Announcement

**Wild Rover** · 08-06-2004, 09:07 AM

Re: Actual calibration of Enfield sights: repro vrs original

The repro's are crap...the sights are there just to fix a bayonet...I have added height to the front sight many times to bring it down. I have also soaked and straightend stocks, including alot of sanding to decreased barrel pressure, and I have filed away at back sight to correct a windage issue.

But in the end, no matter how hard I worked on them, they still wouldn't group better than 5" at 100 yards.

I had an original 1816, that was converted, and rifled, and it would hold a 2" group at 100 yards with no modifications. I used it with a conical for Deer one year, .69 minies are very effective!

Modern repops are made to burn powder at events, and are junk as far as firearms.

Buy an original, you will not regret it.

Pards,

**48Sarge** · 08-06-2004, 10:09 AM

Re: Actual calibration of Enfield sights: repro vrs original

I never heard that about the sights for Enfield Rifle Muskets. I know this is common with the Lee-Enfield bolt rifles, but not the rifle-muskets.

Anyway, I would second what Chris says, buy an original. All the NSSA guys I've talked to need so much work done you end up spending the same as the price for an original.

**buckandball** · 08-06-2004, 10:40 AM

Re: Actual calibration of Enfield sights: repro vrs original

Hi fellas. I'd like to buy an original and am actively looking for a good one under $2,000. I am by no means new to this hobby, and I appreciate your insights, but I am more interested in this spreading notion of the rifle's being sighted in this means verses what I need to buy.

**Claw Hammer** · 08-06-2004, 01:30 PM

Re: Actual calibration of Enfield sights: repro vrs original

When i shot my Armi Sport, 53 enfield with live rounds for the first time, it shot a foot high and to the left, or right( can't remember which) @ 50 yds.
I didn't want to add height to the front sight or file the rear sight over,so
i got to thinkin bout what the indians used to do with their trade muskets,
to make them shoot more accurately. They would take the barrel out of the
stock, put it in the fork of a tree and bend in the direction it was needed.
I have done the same thing with my 53 enfield & 42 springfield.with very
good results.

Regards,

Eric Lambert

**Wild Rover** · 08-06-2004, 01:45 PM

Re: Actual calibration of Enfield sights: repro vrs original

Eric,
I wouldn't suggest that...the uneven pressure against the stock would make make you string shots, even if it was safe. I would instead float your barrel (as much as possible) to keep the uneven wood pressure from affecting your stock.

I would have to vote no way on bending a barrel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pards,

**Johan Steele** · 08-06-2004, 02:57 PM

Re: Actual calibration of Enfield sights: repro vrs original

A bent barrel is an unsafe barrel... nuff said. I must have had an unusual experiance w/ my Armi-Sport Enfield... At 100 yards she shoots about 6" high and a bit to the right... consistantly. I have NO issues w/ a tight group. At 200 yards I will hit a man sized target 10 of 10 rounds. I use FFG powder and did notice an enormous difference when using FFFG... She shoots best w/ FFG, 60 grains and Bore Butter as a lube. At 200 yards I have had consistant groups that I could cover w/ my lock plate. This is a straight out of the box 3 band Enfield w/ no mods or defarbs done. My only complaint has been a penchant for cracking nipples... I'm on my third.

I purchased my Armi Sport spring 2000 or so and she has served me very well.

Now as to the Springfield repops, both the Euro Arms & Armi Sport appear to be junk of late... it sounds like the Enfields may be having the same issue.

Now H & H Guns in Wisconsin (715) 262-5024 has a nice Parker Hale 2 band Enfield w/ a $729 price tag. It has a lug for a sword bayonet. It has been tricked out w/ a peep site and spirit level as well as a scheckered stock. I'm not certain if that's what you're looking for or not but I was suprised to see it there. I would guess it to be an excellent shooter. They also had a 61 Muskatoon... I was suprised to see two Parker Hales in one loacation, not something I'm used to seeing.

