I did a search but didn't come up with an answer - what is it for?
Be well,
Steve
Printable View
I did a search but didn't come up with an answer - what is it for?
Be well,
Steve
Are you referring to the magazine cut-off plate? :confused:
If so, as a typical example with pics, perhaps this will help?
No. 4 Mk I (T), ex-Trials Rifle - Cut-off - Off or On? (by Terry Hawker)
Regards,
Doug
That's it - Thank you - my dear friend in Australia had one of those and we wondered about the plate. "Wasting ammunition" - Wow - what arrogance by the officer corps
Be well,
Steve
Steve,
It was not so much the arrogance of the Officers, but more a reflection of the then recent history.
Back when the Lee Metford was designed, the state of the art British Rifle was a Martini Henry. This falling block action was a single shot rifle.
So the previous rifle which had helped maintain the Empire, was a single shot with no Magazine. The standard operating proceedure was that riflemen loaded and fired on command.
The jump to a 10 round magazine bolt action rifle enabled a change in the way a rifle company operated, but it took a period for this to be worked out.
Rather than seeing that they now had a 10 round rifle, they saw that they had a single shot rifle, with 10 rounds in the magazine.
So I would not argue it was because of arrogance, but more because they still had not worked out how to fully capitalise on this new technology.
But then again, many of the Officer Corps appears to have been selected by parentage/class rather than merit.
History does show that the upper classes were often very arrogant, ( and from a shallow gene pool)
I think people to apply too much popular mythology to the officer classes of that generation. Lets not forget they were nearly all professional soldiers and combat veterans in an era of bloody hand-to-hand fighting.....
The cut-off probably provided a very convenient fire-control facility that fitted well with the type of warfare at the time. This was an era when the main threats tended to be "human wave" attacks by tribal armies. The British Army was making effective use of volley fire by companies, and retaining close-order drill as the fighting tended to end up at the point of the bayonet. As the Army was well drilled in steady fire by single-loading, retaining a magazine full of rounds would have been a useful reserve for the crucial last few seconds before meeting the enemy at bayonet point.
A good illustration is the Second Sudan war and the Battle of Omdurman (actually a series of three main engagements by different parts of the armies involved). When the main body of the Mahdi attacked the front part of the British column north of Omdurman, the British infantry armed with Metfords (the bulk of the army were Egyptian and Sudanese, armed with Sniders and M-Hs) opened fire at 3,000 yards - presumably on volley sights. When the remnants of the mahdi army got within 100 yards or so, they were shot down with rapid fire. None of the mahdi army reached the British line, their attack having been broken.
That same mind set is why US Soldiers were armed with muzzle loaders during the civil war AND how Custard got out gunned at little bighorn. Look in to. Most of the Indians had Henry's and other repeaters. Many of the higher ranking officers had this same mindset all over the world. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Hitler had the same mindset, Until it was too late.
If you think about it what was the real reason they came out with the 3 round burst on M4's But Spec ops don't have it. Unfortunately many of the info they received while making these decisions are based on fact. In Vietnam it took on average 35 THOUSAND rounds to Kill one NVA or Viet Cong.
Don't forget that Custer made the decision to leave the gatling guns in garrison because he thought they'd slow them down. Oops, big tactical mistake.
I take a much simpler mindset on the 3 round burst in the M16A2 and M4. It stems from the inability to train riflemen or the lack of initiative to do so. A good rifleman can be trained how to shoot bursts properly. I was in the US Army in the 1980's and did more shooting on my own time on the weekends than we ever did on the ranges of Fort Bragg. Unlike the USMC, the Army never put much emphasis on marksmanship training. I know it's changed a bit now out of necessity a bit but not really that much.
On the other hand, having been down there and up here, I think that the Officer chappies are spiffingly good fellows
Well said all of you - And it took the Boers with their Mausers to finally teach the infantry leadership that single shots and bayonets only got a lot of men killed. And my sentiments on the Officer Corps stems from a ton of reading on battlefield history, including our own internal conflict, when massed men ran forward to be slaughtered.
