alemonkey
Member
Exactly.
How did WWII-era Brit marksmanship compare to US?
- Thread starter Joe Demko
- Start date
- Status
Dave Markowitz
Member
3 to 4 MOA hardly makes a target rifle. OTH, I have a No.4 Mark II that will shoot 1 MOA with the right handloads. IMO, a more accurate statement is that both rifles probably shoot about as accurately, when in the same condition, using service ammunition.
Well, I'll toss the gaunlet out on this...
Will someone please provide a picture or video of someone working the bolt of a Lee Enfield WITHOUT taking their cheek off the rifle while maintaining a PROPER sight picture?
I don't have a Lee Enfield here but I've just watched about 20 videos of people firing them and it looks like you'd get banged right in the face if you leave your cheek planted properly on the stock. I know a Sringfield and a K98 will take your eye out if you try it. And yes, I realize the bolt throw on an SMLE is shorter.
As to British vs American marksmanship, well that will take some reading but the answer is out there...
G'day
Will someone please provide a picture or video of someone working the bolt of a Lee Enfield WITHOUT taking their cheek off the rifle while maintaining a PROPER sight picture?
I don't have a Lee Enfield here but I've just watched about 20 videos of people firing them and it looks like you'd get banged right in the face if you leave your cheek planted properly on the stock. I know a Sringfield and a K98 will take your eye out if you try it. And yes, I realize the bolt throw on an SMLE is shorter.
As to British vs American marksmanship, well that will take some reading but the answer is out there...
G'day
You can easily cycle an Enfield while maintaining a proper sight picture. You can also do it with a K98. I've done it with both, many times. It's a little harder with a MN, because the bolt handle is so far forward however.
It takes a little getting used to, since the bolt does indeed come within about 1/2" of your face, but do it about 100 times and you won't even notice.
It takes a little getting used to, since the bolt does indeed come within about 1/2" of your face, but do it about 100 times and you won't even notice.
Cosmoline
Member
I wonder if they were talking about the Enfield "Mad Minute" shootoffs.
As far as standards of marksmanship between armies, you need to understand that there was no single US or British Army during that period. The wartime armies were comprised of MILLIONS of men for each nation, the vast majority of whom had minimal experience shooting. From what I've read the Brits came into the war with better trained soldiers in 1939 than we did in 1941, simply because their military had been very active overseas and had been gearing up for the war longer than ours.
But again it's really hard to generalize. The units that did the brunt of the front line fighting tended to be the best trained from whatever force they were pulled from. You could compare a veteran of Dunkirk with some newbie Yank fresh out of basic and the vet would likely be able to clean his clock. But how can you generalize from that?
As far as standards of marksmanship between armies, you need to understand that there was no single US or British Army during that period. The wartime armies were comprised of MILLIONS of men for each nation, the vast majority of whom had minimal experience shooting. From what I've read the Brits came into the war with better trained soldiers in 1939 than we did in 1941, simply because their military had been very active overseas and had been gearing up for the war longer than ours.
But again it's really hard to generalize. The units that did the brunt of the front line fighting tended to be the best trained from whatever force they were pulled from. You could compare a veteran of Dunkirk with some newbie Yank fresh out of basic and the vet would likely be able to clean his clock. But how can you generalize from that?
Jeff F
Member
Hers a video of a guy shooting the mad minute.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m1yN-3n0FU
He'e fast but I think the semiauto would win hands down and I do shoot an Enfield, a lot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m1yN-3n0FU
He'e fast but I think the semiauto would win hands down and I do shoot an Enfield, a lot.
Halo
Member
To throw a slight curve ball to the discussion, how about either of them vs. German marksmanship? Japanese?
