.303, good enough to fight a war, why is it not widely used for stalking?

[Muir]

Oh you mean like the P-17 rifles.

Now Brit...
The P-17's became the excellent Remington Model 30 Express in civilian life. They were very popular but more expensive to make than the Winchester Model 54 and later, the Winchester Model 70. The P-17 survived until 1947 as the Model 725 Remington at which point Remington took up with the cheaper, lathe turned 721 and 722 series. Hell. Thirty years isn't a bad run for a rifle.~Muir

 

[Thar]

Firstly let me say I would love a Lee-Enfield 303 in my cabinet, just got to think of a good reason to own one.:idea:


The 303 was deemed obsolete by the British Military even before the WW1, it replacement was to be a .276 calibre (7mm) Mauser Rifle the P14. However with the out brake of war it was put on hold and we went to war with the 303, which of cause we used in WW2, and Korea. I have no doubt that at longer range the 7 mm would have been a better cartridge, but as luck would have it research even before the war had ended established that most engagements took place at under 300 yards, to this end the Germans introduced there MP-44 assault rifle chambered in 7.92 short. At these ranges I doubt the 7mm would have given our boy much advantage. It should be noted that the Japanese who entered the war with 6.5 calibre rifles changed to a 7.7mm (30 cal) cartridge during the conflict because they found the 6.5 lacked stopping power compared to the Commonwealth forces with 303 and US forces with 30-06s.


As a battle field rifle especially in the mud of the trenches, the sand of the desert or the Jungles of Asia where rugged reliability saved lives, along with its 10 shot magazine, quick to cycle rear locking bolt must make the Enfield one if not the best rifle of its day.

As for deer stalking I would use one on a high day, just to pay homage to all the men that had to use one with they liked it or not to allow us all to be free today.


ATB

Tahr

 

[Paul at Fechan]

Paul,

Now don;t take this the wrong way but part of the 303 falling out of favour especially in some the best game hunting places in the world is because it was banned from civilian ownership. I believe it's still banned in India and whole swathes of Africa banned it. Not due to it's performance on game but it's use on ordinary folks and the Government by insurgents as they are called today.

There's a surprising number of countries that ban military calibres for sporting use like France being the obvious pain. I remember a TV documentary on Alaska where a guy with a 303 nailed a few cari's from his canoe as they have just crossed the river. They went down no problem.

 

[Brithunter]

Ahhh Thar,

As for deer stalking I would use one on a high day, just to pay homage to all the men that had to use one with they liked it or not to allow us all to be free today.

If only that was so . Free yeah right.

You forgot the government sell out of the 280 British and the EM2 but the twists and turns of the .276 and the later 280 British would take up much too much time and room here and I know only a part of the story. As for this:-

Firstly let me say I would love a Lee-Enfield 303 in my cabinet, just got to think of a good reason to own one.

Here is good reason enough:-

This BSA has a single stage trigger, safety under the thumb, forwards for safe ........... yeah I know it would confuse some , 5 round drop mag with flawless feeding. Sorry no scope .

Now Muir,

The history and development o the P-13 into the P-14 then it's adaption to the US 30-06 and production as the US rifle of 1917 is reasonably well known to me. I have sorry had been trying to pry information as to the owner of a .35 Remington chamber Model 30S that's been in storage at a gunmakers from many years unsuccessfully I might add but thanks as I was not sure when they changed to the bit of gas pipe as a receiver instead of a proper forged one. So Model 725 and Model 30 are OK for me anything afterwards ...................................... Hmmmmm .

The biggest problem with the P-14/P-17 is that the government didn't send inspectors to make sure the production was gauged properly hence they different makes are not fully interchangable as are the No4's and the No1's. This is the reason the No3 (P-14) was not adopted as the main rifle.

Although America had more P-17's the decision to keep with the 03 Springfield seems to have more to do with "it was not designed here" than anything else.

