I thought this might have been hashed over already, but a search came up empty. In the 80's I had a Euroarms 53 Enfield that shot true to the sights rather well enough. About a year ago I bought an Armi-Sport 53 that shot ridiculously high at 100 yards, with the 100 yard setting. After investigating this, I found this is typical of the current generation of enfield repros. The N-SSA guys mentioned how it is common for people to raise the front sight to correct this (as an acceptable method of fixing the problem). I began to wonder, is this a half-ass fix for a crappy reproduction and people just accept it? The more I looked into this, the more I came across the reasoning from many that evidently “the originals were zeroed to actually shoot at 400 yards when on the 100 yard setting”.
WHAT?
Ok, I know over the years there have been a lot of odd things done in the way of martial arms, especially by the British. But this one just seems so absurd to me. Why would a new, state of the art rifled-musket, with very effective sights (for the time) in the dawn of this new age of rifled fire, be made with a built in flaw to totally negate the benefits of both sights and rifling? Has anyone else heard this excuse/theory? So if at the 100 yard setting it actually shoots to a 400 yard point of impact, what about the 200, 300, 400 yard setting, etc.
Is there some well known documentation of this? If so, I'd be grateful to read it. Or is this just spooled up reenacting culture myth to explain a sloppy shitty reproduction.
I take it the nice Parker-Hale repros from the 70's and 80's didn’t have this problem. What about originals, anyone out there have a nice original Enfield they have shot? How did it fair as far as point of impact, point of aim?
This came up on the N-SSA board as a result of my first post, and if it isn’t taboo to link other boards, here it is. http://www.n-ssa.org/bb/viewtopic.php?p=2099#2099
Thanks for any factual input.
WHAT?
Ok, I know over the years there have been a lot of odd things done in the way of martial arms, especially by the British. But this one just seems so absurd to me. Why would a new, state of the art rifled-musket, with very effective sights (for the time) in the dawn of this new age of rifled fire, be made with a built in flaw to totally negate the benefits of both sights and rifling? Has anyone else heard this excuse/theory? So if at the 100 yard setting it actually shoots to a 400 yard point of impact, what about the 200, 300, 400 yard setting, etc.
Is there some well known documentation of this? If so, I'd be grateful to read it. Or is this just spooled up reenacting culture myth to explain a sloppy shitty reproduction.
I take it the nice Parker-Hale repros from the 70's and 80's didn’t have this problem. What about originals, anyone out there have a nice original Enfield they have shot? How did it fair as far as point of impact, point of aim?
This came up on the N-SSA board as a result of my first post, and if it isn’t taboo to link other boards, here it is. http://www.n-ssa.org/bb/viewtopic.php?p=2099#2099
Thanks for any factual input.
Comment