Rifleman 173
Member
My father was in WW2. He said that the British were decent marksmen BUT they were not as good as the Americans. My father explained that in the days prior to WW2, many Americans lived in rural environments and they hunted their food in many, many cases. Growing up in the Depression years meant that if you didn't hit the target then you didn't eat. The Americans had a distinct advantage because they actually grew up with guns, hunted and knew how to shoot. When the war came along then they ended up with the M-1 Garand rifle which was a huge step up for most Americans who were used to lever action and bolt action rifles. A decent American marksman could easily outshoot in speed and accuracy most foreign marksmen without a problem. In fact, tests were originally done where John Garand worked about who shot better and quicker with the M-1 versus the O3A3, Mauser rifles and SMLEs for accuracy and speed. Time and again the M-1 Garand rifle beat all the other rifles in both general categories but it had a very hard time beating the O3 and the Mauser in slow fire, deliberate shots for accuracy. Both of these rifles could achieve more precise shots in a slow fire mode. Dad said that just for something to do he and some of the other soldiers would try to recreate shooting results, when given the opportunity, at some of the bases they were stationed at. Time and again the M-1 Garand outdid the bolt action rifles for speed. He also told me about "how the Germans thought." He once told me that the Germans tested their rifles out and used their ammunition and such for the basis of their manuals. He gave an example of the German 8 mm Mauser bullet being able to penetrate something like 6 inches of hard wood and 10 inches of soft wood. So the Germans actually believed that they were pretty safe using trees with like 8 inches of hard wood and 12 inches of soft wood for protection. The Germans became "true believers" in everything that they were told by their army, leaders and furherer. He said that they weren't likely to be swayed against anything that their leaders told them and they took their beliefs to heart. Dad pointed out that the Germans belief in their leaders' words worked to his advantage more than once because he'd spot a German soldier peeking around a soft wood tree and then shoot the German right THROUGH the tree. You see, the 30.06 rifle cartridge has slightly more punch than the 8 millimeter Mauser has. He said that more than one German died with a shocked 
looked spread across his face because that German had actually believed he was safe behind that specific diameter tree for protection. So don't believe the hype about any bolt action rifle being faster or more accurate than the M-1 Garand except in slow, deliberate fire tests.
looked spread across his face because that German had actually believed he was safe behind that specific diameter tree for protection. So don't believe the hype about any bolt action rifle being faster or more accurate than the M-1 Garand except in slow, deliberate fire tests.OK, check out this guy. He starts lowering the rifle slightly between shots after the third one, but for the first three shots he maintains his sight picture.
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=lxlMmHw1u2M&feature=related
Most of the mad minute vids out there show people shooting from the prone and to do that you have to move your head slightly between shots since your face is closer to the bolt in that position.
HorseSoldier
Member
Too much focus on the arrows and not enough on the indians, I think.
Most of the guys in both armies were drafted after the war kicked off. It seems like most opinions I've read about weapons training in either army for wartime draftees/conscripts in normal infantry sort of units tended to characterize it as inadequate or a wasted opportunity ruined by lack of ammunition and battalion and higher chains of command that were more keen on the new troops thoroughly learning drill and ceremonies sort of drivel. (Things were better, I think, on both sides of the pond for the high speed guys of the era like the commandos or airborne types -- though still pretty rudimentary and poor by modern standards.)
Taking Pvt Smith from the US Army (and Brooklyn before that) and putting him up against Pte Smith from the British Army (and Manchester before that), both having just completed their respective basic training, I'd guess ability level would be a wash. The Garand would probably give a bit of an edge on time, but only if Pvt Smith was really well drilled on his reloading, and he probably wasn't.
Likewise, I'd tend to guess if we ran the same experiment with two Sergeants Smith, both pre-war long service volunteers, we'd get about the same results. Ability level is probably quite a bit higher than the draftees (assuming both guys are infantry types or some other career field that called for frequent small arms training), but neither army had spent the decade prior to the war being overly lavish with training funds and ammo, due to the Depression. Probably a wash, again.
No, not if you look closely. He is moving the rifle slightly away from his face, look closely at the butt of the stock as it moves out of his shoulder. It took me a second to figure it out but watch and you'll see what I mean. I'm also not too keen on his form. That is why I said "proper" form. Now in this video of an SMLE being fired at 1000 meters you see very clearly at 1:28 how far rearward the bolt extends. At 1:57 you see a 'proper' position. And at around 2:04 he fires and cycles the bolt clearly having to move his face out of the way. The fact that he is prone has nothing to do with it either. In order to replicate accurate firing the cheek weld is very important for having your head in position to maximize the sights.
See Lee Enfield video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7EuIs8ECpk
See the Mauser 98k video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LvB0IwDDhQ&NR=1
In the first still picture shown you can clearly see how far rearward the bolt actually travels. When he actually starts shooting it you see very quickly that if he leaves he cheek on the stock he will loose an eye.
