Talk:.303 British/Archive 1

Headstamps
Is it okay to add a table of headstamps for the .303 to this article? Or would this be considered delving too deeply into this one particular subject? Kartano (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

7.7mm, Really?
Hello, just wondering where the 7.7mm measurement comes from. 0.311 X 2.54 is 7.9mm (or 7.8994mm if you like). Even if someone's done a cigarette box calculation of 0.311 X 2.5, they've bodged it and rounded it down (it would be 7.8mm or 7.775mm). Not that I'm saying it's definitely 'wrong' as there are of course plenty of odd names and measurements for calibers, but it should be explained, unless it is just wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

? I don't see the problem, .303 is exactly 7.70 mm. .311 is the bullet diameter, .303 is the distance across the rifling lands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob300w (talk • contribs) 09:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 7.7 is .303. I've tried to cleanup the language so that it is more obvious. Arthurrh 04:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Does anyone have a WP:RS for the use of "7.7mm" in reference to British .303, within the scope of this article. This is a calibre, not a simple dimension and we shouldn't translate dimensions in such cases unless there's a pre-existing use of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

How about this: http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o254/bigedp51/FrontCover.jpg

South African ammunition loaded in the 1980s was labeled 7.7mmx56R. See http://www.jouster.com/cgi-bin/reload/reload.pl?noframes;read=30002 and http://www.dave-cushman.net/shot/303headstamps.html for some examples of this nomenclature, including a close-up of the South African casehead at http://www.dave-cushman.net/shot/jpg/77r1m3z_200.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.3.137.5 (talk) 07:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The World War II Japanese 7.7x58mm Arisaka round was based on the .303 and was, when I last looked, referred-to as 7.7mm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.249.112 (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

European manufacturers of .303 British ammunition often use the designation of 7.7mm when refering to the .303 British cartridge. When the Imperial Japanese Navy adopted a copy of the British Lewis machine gun, they called their copy of the .303 British cartridge a 7.7mm (7.7mmx56R (rimmed) as opposed to the 7.7x58mm Arisaka (rimless) used in other Japanese machine guns and rifles). East European and Portugeuse hunting and target ammo for .303 British is often marked 7.7x56R which appears to be a common manufacturers' designation. Cartridge nomenclature has only a nodding acquaintance to the actual bore diameter of the barrel, groove depth of the rifling or diameter of the bullet (reloading bullets for .303 British are usually in the .311 to .312 inch range which translates to 7.92mm) and in naming cartridges we should go by the names the ammo factories use and not by what bore or bullet diameter converts to mathematically. To differentiate themselves in the market place, makers of cartridges select designations which are not always accurate representations of actual bore/bullet diameters: they often select unique names to distinguish cartridges that are not interchangeable (check a reloading manual for the proper bullet diameter to use in .22 caliber cartridges designationed as .218 .219 .22 .220 .221 .222 .223 etc). Naaman Brown (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Special Forces training manuals use the designations .303 Cal, .303 caliber, 7.7-mm x 56-mm R and 7.9-mm x 56-mm. STP 31-18B34-SM-TG Soldier's Manual and Trainer's Guide MOS 18B Special Forces Weapons Sergeant October 1990. Naaman Brown (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hornady Handbook of Cartridge Reloading shows drawings and dimensions for the ".303 British and "7.7mm Japanese" recommending .312 inch bullets for both, but the case lengths, diameters at base and shoulder, angel of shoulder, neck length, etc are all radically different. They are similar but different. With a press and dies you can make 7.7x58mm Japanese casings from .30-06 casings, but not from .303 British casings. Naaman Brown (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Suitability for automatic weapons?
I'm somewhat intrigued by the claim "It is a rimmed cartridge and is therefore not entirely suitable for use in modern automatic weapons". Given that it's been successfully used in the Maxim, Vickers, Lewis, Browning M1919, Bren and numerous other automatic weapons covering most design criteria from vintage to modern, I'm not entirely convinced of the merits of including that sentence. The only (very arguable) thing I can think of is that it doesn't lend itself to being pushed forward out of a belt feed as many current LMGs/GPMGs tend to do, but I don't think that in itself really justifies such a claim.

