The .303 Rifle including Lee Enfield

The .303 Rifle by Charlie Haley

~In a previous issue (V5.No.4: The .303 British) we looked at the fascinating history behind the development of the .303 cartridge, and now it is time to take a look at the equally fascinating array of rifles which were made to fire it.~

These rifles were the mainstay of the British Army during some of the most turbulent times in history, and were not found wanting. Some rifles were stronger, or technically more advanced, but only the Mauser came anywhere near achieving the sterling service that the 303 rifle in its various guises delivered.

Lee-Metford Mark I, Mark I* (1888)

First on the scene was the Lee-Metford. Developed during 1887 and officially adopted in 1888, it was so called because it utilised the turnbolt action and magazine developed by one James Paris Lee, and had Metford style rifling in the barrel.

This rifling was of shallow, segmental form, and was made like this to cope with the black powder fouling of early ammunition. It had a long, 30 inch barrel, weighed 9½ pounds, and was fed by means of an 8-round single column magazine. The action was characterised by its split bridge receiver, single rear locking lug with additional locking provided by the bolt bearing on the receiver wall, a separate non-rotating bolt head and cock-on-closing bolt throw. The Mark 2 Lee-Metford changed the eight round, single stack magazine to the more familiar ten round staggered magazine in 1892, and a dinky little saddle carbine appeared in 1894.

The magazine of the Lee-Enfield is detachable, but this is purely to facilitate cleaning or replacement if damaged. The magazines are supposed to remain permanently affixed during use, being reloaded or topped up from the top when necessary. At about this time a large number of .577/.450 Martini-Henry rifles were converted to .303 calibre to extend their useful service life, and served side by side with the bolt actioned Lee - particularly in the more remote corners of the globe.

When the propellant charge of the .303 was changed from black powder to cordite, all was suddenly not well with the Lee-Metford. Cordite is a very hot burning propellant and is quite erosive to barrel steel, and the shallow Metford rifling was being washed out and eroded after comparatively few rounds had been fired. To get around this, the rifling form was changed to the Enfield style, having five conventional lands and grooves with a left hand twist. The rifle was subsequently re-named the Lee-Enfield, one of the most famous names in firearms history. The outward appearance of the Lee-Enfield was identical to that of the Metford though, and many Lee-Metfords were converted to Enfields by the simple expedient of re-barrelling them. An “E” stamped on the knox-form of the barrel denotes Enfield rifling.

Lee-Enfield Mk.1 rifle - the original "Long" Lee-Enfield, made in 1900. Note the dust cover on the bolt, magazine cut-off and lack of the rear receiver bridge with its charger clip guides. Image by Kristopher Gasior of the www.CollectibleFirearms.com

This was the rifle of the British infantryman at the time of the Boer War, when the hapless Tommy Atkins was receiving a sound drubbing at the hands of the Mauser-armed Boers. This was the first time that British infantry had faced well-aimed, withering fire from repeating clip fed rifles, and they didn’t like it a bit. They actually developed a fairly profound inferiority complex, for although faulty tactics and strategy were largely to blame for the reverses suffered by the British, it became evident that the Boers could shoot better than they could.

Although the British Army had indeed given scanty attention to individual marksmanship, it didn’t help that a lot of the new Lee-Enfields were found to shoot considerably off the mark at moderate to long range. As there was no way of correcting the zero in the field, large quantities of the new rifle had to be shipped back to England to be fitted with appropriately corrected sights. Another drawback was that the Boer Mausers were clip fed and could be reloaded far faster than the Lee, which had to be loaded one at a time.

As the war concluded, lessons learned from it were already being incorporated into a hopefully improved rifle, which was unveiled in 1903 as the “Rifle, Short, Magazine, Lee-Enfield Mark 1”, the famous S.M.L.E. It took me quite some time to realise that, with the somewhat awkward, back-to-front nomenclature of British ordnance, the word “short” designation referred to the rifle, not the magazine! Whereas the magazine had the same dimensions as before, the rifle was indeed shorter than its predecessor. The idea was that the S.M.L.E. would be in between rifle and carbine length, and thus serve both functions.

Barrel length was now 25 inches, and the robust, bulldoggy nose cap/sight protector was introduced. Finally refined as the S.M.L.E. No.1 Mark 3 in 1907, it was lighter and handier than the long Lee-Enfield, was sighted for the new Mark 7 .303 ammunition, had the desired clip feed facility (or “charger loading”, as the British termed it) and possessed an excellent set of open sights, which could now be readily zeroed. Everyone should now be happy, right?

