Thread: .303 ammunition

And nicely grained wood! Keep it for its own sake, not simply because it was your dad's.

@7x64

And she's as much a "sporter" as a drag queen is a woman. It's a battle rifle which you now use for hunting.

Old CAC soft point hunting ammo isn't particularly collectable at all, but it is good hunting ammo. I have used it off and on of various ages and its all worked fine. Go and shoot it at what you want.

I see someone has posted another link to that horrendous Ballistic studies site. Another write up cobbled together from nicking observations from elsewhere on the internet mixed with blurbs from manufacturers. In this one, the guy rewrites standard descriptions of bullet brands, demonstrates an inability to understand how to change the sights on a rifle; prints manufacturers velocities as if he has tested them, chimes in with his expert theory (which I think he got from the back of a federal ammo box) that animals die from a correlation between magical formula using the animals body weight and something to do with the bullet; makes out various notions about POI changing on Lee Enfields depending on..something...that I have never observed; pretends that a Lee Enfield is better at being faster than a semi-auto (should have told the British government), referes to the Lee Enfield as an ""Enfield" like an American, (which shows hes getting his source material from the internet) and in general steals good ideas from other people as if they are his own, and presents bad ones made up by himself, on cartridges that he has never even fired.
I throw up bile into the nearest teacup whenever I read anything from that site and then feel out of sorts for the afternoon.
Oh and you should send him some money. Don't forget that. I didn't ask him to pop up in every goddamn google search because hes listed every cartridge under the sun on his site, but apparently, and I'm not sure how, he feels that I owe him a living.

Originally Posted by Carlsen Highway

Old CAC soft point hunting ammo isn't particularly collectable at all, but it is good hunting ammo. I have used it off and on of various ages and its all worked fine. Go and shoot it at what you want.

I see someone has posted another link to that horrendous Ballistic studies site. Another write up cobbled together from nicking observations from elsewhere on the internet mixed with blurbs from manufacturers. In this one, the guy rewrites standard descriptions of bullet brands, demonstrates an inability to understand how to change the sights on a rifle; prints manufacturers velocities as if he has tested them, chimes in with his expert theory (which I think he got from the back of a federal ammo box) that animals die from a correlation between magical formula using the animals body weight and something to do with the bullet; makes out various notions about POI changing on Lee Enfields depending on..something...that I have never observed; pretends that a Lee Enfield is better at being faster than a semi-auto (should have told the British government), referes to the Lee Enfield as an ""Enfield" like an American, (which shows hes getting his source material from the internet) and in general steals good ideas from other people as if they are his own, and presents bad ones made up by himself, on cartridges that he has never even fired.
I throw up bile into the nearest teacup whenever I read anything from that site and then feel out of sorts for the afternoon.
Oh and you should send him some money. Don't forget that. I didn't ask him to pop up in every goddamn google search because hes listed every cartridge under the sun on his site, but apparently, and I'm not sure how, he feels that I owe him a living.

I havn't fucking finished yet. Insert following: still refers to the phenomenon of hydrostatic shock as if its a real thing, and then states it can be increased or decreased by the ballistic co-efficient of the bullet. What.The.Almighty.Fuck.

Originally Posted by Carlsen Highway

Old CAC soft point hunting ammo isn't particularly collectable at all, but it is good hunting ammo. I have used it off and on of various ages and its all worked fine. Go and shoot it at what you want.
I see someone has posted another link to that horrendous Ballistic studies site. Another write up cobbled together from nicking observations from elsewhere on the internet mixed with blurbs from manufacturers. In this one, the guy rewrites standard descriptions of bullet brands, demonstrates an inability to understand how to change the sights on a rifle; prints manufacturers velocities as if he has tested them, chimes in with his expert theory (which I think he got from the back of a federal ammo box) that animals die from a correlation between magical formula using the animals body weight and something to do with the bullet; makes out various notions about POI changing on Lee Enfields depending on..something...that I have never observed; pretends that a Lee Enfield is better at being faster than a semi-auto (should have told the British government), referes to the Lee Enfield as an ""Enfield" like an American, (which shows hes getting his source material from the internet) and in general steals good ideas from other people as if they are his own, and presents bad ones made up by himself, on cartridges that he has never even fired.
I throw up bile into the nearest teacup whenever I read anything from that site and then feel out of sorts for the afternoon.
Oh and you should send him some money. Don't forget that. I didn't ask him to pop up in every goddamn google search because hes listed every cartridge under the sun on his site, but apparently, and I'm not sure how, he feels that I owe him a living.

Hi @Carlsen Highway

Niiice rant (-: but occasionally firing without a properly identified target. I'm not defending the TB guy to the hilt, except to say that no-one reading a review reasonably expects its author to have based everything on his own practical research, but in that regard he is open to some criticism because of omitting references. In fairness, he does not say Lee Enfields are as fast as a semi-auto - just that Lee Enfields, competently used, are surprisingly fast compared to bolt actions in general.

