Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Lee-Enfield No.4 Battle Sights: What's The Actual Range? A test...
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 чер 2020
- In which we test as many types of Lee-Enfield No.4 rear sight as possible, to see at what range setting on the leaf corresponds to the point of impact given by the battle sight with the leaf folded down. A surprising result, which needs more empirical research in respect of the Mk.1 milled sights!
Also includes a discussion of the whys and wherefores of the different types.
Link to results: docs.google.co...
Patreon: / blokeontherange
Teespring: teespring.com/...
Facebook: / blokeontherange
Extra keywords:
British
303
.303
SMLE
rifle
back
backsight
rearsight
rear sight
Bloke, I'm sorry to say that you have reached the peak of excessive nerdiness. I don't think it gets worse than having a large collection of No.4 rearsights!
Somebody's got to answer these important questions! :D
@@BlokeontheRange only on BOTR do we get such an in depth analysis of these important topics!
Then I guess I'm an Enfield nerd too, because I really want to know how the POI varies between the No.4 sights and the No. 5 sights.
What on earth is wrong with having any spare parts for any model of Lee Enfield? If you get enough and at least one of every part you could build another Lee Enfield!
And there is certainly nothing wrong with that.
You can never have too many Lee Enfields.
And only shooting them at less then 50 yards lol instead of 100,200 and so on for each setting lol
Correction of possible Error - I may have said that the No.5 front sights are lower - they seem that way cos they're mounted on the flash hider (and I don't have one to measure) but looking at where the 100 yd shots fell compared to e.g. the Savage sight clearly they're not. If I did actually say that (and I can't find it back quickly, and I'm not going to go through the whole thing), Sorry. And it's not worth the hours to find it, re-encode and re-upload for that when it's a minor point.
2:10
Its ok lol
"I am not that good at mental math I am an engineer", and then uses a Swiss Army Knife as a hammer, sounds about right...
My family motto is "Nails are not hammered with pliers, nails are hammered with a carpenter's clamp."
Measure with a micrometer, mark with chalk, cut with an axe.
All tools have a hammer side. Even hammers.
@@qwertzuiop7741 I don't believe you.
The users manual. The what?
This is making me want to video my 6 or 7 Swedish Mauser rear sight variants.
For a while I looked for a vasteras but I settled on a sikte m/55
@@theol3199 An M/55 or the F-ram? They look VERY similar.
The Västerås is a bit fragile.
Kinda late to the party here, but I have 1943 Maltby No4 Mk1/2 that was FTR'd in 1956. It appears that while at Fazakerly for the FTR they replaced the barrel with a five groove, put new dark walnut wood on it and fitted it with the Fazakerly milled micro rear sight. It is a real good shooter and I am a Handloader so I load my own ammunition. I have replicated the Mark 7 cartridge with the Sierra Matchking 174 grain. The Mark 7 spitzer bullet had a muzzle velocity of 2440 fps with a Ballistic Co-efficiency of .467 G1 bullet type. The Sierra Matchking has a Ballistic Co-efficency of .499 G7(boat tail) Bullet type. Using a ballistic calculator and some testing I found that using a muzzle velocity of 2300 fps the Matchking replicates the same trajectory of the Mark 7 cartridge and allows me to utilize the sights as they were designed. With that all said, I can tell you that after following the sighting procedure to determine correct front blade sight height and getting it zeroed at 200 yards that it is indeed 3 inches high at 100 yards. The Fazakerly sight allows for 3 clicks down from the 200 yard mark on the sight. If I turn the sight down 3 clicks till it bottoms out it is dead zero at 100 yards which does confirm that each click is 1 MOA at 100yards. With the sight flipped down and using the Battle Sight(Ghost Ring) for the most part its zeroed at 100 Yards. I say that because at 100 yards there is some paralax with that large of an aperture and you have to settle on a mean point of how you are indexing the front sight post and sight protectors within the rear sight "ghost ring" or battle sight. I find the Battle Sight to be most effective at 0-60 yards. At that range it is dead on. Past 60 yards I use the flip up sight adjusted all the way down and then adjust it depending on the distance I am shooting. It is dead on. Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks for all your great work on these iconic rifles!
