Research and busting the myth.

Lousey pommie day here today, perpetual mizzle and bleeding cool for the middle of summer.

So here I am stuck inside punching computer keys and catching up on research.

Following leads gleaned from sources that are offshoots to the main theme can sometimes lead to very interesting items, today is one of those times.

F.E Hart has been a bit elusive, so today was a more concerted effort, Birth records, Service records, the full monte. His postings and travels certainly are an enlightenment, but his time at the School of Musketry just prior to his appointment to the Lithgow Inspectorate gives a different insite to the man.

In the short period from 1912 to 1916, he managed to write three seperate volumes on Service Training, revise and compile Training manuals and excel in his position of Small Arms Instructor.

But thats not the good bit..........he made a mockery of Snoxalls record for the mad minute.

Now we know that Snoxall pumped out 38 rounds with a good hit ratio.

In 1914, Hart pumped out 41 rounds with 38 hits
Attachment 69505

He bettered that in 1915,
Attachment 69506 - Attachment 69507

.........and again in a demonstration in Melbourne in 1916
Attachment 69508

So off the shoulder and finally from a rest, probably would have the semi auto's of the 40's working hard.

Thanks for that, Muffett!

Even off a rest in the last test, he still had to load it. Must have been quite a blur to watch!
The other rates with a high proportion of hits is mind -boggling.

Thanks again.
Richard.

Its nice to see the actual shoot conditions in print for the first time.


41 shots in 55 seconds, with 38 hits on a 4ft square target at 300 yards. Charger loading.


I wonder if this was done with a rifle rest, as with the other practices? That would make sense, as i doubt its possible to keep rounds on target from an unsupported rifle at that rate of fire (given that it includes charger loading as well).

Off the shoulder in the first tests, this was serious business beating the poms, it's what us Ozzies do best.
Attachment 69553
A double effort in Melbourne
Attachment 69552
.........and he wasn't alone...1919
Attachment 69551

They were taught by the poms Muffer!

Yeah Pete, Hart did a course at Hythe in 1912, probably taught by Snoxall.
You lot taught us how to play cricket to.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muffett.2008

You lot taught us how to play cricket to.

---

And Rugby, but the Kiwi's seem to have the upper hand....

Re your at thread 4 muffer. I didn't know that! I was just being a bit flippant with my caustic pommy humour. I have to keep reminding my son who's now on the East coast to remember that his pommy humour, learned from dad, isn't quite the same as Aussie humour! But he's learning....... Told him to have a few beers when/if he stops at Enoggera and Canungra!

Muffett,
Quote;
"Off the shoulder in the first tests, this was serious business beating the poms, it's what us Ozzies do best."

My great Uncle worked on a sheep station near Perth. Hellish competitive he was, (in then1920's)
They used to say to him, "You aren't a Pommy!" wouldn't believe he was one! :-)
Started out as a wheat lumper and went from there.
Crack shot on bouncing 'roos as well.
OT, but .......... :-)

This is an astounding feat!

I know the Lee-Enfields are quick, but the skill and practice involved in running the rifle to that speed is impressive. Personally I've made quite out quite well with operating a modern C7 quickly, it is a very efficient layout, but to get 41 rounds through a Lee-Enfield, even just shot into a berm would take a lot of practice.

I know how I set up my kit for snap shooting and a few informal competitions we would have, but thinking this through for a LE still doesn't make it obvious.

If I had to attempt to train to meet this record I think go in the following manner:

Start with a full 10 round magazine and 1 round in the chamber for eleven.

Shoot and cycle as fast as possible, counting the 11, getting it wrong would waste time on an empty chamber or botch the next 10 round top up.

Placement and loading the next 10 rounds is very important. I would try initially holding two chargers in my weak hand, in line with my fingers, think like a knuckle-duster, while firing the first 11 rounds. That way there would be one less movement to the magazine pouches.

Charger load with the weak hand, 10 rounds.

This would either work well or prove to be crap after a few attempts, especially where the receiver wall blocks left hand loading a little. Otherwise it would be simple strong hand loading from an open topped pouch.

Shoot and cycle as fast as possible, counting the 10, 21 shots by this point if it's all gone well.

The weak hand load (if it proved practical) would only work for the first reload, after that I think it would be back to the strong hand reload for the next 20 rounds.