Something I've had a difficult time doing is finding an original Enfield that I would be willing to take onto the field. Good luck in your endeavors.

**Curt Schmidt** · 08-08-2004, 01:23 PM

Re: Actual calibration of Enfield sights: repro vrs original

Hallo Kameraden!

"evidently �the originals were zeroed to actually shoot at 400 yards when on the 100 yard setting�."

To be brief, "originals" were not "sighted in" or "zeroed in" at all.
Sights were designed/installed with a sight radius that geometrically determined/influenced the point of impact/point of aim.

The "rainbow arc" trajectory of a Minie was such that a round fired by a kneeling man at the belt plate of a man 300 yards away would strike the head of a man 50 yards away, pass over the head of a man 100, 150, 200, and 250 yards away, hit the belt of the man at 300, and strike the feet of a man 350 yards away.

Somewhere, I have the formula that does the geometry of the relationship between sight height, sight radius, and target/POI distance. I have known some N-SSA shooters to determine their best load, and then "crank" the sights on a milling machine and gauges, etc., to set the thousanths, etc., of an inch differences to correct the POI mathematically.

Basically the relationship between the front and rear sight heights, sight radius, and the target is one large triangle with the sight height forming the shortest measurement.

IMHO, the larger factor in accurary with Italian repro guns lies with the poor quality of the front and rear sight compounded and complicated by
the lack of quality control and precision in boring, rifling, and polishing the bore.
There are numerous factors that affect shooting accuracy, too many to mention- but beginning with the skills, abilities, discipline, and practice of the shooter. The combat nervous soldier, with little or no practice, under fire, nervously dribbling powder down the gun instead of the muzzle- and shaking like a leaf when jerking the gun and trigger even if he does take the time to aim properly will usually outweigh many of the other problems. ;-)

It might be an oversimplication, but in many ways CW fire still tended to carry on some of the linear traditions of the 18th century where the goal was to project a chest high sheet of lead into a wall of men some yards away who presented a nice "wall" to catch the bullets (aimed or not). ;-)

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt
I Don't Do the Math I Just Shoot the Gun Mess

**buckandball** · 08-09-2004, 09:33 AM

Re: Actual calibration of Enfield sights: repro vrs original

Herr Schmidt

Thanks for your input. To clarify, I understand all the geometric and physical aspects of shooting, sighting in, zeroing, etc. I agree that it may be misleading to say these rifled-muskets were �zeroed� suggestion the soldier did it. They came from the factory with the sights �set� (i.e., manufactured to the specific consistent shape and height, and attached in the consistent location on the barrel). I understand the sights were designed to present a sight picture, at the various range adjustments, that was consistent with the arc of the flight of the projectile so that at a given sight adjustment, it would hit point of impact coincident with point of aim. All being dependent on the shooter doing his part. All this is given.

What I wonder about is this 400 yard zero I have had people refer to multiple times. This implies that with the sight set to 100 yards, the projectile is actually following a flight path to hit a 400-yard target. As it was grandly explained to me in a lengthy email: as it climbs in it�s flight path, at 100 yards the trajectory may indeed cross the sight plane (therefore a nice 100 yard rear sight setting; impacts at 100 yards where you aim) and then climbs and falls to hit the same sight plane at 400 yards� I had one guy email me this idea.

That being the case it still is a 100 yard zero, since the sight is set to 100 yards. Why have a rear sight mark for 100 yards if it doesn�t hit anything you aim at when set to 100 yards� That is the root of my query anyway�

I think I am going to get into the realm of beating a dead horse here. I am concluding that the root cause lies in crappy reproductions with the reasons you note. What a surprise.

I am looking for the ballistic/flight path data of a minie ball with 2 � drams of powder, fired from an Enfield. Knowing the rise and fall of the round, as it correlates to the various rear sight settings, will help in figuring this out.

