Mk3 accuracy - seems to vary wildly

[45flint]

I am not sure, all things being equal, that button rifling is better than cut. A lot of the CF precision shooters seem to believe that cut (or broached) is superior to button. I’d be interested in your source for that.

On WHB Smith, I’d note in passing that Lesley Wesley described the MkIII as “extremely powerful and accurate”. Of course, we now know that even by 1950s standards, it wasn’t the former. So maybe not the latter, too?

Of course, 1950s/1960s expectations of accuracy were less than ours. But did no-one then notice that the MkIII was perhaps worse than the Airsporter, Diana 50, etc?

I am sure that ammo quality was a factor. Two examples. The Crosman 160 was regarded as a pretty average rifle until in the 1990s people used modern pellets in them (typically Premiers) and discovered that they had very good barrels and shot very tight groups. Similarly the old Sheridan C9 Streaks had at best “ho-hum” accuracy with the classic Sheridan “slug”. They do much better with modern pellets.

And I still think the tap is critical. Good taploaders are quite capable of shooting into significantly under 1/2” at 25 metres.

In the back of Smiths book they test the rifles at 50 feet shooting at a 1 inch bullseye target. They say the Webley Mark 3 was capable of 3/4 inch groups. I’m sure with iron sights? Reason I asked our shooter about optics.

[andrewM]

Geezer, here is the link with an interesting explanation as to the three types of rifling, with pros and cons:

https://www.nrafamily.org/articles/2...-pros-vs-cons/

Meanwhile, I have now counted the rifling grooves in both my Mk3s: in one, the rifling seems to be more pronounced and it appears to have 11-12 grooves. In the second, the rifling is less pronounced but also appears to have 11 grooves - difficult to be certain and I used a torch at the muzzle end.

I then compared this with the Mk3, which is mid to late '60s, belonging to a friend (which I recently stripped, cleaned and re-lubricated). It appears to have 7 grooves in the rifling.

Now, it could be that this is all irrelevant and I am barking up the wrong tree but, given the vital importance of the barrel in terms of accuracy, I think I am on to something! My conclusion, therefore - albeit perhaps controversial to those with older rifles - is that the Mk3 was at its best from an accuracy viewpoint in the '70s, despite some areas (such as the loading tap lever), where costs had been cut. I would still like to have more comparisons from other owners to prove my point, which is taken from only six rifles, two of which are from a contributor to this thread. To those, therefore, who wish to add a Mk3 to their collection, from an accuracy viewpoint it would be preferable to seek a 1970s model. That said, I do not know the date at which button rifling was installed for the Mk3. That would be helpful information, if it exists.

[45flint]

Geezer, here is the link with an interesting explanation as to the three types of rifling, with pros and cons:

https://www.nrafamily.org/articles/2...-pros-vs-cons/

Meanwhile, I have now counted the rifling grooves in both my Mk3s: in one, the rifling seems to be more pronounced and it appears to have 11-12 grooves. In the second, the rifling is less pronounced but also appears to have 11 grooves - difficult to be certain and I used a torch at the muzzle end.

I then compared this with the Mk3, which is mid to late '60s, belonging to a friend (which I recently stripped, cleaned and re-lubricated). It appears to have 7 grooves in the rifling.

Now, it could be that this is all irrelevant and I am barking up the wrong tree but, given the vital importance of the barrel in terms of accuracy, I think I am on to something! My conclusion, therefore - albeit perhaps controversial to those with older rifles - is that the Mk3 was at its best from an accuracy viewpoint in the '70s, despite some areas (such as the loading tap lever), where costs had been cut. I would still like to have more comparisons from other owners to prove my point, which is taken from only six rifles, two of which are from a contributor to this thread. To those, therefore, who wish to add a Mk3 to their collection, from an accuracy viewpoint it would be preferable to seek a 1970s model. That said, I do not know the date at which button rifling was installed for the Mk3. That would be helpful information, if it exists.

Link doesn’t work?

[andrewM]

Link doesn’t work?

Apologies for that, Flint.

For some reason, if I post the link, the system here automatically abbreviates the url and that is why it did not work originally. I did not spot it had automatically abbreviated itself. Not sure why this is happening.

nrafamily.org/articles/2017/11/21/3-methods-of-barrel-rifling-pros-vs-cons/

add to this link, at its beginning, the usual preface https://www.

This will take you to the NRA site (in USA I believe), which discusses the technical aspects of rifling, which is most interesting in itself.

[45flint]

Apologies for that, Flint.

For some reason, if I post the link, the system here automatically abbreviates the url and that is why it did not work originally. I did not spot it had automatically abbreviated itself. Not sure why this is happening.

nrafamily.org/articles/2017/11/21/3-methods-of-barrel-rifling-pros-vs-cons/

add to this link, at its beginning, the usual preface https://www.

This will take you to the NRA site (in USA I believe), which discusses the technical aspects of rifling, which is most interesting in itself.

