Can't sharp-shoot a man at 1300 Yards

Need some help here. The chap in the video giving the talk at the Puckley event, say's you can"t sharp-shoot a man at 1300 yards because he's bloted out by the sight. He can fire into an advancing mass rank at that distance. So what does he me blotted out.

Hi impi

I think he means that lining up a figure in the sights at 1300 yards, would result in the figure being 'blotted out' by the foresight of the Martini Henry rifle. Happy to be corrected.

Martin.

Hi Impi and Martin,
Correct,
The foresight of the weapon would sufficiently obscure the outline of a man sized target at that distance to make a hit in the vitals well nigh impossible. Thus, drawing a bead, would be a mission impossible.
However, the heavy MH 450/480gr bullet was quite capable of travelling a distance much further than that, but not at all accurately.
Another complication in shooting at extreme ranges was that the barrel of the weapon would have to be elevated at anything
from 10 to 20 degrees to project the heavy bullet that far, and without complicated adjustments for windage being applied as well ( "aiming off"- or adjustments of azimuth, to offset the effect of cross winds blowing the bullet off target) would make accurate shooting very difficult.
I will shortly be posting some interesting technical data on tests done under controlled conditions on the MH by the Stamford Arsenal at 3500yds, where only one bullet fired out of 80, hit the large target. The results will be interesting to the technically minded.
To add further to the general myth about any accurate shooting done in the AZW I quote from David Rattray's guidebook to the AZW :

"Modern studies suggest that relatively few soldiers, even in the best trained units actively aim at and seek to kill the enemy in combat, most firing weapons wildly and some not even firing at all. Certainly, the ratio between the the number of rounds fired and the number of casualties inflicted on the enemy in documented combats of the last few centuries , has been staggerlingly low, usually at least several hundred to one". Dr Adrian Goldsworthy, Cannae.

regards

barry

Thanks for the informative replies. I recall there was and account, which is on the forum somewhere, where one of the defenders at RD killed an induna who was quite a considerable distance off. By all accounts the aiming was deliberate and not a hit or miss shot.

Hi Impi.
Pvt Dunbar was the chap who made some shots from a longish distance , including I think from memory an Induna on horseback
at R.D.
Cheers 90th.

Here it is .

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

cheers 90th.

Hi 90th and IMPI,
Indeed there are always exceptions.
In trained hands and used with skill , better than average results could be obtained.
After all, the stories are legend about the handfull of trained marksmen who were detailed to the sniper's mielie bag tower at RD. These men methodically picked off enemy with the MH way behind the lines at 400-600 yards and were causing the Zulu's much demoralisation, even in places where they thought they were safe.

regards

barry

Barry
data was published in the topic littlehand started in his link.
Subject: Ballistic data for the MH ammunition. Sun Jan 29, 2012 8:35 am

1300 yards on the leaf sight is actually the dead zone. The ladder is graduated to 1200 yards, when you can use the "notch" of the slider to draw a bead, the 1300 yard graduation is lost by the sight ladder tip, The next available is the notch of the sight cap at full elevation which is close to 1400 yards, in which case there is a "more luck than judgement" hit rate beyond 1200 as the trajectory, head/tail wind effects it immensely. here is the two sight options: Post April 1877 Mk2 left, Mk1 variant right (which was the most common version in the AZW).

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


Shooting my M-H at Bisley, I found that anything to 6-700 yards can achieve good accuracy results beyond that its more of a challenge. I am shooting 500 at Altcar in the next few weeks, Altcar has very heavy cross winds from the Mersey Estuary, last time at 200 yards I had to sight to the left to accomodate, so we'll see how that goes

Hi Neil,

Thanks for coming in on this one.
Interesting to hear about your next MH 500yd shoot. I must plan my next UK visit to coincide with the MH fundi's shoot.
My son frequently shoots down at Bisley, but that is 30cal.
Whilst pondering IMPI's query I was thinking about the effect of firing the MH with the bayonet fitted or not. The weight of the bayonet must have weighed down the muzzle, changing the recoil pattern and thus moving the MPI.
Any thoughts on that one?

regards

barry

Barry
Bayonet fixed actually reduced the recoil as it acts as a counter balance, reducing the need to "follow through", that said, when drawing a bead, unless you lift up into the target it does work in reverse in that your hold wanders if you don't take the shot immediately.

Its far worse with the Yataghan or the P1887 sword, the side mounting and sheer weight pulls you all over the place.

I'll let you know how I get on, then again, if I shot cr@p thatm I probably won't LOL.

I was reading Hamilton-Brownes book. He says after him and another officer had just dispatched two witch doctors.

