Long-Range (Volley) Sights a la "SMLE"

[JMB1943]

From being on the GWF, I have learned what the long-range sights on the SMLE are and how they were used to provide a rain of near vertical bullets falling upon a massed body of the enemy at long range; no individual rifle was aimed on an individual soldier at about 2700 yds.

The L-R (V) Sight consisted of the peep sight mounted alongside the safety-catch and the dial with rotating pointer-knob located on the forearm.

I know very little about the military rifles of the Great War and it occurs to me that I don't even know if the SMLE was the only rifle that was provided with such a long-range aiming system.

Field Service Regulations (1914; p. 257) gives some details of range to which foreign rifles were sighted; they are from 2000 yds (low; US) to 2600 yds (high; Greece), while the majority are quoted at 2187 yds.

I also know just enough ballistics to realise that range is dependent on muzzle velocity/elevation/bullet shape/ bullet mass etc---in other words, no two rifles systems are created equal.

So, my questions are ,

1) did any other rifle have the rear peep-sight/front arm dial-sight system of  the SMLE?

2) if not, did they have a normal rear sight graduated out to, say 2600 yds?

3) what led the War Office to adopt that particular L-R (V) Sighting system for the SMLE?

Regards,

JMB

 

[shippingsteel]

The volley sights were passed on from the SMLE's predecessors - the Magazine Lee Enfield and the Magazine Lee Metford rifles. The MLE's were definitely a GW rifle with the MLM's possibly to a much lesser extent (in unaltered form). The Pattern 14 rifle was also fitted with the Volley sights initially, later deleted. Others will certainly know more on this.

Cheers,  SS 

Edited 14 March by shippingsteel

[4thGordons]

This ^^^ (Metfords were used for training)

The CLLE modification of the MLE also retained volley sights and these saw very significant use up to early 1916

The deletion of the volley sights from the Pattern 1914 did not happen until the late 30s when they were taken out of War Reserve and passed through the Weedon Repair Standard (WRS) refurbishment program. Their inclusion on this rifle at all is more puzzling to me, particularly when the main sighting was a much more modern "peep" set up.

The LR (V) sights were adopted because at extreme range you need elevation and it is hard to keep the rifle on the shoulder at high elevations with the standard sight. If your question is why was the War Office / Army still concerned with this with the introduction of the ShtLE in 1903 (and maintained it with the MkIII in 1907) I suppose institutional inertia is the most plausible explanation.

Chris

Edited 14 March by 4thGordons
typo

[MikB]

The US Springfield M1903 had a combination leaf and aperture sight graduated to 2,850 yards, including a slide to counter drift as the descending bullet at long range rolled in the direction of the rifling across the cushion of denser air beneath - an exceedingly minimal effect.

[JMB1943]

S>S, 4th, Mik,

Thank you all for your help with this.

Regards,

JMB

[Spaceman]

The US introduced a very complex sight for the M1903 with no less than 5 aiming features. As said, rather than the crude British volley sight, the M1903 sight could be raised into a ladder sight out to 2,850 yds that provided the right amount of spin drift compensation at all ranges. At 1,1000 yds, the spin drift was the order of 1 yd but increased significantly at greater ranges because of the increasing steepness of the trajectory.  The US essentially wanted an accurately sighted rifle at these long ranges whereas the British just wanted to be able to generate a long range beaten zone that machine guns would later provide.

[Chasemuseum]

Most European rifles of the cartridge period of the c.19 had volley sights. The introduction of smokeless powders and the combat experience of the 2nd Boer War and the Russo-Japanese War demonstrated that by WW1 they were of little value.  Frankly it was a mistake including them on the SMLE series of rifles and they did not last long during the war.

[Spaceman]

I've just re-read an account of the Battle of Omdurman (1898) where the Anglo-Egyptian forces faced the Mahdi's army numbering up to 60,000.  Some British soldiers opened fire at about 2,000 yds but the majority opened fire at less than 1,000 yds. Although this battle should have been what the volley sights fitted to the MLE rifles were designed for, the evidence seems to suggest that they probably weren't used. 

I think it was likely to be the case that, with the adoption of the .303 round, the War Office felt compelled to provide sights on the MLM rifles that reflected the extended killing range of this round without having a clear understanding how this could be used. In the Boer War (1899-1902), the British soldiers musketry training was so poor that they found it difficult to hit a target at a normal battle range(< 1000 yds) let alone consider using the volley sights. The musketry skill did improve greatly following the Boer War but, by then, the machine gun had become the main means for delivering long range harassing fire making the volley sight completely superfluous. I think fitting the volley sights to the early SMLE's simply represented the inertia in military thinking around at that time.

[MikB]

I think designers became so fascinated by the prospects of long-range shooting the new propellants appeared to offer, that the critical importance in long-range plunging fire of precision rangefinding was forgotten or ignored.

I reckon volley sights became in effect a Vicwardian fashion accessory. 

Edited 18 March by MikB

[JMB1943]

Spaceman, Chase museum, MikB,

Thank you for your comments and I now have a better understanding of the situation.

