Printable View
Markfive,
I wasn't there, but don't think accidental engagement would be a problem for soldiers drilled it the rifles use, and don't see it as a reason for Not fitting it.
Simply one less part to make & fit is sufficient reason to drop it in times of uproar.
Richard.
"Confined in their case to occassions" so. under certain circumstances yes, but generally.............?
on some bolt action rifles and many semi autos, it is not recommended that a round be inserted in the chamber and the bolt closedQuote:
Originally Posted by RobD
as it will damage the extractor and may distort the brass enough to cause a jam. Never knew that was the case with the LE, good to know
Enaging/disengaging the cut-off requires quite a bit of applied pressure, in my (admittedly limited) experience with them. It's not something that's likely "accidentally" happen often enough for it to be a concern, in my opinion. I would say its omission in the WWI rifles really was for expediency - all those tiny screws and the metal cut-off themselves weren't free, plus they were adding to the manufacture time of the rifle - and I suspect the soldiers were probably leaving the cut-offs open most of the time anyway when they were in action.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smellymarkfive
I have one rifle that has an 'easy' cut off. It's all complete and original so I'm leaving it that way. On another I had to re-bend the plate's armature because it swung back and forth without any pressure. When a cut off is not engaging the magazine it's pretty way out there, enough to snag on clothing and equipment. I certainly wouldn't want to deal with it in a filthy trench with Huns all around me, especially if I had to throw one up the spout quick.
---------- Post added at 06:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:12 AM ----------
I was once told by a veteran that when on patrol in NML, a round would be chambered and the hammer put on half cock. It was just one click before you fired and you had 10 still in the mag. I'm pretty sure it's not safe to do, but there again crawling around Western Front wasn't exactly a walk in the park.
Surely the safety would be easier to operate than half-cock.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smellymarkfive
Me too, but that's what I was told. I was hoping someone might have some first hand knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerhunter
Manually putting a rifle or anything like that was absolutely tabooooo, believe me. There was a spate of this with Browning pistols, putting them at half cock and on your lap while in military or covert vehicles in bandit country. It was as if it'd been tacitly approved! After a couple of slippages, accidental/negligent discharges, shootings and a spectacular own goal killing, this practice was absolutely banned. Half cock is a mechanical safety. Nothing more or less.
I thought so, old stories aren't idiot proof.
Going back to the plate tho, is there any evidence of it being removed in France prior to the official change over? Or is there any records of grumbling about its removal?
The average crunchie couldn't remove it and Armourers of that strict era and even now, would think twice and VERY carefully about making unlawful modifications to weapons in their charge. The ramifications if things went wrong were horrendous. And guess what............. Murphy's law states that if something can go wrong................
There was a system in being where weapons were modified for a reason or for a trial (I was involved in one such 'field trial' with a small number of weapons) but these weapons were usually marked somehow.