I live in the US so the first chargers i got for my lee enfield were the craptastic italian ones. I just got some surplus unused Indian manufactured clips from an australian seller on e-bay and they are heavenly in comparison. Doesnt really apply here but i just figured you would want to know one of your american viewers got the good stuff. Lol
Exactly the same story here. A tip to everyone looking is buy the clips with 4 holes, not 5.
@@mgpzz On the back of the clip there are 4 holes and the side has 5 so unless you specify which side I have no idea lol :)
I fell asleep to this.
Then I woke up and finished the rest.
Dulcet tones.
I was taught by a Canadian Black Hat WWII soldier that two clicks below mark (bottomed out) on the No4 and No5 is a 100-yard zero. I've played this out on the range, and at full bench rest, you'll not get a tighter group with any modern open-sighted rifle (except the imperceptible small margin for error in Mauser battle rifles, but the power of the 7.92mm at that range is high. Also, the harmonic jump of an Enfield with a bayonet attached or not attached will move your elevation considerably. I'll have to reread whether these Singer sights were calibrated based on the bayonet trials and whether it was the 4 Spike of 5 Blade. You made my day, Enfields are so ridiculously complex and if we're honest when buying milsurps, the time spent learning everything and troubleshooting is valued added to the purchase!
That is a majestic lockdown beard. Othias might need to be nervous about his beard power ranking.
Bloke, my L-E No. 4 Mk II arrived two days ago so this video is right on time and much appreciated.
Been binge watching all your Lee Enfield vids... just picked up a 1917 SSA made MK3* in pretty good condition for roughly 46 pounds or $60 US, absolute bargin. Cheers from South Africa.
When you have more sights for a rifle than a museum would have **g** Love it!
Great work here by BOTR! Brigadier J A Barlow's "Small Arms Manual" first published in 1942, with numerous wartime reprints, gives sight details for most .303 arms. It confirms the logical plan that the cartridge determines the battlesight setting, assuming barrel length is similar (but noting the longer barrel Ross uses the same battlesight range).
Ross and P14 rifles have 400 yd battlesight.
No.4 flip sight uses 300 yds/600 yds, but modified by the "bayonet fixed" rule described here.
No.4 ladder sight has 400 yds battlesight except late production described here.
Lewis and Vickers have 400 yds battlesight.
How do the lock-down-beard fare against an enemy like a cheese fondue?
It was interesting seeing that all the sights, regardless of where they were made or for which rifle, basically shot to the same point. I would have expected a greater variance in group location, if only from slight manufacturing differences between them.
Yup, I was massively impressed with how close together they all shot.
Love it, and I still think that no7 is my 'most converted rifle' on UA-cam!
Not showing all the shooting? I demand the full Paul Harrell!
he should go on ad astra
And to shoot the sight distance for their actual intended distance lol
I hadn't thought about having to bottom out the ladder before using the battle sight. I've been practicing for a target shooting competition in NZ called 'Surplus Steel' (which by the way you would love!) and have to shoot targets ranging from 100m to 300m mostly (odd 400m thrown in) but have to swap and change between the distances. This is my No.4 Mk1/2 with a Mk1 sight. I figured out that with a 300yd on the ladder setting I could 6 o'clock hold for 100m, hold dead on for 200m and flip the battle sight down (without adjusting the ladder sight to the bottom) and it was a 6 o'clock hold for 300m and dead on hold for 400m. I know this is metres and not yards but thought you might find it interesting.
I like how you went up by 6 (an oddball number) but quite confident. I usually go up by increments of 5, then go a 3rd time with a guestimate of how many icncrements of 5 clicks in any direction I need to tinker the sights to be on target.
Cos each click is about 1/2" at 50m, so easy to eyeball in whole inches-ish (i.e. increments of 2 clicks).
More lee enfield nerd engineering videos! As someone whos trying to make a .3d print 20rnd trench mag for their enfield this is exactly the content I dream of.
great video and information
Lumberjack Bloke coming back with another healthy dose of fascinating yet basically useless data. Never change, you beautiful, beautiful man.
Is graph paper not a thing in Switzerland? :)
The Wirksworth Gunroom Only if you mark it out yourself on a blank sheet.
