Thread: .303 ammunition

@7x64

And she's as much a "sporter" as a drag queen is a woman. It's a battle rifle which you now use for hunting.

Old CAC soft point hunting ammo isn't particularly collectable at all, but it is good hunting ammo. I have used it off and on of various ages and its all worked fine. Go and shoot it at what you want.

I see someone has posted another link to that horrendous Ballistic studies site. Another write up cobbled together from nicking observations from elsewhere on the internet mixed with blurbs from manufacturers. In this one, the guy rewrites standard descriptions of bullet brands, demonstrates an inability to understand how to change the sights on a rifle; prints manufacturers velocities as if he has tested them, chimes in with his expert theory (which I think he got from the back of a federal ammo box) that animals die from a correlation between magical formula using the animals body weight and something to do with the bullet; makes out various notions about POI changing on Lee Enfields depending on..something...that I have never observed; pretends that a Lee Enfield is better at being faster than a semi-auto (should have told the British government), referes to the Lee Enfield as an ""Enfield" like an American, (which shows hes getting his source material from the internet) and in general steals good ideas from other people as if they are his own, and presents bad ones made up by himself, on cartridges that he has never even fired.
I throw up bile into the nearest teacup whenever I read anything from that site and then feel out of sorts for the afternoon.
Oh and you should send him some money. Don't forget that. I didn't ask him to pop up in every goddamn google search because hes listed every cartridge under the sun on his site, but apparently, and I'm not sure how, he feels that I owe him a living.

Originally Posted by Carlsen Highway

Old CAC soft point hunting ammo isn't particularly collectable at all, but it is good hunting ammo. I have used it off and on of various ages and its all worked fine. Go and shoot it at what you want.

I see someone has posted another link to that horrendous Ballistic studies site. Another write up cobbled together from nicking observations from elsewhere on the internet mixed with blurbs from manufacturers. In this one, the guy rewrites standard descriptions of bullet brands, demonstrates an inability to understand how to change the sights on a rifle; prints manufacturers velocities as if he has tested them, chimes in with his expert theory (which I think he got from the back of a federal ammo box) that animals die from a correlation between magical formula using the animals body weight and something to do with the bullet; makes out various notions about POI changing on Lee Enfields depending on..something...that I have never observed; pretends that a Lee Enfield is better at being faster than a semi-auto (should have told the British government), referes to the Lee Enfield as an ""Enfield" like an American, (which shows hes getting his source material from the internet) and in general steals good ideas from other people as if they are his own, and presents bad ones made up by himself, on cartridges that he has never even fired.
I throw up bile into the nearest teacup whenever I read anything from that site and then feel out of sorts for the afternoon.
Oh and you should send him some money. Don't forget that. I didn't ask him to pop up in every goddamn google search because hes listed every cartridge under the sun on his site, but apparently, and I'm not sure how, he feels that I owe him a living.

I havn't fucking finished yet. Insert following: still refers to the phenomenon of hydrostatic shock as if its a real thing, and then states it can be increased or decreased by the ballistic co-efficient of the bullet. What.The.Almighty.Fuck.

Feeling better now are we? Its very structured and articulate compared with most rants, and only goes potty mouthed at the end.

I cannot apologise for that. I am not a nun.

Ballistics studies is fantastic, worth a read if you’re after a good laugh. Hard to know what’s the stupidest thing on there. Annealing Amax’s With a candle? All rifle issues under 3” can be cured by bedding, which he just so happens to sell, or that Swaro scopes are rubbish and he won’t hunt with clients who have one...

Each to their own I guess, but he does sound a bit of a muppet.

Thanks for the comments on the rifle anyway chaps. Not too much of a .303 officiando. Where would a home guard stamp be lurking, and what do they look like?

This was purchased in Dunedin in about 1955, but where it came from prior is unknown. My grandfathers (a cut down long Tom) was definitely home guard, as he had to hand it in during the war, and got it back with the wrong bolt afterwards. I no longer have it, gave it to my cousin as he had nothing of our grandads - it was seriously rough!

A home guard mark was a band of paint around the buttstock. I forget which colour: I think green.

Also a stamped HG and a number was put on the furniture or reciever, Ill post a few examples later when I get home.