All the while we are expected to actually hit something.

This would be an exciting but expensive course of fire to practice today. A fellow could get the cycling and reloading down with dummy rounds but scoring can only come with putting ball to paper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sentryduty

If I had to attempt to train to meet this record I think go in the following manner:

---

I'm with you on this Darren, it's an incredible feat -- 56 shots in 60 seconds! If loading the magazine three or four times (6-8 chargers) took at least 10-12 seconds out of the minute, then the entire cycle of ramming the bolt, aiming, firing the shot, and extracting the cartridge had to happen in 3/4ths of second. This man had super-human reflexes. There are people in the sport that can do this -- saw it on the History Channel recently -- sharpshooter hit two balloons spaced several yards apart at a short distance with a six-shooter. Everyone heard only 1 shot, but in slow motion he drew, cocked, aimed, fired, cocked, aimed and fired TWO shots on target in 1 second. Amazing.

The article didn't say which rifle was used. With the rear sight located amidships on the barrel of a No.1, I'd think there be a harder time getting on target than with a P-14 with a aft-mounted rear sight. But perhaps I'm off target with this thinking -- Maybe the Sgt. Major was very accurate at point-and-shoot (something I couldn't even come close to doing at those ranges!)

I might also polish and wax the rails of the charger clips to make sure the cartridges slide easily (some charger clips are pretty ornery).

Perhaps a special 15 or 20 round mag would carve off a couple of seconds too (the story didn't say if the gun had any modifiactions, which are normal on exhibition guns).

this guy has the best "mad minute" i have seen video'd

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DhjUrqH88s

i think if he kept it at the shoulder while reloading he'd save time. shooting standing with a rest (as from a trench as stated in one of the articles) would also help.
this is all conjecture on my part though as i have yet to get my smle and drill rounds to practice/experiment with this.

edit: another thought, from playing with mk4 chargers it seems that the area that causes the most holdup's in smooth stripping from the clip is the holes in the bottom catching the rim of the round. the mk2 chargers (as the guys setting the records would have had) might be better in this department but i don't have any to experiment with.

Back in the "good old days", rifles were kept in barracks, either in wooden racks or beside the soldier's bunk, not locked away in some distant armoury that required three days of paperwork just to draw a rifle for training, drill or cleaning.

Thus, it was common practice to, well, PRACTISE.

Magazine-filling races, either with loose or charger-packed DUMMY, (drill) cartridges, occurred, as did the drills to take the rifle into and out of "action".

Thus, unlike today's toys, the soldier could, within reasonable bounds, practice an essential part of operating the equipment, i.e. keeping it fed,( and quickly), coupled with all of the "holding, aiming and firing" techniques. These latter can also be practiced without drill rounds.

Lacking, were the noise, recoil and any danger to folk "down-range"; (notable examples of stupidity or gross negligence aside.) One of the reasons for inspecting soldiers webbing / pouches BEFORE a lesson, rehearsal, etc. is to fend off the chance that some dopey slug has a "stray" REAL cartridge that MIGHT turn "dry" training into something "wet" and messy.

Seaspriter,

This would be the standard rife, (No 1 Mk 111) not some trick -shooting set -up.
A P'14 wouldn't stand a snowballs chance in rapid fire, though a good accurate rifle it was.
The sights would be standard as well. Actually, when I use either, I never can tell which is the best! I like them both. (Peep and open)
As Bruce says,
These blokes had a lot of practice, and made good use of it. :-)

The 56 rounds /minute was from a rest, so not aimed, but that is still a fantastic rate of fire.

Richard.

Very Fast Mad Minute from a SMLE- 10 Shots in 6.5 Seconds - YouTube

This guy has the best technique I've seen on youtube- very fast. Some of the "mad minute" efforts are pretty sad with guys cranking the bolt like it's the gear shift on a 3T truck. I know it's not kosher (former) military practice but I would wonder if rounds/minute might not be maximized by starting with 4 or 5 full magazines and reloading the way J.P. Lee originally intended?

Yeah but how soft are those loads?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homer

Yeah but how soft are those loads?

---

May just be piglets of my imagination but I believe the second magazine was loaded with plastic drill rounds. Not sure about the first, only the first 5 or 6 appear to have been live. Not that it makes much difference, he's just demonstrating how fast he can go through a mag.