@@thebotrchap a very white, untaxed sheet of paper? Good effort all the same. 👍🏼
I have preferred large apertures for a long time. The blurred aperture doesn't look any bigger but transmits more light.
You keep reminding me how much I need to get a No 7
I think I figured it out. It’s a training 22caliber Lee Enfield. Very informative video. Thank you
I didn't realize so many variants of No.4 sights were used. Now I will pay better attention.
Extremely interesting! I have a No4MK1 with the flip 2 position Battle Sight and a No4MK2 with the milled one
Is it me or did the target(s) look like it was smiling? Furthermore, thanks for answering a suspicion I have had with my No.5. I use the standard aperture thinking it zeroed for 300 yards, but was really confused as to why the shots were dropping low when I also used a 6 o'clock hold at 100 yards.
Not just you..
That’s an impressive beard Bloke. Every time I try to grow one out it’s all patchy, so I just stick to the moustache.
This is great work! Thanks!
I wonder if I can make a collection of the Lee Enfield front sights, hehehe!!
Yes. And the good thing is that it’s not a firearm so no need for special permits or licenses.
I like the "ish" on the vernier calipers, I heard a machinist once call them "very-near calipers" and that stuck in my head ever since. Also Bloke, what flavour of engineer are you? I want to say mechanical because I'm biased that way myself...
Dang, with shooting speed like that, you should have no trouble dominating the mad minute. :-)
i find myself googling random things about the enfield and i somehow always end up at a bloke video
BTW I've sold the mystery about the odd milled No.4 sight there - I now know what it is :)
@@BlokeontheRange please share with the class! my 1943 BSA No. 4 Mk. 1 came with a "Mk.3" stamped large ring battlesight. very very crude. but still does ok out to 100 yards. rifling only has 2 grooves lol.
It's a rearsight modified for an L8 rifle, with lowered datum line so that the height of the aperture which would be 400 yds with 303 indicates 100 yds, which is why the battlesight range comes out at 100 yds but it's the same point of impact as all the other normal sights. This was necessary cos the point of impact is much, much lower with 7.62 than .303 and would require a foresight that's much shorter than possible given the way they did it. This is actually nothing to do with the external ballistics of the cartridge, but the way the barrel "jumps" / vibrates differently as the bullet is making its merry way along it.
@@BlokeontheRange very interesting, so it was a limitation of the original geometry of the sight being setup for .303, could it be that it was in meters and not yards in addition to that?
I have a No 4 Mk2 (F) with a Mk1 dial sight and I swear I had to run the sight up to aprox 450yds to get it hit in the same place as the battle aperture.
Just watched this interesting video & it occurred to me to ask if asthe Fazackerly sight was fitted to a .22 training rifle while the sight markings had been altered to suit the balistics of a .22, the battle sight would have remained the same .
No. They're unaltered. You're not shooting .22 at 1300 yds ;)
When I first encountered a #7 maybe 45 years ago, the owner said that the sights were regulated to standard-velocity ammunition with the range in feet. That was a wonderfully accurate rifle with whatever ammunition he had, and that did seem to the regulation of the sights in the informal shooting we were doing - I was hitting a matchbox (pocket-size, not kitchen) regularly out as far as I could see it with 20-something-year-old eyes. Would that amount of drop from a 6 o'clock hold be appropriate for 164' when sighted for 100'?
I now appreciate the large aperture No 4 sight a significant deal more. I just attempted Remote Brutality on a range facing westward at 5pm with an M1 carbine and your sight picture absolutely disappears in the glare when you have a small aperture. Time to take some progressively larger drill bits to a repro...
In battle with bolt guns, troops tended to shoot high. That might explain the offset. Geoff Who remembers Puller's bio.
fazakerley is a place around liverpool. Probably where the sight was made.
Yes. Royal Small Arms Factory Fazakerley.
is using a Swiss Army Knife in Switzerland like wearing the Tshirt of the band you are going to see?
very informative really enjoyed this video hope you get more info on this .you and your stay safe stay well all the best from Scotland when the next batch of patches up foe sale seen the ones you have on jacket
Always approach from the same side.
You said it just as I had finished thinking it.
