Blown up Lee Enfields

[303Guy]

Has anyone done or know of destructive testing of Lee Enfields? I've seen photo's of battle damaged SMLE's (one where an armour piercing round struck the muzzle, stripped its jacket and the core wend down the bore and set off the loaded round. Quite interesting). I've heard of bolt heads shattering and bolt bodies buckling but not often.

[texassako]

There is always Ackley's tests. It was rechambered in .30-40 Improved, and it lasted until loaded with 50gr of 2400. The load prior was a compressed charge of 4198 that made for a leaky primer.

[Multigunner]

There's some information on testing to destruction of the Lee Enfields in Major EGB Reynolds "the Lee Enfield Rifle".

From other sources I found that the average breaking point of the action body was 85,000 PSI but the method used to determine that was not given. It may have been in Copper Units, they still used this method early on, or possibly a hydraulic ram test which is mentioned in other works for testing breech loading cannon.
The barrels were listed in one source as being proofed at 75,000 pounds, though since actions were proofed at 58,000 CUP or its equivalent the barrels must have been proofed separately at that time, using a special set up for the purpose.

In Reynolds book he described tests on bore obstructions. If the obstruction were several inches down the bore the barrel would snap off at the point of obstruction as cleanly as if sawn off.
From information on the rod grenade they found that a badly bent rod of the original long type would cause a breech blow out. They later shortened the rod both to reduce possible accidental bending and to put the end of the rod far enough forwards that in the worst case the barrel would fail rather than the breech blow out.

I think we've all read of a claimed test at a university in Canada with increasingly wild claims made and no documentation.
In these claims and others they often mention the end of the plugged barrel blowing off while the action held. The testing of the Enfield with rifle grenades revealed that this was normal enough. The barrel would snap off before breech pressure backed up enough to burst the cartridge case.
The common claim of an action surviving pressures over 100,000 PSI is most likely spurious since common cartridge brass cold flows at 65,000 CUP, the case would blow out long before chamber pressure reached 100 K PSI.
In order to torture test the Garand at 125,000 CUP they used specially made cartridge cases that could withstand those pressures.
Guesstimation of pressures is not very scientific.

[303Guy]

Holy cow! I know the action is not as weak as some would make out but I wasn't expecting it to take such high pressure! The one thing in the Lee Enfield's favour is the fully supported case. I have heard of blown primers pushing the cocking piece back into the shooters face. The gas vent in the SMLE bolthead gets partially blocked by the action. The No4 has a relief on the bolthead which keeps open.

[Outpost75]

A No.4 Long Branch or Savage properly fitted up would have no trouble. We tested them with standard NATO 7.62mm High Pressure Test cartridges used for proofing FAL and M14 rifles and there was no setback of the locking surfaces. An ROF(F) 7/43 tested at the same time did not fare as well and deformed the receiver lug seats.

[skeet1]

I have seen somewhere a blow up tested Enfield where the action did not let go but the bolt bent in the middle and the case ruptured. I think that the action is quite strong but the bolt is the weakest point because of the rear lugs. The action is not a weak action when used with realistic normal loads. All actions will let go at some point if you put enough of the wrong type of powder in them.

Ken

[1Shirt]

It was a battle rifle! And a good one! Nuff said!!!!
1Shirt!

[groovy mike]

I don't think there are much stronger actions out there....

[303carbine]

I read a couple articles where the No1Mk111 was tested by jamming it into a mudbank up to the rear sight. A MKV11 round was chambered and fired by string, the actions held but the barrel opened up to let the bullet out into the bank.
Not something I would try, but I know with normal hunting loads, the Enfield will serve for a long time.
It's definitely my favorite battle rifle and the one I learned to shoot from a WW1 vet in the early 70's.
I have taken several very large moose and deer with a 1916 BSA No1Mk111,they fell down as fast as being shot with a bigger cartridge.
There is something magical about the Enfield, as one vet put it, "when you hit'em with the 303, they stay hit"
My late uncle who served in Korea was asked by me, what's your favorite bullet for the 303. He said the 180 grain, he said they had more thump than the 150's, I tend to believe him.

[rosst]

there is nothing wrong with the SMLEs if thats all you know . . . until you shoulder a 03 or a 98 for the first time.

good sized, strong mag tho . . .

[303carbine]

there is nothing wrong with the SMLEs if thats all you know . . . until you shoulder a 03 or a 98 for the first time.

good sized, strong mag tho . . .



I have had a few 98's and some nice 03a3's, I still prefer the Enfield.

[303Guy]

I like the slickness of the Lee Enfield. I load 180gr bullets of the cheapest price and they work just fine at normal 303 loadings. I do tend to be conservative with my loading though. My current load is a nominal 2400fps with a powder that is still moderate at 2500fps. It's an accurate load in that one rifle I use it in. I used to think the No4 was stronger than the SMLE and that the Ishapore 7.62 was of the same steel as the No4 to give it the strength for the NATO cartridge but it turns out the SMLE has been made from the same steel since the mid 1920's. However, It seems the Indians started using a slightly lower grade steel in 1950 and went back to 4140 in 1965 with the change over to the 7.62 A2. Now this is not a proven fact but there is written evidence of this.

Then the Auzzies decided to test the SMLE with 7.62 NATO and found the bolts would set back so the idea was scrapped. However, what isn't so well known is they build the test action bodies out of a lower grade steel! But don't quote me. It's out there on the internet somewhere.

That bolt buckling is what I'd heard of. The rifle that took a armour piercing round down the bore blew the chamber and receiver ring and cracked the bolt but it didn't buckle. It kinda looked like a high velocity explosion effect.

As far as I can tell, there has never been an instance of the bolt been forced back into the shooters face.

I have a rifle that has no load bearing on the small inner locking lug. I haven't fired it but someone must have. I've seen a pic of an inner lug that broke off presumably from bearing only on the inner lug. It must have taken quite a few shots before it broke.

[Outpost75]

I was told by a retired Army Ordnance engineer that the Long Branch and Savage No. 4s used Lend-Lease receiver forgings of 8620 steel, the same as used for Remington 03A3s, M1 Garands and carbines. I never ran structures or chemistries on our blowup guns, but their strength and toughness compared to wartime UK production was obvious.

[303Guy]

Good to know. I have three Longbranch No4's. 8620 has less carbon but has nickel in it. It's supposed to surface harden quite hard.

[303carbine]

I chronographed a No5Mk1 with 180 grain Speer spitzers, it clocked in at 2410 fps. I had a few magnum shooters scoff at those velocities, but they cannot kill moose any better with the magnums.
A well placed shot with a 303 trumps a bad shot with a magnum anyday. I have shot big game with a 420 grain cast 45-70 rolling along at 1630 fps, I got laughs from the non believers at the low speed.
One shot that went end to end of a big moose and exited actually made a few of the magnum shooters think again.
I like the 215 grain bullet for the No5, it is the ultimate bullet for close up shooting.
A big heavy slow moving bullet works just as good today as it did back in the days of shooting buffalo.

[303Guy]

I have half a box of I think Remington 215gr soft nose bullets. I haven'y had the heart to shoot them up. I might is well use them while I'm still alive! I've had them for about 35 years now.[smilie=1:


It was a battle rifle! And a good one! Nuff said!!!!
1Shirt!I do believe it was. It makes a great sporter too! It is also arguably the most handsome of the battle rifles (the M16 in it's original form was pretty cool too).

Some have criticized the two-piece stock but it's a pretty damn good arrangement. It has an added benefit of making it a neat backpack rifle by taking off the butt.

[13Echo]

It has been said: America built a target rifle (1903 Springfield). The Germans built a sporting rifle (1898 Mauser). The British built a rifle for fighting - the SMLE. Of the three the Lee Enfield was the best battle rifle.

Jerry Liles

[Multigunner]

There is something magical about the Enfield, as one vet put it, "when you hit'em with the 303, they stay hit"

Only magic at work there was the MkVII bullet. It was a development of the "Velopex" express rifle hunting bullet. To allow high velocity from the old large bore African game rifles they developed a bullet with a lightweight nose section. This allowed a bullet long enough for ballistic efficiency but light enough to be driven to much higher velocities than the older full lead core bullets.
The original MkVII bullet weighed 160 gr but proved less accurate than expected so the weight was increased to 174 gr.
When these bullets hit they tumble and often break up in the body causing massive wounds and transferring energy that would otherwise be wasted by passing straight through the body.
The Germans occasionally executed British or Canadian POWs after seeing the effect of these bullets on their troops, believing they had been using Dum Dum bullets.

The Russian "Poison Bullet" works much the same way, only instead of a light weight filler plug the Russian bullet has an empty nose. Like wounds from the MkVII wounds from the Russian bullet are highly lethal and difficult to treat successfully.

[Outpost75]

Good to know. I have three Longbranch No4's. 8620 has less carbon but has nickel in it. It's supposed to surface harden quite hard.

It can also be differentially heat treated leaving lug seats hard to resist deformation and the receiver ring and rails ductile to yield under great loads to resist high pressure fracture

[fouronesix]

Heard the story from a long time ago (don't know if true or not) that the Brits hung on to the Enfield action for international long range competition well past the time of more modern or better actions. When questioned by team members (or others), one British coach reportedly said-- maybe for the benefit of his team's morale--, "the spring in the action gives the bullet a little more umph." :)

[Hardcast416taylor]

When a neighbor`s son came back from the Korean war he told of an Indian army unit near where they were based. He said those Indians had Smle`s and #4 Lee-Enfields. He told us only that these rifles were very lethal in the hands of a trained shooter. About a year or so later the neighbor acquired an Longbranch #4, he refinished the wood - but left it still full miltary. This was the only rifle he ever used for deer and bear hunting till he passed on several years ago. He said you don`t need any other cartridge for soft hided animals than the .303.Robert

[Multigunner]

When a neighbor`s son came back from the Korean war he told of an Indian army unit near where they were based. He said those Indians had Smle`s and #4 Lee-Enfields.