I seem to have offended a few gentlemen on the N-SSA board with my dry humor that borders on sarcasm. Quite a tiff crowd if you are an outsider it appears. But quite frankly, I had gentleman of questionable faculties replying in some cases, writing lengthy replies berating my posts when in fact that had misread what I (thought I) clearly wrote. Oh well. Such is the life on a bulletin board. Tinfoil hats evidently are needed over there in some cases.

**Csayankee** · 08-09-2004, 09:43 AM

Re: Actual calibration of Enfield sights: repro vrs original

I have fired my repo Euro-Arms Enfield several times and have never notiuced a problem with the sites. I have been dead on each time. YOu said you old Euro was corract, but your new Armi-Sports was off. I purchased my Enfiled about 4 yrs ago. Could just be a difference between the makers.

**Minieball577** · 08-09-2004, 10:18 AM

Re: Actual calibration of Enfield sights: repro vrs original

Originally posted by buckandball

I seem to have offended a few gentlemen on the N-SSA board with my dry humor that borders on sarcasm. Quite a tiff crowd if you are an outsider it appears. But quite frankly, I had gentleman of questionable faculties replying in some cases, writing lengthy replies berating my posts when in fact that had misread what I (thought I) clearly wrote. Oh well. Such is the life on a bulletin board. Tinfoil hats evidently are needed over there in some cases.

Mr. Grant, as I explained to you before, you would get more results on the N-SSA board (and presumably elsewhere) if you were to reconsider and reword what you post. Further more, coming to another board which is frequented by many skirmishers and denouncing them is probably not going to be productive. In this case it has little to do with you being an "outsider" and much to do with you being evidently inconsiderate and clearly insulting in some of your posts.

Simply put, this is a dead horse topic, as you state, likely on both boards, but certainly there. Sorry you didn't get your simple answer. Partake yourself in some real research, in the priamry and secondary source material I and others have presented you, and you will find the answer to your question.

Respectfully,

**buckandball** · 08-09-2004, 12:21 PM

Re: Actual calibration of Enfield sights: repro vrs original

Mr. Hubbard.

Again, thanks for your recommendations. Given that you took the time to reply, I must ask: Did you not fully read what I wrote? Each word I pick, sometimes well, sometimes not so well. I did not say everyone on the board was giving me bum scoop. I said "in some cases". And I never denounced anything. Please specifically quote where I denounce skirmishers or any other aspect of the N-SSA or its principals. I think you are actually being a touch inflammatory here, and this is going from amusing to peculiar.

You note "this is a dead horse topic, as you state, likely on both boards, but certainly there". Do you speak for the N-SSA board? I am not familiar with who is the over-all webmaster/proprieter of it. If it is indeed you, then you have the latitude to make such a lofty claim. And if this is the case, you have a nice board. If this is not the case, who again are you? Just another guy reading and replying, like the rest of us. Yes, no?

I am clearly aware that people use both boards, and many others. This was not a written as a slight against the board in its entirety, the N-SSA as an organization, or anything else. It was not meant as fodder to start a flame war. You can receive what I write how you wish. If you desire to take offense, that is your prerogative. If you can read it with humor, that might be the intent. If you truly think I am trying to bait or hurt someone, ask before you accuse. Do you agree?

I have had friends around a campfire in both the real and fantasy-hobby military have more heated conversations on these subjects with more inflammatory and insulting things said, none of which was taken personally and concluded with good cheer and humor. I imagine if we were all in a room together having this conversation, no one would come away with their feathers ruffled. I would hope.

But if I am going to get called out for being inconsiderate or abusive, neither is the case when you take into consideration:

*I have a gentleman write to me about how I erroneously mention raising or lower the rear sight to adjust the point of impact. I did no such thing. In my very first post, I mention "not adjusting the sight in order to not interfere with attaching the bayonet". What sight other than the front sight interferes with the bayonet?

*I specifically ask how were the originals sighted: I get tips for how to modify the sites for skirmish ranges of 50 to 100 yards (a modern fix?)

