I'm afraid this gent means well and certainly does make some interesting videos, but there is a tendency to extemporize or "make stuff up".
"The Britishknew that they were going to want a sniper rifle built on this platform before they had actually even put the No4 MkI rifle into production...." Well, from the documents that have surfaced, no, the SAC was messing about with the pie-in-the-sky Ainley Rifle and at the same time telling Col. Acland in 1938 that there was no General Staff Requirement for a new snipers rifle and if there ever was, "well, don't call us, we'll call you."
So after Dunkirk and the failure to re-embark a certain quanity of hardware, they grabbed the equally futile No32 MkI designed for the Bren - futile on the Bren that is - and got Enfield to draw up a mount for it on the No4 - P.D.Q - and of course the only No4s on hand were the trials examples, and so the birth of the legend and it call came together pretty well. The cheek rest of course came quite a bit later and H&H didn't make up the first ones, etc. etc.
Like his video on the Lee Metford, where there was a mish-mash about Joseph Speed and his patents, position etc. I'm afraid I stopped watching at this point. I have to ask myself if there are as many errors of fact in the other videos?
With all the published material on the Lee Enfield and the No4(T) etc., it would be a good idea to read the same before sitting down to make a video.
Or is it more a question of churning out a constant stream of new material to maintain the Youtube momentum and concomitant revenues??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.