Indian troops in the Korean conflict were officially non combatant, but provided security for medical units and such. I don't doubt they engaged in combat with Red Korean insurgents and bandit gangs.
India mainly used the SMLE but they did have some No.4 rifles as well, the No.4 was basically for issue to their Naval personel.

[Multigunner]

Heard the story from a long time ago (don't know if true or not) that the Brits hung on to the Enfield action for international long range competition well past the time of more modern or better actions. When questioned by team members (or others), one British coach reportedly said-- maybe for the benefit of his team's morale--, "the spring in the action gives the bullet a little more umph." :)

Theres actually something to that. The springy action body coupled with the slender barrel of the No.1 rifle resulted in a predictable and convenient compensation factor that gave less vertical dispersion at longer ranges. The compensation factor worked most noticeably at ranges of 600 to 800 yards.

Fact is though the Lee Enfield rifles lost their edge early on and after the 1903 Springfield with .30-06 cartridge came along the British never won another Palma match while using the Enfield against a U S rifle. They did win a few when using other rifles.

The same springiness that allowed less vertical dispersion caused greater horizontal dispersion and all Lee Enfields have the front sight base offset to the left to compensate for bullet throw as well as spin drift from the left hand twist rifling. The horizontal throw is due to the sturdy left hand receiver wall and wide open right hand side, coupled with the rear locking lugs.
Horizontal throw is less with the No.4, but vertical compensation is less predictable and very much affected by the bayonet if mounted. I have seen a photo of a sniper using the No.4 (T) with bayonet mounted, possibly the sniper found this improved accuracy with his particular rifle.

A well tuned and properly bedded No.4 can be extremely accurate, but it doesn't take much abuse in the field to upset the apple cart.
In the book "Sniping in France" the author found that one month in the damp conditions of the trenches could ruin the accuracy of an SMLE. He also found that erosion from the service ammunition could ruin a sniper rifle's usefulness in 600 to 1500 rounds, with some being no good for long range after as little as 500 rounds.

During WW2 production they found that the POI often shifted greatly between the time the rifle was sighted in at the factory and when it was issued. The stock sets were not properly seasoned. That's not a big issue now days since the stocks are now 60+yrs old and are as seasoned in place as they will ever get.

To avoid unequal bearing at the socket due to swelling in damp climes they began leaving a small air gap rather than trying to bed the fore end with perfect equal bearing.
Many fore ends also swelled and then shrank leaving a gap.

If you have a Enfield that groups poorly more often than not simply adjusting the bedding will cure that.

[MT Chambers]

Outfits that regularly test loads, and do load dev. work, limit the pressure on these to 45,000 psi. and I believe them as they don't have a horse in this race like the rest of us do.

[Hardcast416taylor]

Indian troops in the Korean conflict were officially non combatant, but provided security for medical units and such. I don't doubt they engaged in combat with Red Korean insurgents and bandit gangs.
India mainly used the SMLE but they did have some No.4 rifles as well, the No.4 was basically for issue to their Naval personel.

The neighbor told of night raids done by these Indians. They gave a "new" head of hair to the neighbors sargent, who was balding, when they returned from a night visit to the Chinese positions. They carried gurkha styled knives for these raids. Strangely enough, the neighbor claimed the Chinese never seemed to bother the Indian postions?Robert

[303Guy]

82830

I wish these were mine!

[Multigunner]

The neighbor told of night raids done by these Indians. They gave a "new" head of hair to the neighbors sargent, who was balding, when they returned from a night visit to the Chinese positions. They carried gurkha styled knives for these raids. Strangely enough, the neighbor claimed the Chinese never seemed to bother the Indian postions?Robert
Theres the source of confusion. Only the Ghurka troops carried the Ghurka knife. Ghurkas aren't Indians, they are Nepalese, though commonly mistaken for the Indian nationals and having served with the British army in India for generations.

Ghurkas are professional soldiers contracted by the British and have had the reputation of striking terror in the enemy by this sort of night time foray.

A neighbor served in the India China Burma theatre and had photos of himself with Ghurka troops. He had a large Ghurka knife given him by one of the Ghurka sergeants .
He said when he was first handed the knife he took it from its sheath. When he did that the sergeant took the knife back for a moment and walked over to a group of Japanese POWs and chopped off a finger of one. He said you must never draw the blade without feeding it blood before returning it to its sheath.
The knife had not been taken from its sheath since then.

PS

As a result of the Partition of India in 1947, the formations, units, assets and indigenous personnel of the Indian Army were divided, with two thirds of the assets being retained by the Union of India, and one third going to the new Dominion of Pakistan.[32] Four Gurkha regiments (mostly recruited in Nepal, which was outside India), were transferred from the former Indian Army to the British Army, forming its Brigade of Gurkhas and departing for a new station in Malaya.



During the Korean War, India sent the 60th (Parachute) Field Ambulance unit to aid the UN troops fighting against the Chinese and North Korean invasion of South Korea, though they decided against sending combat forces. The 60th PFA was included in the 1st Commonwealth Division. In the aftermath of the war, Indian soldiers were also sent to Korea to peace-keep.

Only reason I learned of this was a Australian on another board had an Indian SMLE that had come from battle field salvage of the Korean conflict and was trying to figure out how it got there.

Its possible that former Indian Army Ghurkas still carried rifles issued before the partition, or that the rifle was carried by an Indian peace keeper at some point.

[303Guy]

I've just been reading a thread somewhere else about a SMLE bolt that had fractured behind the locking lugs and driven the rear of the bolt into the shooters face! I think only his glasses and pride were damaged. There was some blood too, don't know where from. I suspect a blown primer while the 'experts' disagree, saying the most that will happen is the cocking piece gets pushed back onto half-cock. Poppy cock!

Case extraction was normal they said.

[gew98]

there is nothing wrong with the SMLEs if thats all you know . . . until you shoulder a 03 or a 98 for the first time.

good sized, strong mag tho . . .

I like good 98's and enfields equally...don't get me started on that twit of a stick called the '30 !!!.

[robertbank]

[QUOTE=Multigunner;2403121]
The Germans occasionally executed British or Canadian POWs after seeing the effect of these bullets on their troops, believing they had been using Dum Dum bullets.

/QUOTE]

NO they murdered them because the German troops in Normandy were ba$tards. After the Nova Scotia boys were found shot in the head it seems the number of prisoners taken by Canadian troops fell off dramatically. Most of my uncles and family were over there for six years. One who served as an officer in the Tank Corp told me , at one point they were ordered to start taking prisoners. After the Battle of the Bulge a number of American troops were found murdered by the SS and Hitler Youth. Lets not pass off their indiscretions as a reaction to ballistic characteristics of the .303 bullet. I suspect American troops may have had the same reaction as our troops did.

Take Care

Bob
ps I apologize for the use of a certain noun but I don't think history needs to be rewritten just yet.

[gew98]

I see you forgot to mention the myriad of posts of past on what a cheap mauser subsitute the 1903 and 03A3 were...and these were written by experianced rifleman & soldiers of the day.
Who really cares about "palma " matches... all the 03's used in them were tuned up to include the ammo. As was said before the Enfield was a battle rifle , the germans' was a hunting rifle and the Americans had a dang target rifle. Combat was not nor is a palma target match. Leave the target rifles at the house and take the battle rifles to battle. Huzzaaahhh !.




Theres actually something to that. The springy action body coupled with the slender barrel of the No.1 rifle resulted in a predictable and convenient compensation factor that gave less vertical dispersion at longer ranges. The compensation factor worked most noticeably at ranges of 600 to 800 yards.

Fact is though the Lee Enfield rifles lost their edge early on and after the 1903 Springfield with .30-06 cartridge came along the British never won another Palma match while using the Enfield against a U S rifle. They did win a few when using other rifles.

The same springiness that allowed less vertical dispersion caused greater horizontal dispersion and all Lee Enfields have the front sight base offset to the left to compensate for bullet throw as well as spin drift from the left hand twist rifling. The horizontal throw is due to the sturdy left hand receiver wall and wide open right hand side, coupled with the rear locking lugs.
Horizontal throw is less with the No.4, but vertical compensation is less predictable and very much affected by the bayonet if mounted. I have seen a photo of a sniper using the No.4 (T) with bayonet mounted, possibly the sniper found this improved accuracy with his particular rifle.

A well tuned and properly bedded No.4 can be extremely accurate, but it doesn't take much abuse in the field to upset the apple cart.
In the book "Sniping in France" the author found that one month in the damp conditions of the trenches could ruin the accuracy of an SMLE. He also found that erosion from the service ammunition could ruin a sniper rifle's usefulness in 600 to 1500 rounds, with some being no good for long range after as little as 500 rounds.

During WW2 production they found that the POI often shifted greatly between the time the rifle was sighted in at the factory and when it was issued. The stock sets were not properly seasoned. That's not a big issue now days since the stocks are now 60+yrs old and are as seasoned in place as they will ever get.

To avoid unequal bearing at the socket due to swelling in damp climes they began leaving a small air gap rather than trying to bed the fore end with perfect equal bearing.
Many fore ends also swelled and then shrank leaving a gap.

If you have a Enfield that groups poorly more often than not simply adjusting the bedding will cure that.

