The top 10 combat rifles

[Glider]

Renrich
At my rifle club they do a lot of black powder shooting. I will ask around as they are more likely to know than most.

Soren was close when he talked about the MV reducing if the barrel is to long. It also impacts accuracy and handleing.
If the barrel is to short the powder in the cartridge is still expanding when the bullet leaves the barrel. As a result the bullet is 'pushed' causing a slight wobble impacting long range accuracy. It also causes a nasty kick which is one reason why the Lee Enfield Mk5 was a horror to use. The thing kicked like a mule and had to be zeroed in every time you wanted to use it.
If the barrel is to long, the bullet is going faster than the expanding powder causing a suction effect in the barrel. This also causes a wobble as the bullet leaves the barrel impacting accuracy, it also has a small impact on MV.

One of the benefits of the Lee Enfield was that the barrel more by accident than design it must be admitted, was exactly the right length. Mass produced ammunition varied in its quality in all armed forces. One reason that the British were able to use 'normal' ammunition was that the effect of under or over powered ammunition averaged out and the actual difference in performance wasn't that great as long as the batch of ammunition was the same.

Hope this helps

I hope this helps

[parsifal]

Hi Richard

So how did your home reloads work anyway. The only home reloads I have ever done was as a kid, for a shotgun that I owned back then. They worked okay, but then I just sort of drifted away from it. Am interested to learn more...

So barrel length has not much to do with accuracy? I am surprised...or am I just misunderstanding you and Glider?

[Soren]

Glider,

Remember there's a huge difference between shooting black powder firearms and smokeless powder ones.

The barrel has to be much too short for it to impact accuracy the way you describe it. The kick of a rifle also has to do with its weight vs the power of the round.

On the other side if a barrel is too long MV drops, and if it is much too long the bullet can lodge itself, not an ideal situation.

As for the SMLE's barrel being by accident the lenght it was, I doubt it, the same with other rifles from other nations. The right barrel lenght is a very tricky thing and only holds true if you fire ONE type of ammunition. It's a matter of using the right powder & bullet combination, be it slower or faster expanding. The V-patr. for example was packed with faster expanding powder than the regular rounds.

The K98k was optimized for firing the sS. Patr., the rifling & barrel lenght being the best for that particular round.

[Glider]

What is important is getting the barrel the right length for the cartridge. If its too long or too short there is an impact. There is a bigger impact if its too short.
To use an extreme example a small snub nosed handgun is almost hopeless for accuracy. Put the same cartridge in a weapon designed for it and things make a dramatic improvement.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Soren

Glider,
Remember there's a huge difference between shooting black powder firearms and smokeless powder ones.

I know, which is why I said that I would ask the people who do a lot of black powder shooting.

The barrel has to be much too short for it to impact accuracy the way you describe it. The kick of a rifle also has to do with its weight vs the power of the round.
On the other side if a barrel is too long MV drops, and if it is much too long the bullet can lodge itself, not an ideal situation.

For target shooting the barrel length is critical when matched to the cartridge. I used to be a County Coach for .22 target shooting and we used to go to the Eley Factory to get ammunition matched to the teams guns. Eley ammunition is of a high standard straight out of the box but matching the powder burn to the barrel was a major factor for extreme accuracy.

You are of course correct in saying that the weight/power combination is a key factor but the rifles we are talking about were more than adaquate in their weight.

As for the SMLE's barrel being by accident the lenght it was, I doubt it, the same with other rifles from other nations. The right barrel lenght is a very tricky thing and only holds true if you fire ONE type of ammunition. It's a matter of using the right powder & bullet combination, be it slower or faster expanding. The V-patr. for example was packed with faster expanding powder than the regular rounds.

The Lee Enfield did have the ideal length for the cartridge but it was more by accident than design. You are correct in the sense that this was almost a dark art around the turn of the century.