I propose that the sentence is removed; any consensus? If I don't hear anything by the time I remember that I've written this (which may be some time!) I'll assume that there're no objections and remove it. Chris 20:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Other than the Bren I believe all those are belt-fed machineguns, so the rim isn't really an issue: rimmed cartridges can be a pain to feed reliably from magazines. Aside from the Bren I can't think of any lightweight weapon capable of fully-automatic fire which uses rimmed cartridges, and even then the Bren was converted to 7.62 NATO later in life. Certainly the Bren page here claims "Care needed to be taken with magazine loading to ensure that the cartridge rims did not overlap, causing a jam" Mark Grant 20:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand the caution about "care must be taken when loading" etc. but was jamming a common problem in practice? I understand the Bren to've been renowned for its reliability, but I don't know if the same is true of the magazines: I'm assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that the problem was more of a theoretical one than something that manifested itself in use.  I was trying to think of other magazine-fed automatic .303 weapons but could only come up with the Madsen offhand, and even then I'm not absolutely certain it was available in .303.  Of course there was also the Lee Enfield, albeit manually operated, but it also used box magazines.  Just for completeness, the Lewis and the Vickers K gun (which I forgot to mention) weren't belt-fed but used pan-type magazines, but I suppose that's slightly outside the scope of the discussion.


 * Then there's always the Chauchat using the 8mm Lebel, but possibly the less said about that the better. Chris 11:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Lee-Enfield had a fixed magazine loaded with stripper clips, didn't it? I'd imagine that helps ensure it's loaded properly without the rims getting caught up. Similarly, the pan magazines probably don't have as many feeding problems as a box magazine: it's also worth noting the huge curve in the .303 Bren magazines, required to make space for the rimmed cases, which could be a pain if you're trying to fit it in the bottom of a rifle. Maybe 'not suitable' is too extreme, but rimmed cases are certainly out of fashion for modern assault rifles and light machineguns. Mark Grant 12:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There's some commentary on the 303's suitability for magazine feeding here which is quite interesting. Seems to back up the "not entirely suitable" claim that I was questioning! Chris 23:48, 4 August 2006

(UTC)


 * While the cartridge can be used in magazine fed weapons the rim does pose some problems. I own an Lee-Enfield bolt action rifle and it does use stripper clips.  The way to avoid feed problems is to stagger the rims of the cartridges in the stripper clip alternating one rim on top of the other.  Unfortunatly, I don't have documentation for this right now so I'm not going to post anything right now. Believe it or not the "rim stacking" debate is quit common on the internet among Lee-Enfield shooters and collectors.  Hopefully, I'll be able to pull up sourced information.(74.34.210.239 18:28, 14 August 2007 (74.34.210.239 18:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Don)
 * Evidently these collectors and shooters don't have access to basic texts such as Skennerton's Lee-Enfield Story or his Small Arms Identification Series, or even facsimile copies of various WWII manuals... the official Commonwealth clip loading method is known as "One Up, One Down" and can best be described as having the base of the cartridges thusly in the clip: _-_-_. As a Lee-Enfield shooter, collector, and historian I can assure you that this is the way the cartridges are designed to be loaded in the chargers, and if done properly, will function perfectly. As for a source (just to get people started): Highly Regarded Lee-Enfield Rifle website --Commander Zulu 12:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The Lewis gun also used .303. As did the Vickers K gun (which was very similer to the BREN. Slatersteven (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)]]

The rim problem is not new, in 1918 RL was manufacturing 303 Lewis Gun rimless, to avoid just this problem. It was not interchangeable with standard .303, it had a larger body and longer neck, overall length and base diameter were the same. These were only made in 1918 and 1919. Cartridges for Collectors, by Fred Datig. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob300w (talk • contribs) 09:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

While theoretically the rimmed cartridge is a problem with box magazine fed firearms, the .303 Bren light machine gun emerged from WWII with a sterling reputation among the men who bet their lives on the reliability of their firearms. Naaman Brown (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The best way to put it is this: while rimmed cartridges can feed as reliably as rimless ones in any kind of feeding mechanism, they do require more care in either the design of the weapon (ala the magazine on the Mosin-Nagant rifle, which is QUITE ingenious when you figure out how it works) or in the loading of the weapon (ala Lee-Enfield, PSL, SVT, nearly anything in .38 Super, etc.) versus a weapon using rimless cartridges. This of course excepts weapons not using a box magazine, like the Winchester 94 or PKM, etc. 99.172.41.123 (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Recoil?
How much recoil does this round have?? I'm puzzled. I've never shot it before. Ace Fighter.