[robertbank]

I see you forgot to mention the myriad of posts of past on what a cheap mauser subsitute the 1903 and 03A3 were...and these were written by experianced rifleman & soldiers of the day.
Who really cares about "palma " matches... all the 03's used in them were tuned up to include the ammo. As was said before the Enfield was a battle rifle , the germans' was a hunting rifle and the Americans had a dang target rifle. Combat was not nor is a palma target match. Leave the target rifles at the house and take the battle rifles to battle. Huzzaaahhh !.

In fairness your troops also had the P 17 which is a pretty darn good rifle and according to Wikipedia was the main rifle used by US troops in WW1. I would love to get my hands on a .303 P -14 to go along with my Longbranch.

Take Care

Bob

[gew98]

Bob ; I feel you on that. I 've had a handfull of Model 1917 rifles form mint to rebuilt over the years. None of them tickled my fancy in fit , feel or shooting. But I have had a grogeous Patt'14 for about 30 years that can put bullets on top of each other if I do my part. I've got a warm spot for the patt'14 rifles !.

[Multigunner]

Gew98 is PO'ed because he got ahold of a couple of 03 rifles with bad firing pin tips and managed to blow out the firing pin shafts. Gew98 was of course killed instantly , and made a deal with the devil that if allowed back on earth he would denigrate all American firearms till the end of time.

This sort of firing pin blow out involving the Enfield is not unknown. If you dry fire a bolt action rifle like you were playing with a cap buster even the Enfield pin can be weakened and break when a pierced primer slams the collar back at high speed.
A fellow on another board near lost an eye when his cocking piece was driven into his face by exactly that sort of accident.

U S .30-06 ammo of WW1 and throughout the 20's and 30's was made to a much higher acceptance standard than British .303 ammo. The quality of WW1 British .303 ammo was often abominable.
Even the Krag with its single lug took the Palma Match from the Brits before the 03 came along. Due to the Krag ammo used in one match being specialized for the purpose they disqualified it.
Every Military Match rifle, no matter what nation fielded it was top quality manufacture, chosen for accuracy, and tuned by armorers.
Take a gander at the Canadian Instructions to armorers on preparing a No.4 for competition. They used every trick in the book, even bedding sheet metal inserts into the action body inletting.
The Lee Enfield lost those matches fair and square because it was simply less accurate, and the ammunition quality was lower.
That fact puts a few peoples panties in a wad, but its proven historical fact, so get used to it.

As for the 03 and battle. During WW1 the Marines made quite a hole in the German lines with the 03. The Germans themselves were amazed to see their men picked off at 600 to 700 yards like ducks in a shooting gallery.
The same pinpoint accuracy served U S Marines very well at Guadalcanal.

Some believe accuracy is not important in a battle rifle, those outranged by more accurate rifle fire soon changed their minds.

[robertbank]

As for the 03 and battle. During WW1 the Marines made quite a hole in the German lines with the 03. The Germans themselves were amazed to see their men picked off at 600 to 700 yards like ducks in a shooting gallery.


And the movie you saw this in was....

Most of the losses in WW1 were caused by Machine Guns, Artillery and Mines. Not sure Grand Dad ever mentioned how useful his SMLE rifle was once they got to the Huns trenches though he did indicate his shovel was in his hands a lot along with his rifle with bayonet of course. He didn't talk a lot about the four years he spent in the Army back in the day. Grandma told me Grand Dad often woke up in the middle of the night sweating and yelling. I never asked many questions after that. When I did he just had a far off look. He survived Vimy and the other actions the Canadian Corp was involved in while there. He did mention the pink mist more than once though and the terrible conditions of the trenches.

We remember a day in April and of course Nov. 11

Take Care

Bob

[303Guy]

A fellow on another board near lost an eye when his cocking piece was driven into his face by exactly that sort of accident.Is that the one in which the rear of the bolt broke off? I've recently read on another thread about a cocking piece hitting the shooter in the eye but I can't find it again. Is that the same incident do you know or a different one? I seem remember the shooter loosing an eye or was it that he had to have shards removed from his eye? I can see how urban myths develop - I read a thread in which an eye incident is described then my memory fails and I think and say an eye was lost. Next it'll be a death! So I've got to find that thread and straighten my facts.:coffeecom

Oh, there is argument that a ruptured primer could not have driven the striker and half bolt back ..... combined lunar and solar gravity maybe? Or a distant stellar event?

[gew98]

Is that the on in which the rear of the bolt bloke off? I've recently read on another thread about a cocking piece hitting the shooter in the eye but I can't find it again. Is that the same incident do you know or a different one? I seem remember the shooter loosing an eye or was it that he had to have shards removed from his eye? I can see how urban myths develop - I read a thread in which an eye incident is described then my memory fails and I think and say an eye was lost. Next it'll be a death! So I've got to find that thread and straighten my facts.:coffeecom

Oh, there is argument that a ruptured primer could not have driven the striker and half bolt back ..... combined lunar and solar gravity maybe? Or a distant stellar event?

In all my years of shooting I have experianced two cockpieces sent rearward like a projectile. Both using surplus 30-06 cartridges , and two different issue 03's. First one snapped the weak two peice firing pin and sent it into my little brothers face..about looked like mike tyson popped him a good one on the right cheeck adjacent to the eye !. Second example firing from the hip the cockpiece went through my sleeve and into the brush. I've had my fill of those uber awesome buck rogers bolt guns called 03's. Won't own another except for a wall hanger.

[gew98]

And the movie you saw this in was....

Most of the losses in WW1 were caused by Machine Guns, Artillery and Mines. Not sure Grand Dad ever mentioned how useful his SMLE rifle was once they got to the Huns trenches though he did indicate his shovel was in his hands a lot along with his rifle with bayonet of course. He didn't talk a lot about the four years he spent in the Army back in the day. Grandma told me Grand Dad often woke up in the middle of the night sweating and yelling. I never asked many questions after that. When I did he just had a far off look. He survived Vimy and the other actions the Canadian Corp was involved in while there. He did mention the pink mist more than once though and the terrible conditions of the trenches.

We remember a day in April and of course Nov. 11

Take Care

Bob

Robert I can commiserate. I knew an ancient old aussie whom spoke some of his time in the great war...and his most fantastic exploit was to be winged ( barely a nick ) exiting a trench only to be accidentally bayoneted by the buddy coning up behind him as he fell ( not so much a nick there ) !. My grandfather served in the AEF and never had much to say except he had no love for the "kroop-steel" that peirced his chest and caused him 6 months in hospital not knowing if he would live long enough to make it home after the war ended. His one common lament was he lost everything including his ameture camera. He was an avid "ameture" photographer as well as a mechanic back then. I still have most of the pictures he took in Fort Hancock NJ ( Sandy Hook ) before he went over.
Remember how the tommies nicknamed the RAMC = Royal Army Medical Corps as "Rob All My Comrades " .

[303Guy]

What drove the cocking pieces out? Pierced primers?

The fellow I'm talking about says he examined the cartridges (he fired several that day) and all were OK. No pierced primer! He didn't say no pierced primer, just that they were OK. They were factory ammo - he didn't say which.

[Multigunner]

Is that the one in which the rear of the bolt bloke off? I've recently read on another thread about a cocking piece hitting the shooter in the eye but I can't find it again. Is that the same incident do you know or a different one? I seem remember the shooter loosing an eye or was it that he had to have shards removed from his eye? I can see how urban myths develop - I read a thread in which an eye incident is described then my memory fails and I think and say an eye was lost. Next it'll be a death! So I've got to find that thread and straighten my facts.:coffeecom
Just the cocking piece with the shaft of the firing pin, which broke off behind the collar. IIRC the cocking piece barely missed the eye , impacting the face. No permanent damage was done.



Oh, there is argument that a ruptured primer could not have driven the striker and half bolt back ..... combined lunar and solar gravity maybe? Or a distant stellar event?
Haven't read of the broken bolt incident you mentioned. If the bolt fractured behind the locking lugs then there would be nothing to prevent or slow down rearward movement.
With the rear of the bolt broken off it would not take much pressure to propel it back wards.

The gas escape port is pretty big, but cold flow brass might block it momentarily.

[303Guy]

Well, I've found the thread about the bolt that broke behind the locking lugs. The shooter says he's examined the fired cases and they're all fine. He did say the first one felt like an overload. The second one shattered the bolt. Factory ammo! He said it felt like there was something wrong when he chambered the second round but saw nothing. It would seem that the bolt may have cracked on the first round.

If there was no gas leakage then what could have driven the broken bolt rearwards? Recoil load plus vibration on shattering?

[Multigunner]

And the movie you saw this in was....

Bob

Read a history book now and then.
At Belleau wood Marines were making kills on German machine gunners at ranges of 800 yards or more in some cases. Every time a German MG opened up its crew would be dead within seconds.
As for close in hand to hand fighting, that's where the USMC earned the nick name "Devil Dogs". The Germans gave the USMC that nickname and German reports on the battle praised USMC marksmanship.
Later General Pershing stated that the most deadly thing on earth was a U S Marine and his rifle.

In peacetime international competitions they had bayonet matches. The British always lost to the Japanese teams. The USN developed a more refined method and before WW2 they beat all comers including the Japanese teams. The USN instructors trained the USMC.
Unlike the Army, which adopted French methods, the bayonet fighting method used by the Navy and USMC was developed by a gentleman who was both a championship boxer and international master of the sword.

[Multigunner]

Well, I've found the thread about the bolt that broke behind the locking lugs. The shooter says he's examined the fired cases and they're all fine. He did say the first one felt like an overload. The second one shattered the bolt. Factory ammo! He said it felt like there was something wrong when he chambered the second round but saw nothing. It would seem that the bolt may have cracked on the first round.

