Use of Lee Enfield after 1945

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Oh yeah.
The Brazil Mauser was 7mm.
Soooo.....Don't believe a word you read on the internet.
What I win?
The video on YouTube says aimed shots for the Garand 43 per minute
Aimed shots for Lee Enfield 27 shots.
And....drumroll please....aimed shots for the em-2 84 per minute!
That 3 times the firepower of the Enfield.
 
Beretta BM 59 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

During the 1950s, Beretta produced Garands in Italy at the behest of NATO, by having the tooling used by Winchester during World War II shipped to them by the U.S. government. These rifles were designated Model 1952 in Italy. Using this tooling, Beretta developed the BM59 series of rifles. The BM59, which was essentially a rechambered 7.62x51mm NATO caliber M1 fitted with a removable 20-round magazine, folding bipod and a combined flash suppressor/rifle grenade launcher. The BM59 is capable of selective fire. These rifles would also be produced under license in Indonesia as the "SP-1" series.
 
I gave you a bacon for the 7mm. ALL the captured 7.92 ammo in Europe wouldn't have a made a difference to a unit with 7mm rifles.

The trouble with most of these "aimed shots" per minute numbers is they are seldom (if ever) qualified by the number of hits on a given size target at a certain range. The details of the British "Mad Minute" being an exception but that still took digging. It also needs a bit of interpretation as what Sgt Major Wondershot, (instructor at school of musketry) did is hardly an example of what the average soldier could do. Please note the expected performance of even troops considered "expert" was roughly 1/2 what the peak records were.
No disrespect intended towards the men who set those records but long term soldiers whose JOB is firing and/or instructing troops in marksmanship are usually very far from average.
I would personally cut those aimed shots per minute in roughly half for even good troops.
I have done a lot of target shooting but only a little combat style shooting (army qualification type) so my familiarity with extreme speed shooting is limited although I tend to take too much time to aim. My idea of aimed fire involves 7 and 13 in circles at 200 and 300 yds,
Not man sized silhouettes at 100yds or less.
 
I suppose the Carcano couldnt fit the NATO round!
Just a video on YouTube. One of those very British pathe news style taking about Empire and the voice is so English received pronunciation that he was born in a suit and tie.
Tally Ho! Pip pip my good man. What what?
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wtjVf724G7w
 
Last edited:
There is no question that some of these old guns can shoot very well indeed.

However the target and the note bring up two rather important points.

1. That group was done with a hand load using commercial Sierra 168 grain bullets of far higher quality than any 7mm military ammunition used. Some military ammunition might be able to fairly well, other military ammunition might be lucky to stay within the 8 ring on that target.

2. Mausers in general have lousy sights. I would be willing to bet money that at least the high and low shot on that target are the result of sighting errors, that or inconsistent shoulder to stock contact.


Different Mauser but gets the idea. Getting the top of the pointy front sight dead even with the top of the rear sight 10 times in row is hard, almost impossible. Left and right can be a little iffy too. Please note this is against a white background. Now try aiming at a man in brown or khaki color clothes in a wooded area (in shadow). Now do it in a hurry.

The barrel and action of many of these old rifles are capable of very fine accuracy, but the less than quality ammunition (compared to what is available after WW II) and the difficulty in getting a consistent sight picture (especially with less than 20/20 vision) have a significant impact on the performance of the rifles as a weapon system.

BTW, more view through sights.
(http://imgur.com/ZM7IX)
Please note on the guns with Aperture rear sights it is not necessary to align the front the sight in the back sight for anyting but target work, Just align the front sight and target. Eye doesn't have to try to focus on the rear sight.
View: http://imgur.com/gallery/ZM7IX
 
Last edited:
Let's look at what happened next.
During WW1 era the emphasis was on the individual soldier being a first class shot and so giving the rifleman a tool for making one shot long range kills.
This is the Enfield P13 mentality in a nutshell.
But today is all about assault rifles and weight and rate of fire so the Sgt York mentality is gone.
Bolt action rifles firing full power cartridge are no longer issued to infantry as they are no longer matching the current tactics of fire and manoeuvre.
If the Lee Enfield was so quick to fire then why replace it? With a FAL? Because semi autos are simply faster to reload and faster to shoot. Even the Garand is faster to shoot and reload.
Of course the Garand has its strength and weakness and certainly not perfect as it's very susceptible to mud and dust and the SMLE is far more robust. But the SMLE attributes still doesn't stop it being replaced. So the continued use of the Lee Enfield into the 50s is not for love of the weapon. But lack of alternative.
 
The Russians did a lot of work with the PPSh-41 and seemed to have replaced the Mosin with it. So the Soviets moved to mass fire early doors.
The Germans also saw mass fire as the move forward although all German gun development abruptly stopped in 1945.
 

I think you have a misconception about WW1 trench warfare.
Riflemen were usually firing at extremely small targets, but not at what today would be called long range.
Opposing forward trenches weren't separated by a lot of ground, but it varied from one battlefield to the next. Generally ranges got shorter between opponents as the war went on. When they were firing at long range, they were firing at areas, not individuals.
More or less trying to saturate the area of the opposing trench with bullets.