S.M.L.E. No.1 Mk.3.

Wrong. The new S.M.L.E. was roundly condemned, especially by those long on theory but short on practical experience. It was too short for the infantry. It was too long for the cavalry. It was an abomination, and should be replaced forthwith if not fifthwith, preferably by a Mauser type rifle. Such was the opinion of the time. The Mauser was the darling of the rifle world at the time, and a considerable faction within the British Army wanted it adopted. This now leads us to the strange saga of the Rifle-Which-Nearly-Was-But-Wasn’t and Nearly-Wasn’t-But-Was, generally known as the P-14.

The reasoning behind my somewhat excruciating hyphenated conundrum will become clear once we examine the history behind that odd rifle, the P-14. No sooner was the hapless No.1 Mark 3 adopted than there were plans afoot to replace it. Experimentation led to the adoption on a trial basis of the P-13 in 1913, and this was a different rifle indeed (although, confusingly, it is generally referred to as the “Enfield” rifle). It was far more Mauser like, having double front locking lugs on the bolt and the Mauser non-rotating claw extractor.

It also had the Mauser integral five round staggered magazine. A very good peep sight was fitted, which was ahead of its time, but protected by rather cumbersome “ears” machined into the receiver bridge. The calibre was also different, being a .276" (7mm) rimless round similar to the .280 Ross. Although it had its points, the whole rifle strikes me as being a Bisley target shooter’s idea of what an infantry rifle should be. Nonetheless, British Ordnance were impressed with it (who cares what a bunch of dumb old troops think, anyhow ?), and testing proceeded with a view to adopting it.

Unfortunately, these tests were beset with problems. Great difficulty was experienced, not so much with the rifle but with the ammunition. The new 7mm round produced excessive blast and flash, overheated the barrel and quickly eroded and fouled the bore. Much head scratching was done, but before any solutions could be obtained World War 1 intervened. It was wisely decided to shelve all development work on this troublesome new ammunition and to stick with the .303 round, for the time being at least. As such, a few minor modifications were made to change the new rifle to .303 calibre, and it now became the Pattern 1914 (or P-14) rifle.

Much to everyone’s surprise, the S.M.L.E. turned out to be an excellent combat rifle. The British troops, now superbly trained in musketry (particularly accurate rapid fire), were handing out a thorough drubbing to the German infantry. On occasion, the Germans believed themselves to be under machine gun fire, such was the accuracy and rapidity of the rifle fire directed at them.

The British rifleman of 1914 was capable of thirty aimed shots a minute -INCLUDING reloading - which most of us would be hard pressed to duplicate today, even with a self loader. The lessons of the Boer war had been well learned, and the rapid firing, handier, charger loading and supremely reliable Lee was undoubtedly the best infantry rifle of the war.

The trouble was, there weren’t enough of them. It soon became evident that the First World War would not be "over by Christmas", that a long conflict seemed likely and great expansion of the armed forces would be necessary. The Lee, good as it was, had one major drawback - it was time consuming to produce. The P-14, however, was designed with rapid mass production in mind. No manufacturer in the United Kingdom had the spare machinery and necessary facilities to take up mass production of it - all being fully occupied with other war work - so a decision was made to have the P-14 manufactured in the United States for the British Army as a substitute rifle to augment the inadequate supplies of the Lee. The Americans certainly had the necessary experience and technical capabilities, and manufacture of the P-14 commenced in the U.S.A. in the year 1915. They were made by the two rifle making giants, Winchester and Remington.

A P14 bayonet 22 ½ inches long overall the blade 17 inches long to fit the .303 P14 rifle. These rifles were made in the USA and used during the Great War and again by some units, mainly the British Home Guard during the Second World War. This example has it original US scabbard with frog attachment.

The blade is marked on the ricasso 1917 and Remington, on the opposite side is the US flaming grenade and screaming eagle and an X . The blade retains it darkened finish with blacked section at the base. The ribbed grips are in great fresh order. The original US style leather scabbard is in good order all moving parts are free and work well. It has a webbing frog which is in good used order.

British Enfield .303 caliber P14 rifle, made in USA by Winchester (Remington also made some); note the typical British brass disk with regimental numbers set into the buttstock

US .30 caliber M1917 rifle, right side

As it turned out, there was never any question of the P-14 replacing the Lee-Enfield. Far from it. The superiority of the Lee was now firmly entrenched, and the Bisley-like refinements of the P-14 left the British soldiery profoundly under-whelmed. They were primarily used for training and general rear echelon work, although some P-14’s saw considerable front line work as sniper rifles. Here their enhanced accuracy potential could be effectively utilised, and the P-14 was highly regarded in this role.