If there was no gas leafage then what could have driven the broken bolt rearwards? Recoil load plus vibration on shattering?

Could have been the preload pressure on the firing pin, freed when the bolt broke. Shouldn't have given much velocity though.
Sounds like the action was loose as a goose to allow all that to happen.

Could have been result of very oily chamber. Oily or rain wet chambers have cause action body cracks.

[303Guy]

Well he had fired off a number of cast boolit loads which could conceivably have left lube in the throat and chamber but that would be a far cry from wet or oily.

This oily or wet rounds breaking things is a puzzle. A separated case head and excess headspace puts maximum loads onto the bolt face and in the case of head separation basically nothing happens. Excess headspace steadily hammers the bolt further back at an accelerating rate until the bolt jambs, yet wet or oily cases breaks something! That water or oil is causing excess pressure somehow.

P.S. I wish I had the capacity to read a lot. That and to remember what I've read!

[303carbine]

Well he had fired off a number of cast boolit loads which could conceivably have left lube in the throat and chamber but that would be a far cry from wet or oily.

This oily or wet rounds breaking things is a puzzle. A separated case head and excess headspace puts maximum loads onto the bolt face and in the case of head separation basically nothing happens. Excess headspace steadily hammers the bolt further back at an accelerating rate until the bolt jambs, yet wet or oily cases breaks something! That water or oil is causing excess pressure somehow.

P.S. I wish I had the capacity to read a lot. That and to remember what I've read!

Oily rounds probably cause high pressure because the case does not seal in the chamber properly pushing the bolt back and pressure up.

[303Guy]

I have speculated that the oil floats the fired cartridge causing it to wedge rearward. Also, I wondered whether the compressed oil gets atomized as it gets injected into the throat area behind the bullet where it burns in the free oxygen available, adding to the pressure. Or maybe oil or water is simply vaporized after injection thereby increasing pressure. Maybe it's a combination of the above plus the fact that there is no case wall grip which would normally carry up to 10% of the thrust.

[Multigunner]

Liquids, like water or oil, are "incompressible", same would apply to melted grease or wax lubes.
When a layer of liquid is held between case neck and chamber neck by capillary action this prevents the neck from releasing the bullet cleanly, greatly increasing pressure. The effect is the same as the loaded case neck being too large for a proper fit in the chamber.
The added effect of the case walls not gripping the chamber wall would also increase hammering of the bolt face and bolt body. The greater the head gap the higher the velocity of that hammering action. The case head would have a longer period of acceleration.

The action body is of a nickel steel alloy that offers some resistance to deformation, yet even the action body can crack at the rivet holes for the charger bridge or at the hole for the ejector screw.
The No.4 action body that failed proof often cracked at the relief cut for the bolt release plunger. The No.4 MkI* with the bolt track cut out release was less likely to fail proof, at least when re-proofed for the 7.62 NATO conversions.
When a action body or bolt of any type of bolt action cracks its most often at a sharp cornered cut or hole. Same has happened with some modern auto pistol slides and frame rails. They forgot the hard earned lesson that corners should have a small radius to avoid cracking under stress.
Some FN rifles had this problem with the left hand lug only, the early production Glock .40 had this problem due to one of the machines that made frame rails having always made the corners too sharp but this never having affected the 9mm models , only being brought out by the more powerful .40 chambering.

Only found specs for the SMLE action body steel, the bolts are made from a different alloy and heatreated differently. Like as not the broken bolt was substandard to begin with but this only showed up in this unusual circumstance.
It may well have had microscopic cracking from its first proof test firing with an oiled proof cartridge, the crack spreading very slowly over many later firings but too narrow to be seen by the naked eye.
Metal fatique of the bolt body could be the proper term for causation, exacerbated by a greasy chamber.

[303Guy]

Thank you Multigunner. OK, I did say compressed when meaning pressurized but did so because any solid or liquid does in fact get 'compressed' or deformed under load but not in the same sense as a gas - my bad. Anyway, what you have said makes way better sense to me than my theory - that the liquid is being forced forward into the small neck area preventing proper neck expansion to release the bullet! I have observed how lube on a case disappears on firing. The case goes in lubed and comes out dry! And that's a minimal amount of lube (applied to deliberately prevent case wall grip in a hornet in an action strong enough for the 222 with pressures as high as the 222).

I've seen evidence of that hammering from excess headspace. The lug recess bearing faces on the body peened so badly as to jamb the bolt!

On an aside, would you have come across any authoritative references on the Auzzie 7.62 conversion trials on SMLE's? My understanding that the steel used on SMLE's was EN19 (4140) from the mid 1920's onwards. I also read somewhere that the bolt body was made from the same steel but heat treated differently or something (SMLE's).

I have a 1896 MLE that has suffered wear on the inner lug recess bearing face with none on the out bearing face. The bolt is not original and bears on the outer face only so I can only imagine that the original bolt wore unevenly.

[303carbine]

When I full length resize brass, I always take a rag with alcohol on it and remove any remaining case lube. I clean the chamber with an alcohol swab on my cleaning rod to make sure any cases that were just fired didn't leave any oil or other residue in the barrel or chamber. A dry patch is run through to remove any alcohol or other cleaners.
I know that cases with lube still on them when fired is a bad thing, I take precautions so that doesn't happen. Neck sizing is what I do mostly, so case lube is not a problem.

[303Guy]

Mmm... well I'm going to shock you - I always lube my loaded cases!:shock: So far the world hasn't come to an end. ;-) I did approach this with caution as I do most things when the blood isn't rushing into my head - that happens down here because we are on the bottom of the world so we are upside down and that causes the blood to rush into our heads and makes us do crazy things!:mrgreen:

I'm not suggesting that everyone should rush out and start doing what I do but what I've figured is that a small amount of lube actually reduces the shock load on the bolt face by allowing the case to settle onto it more gradually and earlier in the pressure rise phase, thereby reducing shock loading. Another thing I have found is that light lubing does not prevent case grip on the chamber walls but rather spreads the load over the length of the case body, preventing plastic deformation at the web which leads to case head separation. That's why I get indefinite case life. I must emphasize that I use a light lubrication. Not too much! Also, I load to moderate pressures.

Another theory about lubing loaded cases is that it produces a more consistent chamber to case friction condition. It's an untested theory (didn't see the need since I was getting good accuracy already and besides, I didn't want to ruin good cases). Your cleaning the cases and chamber would have the same effect on consistency.

By the way, I wouldn't lube polished cases in a polished chamber. Polishing cases has about the same effect.

[Multigunner]

Some are still under the impression that oiling cartridges is a good practice because the regulations for musketry mention ammunition being "oiled in the service manner". They never get far enough into these books to find out that the "service manner" was to take a fannel rag lightly moistened with a very thin light oil and rub down the cartridge then set it aside till the microscopic thin coating was dry to the touch. This was intended as a preservative to reduce formation of verdigris in damp conditions rather than to lube the cases.
In dusty environments no oiling was done, since oil attracts and holds dust.
A microscopic layer of dried up thin preservative oil has no lubrication effect under such pressures. Preservative oils contain varnish like materials, when dry to the touch they block contact between metal and air. Some preservative oils can gum up an action if used as a lubricant, heat and pressure harden the residue.
After polishing the exterior of a cartridge case I rub it down with a rag moistened with WD-40 or Liquid wrench , then wipe with a dry cloth. The cases feel fairly slick, mainly due to the polished surface, but never feel oily.
This lack of lubrication effect under pressure is why you shouldn't try to use thin oils when resizing a case. Resizing lubes and bullet lubes are formulated to retain lubrication properties under great pressure.

[meeesterpaul]

What do you think of dry teflon lubes? I've been using it on 45 Colt levergun and revolvers. Besides not holding burnt powder the cases drop out of the revolver like they were undersized to begin with. With the straight walled cartridge I wouldn't expect the same hazard of a lubed necked cartridge in the rifle.

[303Guy]

That's interesting. My finding with a lightly lubed case (with high viscosity, really sticky and slippery stuff) is that a case that is hard to chamber comes out freely after firing, almost as though the fire-forming process has reduced the oversize. Ummm ... I'm not suggesting anyone should do as I do! But if and when my practice kills me I'll let y'all know.;-) I do load to lower pressures though and my chamber is not polished and neither are my cases. The unpolished chamber is the key. Do not polish the chamber and lube the cases. It's one or the other, not both together. That's important.

With my practice I observe that the case neck does not move in the chamber on firing and that there is elastic elongation spread over the length of the case body as evidenced by the little scratch lines left on the case being longest at the case base and shortest at just behind the shoulder.

Dry teflon lubes? I believe they do the same as my light lubing practice. Same with drying wax case lubes.

[Multigunner]

I do load to lower pressures though and my chamber is not polished and neither are my cases. The unpolished chamber is the key. Do not polish the chamber and lube the cases. It's one or the other, not both together. That's important.
The rough surface gives the incompressible lube some place to go, with high spots in the surface still gripping the case a bit.

The old Black Powder cartridges usually spread a bit of bullet lube back into the chamber, with the lower pressures and gritty fouling of BP along with the straight sided cases this wasn't a big problem.

With case neck and chamber neck its important that there be sufficient clearance. Most old milsurp rifles weren't that well cleaned and hard fouling accumulated in the chamber necks. This fouling was usually a mix of carbon and atomized lead from the open base of FMJ bullets. Chamber pressure could push fouling back around the case neck before it fully sealed. You can sometimes see this in sooty looking case necks if using low pressure loads, In full pressure loads that soot is ironed into layers that sooner or later begin to constrict the case neck.
In BP days cavalry using Spencer breech loading repeating carbines were issued a bronze reamer like tool to scrape away accumulated fouling which could build up quickly in battlefield conditions.