The MkV11 .303 round, fired in a SMLE weighing 9lbs, has a recoil energy of 11 ft/lbs, for comparison, a 12g shotgun weighing 6.5lbs, has a recoil energy of 22.8 ft/lbs, double that of the 303. Data from "Hatchers Notebook" by Major General J.Hatcher.

I don't have statistics for you, but in the Lee Enfields I shot 20 years ago there was a considerable kick and if not held in tight you risked a bruising. In the Bren gun mounted on the bipod, the thing tended to gently walk away from you rather than kicking. I've not shot many weapons, but the bren gun was wonderful compared to the Lee Enfield. Dmccabe 03:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Depends on the rifle. With rifles of the same weight and bullets of the same weight, expect recoil similar to a .308. IE probably around 12-15 ft/lbs. Arthurrh 22:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In a non-sporterized Lee-Enfield No. 4 Mk I*, the recoil is modest, comparable to many military 30 cal rifles. In a sporterized Lee-Enfield No. 4 Mk I*, though, with much of the forestock removed, the barrel shortened, and with a weight reduction to around 6 lbs, the recoil is rather fierce, bordering on painful, to such an extent that anyone adverse to recoil is usually rather inaccurate with the sporterized version of the same rifle.  The later Lee-Enfield Jungle Carbine in .303, especially, with its shortened barrel and reduced weight, had a reputation for breaking collar bones on a regular basis, especially when the rather small rubber recoil pad hardened up in the very least with age or upon exposure to UV. In a rifle weighing 9 or more lbs, the recoil from a .303 cartridge is easily tolerated by even beginning shooters. In a much lighter rifle, the recoil can become rather bruising :-) (These statements assume hotly loaded .303 (Przi Partizan or similar) FMJ cartridges in 170 grains; change the choice of fodder to PowerPoints loaded mildly in either 180 or 200 grains, and the recoil is reduced considerably even for the sporterized Lee-Enfield.)  So, it all depends.  Yaf 03:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The felt recoil of a 6 pound rifle is about double that of a 9 pound rifle firing the same round (the velocity of recoil is proportional to the difference in mass (weight), but the kinetic energy is a product of mass times the square of the velocity). Naaman Brown (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The Mk VIII suitability
I was of the (strong) impression that the mk VIII was marked unsuitable for rifle use due to the chamber pressure exceeding the safe limits of the (rather weak) Lee action?
 * There's a lot of debate over this- it's the currently issued round to the Canadian Rangers, who use Lee-Enfield No. 4 Mk I* rifles, so it's presumably safe for use in the rifle. I'm told the main difference is actually in the bullet, which is boat-tailed instead of flat-based. Personally, I stick to commercial ammo myself. --Commander Zulu 03:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The MkV111 is perfectly safe to use in Lee-Enfield rifles, it was developed for them! The issue under debate is not of safety, but increased barrel erosion, caused by the boat-tailed bullet and the hot-burning NG based propellant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob300w (talk • contribs) 10:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The above poster is correct. The erosion wasn't a problem with machine guns as in both the Vickers and the Bren the barrels are easily changeable, the increased wear is only a problem for the rifles, where a barrel replacement is a much bigger job requiring an armourer.

Sniper?!
My grandpappy told me about a rifle he used for snipping which used a .303 calibre bullet. He said it was a heavy-THV, around 250 grain and 2,750 fps muzzle velocity. I'm asking because I didn't find any mention of it on this page, so I was wondering if this ".303 sniper" was a different round, say, an Enfield modified to fire a .30-06 Springfield or something; or if it'd just been accidentally missed out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.35.172 (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Your grandfather's memory may be playing tricks, the heaviest bullet used in the .303 was a 215 grain, in the Mk1V C round. The MkV1 C ball round, cordite loaded, had an MV of 1,970 FPS. This round was declared obsolete in 1928. After this date, 215 grain bullets were only used in Proof rounds. One of the latest UK sniper rounds, the 338 Lapua Magnum fires a 250g FMJ-BT ball bullet at 2,950 FPS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob300w (talk • contribs) 10:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