Originally Posted by Carlsen Highway

Old CAC soft point hunting ammo isn't particularly collectable at all, but it is good hunting ammo. I have used it off and on of various ages and its all worked fine. Go and shoot it at what you want.
I see someone has posted another link to that horrendous Ballistic studies site. Another write up cobbled together from nicking observations from elsewhere on the internet mixed with blurbs from manufacturers. In this one, the guy rewrites standard descriptions of bullet brands, demonstrates an inability to understand how to change the sights on a rifle; prints manufacturers velocities as if he has tested them, chimes in with his expert theory (which I think he got from the back of a federal ammo box) that animals die from a correlation between magical formula using the animals body weight and something to do with the bullet; makes out various notions about POI changing on Lee Enfields depending on..something...that I have never observed; pretends that a Lee Enfield is better at being faster than a semi-auto (should have told the British government), referes to the Lee Enfield as an ""Enfield" like an American, (which shows hes getting his source material from the internet) and in general steals good ideas from other people as if they are his own, and presents bad ones made up by himself, on cartridges that he has never even fired.
I throw up bile into the nearest teacup whenever I read anything from that site and then feel out of sorts for the afternoon.
Oh and you should send him some money. Don't forget that. I didn't ask him to pop up in every goddamn google search because hes listed every cartridge under the sun on his site, but apparently, and I'm not sure how, he feels that I owe him a living.

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.

HG marks, the 8 is for new plymouth, the 1775 is the inventory number supposedly so it could be returned to its owner.
This is the only one I have with both metal and wood stamped, some can be a real mess of renumbering, armoury and inspection marks but thats half the appeal, as every stamp tells a story.

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 Marty Henry

HG marks, the 8 is for new plymouth, the 1775 is the inventory number supposedly so it could be returned to its owner.
This is the only one I have with both metal and wood stamped, some can be a real mess of renumbering, armoury and inspection marks but thats half the appeal, as every stamp tells a story.

@Marty Henry

Yes, so much history in your hands. So the two opposing broad arrows -><- they refer to sold out of service, is that correct? (Not that NZDF are looking for any missing ones from their armouries).

I thought sold out of service, was opposing broad arrows with SS in the middle, not NZ? I will have to look on one of mine.

Ive got a no4 mk1* .303 longbranch 1943 in the safe.had it for 30+yrs.She has the 2 groove barrel -spits 150gn rds like a mad womans shit,but them big old 180 gn round noses..holy shit no way would I play wicket keeper to one of those.
Ive heard before they require a flat base slug in 150 gn to run properly.
CAC and ex mil ammo got at least 4 boxes sittin in me ammo store.old girl dont get used much now as Ive switched to the wee soviet equivalent a 7.62x39.from what I ve read the ballistic data shows bugger all difference between .303 150gn and 7.62x39 125 gn anyhow.
in fact the animals hit so far generally fall over dead without need for a 3rd umpires review or TMO's decision.Nor have i heard any complaints from the recently deceased -then again im half deaf so I probably wouldnt anyhow.
Ive got another mongrel .303 built up from parts i had lying about-barrel interior is smoother than a babys arse ,so dont think anything will travel down thereagain.
I had at various times considered a rebarrel and synthetic stock ,but both now appear rarer than rocking horse shit to source in NZ.
Im strictly a budget hunter -all weapons 2nd hand and low range (usually scoffed at by self appointed experts or those whose credit cards turn into molten magma whenever a fancy new bit of gear is outed!then after getting sexy superduper home ,spend endless hours fretting about hiding it from the laser vision of she who lives indoors,she who does the finances,and she who on discovering hubbies wee secret purchase arrives on scene like a geriatric boar with a bad case of PMT plus hangover to boot
.How do i know such things been married for 36 yrs luv her to bits except when i hear the fatal words.........WHATS THIS????????
cant retreat to me mancave anymore -uits being demolishedas we subdivide and put a new 4bedroompondersoa up for out retirement .bloody pity only 430sqm odd id have liked a duckpond for shooting .
anyone know what CCC regs are re private underground rifle ranges!!-the bang -no bloody different to a friggin earthquake!

Originally Posted by Carlsen Highway

I thought sold out of service, was opposing broad arrows with SS in the middle, not NZ? I will have to look on one of mine.

Yes, the broad arrows are sold out of service. The S marks refers to serviceablility.