mike n Posted 22 November , 2011 Share Posted 22 November , 2011 Apparently 3 were bought over to france by a senior officer. They took abit of getting used to but when you got the hang of them they were very effective Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 22 November , 2011 Share Posted 22 November , 2011 It was far more than just a few brought over by an officer. The problem was one of defeating German loopholes and sniper shields, which the available .303 bullets could not defeat (Mark VIIS and VIIP) Hesketh-Pritchard ("Sniping in France") talks of using a .333 ich Jefffries and set up a fund to purchase telescopic sighted sporting rifles and other eqipment. In September 1915 the Director of Artillery asked for 2,000 rifles of .470 calibre with hardened bullets. This resulted in a circular letter to the gun trade asking for Express rifles with solid ammunition. Eventually the Ministry of Munition purchased 52 rifles but soon cancelled any further purchases as the average cost per rifle was 20 guineas whilst a Lee Enfield cost £4. Attempts were later made to re-barrel P.'14 rifles to .470" and to develop armour piercing ammunition for the .276" P.'13 rifle, but the problem was solved by the introduction of the Mark VIIW armour piercing ammunition which was capable of defeating the German armour at the ranges needed. Picture 1 shows various Express rifle cartridges purchased by the army compared to a normal .303 inch Mark VII ball round. They are: 1. .303 ball Mark VII 2. .500 Nitro 3 inch 3. .500 Nitro 3 1/4 inch 4. .450 Nitro 3 1/4 inch 5. .450 No.2 Nitro 6. .475 No.2 Nitro 7. .475 No.2 Jeffry Nitro Picture 2 shows: .333 jeffry .577 Nitro 3 1/4 inch .600 Nitro 3 inch. There is a full description of these and the military contracts in Part 2 of my secondary weapon series. PM for details. Regards TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike n Posted 24 November , 2011 Author Share Posted 24 November , 2011 Tony It was against the loopholes and shields that they were used against, as I said before previously. I have seen similar or the same ammo a friend has a similar long and large caliber rounds as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 24 November , 2011 Share Posted 24 November , 2011 Tony It was against the loopholes and shields that they were used against, as I said before previously. Not in this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 25 November , 2011 Share Posted 25 November , 2011 Thank you, Mr.C. Regards TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
59165 Posted 25 November , 2011 Share Posted 25 November , 2011 What's the 'blue cap' on no.6,Tony? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 25 November , 2011 Share Posted 25 November , 2011 It's actually the lead tip of a soft nose bullet. I did not have a round with a solid bullet when I took the picture to illustrate the different case sizes. Interestingly, deep in the bowels of the Imperial War Museum they have some examples of these Express cartridges which came to them from the army when the Museum was opened in 1922(?). Their example of the .600 Nitro Express has a soft nosed bullet, suggesting that not all the rounds were "solids". Regards TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikB Posted 25 November , 2011 Share Posted 25 November , 2011 I recall seeing a reprint of a contemporary advertisement by (IIRC) Kynoch, showing holes punched in 5/8" thick tool steel plate by solids in the .450 - .500 calibre range. At the time I was familiar with steel specs., and though I can't remember the designation it went under, I think it was equivalent to B01 or BD3 in more modern terms, which are both very substantial materials indeed. Regards, MikB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Connolly Posted 30 November , 2011 Share Posted 30 November , 2011 Tony, I don't want to sound technical here - because I'm not! - but the only round that approaches streamlined (hence aerodynamicly efficient?) is the .303 Enfield. Would the blunt or outright flat (I'm sure there's a technical term involving "ogives" and such) profile of the other rounds have affected their effectiveness, i.e. slowed them down and reduced their impact velocity on the target? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushfighter Posted 1 December , 2011 Share Posted 1 December , 2011 Those Members prepared to struggle away from the mud of the Western Front may be interested in this tale. After the Armistice had been declared fighting continued in Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia) until the news from Europe arrived. During the final contact a German reconnaissance party approached a river crossing that had a rubber factory positioned on the far bank. A handful of British men manned the factory which was constructed of galvanised iron sheeting. One of these chaps, a civilian, was firing from up in the roof with an elephant gun. The sound of his gun firing was magnified within the factory so much that the local German commander thought that he was being engaged by a light artillery piece (muzzle-loading cannon were still in use in this theatre), and so he did not cross the river but withdrew. I do not think that the lad firing the elephant gun ever qualified for a war medal! Harry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikB Posted 1 December , 2011 Share Posted 1 December , 2011 Tony, I