When I detail clean a chamber I use a slotted and saw toothed brass tube with edges spread to scrape away hardened fouling.
I file the teeth on the open end and cut the slots down each side at an angle. Each pass I spread the edges again so there's a small amount of spring pressure. The brass can't bite steel but it peels away fouling in thin streamers when soaked with solvent and in powdery stuff that looks like scrapings from a pencil lead if dry.
When you reach the steel surface you can tell because the teeth just slide without resistance.

[303Guy]

That bolt I mentioned that broke behind the lugs, the photo showed a broken firing pin still in the forward bolt section. What could possibly have cause this event? Another board specializing in military guns and has resident ex-spurts has declared that the event could not happen and therefore did not happen and are basically burying there heads in the sand so that it will go away - they even locked the thread. It was a level headed, cool and calm discussion! Anyway, the point is these guys have never heard of something like this, let alone a cocking piece being being pushed back more than onto half-cock from a pierced primer and in this particular incident didn't have a pierced primer. Any thoughts?

Multigunner, it seems unlikely to me that the lead from the bullet base would get atomized. However, lead from the primer compound would be on the menu would it not?

[Multigunner]

Multigunner, it seems unlikely to me that the lead from the bullet base would get atomized. However, lead from the primer compound would be on the menu would it not?
The hotter the propellant gas a gas velocity the more lead would be washed from the base.
The amount per shot is tiny, but when atomized metallic powders mix with high temperature products of combustion the mixture is many times the volume of the metallic component. Even then it takes thousands of shots for even a tissue thin layer to form in the neck.
You are correct in that lead and other primer components, including barium salts and in some older primers ground glass, end up in the mix as well.
Ground glass used in the earlier Mercuric primers was a major cause of worn bores of Black powder cartridge guns, the atomized glass being borne along by the lead bullet as if lead lapping.
Another component would be Graphite used in manufacturing some powders, and calcium compounds used to absorb products of decomposition and potassium compounds as flash suppressants in most military rifle powders.

When you look at an FMJ bullet open base you'll often seen tiny dimples where powder granules are driven against the bullet base before being consumed, this peening obscures the otherwise gas washed appearance.
The Cordite cartridges with their over the charge wad may have allowed less exposure of the base to the propellant gases. Some BP cartridges also used over the charge card wads, that like the later gas checks, protected the bullet base.

When the .303 FMJ bullets were first developed they found that simple bore friction alone could liquefy the outer surface of the lead core if the jacket was not thick enough. Though I suspect blowby contributed to that.
In one experiment they drilled a tiny hole in the jacket near the base and the target was marked by a spiral of atomized lead when the bullet passed through it.
Heating of the core to a partial liquid state causes jacket striping, and in the case of early .220 Swift loads the bullet could disintegrate in mid air due to rotational forces.

[gew98]

Multi....... please do elaborate on liqufied lead cores of ANY rifle bullets...sounds like you've been at the trough too long on that one. I've read and own many many books over the years and that has yet to come up somehow. The early jacketed rifle bullets of german , franc eand England were cariations of cupronickel alloys which deposited fouling in the bores causing a wad of problems until the right alloy's vs bore diameters and taking in account velocities were worked out .
220 swift and 22-250 can drive bullets so fast they disentigrate from uber high velocity whcih causes bullet yaw to "explode" bullets not far from the muzzles. Nothing to do with molten lead syndrome or whatever an engineer may tag it to explain what they an't understand.

[robertbank]

Lead is a very poor conductor of heat. There is no way lead is going to melt in the brief time it is exposed to gases from the ignition of the cartridge to the exiting from the barrel. The best example I can give you to ask you to pass your hand through a candle flame. Take the temperature of the flame. You won't burn yourself if you simply wave your hand through the flame. Now think of the milliseconds the bullet spends in the barrel. Gas cutting occurs... lead melting...I don't think so.

Take care

Bob

[303Guy]

Lead is a very poor conductor of heat.That's why it could conceivably melt. Friction heating of the jacket could melt a very thin layer of lead directly under it. Friction from jacket to bore as well hot gas blow-by. I have no knowledge about this, I'm just saying it might happen under certain conditions.

Bullet base peening is real for sure. If we handle a cast boolit with our fingers a minute amount rubs off onto our fingers so why not minute amounts getting peened off by high pressure, high temperature burning powder?

Some folks have said the exposed lead nose of a soft point spitzer gets eroded away in flight. I don't remember if that was proved or not. High speed photo's would tell us one way or the other.

Oh, just the pressure of acceleration would heat the bullet some and all the way through. Stopping it suddenly melts the core for sure!

[savagetactical]

There is an old adage concerning bolt actions. The Mauser is a hunting rifle, the Springfield is a Target Rifle and the Enfield is a Battle Rifle. I am paraphrasing of course but I have found that to be more or less accurate. FWIW the strongest action that came from the WWII era was the Arisaka they too a far greater degree of punishment in many of PO Ackley's tests than any other action he tested. The Enfield Action even one made of modern steel is not one I would prefer to hotrod.

[Multigunner]

Lead is a very poor conductor of heat. There is no way lead is going to melt in the brief time it is exposed to gases from the ignition of the cartridge to the exiting from the barrel. The best example I can give you to ask you to pass your hand through a candle flame. Take the temperature of the flame. You won't burn yourself if you simply wave your hand through the flame.
Bob

Put you hand over the muzzle of a .303 and fire a round through it, then let us know if any remaining flesh on the hand shows burn marks.

Things happen very differently inside a gun barrel compared to open air.
I don't expect to convince you so I suggest you look up some online Forensic ballistics texts, there are several with high quality images that should alter your mind set a bit.

From "the Book of the Rifle" T F Freemantle (Lord Cottesloe) 1901



90 THE BOOK OF THE RIFLE


One difficulty connected with the bullet gave some little
trouble at first. The heat set up by the friction of the bullet
on the bore is very considerable. It was found with the ex-
perimental ammunition first made for the .303 that the first
shot fired from a clean barrel was never seen or heard of
again, while, when once the barrel had been fouled, the rifle
shot satisfactorily. The only reason was that the friction
of the bullet in being passed up the barrel developed heat
enough to melt that part of the leaden core which lay next
to it. Apparently the deposit from a shot previously fired
was sufficient to reduce this heating effect. The difficulty
was so great that it had to be got over by thickening the
metal envelope of the bullet. It could equally have been
overcome, as Sir Henry Halford pointed out in a lecture
delivered at Aldershot at the time, by inserting a minute
layer of some non-conducting material between the leaden
core and the metal thimble. Some years ago the writer
was trying a series of experiments with various loads of
different smokeless powders, and a bullet of normal make
which gave no trouble. In testing one particular powder at
the ballistic pendulum the shooting was found to be extremely
wild. On firing a series of shots through a cardboard target
at a distance of only 4 or 5 yards, the reason became
evident. Most of the shot holes were seen to be surrounded
by one or more little black cloudy marks, sometimes showing
a spiral inclination, which proved clearly enough that a
spattering of very fine particles of melted lead was escap-
ing from the base of the bullet as it flew. Why the con-
ditions of friction with the deposit of this powder were so
different from those of all other powders used with the same
bullet, it would be very hard to say. Mr. Metford, in investi-
gating the vagaries of the first shot, had been able to see the
bullet in the air surrounded, as it flew, by a little cloud of
melted lead consisting of particles so fine that on recovering
the bullet, and weighing it, it was found to have lost only
one or two grains in weight during a flight of several yards
through the air. He found that if the barrel had been
plentifully greased the friction was so far diminished that the
first shot did not melt.

This was not the experiment with hole drilled in the jacket, but the effect was much the same.
The flame temperature of smokless powders are several times that of the melting point of lead. Under the pressures of over 40,000 CUP that gas transfers heat very quicky and the gas washed base looses a thin layer very evenly in a ablative action, the material washed away carries away heat , like the heat shield of the old space capsules.

PS
At the risk of confusing some further, fouling in a firearm is whatever was not converted into a gas and blown out the muzzle.
The card wad of the MkVII and similar Cordite loaded cartridges vitrifies rather than burns because the propellant only produces as much oxygen as it consumes, and you can't melt paper. If there's not enough oxygen particles that would otherwise burn remain as a soot or as a baked on sludge. Whatever escapes the muzzle while still at a flash temperature adds to the muzzle flash when it reaches atmosphere. The mineral jelly and other non energetic ingredients left behind combine much like the pigments and fillers in lead based paints. When baked on this leaves a layer much harder to remove with solvents than most realize.
When allowed to build up over years of hard service then left for decades in storage normal chamber cleaning methods will barely touch the surface.

The Garand, being an auto loader that depends on a reasonable clean chamber for reliability was issued with a sturdy chamber brush with ratchet collar for regular cleaning.
The little chamber cleaning stick with flannel rag used with the Enfield is unlikely to remove much if any fouling from the chamber neck.
Some Enfields I've cleaned had shown little expansion at the shoulder of fired cases till a huge amount of tightly compacted fouling was removed from the chamber at the shoulder and neck, then the full depth of the shoulder clearance could be seen on fired cases.

[robertbank]

Explain to us all why plastic shotgun wads don't melt in the barrel of shotguns. While you are doing that perhaps you can explain why plastic shotgun shells don't melt in the chamber of guns. Both have much lower melting points then lead. Or perhaps they do, I have lost track of why any of this matters. The Enfield was a better battle rifle than the 03 and the P 17 rifle was the rifle carried by the majority of your troops including Sgt. York, in WW! with apologies to the Hollywood film of the same title that erroneously placed an 03 in his hands.

