Mk3 accuracy - seems to vary wildly

[Geezer]

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,

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.[/QUOTE]

They were, either smoothbored .303” or bored further out to .410”.

Removed from S2 to S1 in the post-Hungerford law changes in 1988 or so, because of mag size. I think most were then deactivated, but a few survive either at S1 unchanged or with blocked/welded mags at S2.

[isobar]

i find my .177 accurate enough at 20yds (30mm) trouble is finding a pellet that gives a good firing cycle.i'm not that good a shot but like the sort of groups that my mk3 gives,sort of an even spread.if the pellets don't fit then the rifle is harsh and the sight picture is all over the place,get the right pellet and i find it easy to hold on target throughout the cycle.strange rifle to fire,little recoil with a good fitting pellet but the rifle buzzes so you can't hear the pellet hiss or hit the target making you think you fired it without loading.i don't think the sights help especially the front pillar,would be better if a bead.i reckon a good shot would easily half the size of my groups,get a bad fitting pellet and it will be terrible.ps this is a late model and it's choice of pellet is remington tyrant hammer (domed),no idea why it likes em but it does,i've even written mk3 on the lid so i don't forget.

ATB

[andrewM]

Some very interesting additions to the thread, if I may say,

Laverdabru, do we have a date in 1969 when button rifling was introduced as I am convinced that this modification made a significant difference to the accuracy? Re the Lee Enfield, yes, these were used as sniper rifles long after they were retired for general use but I had forgotten - or never realised - that the bore had been altered to 7.62.

Lakey, I have sometimes carefully cleaned tap-loaders by placing a rod with soft brush (non bronze as I am a little worried about scratching the bore) from the barrel end downwards. In effect, this means that the entire barrel is cleaned, with the exception of, say, 1/2 inch at the very front. I have also placed a rod through the loading-tap in open position, from the cylinder end and this avoids having to remove the tap. Is it really necessary to move the loading tap and piston?

Keith66: I have tried a period scope but there is scope creep. These spot-soldered mounts are not up to it, in my view. This is a rifle designed to be shot with open sights which, alas, are not as good as the old BSA Standard bead front sight, as Isobar observes. Nonetheless, with good visibility on a still day, I can obtain 3/4in groups at 25yds when on form (S.domes). I find this most rewarding.

It would be helpful to discover what groups other owners can produce at, say, 20 - 30 yds, and with what pellets.

Rgds to all
A

PS: I have just noticed that this thread has received over 1000 views in just over a week, which possibly suggests that there are many here with Mk3s in their collection, taking an interest in this discussion. Any more opinions?

[WebleyWombler]

Please refer to your earlier thread http://www.airgunbbs.com/showthread....om-22-to-5-5mm


The change date and groove information for the rifling changes are there. The reason for change was that machinery was getting worn out and new machines using a cheaper method of production were installed. All to do with costs, nothing to do with accuracy. Swaging is cheaper than cutting and there is no waste. Simple as that.

Check serial numbers of the rifles you are testing and cross reference the production dates with the date of machinery installation.

I would greatly like to see factual evidence that button rifling was introduced in 1969.

[laverdabru]

Please refer to your earlier thread http://www.airgunbbs.com/showthread....om-22-to-5-5mm


The change date and groove information for the rifling changes are there. The reason for change was that machinery was getting worn out and new machines using a cheaper method of production were installed. All to do with costs, nothing to do with accuracy. Swaging is cheaper than cutting and there is no waste. Simple as that.

Check serial numbers of the rifles you are testing and cross reference the production dates with the date of machinery installation.

I would greatly like to see factual evidence that button rifling was introduced in 1969.

To Webley Wombler

'I would greatly like to see factual evidence that button rifling was introduced in 1969'

Can't help there, I'm afraid. I mentioned the 1969 date because I had seen it in the Thrales book, which does seem well researched. And thought it might be helpful.

[WebleyWombler]

To Webley Wombler

'I would greatly like to see factual evidence that button rifling was introduced in 1969'

Can't help there, I'm afraid. I mentioned the 1969 date because I had seen it in the Thrales book, which does seem well researched. And thought it might be helpful.