don't want to sound technical here - because I'm not! - but the only round that approaches streamlined (hence aerodynamicly efficient?) is the .303 Enfield. Would the blunt or outright flat (I'm sure there's a technical term involving "ogives" and such) profile of the other rounds have affected their effectiveness, i.e. slowed them down and reduced their impact velocity on the target? It certainly would at extended ranges beyond a couple of hundred yards - and the velocities were generally lower than the 2400-odd feet/sec of the Mk.VII 303, so their trajectory would have required more exact rangefinding at longer distances too. But the 303 was designed and developed for use at the longer ranges, whereas big-game rifles were never expected to be used much beyond 100 yards, and most kills would occur at 50 yards or less. Therefore streamlining of bullets was scarcely more important than for pistol rounds. What was important was retained bullet integrity and destructive effect, in penetrating the very substantial bone structures of such game without serious deviation from the line of flight, which a long sloping ogive doesn't promote - a blunt or flat nose delivers more instantaneous force to an impact area on hard material than a collapsing point. A long ogive would also make the complete round longer for a given bullet weight, thereby potentially increasing reloading time under stress and reducing the quantity of ammunition the hunter could practically carry. Regards, MikB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 1 December , 2011 Share Posted 1 December , 2011 There is not much I can add to Mik's explanation, other than to illustrate a couple of the points he makes. The regular .303 Mark VII ball round has a muzzle velocity of 2450 fps and at 100 yards 2236 fps. Energy at 100 yards is 1940 ft. lbs. The same figures for the .577 inch Nitro Express are 2050 fps, 1874 fps and 5860 ft. lbs. You can see that at that short distance both retain 91% of their initiial velocity, so bullet shape has had little effect. However, the .577 has three times the energy of the .303 to smash its way through a sniper shield. The attached picture is of a .577 NE of the type actually in use in WWI. This round was sectioned by the Imperial War Museum and was part of their original display when the Museum opened. You can see how the envelope is thickened round the nose portion of the bullet, originally for the purpose of breaking through the heavy skulls and bones of large African game, exactly as Mik described. As an aside, I once did some tests on an old trophy head of an African buffalo, and at 50 yards a .303 richocheted of the skull! Regards TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 1 December , 2011 Share Posted 1 December , 2011 .......I do not think that the lad firing the elephant gun ever qualified for a war medal! Harry He probably did, but when they called out his name he did not hear because he was deaf! Cheers tonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Connolly Posted 1 December , 2011 Share Posted 1 December , 2011 Thanks for the comprehensive answers, gentlemen. If you were hiding behind your sniper plate when one of those rounds came a-knocking, the next sound heard might well be Saint Peter's voice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herekawe Posted 2 December , 2011 Share Posted 2 December , 2011 Would I be right in saying that firing one of these larger rifles lying prone would not be for the faint hearted? Were these rifles scope sighted or just relied on getting close and using the iron sights? James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 2 December , 2011 Share Posted 2 December , 2011 Firing one of the larger calibre rifles prone would never be a good idea. They were intended to be fired standing up and leaning into the gun, and then rocking back with the recoil. Many years ago I owned a .450 - 3 1/4" double rifle which was reasonably comfortable to shoot in this manner, but I only fired it a few times because of the ammo cost/availability. I did put two rounds though a .577" double though and that was something else! Most of these rifles, particularly the heavy calibre ones, were used with iron sights, although it is perfectly practical to fit a 'scope to a double. Some like the .333 Jeffrey that Hesketh-Pritchard used were telescopic sighted though. On a slightly different tack, I know of two 6.5mm Mannlicher sporting rifles that bear British military acceptance and proof marks which were apparently taken into service in WWI as expedient sniping rifles. One, by Jeffery, has a side mounted telescopic sight whilst the other by Fraser has express sights and a tang mounted aperture sight. So far I have found no documentary reference to these. Regards TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikB Posted 2 December , 2011 Share Posted 2 December , 2011 Firing one of the larger calibre rifles prone would never be a good idea. They were intended to be fired standing up and leaning into the gun, and then rocking back with the recoil. Many years ago I owned a .450 - 3 1/4" double rifle which was reasonably comfortable to shoot in this manner... My own experience firing the roughly-comparable .458 Winchester Magnum was similar. I made a pantomime of emptying all sharp objects from my pockets first, and fired crouching with elbows supported on knees (I could do that, then). What