Based upon the authors comments lead bullets driven to speeds of 2100fps should simply melt before they leave the barrel or is it the heat generated from the friction generated by the jacket that melts the lead core. Sorry your quote is an interesting read with convenient conclusions. The same black ring is found at 50 yards when shooting lead bullets. Are we to believe the lead is still melting off the bullet at 50 and even 100 yards.

The photo is a target shot with my Longbranch at 100 yards using Lymans 314299 boolit. The rifle is scoped.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a387/robertbank/100ydswiththeLongbranch001.jpg

The rifle

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a387/robertbank/002-1.jpg

The boolit

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a387/robertbank/003-2.jpg


If he had placed another target down range of his first target he would have fond his melting had stopped as the grease ring would have been absent. We see this at IDPA matches all the time. Try the experiment yourself. Shoot through two cardboard targets. You will find a grease ring around the first bullet hole and none in the next.

Take Care

Bob

[303carbine]

I believe Alvin York's rifle was a standard 1903 Springfield, not an 03a3 which wasn't around till around 1942 or so.

[robertbank]

I believe Alvin York's rifle was a standard 1903 Springfield, not an 03a3 which wasn't around till around 1942 or so.

Sorry about the nomenclature error. I corrected my post. It was a P 17 in York's hand not a 1903 Springfield as was shown in the Hollywood film. Look it up. The P 17 was the predominant rifle used by American troops on WW1.

Take Care

Bob

[Multigunner]

Explain to us all why plastic shotgun wads don't melt in the barrel of shotguns. While you are doing that perhaps you can explain why plastic shotgun shells don't melt in the chamber of guns. Both have much lower melting points then lead.
They don't melt in the bore because plastic generates very little friction. They don't melt in the chamber because the plastic is picked to be heat resistant, plus the chamber pressure of a shot shell is a fraction of that of a high powered rifle and spread over a much greater area so heat transfer is reduced. Even then I've seen many spent shotcups that exhibited some heat deformation and scoring.
According to this site
http://gunsoftheoldwest.com/2013/02/loading-shotshells/2/
Those same plastic cups will melt when used with Black Powder, so standard shotshell powders must burn cooler than BP and far cooler than most rifle powders.

As for why it matters , I simply wished to explain a possible cause of excessive pressures in some rifles.
I discovered this for myself when standard pressure ammo fired in my No.4 exhibited flattened and cratered primers. After using the scraper I mentioned the same ammo never again showed a flattened primer much less a cratered primer.

Since the subject of neck clearance commonly comes up on this board I would expect most understand what I'm getting at. Its simple, if you know anything about powder fouling.
There are threads on this board with very clear images of differing levels of gas washing of the bases of un checked lead Boolits when different loads are used, so others certainly know something about that as well.

If you aren't getting cratered primers don't worry about it.
Enough members here have found just how hard it is to get this sort of hard baked carbon out of a bore and chamber. Those who have never run across that situation can count themselves lucky.

[robertbank]

Read a history book now and then.
At Belleau wood Marines were making kills on German machine gunners at ranges of 800 yards or more in some cases. Every time a German MG opened up its crew would be dead within seconds.
As for close in hand to hand fighting, that's where the USMC earned the nick name "Devil Dogs". The Germans gave the USMC that nickname and German reports on the battle praised USMC marksmanship.
Later General Pershing stated that the most deadly thing on earth was a U S Marine and his rifle.

In peacetime international competitions they had bayonet matches. The British always lost to the Japanese teams. The USN developed a more refined method and before WW2 they beat all comers including the Japanese teams. The USN instructors trained the USMC.
Unlike the Army, which adopted French methods, the bayonet fighting method used by the Navy and USMC was developed by a gentleman who was both a championship boxer and international master of the sword.

Maybe you should change books. American troops in strength were only in the war for about four months due to American isolation policies. Here is a more apt description of your General Pershing, who like many of his age and rank survived more on ego than brains.

" Pershing, American Expeditionary Force (AEF) commander, resisted breaking up American units and using them as reinforcements for British Empire and French units. Without experience in this type of warfare, Pershing ordered the use of frontal assaults, which had been discarded by that time by British Empire and French commanders as too costly in lives of their troops. As a result, the AEF suffered a very high rate of casualties in its operations in the summer and fall of 1918."

Pershing wasn't the worst General of the War. So many young brave men sacrificed for nothing more than to satisfy some General's ego. A quote applied to British officers and men of the day could be attached to some of the American Generals as well, "Lions led by donkeys".

Here is a read you might find interesting.

http://pages.interlog.com/~fatjack/last100days.htm

and this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%27s_Hundred_Days

and lastly this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Currie

Take Care

Bob

[Multigunner]

Who cares how long U S troops were in combat, the Marines did an outstanding job as long as they were in combat, and every source I've seen has made note of the extreme accuracy of USMC marksmen of that era.
After Belleau Wood The Germans declared Six Divisions involved in that battle as unfit for further combat.

Two or more United States National Guard divisions fought under direct British Command.
These troops wore U S uniforms and web gear but carried the SMLE rifle
A negro division served under French command, they used French rifles and possibly French uniforms.

US Commanders were reluctant to put any more US troops under Foreign command because of the ridiculously high casualty rates of the previous years with little or no ground changing hands.
The French wanted US troops as Cannon Fodder and the British were already using their own troops as cannon fodder. Resulting in Mutinies and executions.
One British General liked to execute men and hang their bodies on meat hooks if they dozed on guard duty. he later became the commander of the Black and Tans in Ireland and was court martialed for murdering civilians.

over 60 thousand Australians learned the hard way just how much the British valued non British lives. [edited to correct typo]

Now back to bullet blow ups.
This from the Berger Bullets site.


While more hunters were learning about how well our bullets work on game, we were wrestling with a completely different situation that had nothing to do with hunting but would affect our entire line.

For decades, our bullets have been growing very popular among target competition shooters. The vast majority of those who used our bullets were happy with the results. On a few occasions, a competition shooter would be shooting a string, doing very well and unexpectedly a fired shot would come up as a miss. When a top level shooter is pouring bullets into the 10 ring and for no obvious reason the next shot is a miss, it is clear that something bad just happened and we needed to find out what so we could prevent it from happening again.

As it turns out, the bullets were heating up to the point where the cores would actually melt. Once a bullet leaves the barrel with a melted core, it is certain that the molten lead will burst through the jacket under such high RPM. Obviously this was a problem that we needed to resolve, so we decided to test a thicker jacket. Making the jacket thicker did not make it strong enough to contain molten lead; but rather, it moved the lead away from the source of the heat. The source of the heat that can melt a core is the friction between the bearing surface and the rifling as the bullet travels through the barrel.

The thicker jacket was a complete success. Since its introduction, we have received no reports of a bullet failing to reach the target unless extreme circumstances were present (very rough bore, excessively high velocity case far beyond even the largest standard case, or improper loading practices which damaged the bullet before it was fired). Resolving this issue presented us with an important question. Now that we are making bullets on thicker jackets, do we need to make the original thickness jacket anymore?


http://www.bergerbullets.com/history-of-the-match-grade-berger-hunting-vld/
They basically just rediscovered a phenomena that others had wrestled with early in the development of jacketed bullets. As velocities increase each generation seems to have rediscovered core meltdown and bullet blow up.

Where this ties into the question of blown out Enfields is the "wedding ring" phenomena British target shooters had to deal with when the MkIV bullet was the standard issue for a short while.
This tubular jacket open nose and open base bullet worked fine until a rifle began to show any erosion of the throat and or roughening of the bore. Then cores would melt and blow through leaving the jackets stuck in the bore.
A British book on developments at the end of the 19th century has a section on target shooting at Bisley . In this section they quote marksmen and gunsmiths on the sad situation of dozens of .303 rifles ending up destroyed by the ammunition supplied one year by the British government. The Gunsmith stated that for months the major work at his firm had been the replacement of Lee Enfield action bodies "Cracked Through" by this defective ammunition.
At about the same time a British non com suffered a badly mutilated hand when the right side receiver wall broke away and the bolt was blown back to rip up his hand. That's even mentioned in the records of the British Parliament.
I've read of this same sort of tublar jacket bullet having been marketed in recent years, with the result of at least one shooter losing an eye.
The surplus MkIV and other tube jacket bullets were sold as surplus when the Hague Convention banned hollow point bullets for war. These ended up on the civilian market.
I also ran across a Canadian government appropriation for funds to remanufacture .303 ammunition gifted to Canada by Britian the ammo having been found to be unsafe to fire. No explanation as to the defect there.
In any case all military rifles ran a risk of bad lots of ammunition.

[robertbank]

Who cares how long U S troops were in combat, the Marines did an outstanding job as long as they were in combat, and every source I've seen has made note of the extreme accuracy of USMC marksmen of that era.
After Belleau Wood The Germans declared Six Divisions involved in that battle as unfit for further combat.

Two or more United States National Guard divisions fought under direct British Command.
These troops wore U S uniforms and web gear but carried the SMLE rifle
A negro division served under French command, they used French rifles and possibly French uniforms.

US Commanders were reluctant to put any more US troops under Foreign command because of the ridiculously high casualty rates of the previous years with little or no ground changing hands.
The French wanted US troops as Cannon Fodder and the British were already using their own troops as cannon fodder. Resulting in Mutinies and executions.
One British General liked to execute men and hang their bodies on meat hooks if they dozed on guard duty. he later became the commander of the Black and Tans in Ireland and was court martialed for murdering civilians.

over 600 thousand Australians learned the hard way just how much the British valued non British lives.