 

[enfieldspares]

The 303 British fell out of use because, quite simply, no MODERN rifles were made in that calibre because it was not a rimless round sharing the common "Mauser size" base of those rimless cartridges derived from the original 7x57.

Just so with the American 30-40 Krag and Russian 7.62x54R rounds. They simply don't allow themselves to be simply offered (merely by fitting a different barrel) in today's rifles made around the common modern "Mauser size" base.

Contemporary military cartridges that still survive today do so because they have that common "Mauser size" base. Think 8x57 and of course 30-06 and all its derivatives.

Also the 303 British offered NOTHING in performance (unlike the 375H & H) that would have caused it, despite that "b*stard" base size to become widely adopted and offered by rifle makers outside the UK or Dominions and Commonwealth.

375 H & H despite requiring a different than standard bolt became adopted despite that because it offered something that no other cartridge could the achieve. About the ONLY cartridge that did not use that common "Mauser size" base that bucked the trend.

A similar story with the much loved American 30-30 whilst used even today widely in the US doesn't travel well outside the continental USA. Even before the Deer Acts etc. "killed" it here in UK I doubt that the 30-30 was used here by many.

I have no doubt that had we, in Britain, adopted the 276 Enfield in 1913 that that cartridge would have become a popular sporting round as as much still used, if not more so, here in UK than the 6.5x55mm.

About the only new modern rifle chambered for the 303 British is probably the limited run that Ruger made of their falling block No1 Rifle.

So where a capable rimmed cartridge is the BEST answer (as in the Ruger No1) then there is maybe a role for the 303 British today. But otherwise it is obsolete.

 

[Thar]

Ahhh Thar,
You forgot the government sell out of the 280 British and the EM2 but the twists and turns of the .276 and the later 280 British would take up much too much time and room here and I know only a part of the story.

Sod that tell us about the 4.85.

ATB

Tahr

 

[Muir]

Now Muir,

The history and development o the P-13 into the P-14 then it's adaption to the US 30-06 and production as the US rifle of 1917 is reasonably well known to me. I have sorry had been trying to pry information as to the owner of a .35 Remington chamber Model 30S that's been in storage at a gunmakers from many years unsuccessfully I might add but thanks as I was not sure when they changed to the bit of gas pipe as a receiver instead of a proper forged one. So Model 725 and Model 30 are OK for me anything afterwards ...................................... Hmmmmm .

The biggest problem with the P-14/P-17 is that the government didn't send inspectors to make sure the production was gauged properly hence they different makes are not fully interchangable as are the No4's and the No1's. This is the reason the No3 (P-14) was not adopted as the main rifle.

Although America had more P-17's the decision to keep with the 03 Springfield seems to have more to do with "it was not designed here" than anything else.

Good Lord! Nationalism had nothing to do with the adoption of the 1903 over the Brit-designed P-14. The US National Armory in Springfield, Massachusetts was tooled for the 1903 Springfield, the other guns needed to be purchased on contract with private makers such as Winchester and Remington. In the peace time between the wars the Armory kept up fine. In my opinion, the 1903 is a much smoother action than the P-14/17. The ejector was tougher, and the cocking easier. It was less bulky. But that aside, the last thing the post war US Government needed was to be buying guns from private manufacturers while probably paying yet another royalty, this time to the Brits, for a US made rifle.... As they did with the Norwegian designed Krag, and the Springfield 1903 which was a deemed a patent infringement on the German Mauser.

Come on Kev. If it was "nationalism" that drove them they'd be shooting the Remington Rollingblock, a Winchester lever gun, or a Trapdoor Springfield 45-70 at the onset of WWI. I don't know why you persist in this line of thought.~Muir

 

[UTGrad]

A little off topic but I was blessed to shoot a M1 Garand the other day. Due to its heavier weight the recoil was suprisingly pleasant. I have to get me a M1!!