I thought of the recoil was not so much that it was severe, as that it went on for an awful long time . I wouldn't've wanted to fire it prone either - there's much less flexible 'give' in that position. It may not have been particularly easy to find a suitable spot from which to engage an enemy sniper plate without exposure, when using a rifle whose recoil placed constraints on shooting position. I wonder if that's why HP seems to've had a special regard for 333 Jeffery, which seemed well capable of doing the job, and perhaps better suited to the conditions. Regards, MikB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbox Posted 2 December , 2011 Share Posted 2 December , 2011 As an aside, I once did some tests on an old trophy head of an African buffalo, and at 50 yards a .303 richocheted of the skull! Regards TonyE As a kid in Africa I had the frightening experience of being present when someone inadvisedly tried to shoot a cape buffalo with a MkVII round (the old hands all used MkVI or the similar Kynoch commercial round). The bullet struck the boss of the horns and a great cloud of red dust came off the buffalo due to the shock. The buffalo started, but then just looked around - still chewing the cud. Luckily for us, it didn't seem too perturbed by the attempt on its life... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GRANVILLE Posted 2 December , 2011 Share Posted 2 December , 2011 When I read this thread I thought of this well know image. I know its not an elephant gun per se, but I bet it would have no problem dropping an elephant! This is a German anti tank rifle found by New Zealanders at Grevillers (according to the picture caption) which goes on to say that these guns were apparently not very effective. I'm also reminded of one of these which used to be on display in the military section of Derby Museum. As a young lad I used to stand in awe of the thing. Dave Upton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 3 December , 2011 Share Posted 3 December , 2011 That's a pussycat. You need to fire a REAL anti-tank rifle! Actually I think the Mauser 13mm rifle was quite effective, and it remained in service with several countries until well after the war. In fact, when Captain Boys was developing the Stanchion gun (which eventually carried his name after he died) in the mid thirties, the Mauser was used as the control weapon in the penetration tests. Regards TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tipperary Posted 3 December , 2011 Share Posted 3 December , 2011 Would the idea be that the round once through the armour plate do the killing or would it effectively make shrapnell out of the plate itself.ie one single hit on front of plate producing shotgun effect at rear.john Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 3 December , 2011 Share Posted 3 December , 2011 I think it was a mixture of all those things, depending on the calibre. A heavy bullet that penetrated completely would both do serious damage to anyone behind it and also send a plug or spray of possibly molten steel ahead of it. Even if a bullet did not penetrate completely it would probably cause the inside to scab just like a HESH round. ...and thats ignoring the behaviour of the sniper plate itself when hit with a couple of foot-tons of energy! Regards TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GRANVILLE Posted 3 December , 2011 Share Posted 3 December , 2011 That's a pussycat. You need to fire a REAL anti-tank rifle! Actually I think the Mauser 13mm rifle was quite effective, and it remained in service with several countries until well after the war. In fact, when Captain Boys was developing the Stanchion gun (which eventually carried his name after he died) in the mid thirties, the Mauser was used as the control weapon in the penetration tests. Regards TonyE From the image it looks as if a round has just been loosed off and the recoil has kicked the weapon into the air. Would that be a correct interpolation? The structure's underneath it looks to me like a pair of skids? Are these to help soften the fall as it returns to the firing position? Dave Upton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikB Posted 3 December , 2011 Share Posted 3 December , 2011 I think it was a mixture of all those things, depending on the calibre. A heavy bullet that penetrated completely would both do serious damage to anyone behind it and also send a plug or spray of possibly molten steel ahead of it. Even if a bullet did not penetrate completely it would probably cause the inside to scab just like a HESH round. ...and thats ignoring the behaviour of the sniper plate itself when hit with a couple of foot-tons of energy! Regards TonyE From the damage I saw on an advert, I'd think it quite possible that a sheared cylindrical slug of steel, as if from a very poorly-made press tool, might precede the bullet out of the disengaged side of the plate. As for the Panzerbuechse and the heavy A/T rifles as elephant guns, I think if you had to go tracking your quarry for miles through the bush on foot, after an hour or three you'd probably begin to see sense in the design of the traditional double rifle... Regards, MikB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 3 December , 2011 Share Posted 3 December , 2011 What? Carry one's own rifle? Where were you brought up? Cheers TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now