Jeff F
Member
This guy is real fast, but I don't know if he is hitting anything or just making noise
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV5pSUlBz18&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV5pSUlBz18&feature=related
scythefwd
Member
Hank327,
BRM in basic training was only 2 weeks. I saw people go from never having touched a gun to experts. I can teach BRM in a day, and with a day of practice can have most people hitting at 300y with an M16. Now whether they were better under fire is a completely different question. I probably couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside if I was under fire.
BRM in basic training was only 2 weeks. I saw people go from never having touched a gun to experts. I can teach BRM in a day, and with a day of practice can have most people hitting at 300y with an M16. Now whether they were better under fire is a completely different question. I probably couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside if I was under fire.
steven04
Member
Here is the link to the video mentioned earlier in the thread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT7kEMxSdZU
Its a nice historical piece, especially since I shoot service rifle matches at Bisley on Century Range
For the record, I own a BSA SMLE, but I've never attempted a speed record with it....My AR's used for service rifle are all straight-pull, with no gas system.
Cheers
Steven
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT7kEMxSdZU
Its a nice historical piece, especially since I shoot service rifle matches at Bisley on Century Range
For the record, I own a BSA SMLE, but I've never attempted a speed record with it....My AR's used for service rifle are all straight-pull, with no gas system.
Cheers
Steven
We seem to have drifted a wee bit from the original question which was a two parter.
First was about marksmanship standards UK versus US Army in WW2
Secondary was about speed v accuracy
Lets address the second one first.
In general any semi automatic weapon will beat a bolt action in cycle rate in identical circumstances. It's simple mechanics, physics and engineering.
Accuracy is part person, part platform and once again in general a bolt action TENDS to greater inherent mechanical accuracy than a semi-automatic.
As platforms have matured, quality control has increased etc the gap has for some narrowed now but we are still talking WW2 not 2008.
So, as a general answer, the Garand would be capable of being faster, the Lee-Enfield capable of being more accurate.
That's the second question mostly covered.
The first question is harder to answer due to a large number of variables.
For example, during the opening year of the war, the commonly called "Phony War" period, the BEF (British Expeditionary Force) in France were well trained, blooded, all professional soldiers, no conscripts. They were well versed in accurate long range rifle fire and had a strong NCO component with experience going back to WW1. The British Army had always focussed on and demanded all soldiers as infantrymen/riflemen first and emphasized the accurate use of the rifle.
Post Dunkirk, the army moved to a conscript force with an emphasis on getting as many warm bodies in formation as quickly as possible. Basic training was shortened and rifle training was more limited. So the new squaddie was less capable of accurate fire at the end of basic than his predecessors. However the ethos of accuracy was still embedded and they would catch up, whether they wanted to or not in a reasonably short period of time.
The earlier answer saying that Americans had a greater propensity to accuracy due to greater exposure to firearms in civilian life is somewhat disingenuous as,
The US Army at war entry was also a conscript force mostly drawn from the cities, where much of the population resided with limited previous firearms exposure
As anyone who has been in the military can attest, there's the right way, the wrong way and the military way....
.
Many recruits who would have come in with pre-existing firearms exposure would have had that beasted out of them by NCO's as they would have to unlearn old practices and habits and learn the Army way of doing it.
As a general rule the US Marines had/has the closest marksmanship ethos to the general British Army soldier ethos.
So as a general, broad brush stroke view, the UK army squaddie would have had a higher accuracy trained baseline than the equivalent US Army soldier. As time in combat increased the gap could narrow.
First was about marksmanship standards UK versus US Army in WW2
Secondary was about speed v accuracy
Lets address the second one first.
In general any semi automatic weapon will beat a bolt action in cycle rate in identical circumstances. It's simple mechanics, physics and engineering.
Accuracy is part person, part platform and once again in general a bolt action TENDS to greater inherent mechanical accuracy than a semi-automatic.
As platforms have matured, quality control has increased etc the gap has for some narrowed now but we are still talking WW2 not 2008.
So, as a general answer, the Garand would be capable of being faster, the Lee-Enfield capable of being more accurate.
That's the second question mostly covered.
The first question is harder to answer due to a large number of variables.