Pershing ignored warnings from both the French and British Generals about using frontal attacks against the trenches defended by machine guns and went on to emulate the fate of British, French and Canadian losses of the previous two years with the same gains.

The Australians lost 62,000 dead and 152,000 wounded during the war not 600,000. Canada lost 67,000 dead and 150,000 wounded. Your comment as to how much the British though of the troops from Australia and Canada is, well ill informed to say the least. The US lost 117,000 dead and 207,000 wounded in about four months. It would seem the American Generals weren't a great deal smarter than their peers when it came to sacrificing men. The carnage came to an end with the rapid advance of the Allies offensive action during the summer/fall of 1918.

The Brits were not the only folks with indifferent Generals. Read up on the efforts of at least one of your Generals on the last day of the war. You won't be impressed.

The common thread among those who participated was the valour and sacrifice given so freely by those who will be forever young.

Take Care

Bob

[savagetactical]

Not to be argumentative Bob but its a well known fact that the British and French lost pretty much the best part of a generation of men during the Great War due to their Generals Incompetency. Plus they had been going at it since 1914. Its a well known fact that US manpower tipped the balance in the favor of the Allies. Had the US not chosen to enter the war the British and French were very close to suing for peace with the Germans.

[robertbank]

Not to be argumentative Bob but its a well known fact that the British and French lost pretty much the best part of a generation of men during the Great War due to their Generals Incompetency. Plus they had been going at it since 1914. Its a well known fact that US manpower tipped the balance in the favor of the Allies. Had the US not chosen to enter the war the British and French were very close to suing for peace with the Germans.

The threat of more US troops on the Battle field tipped the scales however, Germany was beaten badly by the offensive of 1918 and could not have continued. US troops play a role at the end. I don't know where you get the information regarding the Brits and French being ready to sue for peace without the US involvement. Sounds like something you would have read in an American article. Most of the conjecture that followed the end of the war arose from the fact the allies didn't fight on into Germany. Pershing to his credit wanted to while the British and French were not prepared to continue the needless slaughter.

The high casualties involved in the first three years of the war occurred, in the main from lack of experience by the British Generals with dealing with trench warfare. Pershing ignored their warnings about the use of frontal attacks and young American men paid the ultimate price.

The Canadians under Sir Arthur Currie, a Canadian General, at Vimy, were the first Army to involve all troops into the information base prior to an attack. Currie used the moving barrage of artillery and heavy machine gun fire to win the day. He was meticulous in his planning and according to PM Lloyd George's memoirs would have succeeded Haig as Commander of the British Armies in France had the war entered 1919. Haig used Canadian Corp as storm troopers to complete the breakout leading in the end to the capture on Mons where it all started four years previous. The first and last British soldier that died in the war fell within 100 yards of each other and are buried in a cemetery at Mons next to each other. The Canadian liberation of Mons came on the last days of the war and caused some controversy after the war. The last 100 days are documented in one of the links I posted earlier.

Take Care

Bob
ps the development of the tank spelled the end of trench warfare and led to the advances into the German lines in the summer of 1918.

[EDG]

Mostly Pershing refused to allow US troops to be subjected to being replacements in the ranks commanded by the stupid English and French officers. The same officers that managed to fight so long without deciding anything.


Maybe you should change books. American troops in strength were only in the war for about four months due to American isolation policies. Here is a more apt description of your General Pershing, who like many of his age and rank survived more on ego than brains.

" Pershing, American Expeditionary Force (AEF) commander, resisted breaking up American units and using them as reinforcements for British Empire and French units. Without experience in this type of warfare, Pershing ordered the use of frontal assaults, which had been discarded by that time by British Empire and French commanders as too costly in lives of their troops. As a result, the AEF suffered a very high rate of casualties in its operations in the summer and fall of 1918."

Pershing wasn't the worst General of the War. So many young brave men sacrificed for nothing more than to satisfy some General's ego. A quote applied to British officers and men of the day could be attached to some of the American Generals as well, "Lions led by donkeys".

Here is a read you might find interesting.

http://pages.interlog.com/~fatjack/last100days.htm

and this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%27s_Hundred_Days

and lastly this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Currie

Take Care

Bob

[303carbine]

Sorry about the nomenclature error. I corrected my post. It was a P 17 in York's hand not a 1903 Springfield as was shown in the Hollywood film. Look it up. The P 17 was the predominant rifle used by American troops on WW1.

Take Care

Bob

That's what I read somewhere too, I was going on an article that his son was saying that Alvin used a Springfield. I guess you can't believe eveything on the interweb eh!!:shock:

[robertbank]

Mostly Pershing refused to allow US troops to be subjected to being replacements in the ranks commanded by the stupid English and French officers. The same officers that managed to fight so long without deciding anything.

Your view of the war up until the late involvement of the US lacks substance. The stupid General Officers you refer to were officers of that generation and were no different than the stupid General Officers that arrived from the US. You might want to look up some of the events that occurred on the last day of the war. One of your genius US Generals decided to take a small Belgium town on the other side of a river from his troops. If I remember correctly 1500 died taking a town on Nov 17th when, had he waited 24 hours, his troops could have walked in unopposed. He was told of the timing of the armistice prior to the attack. I believe your Congress investigated this event after the war. Such was the desire for glory of getting just one more fight in the books of his resume.

One of the last soldiers to die on the war was Canadian Private George Lawrence Price, two minutes before the armistice took effect. He was killed by a sniper while walking near a bridge in Mons, Belgium. The city had been liberated just days earlier. He is buried in a cemetery in Mons. Perhaps his death reflects the mindlessness of wars of any kind.

Read the links I provided and you might get a better sense of the slaughter of WW1.

Take Care

Bob
The arrival of the Tank and its effective use on the Battlefield in the summer of 1918 effectively ended Trench warfare and tipped the balance in the allies favour.

[Multigunner]

Bob we all know that Pershing was a douche, though also in many ways a military genius with an overall excellent record. Neither has one whit to do with the proven fact that USMC marksmanship ay Belleau Wood was recognized as astounding by enemy and ally alike.
Also the French at least recognized that the action at Belleau Wood saved Paris in its darkest hour of the war.
America entered the war late perhaps, but fact is it simply wasn't our fight till the Germans made it our fight by preying on American shipping. Even then U-boat depredations went on for years with many American sailors and passengers killed before our entrance into the war became unavoidable.
Between wars the U S Military of that era was relatively weak, standing armies in peacetime were anathema and warned against in our constitution. That's why National Guard units rather than full time professional soldiers were always the first into battle when wars were finally declared.
The USN on the other hand was kept at a higher state of readiness since any nation that engaged in international trade had to present a strong naval presence.
The same factors were at work in WW2. At the beginning of WW2 the US had a smaller regular army than Poland. It took years to build an army that could expect to enter that fray, and the US only entered when our territories were attacked by Japan and Hitler declared war on the USA.

I'm sure Poland thought Great Britain entered WW2 rather late.


Canada and Australia were tied to Great Britain by centuries of treaties, yet they had to debate and declare war rather than just automatically toe the line like some third world conscripts.

The US built up huge stockpiles of weapons before committing troops because at that stage everyone expected the war would last for several more years. If not for the Spanish Flu WW1 might have dragged on for another decade.
The manner in which the Spanish Flu killed the young and healthy first (due to cascade of over reaction of strong immune systems) rather than the old and infirm stripped Germany of the civilian support needed to maintain armies in the field.
If not for the failure of Germany's final great push due to troops and their officers dropping like flies at their posts Germany could have sued for peace on terms far more favorable to them than for the allies.
The German troops were starving because there were not enough civilians well enough to harvest and prepare food much less get that food to the front. Troops died in droves from raging fevers and lungs filled with fluid. Even then casualties among the troops due to the pandemic were less than the civilian toll.


And while Pershing may have squandered thousands of lives at the very end of the war British and French generals had piddled away millions of lives without gaining an inch of ground.

Edited to add
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lawrence_Price
The last Canadian to die in WW1 combat was killed in action 2 minutes before the Armistice took effect, maybe his general should be vilified for not sitting on his hands.


Officially over 10,000 men were killed, wounded or went missing on November 11th 1918. The Americans alone suffered over 3,000 casualties. When these losses became public knowledge, such was the anger at home that Congress held a hearing regarding the matter. In November 1919, Pershing faced a House of Representatives Committee on Military Affairs that examined whether senior army commanders had acted accordingly in the last few days of the war. However, no one was ever charged with negligence and Pershing remained unapologetic, remaining convinced that the Germans had got off lightly with the terms of the Armistice. He also stated that although he knew about the timing of the Armistice, he simply did not trust the Germans to carry out their obligations. He therefore, as commander in chief, ordered the army to carry on as it would normally do as any “judicious commander” would have done. Pershing also pointed out that he was merely carrying out the orders of the Allies Supreme Commander, Marshall Ferdinand Foch, that were to “pursue the field greys (Germans) until the last minute”.

So Pershing chose to follow the standing order of the supreme allied command. Maybe he should have defied that order.
Since both British and French commanders sent men to their deaths that final day of the war placing U S troops under their direct control is unlikely to have saved any American lives.

U S industry was vital to an allied victory, that's never been in dispute.

The majority of Gun making machinery and gauges in use by England and throughout Europe was based on the patents of U S inventors.
The majority of British small arms and machineguns were developments of U S inventors. Maxim only became a British citizen in order to further promote his inventions and the Lewis gun was invented by a U S Army officer and improved by BSA. The Lee Enfield of course was based on the Lee rifle invented by James Paris Lee, an American citizen.
The Scopes used by British snipers were a Winchester product.