Regards,

JMB

[Pete_C]

It’s worth stating that the Victorian/Edwardian designers and engineers behind the long range aperture / dial sight, very successfully fulfilled the brief they were given - it was only the sudden change in battlefield topography and the widespread introduction of tripod mounted machine guns that rendered the sight redundant. It was a simple, easy to use, low cost feature and would have been tested exhaustively before it’s adoption, and not surprisingly it did perform exactly as it was designed to. This YouTube video demonstrates the sight’s effectiveness out to the remarkable range of 3,000 yards.

Interesting to note that the adoption of the dial sight was the reason behind the slight offset of the SMLE sling swivels so as not to obscure the line of sight through the aperture.

Pete

 

[JMB1943]

Pete,

Thanks for posting that video, it was nice to see one of the old-time rifles in action, and doing pretty well.

Must admit that I am a little confused, both visually and mentally, as max range of small-arms is usually achieved at 30-35 degrees of elevation and I eyeballed his elevation at about 10 deg.

I was expecting to see a standing shooter with the rifle pointed well upwards.

Also, could you explain the 450-500 MOA that he mentioned 

Regards,

JMB

[4thGordons]

1 hour ago, JMB1943 said:

Must admit that I am a little confused, both visually and mentally, as max range of small-arms is usually achieved at 30-35 degrees of elevation and I eyeballed his elevation at about 10 deg.

I was expecting to see a standing shooter with the rifle pointed well upwards.

I think perhaps his firing position was above (ie at higher elevation) relative to  the target (ie he was shooting "downhill")

I was very impressed with the proximity he attained, when I tried it (at a shorter range) I got nowhere near 

Chris

 

[Pete_C]

43 minutes ago, JMB1943 said:

Pete,

Thanks for posting that video, it was nice to see one of the old-time rifles in action, and doing pretty well.

Must admit that I am a little confused, both visually and mentally, as max range of small-arms is usually achieved at 30-35 degrees of elevation and I eyeballed his elevation at about 10 deg.

I was expecting to see a standing shooter with the rifle pointed well upwards.

Also, could you explain the 450-500 MOA that he mentioned 

Regards,

JMB

Not sure I understood the science either. He appears to be saying that based on his use of modern ammunition, his calculations indicate that the dial pointer need only be set at (what appears to be) around the 2,200 yd mark (based on a visual comparison with an SMLE dial sight) which would give ‘7 or 8 degrees’ of elevation.
In terms of MOA, if a rifle is capable of shooting within one inch of the target aiming point at 100 yds then it is said to possess an accuracy of ‘one minute of angle’ or less. To maintain 1 MOA at 3,000 yds the shots would have to fall within 30 inches of the aiming point - is he perhaps saying that he only expects his rifle to shoot only within say 450 inches (37.5 feet) of the target - if so, I think the rifle outperformed that. But based on my rudimentary understanding of MOA - I didn’t think you could go above 360 -  I’m happy to acknowledge he means something else entirely.

Cheers

Pete

[MikB]

His results were good. If he was shooting at 3000 with volley sights set for 2200, it seems likely he'd spent a while looking at ballistic tables and/or software to calculate that sight setting when he was shooting handloads at 2500 fps in a rifle presumably originally set up for BP rounds at 1850 or so.

That was part of my point. He's done the experiment of an experienced and educated shooter looking for a pre-calculated result from a cosseted rifle in splendid condition and using handloaded ammunition with a personal spotter. That's a bit different from a tired soldier firing in rhythmic volleys at a known fierce enemy he can hardly see on ranges he has no means of checking, and with little or no feedback of personal results.

I still don't think a sensible soldier - unless he was confident of  a large and sustained ammunition supply - would want to shoot off a load of his rounds in barrage fire while the enemy were still at such a distance, rather than wait till they were within a range where he knew his fire would be effective.

[JMB1943]

Chris:  Yes, he was shooting downhill into a shallow valley.

Pete_C:  Thanks for those MOA data; it will take me a while to fully understand what he was doing.

MikB:   Do you happen to know or can guesstimate the killing/wounding range of the original .303 SMLE bullet?

I ask because the diagram of the trajectory that I have seen for extreme range has very little horizontal component remaining, so might not be expected to either wound or kill. If the bullet falls essentially in a vertical dive, terminal speed ~ 120 (?) mph = ~180 fps. KE = 1/2 mv*v/32 =~12 ftlb (~16 J) and would not be expected to wound.; or is that a bit simplistic?

Regards,

JMB

 

 

[Spaceman]

Just running one of the ballistic calculators for a 303 bullet, gives 620 fps at 3,000 yds with an energy of 148 ft lb. My understanding is that a projectile is still considered lethal if the energy is at least 100 ft lb. I believe the max killing range of a 303 bullet was taken to be about 3,700 yds.

[Pete_C]

1 hour ago, Spaceman said:

Just running one of the ballistic calculators for a 303 bullet, gives 620 fps at 3,000 yds with an energy of 148 ft lb. My understanding is that a projectile is still considered lethal if the energy is at least 100 ft lb. I believe the max killing range of a 303 bullet was taken to be about 3,700 yds.

