Of course that's right...Quote:
Originally Posted by Albayo
Printable View
Of course that's right...Quote:
Originally Posted by Albayo
Well, almost right Jim. As I said, the No7 type bayonet with the small ring - if you'll excuse the phrase - was structurally stronger and more durable but was developed as a universal rifle bayonet.
Here's a thing...... KNowing sod-all about the non standard bayonets, can one of you bayonet fiends out there show us the internal mechanism of the stronger more durable small ring No7 type bayonets. I think that there were a few different trial types but we only had one or two at Warminster plus some old ex-Hythe trial papers that really gave the No7 bayonet a well deserved slagging off when used on the rifle. Mind you, when used on the Sten gun it was deemed as 'marginal' but as they say, if you need a bayonet on a submachine gun, then you REALLY do need a bayonet!!
I've certainly learned some new things. Thanks Aragorn 243 and Peter.
It's strange how for years you just assume that some of this stuff is common knowledge but it ain't! While I was at Warminster I used to bang my head on the table and wonder why the authors out there would read 4 books on a subject to write book number 5 and then author number 6 would read the last 5 to write number 7! Complete with errors! Anyway, thanks for your kind comments GEW and I'm sure I speak for Aragorn too.
Better mention it here too. Sorry if it's a bit macabre but the trials at Hythe were against freshly slaughtered goats and the No7 on the rifle couldn't even lift the carcass without deforming! Better stop there before we mention the AR15 rifle and bayonet trials in Johore - goats again, but live!
Well Peter, goats (and perhaps authors of Book #7 as well) can be ferocious, so.... :cheers:
Thought this may be of interest,
British EM-2 rifle - YouTube
Can you just imagine giving a rifle with a bolt like that to a bunch of crunchies? I think that we made the right choice with the L1A1
I did look at that. It makes as much sense as the Johnston rifle. Too much detail to be fiddling with in low light and in a hole...he said it was a handful in 7.62x51, sure looked like it too. Yes, the FN was the right choice for an infantry/universal rifle.
When I had one apart, as I did many a time, I just used to sit and look in sheer befuddlement at the bolt and imagine telling the last shooting detail to dress back to the rear of the firing point and strip and clean their weapons to save some time (and it also kept idle hands busy too.......). Jeeeeees..... It was bad enough with L1A1 extractor stays (In fact I used to tell the NCO's to NOT allow them to strip the extractors while cleaning. Because you KNOW that if one goes zooming off into space, then the rifle will be put back in the Armoury missing the part!)). Just imagine it with those loose EM floppy-eared locking cams that were all matched to the individual weapon being sat on an old groundsheet. These EM locking cams were supposedly a matched and sized-for-length set which allowed the Armourers to correct CHS. At Shrivenham, WO2 Davies wouldn't let anyone except himself clean the EM's because of the bolt plus other nits that were a disaster waiting to happen!
The rifle simply couldn't cope with 7.62mm. In fact the late Maurice Fogwell who was in the background during the filmed Infantry shoot (shown here a couple of years ago) said that it couldn't even cope with .22" rimfire!
To be fair though Peter, if it had come to production, I'm sure they'd have made mods on the fiddly little parts. Take for example the original FN firing pins were one part, changed to two. Look at the mod in the trigger/sear relationship? Hammer spring housing...there's more.