Thanks for that clarification. I'll do some more checking

[keith66]

In reply to Andrew M, I quite agree that the spot welded rails are not up to use, mine was built before the spot welded rail, the new mounts go right round the cylinder & the top of the rings is machined flat & bored to accept leupold dovetail turn & lock steel scope rings. The scope is completely solid & there are zero issues with scope creep. There was a thread on here about the subject of scopes on Mk 3's some years back but i suspect the photobucket pics i linked to have long gone! Just uploaded to flickr try this,

[Geezer]

To Webley Wombler

'I would greatly like to see factual evidence that button rifling was introduced in 1969'

Can't help there, I'm afraid. I mentioned the 1969 date because I had seen it in the Thrales book, which does seem well researched. And thought it might be helpful.

Chris T’s book is so well-researched I’d take that on trust. He’s also clear that the button rifling only applies to late “Series 7” rifles with A B or F serial number prefixes, if that helps anyone reading this with a distinctively accurate or inaccurate MkIII.

Like Andrew I’m struck by the views/comments ratio.

My theory is that, like me, most MKIII owners these days are collectors who may occasionally plink, and do not subject their old Webleys (or Airsporters etc) to serious pellet/accuracy testing in the way that you still might with say a scoped FWB Sport or Mk1 HW80.

We don’t hunt with them, we don’t compete (my impression is those admirable souls who do compete in specialised comps with vintage guns mostly gravitate to the LJ BSA), so have we spent hours off a sandbag on a bench refining the hold and trying ten different brands of premium pellets? Have we heck.

[rancidtom]

Manufacturers usually tend to not make changes to their production methods until they have to (i.e. the machinery is getting too worn out, quality control fail rates get too high etc). Sometimes they might change a machining method if they find another that's cheaper (faster or less wear on the tools for the same rate of production, the process may involve cheaper consumables or a combination of such reasons) but obviously they don't want to interrupt production to implement a change without it's either essential or convenient to them (won't stop availability of parts because they have enough on the shelf to tide them over until the new parts become available).
Modern day advertising usually puts a spin on this by advertising the "new" method as being a giant leap forward in quality, or "new technology" rather than admit it's a penny pinching exercise and the quality will hopefully be as good as the old production method while they make more profit 'cos it's cheaper.
You will never see a manufacturer saying "It's nearly as good as last year but we now build to a profit margin rather than a quality objective and we hope nobody notices the difference now that we've gained some reputation over the past few years..."
Sorry for being cynical but I seriously doubt that Webley had any other intent than saving money by introducing button rifling over cut rifling. It would be a happy coincidence if the button rifling was undeniably able to produce higher quality barrels but it would seem that there is no actual irrefutable evidence to prove that. If there had been I would suspect the Webley marketing department would have been shouting it from the rooftops, "our new generation barrels are the best thing since sliced bread, more accurate than anything else" etc.
Depending on whose book you read depends on which rifling process is quoted as "the best", I know many people who don't have any prejudice and would shoot the same size groups with a cut, button or hammer forged barrel (given the right ammunition).
Personally I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, try a few different pellets (make model and head size), try a range of different muzzle velocities (different springs or pre-load), make notes on firing cycle "feel" and group sizes obtained. That should keep you entertained for a while, in the process you might just hit on a magic combination for your gun (and your hold/technique) that gives you one hole groups at 25+ yards. This is one job that can't be summed up in a post, what works for me or somebody else won't necessarily work for you, so reading recommendations of "this pellet and that spring" are only useful in the "oh I haven't tried that myself yet" or "tried that last week and it wasn't any good" chapters of your notebook.

[Geezer]

For what it’s worth, I briefly stopped arguing on the internet a few minutes ago and fired a ten-shot group of .22” Defiant Vintage from the nicer of my two 1950s Series 3 MkIIIs on the 8-ish metre range that I have squeezed into my tiny cellar. From a sitting position.

The lighting down there is truly awful (must address that some time) and I particularly find that makes it hard to get a consistent sight picture, especially in the vertical plane, with conventional open sights. Particularly fiddly little tiny ones like the Webley’s. Give me nice big 1970s Diana ones any day.

I also have no idea whether Defiant Vintage suit this rifle. I just happened to have an open box to hand.

I have put maybe twenty pellets through it in the last 18 months or so.

Result. Terrible embarrassing vertical stringing of around an inch and a bit. But I can easily do that with other iron-sighted rifles in that light.

Horizontal, c-t-c, under .22”. So one ragged slim but depressingly tall hole (and one called flyer).