[renrich]

Appreciate all of your comments. My handloads were extremely accurate because I tailored the load to the rifle and because my powder charges were each weighed individually. Oviously Soren is correct in that if a barrel is too long a powder charge that is no longer expanding will mean that the friction of the bullet against the lands will begine to slow the bullet down. There are many factors which have a bearing on accuracy. In the two rifles I did the most handloading for, maximum loads with the bullets I wanted to hunt with gave the best accuracy. Both rifles would shoot three shot groups at 100 yards of one inch or less which is minute of angle. Obviously off a bench rest. I also had those two loads chronographed and the muzzle velocities were well in excess of factory loads. One of the loads showed no sign of excessive pressure but that particular type of case was noted for it's strength. The other load showed a bright ring near the base but the ring was not uniform, there were no flattened primers and I never had a case rupture so I think the problem was not excessive pressure but rather a headspace or chamber shape problem in that particular rifle. The problem of too long a barrel for the powder charge is probably not relevant in modern rifles. Factors which create good accuracy are many, including precision in manufacture of the barrel as well as chamber, the right shape and weight of bullet for the velocity used and the right twist of the rifling for the bullet used at that velocity. You determine what load shoots best in your rifle by experimentation. Each rifle is an individual and reacts differently to different loads so all this talk about how accurate a particular model of service rifle is or isn't is relative. Rifles meant to be used by snipers are usually special manufacture and are individually tuned. Heat, cold, humidity, altitude and of course wind conditions are other factors also. The accuracy of all service rifles in WW2 was probably adequate for the job. I am still wondering about black powder and barrel length.

[renrich]

My experience with handloading seems to indicate that barrel length with a scope does not effect accuracy at least directly. One rifle I handloaded for had a 22 inch barrel and the other had a 26 inch barrel and they both would print min of angle. However, the velocity gain of the 4 inch longer barrel may have had an impact on accuracy because that particular bullet at that twist may have been more accurate at a higher velocity. The main reason accuracy with a snub nose revolver is a problem is the short distance between the rear and front sight. Handgun shooting with open sights requires precise sight alignment and the longer the sight radius the more accurate the alignment. With a scope, sight radius is not relevant.

[parsifal]

Hi richard

The reason i harped about the length of the barrel in preindustrial ordinance being a factor for accuracy was that i was thinking along the lines of a Kentucky Long Rifle, or a napoleonic sharpshooter. These pieces of ordinance were long ranged, and considered more accurate than the line muskets. The main reason was the length of the barrel, as far as i am aware.

[renrich]

The reason the Pennsylvania and later the Kentucky long rifle and the Baker rifle in use by British skirmishers were much more accurate and with longer range than the standard infantry musket was that the rifles had rifled barrels. The Infantry musket of those days were smooth bores. The rifled barrels imparted spin to the ball which made it's trajectory much more predictable. In addition the rifleman used a ball that more closely matched the bore of the rifle so that the lands of the rifling gripped the ball and that made the powder charge more efficient. Leather or cloth patches were used also to make fit tighter. Less gas from the explosion leaked out around the projectile. With a smoothbore the patch was used only to make the fit where the ball would not roll out of the barrel if the musket was tilted down. The smooth bore musket was not accurate even at forty yards. A soldier would be lucky to hit a man size target at forty yards. A good rifleman could hit a man standing still, in the open at several hundred yards. The advantage of the smooth bore musket was that it could be loaded much faster than the rifle, perhaps as fast as 3-4 rounds per minute. A rifleman trying to be as accurate as possible might take a minute or more to load one round. Also, the rifle, with it's tight fitting bore would be fouled by the black powder residue after just a few rounds and would lose it's accuracy or even be impossible to load. The smooth bore could be fired perhaps 40-50 times before becoming impossibly fouled. The average infantryman of that day was not trained to be a marksman but rather to stand shoulder to shoulder in line of battle and deliver rapid volley fire at ranges of 100 yards or less. Even a hit at 100 yards might not be disabling because of the low remaining velocity of the ball. Of course the Minie Ball and the rifled musket changed everything but many generals did not "get it" for a few years, just like the impact of the machine gun was not recognised for a while. Having said all this, I still don't believe the long barrels of the rifles or smoothbores were necessary except for perhaps sight radius on the rifle. Maybe they were just the "style" of the day.

