Talk:.303 British

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] 7.7mm, Really?

Hello, just wondering where the 7.7mm measurement comes from. 0.311 X 2.54 is 7.9mm (or 7.8994mm if you like). Even if someone's done a cigarette box calculation of 0.311 X 2.5, they've bodged it and rounded it down (it would be 7.8mm or 7.775mm). Not that I'm saying it's definitely 'wrong' as there are of course plenty of odd names and measurements for calibers, but it should be explained, unless it is just wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.98.159.158 (talk) 03:57, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

7.7 is .303. I've tried to cleanup the language so that it is more obvious. Arthurrh 04:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suitability for automatic weapons?

I'm somewhat intrigued by the claim "It is a rimmed cartridge and is therefore not entirely suitable for use in modern automatic weapons". Given that it's been successfully used in the Maxim, Vickers, Lewis, Browning M1919, Bren and numerous other automatic weapons covering most design criteria from vintage to modern, I'm not entirely convinced of the merits of including that sentence. The only (very arguable) thing I can think of is that it doesn't lend itself to being pushed forward out of a belt feed as many current LMGs/GPMGs tend to do, but I don't think that in itself really justifies such a claim.

I propose that the sentence is removed; any consensus? If I don't hear anything by the time I remember that I've written this (which may be some time!) I'll assume that there're no objections and remove it. Chris 20:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Other than the Bren I believe all those are belt-fed machineguns, so the rim isn't really an issue: rimmed cartridges can be a pain to feed reliably from magazines. Aside from the Bren I can't think of any lightweight weapon capable of fully-automatic fire which uses rimmed cartridges, and even then the Bren was converted to 7.62 NATO later in life. Certainly the Bren page here claims "Care needed to be taken with magazine loading to ensure that the cartridge rims did not overlap, causing a jam" Mark Grant 20:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand the caution about "care must be taken when loading" etc. but was jamming a common problem in practice? I understand the Bren to've been renowned for its reliability, but I don't know if the same is true of the magazines: I'm assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that the problem was more of a theoretical one than something that manifested itself in use. I was trying to think of other magazine-fed automatic .303 weapons but could only come up with the Madsen offhand, and even then I'm not absolutely certain it was available in .303. Of course there was also the Lee Enfield, albeit manually operated, but it also used box magazines. Just for completeness, the Lewis and the Vickers K gun (which I forgot to mention) weren't belt-fed but used pan-type magazines, but I suppose that's slightly outside the scope of the discussion.
Then there's always the Chauchat using the 8mm Lebel, but possibly the less said about that the better. Chris 11:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The Lee-Enfield had a fixed magazine loaded with stripper clips, didn't it? I'd imagine that helps ensure it's loaded properly without the rims getting caught up. Similarly, the pan magazines probably don't have as many feeding problems as a box magazine: it's also worth noting the huge curve in the .303 Bren magazines, required to make space for the rimmed cases, which could be a pain if you're trying to fit it in the bottom of a rifle. Maybe 'not suitable' is too extreme, but rimmed cases are certainly out of fashion for modern assault rifles and light machineguns. Mark Grant 12:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
There's some commentary on the 303's suitability for magazine feeding here which is quite interesting. Seems to back up the "not entirely suitable" claim that I was questioning! Chris 23:48, 4 August 2006

(UTC)

While the cartridge can be used in magazine fed weapons the rim does pose some problems. I own an Lee-Enfield bolt action rifle and it does use stripper clips. The way to avoid feed problems is to stagger the rims of the cartridges in the stripper clip alternating one rim on top of the other. Unfortunatly, I don't have documentation for this right now so I'm not going to post anything right now. Believe it or not the "rim stacking" debate is quit common on the internet among Lee-Enfield shooters and collectors. Hopefully, I'll be able to pull up sourced information.(74.34.210.239 18:28, 14 August 2007 (74.34.210.239 18:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Don)
Evidently these collectors and shooters don't have access to basic texts such as Skennerton's Lee-Enfield Story or his Small Arms Identification Series, or even facsimile copies of various WWII manuals... the official Commonwealth clip loading method is known as "One Up, One Down" and can best be described as having the base of the cartridges thusly in the clip: _-_-_. As a Lee-Enfield shooter, collector, and historian I can assure you that this is the way the cartridges are designed to be loaded in the chargers, and if done properly, will function perfectly. As for a source (just to get people started): Regarded Lee-Enfield Rifle website --Commander Zulu 12:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The Lewis gun also used .303. As did the Vickers K gun (which was very similer to the BREN. [[Slatersteven (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)]]

[edit] .303 British ?

Who calls this ".303 British" ? Sounds like an Americanism to me. Wikipedia is increasinly being americanised so it seems, and without proof to the contrary, this looks like an example.

Most manufacturers refer to it as ".303 British" , to distinguish it from the other .303 which is denoted ".303 Savage" (which is not compatible, by the way.) Sellier & Belliot (European manufacturer) uses this nomenclature, among many others. Hence, I don't think it is an Americanism. Yaf 16:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The vast majority of .303 British is sold outside Britain, mostly in the US/Canada, so what European manufacturers call it is dependent on what the market expects it to be called. Riddley 17:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recoil?

How much recoil does this round have?? I'm puzzled. I've never shot it before. Ace Fighter. I don't have statistics for you, but in the Lee Enfields I shot 20 years ago there was a considerable kick and if not held in tight you risked a bruising. In the Bren gun mounted on the bipod, the thing tended to gently walk away from you rather than kicking. I've not shot many weapons, but the bren gun was wonderful compared to the Lee Enfield. Dmccabe 03:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Depends on the rifle. With rifles of the same weight and bullets of the same weight, expect recoil similar to a .308. IE probably around 12-15 ft/lbs. Arthurrh 22:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In a non-sporterized Lee-Enfield No. 4 Mk I*, the recoil is modest, comparable to many military 30 cal rifles. In a sporterized Lee-Enfield No. 4 Mk I*, though, with much of the forestock removed, the barrel shortened, and with a weight reduction to around 6 lbs, the recoil is rather fierce, bordering on painful, to such an extent that anyone adverse to recoil is usually rather inaccurate with the sporterized version of the same rifle. The later Lee-Enfield Jungle Carbine in .303, especially, with its shortened barrel and reduced weight, had a reputation for breaking collar bones on a regular basis, especially when the rather small rubber recoil pad hardened up in the very least with age or upon exposure to UV. In a rifle weighing 9 or more lbs, the recoil from a .303 cartridge is easily tolerated by even beginning shooters. In a much lighter rifle, the recoil can become rather bruising :-) (These statements assume hotly loaded .303 (Przi Partizan or similar) FMJ cartridges in 170 grains; change the choice of fodder to PowerPoints loaded mildly in either 180 or 200 grains, and the recoil is reduced considerably even for the sporterized Lee-Enfield.) So, it all depends. Yaf 03:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Mk VIII suitability

I was of the (strong) impression that the mk VIII was marked unsuitable for rifle use due to the chamber pressure exceeding the safe limits of the (rather weak) Lee action?

There's a lot of debate over this- it's the currently issued round to the Canadian Rangers, who use Lee-Enfield No. 4 Mk I* rifles, so it's presumably safe for use in the rifle. I'm told the main difference is actually in the bullet, which is boat-tailed instead of flat-based. Personally, I stick to commercial ammo myself. --Commander Zulu 03:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. Referencingand appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. --dashiellx (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)