Ironically enough, when the Americans entered the war in 1917 they, too, faced a critical shortage of U.S. Army Springfield rifles. The Springfield was similarly difficult to mass produce, but guess what? There was all this machinery and tooling already set up to produce P-14’s for the British, the contracts for which were now fulfilled. It was but the work of a moment to do the few design changes necessary for it to be changed from the British .303 to the American .30-06 calibre, and hey presto - the Americans now adopted the self same rifle in .30-06 calibre as the P-17 to offset the shortage of Springfields.

Again, the P-17 was never intended to replace the Springfield, but it turned out that there were more P-17’s used by front line American troops than there were Springfields. Thus it was that a rifle which looked set to replace the Lee, which was then abandoned in the light of combat experience, came to at least partially equip two of the major armies of the conflict.

Ross M1907, officially known as Rifle, Ross, Mark II. This rifle has a Harris-type magazine with external latch, which controlled the movement of the magazine follower. This latch is clearly visible just below and to the rear of the rear sight.

A brief notation has to be made of yet another rifle in .303 calibre which was used during the First World War, and that was the Canadian Ross. Designed by a gentleman of the same name, the Ross rifle was one of the most controversial rifles of the war. Of straight pull design, the Ross shone in target rifle competition but was an unqualified disaster as a military rifle. Far from being rapid to operate, the straight pull Ross (in which the bolt is operated by pulling it directly back and forth instead if the conventional bolt’s up-back-forwards-down) was found to be more fatiguing and slower to operate.

Furthermore it lacked the primary extraction camming power of the conventional bolt, and stuck cases were thus hard to dislodge. It was also quite unsuited to the mud and filth of trench warfare, let alone the stresses and heat of rapid fire. Harrowing contemporary accounts spoke of Canadian infantrymen (who were stuck with the thing) desperately hammering at jammed bolts with muddy boots, entrenching tools or whatever came to hand in the face of relentless German advances - and dying because of it.

The Canadian troops abandoned the Ross en masse and aquired Lee-Enfields instead wherever possible. The Ross provoked somewhat of a crisis back in Canada, and was eventually officially discarded. The excellent and well proven Lee-Enfield was adopted in its stead. I have handled both, and can attest to the deficiencies of the Ross. Not only is it long, heavy, ill-balanced and awkward to handle, but the straight pull bolt is nowhere near as rapid to operate as the Lee’s.

Furthermore, it is possible to incorrectly assemble the bolt of the Ross so that it does not lock when pushed forwards. If fired in such a state, the bolt will fly out of the receiver, and indeed there are accounts of deaths and horrific injuries sustained when the bolt of a Ross blew out when fired. It may have been a superlative target rifle and a sporter ahead of its time (along with the .280 Ross cartridge, which was a 7mm magnum of advanced design), but a military rifle it was not.

This information comes from an article in the current (2005) issue of "Surplus Firearms" (Published by Guns and Ammo) and was written by one Martin Pegler who is listed as a Senior Curator, Royal Armouries, Leeds, UK. The title of the article is "Death from afar: Sniping in the Great War" and shows the picture of a scoped SMLE on page 44.

The contributor is paraphrasing somewhat from memory but basically the article said there were many SMLE's converted to telescopic sights during the great war. These initial conversions were done using a variety of mounts, scopes and rings produced by commercial English gun makers. Quality was a problem with mounting as the SMLE was not designed to take a mount easily. In 1915, contract SA390 was issued to insure quality and uniformity and the winner was "Periscopic Prism Co" in London. Almost 5,000 SMLE's were eventually produced equipped with a PPC mount and scope. Aldis scopes were also used with these mounts. The mount was a dovetail/screw on type with q/d rings. He states the Canadian Ross and P-14 were also used for sniping. Furthermore he also mentions that Australia made SMLE conversions and they were stored for future use.

At the end of the First World War, everyone was thus extremely pleased with the S.M.L.E., which had evolved into the No.1 Mark 3*. The star merely denoted a number of simplifications to the rifle to allow for greater ease and rapidity of manufacture. These simplifications primarily included the omission of volley sights, magazine cut-off and windage wheel on the rear sight, none of which materially affected the rifle, and indeed this type is the most commonly encountered version of the S.M.L.E. The volley sights in particular I find to be a source of great puzzlement and confusion, so they are worth going into in greater detail.