For example, during the opening year of the war, the commonly called "Phony War" period, the BEF (British Expeditionary Force) in France were well trained, blooded, all professional soldiers, no conscripts. They were well versed in accurate long range rifle fire and had a strong NCO component with experience going back to WW1. The British Army had always focussed on and demanded all soldiers as infantrymen/riflemen first and emphasized the accurate use of the rifle.
Post Dunkirk, the army moved to a conscript force with an emphasis on getting as many warm bodies in formation as quickly as possible. Basic training was shortened and rifle training was more limited. So the new squaddie was less capable of accurate fire at the end of basic than his predecessors. However the ethos of accuracy was still embedded and they would catch up, whether they wanted to or not in a reasonably short period of time.
The earlier answer saying that Americans had a greater propensity to accuracy due to greater exposure to firearms in civilian life is somewhat disingenuous as,
The US Army at war entry was also a conscript force mostly drawn from the cities, where much of the population resided with limited previous firearms exposure
As anyone who has been in the military can attest, there's the right way, the wrong way and the military way....
.Many recruits who would have come in with pre-existing firearms exposure would have had that beasted out of them by NCO's as they would have to unlearn old practices and habits and learn the Army way of doing it.
As a general rule the US Marines had/has the closest marksmanship ethos to the general British Army soldier ethos.
So as a general, broad brush stroke view, the UK army squaddie would have had a higher accuracy trained baseline than the equivalent US Army soldier. As time in combat increased the gap could narrow.
cracked butt
Member
A lot of this mythological crap seems to spring up on the internetz from people who have never shot either rifle
Soem British soldier in the past was able to fire a remarkable number of aimed shots with an Enfield and now vast numbers of people seem to think the enfield is faster. Jerry Mikulek can empty a revolver into multiple targets, reload, and make perfect hits on more targets- all in the blink of an eye. Does this mean that revolvers are faster and more accurate than semi-autos? Not necessarily. It means that the shooter in question is at the very skinny end of the bell curve in terms of skill, the same shooter could likely pick up any similar gun and outshoot most normal people.
Soem British soldier in the past was able to fire a remarkable number of aimed shots with an Enfield and now vast numbers of people seem to think the enfield is faster. Jerry Mikulek can empty a revolver into multiple targets, reload, and make perfect hits on more targets- all in the blink of an eye. Does this mean that revolvers are faster and more accurate than semi-autos? Not necessarily. It means that the shooter in question is at the very skinny end of the bell curve in terms of skill, the same shooter could likely pick up any similar gun and outshoot most normal people.
He starts to move his face away from the rifle as he cycles the action after he's fired a couple of shots, but for the first couple times he keeps his sight picture. Yes the rifle and the sight picture do move a little, but that has to do with cycling a bolt action. You have to push, pull and rotate that bolt handle in the process of cycling it and that's going to cause the rifle to move.
I mainly chose that video because it was one of the few I could find of someone working the action from the shoulder who wasn't in the prone position, not because of his form.
When you are in the prone position, your neck naturally extends towards the front of the rifle, pushing your face up closer to the action. If you are sitting or standing, your neck naturally points 90 degrees away from the muzzle.
I mainly chose that video because it was one of the few I could find of someone working the action from the shoulder who wasn't in the prone position, not because of his form.
When you are in the prone position, your neck naturally extends towards the front of the rifle, pushing your face up closer to the action. If you are sitting or standing, your neck naturally points 90 degrees away from the muzzle.
"A day at Bisley makes a very nice break"
I think the following vintage military video makes a nice contribution to this thread.
The reporter states that the garand fires 43 aimed shots a minute, while the Lee Enfield fires 27 aimed shots a minute.
The comparison starts at 4:08.
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=QT7kEMxSdZU
Erhard
I think the following vintage military video makes a nice contribution to this thread.
The reporter states that the garand fires 43 aimed shots a minute, while the Lee Enfield fires 27 aimed shots a minute.
The comparison starts at 4:08.
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=QT7kEMxSdZU
Erhard
Last edited:
Nolo
Member
A skilled Enfield shooter can fire the weapon as fast as a semiauto.
I am not a skilled Enfield shooter, and I can cycle mine as fast as I can rack the slide on my shotgun (which I am proficient with). Now, that's with dry-firing, but getting used to the recoil comes with training (I also hear it's not that bad).
