Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Why .303 rather than .300
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Mike Waller (U4782937) on Monday, 4th October 2010
A friend of mine has just asked why the ammunition size of .303 was selected, rather than the "round" .300. I have no idea; can anybody help?
-
Message 2
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 5th October 2010
Mike Waller
As no-one who knows the answer has responded might I suggest that the 303 size came from Imperial rather than metric measurements.. When British machine-tools led the world they used Imperial measures.
Another possibility- Sometimes things that became quite standard were determined in quite an 'ad hoc' way. George Stephenson, given the task of engineering the Stockton to Darlington Railway- that could be used by other wagons-, is supposed to have gone around the whole region measuring the axle-lengths of the local wagons. He then averaged his results to get the "standard gauge" of (I think) 4 feet 8.5 inches.. This was then "rolled out" around the World- apart from I.K. Brunel's "Broad Gauge" that was based upon engineering principles rather than simple "commom sense" experience.
Cass -
Message 3
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 5th October 2010
Apparently, it does not convert into an even inch caliber either. But here's a decent elaboration on this:
-
Message 4
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 5th October 2010
Thanks Suvo
So the .303 is the bullet not the rifle bore.. Makes sense..And the bullet size- like my Stephenson gauge -was based on previous usage. Perhaps that meant that like his railway tracks could be used by local wagons, the .303 bullet could be used in some older rifles?
My own School Cadet Corps experiences with the 303 are very far away.. I seem to recall that we did learn to take one to pieces and reassemble: and did get some rifle range shooting.
Cass -
Message 5
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010
Cass
I don't pretend to expertise in this area, either. But I think .303 was dictated by the desired weight of ball and effective range with black powder, which was still in use when the Lee-Metford was introduced. Of course, more modern propellants came along fairly quickly.
Improvements in propellant allowed the smaller .30 to achieve the same effect for the US rifles that came along a bit later.
We still had Lee Enfields (WWII vintage No.4s) when I was in the CCF. Great fun, but we didn't get much range time. Much more accurate than the SLR.
LW -
Message 6
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010
It's likely, as suggested before, that the calibre was selected (to replace the then current .45 Martini/Henry short Boxer cartridge) by weight, in the same way as shotgun bores or gauges were defined by the number of spherical lead bullets per pound that could be fired out of them (except, of course, the .410). The diameter of the .303 bullet is as above, .311, in the same way as the American .300 fires a .308 bullet.
-
Message 7
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010
LW, as I have often said, I loved the .303 Lee Enfield.
Fred -
Message 8
Posted by Stepney Boy (U1760040) on Thursday, 7th October 2010
Hi Grumpyfred,
Ditto. My claim to fame is getting my marksman's badge with the .303
Regards
Spike -
Message 9
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 7th October 2010
I used one when I received my Blue as an Air Cadet. both at county and international level.
-
Message 10
Posted by Stepney Boy (U1760040) on Thursday, 7th October 2010
Hi Grumpyfred,
Well done, a no mean achievement. You eye was certainly in.
I got my marksman badge when I was in the Royal Navy whilst training 1961-62 when the ol' Lee Enfield was kept in commission for training
Regards
Spike -
Message 11
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Thursday, 7th October 2010
Stepney Boy - Did you have to do SLR drill with the Lee Enfield, carrying it on a finger through the trigger guard? Got a bit heavy by the end of a long parade if you weren't returned to "Order Arms " from the "Shoulder" IIRC
-
Message 12
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Thursday, 7th October 2010
SB
I can make the same claim (although I am not sure the qualifying Cadet practice was the same as the Regular Army's). Could never manage better than 1st Class with SLR.
These days, I'd probably have to fix bayonet to stand any chance of hitting the target
LW -
Message 13
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 7th October 2010
LW, my first rule was always. If they were close enough to have to use a bayonet. I don't want to be there. I always thought that the only use for a bayonet was for opening cans.
-
Message 14
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Friday, 8th October 2010
GF
I agree. Those No.11 targets could be pretty vicious hand-to-hand.
LW -
Message 15
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 8th October 2010
LOL A true story. Back in the 60s, I (Along with a detail)was working the butts. The sun was hot and the heat reflected off the sand into the concrete area, so we had stripped to the waist. A senior army officer came along, and asked "Where the hell did we think we where? Get those bloody collars and ties back on." He came back a bit later to find us wearing detachable collars and ties, but no shirts. He took one look and said. "You lot are from Liverpool aren't you?"
-
Message 16
Posted by Stepney Boy (U1760040) on Friday, 8th October 2010
Stepney Boy - Did you have to do SLR drill with the Lee Enfield, carrying it on a finger through the trigger guard? Got a bit heavy by the end of a long parade if you weren't returned to "Order Arms " from the "Shoulder" IIRC
No I did not. I never had that pleasure. Casting off from the Lee Enfield If I may, does anyone remember the Lancaster submachine gun in the RN which was superseded by the Stirling?
Regards
Spike Going down memory lane
-
Message 17
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Friday, 8th October 2010
Lanchester, I think, not Lancaster. Made by Sterling, a copy of the MP 28. Lovely gun. Drop it and it fired. Even with the "safety" on. Never met it myself, as the Andrew (or at least the parts I served in) had moved to the Sterling by my time.
-
Message 18
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 8th October 2010
Never handled one, but if I remember rightly it was based on the first German submachine gun. (Bergman?)It was better made than the Sten with a wooden stock.
GF -
Message 19
Posted by rhmnney (U14528380) on Friday, 8th October 2010
GF some years ago I was in an American gunsmiths shop he showed me a gun at first glance looked something like a Bren, he then said, "That's a Limey Navy gun", I saw that it had a spade spiked bi-pod, I asked if the spikes were designed to penetrate a wood deck, he had no answer and said that was he was told. Reading the posts now I wish I did take a closer look at it.
Living in the USA I have an Enfield No. 4 .303, the ammo is soft point made for hunting, the only mark on the rim is, .303 British. I haven't taken a round apart to see what the propellent is, front line British Army was marked V11, any round with a mark * say, etc. after that marking could not be used for overhead firing in Infantry training -
Message 20
Posted by Stepney Boy (U1760040) on Saturday, 9th October 2010
Hi
Never handled one, but if I remember rightly it was based on the first German submachine gun. (Bergman?)It was better made than the Sten with a wooden stock.
GF
I do not recall if the Lanchester, correct spelling this time, was based on a privious sub machine gun but we used to joke that the wooden stock was so big that if jack ever dropped it in the oggin it would float. We never tested this theory though.
Regards
Spike -
Message 21
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Saturday, 9th October 2010
There were a few other LMG type weapons in service with British, Commonwealth & Imperial forces alongside the Bren, the most numerous being the Vickers-Berthier, which was a Vickers development of the pre-WWI Berthier which was used by the Indian Army. That looked "Bren-like" . That was also the jumping-off point for the Vickers K, but that was drum magazined, and mostly an aircraft (and long range penetration groups in the Western Desert). The Besal also carried a 30-round curved magazine (because the rimmed cartridge was retained long after it would have been better to replace it with rimless ones, the mags had that curve), but AFAIK was never issued to any RN units. The Australian & NZ Charltons had the mag below the barrel (both, rather different, conversions from Lee-Metford and Lee-Enfield rifles).
Yes, the Lanchester did have a substantial wood stock, based on the Lee-Enfield type, and carried other L-E furniture. -
Message 22
Posted by Mike Waller (U4782937) on Monday, 11th October 2010
Many thanks for the very helpful replies to my original question.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.