Quote Originally Posted by Smellymarkfive View Post
My other thought about the cut off is I've always assumed its omission in the Great War as an expedient measure. Is the word expedient ever officially used, or is it possible it was omitted to prevent accidentally engaging the cut off when firing at the enemy by knocking it into place? In the noise and confusion I wouldn't want to be firing air because the cut off got banged into place.
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.
Information
Warning: This is a relatively older thread
This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.