundred yards is about as far as most soldiers can hit an individual enemy soldier at least a third of the time under combat conditions, and this is only referring to the better shooters.
This has remained true for at least 150 years, and is still true today.

 

[Targets Guy]

I'd get it. I shoot better with my M1917 than I do with the '03. Sights are much better.

 

[AJ]

But a hundred yards is about as far as most soldiers can hit an individual enemy soldier at least a third of the time under combat conditions, and this is only referring to the better shooters.
This has remained true for at least 150 years, and is still true today.

100 yards? Is that what the Army trains for?

 

[LVSteve]

100 yards? Is that what the Army trains for?

That would be sad.

 

[StrawHat]

But a hundred yards is about as far as most soldiers can hit an individual enemy soldier at least a third of the time under combat conditions, and this is only referring to the better shooters.
This has remained true for at least 150 years, and is still true today.

I read a long time ago, and I don't recall the exact weight but the idea is what matters, that during the ACW it took something like 2.5 pounds of lead to put an enemy soldier out of combat. And it remained roughly the same in all subsequent wars! That is a lot of 58 caliber bullets but a lot more 22 caliber ones!

Kevin

 

[DWalt]

FWIW, all military smokeless powder small arms ammunition used corrosive primers until well into the 1950's. First, because it was all they had, and second because the corrosive primers were believed to remain reliable for more years than the newer non-corrosive primers when they became available sometime before WWII.
The only exception to the above that I know of was .30 Carbine ammo. It was only loaded, both with non-corrosive primers from the beginning, which was around 1938 or so.
Some corrosive surplus Chinese M-1 Carbine ammo loaded sometime around the Korean War or a little later showed up on the surplus market 25-30 years ago, but I am not aware that there was very much of it around, and heard or read very little about it.

In addition to the Chinese LC headstamped .30 Carbine (which also used Berdan primers), both Dominican Republic and French .30 Carbine Military ammunition used corrosive primers. Quite a bit of both showed up in the USA during the 1970s as surplus. The Chinese Carbine ammo is somewhat of a mystery, but it is not all that difficult to find among collectors.

 

[Faulkner]

I have a Lee Enfield No4 MKII and a couple of M1903's. I like them both but as far as shooting I tend to favor the Lee Enfield.

I've not really found .303 British ammo all that difficult to find.

 

[SnidelyWhiplash]

I'm partial to the '03...and believe me...if you get one they will multiply. They are awesome rifles and more variations than most are aware of.

 

[LVSteve]

I have a Lee Enfield No4 MKII and a couple of M1903's. I like them both but as far as shooting I tend to favor the Lee Enfield.

I've not really found .303 British ammo all that difficult to find.

That looks like one of the mummy wrapped UF55 serialed No4 MkIIs. They came unused out of Royal Air Force stores. Mine's still in the wrap. Some tried to pass them off as Irish, but I'm 95% sure that all the UF55 rifles stayed in the UK. I have another MkII that came from an earlier block that definitely went to Ireland, and it has clearly seen some use.

I also own an Irish No1 MkIII. It's a BSA 1917 rifle that was refurbed and rebarreled in 1927 for sale to Ireland. The real giveaway is the Fianna Fail stamp under the rear handguard. Makes it a bit of a lottery to find one.