I'm still reading this thread...all very interesting, cats...
I'm still reading this thread...all very interesting, cats...
Again, this video is pointless unless we know what ammunition was used and to what extent it was modified, but still - here's a video of a chap firing a cutdown lee enfield .303 one handed ...
Assuming that the estimated theory that you lose 50fps for every inch of barrel removed, reducing the 25.2inch SMLE barrel down to 10 inches would reduce the muzzle velocity from 2,441feet/sec to 1,681feet/sec . (Currently - the Smith and Wesson Model 460 has a muzzle velocity of 2,330feet/sec. )
Anyone with a bit more knowledge regarding bullet grain fancy trying to figure out an estimation of free recoil using a Recoil Calculator?
EDIT: I've had a go but not sure if I'm doing it correctly! I got a figure showing a recoil energy of 8 foot/lbs and a recoil velocity of 10 feet/sec using 150gn round with 40gn powder weight, in a 5lb weapon with a muzzle velocity of 1681feet/sec. One website I found listed the .357 Magnum using 158gn rounds giving a recoil velocity of 21.3foot/lbs. This is what makes me think i've done something wrong in the calculations. As much as I want to believe that the recoil would be considerably less than a punchy pistol, I refuse to believe it would be nearly half as less. Anyone who has more skill with this care to calculate it ?
Also - Recoil is only relevant when the weapon is coming into contact with a solid surface. Firing the cut down enfield one handed would make it spring upwards, knackering up any chance you had of a second shot. There may be a chance of breaking your wrist if it was a solid immovable object but your elbow and wrist and shoulder all flex, and you move backwards. We've all seen those videos on youtube of people firing large caliber handguns and it going back and hitting them in the face because the arms move, they don't shatter the wrist. Average medical estimation is it only takes 5lbs to break a wrist bone. By your theory that would mean pretty much every handgun would break a wrist. But it doesnt because the human body is designed to contract and cushion impact. The arm flexes and the wrist moves automatically upwards as the arm contracts. Its something along those lines that will happen with the SMLE *if* you were firing it one handed. But this is what we seem to have missed. You wouldn't fire it one handed. Surely you'd still keep a grip on the front of the rifle as it's a bolt action. Your grip on the front is going to spread the recoil energy between both wrists. evening it out and lessening the danger.
For a lovely slowmotion example - totally irrelevent to cut down lee enfields but superb nonetheless, is around the 30.55 mark in this video where we see R.L.E firing a S&W 500, with a muzzle energy of 3,030ft/lbs.
I must admit that in my 10yrs on the police force and other circles in the security field , i have never seen or heard of a sawn off .303 being used in a crime scenario in this country, i cannot speak for other countries, a colleague of mine who spent a few yrs in Northern Ireland during the hostilities cannot remember hearing of one being used nor seen one during arms caches found, which makes these weapons few and far between, in either case it is a completely impracticle weapon to use, however it appears that they did exist in very small numbers for what ever reason during the period, the video shows one being used that has been converted with the addition of a pistol grip then it shows the reaction of the firer, with the pistol grip fitted his hand and arm are straight therefore able to absorb some of the recoil, imagine the recoil without the grip and just a crude sawn stock being used, the angle of the firers wrist would in my view render them to injury if fired single handed
Holding one here now - the instinctive thing to do is hold it low, almost from the hip - like one would hold a sawn off shotgun. What seems to be suggested is the lee enfield aimed almost like a dueling pistol ? This probably would break your wrist. But since cutting down a lee enfield removes its sights, then attempting to line up your eye with it is pretty much a waste of time. In close combat, it'd be very much a point and shoot and hope that this .303 round punches a hole in your attacker enough to stop him coming at you with a shovel.
I assume that sawn off shotguns are more popular in "civilian" areas such as Northern Ireland due to the ease to which a shotgun can be acquired. A sawn-off is the perfect weapon for concealment and room-clearance. Rifles for long distance, shotguns for close range. But it seems to me that there were no shotguns in the trenches during WW1 which strikes me as odd. Surely a shotgun would be perfect for trench clearance, close range combat, and much much cheaper to produce than a bolt action magazine fed rifle?
Just did a bit of reading - it seems that the Americans brought in Shotguns to WW1 and both the British and Germans considered this to be most crass! Apparently the Kaiser ordered any US POWs found with a shotgun to be executed on the spot!
In any case, I think we need some real historical evidence to go any further with this. Does anyone have any?
Wow - who rattled your cage?
If you're going to get all shirty because someone has spoken about something without giving full factual supporting evidence, then there's a few statements you made that you should show evidence for.
-"Revolvers were actually a lot cheaper than Lee-Enfield rifles. In 1915, the cost of an SMLE Mk III to the British Army was £5 10s, whereas a Webley Mk VI was £3 4s 6d". (Upon what evidence is this statement made?)
-"There is no way on Earth that the guy in the video is firing a full charge round, as would be used in a 7.62mm or .303" military rifle." (Upon what evidence is this statement made? You quote someone else's post on this thread as "proof" but that's not enough)
-"All the decent references I have seen for the 'obrez' sawn-offs suggest they were used with reduced charge ammo." (Upon what references?)
-"Damaging valuable ammunition like that would see you on a charge in 1914-18." (What Law are you quoting here?)
and theres plenty of other posts around the forum where you've stated things without backing them up with proof. Does this mean we should ignore everything youve posted without proof?
I don't know why you are on your high horse over this. It was established very early on that there wasn't a lot of information on these things, and the conversation descended into speculation and theory. People generally seem to be having fun discussing the possibility of this weapon being used and for some reason this annoys you and you seem hell bent on proving us wrong?