Common Knowledge or Received Wisdom?

[5thBatt]

Its quite simple really, you just have to read (not read into) the LoC of 1916

First part introduces modifications to the future manufacture of the MkIII

Second part introduces the MkIII* which being the same as a MkIII but without the cutoff or slot so may embody the modifications made to the MkIII mentioned in part 1 of the LoC

in short, after 1916 there were two models, the MkIII & the MkIII* so as the cutoff was not omitted it cannot be re-introduced as it was never omitted, rifles retro-fitted with cutoff were simple converted to MkIIIs hence the strike out of the *

[RobD]

Am I being stupid, but quoting from thread No. 3 "it may be employed for the purpose of ... charging the magazine without inserting a cartridge in the chamber" what on earth are they talking about? How can the cutoff in either position assist in charging the magazine, and what has the chamber got to do with it anyway?

[5thBatt]

You can place your fingers under the open cutoff to help with leverage when pressing down the rounds with your thumb, engage the cutoff then close the bolt without chambering a round.

[Peter Laidler]

Ah, your last para has cleared up the ambiguity I had misunderstood in your last....

[Smellymarkfive]

The fact that they kept the boss as a possible retrofit also suggests the cut off was still something desired by the WO. It appears it took the introduction of semi autos to really kill the device off

[Smellymarkfive]

I'm sure the situation the rifleman was in also changed the role of the cut off, if they were engaging the enemy, on patrol, at the range, on guard, in training. Unloading a full mag though is a bit of a pain and a bit dangerous if you use the bolt to chamber then eject the rounds, otherwise you have to remove the mag and pop them out. I have a question for Peter, how often did mag lips get damaged and how much of a pain was it repairing them? Finally what was the leading cause of damage to magazines, and is it possible the cut off helped in some way so the rifleman didn't have to keep emptying the mag out to prevent charging a round and damaging the mag in the process?

[Beerhunter]

otherwise you have to remove the mag and pop them out.

Known as "the alternative method". Still in use when I was at school in the 1950s/60s.

[Peter Laidler]

Not quite correct smelly Mk5. The cut-off block was deleted for the No5 and the late No4 Mk2 rifles. I would imagine that the block was retained in No4 production not because there was any thought of retro modifyiong the rifles to take one - we'd all moved on a tad by then. But because it was an integral part of the structural design and to eliminate if from production was more trouble and expense than could be justified. Just my opinion of course

[Smellymarkfive]

Like a vestigial structure. But how much swearing did magazine damage cause?

[Smellymarkfive]

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.