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Mk VII round is Hague compatible (it has a FMJ) and it was anyway Dumdum ammunition (with exposed lead nose) that got withdrawn in the early 1900s in response to the Hague Convention.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.