12 rounds in the second string?

It's an Ishapore 2A1. I believe they do hold 11 or 12. They may be light loads but some of those shots are amazingly close together.

Ridolpho

Eric (Iraqveteran8888) ran those with blanks he said, nice smooth cycling but no grouping to speak of.

I think loading two stripper clips (another 10) would slow you down, I think that after the initial 10 in the mag doing 1 stripper clip (5) at a time would be the fastest as there is more chance of a stuff up with the extra pressure putting the second clip in and you would have to remove the first clip. If working with 1 clip at a time you do not have to remove the clip as it ejects upon closing the bolt. Something most people on youtube videos fail to realise. And you would have to cycle the bolt with thumb and fore finger and pull the trigger with the middle finger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ridolpho

This guy has the best technique I've seen on youtube- very fast.

---

This fellow is getting off about one round every 3/4 second, which is lightning fast. Seems like a great technique. But how did the Sgt. Major reload so fast? 11 rounds preloaded is a given. How did he reload 45 rounds in that time frame?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by martins8589

If working with 1 clip at a time you do not have to remove the clip as it ejects upon closing the bolt. Something most people on youtube videos fail to realise. And you would have to cycle the bolt with thumb and fore finger and pull the trigger with the middle finger.

---

Very perceptive -- I just learned something (as usual on this sight).

BTW, thanks for the videos -- I'd never seen the rapid fire on a bolt action before.

Mausers are not so much slower.

In the Norway Landsskytterstevnet, they get off around 16 to 17 rounds, starting with a loaded magazine of 6 in 25 seconds. Target is sufficiently small that it requires aiming.

Krag vs Mauser vs Sauer vs (a)g3 - YouTube


All comes down to training.

The rifles used at the School of Musketry at Randwick, were 1913 and 1914 Lithgow rifles.
Randwick received and did the testing on the New Factory Rifles, Major Heritage, the O.C also did a test at Lithgow on the early rifles to clear up early teething problems, his report on the accuracy of the Lithgow rifles over the BSA 's received in 1910 makes interesting reading also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by martins8589

I think loading two stripper clips (another 10) would slow you down, I think that after the initial 10 in the mag doing 1 stripper clip (5) at a time would be the fastest as there is more chance of a stuff up with the extra pressure putting the second clip in and you would have to remove the first clip. If working with 1 clip at a time you do not have to remove the clip as it ejects upon closing the bolt. Something most people on youtube videos fail to realise. And you would have to cycle the bolt with thumb and fore finger and pull the trigger with the middle finger.

---

Eric may have picked up the technique from Ray V. as we learned that technique long ago from Burrell S. I don't know from where Burrell learned it, but it's been over twenty years I've known him. And Ray since the '80s. Used to show up a Ft. Benning for "tactical" rifle matches (Pre-"three gun") with various L-Es and shoot with the middle finger. Found it rather easier using No.1 Mk.3s or 2A1s than No.4s. But reloading? MkIV chargers always seemed to want to bind sooner or later, and M14 (7,62x51) chargers want to either drop rounds or self destruct whilst being manhandled.


We found that hits up close were relatively good using the sight protectors of No.1 type rifles as quick line up tools. Can't imagine that would work at extended range, though!

On the other hand, in the real Army doing real shooting for real, we used to tell the blokes classifying on the ranges on their last range day, to do a final zero of their rifles before deployment these words. 'Where you're going, and what you're going to do, it's not the QUANTITY of shots that counts, it's the QUALITY'.

Probably the most important real benefit of the lightness and smoothness of the action of our favorite rifles (as opposed to spraying lead) is the ability to easily take repeat shots without moving the rifle from alignment or even taking your eyes off the target. I recently watched a Finnish movie about the Winter War and it was an eye opener how the actors were obviously finding it difficult to cycle the various types of Mosins. Often the butt was pulled off the shoulder and the rifle laid on the ground while the bolt was pounded open. I have many Mosins and do find it very difficult with most to cycle the bolt without disturbing the alignment of the gun. Mausers and Springfield 03's, to name a couple, are better but the Lee Enfield is the best in this regard!

Ridolpho

Definitely, Ridolpho!

Of the Mausers' I prefer the '96 over the '98, maybe for obvious reasons to a Lee Enfield shooter!. :-)
A dropped bolt handle on a Nagant helps a lot.