Early Lee rifles are frequently found with a peculiar rotating arm halfway down the left hand side of the fore-end, and a flip-up peep sight affair on the left rear portion of the receiver. These are the so-called “volley” sights, and are designed for mass firing at extremely long range. One rotates the front arm until the pointer indicates the desired range (which can be set from a low of 2000 yards up to an incredible 3500 yards).

One then flips up the rear peep sight, lines this up with the stud on the front arm (at which stage the rifle is being held not unlike a mortar) and lets fly at the extremely distant target. One was not, of course, expected to actually hit any individual with such a system, but it was supposed to be used by large concentrations of troops firing in volleys against other far distant enemy troop concentrations. This system may have been of benefit before mobile artillery and machine guns, but even then the benefits were, I suspect, more perceived than real. The volley sights were not missed when they were quietly dropped as an accessory to the rifle.

We move now to the period between the wars. While the S.M.L.E. was indeed highly regarded, there were one or two deficiencies which the powers-that-be desired to rectify. High on the agenda was a re-design to allow the Lee to be better suited to rapid mass production, as this had proved to be a major headache during the previous global unpleasantness. Furthermore, one of the features of the P-14 which was highly regarded was the peep sights. What was needed, therefore, was a peep-sighted Lee-Enfield which could be mass produced more easily and cheaply than the existing S.M.L.E. A rifle termed the No.1 Mark 5 was briefly flirted with, which was simply a standard S.M.L.E. but with peep sights, but not many were made and it was never anything more than an evolutionary step.

Development continued until the adoption of the Rifle No.4 Mark 1 in 1941. This embodied all the design requirements in a slightly heavier (9lb. 1oz) rifle with peep sights and a vastly different nose cap assembly. It was much easier to produce, though, and as an added bonus (although I don’t think this was originally required or even intended) the action was somewhat stronger. It was this rifle which eventually became the standard British Army infantry rifle during the Second World War.

Another deja vu occurred in mid-1941 when (again) it was realised that accelerated rifle production was needed, and that (again) the Americans were the ones to achieve it. This time, though, a slightly simplified Lee-Enfield No.4 was produced, much the same as the British rifle. Savage Arms was the chosen company, and the American manufactured No.4’s were dubbed the Rifle, No.4 Mark 1*. Strangely enough, they were marked “U.S. PROPERTY”, although there was never any question of the U.S. Army using them. The Savage No. 4’s had a simplified bolt release, a simpler two-positional flip peep sight instead of the elaborate click adjustable British version and two-groove rifling instead of the standard five groove Enfield barrels.

SMLE No.4 Mk.1

A further version appeared in May, 1945. The No.4 rifle had been giving its anticipated sterling service throughout the war, but it was somewhat long and heavy. A lighter and shorter rifle was needed for the Eastern theatre, for fighting the Japanese in terrain which largely consisted of thick jungle. From these requirements came the Rifle No.5 Mark 1, the “Jungle Carbine”. It was shorter and lighter, having a belled flash hider and rubber recoil pad, and was an extremely appealing little rifle altogether. Unfortunately the recoil exceeded the tolerance levels of the average trooper, and the rifle itself suffered from a “wandering zero” problem. It would shoot reasonable groups always, but not always in the same place from one day to the next. Some rifles were found to have consistent zeroing, while other individual specimens wandered all over the show. Various expedients were tried to overcome this problem, but by now self-loading rifles were obviously the way to go and further development was halted.

Webmaster's note. Production of the "Jungle Carbine" actually continued and the rifle was on issue to Australia troops during the Malayan Emergency. It was an acceptable weapon and only the advent of the SLR, L1A1, the Australian version of the NATO FN removed it from service.

The No. 4 Mark 2 appeared in the remarkably late year of 1949. Most nations (including the British) were actively seeking a self-loading infantry rifle, but in the meanwhile more .303 No.4 rifles were needed, so more were duly manufactured. The only difference between the earlier Mark 1 and the newer Mark 2 was that the latter had the trigger pinned to the receiver instead of the trigger guard. This eliminated differences which could occur in trigger pull due to stock swelling and warping.

These No.4 Mark 2 rifles are actually some of the finest No.4’s to be found, as they were manufactured to a high degree of fit and finish which was denied the wartime versions. I have encountered No.4 Mark 2 rifles dating from the mid - 1950’s, remarkable when you consider the American semi-auto Garand pre-dated this by twenty years. The No.4 .303 was finally ousted by the 7.62mm Nato S.L.R. rifle in British service, and an era stretching from 1888 seemed to have ended.