Something I read in this article in the past caught my eye again, namely his reference to .303 Mk VII spitzers:

"The rear heavy projectile remained stable in flight but on impact tumbled to produce severe wounds. This ammunition was soon discontinued by the British as a party to the Hague convention but was for a time available to hunters."

I have not seen this anywhere else. Nonsense insofar that the Mk VII round is Hague compatible (it has a FMJ) and it was anyway Dumdum ammunition (with exposed lead nose) that got withdrawn in the early 1900s in response to the Hague Convention. That Mk VIIs tumble more on impact than standard spitzers is to be expected, but all spitzers are prone to this from having their centre of gravity to the rear.

Originally Posted by Cordite

Hi @Carlsen Highway

Niiice rant (-: but occasionally firing without a properly identified target. I'm not defending the TB guy to the hilt, except to say that no-one reading a review reasonably expects its author to have based everything on his own practical research, but in that regard he is open to some criticism because of omitting references. In fairness, he does not say Lee Enfields are as fast as a semi-auto - just that Lee Enfields, competently used, are surprisingly fast compared to bolt actions in general.

Something I read in this article in the past caught my eye again, namely his reference to .303 Mk VII spitzers:

"The rear heavy projectile remained stable in flight but on impact tumbled to produce severe wounds. This ammunition was soon discontinued by the British as a party to the Hague convention but was for a time available to hunters."

I have not seen this anywhere else. Nonsense insofar that the Mk VII round is Hague compatible (it has a FMJ) and it was anyway Dumdum ammunition (with exposed lead nose) that got withdrawn in the early 1900s in response to the Hague Convention. That Mk VIIs tumble more on impact than standard spitzers is to be expected, but all spitzers are prone to this from having their centre of gravity to the rear.

Your defense of this rubbish is unworthy of you.

My target is clearly identified. I actually have read it. (Through a developing migraine.) When speaking of the speed at which the Lee Nefield bolt can be manipulated he writes: "...the open sighted Enfield was/is indeed vastly more effective than many open sighted semi auto rifle designs..."" Chew on that for a while and ponder the ramification.

As for reasonable expectations regarding personal research - - it is my reasonable expectations that have been raped by his driveling articles. Mind that plagiarism isn't just stealing someone else's sentences, it is also presenting someone else's ideas as if they were your own.

The whole website was a calculated attempt to write up a bunch of stuff and then make money of it. At best his articles are puff peices, like a high school student trying to fill up space in an essay he doesnt know anything about. At worst its disinformation, often plagerised, and horribly embarrassing when people overseas link to it.

He built his experts opinions on shooting cattle, that is his hook. I have no doubt that he shot some cows, and then looked at the bullet holes. The tragedy is that such a worthwhile exercise was wasted.

Originally Posted by Carlsen Highway

Your defense of this rubbish is unworthy of you.

My target is clearly identified. I actually have read it. (Through a developing migraine.) When speaking of the speed at which the Lee Enfield bolt can be manipulated he writes: "...the open sighted Enfield was/is indeed vastly more effective than many open sighted semi auto rifle designs..."" Chew on that for a while and ponder the ramification.

Hi @Carlsen Highway

As you said, your migraine....

Ho Hum, I was talking at his section mentioning the Canadian Rangers' Lee Enfields where speed of firing was discussed, and you were talking of the above quote. Yes, it's worth chewing on that and see what he is saying in the first place. It strikes me that this question has the potential to generate much heat and little traction or agreement, because the writer of TB does not specifically name the rifles he is comparing his SMLE to.

He refers to "many open sighted semi-auto rifle designs", but that is actually not a loose reference but a limited group. It excludes say the Garand (semi, but closed sights), the BAR (select fire, and closed sights), StGw44/AK47 (select firers, though open sighted). It includes say the SKS (really a carbine, but let's not nitpick) and a plethora of non-adopted auto-loading rifle designs of the early 1900s, some of which even lacked full top guards - imagine the mirage playing with your sight picture after 10-15 fast shots of cordite ammo.

Semiauto Rifles of WWI and Before - The Firearm BlogThe Firearm Blog.

I'd have qualified the statement saying that, as cost is a necessary consideration the SMLE was an effective way to get a lot of fast aimed lead downrange, vastly more effective than with a smaller number of many types of open sighted auto loader.

But personally...if going somewhere really hostile and I had the option of an open-sight auto loader, I'd rather bring an SKS, and lots of stripper clips.

The man said something fantastically stupid in the service of making himself sound like an expert.
You seem like a nice man. You are commended for defending him, you seem quite public spirited. I doff my hat to you.

Originally Posted by Carlsen Highway

You seem like a nice man. You are commended .... public spirited. I doff my hat to you.

Thanks @Carlsen Highway,

In deference to everyone else, we are by definition all nice people on NZHS. I know that because we are all government-certified "fit and proper" persons and as such good company, even @systolic who gets a lot of flak. And I must not take credit for defending someone I've never met, it's just that there appeared to be some merit to his (optimistic) statement.