Have a look at this:
100 1190rapid fire - YouTube
The cameraman stops a bit early (after 10 rounds), but apparently he gets off 11 rounds in 5.88 seconds.

It's not so much emptying the magazine that's usually the problem, it's filling it again in a timely manner.
The first ten Can go fast but what sorts the men from the boys is reloading and doing it again, and again, ... And Hitting something.

It is still interesting though, that Major Barlow, in his book 'The elements of Rifle shooting" (1932 to '41 editions) states that a firm grip should be taken of the wrist of the stock in rapid fire, and the normal trigger finger to be used.
The Major goes on to say that expert rapid shots can fire 30 to 35 aimed shots in a minute in this manner. (page 55)

The only thing is those standing chaps are not aiming. Look a the muzzle at the moment of discharge. One has to see the targets to judge if is just so much sound and fury, signifying nothing or real firepower.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frederick303

just so much sound and fury, signifying nothing

---

It would still be a bad idea to be standing downrange!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frederick303

real firepower.

---

Is, I think, the idea - a platoon of chaps firing like that is going to have the effect of a machine-gun.

Interesting that this technique developed in an army where the generals had thought for a long time that the magazine cut-off was a good idea to stop the troops firing off their ammo quickly!

Attachment 69630............and another one, 1921

Herr Chadwick,

You come from the land of the precision shooting Infantry. The German army in the last great international debate did not even teach rapid fire with the K98K, instead they were big into snap shooting based on their "battlemoments" (zeitbilder). In a similar manner the German concept of Striking power (Stosskraft) was based on the concept that in a firefight it was the hits that count, not the volume of fire directed in the general direction of the enemy. As such the ideal for their rifleman was to be a hunter of men, waiting for a target to appear, then making a rapid shot at the target, reloading and waiting for the next target to appear. Suppression fire was based on hits which would demoralize the enemy and keep his head down. The volume of fire instruments were the MGs, and in the final assault, the MP. There was a bifurcation between area fire weapons and precision fire weapons (until the release of the MP43). Interestingly the Germans, unlike most of the WWII movies I grew up on, depended on the rifle to a much higher extent than the MP, as the production of the MP 38/40 was never more than 20,000 per month, with the production of the K98K being 10~12 times as great. Both the US and Brits had much higher relative production of MP than the Germans, at least until late 1944.

This entire worldview of the firefight came about in the late 1916~1917 time period, indeed the entire German army was supposed to undergo a new musketry course in the winter of 1917/18 prior to the St. Michael offensive in March of 1918. Junger mentions it in his book "storm of steel" and my grandfather was instructed that way as well (he went through German instruction in early 1918, US rifle instruction in 1942). It seems from reading the Swiss and Swedish shooting manuals that post WWI this way of looking at the rifle fire fight was more or less universal in central/northern Europe.

In any case the US followed the French tactical model, which was the build up of a volume of fire against the enemy, which was thought to suppress the fire of the enemy and allow for the final 200 meter advance. Not sure exactly how the UK did it, so I cannot comment. While the US methods might have worked somewhat, the French were a flop as evidenced by the 1940 disparity in combat casualties during the battle of France (~ 3 to 1). Indeed the fact the Germans were able to , at least in direct battles continue to inflict something like 3 casualties for every 2 they took, at least through the late summer of 1944 against the UK and American forces, seems to indicate that there was some merit in the German tactical precepts.

Against such a foe, volume of fire without having a target is likely to draw fire on you to no real advantage. Growing up in the 1970s and listening to the American Vets and German vets when they got together (but frankly most likely my impressions are based on discussions with my fathers recollections of those conversations in the 1980s), it was apparent that at least in the US Army in the ETO, there was a distinct fear of giving away your position with the M1, as it was prone to excessive smoke and flash and marked hesitancy to fire. I do not recall the Germans vets response, if any, but I do recall that none seemed to feel their K98K rifles were outclassed by the more rapid fire M1 rifles or No 4 rifles.

