3minutes 30 seconds onwards

Please rate this comment: 0  0

The British were never forced out of Afghanistan, apart from the loss of one coumn the rest of the forces withdrew in an orderly manner only to reinvade a few months later and finally again in 1878 when they crushed all resistance and annexed the country. Although the tribal jezails had a better range than the Brown Bess, any pertinent Afghan success was down to huge human wave attacks of 10:1 ratios(Battle of Maiwand), nothing to do with marksmanship which in itself doesn’t win a battle or a war.

Account of the Battle of Maiwand;

“These men charged from the shelter of a garden and died with their faces to the enemy, fighting to the death. So fierce was their charge, and so brave their actions, no Afghan dared to approach to cut them down. So, standing in the open, back to back, firing steadily, every shot counting, surrounded by thousands, these British soldiers died. It was not until the last man was shot down that the Afghans dared to advance on them. The behaviour of those last eleven was the wonder of all who saw it” “

Please rate this comment: 0  0

Largest group
[img]http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u245/mhsp68/303loadwork004.jpg[/img]

Smallest group with 42grs of 2495 at 2523FPS and group was 1.446″
[img]http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u245/mhsp68/303loadwork007.jpg[/img]

[img]http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u245/mhsp68/StreetJordansBirthday303063.jpg[/img]

Adjust my sights to 3″ at 100yds and good to go.

Ballistic Chart
.303 British180gr Sierra SPT
2614fps

Sight in at 3.0″ high at 100yds

1000 foot pounds energy as minimum on deer size game

Yards——–Velocity—–Energy—–(above/below line of sight)

0————–2614——2731————-(-1.5″)

100———–2405——2312————-(+2.7″)

225———–2159——1862————-(Zero)

281———–2053——1684————-(-5”)

320———–1980——1568——–(-10” P/B-hold top of shoulder)

380———–1873——1402——–(-10” from top of shoulder)

400———–1838——1350——–(-14” from top of shoulder)

Please rate this comment: 0  0

As for .303 Enfields, thhe most dangerious opponets to come accross where afghans armed Enfields. Russian troops often leved a town when the found .303 rifles or cases on the premises.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

In whatever conflict you go into, it’s what youve got rather that what you want. Then you get good at using it.

The No4 is a great rifle, and it I had a choice of it or an AK series over the the terrain of Afghan I would like the 4, ammos plentifull (thanks to the CIA, some irony there) the kinetic is good for a knock down, hell even if you dont get a kill the guys going to have a bad day and splinters instead of ribs.
I can get it rebuilt locally and the parts are home grown, and if stopped I could claim to be hunting, cant do that with an AK unless your hunting a flock of sheep in a pen.

In all things it’s the “nut behind the butt”, yep I could take my 6.5x47mm handbuilt with S&M x56 scope, molyed rounds and gucci kit, and yess out to 1500 I would be a hero, but thats not what is going on, no ones asking the US/UK forces to use it, it’s your enemy who is, and surly the number of casivacs and body bags say more than I can.

For those in the fight still, stay safe,head down and come home soon.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

And just a little history on them…

During the Second World War, standard No. 4 rifles, selected for their accuracy during factory tests, were modified by the addition of a wooden cheek-piece, and telescopic sight mounts designed to accept a No. 32 3.5x telescopic sight. This particular sight progressed through three marks with the Mk 1 introduced in 1942, the Mk 2 in 1943 and finally the Mk 3 in 1944 (later somewhat confusingly re-designated the L1A1). Holland and Holland, the famous British sporting gun manufacturers, converted the majority of No 4 Mk I (T) sniper rifles, with the rest converted by BSA and, in Canada, Long Branch arsenal. These rifles were extensively employed in various conflicts until the late 1960s, and when the British military switched over to the 7.62×51 NATO round in the 1950s, many of the No 4 Mk I (T) sniper rifles were converted to the new calibre and designated L42A1.

The L42A1 sniper rifle continued as the British Army’s standard sniper weapon until the mid 1980s, being replaced by Accuracy International’s L96.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

However, if they want to learn, they’ll do better with a Smelly than an AK.

I’ve seen and handled one of those US refurbed SMLEs. They’re actually pretty damned good, even by SMLE standards.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

I meant 1925.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grass_(1925_film)

Please rate this comment: 0  0

I’ve seen a movie filmed in 1900 of a Lorestani man (in Iran) firing a flintlock at what looked like a bare mountainside…but lo and behold, a small speck the size of a pea on the theater-sized movie screen falls off a crag in the distance. The camera runs up, easily hundreds and hundreds of yards, and finds the mountain goat shot clean through the spine. According to the American film crew, the old Lorestani man was capable of doing this every time–it was how he fed his family.

Here’s a great example of the musket he used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jezail

The Jezail musket was different from European muskets in that the calibers tended to be larger, and the distance of firing greater. This was largely geography. Afghanistan and Iran have massive valleys and mountains, or alternately wide open steppes–the landscape feels more expansive, and things can be seen from greater distances than much of Europe. Think the Dakotas vs. Florida, for example. .30-30 serves in Florida, but a .308 would be more suitable in Dakota.

There are some great case studies in arms technology regarding the use of the Jezail against European powers in Afghanistan and especially the Caucuses as well. It was well suited to long-range ambushes against conventional formations of the day.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

Yeah, we’re roughly saying the same thing.

You use what you have. That’s a given. If your rifle gives you 4 MOA at best then that’s what you have. It’s better then a rock.

Different groups have different benchmark for accuracy. A guy in Afghan will think his Enfields is accurate enough but if you give it to a professional marksman he will exchange it for a better rifle the first chance he gets.

I’m not saying the Enfield is bad. I own one in my collection. It’s a good rifle. It has proven itself and no doubt can get kills over 400m.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

i think you and i are saying roughly the same thing. my contention is that a well-trained marksman with a Enfield (or M14, or M4, or AK) can get the job done. on ranges, in practice, accuracy is measured in MOA; in combat, it’s did you hit the target. we can all agree there, yes?

Please rate this comment: 0  0

The US military finds that the M14 accuracy is unacceptable. So what did the military do? Replace it with XM110. To some the M14 is accurate but to the military it wasn’t good enough.

Accuracy is in the eye of the beholder.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

The ‘West=accurate, AK users=spray&pray’ myth is quite annoying. It has a true core, but it has been blown out of proportion since.

By the way – a military history anecdote (not really related):
The British were forced out of Afghanistan several times in the 19th century. At one time they had their red coats lined up away from their camp near Kabul, firing a volley at charging Afghan horsemen. They’ve hit none and the encounter was a total defeat.
The British were actually inferior in marksmanship during that 19th century Afghan war and lost the long-range rifle battles.

—

Said ‘Enfields’ in Afghanistan/Pashtu land are afaik mostly not really Enfields. They’re instead hand-crafted copies from the tribal area that produces AKM copies today.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

the unit that replaced us, the 173rd, put a big emphasis on DM’s in their doctrine; i wonder if afghans took up the sniping as a response?

only SVD i ever saw whilst i was there was with the ANA. that said, we always received fairly accurate fire from medium to long distance from AK’s and god knows what else, so i would say that accuracy was in the eyes of the be-shooter, you know what i mean?

Please rate this comment: 0  0

For example, the Soviet term for accuracy is 6 MOA or below at 100 yards. To the Soviet troops the Afghan fighters were marksmen using the 6 MOA benchmark. On the other hand 1 MOA or below at 100 yards is accurate by Western standard.

Please rate this comment: 0  0