Repro sight cover and rod. Other wise all pretty good.Information
Warning: This is a relatively older thread
This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.
Repro sight cover and rod. Other wise all pretty good.Information
Warning: This is a relatively older thread
This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.
Very nice.
Why use a 50 pound bomb when a 500 pound bomb will do?
What a coincidence!
I picked one up last month myself.
I'm still not sure if it's an upgraded type 2 or a type 3 with the sling bar "repair" installed at the factory.
I would love to know how these carbines compare in performance to a No5 , did they also have that infamous wandering zero, or were they built much heavier ?
I recall reading that the users were quite happy with the accuracy in the Boer War (report cited in Reynolds) The cartridge was not as powerful as MkVII of course.
“There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.”
Edward Bernays, 1928
Much changes, much remains the same.
I thought the power was similar, just with a 215grn round-nose. Not so good at long range, but then that was not the remit of a carbine.
Anyways ... I'm thinking of a side by side comparison, rather than a Boer war estimation.
On which side is the sling attached?
Mr303´s MkI Cav Carbine has it attached on the right (same as on the LE No. 5). The Mauser 33/40 has the sling on the left (opposite the bolt handle). Is the side the sling is fixed somehow influenced by cavalry usage?
How was the sling attached to the LEC? I don't see a front attachment, so I imagine there was a loop to go around the fore-arm of the cavalryman, to prevent dropping the carbine from the saddle. Similar to the saddle-ring-and-bar arrangement.
Would love to see a picture of the sling.