I did time in the Marines and the Army. Army infantry did not get to spend a lot of time firing their weapons. At least during the late 70s and early 80s when I served as a senior enlisted man in the Mechanized Infantry. And it did get changed as it went on. Budget cuts after Vietnam really collided with needs during that time. I was also the platoon sniper during my stint and our issue weapon as snipers? The M-1 Garand.
That was fine with me as the first year I was in the Marines I was infantry and we carried M-1 Garands and BARs. After 1963 we were issued the M-14. I thought it was an incredibly fine battle rifle as used during my tour in the land of the little people.
I wasn't in service when the burst control came about. And wouldn't know how well it fared compared to single fire with the 14 or Garand. I can definitely see a good point to it as during the later years of Vietnam troops were coming from the slums, the men from those spaces made good troops, for the most part, but a lot of them were criminals in disguise I think. And fully automatic was the way many were trained.
I personally fired my weapon a lot. We were trained to be effective with single shots and independent thinking. The Marines don't want single minded killers, they want thinking Marines. So in the Corps it was always in our minds that if we pulled the trigger it needed to be at least in the direction of the enemy and preferably accurately. I can't speak to later on as my tour was early - 65 -66.
No harm and no foul as anyone who picks up a weapon and moves towards someone shooting at them has my respect. And it seems it is only from those who have done so, or been closely associated with them, who understand this mindset.
Be well,
Steve
In my opinion, the real issue with the cut-off (which I only ever see raised by me) is that of the extractor and extractor spring damage that it causes. When the cut-off is used as a loading platform, instead of the rim of the cartridge sliding up into the extractor claw, as is does when fed from the magazine, the claw is forced to cam its way over the rim. Loading single rounds in this fashion cannot be good for the extractor and must put more strain on the extractor spring than if the round is fed from the magazine.
Even when firing single rounds, I make a point of always loading the round into the magazine first and then letting the bolt feed to round up from there.
Thats of course true of all Enfields from the Long Lee onwards, but I think by then the use of the cut-off had moved away from single-loading and onto a safety function. In the (very short) era of single loading, the Lee Metford had both a fairly soft extractor spring and the rounds itself had a rounder case rim. We'll probably never know, but single-loading was probably abandoned at the same time they changed the extractor and cartridge case - possibly they wanted to achieve a more positive extraction, and the realised that a harder extraction spring would necessitate magazine feeding of the round?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerhunter
I think its quite fascinating how the upgrade from Lee Metford to Lee Enfield reflects the combat experience with the (then) revolutionary magazine rifle - its clear that after Sudan and NW Frontier conflicts, the Army suddenly comprehended the rapid fire potential of the rifle, and the effect that would have on tactics.
Another factor? Ammo resupply. Before mechanized transport (aside from trains) and radios, moving large quantities of ammo wasn't as easy. If your force was out in the boonies, running out of ammo was of major concern.
I think that if you look at it from the point of view of the guy doing the attacking, it gets pretty sticky.
There you are, running forward with your assegai or your Remington, the 800 red guys in front of you are poppppping off in your direction on command, slow fire in volleys and all the rest. You are feeling REALLY lucky that nothing has connected with YOUR soft little bod and then, in the blink of an eye, just when you are getting ready to DO SOMETHING..... that entire line in front of you positively ERUPTS, just about two seconds after you hear somebody in front of you yell, "10 rounds rapid........ FIRE!".
That's 800 rounds a second coming your way: the equivalent of FORTY MG-42s.
I might be a barbarian, but I'm a SOLDIER, not a SUICIDE.
Time for tea, chaps.
See you at the signing of the peace treaty, what?
And from the other side (the side that all those red guys are on) we have to remember that the Charger has not yet been invented. It's a heck of a lot faster to EMPTY that 10-round magazine than it is to RELOAD the thing with single rounds, even if they do come in little paper packs of 10.
From the points of view of the period, as well as from the available technology, the doctrine of single-fire with the magazine in reserve made a lot of sense.
That said, my rifles with cutoffs are always loaded through the magazine, mostly to spare the extractor spring, partly because my Doctor (good fellow) is a Boer...... and a shooter..... and I think he might still be angry with us about a couple of things.
Just sensible precautions, y'know!
.