Not quite, though. Experiments were made to convert the Lee to the new 7.62mm round, and while it was found that the S.M.L.E. generally would not pass proof firing with the higher pressure 7.62mm, the No.4 action was amply strong. Initial conversions were identical in appearance to the standard No.4 except for the squarer magazine, but for some unfathomable reason they were not particularly accurate. I owned one of these rifles for a while, and although headspace was fine and bore was good, accuracy was hopeless - certainly nowhere near as good as identical .303 specimens. I bedded the barrel. I free floated the barrel.

I tried different ammunition and bullet weights. Nothing helped. British Ordnance obviously came to the same conclusion, for it was a short lived conversion. However, it was discovered that when equipped with a heavy contour 7.62mm barrel and cut-down stock, the No.4 was capable of truly remarkable accuracy out to and even beyond 1000 yards. Called the Enfield Envoy, it was THE Bisley long range rifle for many years, and is still to be found even now on the firing points. Scope sighted Envoys served the British Army as sniper rifles until very recently as the L42A1 rifle.

Being built to last, there are still a lot of .303 rifles around. Vast quantities of surplus Lees have been sold to the ever-eager buying public world wide, and here in Zimbabwe too. Lee-Enfields must in fact be one of the most commonly owned firearms in this part of the world. My very first full bore rifle was a Police surplus S.M.L.E. Its acquisition was an auspicious moment indeed, as I have always had a great fondness for the S.M.L.E., even as a nipper when I didn’t even know what they were called. I could recognise pictures of them, though, and I yearned for my own one ever since my earliest recallable memories. It cost me $20, and I still have it. I will not be disposing of it in a hurry either, as it is one of my most treasured rifles - more so than a lot of rarer and more desirable firearms which have come and gone.

Unfortunately .303 rifles in good original condition are becoming more and more scarce. I know that a Lee makes one of the word’s best knock-about general purpose rifles, and that cutting down the wooden fore-end makes the rifle lighter and handier, but I must admit to a preference for such rifles to be in original condition. This brings me to another very important issue, and that relates to the fact that most .303 bores are found to be in abysmal condition when one peers down them. A rough, dark bore in a .303 is definitely the rule rather than the exception, and this is due to corrosive ammunition.

The British clung to corrosive primers for an extraordinarily long time, and so did the South Africans. Those large, copper coloured primers contain potassium chlorate as their primary active ingredient, which leaves a residue of potassium chloride (which is a salt) upon firing. Salt, of course, causes steel to rust like billy-ho, and normal gun cleaning nitro-solvents will not dissolve it. I have seen this myself, cleaning the bore of a rifle until it looked like a new pin only to find it furred by rust after a few days. Boiling water is the only thing which will reliably remove this salt residue, so after firing a .303 you must brush and clean the bore as normal, then pour plus or minus half a litre of boiling water down the barrel. Push a patch through to dry it, then follow with a light coat of preservative.

The bore will now remain immaculate for an indefinite period, and there will be no nasty surprises next time you inspect your rifles' bore. If this procedure is not done - or if it was not done even ONCE after firing during the rifle’s entire history - a rusted and pitted bore will result. No .303’s have chromed bores, and bear in mind that MOST military surplus .303 ammunition is corrosively primed. If you are not sure, assume your ammo has chlorate primers and boil out accordingly. I boil out .303 barrels even when I know the primers are non-corrosive, as I find it gets rid of a lot of crud that normal cleaning methods will not remove.

To possess one’s own .303 rifle is to own a small part of world history. To find one is not too difficult, but as mentioned good specimens in original condition are becoming scarce. Should you find such a rifle, and find that the bore is also in good condition....grab it!!! If you must (or if it has already been done) the Lee-Enfield can be made into a nifty sporter by trimming and slicking up the woodwork and abandoning some superfluous ironmongery. Slim, trim sporter sights make a racy replacement for the more than adequate but cumbersome military ones, and scope mounts are available for most variants too. When doing up a Lee or P-14, I would definitely recommend raising the comb of the butt, especially if scoping it is in order.

The comb of the .303 rifle butt is too low anyhow, but adding a scope greatly magnifies this deficiency. If you wish to rapidly reload, don’t bother your head about trying to find spare magazines - the Lee was not meant to work this way, and spare mags have a habit of shedding their rounds anyhow. Rustle up a couple of clips, and all will be well. You will probably be surprised how fast a Lee can be reloaded with a clip. So were the German infantry in 1914.

I have frequently wished that firearms could talk - the next time you handle an old, common-or- garden Lee-Enfield, I will be surprised if you do not find yourself wishing this as well, as you try and imagine where this venerable old artifact has been, who has held it and what it has done. Deep respect, because of age or usage or as worthy of deep respect because of age or association.

