Thread: .303 ammunition

Originally Posted by Cordite

Hi @Carlsen Highway

Niiice rant (-: but occasionally firing without a properly identified target. I'm not defending the TB guy to the hilt, except to say that no-one reading a review reasonably expects its author to have based everything on his own practical research, but in that regard he is open to some criticism because of omitting references. In fairness, he does not say Lee Enfields are as fast as a semi-auto - just that Lee Enfields, competently used, are surprisingly fast compared to bolt actions in general.

Something I read in this article in the past caught my eye again, namely his reference to .303 Mk VII spitzers:

"The rear heavy projectile remained stable in flight but on impact tumbled to produce severe wounds. This ammunition was soon discontinued by the British as a party to the Hague convention but was for a time available to hunters."

I have not seen this anywhere else. Nonsense insofar that the Mk VII round is Hague compatible (it has a FMJ) and it was anyway Dumdum ammunition (with exposed lead nose) that got withdrawn in the early 1900s in response to the Hague Convention. That Mk VIIs tumble more on impact than standard spitzers is to be expected, but all spitzers are prone to this from having their centre of gravity to the rear.

Your defense of this rubbish is unworthy of you.

My target is clearly identified. I actually have read it. (Through a developing migraine.) When speaking of the speed at which the Lee Nefield bolt can be manipulated he writes: "...the open sighted Enfield was/is indeed vastly more effective than many open sighted semi auto rifle designs..."" Chew on that for a while and ponder the ramification.

As for reasonable expectations regarding personal research - - it is my reasonable expectations that have been raped by his driveling articles. Mind that plagiarism isn't just stealing someone else's sentences, it is also presenting someone else's ideas as if they were your own.

The whole website was a calculated attempt to write up a bunch of stuff and then make money of it. At best his articles are puff peices, like a high school student trying to fill up space in an essay he doesnt know anything about. At worst its disinformation, often plagerised, and horribly embarrassing when people overseas link to it.

He built his experts opinions on shooting cattle, that is his hook. I have no doubt that he shot some cows, and then looked at the bullet holes. The tragedy is that such a worthwhile exercise was wasted.

Originally Posted by Carlsen Highway

Your defense of this rubbish is unworthy of you.

My target is clearly identified. I actually have read it. (Through a developing migraine.) When speaking of the speed at which the Lee Enfield bolt can be manipulated he writes: "...the open sighted Enfield was/is indeed vastly more effective than many open sighted semi auto rifle designs..."" Chew on that for a while and ponder the ramification.

Hi @Carlsen Highway

As you said, your migraine....

Ho Hum, I was talking at his section mentioning the Canadian Rangers' Lee Enfields where speed of firing was discussed, and you were talking of the above quote. Yes, it's worth chewing on that and see what he is saying in the first place. It strikes me that this question has the potential to generate much heat and little traction or agreement, because the writer of TB does not specifically name the rifles he is comparing his SMLE to.

He refers to "many open sighted semi-auto rifle designs", but that is actually not a loose reference but a limited group. It excludes say the Garand (semi, but closed sights), the BAR (select fire, and closed sights), StGw44/AK47 (select firers, though open sighted). It includes say the SKS (really a carbine, but let's not nitpick) and a plethora of non-adopted auto-loading rifle designs of the early 1900s, some of which even lacked full top guards - imagine the mirage playing with your sight picture after 10-15 fast shots of cordite ammo.

Semiauto Rifles of WWI and Before - The Firearm BlogThe Firearm Blog.

I'd have qualified the statement saying that, as cost is a necessary consideration the SMLE was an effective way to get a lot of fast aimed lead downrange, vastly more effective than with a smaller number of many types of open sighted auto loader.

But personally...if going somewhere really hostile and I had the option of an open-sight auto loader, I'd rather bring an SKS, and lots of stripper clips.

The man said something fantastically stupid in the service of making himself sound like an expert.
You seem like a nice man. You are commended for defending him, you seem quite public spirited. I doff my hat to you.

Originally Posted by Carlsen Highway

You seem like a nice man. You are commended .... public spirited. I doff my hat to you.

Thanks @Carlsen Highway,

In deference to everyone else, we are by definition all nice people on NZHS. I know that because we are all government-certified "fit and proper" persons and as such good company, even @systolic who gets a lot of flak. And I must not take credit for defending someone I've never met, it's just that there appeared to be some merit to his (optimistic) statement.

Originally Posted by Cordite

Thanks @Carlsen Highway,

In deference to everyone else, we are by definition all nice people on NZHS. I know that because we are all government-certified "fit and proper" persons and as such good company, even @systolic who gets a lot of flak. And I must not take credit for defending someone I've never met, it's just that there appeared to be some merit to his (optimistic) statement.

Unfortunately your loyalty is somewhat misplaced in regards to Mr N Foster , the only reason the Canadian ( Eskimo ) Rangers carry a rifle is because of Polar bears is they don't like being eaten by them .And the no 4's work in the extreme cold .
His millitary knowledge is hung out to dry by this load of absolute drivel :
Military tactics also differ. To New Zealanders, it is strange to see a Marine shout or communicate openly. We cringe, we just want to get the hell away. It frays the nerves of NZ soldiers during joint training like nails down a chalk board. We struggle to even watch it on the television, turning our heads away and squinting. Silence and silent communication are a primary virtue of the NZ soldier. We have to turn the clock back to understand the differences.