It was on the above that my comments were made. I have great respect and affection for the Enfield rifle (have more of them than any other rifle) but I think the rapid fire with no aim is , "so much sound and fury, indicating nothing".

apologies to Bill S. for stealing his words

---------- Post added at 01:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:15 PM ----------

Oh, by the way, this is relevant today. there was an article in the infantry magazine a few years ago on the very large difference between US casualties in firefights in Afghanistan and the insurgents. The US forces were suffering such low casualties relative to their foes that it was worth study. The conclusion was the insurgents were depending on the volume of fire of their AKs, putting them on auto and firing off large amounts of cartridges in the general direction of the US forces in said fire fights. They were not aiming. Most of there shots were going high. The US forces were aiming, their task made easier by the fact that the folks firing at them were, by their copious use of cartridges, giving the US infantry nice indications of where they were. the differential in casualties in these fights was something like 12 to 1 in favor of the US forces, in situations were they were outnumbered.

Not to say rapid firing rifles are not an advantage, simply that there is a trade-off in accuracy/aimed fire against volume of fire, volume of fire alone (without accuracy) is not quite what folks make it out to be.

Nothing is new under the sun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frederick303

there was a distinct fear of giving away your position with the M1, as it was prone to excessive smoke and flash and marked hesitancy to fire.

---

I've never even heard that one before. Finally...a new one.

Browning auto rifle:

It is quite surprising and I can well understand anyone's hesitancy to take this on any odd chaps statement on the internet. So here is the back up to my assertion(s):

1) If you read the US book Currahee!, which was written in the 1950s he makes reference tot his face that on D-Day that the K98K rifles could not be located by smoke, whereas the US rifles were quite smokey and showed flash, which made shooting a distinct risk unless you had a target to shoot at. He mentions that you had to shoot and move in the hedgerows, once your position was revealed by smoke, incoming shots would soon follow

2) In the 1954 book published "Wound Ballistics" they spend a lot of time on this issue and the complaints from the front line troops on the M2 ball cartridge, both in the pacific and the ETO. They say the issue did not come up until fighting in areas where there was dense vegetation, at which point the disadvantage showed up (not much of an issue in the desert or Sicily)

3) In the book "Return to Casino" written by a US army officer involved in the fighting in January to March 1944, he goes into some depth of the difficulties of night fighting against the Germans, due to the flashless powder they used, as well as night tracers they used that did not light for 150 M.

4) In a History of Modern US military Small arms ammunition, volume 2, 1940 to 1945, there is a fairly extensive discussion of the complaints on flash and smoke from the ETO and pacific theaters and the efforts' made to rectify the issues. As in the ETO the complaints did not really show up until the winter of 1943/44, little was accomplished by the end of the war. But the technical details involved are covered in that source. One of the issues was that the M1 Garand with its gas port 1 inch from the muzzle needed a high port pressure to ensure operation under all conditions. High port pressure makes flash difficult to suppress with out a lot of powder additives (to raise the self ignition temperature of the powder), which in turn results in smoke.

5) In the book "men under fire" S.L.A. Marschall asserts that US troops were hesitant to shoot at the enemy, but seems to assign that to excessive aimed fire training. Now I do not recall exactly, but when going through training as an officer at university in the early 1980s I recall discussing this with my father. This was around the time General Dupoy was publishing his studies on the relative effectiveness of armies in WWII, which made a big splash back in the late 1970s to early 1980s. My father recalled from his discussions with Vets from his time in service (he was in right after the war, never left the US Territories but was in until 1949) that one fellow who had the bronze star said he never fired his rifle unless he saw something, for fear of getting shot. We both mused there might be some contribution to the ability of the Germans to get along with a slow firing bolt action so late because of this smoke and flash. It was then that his recollections of discussions with vets from the 1970s, when the German vets seemed to open up a bit in social discussions, that he recalled they did not ever seem to have any feeing of being under-gunned with those rifles, indeed they all seemed to have an affinity for the K98K as a combat weapon.