Remarkable, still lethal at just over two miles ! Makes it easier to understand how machine guns firing on fixed lines into enemy reserve areas, were so effective. I’ve read that indirect long range arcing fire at an unseen enemy accounted for the overwhelming majority of machine gun ammunition expended during the war. 

[depaor01]

Great thread. Although I'm very familiar with the term "volley sight" over the years, I only last week happened upon a description online of what they were and how they were used.

Always learning!

Dave

[MikB]

4 hours ago, Spaceman said:

Just running one of the ballistic calculators for a 303 bullet, gives 620 fps at 3,000 yds with an energy of 148 ft lb. My understanding is that a projectile is still considered lethal if the energy is at least 100 ft lb. I believe the max killing range of a 303 bullet was taken to be about 3,700 yds.

148 ft.lb. was near the muzzle energy of the .380" No.2 revolver of WW2, so that would certainly be potentially lethal. A study I was reading in (IIRC) New Scientist in the 1990s put the residual KE of a 7,62 Nato round fired vertically upwards at about 33 ft.lb.  (from 320 ft./sec.) when it returned to ground level. Energies like these have certainly proved lethal in the past, especially on unprotected human heads. I think I've also read of a 303 (probably pre - Mk.VII) penetrating 17 folds of a greatcoat in a pack at about 2000 yards, though I can't remember whether it injured the carrier. 

Empirical data tends to be thin on the ground - even with the setup of the Australian (?) shooter with the volley sights in the video, you can imagine the difficulty of getting a bullet between the sensors of a chronograph - and ballistic calculators might be stretching the possibilities of cumulative errors since (for example) my understanding is that ballistic coefficient isn't constant over all velocities.

The game with barrage fire from machine guns was to create a long dangerous space in assembly areas on reverse slopes which you hoped might approximately parallel the descent angle of the bullets for some distance.

I'd say you have to assume by default that any hit might have potential to take an enemy soldier out of the battle, but the probability varies inversely with distance and the level of protection from their kit, especially head covering.

Edited 21 March by MikB

[JMB1943]

11 hours ago, Spaceman said:

Just running one of the ballistic calculators for a 303 bullet, gives 620 fps at 3,000 yds with an energy of 148 ft lb. My understanding is that a projectile is still considered lethal if the energy is at least 100 ft lb. I believe the max killing range of a 303 bullet was taken to be about 3,700 yds.

As a counterpoint, the following numbers are taken from Appendix 1--Range Table of .303 Mk. VII from Hythe Firings [Textbook of Small Arms, War Office (1929) p. 371]

RANGE (YDS)   ELEVN. (mins) DESCENT (mins)  VELOCITY (fps)

3000                    834                   2009                  300

for a muzzle velocity of 2440 fps; this corresponds to an elevation of 14 deg.

This range table was apparently generated using Vickers machine guns.

How do these numbers compare to those entered into your ballistics calculator?

The 300 fps velocity corresponds to only 35 ft-lb of energy, and an impact of 58 ft-lb (79 Joules) has long been established as the minimum required to wound the human body.

Regards,

JMB

 

[MikB]

I've long heard of 60-odd ft.lb. as nominal "wounding energy", but events such as the PLO evacuation of Beirut in the 90s, with lots of shooting into the air, seemed to establish that falling bullets with about half that KE were quite capable of incapacitating or fatal wounding of unprotected humans in the open.

[JMB1943]

1 hour ago, MikB said:

I've long heard of 60-odd ft.lb. as nominal "wounding energy", but events such as the PLO evacuation of Beirut in the 90s, with lots of shooting into the air, seemed to establish that falling bullets with about half that KE were quite capable of incapacitating or fatal wounding of unprotected humans in the open.

I don't doubt that, considering that if a spitzer bullet falls nose-first the impact is delivered over a very tiny area (~1.0 sq mm).

Regards,

JMB

[Chasemuseum]

1 hour ago, JMB1943 said:

spitzer bullet

That is an important issue. The Mk VI .303 cartridge was a round nose bullet not a spitzer and the volley sights were designed for Mk VI and earlier cartridges. These involved different muzzle velocities and ballistic flight profiles. Add to this that .303 always had flight stability issues and that the hollow point projectiles developed in India at the "DumDum" Arsenal were about management of projectile in flight stability rather than deliberately exacerbating the wounding capability of the projectile. The Mk VII still had flight stability issues and an aluminium or bakelite cone was fitted inside the tip of the projectile before the extruded lead plug was inserted in the jacket. 

 

The cartridges used in the video, were a high grade spitzer, hand loaded with a modern nitrocellulose powder, giving a higher a higher muzzle velocity, better flight stability and much narrower manufacture tolerance than a pre-WW1 high volume military product. Add to this, firing from the prone position using a high stability monopod, with a spotter correcting fall of shot. In many ways this was an ideal use of volley sights and not really comparable to the combat use.   

[MikB]

3 hours ago, JMB1943 said:

I don't doubt that, considering that if a spitzer bullet falls nose-first the impact is delivered over a very tiny area (~1.0 sq mm).

Regards,

JMB

Whether it would arrive nose-first after such a long trajectory is another possible can of worms. Chase's post above is right on the money, all the way through.