During the Vietnam war, large numbers of U.S civilians were drafted to war, many did not want to go, many were extremely young and not ready for what they would encounter. The shout (commonly used in Karate - Kiai) can be used to overcome the freeze reflex and keep everyone moving forwards. The helicopter was also in use which ruined any silent advance.

I do not know if talking, shouting or the hooooarrrr (sorry, I do not know the current spelling) call was around during the second world war. This style of soldering may well have been around during the second world war as the conditions were the same- drafting, a need to get soldiers moving forwards and so forth.

We had a large number of Maori through the wars, genetically optimized (survivial of the fittest) to war conditions, thriving in the worst of conditions. I think this influence may have helped set the scene for us. We had drafting but a major proportion of our men were already in the bush living extremely harsh lives in total silence. We have also had limited air and ground support from the beginning through till now. We had to get as close as possible to our enemy in order to seize the element of surprise These days, our air support in the desert is a phone call to U.S forces.

The U.S army is now split into multiple factions which employ multiple tactics. We simply don't have the man power or coin for that so we have to make do.

Ironically, during the Vietnam war, although silence was about the only protection an NZ soldier had, both the Australian and NZ forces would use the loud report (noise) of the SLR to help shock the enemy when springing an ambush. The Aussies also had what they called the bitch- a cut down SLR with the semi function doctored so that the SLR would let rip on full auto with a deafening roar and deadly effect though it must have been very hard to control.

In contrast to these differences, although we place great pride in our quiet stalking skills, U.S hunters introduced the concept of still hunting (including from tree stands) to NZ hunters. A bow hunter could wait in silence without scenting his area by placing his tree stand up high. I once met a highly successful NZ culler who switched to this method (using a rifle out across clearings of up to 250 yards or so). It was interesting to see an already well accomplished hunter adopt this approach. Over the years, I have used a mix of both methods to optimize success during client hunts.

So like I say, we can learn from each other in different ways. Things that seem odd need to be investigated in order to obtain a greater understanding of cultural differences.

Originally Posted by Tankd

Unfortunately your loyalty is somewhat misplaced in regards to Mr N Foster , the only reason the Canadian ( Eskimo ) Rangers carry a rifle is because of Polar bears is they don't like being eaten by them .And the no 4's work in the extreme cold .
His millitary knowledge is hung out to dry by this load of absolute drivel :
Military tactics also differ. To New Zealanders, it is strange to see a Marine shout or communicate openly. We cringe, we just want to get the hell away. It frays the nerves of NZ soldiers during joint training like nails down a chalk board. We struggle to even watch it on the television, turning our heads away and squinting. Silence and silent communication are a primary virtue of the NZ soldier. We have to turn the clock back to understand the differences.

During the Vietnam war, large numbers of U.S civilians were drafted to war, many did not want to go, many were extremely young and not ready for what they would encounter. The shout (commonly used in Karate - Kiai) can be used to overcome the freeze reflex and keep everyone moving forwards. The helicopter was also in use which ruined any silent advance.

I do not know if talking, shouting or the hooooarrrr (sorry, I do not know the current spelling) call was around during the second world war. This style of soldering may well have been around during the second world war as the conditions were the same- drafting, a need to get soldiers moving forwards and so forth.

We had a large number of Maori through the wars, genetically optimized (survivial of the fittest) to war conditions, thriving in the worst of conditions. I think this influence may have helped set the scene for us. We had drafting but a major proportion of our men were already in the bush living extremely harsh lives in total silence. We have also had limited air and ground support from the beginning through till now. We had to get as close as possible to our enemy in order to seize the element of surprise These days, our air support in the desert is a phone call to U.S forces.

The U.S army is now split into multiple factions which employ multiple tactics. We simply don't have the man power or coin for that so we have to make do.

Ironically, during the Vietnam war, although silence was about the only protection an NZ soldier had, both the Australian and NZ forces would use the loud report (noise) of the SLR to help shock the enemy when springing an ambush. The Aussies also had what they called the bitch- a cut down SLR with the semi function doctored so that the SLR would let rip on full auto with a deafening roar and deadly effect though it must have been very hard to control.

In contrast to these differences, although we place great pride in our quiet stalking skills, U.S hunters introduced the concept of still hunting (including from tree stands) to NZ hunters. A bow hunter could wait in silence without scenting his area by placing his tree stand up high. I once met a highly successful NZ culler who switched to this method (using a rifle out across clearings of up to 250 yards or so). It was interesting to see an already well accomplished hunter adopt this approach. Over the years, I have used a mix of both methods to optimize success during client hunts.

So like I say, we can learn from each other in different ways. Things that seem odd need to be investigated in order to obtain a greater understanding of cultural differences.

It makes me cringe so much my eyes water. Dear lord. The tragedy of having both an ego and a lack of talent.

The idiot doesn't even know what still hunting is.