Common Knowledge or Received Wisdom?

[Beerhunter]

We all know what a magazine cut-off is for, don't we?

Well someone on another forum has a seen a WO reference dated just before the Great War stating that the cut-off is NOT to be used to make the rifle into a single-shot!

Now all all know (we really do know this) that lots of Mk.III*s were "upgraded" to Mk.III between the wars. So bearing in mind the above - does anyone why? (Source references would help.)

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.

[Peter Laidler]

I'd start by asking him to quote the source. I find that it always helps to throw in the EMER ref.

The problem with these official sources, and I speak from a bit of background experience here, is that they don't say it all. Take for instance a suggestion put forwards to the effect that training or, say, stripping a machine gun or a safety drill could be made easier by doing it some other way, there'd be a meeting held. The advisers, pamphlet writers, 'subject matter experts' (there's another strange annomaly if ever I heard one........) but don't get me going.....), Chief Instructor/OC and technical bods all get together and discuss various points.

The meeting would discuss the matter and over a couple of hours, a lunch break (where the REAL point is discussed, believe me...) etc where it could be that all agree that it is the most stupid, dangerous, foolhardy load of absolute bolloxxs that they ever heard of. But the minuted notes available for all to see would read something like: 'This is a good and worthwhile suggestion from Sgt/Cpl/ etc XYZ and the committee discussed the matter at some length. However, on balance, witrh safety in mind it was decided that the training should remain as it is for the time being. Sgt XYZ will be awarded £50 from public funds for his valuable contribution with a letter of thanks to be attached to his personal file'.

There, what its really like and you see what you want to see

[Steve H. in N.Y.]

1909 musketry regulations (amended 1914) section 53, para. 264- Use of the safety catch and cutoff.

"Troops armed with rifles fitted with safety catches will invariably set the catch to safety before movement. The use of the cutoff is to be confined in their case to occasions when they are not actually engaged with the enemy, when it may be employed for the purpose of either charging the magazine without inserting a cartridge in the chamber, or to unload the rifle while retaining cartridges in the magazine. It is never to be used to enable the rifle to be used as a single loader, and is not to supersede the use of the safety catch."

para. 265

"In the case of rifles which have no safety catches, the cut-off will be pressed in and the rifle unloaded on all occasions when the safety catch is ordered to be applied in these instructions. In an advance in extended order, however, these rifles may be carried during movement at the 'slope' instead of being unloaded."

[browningautorifle]

That's very interesting Steve. That's almost exactly the opposite of what we've thought they used the cut off for until reading this.

[Thunderbox]

That's very interesting Steve. That's almost exactly the opposite of what we've thought they used the cut off for until reading this.

I think there has always been a body of opinion that the cut-off is an example of a device that had an original design purpose (ie enabling the earliest rifles - Lee Metfords - to be used as single loaders), but which later became obsolete for that purpose and then proved very useful for another (as an efficient safety device that allows the bolt to be manipulated without chambering a round).

[browningautorifle]

I think there has always been a body of opinion

An opinion formed by those not privy to the written info some of the advanced collectors have in hand.

[jmoore]

I would think the rationale behind NOT using the cutoff for single loading would be to prevent overworking the extractor spring, since the rounds' rims won't generally position themselves behind the claw as intended during the push forward. At least that's been my excuse for not using it at the range. I've always preferred to push singles into the magazine and feed "normally".

[Beerhunter]

Although my SMLE has a cut-off I would not dream of using it as a loading platform. I always load single shots from the magazine, for the reason above. Prior to the Great War, had this potential for damage caught on with the powers that be?

I am very glad that this thread has been so thought provoking, which was is purpose in the first place. However we have still not got to my original question. We KNOW that the cut-off was reinstated after the Great War but why? Had the powers that be decided that it was useful to stop ammunition being "wasted" and hang the possible damage to the extractor claw/spring or was it an additional safety device?

[Peter Laidler]

Just a minute chaps............ By 1909, the safety catch wasn't what we think it was. The safety catch was and still is the INTERNAL part of the locking bolt. The pamphlet writer is talking about rifles with and without SAFETY CATCHES.

Does this alter the concept now to what we all think and assume? Even the earliest VOCAB list details the safety catch and the locking bolt

[Colonel Enfield]

I think there has always been a body of opinion that the cut-off is an example of a device that had an original design purpose (ie enabling the earliest rifles - Lee Metfords - to be used as single loaders), but which later became obsolete for that purpose and then proved very useful for another (as an efficient safety device that allows the bolt to be manipulated without chambering a round).

That's certainly been my understanding of it - that the cut-off was there because Tommy couldn't be trusted not to lose his cool and unload all 10 rounds of his precious, expensive, difficult to obtain* .303 ammunition at The Fuzzy-Wuzzies the moment the opportunity presented itself. Keep in mind the Lee-Metfords had a chain attaching their magazines to the rifle since Tommy also apparently couldn't be trusted not to lose them, either.**

We do know the cut-off came back after WWI but I've always put that down to the British Military saying "Well, the removal of the design was just a wartime expediency thing, and we've beaten the Hun, so back to what we were doing before!", but with the bonus thing that the cut-off could be used to keep rounds out of the action, letting the soldiers carry their rifles with full magazines but without a round up the spout.

Of course, the problem there is that they didn't put back the windage adjustable sights (which would have been rather useful) after WWI, or the long-range volley sights (less useful but still likely more use than a magazine cut-off). But then, they didn't consistently put the cut-off back on rifles either; some of them have the slot but no cut-off while others have a cut-off, pretty much right up until the point Ze Germans bombed the BSA factory out of commission in 1940.

*[/sarcasm]
**Which does make you wonder how Britain became the pre-eminent Imperial Power if its troops were apparently incapable of basic things like "not losing major components of their rifles" or "conserving their ammunition".