There's nothing wrong with him having 6, that wasn't what was being said though. Personally I'd grab about every one that came by and hold on to them for emergencies. Like trying to trouble shoot...
Printable View
There's nothing wrong with him having 6, that wasn't what was being said though. Personally I'd grab about every one that came by and hold on to them for emergencies. Like trying to trouble shoot...
The Lee Enfield was never issued with a spare magazine however the Lee Metford Mk1 was & that was only at the very beginning as the mags were order to be returned to stores in iirc 1891
The No4 had some issues with magazines that would only accept 9 rounds but they did not issue a spare mag but they did issue special instructions on loading them.
I'll have to discuss this with Ian S. the next time he visits. He's about due since it been a few years! It won't be the first time we've had a disagreement either but I still consider him a friend! As for multiple mags, buy all you can afford if you want. They ain't making them anymore. That doesn't change the facts though.
Brian, dont want to get into it with you again either. But I ask you,in all honesty can you speak for every soldier. ...from 1889 until now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Dick
My reference above to the browning and the m4 was gently and gracefully let some people down without hurting the thread. or getting it closed because correcting feed lips could be important to some of us and thats the subject of this thread. I only introduced the option to own a second magazine, one that works.... to compare what might be done to fix another. my refference to mine and others experince was to maybe alert those who continue to be abitrary and subjective in thier opinion.
I completly understand and agree with your statement " one properly fitted magazine was all that was required" but the reality of combat May.....may ....may reflect another choice for troops in combat. it is remotely possible that some might have carried a second magazine. They may have been sold with two, they may have been issued with two, and soldiers might have obtained a second by some other means. I'm not discounting a letter/memo that states otherwise. I just reminding all who read this, never say never and never say always. and the rules go right out the window once the shooting starts.
I hope we can all put these things in a rational perspective. and stop being so extream and inflexible in our opinions. and this is no reflextion on you Brian. I would rather be chuckling right along with you . wrong (?) or right. really does not matter.
If there continues to remain an issue about how many magazines were issued at various times. then take it up with the author. I was only trying to expand the foundation for additional information. I still feel that Skennerton is right. just an opinion, not a weapon.
---------- Post added at 09:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:58 PM ----------
and I agree with you there. I would buy 5 or 6 .try them unmodified in my rifle. if they feed all 10 rounds reliably I keep them. if not I offer them to others where they may , for some reason work in thier rifle. enfields are kinda that way. we all know that. it makes owning one so much "fun".Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
I think Ricks delema is that his is numbers matching magazine and mods to make it work are required.
and yep, they aint cheap
Final? thing. these magazines were designed to work with ONE cartridge; good, old Mk7 Ball.
Any loading that uses a bullet with a different profile (length AND/OR ogive) WILL give trouble.
Those of us driving .303-based wildcats are especially aware of the "ammo" issue; the rifles (and mags) were built around the ammo. Changing to a .25" wildcat, especially one on a slightly shortened case, can provide "interesting times".
The issue of "cartridge retention" when the mag is removed from the rifle should never arise. The magazine of the era was seen as a "reserve" storage (the term "magazine" was borrowed from the places used for storage of LARGE quantities of ammo and propellants). This is borne out by the fitting of "cut-off" devices to Lee Metfords and Enfields right up to the 1930s. The absence / removal of the cut-off from the Mk3 * was a wartime "expedient", hence the "*", instead of progressing to a new "Mark". Note also that the U.S. 1903 Springfield and (Krag) are fitted with a magazine cut-off, albeit a device which limits the rearward travel of the bolt, rather than an occluding plate.
ALL magazine systems were filled by individual rounds, and later, chargers. With VERY few exceptions (Krag rifles, for starters), they were emptied by shuffling the bolt 'til the mag was empty, (firing, or not, as required). Emptying a mag in that fashion these days, especially with self-loaders, would rightly give instructors / NCOs conniptions. (Can we all say "Negligent Discharge"?) Besides which, mag and rifle design have both come a long way in that time.
Note that Mel Johnson's eclectic rifle used a rotary internal mag that could be topped up at any time, with either single rounds or chargers, without having to open the action OR remove the magazine.
I think they are. dont look like origonals, I seen them for sale in those cheaper than dirt catologs. Not cheap at least not like dirt, but I think they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Dick
What we have here is called a “troll” in forum land. Urban Dictionary: troll
You’re not supposed to feed it.
What's that got to do with a #4?Quote:
Originally Posted by mike16
Sounds like...trolling...Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent
Anyway as a parting shot the mag will eventually be fixed and ricky100 take it from the person that has been fried more times on this site that USA has fried eggs "take it with a grain of salt" there are really genuine people here that offer their advice from the experience chart.
Now my nik was gained from..............!
No offence taken Ricky but you are making a mountain out of a molehill here. It really is a simple 2 minute fix. You are being told of palliatives and the cure is staring you in the face.