 

[Brithunter]

Good Lord! Nationalism had nothing to do with the adoption of the 1903 over the Brit-designed P-14. The US National Armory in Springfield, Massachusetts was tooled for the 1903 Springfield, the other guns needed to be purchased on contract with private makers such as Winchester and Remington. In the peace time between the wars the Armory kept up fine. In my opinion, the 1903 is a much smoother action than the P-14/17. The ejector was tougher, and the cocking easier. It was less bulky. But that aside, the last thing the post war US Government needed was to be buying guns from private manufacturers while probably paying yet another royalty, this time to the Brits, for a US made rifle.... As they did with the Norwegian designed Krag, and the Springfield 1903 which was a deemed a patent infringement on the German Mauser.

Come on Kev. If it was "nationalism" that drove them they'd be shooting the Remington Rollingblock, a Winchester lever gun, or a Trapdoor Springfield 45-70 at the onset of WWI. I don't know why you persist in this line of thought.~Muir

Actually Muir it was not me that said it ................... initially but I recall reading it in an American article on the US Rifle of 1917, The US had far more 17's than they did 1903's. If it was not nationalism then why if you ask most Americans about Alvin York they will tell you he used a Springfield when in fact he was issued and used like most Dough boys the US rifle of 1917?

 

[kennyc]

A little off topic but I was blessed to shoot a M1 Garand the other day. Due to its heavier weight the recoil was suprisingly pleasant. I have to get me a M1!!

I like that rifle I like the M1a1 even better shame we can't have them here anymore

 

[Muir]

Actually Muir it was not me that said it ................... initially but I recall reading it in an American article on the US Rifle of 1917, The US had far more 17's than they did 1903's. If it was not nationalism then why if you ask most Americans about Alvin York they will tell you he used a Springfield when in fact he was issued and used like most Dough boys the US rifle of 1917?

Well. We had three arsenals producing 1917's as fast as they could be cranked out. We had one arsenal producing 1903's. There is bound to be a numerical advantage there. As to York, it's hard to say. But I don't doubt that the continuation of 1903 production was for the reasons I stated. It was the officially adopted rifle for the military, the P-17 was a war time expedient. Colt and S&W lost lucrative contracts for their Model 1917 .45 caliber revolvers because the war ended and the production of the 1911's resumed. The Johnson Automatic Rifle and the Reising sub machine gun, of WWII went away once the demand fell. The fact remains that the Armory was tooled for the 1903, not the 1917. It was surely cheaper to cancel the contracts with Remington and Winchester and Eddystone than to retool the national arsenal.

From a personal perspective, I own two complete P-14s, a P-17, and two 1903's. But for my penchant for the 303 cartridge that makes me dote on the P-14, I would take the 1903's over the P-17. The P-17 feels crude and cumbersome by comparison.~Muir

 

[Brithunter]

Ahhh just been looking at some photos of a quite large Water Buffalo taken very recently, in the last two weeks, in the NT of Australia yep you guessed it with a .303. Seems he hunts a lot with the 303 in different rifles. Makes one wonder about the light game comments as somehow I don't Water Buffs come under light game.

Edit:- Whoops that should have been................."Makes one wonder about the light game comments as somehow I don't think Water Buffs come under light game".

 

[Brithunter]

Ahhh Muir are you sure on the 03's production as I seem to recall there being more than one maker of them or am I getting confused with the M1's?

I nearly had a custom rifle in .257AI built on one of the less common 03 actions.

 

[Dalua]

Makes one wonder about the light game comments as somehow I don't Water Buffs come under light game.

Nor does a mouse turn into dangerous game or a pachyderm if shot with a .577 nitro express.
What was the point again?
Interweb suggests water buffs are bigger (800-2000lb) than I would wish to shoot with a .303: but I've always held that discretion in the better part of valour.

 

[scrumbag]

Ahhh just been looking at some photos of a quite large Water Buffalo taken very recently, in the last two weeks, in the NT of Australia yep you guessed it with a .303. Seems he hunts a lot with the 303 in different rifles. Makes one wonder about the light game comments as somehow I don't Water Buffs come under light game.