[Messy1]

Is it true that one of the main reasons the M16 would jam when it was first introduced to soldiers in the field, was the switch from ball type powder to stick type powder? I believe something like this was a big part of the problem in the M-16 jamming and needing more cleaning than the average gun, as one burned much dirtier than the other. Cannot remember which type of powder was the one they started with and switched too exactly. It's been a while since I have seen the program, or read about it.

[renrich]

Messy, I remember hearing something about what you mentioned also. I believe they began to chrome plate the chambers to alleviate the problem.

[SoD Stitch]

Originally Posted by renrich

The reason the Pennsylvania and later the Kentucky long rifle and the Baker rifle in use by British skirmishers were much more accurate and with longer range than the standard infantry musket was that the rifles had rifled barrels. The Infantry musket of those days were smooth bores. The rifled barrels imparted spin to the ball which made it's trajectory much more predictable. In addition the rifleman used a ball that more closely matched the bore of the rifle so that the lands of the rifling gripped the ball and that made the powder charge more efficient. Leather or cloth patches were used also to make fit tighter. Less gas from the explosion leaked out around the projectile. With a smoothbore the patch was used only to make the fit where the ball would not roll out of the barrel if the musket was tilted down. The smooth bore musket was not accurate even at forty yards. A soldier would be lucky to hit a man size target at forty yards. A good rifleman could hit a man standing still, in the open at several hundred yards. The advantage of the smooth bore musket was that it could be loaded much faster than the rifle, perhaps as fast as 3-4 rounds per minute. A rifleman trying to be as accurate as possible might take a minute or more to load one round. Also, the rifle, with it's tight fitting bore would be fouled by the black powder residue after just a few rounds and would lose it's accuracy or even be impossible to load. The smooth bore could be fired perhaps 40-50 times before becoming impossibly fouled. The average infantryman of that day was not trained to be a marksman but rather to stand shoulder to shoulder in line of battle and deliver rapid volley fire at ranges of 100 yards or less. Even a hit at 100 yards might not be disabling because of the low remaining velocity of the ball. Of course the Minie Ball and the rifled musket changed everything but many generals did not "get it" for a few years, just like the impact of the machine gun was not recognised for a while. Having said all this, I still don't believe the long barrels of the rifles or smoothbores were necessary except for perhaps sight radius on the rifle. Maybe they were just the "style" of the day.

I know a re-enacter with a Hawken rifle, and he says it's accurate out to 200 or 300 yards with the .50 cal shot he had.

[renrich]

I have heard of some extremely long shots made with black powder rifles but I always take them with a grain of salt. Billy Dixon, a buffalo hunter, supposedly made a shot on a Commanche war chief at the Battle of Adobe Walls of some 600 yards with a Sharps 50. The Indians supposedly gave up at that point. I read about a shot made by a British sharpshooter even longer than that with a Baker during the Napoleonic Wars. During our War Between the States, there were snipers on both sides, the Southrons being particularely adept at that trade. The most prized sniper rifle by the Confederates was, I think, the Armstrong Whitworth, made in England and with a crude telescopic sight. Near Petersburg, in 1864, a union Corps commander name of Sedgwick, much admired, called Uncle John by his troops, came under sniper fire from some incredible range, approximately 600 yards, goes the story. The General, warned of the sniper, said "Why they couldn't hit an elephant at that dis.........." Those were his last words. The Whitworth rifle and fixings cost more than one thousand dollars, which was a bundle in those days. General John Reynolds, a Union corps commander, was killed by a sniper on the first day at Gettysburg. That incident is portrayed in the movie of that name.

[Soren]

A bit on the Enfield: YouTube - TOP 10:Combat Rifles - Lee Enfield No4(No.3)

[parsifal]

Yes i saw it some weeks ago. You need to watch the whole video to understand their point. also, as an advocate of the mauser you might want to re-consider using this evidence. they rate the Enfield as the No-3 weapon, whilst the mauser is rated at No-5.

Like i said afte the dust had settled a little, opinions are sharply divided on this issue, and both rifles have their good and bad points. My beleif is that the enfield is just slightly superior to the mause, which is a change for me, with my main reasons being the superior rate of fire (mentioned in the video) and the bigger magazine. The accuracy argument is really a crock, because the man firing is so much more the important determinant.