The .303 British Cartridge

The .303 British Cartridge by Charlie Haley

~Adopted in 1888, the .303 arrived in the midst of a huge global upheaval in small arms development. It really was a bit much - one had just adopted a single shot breech loading black powder military rifle in a then gee-whiz small-bore .45 calibre (the.450 Martini-Henry), which had all seemed pretty state-of-the-art at the time, and now there were all these .30 calibre repeating rifles with jacketed bullets propelled by some new fangled smokeless powder.

Left to right: .577/450 Martini Henry, MKII .303, MKV Hollowpoint .303, MK7 .303, 8mm Mauser, 8x50R Mannlicher.

Left to right: .577/450 Martini Henry, MKII.303, MKV Hollowpoint .303, MK7.303, 8mm Mauser, 8x50R Austrian Mannlicher

Furthermore, velocities now approached (and even exceeded) TWO THOUSAND FEET PER SECOND!

This was almost unbelievable in the black powder era, and opened up boundless possibilities as far as greater range and flatter trajectories were concerned. What was a chap to do? Being a major global power, the British Army couldn’t exactly ignore such developments, and the .303 was the result.

Britain adopted a turn-bolt, magazine fed action invented by one James Paris Lee, mated to a barrel with segmental rifling invented by William Metford, the whole being known as the Lee-Metford rifle. There were two distinct peculiarities with regard to this new cartridge, however. One was that it was rimmed. Admittedly, all the previous black powder rounds had also been rimmed, but the 8mm Mauser round, also of 1888, was of rimless design, which was far more suited to repeating rifles. The second curiosity was that the .303 was originally loaded with black powder. All other major powers were changing to the new nitro smokeless propellant, invented by the French chemist Vielle and adopted by France (a major rival) in 1886.

However, Britain, although adopting a small-bore round which was modern by contemporary standards, only went the smokeless route in the early 1890’s. It appears that they were having problems with the development of a suitable smokeless propellant, and as a stop-gap measure used a compressed charge of 70 grains of black powder behind a 215 grain round nosed bullet. How they achieved this I don’t know, as it is a physical impossibility to stuff 70 grains of black powder into a .303 case by any conventional method! This gave the aforementioned bullet a velocity of 1,850 fps, which was still pretty respectable for its day.

Eventually the propellant was changed from black powder to the famous Cordite in 1891 or 1892 (references differ as to the exact date of changeover) by means of the “Mark 1 C” cartridge, “C” denoting Cordite smokeless nitro propellant. A few minor changes necessitated by the new propellant resulted in the “Mark II C” cartridge. The same 215 grain bullet now achieved a velocity of 1970 fps, and everyone seemed satisfied.

Everyone that is, aside from those who actually had cause to shoot anyone with this new round and rifle. Good accuracy, yes. Flat trajectory, no doubt about it. Amazing firepower too, from this new magazine fed repeater. This was just as well, as those hit by it frequently failed to acknowledge the fact, and regularly took multiple hits before actually ceasing in the attempt to rearrange one’s internal anatomy with various sharp and unpleasant edged ethnic implements. In the 1890’s the British Army was engaged in a number of operations in the Indian and Afghan theatre, and this lack of effectiveness of the new ammunition was a cause of major concern.

The previous Martini-Henry rifle with its 480 grain soft lead bullet had been proven time and time again, but this new rifle just wasn’t up to snuff. When small British detachments found themselves outnumbered ten to one against fanatically courageous opponents who took and gave no quarter, the problem was a serious one. Wound ballistics was a poorly understood science in those days, but even 1970 fps was insufficient for such a small-bore, relatively heavy, round nosed projectile to be effective as a military round. Penetration was fantastic - even up to and including an elephant’s skull - but it was too good on human targets, and energy transmission was virtually nil. Sub - 2000 fps speeds were too low for effective hydrostatic shock and temporary cavitation, all of which the British trooper was finding out the hard way on the field of battle.

As most of this unpleasantness was going on in the Indian theatre, the problem was tackled in situ and was solved at a place whose name must rank as one of the most over-used, misquoted and poorly understood terms in the history of firearms in general and projectiles in particular. The place was Dum-Dum arsenal in India. It was here that the full metal jacketed .303 bullet was changed to one having a small amount of lead core exposed at the tip, creating in effect a soft-nosed bullet which would expand in flesh - as did the previously used Martini-Henry lead bullets - and thus greatly increase its effectiveness.