Which makes me think that despite tiny sights best suited to outdoor use on a summer day, a stock that absolutely does not fit me at all, and a simple single-stage trigger (though this example has a good nice crisp one) that the old girl wants to shoot.

Also, a reminder of how therapeutic it is after a day at work, with all the cares of life, to shoot even one ten-shot group with an air gun, perhaps especially one that’s at least two decades older than me. I hope I’m in as good shape at it is in my seventies.

[andrewM]

Many points here:

1 WembleyWombler, the change to button rifling cannot have occurred in Aug 1975, as you suggested in an earlier thread and in which you stated that this also coincided with the change from 7 to 12 grooves. First, Chris Thrale provides the year for button rifling as 1969; secondly, both my Mk3s are pre-Aug 75 and both have 12 grooves.

2 Why did Webley introduce button rifling? Probably because it took - as I understand it - 90 minutes to produce a rifled barrel under the earlier method. This new method was therefore labour saving and shortened the production time. Furthermore, given the competition, it also produced better accuracy and that might have been a factor. It could be, however, that the machinery was wearing out. Presently, we do not know.

3 Geezer, yes, I do wonder how many collectors use their rifles. I always test for accuracy and keep detailed notes on pellets and at various ranges. I would be very happy to use mine in vintage competitions and meet with others.

4 Rancidtom, I can only go by what I have discovered. I did not look to discover anything; it was only by chance that I did so and I then joined the dots and reached my conclusion, which I have shared here. It would be pleasing to see further testing at 20-30 yds - other than the six rifles already involved, two of which were from laverdabru. The reason it is significant is because new collectors will wish to consider these issues before adding to their collection, if they intend to use their rifles.

Rgds to all
A

[Geezer]

Update.

So after supper and possibly a glass or two of wine, I descended again to the cellar range (wife is out tonight, don’t bank on too many repeats!).

This time tried the other 1950s Series 3 MkIII. In .177” with Hobbys.

I do not know if Hobbys suit it. I just have a lot of Hobbys at hand.

It has the big advantage of a PH16 aperture rear. The disadvantages being that it’s really really twangy (like Diana to Sterling HR81 levels of twangy) and a much heavier, though still crisp, trigger than my other MKIII. I would say 6-7 pounds versus 4-5.

And the usual issues. I do particularly hate the stock fit. Everything is wrong, for me at least.

Again, maybe I have fired shot ten shots from it in the last year or more.

20 shots, all (just) covered edge-to-edge by a 5p piece in a fairly round group, slightly wider than it was high. So that’s 13.5mm centre to centre. Except two called fliers (I called both as off to the side, but both were actually about 3 mm straight below the group, about 2-3mm apart).

I am conscious that I refined/changed aspects of my hold during the group. Especially with a (for me) too short stock, I tend to hold the butt much too firmly in my shoulder (I am a former full bore shooter, old habits die hard). I also shifted mid-group to placing my right thumb alongside the right side of the grip, having started with it lightly wrapped over the top. The latter felt much better - much like target shooting with a Lee-Enfield or Springfield 1903.

Irrelevant to this discussion, but this was also a reminder of how Webley fitting the tap on the “wrong” (right-hand) side is not an issue in reality. You hold the small of the stock in the right hand, cock and return the lever with the left, sweep the left back to the fore end, sweep the tap lever up with your left hand fingers, load with the right (and in my case then seat the pellet in the tap with an old Q-Tip from the cleaning kit), close with the right and then assume position and shoot. Not an issue.

Anyway, key thing here for me is that albeit in poor conditions and with a rather random selection of ammo, I have at least documented my experience of MkIII accuracy in the circumstances immediately available to me.

Any other takers?

[WebleyWombler]

Many points here:

1 WembleyWombler, the change to button rifling cannot have occurred in Aug 1975, as you suggested in an earlier thread and in which you stated that this also coincided with the change from 7 to 12 grooves. First, Chris Thrale provides the year for button rifling as 1969; secondly, both my Mk3s are pre-Aug 75 and both have 12 grooves.

2 Why did Webley introduce button rifling? Probably because it took - as I understand it - 90 minutes to produce a rifled barrel under the earlier method. This new method was therefore labour saving and shortened the production time. Furthermore, given the competition, it also produced better accuracy and that might have been a factor. It could be, however, that the machinery was wearing out. Presently, we do not know.

3 Geezer, yes, I do wonder how many collectors use their rifles. I always test for accuracy and keep detailed notes on pellets and at various ranges. I would be very happy to use mine in vintage competitions and meet with others.