6) After this and curious why the Germans seemed to do so well so late in the war I continued to follow this. In March 1989 there was an article in INSIGHT magazine on SLA Marshall somewhat debunking his studies (at least questioning them). The article was no so interesting as the letters back, published in the April 24 1989 issue. I will put down one that pretty much summarizes the issue:

"It was common knowledge in the European theater that our infantryman were reluctant to fire their rifles (Nation, march 27). The had a very good reason. Our Garand rifle put out smoke every time it fired. The Germans could concentrate their fire on our infantry positions, and that was not conducive to a long life span. German infantry rifles did not put smoke like ours and the German infantry was hard to locate. I was curious about this and talked to an ordnance officer as to why our ammunition could not be smokeless. .....Since this was common knowledge in the European theater, perhaps historian S.L.A. Marshall thought it was well known"

Col. Raymond S. Webster, Ret. Charlottesville, Va

7) When researching how armies trained with small arms I came across the different German rifle doctrine. Suddenly my Grandfathers comments made a lot of sense. Interestingly the Germans spent some time on the issue of flash, that had vexed them with the kar98 in WWI shooting the S cartridge. While not common, there was a flash-hider issued for the K98 that was not really a success. In any case the WWII low smoke and flash signature on with the SS and SME cartridges were not accidents, it was a carefully engineered feature. part of their efforts were to limit the ability of their troops to be seen when firing, hence the efforts to reduce signature. In fairness to the US the Germans task was made easier by the fact that the 7.92 x57 cartridge because of the large bore had a relatively low muzzle pressure compared to other cartridges such as the 30-06 M2 cartridge.

There are more details from various sources, but that is the essence of the information on the topic.

i think some of you are missing the point about the mad minute, it wasn't random fire, it was supposed to be aimed fire. in the newspaper articles they differentiate between aimed and purely speed runs.

i don't have the original documents myself, but at the end of this video are the "mad minute" specs as (i'm assuming) taken from the 1914 musketry reg's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IjG1SUh5akak

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frederick303

So here is the back up to my assertion(s):

---

Yes, I own one currently and have for 40 years about...and also faced them overseas. Yes, they were still in use...

Frederick,

Thanks for taking the time to write such a lengthy and factual reply.

Henry,
Quite agree! Fast And accurate, not just splashing lead down the range.
Or slow and accurate when time allows. :-)

Might also add mad minute was probably used at platoon and company level rather than individual level. So it would result in quiet a barrage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frederick303

whereas the US rifles were quite smokey and showed flash, which made shooting a distinct risk unless you had a target to shoot at.

---

Frederick, again thanks for a very enlightening/illuminating set of threads -- something I hadn't seen on the Garrand portion of Milsurps. Perhaps when the M14 was issued, your observation is why it has a flash suppressor (which the M1 lacked). I wonder if changes were made to the gas system and the .308/.762X51 NATO round to reduce smoke?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henry r

the point about the mad minute, it wasn't random fire, it was supposed to be aimed fire

---

During the Superbowl, I started dry firing a half dozen of my Enfield collection to test how fast I could cock, aim, and fire (with no rounds in the mag) from a standing position. It soon became evident the speed and ability to put the sight back on target had a lot to do with the striker spring tension. Those rifles with very strong springs were significantly harder to re-aim after cocking than those with softer springs. (While it could be me, I'd estimate the difference between the rifle with the strongest versus the softer striker spring seemed to be about .3 tens of a second -- significant if you are shooting 30 rounds.) This could have been a factor in the mad minute trials.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frederick303

Oh, by the way, this is relevant today. there was an article in the infantry magazine a few years ago on the very large difference between US casualties in firefights in Afghanistan and the insurgents. The US forces were suffering such low casualties relative to their foes that it was worth study. The conclusion was the insurgents were depending on the volume of fire of their AKs, putting them on auto and firing off large amounts of cartridges in the general direction of the US forces in said fire fights. They were not aiming. Most of there shots were going high. The US forces were aiming, their task made easier by the fact that the folks firing at them were, by their copious use of cartridges, giving the US infantry nice indications of where they were. the differential in casualties in these fights was something like 12 to 1 in favor of the US forces, in situations were they were outnumbered.
Not to say rapid firing rifles are not an advantage, simply that there is a trade-off in accuracy/aimed fire against volume of fire, volume of fire alone (without accuracy) is not quite what folks make it out to be.
Nothing is new under the sun.

---

Just in regard to casualties in Afghanistan, the number 1 reason why the 'Allies' took less casualties was due to body armour. When your fighting people who can kill you, and your weapon isn't really able to kill them (without hitting some very specific points in the armour) you are essentially screwed. If the body armour we now have didn't exist, I imagine the casualty rate would be something similar to Vietnam.

In regards to the mad minute, you have to remember to do it properly you only have 5rds in the magazine to start, not 10.

