I went back to store that had them put on and complained about them. Turned out that not only had he opted out of using some locktite on the front sight, the screw that held it there was also too long. But anyway, he shortened the screw down like 1mm, put some locktite on it and tightened it down. Works great now!
Don't know if the front of the slide is a bit thicker on older generation Glocks or if my Truglo's were delivered with a fvcked up screw but it could be worth mentioning if anyone has a Gen4 and is planning on buying new sights.
1 That cone sight comes uncomfortably close to the eye during recoil
2 The shoot off I found odd as I've read where British Soldiers were trained in rapid firing the Enfields using the Forefinger and Thumb to work the bolt, and Index finger to the trigger for 25 aimed shots pre minute. Me thinks a Bit of salesmanship was being done in the video.
The Lee Enfield bolt action really was incredibly smooth and fast to operate - from personal experience no other bolt action even comes close, 25 aimed rounds per minute was perfectly possible with experience and thirty plus could be achieved by some. Early in WW1 there were instances of German infantry thinking they were up against British machine guns when in fact they were being fired upon by extremely well trained British infantry armed with the No.1 Mk.III Lee Enfield.
The ergonomics of the Lee Enfield bolt, combined with cocking method, rear bolt lugs and lack of sideways travel unlike for example the Mauser 98 and derivatives, makes for extremely smooth and fast cycling.
"The current world record for aimed bolt-action fire was set in 1914 by a musketry instructor in the British Army — Sergeant Instructor Snoxall — who placed 38 rounds into a 12" target at 300 yards in one minute. http://militarythoughts.blogspot.com...nstructor.html
I've known his name a long time though I never knew it was at 300 yards, I thought it 100. No.1 MkIII for the win.
I'm not sure it's really down to the increased magazine capacity, but it does help - it's the bolt which makes the biggest difference. The Lee action cocks on the final part of the forward stroke whilst most others **** on opening, this is where the massive speed difference lies.
i'm not sure it's really down to the increased magazine capacity, but it does help - it's the bolt which makes the biggest difference. The lee action cocks on the final part of the forward stroke whilst most others **** on opening, this is where the massive speed difference lies.
For such an old design, the Lee Enfield also have very good ergonomics, the bolt is in exactly the right place, at the right angle and the rear locking lugs aid its smoothness. I don't own one, but IMO it's still one of the nicest bolt actions ever made from a shooter's point of view.
One thing I've never done/seen done is a speed comparison between the Lee Enfield and one of the Swiss straight-pull rifles in terms of speed.
Agreed, DW58. The increased capacity was an asset, but that is not the only strength in the rifle.
Along with four Enfields, I also own a Springfield 1903A3, two Mosin Nagants, and six Mausers. I could have chosen any of them to shoot, but I competed with the Enfield for a reason, and don't regret it.
The only thing I do regret in the competition is forgetting to have an extra clip of rounds ready. We had to knock down ten targets at 300 yards, and I stupidly assumed the ten-shot magazine would be sufficient. When i missed my first two shots, i knew that the necessity to reload from the box would be a fatal error, in terms of the competition. I still had fun though.
I'm not sure if you are aware of it, but there were some extended magazines - I think of thirty rounds capacity - produced for trench warfare use during WW1. I'm not sure how effective they were, but I suspect feeding may not have been too reliable and not many were made.
Each of the two major Enfield variants, the No.I Mk.III and No.4 Mk.1 has it's plus and minus points - actually my personal favourite from a shooting point of view is the post WW2 No.4 Mk.2. My only dislike of the No.I Mk.III is the rear sight, I don't like the tangent "V" sight, or the shorter sight radius, I prefer the No.4-type aperture sight. When I was a cadet, we had No.4 Mk.2s with Parker Hale fully adjustable aperture sights, these were my ultimate Lee Enfield.
I know Hollis has an Ishapore 2/2A 7.62x51mm Enfield - I've often wondered how they are to shoot and whether the straight-sided 7.62x51mm round functions as well in the Enfield action as the tapered .303 Mk.VII round.
Does anyone own both a Lee Enfield and a Swiss straight-pull who can offer a comparison?