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?
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.
Last edited by Seaspriter; 02-08-2016 at 08:04 AM.
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.
- Darren 1 PL West Nova Scotia Regiment 2000-2003
1 BN Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry 2003-2013
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.
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!
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.
Last edited by Surpmil; 02-15-2016 at 01:53 AM.
“There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.”
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.
- Darren 1 PL West Nova Scotia Regiment 2000-2003
1 BN Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry 2003-2013
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!
Last edited by Surpmil; 02-20-2016 at 08:03 PM.
“There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.”
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.
Originally Posted by Frederick303
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?
Register To Reply
but the advantage lies with the defender all else being somewhat equal.