Any hunter having observed the differing terminal effects of solid bullets as compared to soft noses on lighter, thin skinned game will readily appreciate the difference. The .303 and the .450 Martini- Henry rounds were almost identical in their actual muzzle energies, but now the .303 could more effectively deliver that energy to the target. The infamous Dum-Dum bullet was born, and real-life fighting showed it to be far more effective than the old Mark 2 bullet. Troops engaged in savage warfare, but still equipped with the older Mark 2 ammunition, would sometimes file down the tips of the nully jacketed bullets to make them like the “Dum-Dum” projectiles.

In those days the Indian contingent of the British army had considerable autonomy in equipment and procurement of same, so while the Indian theatre was equipped with the soft nosed Dum-Dum bullet the same was never adopted by the rest of the British army. The same problem was appreciated, but dealt with in a different way by the adoption of a hollow-nosed bullet called the Mark 3, soon improved and widely manufactured as the Mark 4 in 1897, and the very similar Mark 5 of 1899. (It is emphasised at this point that “Mark 2”, “Mark 3”, etc, refers solely to ammunition development and bullet types. This nomenclature has an entirely different meaning when applied to the rifle itself).

It was at about this time, when Britain started to feel the heat politically over these expanding bullets. While such bullets were generally felt to be okay in outer corners of the globe where one’s opponents wouldn’t know acceptable codes of conduct in warfare if such codes ran up and bit them, the general consensus was that it would be a sorry thing if such bullets appeared in so-called "civilised" warfare. In view of what the First World War was to usher in in the not-too-distant future, one wonders what "civilised" warfare actually is.

My view is that it is an oxymoron. Be that as it may, much political hay was made by Britain’s rivals over these allegedly "inhumane" bullets. All this culminated in the signing of the Hague Convention of 1899 (not the Geneva Convention, which is so often erroneously supposed, which deals with other matters). It was the Hague Convention which, among other things, specifically bound nations at war to refrain from using bullets which would “expand or flatten easily in the human body...” and which was specifically aimed at soft or hollow nosed bullets.

Britain could have argued the point, but was walking a bit of a political tightrope at the time in the form of the Boer War. The Boers did not wage war in any form of barbarous or inhumane fashion, and the use of expanding bullets on such an opponent was not justified by any means. What to do now? Britain responded by withdrawing all hollow-point ammunition from the South African theatre, and went back to the drawing board. What was needed was a bullet which would abide by the letter of the Hague Convention for use in Europe, should the necessity ever arise, but which would still retain adequate effectiveness in other theatres of conflict should one desire one’s hit foe to realise this and stay hit.

The Mark 6 bullet was briefly flirted with in 1904, having a thinner jacket, but this was far from satisfactory and did not solve the problem at all. However, in 1905 the Germans startled the military world with the adoption of their revolutionary new bullet for the 8mm Mauser. This was the sharply pointed lightweight 154 grain bullet at nearly 2900 fps, which by virtue of its greater speed and superior ballistic coefficient bestowed by its streamlined shape gave ever greater advantages of range and trajectory. This once again shook the military world, and the new German "Spitzgeshoss" (or “pointed bullet”) lives on in modern bullet designation in the “spitzer” term, meaning the same thing. The exterior ballistic advantages of this new bullet were certainly not lost on the British, and the terminal effects of the enhanced velocities were beginning to be appreciated as well.

At these greatly increased velocities not only was there another quantum leap in even flatter trajectories, but now there was a greater effect evident on those hit by such bullets. Not only were the lighter, pointed bullets more unstable, tending to deform in flesh, but the velocity of the bullet was causing damage to tissue even some distance away from the actual bullet track, and exit wounds were now large, gaping, unpleasant affairs. Although not fully understood at the time, these were manifestations of hydrostatic shock.

“Hydro” is, of course, anything to do with water. Among its other properties, one of the physical characteristics of water is that it is incompressible. This means that shock waves radiate through water very efficiently (just watch ripples on a pond when you throw in a stone, a half brick, the dog or whatever). Guess what the human body is largely made up of. That’s right - water. This is the same phenomenon that causes the familiar blood-shot, bruised meat in an animal when hit with a high velocity hunting bullet. All in all, anyone hit by one of these new bullets stayed hit! You can be sure that this was not lost on the British Army.

There were one or two problems, however. For one, the .303 round did not have the capacity of the 8mm Mauser case, and for another the Lee action was not as strong as the Model 98 Mauser when it came to handling high pressures. Furthermore, the British were unwilling to go to a pointed bullet of less than 174 grains. This bullet could only be safely driven to a velocity of 2440 fps in the Lee, and while this velocity produced hydrostatic shock effects it was not as spectacular as the Mauser. The British army, sensitive to the earlier failures of the Mark 2 bullet, felt that a little bit extra was needed. This little bit extra was provided by the Mark 7 spitzer bullet, adopted in 1910.