Hey can you do a video on cordite erosion on the throat of Lee-Enfield what it looks like and how it affects boat tail ammo thank you and I really like watching your videos
Annoyingly, in pre-BotR days I had a sectioned barrel which showed perfect cordite-washing. Looks a bit like a riverbed.
A total n00b question here: what's the deal with all the variantion in sights? Why were there so many of them, if the cartridge was the same?
Explained in the video
@@BlokeontheRange Maybe I've missed something, but while I get what was changed, I fail to see why all these changes were adopted. Original and simplified designs - I get it, but then small apertures and all that stuff - it looks like the things that came straight from the prototype to adoption with no troop trials at all. And then there's significant variation in the ranges battlesights are graduated for, which sounds like an epitome of idiocy, because you basically need to re-train your troops mid-war for no good reason, and the sights themselves aren't even properly marked!
The overwhelming majority seem to be set for 400. I'm now trying to work out some sort of pattern to the 100 yd Mk.1 sights. Small vs large? No idea where that came from.
"I'm cream crackered?" no speaka da lingo! spik englazi!
Mad minute on the No. 7? Seems like a really short bolt throw. Seems like that would be interesting. Although, I'm guessing there weren't charger clips, and replacement magazines would skew the test results, as well as being hard to find. But it would be interesting non the less.
"Rare as rocking horse teeth". LOL
Mixing metaphors until the cows sing
Think I will make a video of my .303 charger collection.
Maybe you could answer this and save me the ammo. What about the P14 and 1917 sights? If I can get out I’ll give it a try.
400 yards.
Makes me want another No.4....
I miss the Faz
So I've got a sight on my Lee and I'm not sure what mark it is. Mine is a no4mk1*, 1943 longbranch production. The only markings I can find on my rear is a proof mark and a large F on the leaf and ladder aperture. If it helps it does seem to be a milled sight with large aperture battle sight.
Oddly enough, and it may just be inexperience with the style of sight, when shot at ~50 yards, my groupings all tended lower than point of aim by about 6-8 inches. No idea why that would be though
Man I hate those 300/600 sights that came on alot of the savage no4s. Luckily mine came with the stamped style flip up with reasonably small aperture in the laid down position. Mk3 I think?
My no4 mk2 had such a big aperture on the singer style when it was laid down..didnt really like that either.
Then there is the p14. Excellent aperture...but only if you like it sighted for 400 yards. So it shoots like 10" high at 100 yards. Not easy to hit anything other than a silhouette with a waist to aim at...so now it wears a taller front sight so I can actually hit gongs at the range from 100 to 250.
Goddamminit Bloke. I'm supposed to be working. Now I'm searching for an Enfield in .22 to add to my collection :)
I feel like mailing you an Inch caliper... the way God and King intended for Lee Enfields.
Definitely gonna enjoy watching this video over the weekend! But I’ve got a few questions. Been eyeing my first No4 Enfield for a while now. I’m leaning towards forking out the cash for a Mk2 as the rear sight looks to be the most ideal for actual usage compared to the commonly seen flip ups of Mk1 rifles. But is it a easy swap to put one of those nicer rear sights on a Mk1? How does one zero them? And secondary question... is the finish on a Mk2 superior? Or is it also painted and will age quickly and should be saved for collectors who rarely shoot them? Thanks!
You need to watch the video and the answer to your sights question is in there. BTW, the "Mk.2" rearsight is the flip-up one ;) Finish on a Mk.2 may be better or not, depending on the individual rifles you're comparing.
Could we redo this, filming the details inside without the noise problem. Save the shooting bits then remix and submit again?
Not so good grouping there for just 50m... more like a 150-200m half decent grouping on a windy day haha... Love the Lee Enfield .. shot regularly with it in the past at Bisley 300-1000.
Bloke using his SAK can opener to remove the sights, I love it. Victorinox or Wenger?
Victorinox. Bought in a supermarket the first time I ever set foot in Switzerland, 2001 I think it was.
@@BlokeontheRange I have a Wenger I bought in the 1990s. One of my favorite knives. Going to buy almost the same Victorinox model soon, since the Wenger doesn't have a blade lock and I almost removed a finger with it last year. The new Victorinox version has a locking blade so it will be a big improvement.
I felt bad seeing the poor SAK used as a hammer. That's why they make Leathermans. I've carried my Victorinox for 25 years and I'd be horrified to damage it now.