I did find the article on a search and it is very interesting. The fact that button rifling is used on the most accurate bench rifles is pretty compelling. But the description of the more labor and time consuming cut rifling wins me over from a collector point of view. (I know not the point of this post)

[andrewM]

I did find the article on a search and it is very interesting. The fact that button rifling is used on the most accurate bench rifles is pretty compelling. But the description of the more labor and time consuming cut rifling wins me over from a collector point of view. (I know not the point of this post)

I'm afraid you had to add the two parts of my link together to get to the webpage but you found it anyway.

Yes, compelling, as you say. Whilst one might usually prefer individual craftsmanship, in Webley's case, they sought to reduce labour costs and, into the bargain, they raised accuracy too.

If we could find a date at which the new rifling was introduced, we could ascertain what serial numbers were involved in the upgrade. That could depend on someone with knowledge of such things reading what is now this long thread.

Anyway, discovering all of this has endeared me to these iconic rifles.

[Geezer]

Andrew,

But even that NRA article says:

“Many target shooters prefer cut-rifled barrels for their uniformity and close tolerance.”

And there’s loads more out there from benchresters etc arguing that cut rifling is “better”.

Now, the preferences of cartridge rifles (which involve obviously involve pressures and temperatures way above air guns) won’t translate exactly to air rifles, of course.

I suggest the issue is actually whether Webley’s particular type of button rifling produced barrels better than Webley’s previous particular type of cut rifling, not whether one type of rifling is inherently “better”. For example, it is possible that the cutters simply wore out, producing poor barrels, before they were replaced.

I still have my doubts that the MKIII was for any significant period of time less accurate than its obvious taploader competitors. I’m not saying it wasn’t, just saying I’m not persuaded it was.

I’d be interested in hearing any experiences from other MkIII owners, whether in the past, or among the current crop of historical air rifle shooters.

[andrewM]

Andrew,

But even that NRA article says:

“Many target shooters prefer cut-rifled barrels for their uniformity and close tolerance.”

And there’s loads more out there from benchresters etc arguing that cut rifling is “better”.

Now, the preferences of cartridge rifles (which involve obviously involve pressures and temperatures way above air guns) won’t translate exactly to air rifles, of course.

I suggest the issue is actually whether Webley’s particular type of button rifling produced barrels better than Webley’s previous particular type of cut rifling, not whether one type of rifling is inherently “better”. For example, it is possible that the cutters simply wore out, producing poor barrels, before they were replaced.

I still have my doubts that the MKIII was for any significant period of time less accurate than its obvious taploader competitors. I’m not saying it wasn’t, just saying I’m not persuaded it was.

I’d be interested in hearing any experiences from other MkIII owners, whether in the past, or among the current crop of historical air rifle shooters.

Yes, I cannot fault your observations, Geezer. I think some preferred the hand-cut method, in the same way that some prefer hand-made shotguns. The article does say that accuracy is better for button-rifling. I suspect the hand-cut version depends upon the skill vested in it, the machinery used and the time involved. For an air rifle, used perhaps at 30 yds as against hundreds of yards for a firearm, I suspect less effort was committed to the former.

Yes, the hand machinery could have gradually succumbed to wear and tear.

It is worth considering that button rifling has 11-12 grooves as against 7 for the hand-cut version in the Mk3. If 7 grooves were better, I think they would have continued with 7.

As regards competing tap-loaders of the time, I would say that the '70s Webleys were at least as accurate as the BSA equivalent in the '70s. The old BSA Standards were pretty good too. I have never tried Dianas/Originals.

I too would like to hear more from other Mk3 owners. I would also like to know what quality control occurred, if any, before the rifles were despatched to the trade. I suspect that accuracy received no final oversight. If so, that is a pity given that the bluing and the tapered barrels are quite magnificent and the engineering is evidenced by the ability of the loading tap to hold air in the open position, when de-cocked.

[Geezer]

Yes, I cannot fault your observations, Geezer. I think some preferred the hand-cut method, in the same way that some prefer hand-made shotguns. The article does say that accuracy is better for button-rifling. I suspect the hand-cut version depends upon the skill vested in it, the machinery used and the time involved. For an air rifle, used perhaps at 30 yds as against hundreds of yards for a firearm, I suspect less effort was committed to the former.

Yes, the hand machinery could have gradually succumbed to wear and tear.

It is worth considering that button rifling has 11-12 grooves as against 7 for the hand-cut version in the Mk3. If 7 grooves were better, I think they would have continued with 7.

As regards competing tap-loaders of the time, I would say that the '70s Webleys were at least as accurate as the BSA equivalent in the '70s. The old BSA Standards were pretty good too. I have never tried Dianas/Originals.

I too would like to hear more from other Mk3 owners. I would also like to know what quality control occurred, if any, before the rifles were despatched to the trade. I suspect that accuracy received no final oversight. If so, that is a pity given that the bluing and the tapered barrels are quite magnificent and the engineering is evidenced by the ability of the loading tap to hold air in the open position, when de-cocked.

Agreed. But the number of grooves should not be an issue.