To all intents and appearances, the new Mark 7 bullet was a fully jacketed pointed bullet weighing 174 grains. However, things were not as they may have appeared. Beneath the full metal jacket lurked a radical bullet design, for anyone who sectioned one of the new bullets found an aluminium tip under the point, which extended fully one third of the bullet’s length. Beneath this aluminium tip was the conventional lead core.

This design firstly ensured that the bullet was long for its weight, which is not a bad thing at all for enhanced long range performance. Mainly, however, the bullet’s centre of gravity was now further to the rear, which caused it to be unstable on impact and prone to tumbling. This of course greatly increased its wounding potential, but never mind - it had a full metal jacket to keep the politicians happy! Hypocritical, isn’t it? Here was a bullet far more devastating than the original "dum dum", but which was now acceptable because it didn’t actually expand - it just tumbled through like a buzz-saw! That’s politics for you. Are you surprised? No, I didn’t think you would be.

Schematic of MKII Bullet, MKV Hollowpoint and MK7 Spitzer.
Left to right: .577/450 Martini Henry, MKII .303, MKV Hollowpoint .303, MK7 .303,8x57mm Mauser, 8x50R Austrian Mannlicher.

I can certainly attest to the effectiveness of this design, having seen first-hand the effects of .303 rifles during post mortems. Typically it breaks into bits, and the sight of the aluminium tip on an X-ray is always a sure sign that you are dealing with a .303. Interestingly enough, the tip is not always of aluminium.

Sir Sidney Smith, an eminent forensic pathologist and pioneer forensic ballistics experimentor, had cause to examine a great many wounds caused by .303 rifles during the riots and nationalist upheavals in Egypt during the 1920’s. He found that some of the bullets had a wood pulp tip under the jacket, and accordingly wrote to the War Office pointing out that (a), some ammunition manufacturers were using wood pulp instead of aluminium in their bullets, (b) that the wood pulp tips appeared to be achieving the same results as the aluminium, and (c) if this were so, would it not be much cheaper to use wood pulp in all ammunition instead of aluminium?

The War Office replied, saying that they were aware of the substitution as it had been authorised during the First World War at a time when aluminium was in critically short supply. Furthermore it would not, as supposed, be cheaper to use wood pulp, as the pulp had to go through a number of sterilising procedures to ensure that wounds would not become infected or contaminated by it. This struck Sir Sidney - as it does me - as a rather delicate thoughtfulness for the victim of a gunshot!

Actually, this engineered instability within the Mark 7 .303 bullet has largely been the cause of its controversial reputation in the hunting fields. Its predecessor, of moderate speed and round nose, was renowned for its penetration, and a great many of the old professional ivory hunters made a start with an Army surplus Lee and a crate of Mark 2 ammunition. The arrival of the Mark 7 bullet severely curtailed penetration, and performance was erratic even on the larger soft-skinned species (let alone elephants)! Of course, if one used round nosed solids when penetration was needed and the excellent Kynoch 215 grain soft noses for lighter game, all was well. The abundance of Mark 7 ammo meant that not many did this, of course, so the .303 began to get a bad reputation in the hunting field, which it by no means deserved.

The .303 continued as Britain’s standard military round right up until 1958, when it was ousted by the 7.62mm Nato round in the S.L.R. rifle. It was remarkable that it lasted so long, given that the .303 case design was dated even when it appeared. Indeed, attempts were made to adopt a more modern round, but inconvenient things like World Wars kept interrupting. It was not until the conclusion of the second global unpleasantness that any real progress was made, and even then it took another thirteen years. It would be a mistake to imagine millions of .303’s being cast aside overnight, though, as they continued to give service in a great many out of the way parts of the world.

Nowadays there are more in private hands than anywhere else. Recent sales of Government surplus Lee-Enfields have ensured that it is one of the most widely used centre-fire rifles in this part of the world. Along with them came quantities of Mark 7 ammunition, so remember - for hunting, best substitute that military bullet for a good 180 or 215 grain soft nose. The .303, when so loaded, is one of the finest bushveldt cartridges around. Despite its rimmed and tapered case, the .303 must rank as one of the most significant and successful rounds ever made. Well over 100 years old, it still gives sterling service world wide, and it more than deserves the accolade “venerable”. There is no reason why it should not go on for another hundred years.