Ah, I seem to recall that it was difficult at one time to get anything bigger than a .303 in Australia but I'm sure there are others better placed to comment.

UTGrad and KennyC, I fancy and M1 as well! Stick and aim point on it and call it a clip fed piggie gun!

 

[JabaliHunter]

There is nothing that you can do with a .308 Win that you can't do just as well with a .303 - the main difficulty these days is bullet selection, but there are enough choices if you look.

 

[Brithunter]

Nor does a mouse turn into dangerous game or a pachyderm if shot with a .577 nitro express.
What was the point again?
Interweb suggests water buffs are bigger (800-2000lb) than I would wish to shoot with a .303: but I've always held that discretion in the better part of valour.

Errrrr who mentioned mice?

The point was made that the old 303 was only suitable for LIGHT GAME, a point which over the past century and more has clearly been proven to be false. Now as the article I Copied and Pasted along with the original link showed poachers still find the old 303 drops large dangerous game effectively. Then again hunters in Australia's Northern Territories find again the old 303 works just fine with clean kills on the non native Asiatic Water Buffalo as well as Camel and feral Donkey.

What was the point again?

The point Dalua is despite it being well over 100 years old, of flanged (rimmed for those not used to British cartridges terms) design with a tapered case. So it's an old fashioned design from the early days on small bore centre fire cartridge design and development. It darn well keeps harvesting game around the world with little fuss and a lot milder manners than a lot of the new sooper dooper ultra velocity whizz bangs that seem necessary to a lot of the UK stalking fraternity to harvest our Deer which frankly are small, with the exception of some Reds , compared to the species mentioned above. The Point Dalua is the old 303 British works .

Oh yes I add British to the 303 designation before some one drags up the 303 Savage .

 

[Dalua]

I mentioned mice only to show that shooting one with an elephant-rifle would not turn it into an elephant. By the same logic, shooting a very heavy beast with a .303 rifle does not turn a .303 into a rifle particularly well suited to shooting very heavy beasts.

I haven't disputed that .303 works.
You're right about the light game categorisation - I had misremembered - Major Sir Gerald Burrard (1920) categorises .303 as small-bore or, with a 150gr bullet, magnum small-bore. 'Magnum' he defines as MV over 2500fps.

 

[Brithunter]

Yes people forget or never knew that the British were very methodical in laying out the bores in their proper place. .22 is a Miniture bore, 30 cal falls into small bore. Medium bore starts at .45 cal and large bore at about .60 calibre . There was actually a .303 Magnum. In fact several 303 cartridges with magnum performance including the 303/375 Axite. The 303 magnum or at least one version was rimless. In my ammunition collection was a new box of Speer 200 Grain Grand Slam bullets marked 303 Magnum..

Of course Burrard seems to have forgotten the title magnum came from the larger cartridge cases and was stolen from the wine world. Burrard in his gun room book also says the shooting of Pike in Trout streams is normal and safe providing one keeps the angle that the bullet hits the water above the richocet threshold. I would have to drag the book out to check the angle.

I mentioned mice only to show that shooting one with an elephant-rifle would not turn it into an elephant. By the same logic, shooting a very heavy beast with a .303 rifle does not turn a .303 into a rifle particularly well suited to shooting very heavy beasts.

I haven't disputed that .303 works.
You're right about the light game categorisation - I had misremembered - Major Sir Gerald Burrard (1920) categorises .303 as small-bore or, with a 150gr bullet, magnum small-bore. 'Magnum' he defines as MV over 2500fps.

 

[UTGrad]

I like that rifle I like the M1a1 even better shame we can't have them here anymore

I was blessed to shoot a M1a1 that same day I shot the M1...what a fun little gun to shoot. It was excellent in the brush of the Pacific Islands against the Japs in WWII.