dude you are wrong man i shoot a .303 and i use 250 grain for sport shooting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.177.40 (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Dude, you may well shoot a .303 using commercial ammunition, but there was never a military loading using a 250 grain bullet. The military loads were a 215 grain round nose ball projo and the 174 grain FMJ projo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.103.120.158 (talk) 11:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I've since done some checking, and it turns out this sniper-round had a very limited production run (designed to penetrate a certain amount of armour at a certain distance). Most of my grandpa's old war stuff was left to me and, rumaging through it, I found a Ye Olde production order stub from the SOE with the specifications on it. Looks like only a few were specially made. If anybody is interested, I can get it scanned and uploaded? If not, I'd rather not risk it by carting it down to the Library to scan... Don't want to damage it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.155.47 (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

.303 British ?
Who calls this ".303 British" ? Sounds like an Americanism to me. Wikipedia is increasinly being americanised so it seems, and without proof to the contrary, this looks like an example.


 * Most manufacturers refer to it as ".303 British", to distinguish it from the other .303 which is denoted ".303 Savage" (which is not compatible, by the way.) Sellier & Belliot (European manufacturer) uses this nomenclature, among many others.  Hence, I don't think it is an Americanism.  Yaf 16:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There is also the .303 Adder, .303 Frazer Velox Mauser, .303 Lewis Gun rimless, .303 Magnum, 375/303WR, and the many necked down/up versions, 303/22 etc. It seems perfectly reasonable to distinguish it from these by calling it the ".303 British".


 * The vast majority of .303 British is sold outside Britain, mostly in the US/Canada, so what European manufacturers call it is dependent on what the market expects it to be called. Riddley 17:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * How much ammunition is sold in Britain at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.67.118 (talk) 06:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Surely someone has access to British Army tech or training manuals that show official military nomenclature. U.S. Special Forces training manual list ".303 Cal", ".303 caliber", "7.7-mm x 56-mm R" and "7.9-mm x 57-mm" as nomenclature for ammunition for the Lee-Enfield rifle and Bren light machinegun. Sporting ammo from US, Portuguese and Yugoslavian makers is labeled .303 British, as are the instructions in reloading manual, reloading kits from Lee, etc. so one might presume that is a common commercial name for the cartridge. The military ammo I have is identified by three letter manufacturer code, a single digit and a two digit number, presumably date of manufacture, eg "POF 67 7" or a three letter and two digit "HXP 75". Naaman Brown (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I would not put too much credence in the nomenclature used in the US Special Forces TMs when it comes to small arms ammunition. These TMs are full of errors; when I was an Ordnance Corps NCO in the US Army I submitted several error reports to SOCOM to have blatant errors corrected. Things like listing the 7.62mm Nagant revolver as being chambered for the 7.62mmx39 cartridge used in the SKS and AK-47/AKM rifles.

The reference to the 7.9mmx57 is almost certainly due to the 7.92mm Mauser version of the Bren as supplied to China during WW II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.103.120.158 (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The official British name for the round is/was probably; Cartridge .303in SAA Ball. - the 'SAA' denoting 'Small Arms Ammunition', and the 'Ball' denoting a standard solid projectile - originally from 'musket ball'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.82.66 (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008
Article reassessed and graded as start class. Referencingand appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. --dashiellx (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning methods
Just added a note about the 2 methods I am aware of for use with corrosive primed ammunition. The point being that modern cleaning solvents will not clean or provide any protection for the bore. (SM527RR (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC))

Someone added the urban myth about "use ammonia" (Windex, etc) to "neutralize corrosive salts."

This is a persistent MYTH: nothing "neutralizes" the potassium chloride residue from potassium chlorate "corrosive" primers. What is needed is a cleaning agent that will DISSOLVE the salt and carry it out of the bore. Boiling water does an excellent job of this and was the universal agent used by armed forces back in the days before non-corrosive primers were common. Boiling water with a very little dish soap, as a "wetting" agent, is even better. But even cold water will do in a pinch. Some commercial bore cleaners will dissolve the salt---Hoppes, in particular, specifically states it will---but many "modern" bore cleaners will NOT and their use WILL lead to a rusted bore.