The skill of the individual insurgent varies greatly, they are anything from Tier 1, "professionally" trained and well equipped and comparatively disciplined with their own 6 month fighting rotations, all the way down to your local "farmer" spraying his AK at anybody he doesn't like the look of. If the environment were in North America, the "aggressive Afghan farmer insurgent" might be archtypical with the "Redneck hillbilly" stereotype armed with his own gun and his only training was a dislike of anyone representing outside authority. While these individuals might cause a bit of trouble, they are not in the same league of professional soldiers.

It was the Tier 1 guys and the specialists from Chechnya that were really the ones to watch out for, the worst part was, you never knew who you were fighting until it was all over, it not like these guys wore uniforms or had recognized units.

A few bursts from a handful of AK's was one thing, when they committed heavy machine guns, mortars, and recoil-less rifles, you knew you'd kicked a hornet's nest. Time spent in Helmand province and the Panjwai parts of Kanadhar were among my most eventful.

Seaspriter,

While I am a Yank, I have noted that certain comments just don't go over well on US arms sites, so discretion rules the day on things like why the M1 did not completely dominate the battlefield against the Krauts. But it is not hidden, if you read wartime reports it is all there.

In any case, back to the mad minute: Methinks that the real difference between performance is training more than the rifles. No one thinks of the Krag as all that fast a reloading rifle once you empty the magazine, but the link I posted a few post backs the 400 year old Krag shooter gets off something like 15 shots in 25 seconds. In other vids there are Mauser M59/M67 shooters who get of as many as 16 shots in 25 seconds. With the STR 200 rifle shooters getting 17 shots off with 16/17 being hits is not unheard of (again in 25 seconds) This is at a target of around 7 MOA wide and 9.5 MOA high ( or 7 MOA high by 9.5 MOA wide) if my memory serves me correctly.

The old straight bolt Swede M96 rifle trick shooters in the pre WWI era would get off something like 29~33 aimed shots in 60 seconds if my memory serves me correctly.

All based on rigorous analysis, motion studies and rigorous practice. But just blasting without aiming, well I have seen trick shooters fire an M1 as fast as an MG (6 shots in .8 second), though the group was around ~12 inches at 15~18 yards.

M1 Garand 6 shots in under 1 second with World Record shooter, Jerry Miculek - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by martins8589

I think loading two stripper clips (another 10) would slow you down, I think that after the initial 10 in the mag doing 1 stripper clip (5) at a time would be the fastest as there is more chance of a stuff up with the extra pressure putting the second clip in and you would have to remove the first clip. If working with 1 clip at a time you do not have to remove the clip as it ejects upon closing the bolt. Something most people on youtube videos fail to realise. And you would have to cycle the bolt with thumb and fore finger and pull the trigger with the middle finger.

---

Something else I remember from those days of plentiful cheap good ammo was using the blade of the loading hand to sweep the first charger away before going for the next. Basically moving thumb out of the way and whacking the top of the charger rearward much as the bolt would push the bottom of the charger forward. Just be sure the chargers are deburred or it can be a bloody mess. (Especially if you don't notice the leak for a while!) I never emptied the magazine at one target at a match. It was double taps and "El Presidentes" for the most part. Then transition to the next target or MOVE!

Sentry Duty and others will back me up here I'm sure. But the pre-op rumour mill was that the local insurgents were armed with their highly accurate, long range and beautifully maintained deadly Lee Enfields and Mausers. They were all just spray and pray merchants with small arms that were in pxxx poor condition. Hence we emphasised the quality of return fire over quantity of return fire. The mortar mounts were generally the same pxxx poor condition too. Two things they perfected were the bombs and lack of fear of what we call 'the body-bag count'. Things we feared the most in my opinion....... Wasn't there but did the pre-op ranges and post op debrief part. Just my grizzled view!

Frederick303 most interesting info.

I was eerily reminded of the naval doctrines of the WWI period. The Royal Navy emphasized volume of fire in the belief it is said that whoever got the most rounds down range first would disorient and effectively blind the opponent by splash, even if they did not hit. It was suggested this was a hold-over from the 18th and 19th centuries when the speed of Royal Navy broadsides was often decisive and aiming often irrelevant. The Germans took the view you describe: only hits count and whoever hits first will have the best chance.