*I get polite explanations of what battle sight zero is on both these weapons and modern weapons (that wasn�t inquired about)

* I have a gentleman telling me that .223 rounds fired from a level barrel will hit the ground sooner than a .577 fired vertically. And remarking about the angle of departure relative to velocity, etc. And�? He didn�t relate to how this applies to the Enfield, its specific sight calibration except for the use of the tall sight. This is given.

*I never get one actual reference or comment about how the Enfield itself was sighted in.

*I never get any guidance as to what 3 band Enfield makes the best foundation for an �authentic� representation of the rifled-musket that both is accurately constructed and functions properly to include the sights.

*I did indeed misword one physics reference, and was glad for the gentleman's corrective effort, to which I very tongue in cheek made a "grade" reference. I was joking. I get rebuked by someone because of that. If that truly offended someone, the really take themselves all too seriously.

*I am in fact pursuing some primary and secondary references. Though a meager start, I even post links to some interesting articles others might find informative to some degree. I know this takes time. It is nice to not re-invent the wheel every step. Are not these and other such boards where like-minded people might share such information?

*Also, at every step, I sincerely thank anyone who has contributed some insight or information, or taken the time to post. Then there is a period to that sentence. Then I continue to take that information and see how it works with what I am trying to find out.

*Before people started posting and PMing and emailing me with comments of how my posts can be taken as abusive, I closed one of my posts with "I�m just trying to gin up the best supported argument for the strongest case.� and also "I might find I have a dinner of crow awaiting,..(if I am wrong)"

*I made no bones that if I find out someone was right in an assertion and I am wrong, so be it, I learn something.

If you have spent so much time reading and replying to me, have you also mentioned any of the above to the individuals who provided erroneous replies? Did you email of PM the fellow who misread my post and then went on about it?

Mr Wommack�s assertion that "The fun of this is the discussion" is spot on. With all due regard, give the insulted and offended position a rest for goodness sake. This isn't personal. If you think it is, so be it, but you�ll be having a one sided grudge. I�ll try to be more polite, up beat, and congenial.

:D

Warmest Regards

**buckandball** · 08-10-2004, 07:28 AM

Re: Actual calibration of Enfield sights: repro vrs original

Interesting short thread here on the subject:

http://www.britishguns.net/cgi-bin/forums/p1851.pl?read=189

**Curt Schmidt** · 08-15-2004, 01:16 PM

Re: Actual calibration of Enfield sights: repro vrs original

Hallo Kameraden!

From the Worthless and Unrelated Esoterica and Trivia Files...

There was a related problem with the German G98 Mauser in WWI. The long range "Lange" rear sight was designed for use in battles in open terrain, and the "lowest" rear sight setting was 400 meters.
When WWI broke out, the Germans later found themselves only 100-200 meters from the enemy trench lines- making it hard to draw a bead.
Some G98's exist with "factory" lowered rear sight notches to bring down the POI. Most do not.
That would seem to raise the question as to whether it did not matter much in terms of the maner of trench warfare, or possibly that the bullet's flight path was "flat enough" not that great a concern anyways...

There is an author reference from the Zulu War that speaks to some comments from the troops that hey preferred the Zulu's armed with the M1871 (-1889) Martini-Henry as they shot way high for lack of practice and skill with the weapon. But I also remember the exact same thing from the US Plains Indian Wars and the M1873 Trapdoor... ;-)

IF there was a concern with ACW era "Enfields'" sighting versus POI, I have not come across yet. (And with the finer points of "individual marksmanship" still being behind the tactics of massed linear firepower, I would be surpirsed to see any- not that I do not get surprised...)

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

**GaReb** · 08-17-2004, 06:43 PM

Re: Actual calibration of Enfield sights: repro vrs original

I also have had great accuracy come from my Euro-Arms Enfield. At 100 yards I can make Coke cans dance all day long. Never had any experience with Armi-Sport muskets though I have heard some negative things about them.

Announcement

Announcement

Actual calibration of Enfield sights: repro vrs original

Actual calibration of Enfield sights: repro vrs original

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment