How did WWII-era Brit marksmanship compare to US?

[Joe Demko]

At a general interest board I frequent, there is at present a discussion concerning the Enfield rifle and the Garand. One member asserted that the Enfield could deliver 20 shots a minute compared to only 16 from a Garand. This happens, does it not, to be exactly 2 clips from each?
That claim was then modified by another member to be 20 aimed shots compared to only 16.
The implication was that the British Army had a generally higher standard of marksmanship than the US Army.
Now, I confess to being rather ignorant of the practices and standards of the WWII-era British Army (or any other era for the matter of that). I have a general awareness that the US military valued long range, accurate fire during that era.
Does anybody have any factual information concerning the marksmanship standards of each army at that time?

 

[For Freedom]

Wow. I wouldn't even talk to them if they really think a rifleman can fire aimed shots more quickly with a bolt action than a semi automatic.

 

[yesit'sloaded]

Maybe the best ever Enfield shooter against the worst ever Garand shooter. The Enfield has the fastest action of any bolt I've ever fired due to its cock on closing action, but it still is much slower than a semi.

 

[praharin]

the standard for the marine corps right now, in rapid fire is 10 shots, with a reload in 70 seconds. they call it a minute, but if you actually time it, its more like 70 seconds. this includes getting into position from standing to kneeling or prone, depending on the distance.

i never thought it was too difficult to pull that off with 10 hits. however, 20 in a minute is 3 seconds a shot, not counting the time it takes to reload probably via stripper clip. it sounds like a little much to me. anyone out there think they can pull it off? at least 300 yards, as i see that as a good distance for such rifles.

 

[Matt-J2]

What cookie? I sole nothing...

 

[Joe Demko]

I must be getting old...I'm sure I meant to say something here.

 

[gp911]

There's a period video on the net that shows an Enfield being compared to another rifle of the same era, with two soldiers firing rapidly from the prone position. IIRC it's a British Army training video that is showing how superior the Enfield is to another design. This may be where the guy is getting his information from. Search YouTube for Enfield videos and you might find it.


gp911

 

[Limeyfellow]

The record for bolt actions aimed shooting is still owned by Sergeant Snoxall in 1914 when he fired 38 aimed shots that hit the inner target (about 12 inches) at 300 yards in one minute.

Of course its a record for a reason, that they were all hits and no misses in less than 2 seconds a shot with a bolt action rifle.

 

[Matt-J2]

I said nothing...

 

[Joe Demko]

Age sucks.

 

[elmerfudd]

Given equal skill levels, of course the Garand is faster. They both had good sights, but the Garand is a semi-auto and loads quicker since it uses an 8 shot en bloc clip rather than 2, 5 round stripper clips. The semi-auto action also helps moderate the recoil, although that's probably balanced out by the more powerful 30-06 cartridge.

 

[Matt-J2]

Nothing to see here...

 

[Mongrel]

Funny how much this sounds like discussion on WWII first person shooter gaming boards regarding the rendering of the Garands (always 'nerfed' for fairness lol) and the K98s.

Forget all about the clock for a moment and just do a comparison.

Loading:

M1: enbloc clip, 8 rounds bolt closes automatically

Enfield: 5 round stripper X2, bolt closes manually.

Target aquisition: equal (both weapons had good sights)

Round fired:

M1: Milder recoil, Cheek remains planted, rifle is 'settled', sights aligned, squeeze, fire

Enfield: Stout recoil, Lift cheek, bolt up, bolt back, bolt forward, bolt down, re-weld cheek, sights aligned, squeeze fire. (Granted the motion is much more fluid in reality than it writes\reads-BUT it is still additional movement that must be made to eject and chamber a fresh round).

Now, a good rifleman will perform both procedures on both rifles with equal dexterity.

Is there really a question as to which is faster?

 

[Fred West]

The all time record for a Lee Enfield is 37 aimed shots in a minute. This was performed by Sgt Snoxhill, an arms instructor just after the Great War. No one knows how it was done for sure but it was probably in a slit trench off a sandbag support. He may even have used a 20 round magazine as some were issued around this time.

The Lee Enfield Rifle Association did a mad minute at their SMLE 100 year anniversary shoot and the highest score was 22 (by the club secretary). But for a jam after the first shot he may well have scored 25 or 26, still a long way short of 37.

Fred.

 

[Fred West]

I do beg your pardon everyone. I've just noticed Limeyfellows post and I appear to have some of my facts wrong. It was written from memory although I did google Sgt Snoxhill and got nothing. Not surprising really as I spelt his name wrong.

Anyway it would appear it was 38 shots rather than 37 and was attained in 1914. Does anyone know the record for a Garand, it has to be more than that?

Fred.

 

[AmishFury]

Enfield: Stout recoil, Lift cheek, bolt up, bolt back, bolt forward, bolt down, re-weld cheek, sights aligned, squeeze fire. (Granted the motion is much more fluid in reality than it writes\reads-BUT it is still additional movement that must be made to eject and chamber a fresh round)

i can cycle rounds in an enfield while maintaining proper sight picture... provided i don't have slippery hands... gave myself a nose bleed last time i did any rapid fire with my SMLE

and if you pull the trigger with your middle finger your hand never has to leave the bolt

however a garand has the advantage of being a semi-auto with a much quicker reload

 

[Coronach]

I'd also imagine that the relative speed would vary by the type of target being shot. Running an enfield fast and shooting with the middle finger might be possible with a large target (the "wobble-zone" would be larger than using a "precision" technique, but if it's not larger than the target, then who cares?). This would make the advantage of the semiauto action mean less, even if they're both shooting at the same sized targets. Shrink the target size down for both, though, and you probably don't want to be running the bolt and shooting with your middle finger when the Garand guy is going "frontsight...press" eight times in a row without interruption, and then reloading before you can say "blimey!", and doing it again.

The Lee-Enfield is an absolutely superb rifle, but it is not faster than a Garand.

Mike

 

[For Freedom]

Don't take the rifle out of your shoulder or away from your cheek when you cycle the bolt.

 

[shevrock]

I've heard this conversation before while i was playing a server hosted by a gun forum on counter strike:source. After much swearing, they decided that the m1 could go faster, just because of simple design. When they got to accuracy, the unanimously said that the Enfield won hands down.

I have never fired either, but have seen that to someone of smaller stature, the m1 has massive recoil [and is massive in itself]. The enfield is smaller and supposedly shoulders much easier than the heavy m1. Now if you had five shots and 600 rounds between you and five enemies. would you be more accurate with a semi-accurate, or bolt action.

 

[Slamfire]

Captain Shore wrote and interesting book "With British Snipers to the Reich". There are lots of observations about the lack of shooting skills in the British Army.

I was behind a Garand team shooting rattle battle. When they finished I asked one guy how he had done. He had either got 37 rounds off in 50 seconds, or had 37 hits in 50 seconds, at 600 yards. My memory is bad, so I suspect he got 37 rounds off.

Try that with a bolt rifle.

The average Lee Enfield is not a target weapon. The Garand, well it was a 3 to 4 MOA weapon as is. Some better.

Only people who don't shoot either would believe that you can crank a bolt handle as fast as a semi auto, and make as many hits per minute.

I shoot bolt guns and semi autos all the time in highpower competition. Semi autos are a lot easier to fire in rapid fire.

Now if you had five shots and 600 rounds between you and five enemies. would you be more accurate with a semi-accurate, or bolt action.

If I had five shots, five enemies and 600 yards between us, I think it would keep my five shots and make it 6000 yards between us. I would keep on trucking until I got more friends and more ammo.

 

[Old Grump]

I have fired both

Love them both, competed with the M1 and the M1 wins hands down because it won't beat you to death. That's why I sold my Enfield. As far as marksmen they had some good shooters then because shooting wasn't a reviled activity. They still have some good shooters but they have to do their shooting over seas or in Ireland. Be thankful, even California and New York are more liberal than that. While competing during open competition with bolt gunners they did some mighty fine shooting but as good as they were and as fast as they were they were still at a disadvantage until we hit the slow fire matches past 300 yards. I wish I could shoot rapid fire as well as some of those old timers with a bolt gun but the guns they were using were way the heck out of my pay grade.

 

[Halo]

Evidently both armies had plenty competent marksmen since we're not writing these posts in German or Japanese.

 

[hank327]

Let's leave the particular model of rifle out of the discussion for a moment. I suspect that the standard of marksmanship of the average infantryman of both the US & British forces to be somewhat low. Think about the situation both countries were in. They were in a titanic, desperate struggle with a desperate unending need for warm bodies to feed into the meatgrinder. Neither country had the luxury of time to train soldiers to the highest levels of marksmanship. The training camps were pushing recruits through as fast as they could. What many people don't know is that in the winter of 1944 and into 1945, both the British and US armies had a severe shortage of infantrymen. Even as we were just about to overpower the Nazis, we were just about to run out of infantrymen. There is a very good book "The Sharp End" by John Ellis that chronicles the training, experiences, and life of American and Brit troops at "the sharp end" in WWII.

All that said, it is easier to fire a semi-auto faster than a boltgun.
Again without any proof but I suspect that the marksmanship of the average GI to be about the same as that of the average Tommy.

 

[alemonkey]

I don't know if I'd say the average Lee Enfield wasn't a target weapon - for much of the world outside the U.S. it was THE target rifle for a long time. Sure, they did some accurizing work, but people did that to Garands too.

They're both outstanding rifles capable of great accuracy, but if I had my choice in a war I'd want the Garand just for sheer rate of fire, in case I had to face down a screaming Banzai charge. That said, I own a LE and not a Garand. Go figure

 

[AmishFury]

That said, I own a LE and not a Garand. Go figure

easy explanation for that...

lee-enfields are cheaper