The speed of the volleys fired with the Brown Bess was also noted by Britain's opponents on land in those centuries. The relatively low vertical dispersion of the Brown Bess was part of the power of those volleys. Again, aiming hardly mattered at massed targets at close quarters.

The whole "mad minute" and every-man-a-marksman idea only began after 1900 and the experiences in South Africa and we shouldn't get the idea it was a volume over accuracy concept. The emphasis was on accuracy even more than speed; 15 rounds a minute is not very "rapid" fire after all.

The success of the "mad minute" in 1914/5 was often against German troops attacking in massed, close formations.

By 1916/7 the standards of marksmanship and weapons handing had declined dramatically as the professional and territorial soldiers were mostly dead or gone. This was part of the reason for the emphasis on machine guns, despite the stubborn opposition of much of the high command.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

This was part of the reason for the emphasis on machine guns, despite the stubborn opposition of much of the high command.

---

Speaking strictly to non-mechanized warfare, the introduction and proliferation of machine guns was a major turning point in infantry tactics in battle.

The former benefit of massed infantry formations became a liability, the battlefield evolved, warfare became mobile.

Tactically we have always been taught that the defensive was the worst posture to ever adopt, you simply give your enemy a clear, stationary target on which to concentrate all of his efforts and assets, like cracking a nut, some aggressors can swing surprisingly large hammers. Staying mobile and on the offensive makes it difficult to locate and direct these hammers against you.

The entire mobility aspect changed the way personal soldiers were permitted to move and employ their weapons, the individual skill of each soldier and the combined capability of their sections, squads, and teams made the force effective. In modern times, there comes a point in the Infantry Section in battle that the Officer has "let slip the dogs of war" and no longer has any meaningful control of his troops. Point them in the right direction, set the target, and push go, their performance will dictate success or failure.

With each infantry group attempting to out maneuver each other tactically, machine guns play a very important role in preventing movement, denying ground, and fixing the enemy in place. Once the enemy is fixed, and placed in an unplanned and ill-prepared defense, he can be closed with and destroyed. The machine gun and volume of fire required to fix an enemy element, can be huge, and aimed but speculative rifle fire is used to compliment the machine gun's effect.

If an enemy presents itself as a target, of course the soldier will take careful aim and fire, but since most humans have a sense of personal preservation, most will try to avoid being seen. Lacking known obvious targets it is important to fire at or upon areas of suspected enemy while assaulting, this will either fix or flush out anyone hiding there. In any event hopefully keep them from accurately applying their principles of marksmanship and hitting you and yours while you move, sometimes in very hazardous open ground. There is the old saying, if you can see to shoot at something, it can see and shoot at you. High volumes of fire, prevent the bad guys from getting a good look and good shots.

Has the bullets expended per enemy killed risen over the last 150 years? Absolutely, but it is not because individual marksmanship is dead, or soldiers unprofessionally spray away their ammunition, it is an evolution in Infantry tactics first brought forth by Hiram Maxim's gun.

One wouldn't want to discourage the offensive spirit in infantry training, ;) but the advantage lies with the defender all else being somewhat equal.

The defender is probably behind cover, stationary, concealed and will likely only be located when they open fire. And even then, depending on many local variables, they may be very hard to locate.

The attacker is not any of those things.

"Spray & pray" will only work if the defender's general location is known or they are troops of low quality.

The defender's fire need not be of the "spray & pray" variety, but can be accurately directed in small doses at the exposed attackers.

Call for smoke and hope it's not a windy day!

I would not normally reply to a thread that is over 4 years old; however for the benefit of future researchers on the subject of the Mad Minute I have included this recently researched information here.

Taken from, Sussex County Rifle Association, 1861~ 1961.

n.b. This is an account of the first 100 years of the association and a record of those who have achieved success for there regiment or county within the association.

Jackson, A.T. Volunteer Medical Staff Corp, Royal Marine Artillery, East Lancashire Regt and Machine Gun Corp. (He certainly got around!)

Qualified "Distinguished" at Hythe School of Musketry Instructors course 1905.

Held the rapid fire record, made at Strensall, Yorkshire, in 1915. Score 107 ex 140 for 35 rounds in one minute at 200 yards with S.M.L.E. Rifle, since equalled on a number of occasions.

I think this might indicate that Jackson was the first to hold the record then beaten by the likes of Walingford & Snoxall in the UK.