Wash-out with hot water, then clean with the miracle bore-cleaner of your choice. Leave the Windex for cleaning the windows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.208.114 (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.accuratepowder.com/data/PerCaliber2Guide/Rifle/Standarddata(Rifle)/311Cal(7.90mm)/303%20British%20pages%20282%20and%20283.pdf
 * In .303 British on 2011-05-20 21:36:26, 404 Not Found
 * In .303 British on 2011-06-20 03:04:44, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://enfieldrifles.profusehost.net/gh2.htm
 * In .303 British on 2011-05-20 21:36:26, 404 Not Found
 * In .303 British on 2011-06-20 03:05:25, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Killing of Manfred von Richthofen
The Mark VII section of this article has this claim:

"Perhaps the most famous single .303 British round ever fired was on 21 April 1918, during World War I, when Manfred von Richthofen, the famed "Red Baron" flying ace, was mortally wounded by a Canadian pilot by the name Billy Bishop using a .303 Mk 7 round."

and cites "The Death of Manfred von Richthofen: Who fired the fatal shot?" by Dr M. Geoffrey Miller as the source for this conclusion. However, Dr. Miller's article does not, in fact, draw the conclusion stated in this Wiki article. There are competing theories about who fired the fatal shot. Also, the article does not put Billy Bishop anywhere near Richthofen on that fatal day. Capt. Roy Brown, on the other hand, is the one who received initial credit for the kill.

It would be appropriate to modify the statement in the Wiki article to something like:

"Perhaps the most famous single .303 British round ever fired was on 21 April 1918, during World War I, when Manfred von Richthofen, the famed "Red Baron" flying ace, was mortally wounded by a .303 Mk 7 round, although the ultimate trigger man remains under debate."

Arjisme (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the sentence as I can't see any justification for keeping it. There's several reasons not to:-

If anyone feels differently, please continue here, but for now I can't see any reason to keep this in an otherwise good article.--Dmol (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Richthofen's death is still in dispute nearly 100 years after the event.
 * Both the Australian/British troops on the ground, and the RAF pilots in the air were using the same calibre, although perhaps different types.
 * Despite the mass hoarding of souvenirs from the incident, the bullet was not kept so no ballistics can be done.
 * Untold millions of .303 rounds were used in the first half of the 20th century.
 * I don't think any other article on firearms or calibres makes any mention of a "most famous" single round. Even the Carcano article does not mention JFK's assasination, other than a redirect to the article about that particular rifle (ie: not calibre).
 * At the very best, it's trivia, which we avoid here.

Military surplus ammunition
I think military surplus has all but dried up, I have never come across any or met anyone who knows how to get any. (Fdsdh1 (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC))


 * I agree. One sometimes sees small quantities at gun shows, as of late 2013, but seemingly for collectors' prices, not for shooting.  The rifles are plentiful but new commercial .303 is likewise difficult to find, the only brand even occasionally available in my area (Michigan, in the US) being Prvi Partizan made in Serbia. Components for reloading this caliber are even more difficult to find.  Some reports suggest--and I am not certain of the safety of this, and do not recommend the practice--that some people are resizing, trimming, and priming their .303 cases, purchasing the inexpensive Russian 7.62x39mm ammunition, disassembling it, and using its powder charges and projectiles to assemble light loads in the .303 cases.  Some are even having the rifles rechambered in 7.62x54R Russian in desperation due to the shortage of either ammunition or components.  Component bullets for this caliber are tremendously difficult to find.  Hornady discontinued manufacturing theirs earlier this autumn, citing greater demand for other products.  Anything from Sierra or Speer in this diameter is going to be a special order, for those who do not shop online.  Remington bullets in this diameter I have never seen sold as reloading components, as opposed to ammunition.  And Woodleigh products have a good reputation, but they are imported from Australia in tiny batches.  Even the surplus ball projectiles pulled from demilled Warsaw Pact surplus 7.62x54R ammunition, which are the correct nominal diameter and in the right weight range, have dried up in the past year.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.23.114 (talk) 04:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)