Take the Sgt. York incidents, 7 of his kills was with his Colt M 1911 .45, and his rifle kills weren't long range shots either, but they were shots at very small parts that's his opponents exposed. Just as difficult, but in a different way.
 
Last edited:
I have no misconception about trench warfare.
Although there was semi auto rifles in WW1 the bolt action was fair enough. The shorter ranges meant that the P14 offered no advantage over the SMLE. Or the muddy condition. The P14 might have gained far more traction on the Veldt but that's a historical maybe.
The details you speak of bullet saturation is certainly proof of new tactics and new doctrine which is simply impossible with a bolt action rifle. An example is the 98 Mauser which is considered God like in the gun community. When the Germans used Sturmgewehrs in the field it was revolutionary and we certainly haven't gone back to bolt actions using 5 round clips.
 
The only date I can see on the article is 2006.
Interesting as it says some of the fucili are still in the boxes with the original packing grease.
A shame it says the Carcanos were destroyed. Although even a Carcano is still a killing weapon in the wrong hands.
 
The emphasis on marksmanship varied considerably from army to to army. The British emphasis was pre WWI, the British army was small and many of the troops were long term ( served more than few years) and were considered professional soldiers. The British interest was as a result of the treasury NOT providing enough machine guns in the early 1900s. Many continental armies placed no such emphasis on marksmanship. Their armies were mostly conscript and of short active service and providing large reserves to be call-up upon the out break of war. The US placed great importance on marksmanship but at times it has been more lip service.
It takes time and money to make large units have a high degree of marksmanship (as opposed to individuals) and standards drop considerably in war time. Not enough time spent on rifle ranges.
The importance of the rifle has varied considerably depending on other weapons in the squad/company/battalion and also with the nature of warfare. Nobody was worried about collateral damage (civilian causalities) from infantry weapons in WW I or WW II.
 
A Fucile '91 is present in each "Tiro a Segno Nazionale" Club in Italy as an historical reminder of the 15-18 War, so I had it in my hands, but I wasn't able to shoot with it, first as I wasn't able to get ammo, second, as it wasn't tested from long years, and probably to shoot was unsafe, so told me the armourer in charge.
Autorities are always very suspicious to leave war materiel in Italian hands, and that in particular in the '70s, when the political situation of Italy was particularly unstable.


When, after 1861, the "Marina Sarda", the "Marina Toscana" and "Reale Marina Borbonica" were melted together to create "Regia Marina Italiana", al lot of different firearms were in the arsenals, so a new rifle was to be adopted. Admirals choosed also a British rifle, the Enfield naval Rifle Pattern 58, of wich 12.000 were ordered from Birmingham factories.



So, nothing new under the sun.
 
Last edited:
there are three main tactical concepts that I'm familiar with in the use of squad based weapons, but all are basically about the relationship of rifles and MGs. I do know of others.

The german model emphasised the MG as the strength of its squad . Everything else was subordinate to it. They also tended to favour mobility and attack relative to some of the others. The germans also realised well ahead of everyone that the arbitary split or distinction between a squad MG and a support MG was uneccessary and reduced firepower in an attack. they developed what we now refer to as a general Purpose MG, or GPMG. The concept is basically the same today

The US also favoured firepower, but they were not as well served as the germans in the squad based MG and saw the rifle component of the squad as a means of boosting their squad firepower. Hence the thinking that led to the garand. in practice the US squads always missed the benefits of a proper squad MG, and the US whilst advocating a firepower solution to their squad battle solutions, then prompltly nobbled it by failing to make the Mg the main focus of their squad tactics.

In the british model MGs and rifle components were seen as equal elements in the squad battle tactics. the squad mg, centred on the BREN was the main firepower generator, but this was also met by rifle fire, which was seen as providing accurate, controlled fpf solutions. aimed fire was considered better for infantry, because it reduced ammunition wastage, kept the troops safer ( a man firing is also a man advertising his position and exposing his position). a man delivering an accurate round of rifle fire was a much better protected target. in an outfit such as any of the empire troops, manpower losses were a criticl factor and remained so after the war.

After the war the new German methods took favour, but in recent times there has been a return somewhat to the ideas of controlled, aimed fire once again. The differences between a semi auto rifle and a fully auto are more theoretical than real, and the semi auto tends to bring out the best in your riflemen as they try to mke each round count. I imagine a bolt action rifle has a similar effect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

The emblem on the fuselage of an F-106A
Replies
14
Views
1K
junkman3353
J
O
Muzzle velocity of Bofors 57mm m/47 gun
Replies
1
Views
478
Wurger
Korean War: Areas of Responsibility
Replies
4
Views
1K
ThomasP
T
Good video of most '60s NavAir aircraft
Replies
1
Views
677
Gnomey
A
What were the best cost effective fighters of the postwar era?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
4K
swampyankee
Menu
Log in
Register