Not sure I understand this. Cartridges are more powerful now than when these were in use so actually fall higher at 300yds, not lower wouldn’t they? I’m new to it so still getting my head around things.
They're not more powerful now in the same calibres, and it doesn't matter to the exercise anyway it's just a question of geometry of the sights
I am imagining the shooter in the next bay overhearing Bloke "Tapping" 9:26 the sight pin back in on a new sight every 3 minutes, and trying to figure out what the heck is going on! 🤔
Luckily I was alone on the range, given the amount I was walking backwards and forwards to the target!!!
I think I have a F marked sight on mine , i almost convinced myself it was set in feet instead of yards! I’d be happy to shoot a few groups if you are still looking for data?
very interesting!
2:59 That target looks like a smiley.
What kind of ammo are you using,& will it fit in a 303 ? Also is there a special adapter to convert to this ammo,& where do you get them. Thank you
This was great I guess I'm a nerd too! Lol. I have a buddy with a US version Enfield 1917 his battle sight is dead on at 300 with the 30-06 155gr at 2700. He only uses the battle sights. Do you know if the newer #4 click adjustable sights are interchangeable with the 1917? Is there a Enfield site that has click adjustable windage? In your opinion what's better the best Enfield sight or the Parker and Hale version that's interchangeable? Thanks for sharing
Did the Bloke just discover something about No. 4 Enfield sights that Ian Skennerton is unaware of? Maybe so.
We'll make a firm conclusion on that when I've had enough 3rd party data to be able to compare 100y and 400y battle sight Mk.1 sights. In the meantime I have a little theory, but we'll see...
Bloke, what do you prefer on rear sights? Large or small apertures? And what are the pros and cons of each?
Depends... For seriously fast close shooting the large aperture is very much superior. For Finnish Brutality I'll be using Frankenrifle, and I might put a small aperture battle sight on it since I'll just be using it as a fixed sight cos shots might be out to 150m on half-size IPSC targets (and there won't be any close-up rifle targets unless there's paper) and the smaller hole is psychologically comforting on such shots (or I could flip up the rear sight for those shots, which would be another option.)
@@BlokeontheRange Thank you very much. Your knowledge - and your opinions based on a wealth of actual experience - is always a joy to experience.
@@BlokeontheRange looking forward to seeing a brutality match being done with a No. 4 action!
I found a no4 mk2 with a rear battle sight that does not have a flipped-down aperture. Have you seen this before? Only long-range adjustable when flipped up.
The sniper rifles (which are all Mk.1's or 1*'s) had the battle aperture cut off officially. I've seen a No.8 rear sight with it cut off (it's in my collection cos it came on one of my No.8 rifles), and sometimes people simply cut them off.
@@BlokeontheRange Interesting. Thanks for the reply. I'll probably end up just buying the peep sight to install. A particular one you recommend for the Mk2?
@@chiliboom6140 The best sight is obviously the milled Mk.1, and in principle all No.4 Mk.2's should have been delivered with them unless I'm mistaken.
@@BlokeontheRange I wish I could send you a picture. It's quite odd that it looks like it was made without the little peep sight when the ling range is down.
But thank you for the recommendation and response.
2:58 that is one hell of a target. oh wait it's 2 targets i see it now. i thought it was a happy face lol
edit: 12:47 you've never watched a paul harrel production before. a third of of his videos is just a camera facing a paper target
You need to set the rear sight at 350yds for 50m shooting on a 22/303
He isn't shooting to get on the bull, he testing to see if theirs a difference in battle sight ranges sir
Could the different sights reflect the different cartridge variants like the Mark VII to the Mark VIIIz and propellants used like cordite to Canadian or American powder?
Nope. They're all sighted for Mk.VII.
What a ridiculously niche topic, love it!
Why did the Faz (was it?) shoot its 100m where all the others had their 400m, though? The gun hasn't changed, neither has the ammo. Is the sight just wrong or what am I missing here?
Also thanks for editing down/out the shooting itself. I've never been a fan of just watching a guy statically shoot for a minute and don't really see why anybody would be but then again that's just my personal opinion and it's also very easy to just skip those parts so either way is perfectly fine.
When I get more data on other sights where the battlesight corresponds to less than 200y on the ladder I'll be able to answer that question. What's clear though is that it's at the same height as the others, and the difference is in the slide or the ladder. Need a sample size greater than 1 though.
@@BlokeontheRange Thought about asking Rowan for data?
Yes. He can't get out to the range right now.
@@BlokeontheRangecrap, didn't occur to me he didn't have something sorted like we did when I was younger for zeroing our rifles. He struck me as rural like me.
Which is the best one in your opinion for a Savage No4 MK1?
Imma miss the lockdown beard ngl
Hi there, i recently acquired a no 4 mk1 (long branch) and the rear sight fitted is completely different from what you have shown, it seems to be a Parker Hale sight. Is it any good?
It'll be a Parker-Hale target sight. They're good.
You look so much like Othais with both beard and hat. It confused me until you spoke.
Just lacked the patented pokey.
OMG major sight nerdery. I needed the shooting time to assimilate the conclusions, no shooting, got lost. Kept watching to maintain my anglophilia with Mike's speach patterns, didn't really matter what he was saying.
What front sight are you using?
My God, that beard is magnificent.
Action Man Adventurer look.
And no targets were damaged in making this video. BTW, I'm all for any excuse for some trigger time but why couldn't this have been determined by the use of just a micrometer or run-out gauge?
Cos boring and less visual.
quick question, what is the distance on the sight leaf between the 200 yard and 1300 yard lines
All of the distances between 200 and 1300 yards...
@@BlokeontheRange just the longest length, the distance between the 2 line and the 13 line on the sight leaf is what i am asking to get measured
what load was rhat , no recoil compared to milsurp loads ?
Is it possible to put aperture sights also on No. 1 rifles ? Is there an accuracy difference between a No. 1 from Lithgow 1920 to No. 4 rifles ?
An *average* No.1 is less accurate than an *average* No.4. An accurised one is a different matter and they're basically the same, particularly at long range (900 and 1000 yds). And yes, there are target rearsights for No.1 rifles.
@@BlokeontheRange Thanks for quick response. I would like to have both types (no. 1 and 4) in my collection but with the new German (EU-) weapon law of 2020 we have a stupid restriction on ten bolt rifles. So I always have carefully to consider what to choose.
I couldn't stay focused long enough to follow the .22 minutia - which I'm not critical of. I think I understand what you were doing.
I'll add this: some of the Pam's published for the rifle in that period are wrong. For example Shoot To Live, issued by Canada for the No4 in 1945, also specifies zeroing using the THREE HUNDRED yard battlesight with bayonet fixed..The specified MPI is supposed to be +8.5". In comparison, the Brits and Aussies specified +6".
So... Same rifle, same sights, same bayonet, same MkVII ball ammo. Two VERY different specifications for height above POA. Both can't be right...
I didn't bother checking it by wasting any of the little Greek HXP MkVII that I have left. I can tell you that in my 1950 Long Branch that I got unissued, with the CMk3 rear sight, when I use the 100 yard zeroing criteria with the leaf sight set at 200 yards the 300 yard battlesight and the 300 yard aperture setting are pretty close, as are the leaf sight settings as far out as 600 yards.
But MkVII is pretty much gone. So we're ranging from guys like Rob shooting cast with very different ballistics,. Or SR b. types of shooters using a tuned load with a Sierra Match King or similar bullet.
None will precisely match the MkVII ballistics that all variations of the back sight were calibrated to.
In general, other than just banging away, either a MkI leaf with one MOA clicks (or better, the leaf sight off a No5 substituted to get half MOA clicks), is probably the best for those who have moved beyond simplyy banging away at targets.
To each their own.
Battlesight is 300 when the bayonet is fixed, 400 without. I haven't seen a British or Aussie manual specifying anything other than zeroing with the sight set to 200 yds (+3 inches at 100 yds). Even Mk.VII won't "precisely" match the ranges beyond a certain point cos there's variations from batch to batch, and due to barrel wear / atmospheric conditions (temperature, altitude) and so on. S&B 180gn FMJ is pretty close. Also, the No.5 battle sight has the same thread pitch and number of clicks per revolution, so when fitted to a No.4 will also give the same 1 MOA-ish clicks.
@@BlokeontheRange The one is a double thread, the other is a single thread. Get your verniers busy and measure the distance the sight tracks for ten clicks.
Your first clue is that if the clicks on both backsights had the same vertical movement per click, how come they can then have the same change in MPI at the same range with two different sight radiuses?
@@BlokeontheRange When you get your verniers busy, after you've gone up and down both leaf sights, you'll discover the No 4s sight averages out at around roughly .oo78" per click. You'll find the No 5s averaged out at around .0044" per click.
Now consider the five inch difference in sight radius between those two rifles.
@@BlokeontheRange "Shoot To Live", 1945. P. 294.
"There are many models of the same type of aperture or back sights on the Canadian Rifle. In any event the sight adjustment does not concern the back sights as only the front sights affect the changes which may be required. But remember! ALL ZEROING MUST BE DONE WITH THE BAYONET FIXED AND THE BATTLE SIGHT OF WHATEVER MODEL OF BACK SIGHT IS IN COMMON USE OR AFFIXED TO THE RIFLE."
@@BlokeontheRange And one final observation that drove me nearly mad, about 40 years ago when I started shooting Service Rifle with a very pristine Long Branch with a very pristine MK1 leaf sight. Why was it that my sight adjustments weren't always correct? My math wasn't that bad, especially when the clicks are one MOA.
We'll, that ain't necessarily true, even when your movement precludes backlash. After you've gone anal measuring sight movement per click over the range of the sight travel, you'll find most, perhaps probably all, have different sight movement distances throughout the range of sight movement. Even if you do it by measuring ten clicks, you will find the mean distance for each group of 10 still varies.
And this is the kind of thing that makes tigers eat their young...
Bloke, do you have new frames for your glasses?
Since summer last year
Was the Spetsnaz tee-shirt a deliberate choice?
What Spetsnaz T-shirt? I'm just wearing a grey stripy one with long sleeves.
@@BlokeontheRange Stripys remind people of Telnyashkas.
that also would be vdv not spetnaz, right?
@@moistjohn I thought they were originally issued to marine infantry?
@@webtoedman Marines got them as a part of Navy. Paras got envious, 'cause marines & seamen were getting all the girls (or so the legends say), and Uncle Vasya (Gen. Vasily Margelov, the legendary Airborne commander-in-chief in the '50's, 60's & 70's) gave them their own telnyashkas. Special forces had the privlege to pick and choose their uniform so as to be unrecognisable, so they got telnyashkas as well.
Rim jam at 20:00? 😁
Nice beard!
your using low velocity 22 if you used 303 would have been much better.
I used 303 with large battle sight and leaf sight in the 70s
It makes no difference what ammo you use. You could have done the same thing with the same results using a laser boresighter, cos it's a geometry problem not a ballistics problem. And there'd have been no point in burning hundreds of $ of 303 ammo (and killing my shoulder) when .22lr will do...
Santa Claus on the range. ;-)
Nah, it's Farther Christmas.
can you make musket mad minute
Is there a reason why they made these things so complicated to aim correctly? Also why are your shots so low? We’re you aiming for the target? This video made me positive I will never own a Enfield.
All the sights are regulated for the MKVII 303 ammunition, he was using a 22lr. Hence the lower impacts vs point of aim. And he stated he was using a “six o’clock” hold.
So are MK 3 sights (marked II) uncommon ?
On rifles? fairly. On the market there's loads of them :)
@@BlokeontheRange interesting, its what came on my No.4 Mk 1 which came out of Ethiopia. Thanks for the info. Good Video
I don't really understand why there are so many different rear sights.
All is explained in the video :)
@@BlokeontheRange I guess it does! I just can't understand how the military could deal with replacing these sights with later versions as much as I am assuming they did.
Lucky you...
I apologise for being uninformed and unobservant but could somebody please tell me what the Bloke on the Range was aiming at ?
Bottom edge black circle.
Remind me to never hire you as my gunsmith. :D
they made battle rifles in .22 rim? thats new to me! were they effective??
They did not make battle rifles in .22lr. This is a training rifle.
They converted a number to .22 for use in training, for much the same reason Mike used .22 today cheaper on the coffers to train basic handling.