Example one. In WW2, the Americans moved from 4-groove to 2-groove on the M1903A3 rifle. The latter proved as accurate as the former. Despite stuff on the internet saying they aren’t.

Example two. Again, in WW2, the Brits moved from 5-groove to 2-groove on the No4 Lee-Enfield (and in small numbers to 3-groove and 4-groove). Same result.

The quality of the rifling matters. The numbers of grooves doesn’t.

[andrewM]

Agreed. But the number of grooves should not be an issue.

Example one. In WW2, the Americans moved from 4-groove to 2-groove on the M1903A3 rifle. The latter proved as accurate as the former. Despite stuff on the internet saying they aren’t.

Example two. Again, in WW2, the Brits moved from 5-groove to 2-groove on the No4 Lee-Enfield (and in small numbers to 3-groove and 4-groove). Same result.

The quality of the rifling matters. The numbers of grooves doesn’t.

Well, I am learning all the time - I never knew that. I used to shoot Lee Enfields at Bisley - I seem to recall they were the No6 but they were the last made before the SLR was introduced. I never counted the number of grooves but I was very fond of the Lee Enfield, which we used with peep sights to great accuracy - largely at 200 and 500yds. Not a patch, though, on today's modern rifles with scopes. Still, I prefer the character of the Lee Enfield.

I think we now need more contributors as I think I have submitted as much as I can and so I am at risk of becoming intoxicated by my own verbosity - to purloin a quotation from the late WSC!

[laverdabru]

A fascinating discussion, just been catching up on the latest posts.
According to the Thrale book, button rifling was introduced in 1969. Probably this has already been mentioned, & I missed it.
An aside - was interested to see the comments on the Lee Enfield/SLR. My late brother (it's his fault I have a great interest in Webley airguns) used to work for the MoD. Sure he said when the SLR was introduced that snipers still used the LE for many years after.

[Lakey]

One thing that almost never happens with old tap loaders, is for the tap to be removed and the barrel subjected to a "deep clean".

It is impossible to properly scrub and clean the barrel of something like a Webley Mk3 with the tap in situ, or indeed the piston in its fired position. For best results, the gun has to be dismantled . For this reason, it is safe to assume that most old Webley Mk 3, have never had their barrels cleaned.

I mostly collect BSA tap loaders, and have had some really good results after deep cleaning the barrels. Group mostly tighten up, as I believe that lead fouls the bore over time reducing the guns accuracy. This is well known in powder burners, but less well known, or thought about in air rifles, but when we are sometimes talking about airguns that are 50, 60 or more years old, lead is bound to have slowly built up in the bore over this amount of time.

A good deep clean with a bore cleaner and phosphor bronze brush, could work wonders, and at the same time review the rest of the inner workings of the gun.

Lakey

[Geezer]

Bumping for the Sunday evening crew.

It is not easy to find accuracy results, historical or more recent, online for the MkIII.

Lots of guys on here must have MkIIIs, and must have occasionally shot groups at 20-30 yards/metres. If so, please post results on this thread.

My two are basically collector’s items. Some brief 10M plinking is all I have done, and they didn’t seem particularly worse (or better) than similar springers.

Laverdabru: yup, the sniper version of the Lee-Enfield No4 (the No4(T)) was converted to 7.62 and stayed in service until the early 1990s as the L42A1, being gradually replaced from 1982 by the Accuracy International PM rifle, a developed variant of which remains both in service and competitive with anything else made.

[laverdabru]

Laverdabru: yup, the sniper version of the Lee-Enfield No4 (the No4(T)) was converted to 7.62 and stayed in service until the early 1990s as the L42A1, [/QUOTE]

Ta for that. Didn't realise the service life was that long.
Off topic - sort of - I'm sure as a youngster in the late '60's/early '70's I saw Lee Enfields converted to shotguns advertised in the Exchange & Mart.

My Mk111's, approx '61 & an early '70's example, are, like yours, not often used. My gut feeling is the later one groups better. But I have no hesitation in using my '70's AirSporter (Mk5?) - with a modern 'ish' 'scope - against pigeons raiding the veg patches. Much as I love my Webleys, I would not have the confidence to use them for pest control. I prefer the 'Sporter to my 'modern' HW35's for this.

ATB

Bru

[keith66]

I have had several, One .22 minter from the 70's that wasnt that accurate to the extent that i sold it.
One of my favorite rifles of all time is a 1950's .22 with the fluted forend & saw handled grip that cosmetically is "worn" but has a good sealing tap & obviously excellent barrel.
The earlier rifle fits your shoulder far better & i find the later Mk3 stock horrible with its humpbacked look. I think a lot has to do with the fit of the stock & the sights on all models limit the accuracy because most of our old eyes simply cant use them to best advantage any more.
My Mk 3 has a good scope on it with solid custom mounts & leupold rings & this transformed the rifle allowing me to get the best out of it. I used it for hunting & it accounted for many rabbits & pigeons out to 30 yards. As to its grouping? I must get it out of the cupboard & give it a good session & take some pics!