" I hit my fellow in the throat, as I taken rather a too fuller sight"

PS. He also says that an MH Bullet at a 100 Yards would go through 2 or 3 men. Ouch, Ouch, Ouch...!!!!!

In 1874 the Journal of the British Medical Association reported that the MH bullet went clean through a horse carcase.

Hi 24th, Neil ,

Indeed, what the Mh may have lacked in accuracy at the greater ranges, it made up for in sheer knock down power. The annals are full of stories about Mh hits on the enemy causing limb severing , major tissue damage to non vitals and thus fatal bloodloss, etc, etc.
At RD where the formidable bayonet was brought very much to good effect the annals have stories about the enemy being baynonetted to the ground ( ie well skewered) and the troopers having some difficulties withdrawing them to continue the fight.

regards,

barry

barry wrote:

"Modern studies suggest that relatively few soldiers, even in the best trained units actively aim at and seek to kill the enemy in combat, most firing weapons wildly and some not even firing at all. Certainly, the ratio between the the number of rounds fired and the number of casualties inflicted on the enemy in documented combats of the last few centuries , has been staggerlingly low, usually at least several hundred to one". Dr Adrian Goldsworthy, Cannae.

On a military forum recently they gave some stats that were very surprising;

WW1; it was estimated that less than 10% and; WW2 less than 25% of combatants fired their weapons in anger.

If one examines RD; 20 000 rounds were fired (that's what was available to them). The Zulu suffered some 350 dead and usually battlefield wounded are double this, so around 700 making a total of 1000 hits. That means that 1:20 rounds hit the target at close range.

On the subject of hitting power; I was involved in the handling of bullet wound injuries for a number of years. Whilst the caliber of the weapon can cause severe damage the key to success is the velocity of the projectile.

A bullet traveling at high velocity is surrounded by a shock wave. The higher the velocity the bigger the field of the shock wave. As this penetrates tissue, the shock wave radiates out into the tissue causing immense damage. The rule is. the greater the velocity the more fatal the injury is likely to be. The FN NATO standard of the 70's and 80's did far more damage than the Soviet AK47 intermediate round because of much higher muzzle velocity.

In treating patients mainly from AK47 rounds, the wounds were initially packed with sterile dressings. The patient was only taken into theatre a week later for wound debrisment as it was only possible for the surgeon to see the level of tissue damage at this stage. The wound was then packed with a sterile protein gel and allowed to heal from the inside out.

Thanks Rob. Interesting read. does the velocity come about due the weight and shape of the bullet head, or the amount of powder added, or both.

I am no rifle expert but the major differences between the FN and AK47 were;
1.NATO round was longer and had a bigger charge (762 vs intermediate 762).
2. FN rifle had a much longer barrel than the AK

I gather that matching barrel length with charge dictates muzzle velocity.

Some of our forces used Uzi 9mm auto weapons in certain situations and the fatalities and injury from this weapon was nothing like the FN. I remember one patient hit by 9 rounds who lived.

Our special forces operatives preferred the AK47 over the FN because the weapon was more robust, less likely to jam and easier to handle in close quarters fighting. But each stick had a MAG gunner to hand anyway.

You notice that the modern NATO weapon is a much smaller calibre weapon. The newer NATO calibre weapons are lighter allowing more personal ammo and they have higher muzzle velocity.

Hi Rob,
Thanks for that insight into the bush war.
Do you have any data on the effect of 5.56mm (Br SA80, US M16, SA R 4/5/6) wounds. I am told that these wounds are severe despite the diminutive size of the projectile.The velocity of this round is of the order of 3200 ft/sec.
The effectiveness of the 7.62R (AK) verse the 7.62 Winchester (std FAL, R1 , FN762 round) is confirmed as I have personally done tests with these on armor plate and found the former definitely anaemic with only about half of the kinetic energy at 100m. Yet the 30-06 Spr which fires the same calibre / weight projectile overshadows both because of its larger powder charge, and thus velocity, which answers John's question in the preceding post.

regards

barry

Hi Barry,

Armscor had launched the RSA R4 as the equivalent for the AK towards the end of my hospital experiences. The R5 was in early stage of development but I did not come across any casualties from this weapon.

We had extensive lectures from surgeons across the spectrum covering Northern Ireland and Southern African battle wound management. The management of casualties was far better once there was a clear understanding of the effects of shock wave effect on tissue. Prior to this many wounds were treated by closing the wound which resulted increased infection rates and loss of limbs.

This is the best book, relating to gun shot wounds during the Zulu War.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It has been posted before but to save you time here's the link.

Many of you may be aware of this but still an interesting read, the article entitled 45-70 at Two Miles compares the US Springfield to the Martini-Henry in the period.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]