Having said that, the Garand is the fastest semiauto out there (by reloading steps, there is exactly one, compared to, say, three for an AK. In addition, it is quite quick on the trigger as well and it's action cycles very quickly).
So the Enfield does not compare. But it is awesome for a bolt-gun. I was amazed how fast it was when I got it. And, yeah, if you fire with the middle finger, it does speed up the cycle significantly.
(Plus, the Enfield's mag takes forever to replace, and strippers are very slow too. If the Enfield had an en-bloc system... then we'd have a much more interesting conversation.)
I am not a skilled Enfield shooter, and I can cycle mine as fast as I can rack the slide on my shotgun (which I am proficient with). Now, that's with dry-firing, but getting used to the recoil comes with training (I also hear it's not that bad).
Having said that, the Garand is the fastest semiauto out there (by reloading steps, there is exactly one, compared to, say, three for an AK. In addition, it is quite quick on the trigger as well and it's action cycles very quickly).
So the Enfield does not compare. But it is awesome for a bolt-gun. I was amazed how fast it was when I got it. And, yeah, if you fire with the middle finger, it does speed up the cycle significantly.
(Plus, the Enfield's mag takes forever to replace, and strippers are very slow too. If the Enfield had an en-bloc system... then we'd have a much more interesting conversation.)
lonegunman
Member
No matter what gun used, every army in WWII had decent combat troops who could hit what they aimed at. Our side won based on shear numbers of troops and amounts of equipment. Germany could have had the best 10,000 marksman on earth and they still could not beat 6,000,000 russians and 4,000,000 brits and americans on their best day.
The SMLE was in service from the turn of the century until the late 1950's, the Garand was in service from about 1936 until the 1950's. They made at least three times more SMLE's than Garands and they made far more Mausers than either of them, probably more Mausers in all variations were made than anything else in the 20th century.
A well trained soldier with a technologically inferior weapon is still far more dangerous than an unskilled soldier with the latest tacticool gear.
The SMLE was in service from the turn of the century until the late 1950's, the Garand was in service from about 1936 until the 1950's. They made at least three times more SMLE's than Garands and they made far more Mausers than either of them, probably more Mausers in all variations were made than anything else in the 20th century.
A well trained soldier with a technologically inferior weapon is still far more dangerous than an unskilled soldier with the latest tacticool gear.
kcmarine
Member
Hm... the best way to do this comparison would be to see what a Marine did with a M1917 in WWI and what a Marine did in WWII with a M1 Garand.
NCsmitty
Member
General George S. Patton called the M1 "the greatest battle implement ever devised."
It's my opinion that because of our firearms heritage of shooting and hunting, the American GI was better prepared as a marksman than the average British soldier.
The semi-auto aspect of the M1 was a constant advantage for the Americans against the Germans and Japanese. Many battles were turned because of the withering firepower of the M1. It did quite well in Korea too.
NCsmitty
It's my opinion that because of our firearms heritage of shooting and hunting, the American GI was better prepared as a marksman than the average British soldier.
The semi-auto aspect of the M1 was a constant advantage for the Americans against the Germans and Japanese. Many battles were turned because of the withering firepower of the M1. It did quite well in Korea too.
NCsmitty
Since there are already links to half the content of youtube... Here is what a "cyclic rate" of just over 40 shots per minute looks like with a bolt action. Yes, I know it's not a full minute, and it isn't a Lee Enfield. 17 shots, 17 hits, 25 seconds. The rifle is a Sauer 200 target rifle (in a "tactical" plastic stock, it becomes a Sauer SSG3000). The target is about dinner plate size at somewhere between 150 and 200 yards (the shooter has to guesstimate the distance and adjust accordingly).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfY899uNOk0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfY899uNOk0
HorseSoldier
Member
It depends, really. Growing up shooting does not necessarily mean growing up shooting well, and having no prior experience of weapons can mean a blank slate with no bad habits to overcome when proper technique is taught during initial training (assuming proper technique is what is actually taught, an issue worth discussing concerning both British and American BRM during the WW2 era, I suspect).
It also bears remembering that most Americans by WW2 were from urban areas and their proficiency with firearms was debatable (even if those from rural areas would tend to have some exposure to firearms), and also that firearms were not so obscure and forbidden a topic in the UK for the generation that fought in WW2 as they are for modern Brits.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