4 Rancidtom, I can only go by what I have discovered. I did not look to discover anything; it was only by chance that I did so and I then joined the dots and reached my conclusion, which I have shared here. It would be pleasing to see further testing at 20-30 yds - other than the six rifles already involved, two of which were from laverdabru. The reason it is significant is because new collectors will wish to consider these issues before adding to their collection, if they intend to use their rifles.

Rgds to all
A

Yup, the reference given by Laverdabru is on page 71 of Chris Thrales book. there is also an advert extolling the virtue of the hand cut rifle barrel as fitted to the falcon in 1968. The next references to Button rifling are in adverts for the Vulcan series 1 in 1979 and the Omega in 1984. from initial research in various magazines (guns review and shooting times) it appears that BSA converted to 'cold barrel swaging' ie Button rifling slightly before Webley did but I need to do some more digging. From what I can gather up to now, it took the Webley board of directors over a year to approve the new system and experiments in production took place during that time, unfortunately, I got sidetracked by some of the early guns review articles from the 1960s and 70s but will continue digging as the subject interests me.

[andrewM]

Geezer, can you do the same test but at 25yds? Otherwise, we do not have like for like. I fear that 8yds is too short to gauge accuracy as the pellet has hardly travelled from the barrel.

W.Wombler, I wonder if it would be possible to attribute a date to BSA's switch to button rifling. If so, it might then be possible to obtain accuracy comparisons from collectors, here, although I dare say that the BSA factory carried out its own tests. I recall purchasing an Airsporter as a teenager and it produced a certificate stating that accuracy had been tested at the factory.

If you have access to the minutes of the Webley Board, we could perhaps answer an assortment of questions that have been raised in this thread.

Rgds
A

[slug-gun]

To Webley Wombler

'I would greatly like to see factual evidence that button rifling was introduced in 1969'

Can't help there, I'm afraid. I mentioned the 1969 date because I had seen it in the Thrales book, which does seem well researched. And thought it might be helpful.

From memory this information was supplied by Webley in response to a series of questions asked of them by the them editor of Airgun world, Paul Dobson.

Five years earlier, 1964, I obtained evidence of the fact that new production methods were introduced for reasons of 'COST CUTTING' - a Webley quote written on a document.
Though this did not specify button rifling, this type of rifling would only have been introduced if it was cheaper. If it produced better grouping then that would merely have been a bonus, as 'plinking' accuracy was all that was expected in those days.
I doubt very much that button rifling would have been better than machine cut, as at the end of the day, as I mentioned in an earlier thread, the limiting factor is the tap design.
From 1947 to 1975 Webley gradually made the Mk.3 cheaper and cheaper to produce. The changes are all in the book. For instance the very first rifles, up to about No.100 I would guess, had the calibre marking ENGRAVED, as opposed to being stamped. That soon got changed!

In 1971 I acquired a Mk.3 for Christmas, and used it extensively. Apart from the fact a scope would not stay on it, and it shook the stock screws loose regularly such was the vibration, I managed to hit tin cans at fourty yards - wow! And was happy at that time doing so.

Then the following year I acquired a Weihrauch HW35 - night and day difference! The HW was smoother, far more powerful, and decidedly more accurate. Better design, breech loading, much more efficient.

I couldn't get rid of the Mk.3 fast enough!

Since 1972 I have bought every version of the Mk.3 and I love 'em as a piece of old fashioned British engineering and pre war German design. But I wouldn't shoot more than a few shots from one because not being able to hit what I aim at ultimately becomes boring. But as a 'thing' they are great.

Even though the BSA Standards are of the same design they do seem to shoot more sweetly and powerfully than any Mk.3. A really good 45 1/2" Standard from new would do 15 ft lbs!
I know because I've seen them chronod in a gun shop, totally original ,and with Eley Wasp this particular gun was doing 700 fps, consistently. An equivalent 1950's Mk.3 would do 525 to 550 fps. Once I saw one touch 600 fps and that was really sweet, but quite exceptional.

So my advice to Mk.3 collectors would be buy them because they are a wonderful and iconic English air rifle, but don't expect to be able to hit much more than a baked bean can at fourty yards.
If you want to put a pellet through the middle of the 'a' in Beanz, use a modern gun. All depends on what you are trying to achieve, as ever!?