As for the Lee Enfield as a sniper rifle read "Sniping in France".
The superiority of the P-14, especially those manufactured by Winchester, over the SMLE is noted there and in most sources.
The destructive effect of British MkVII ammunition on the accuracy of the SMLE is also noted.
There were good reasons why British snipers preferred to beg borrow or steal RAF ammunition and MkVIIz MG ammo rather than use the standard issue MkVII ammo.
Destruction of long range accuracy by use of MkVII ammo was so rapid that Snipers were told not to use up precious bore life by taking questionable shots of over four hundred yards. A Scoped SMLE in new condition could make headshots at six hundred yards but that level of precision did not last for long under combat conditions.

The wood of the common infantry SMLE swelled and shrank badly enough that accuracy went out they window after a month in the trenches, and the Mad Minute rapid fire exercises burnt out throats in as little as 500 rounds.

Hesketh Prichard and T F Freemantle were responsible for GB developing sniper schools and scoped sniper rifles, they knew their business.

[Multigunner]

That's what I read somewhere too, I was going on an article that his son was saying that Alvin used a Springfield. I guess you can't believe eveything on the interweb eh!!:shock:
A possible source of confusion there would be that many called any .30-06 rifle a "Springfield" that being the common name for the cartridge IE ".30-06 Springfield".
In records of the Irish LDF of WW2 they list the M1917 lend lease rifle as the ".300 Springfield rifle".

According to York the rifle he used was stolen from his gear while returning to the US on a transport ship.

As for inaccurate props in the Gary cooper film, York did not use a captured Luger. On the day of filming they found they had no Colt 1911 pistol fitted to cycle blank cartridges so they substituted a Luger that was converted to cycle blanks.
Julian Hatcher wrote of several disastrous early attempts to modify the 1911 to cycle blank cartridges for training purposes. They later got it right, but even now some autoloaders require specialized parts to function properly with blanks.

[gew98]

Robert ; You have my sympathies in trying to educate some here on the great war. Only nomenclature glitch I have noted is the US rifle variant of the Patt'14 in cal.30 was designated Model 1917. That anyone would equate genious with Pershings' actions in the great war astounds my common sense and afronts history..... but hey history is written by the victors as they say.
The American negro soldiers given to the french and equipped with lowly french weapons acquitted themselves very very well...well beyond US troops equipped with American rifles etc etc. Maybe it had alot to do with how the french trained , organized and attacked because of lessons learned the hard way ?...maybe ...possibly ?.
As for Sgt York...his accounts are vague on his type of rifle used and that of his relatives no less. But one thing is certain his division was equipped with Model 1917 rifles before they shipped for france according to US Army records. I don't know a 45 auto pistol that will shoot with blanks. You see movies then and now and you will note 9mm or 22 cal barrels in 1911 type pistols in such action scenes.
On a sidenote as I mentioned before I have owned several minty original to arsenal rebuilt model 1917 rifles and only two patt'14 rifles , one of which I still lovingly have , and NONE of the 30 cal versions of the 303 patt'14's can shoot as good as the 'real thing'.
A fellow here want's to go on about bad enfields and bad 303 ammo..... that fellow needs to remember how many bad springfields and how much bad 30 cal ammo was produced in both world wars. I'll take an SMLE or a No4 rifle over the delicate target rifle range queen the 03 was/is.

[EDG]

Actually no. Canucks allowed the Brits to execute a number of their troops for military crimes. The Brits executed more than 300 of their own troops. Knowing those officers, they would have executed Americans and blamed them for their own stupidity.
No general in his right mind would allow his troops to be commanded by such a bunch of douches.


Your view of the war up until the late involvement of the US lacks substance. The stupid General Officers you refer to were officers of that generation and were no different than the stupid General Officers that arrived from the US. You might want to look up some of the events that occurred on the last day of the war. One of your genius US Generals decided to take a small Belgium town on the other side of a river from his troops. If I remember correctly 1500 died taking a town on Nov 17th when, had he waited 24 hours, his troops could have walked in unopposed. He was told of the timing of the armistice prior to the attack. I believe your Congress investigated this event after the war. Such was the desire for glory of getting just one more fight in the books of his resume.

One of the last soldiers to die on the war was Canadian Private George Lawrence Price, two minutes before the armistice took effect. He was killed by a sniper while walking near a bridge in Mons, Belgium. The city had been liberated just days earlier. He is buried in a cemetery in Mons. Perhaps his death reflects the mindlessness of wars of any kind.

Read the links I provided and you might get a better sense of the slaughter of WW1.

Take Care

Bob
The arrival of the Tank and its effective use on the Battlefield in the summer of 1918 effectively ended Trench warfare and tipped the balance in the allies favour.

[Multigunner]

Robert ; You have my sympathies in trying to educate some here on the great war. Only nomenclature glitch I have noted is the US rifle variant of the Patt'14 in cal.30 was designated Model 1917. That anyone would equate genious with Pershings' actions in the great war astounds my common sense and afronts history..... but hey history is written by the victors as they say.
So you consider the U S to have been "the victor" of WW1.
If you had read of the tactics in the final months of WW1 you'd realize that a British officer first successfully used the tactic of attacking without a previous artillery bombardment.
You'd also know that when the Germans counter attacked at Belleau Wood they lambasted the area with a very heavy artillery bombardment and failed to dislodge the Marines.
At the Somme British reliance on preliminary bombardment cost them over 600,000 lives (20,000 British troops killed and 35,000 wounded on the first day , most within the first few hours) when the well dug in Germans rode out that shelling and returned to their positions within a minute of the last shell hitting the ground. The British and French walked into a hail storm of MG fire despite one of the greatest bombardments of the war.



The American negro soldiers given to the french and equipped with lowly french weapons acquitted themselves very very well...well beyond US troops equipped with American rifles etc etc. Maybe it had alot to do with how the french trained , organized and attacked because of lessons learned the hard way ?...maybe ...possibly ?.
There was nothing "lowly" about the French rifles.
The Spandau Gew88 and all the subsequent Mauser rifles owe the dual opposed locking lug bolt to a stolen Lebel rifle the Germans reverse engineered.

BTW
The Gew88 you love so much was subject to far worse in the way of manufacturing defects than the M1903 when first introduced. Injury and death of German soldiers due to defective Gew88 rifles became a national scandal and was used to promote anti-Semetic sentiments since the owners of the company making these were Jewish. They began to call it the Jew Musket.



As for Sgt York...his accounts are vague on his type of rifle used and that of his relatives no less. But one thing is certain his division was equipped with Model 1917 rifles before they shipped for france according to US Army records. I don't know a 45 auto pistol that will shoot with blanks. You see movies then and now and you will note 9mm or 22 cal barrels in 1911 type pistols in such action scenes.
Blowback versions and conversions worked well with blanks. The 1911 is a recoil operated locked breech pistol which is why it requires some serious modifications to cycle blank cartridges.
Since the bore is choked down to prevent use of live rounds and increase back pressure most autoloaders converted for use with blanks don't have full caliber bores. Some use plugs placed far enough back that the constriction isn't seen at the muzzle.
Most blank firing prop pistols used these days are purpose built theatrical replicas that fire 8mm theatrical blanks.
In many cases what you may think is a blank firing gun is actually a detailed airsoft replica, with muzzle blast added by CGI. That's safer and cheaper and doesn't require permission from a local Fire marshal when filming on location.



On a sidenote as I mentioned before I have owned several minty original to arsenal rebuilt model 1917 rifles and only two patt'14 rifles , one of which I still lovingly have , and NONE of the 30 cal versions of the 303 patt'14's can shoot as good as the 'real thing'.
A fellow here want's to go on about bad enfields and bad 303 ammo..... that fellow needs to remember how many bad springfields and how much bad 30 cal ammo was produced in both world wars. I'll take an SMLE or a No4 rifle over the delicate target rifle range queen the 03 was/is.

Why don't you start a thread on your hatred for American weapons. This is a thread on "Blown Up Lee Enfields" started by an Enfield collector who has an interest in what has caused blow ups in the past.
You've contributed nothing to the subject of the thread except your ignorance of WW1 tactics and the abominable errors made by the French and British commanders that cost millions of lives.
Its very likely that any one of the M1917 rifles you've encountered would have proven far more accurate in the hands of someone who is not eaten up with prejudice against U S weaponry.
Also the British military was more than happy to buy up as many surplus M1917 rifles and new production 1903 rifles as possible during WW2, and contracted Remington to build a prototype a 1903 action rifle in .303. I've not seen any British complaints about the accuracy of the M1917 rifle when used in training and in competition by various home guard and land defense force marksmen.

PS


The completion of the Lake Lanao operations, at a cost of less
than a score of American lives, including those who died of cholera,
caught the imagination of the people back home. Editorial writers
compared his march around Lake Lanao with Jeb Stuart's ride around
the Union Army. An interview with Henry Savage Landor, the famous
Tibetan explorer and correspondent for the London Mall, who had
accompanied Pershing on the campaign and told a Hong Kong news-
paper that the captain was a "military genius," was picked up and
published in many American papers. Landor said that "for pluck and
determination few soldiers in the world can compare with the Ameri-
can [Pershing]. . . . The manner in which he conducted the Bacolod
campaign entitled him to a high place among the military commanders
of the world."


Compare that too


Crozier and his Royal Irish Fusiliers arrived on the Western Front in 1915. After fifteen months he was promoted to the rank of brigadier-general and sent to the Somme. He arrived in November 1916 and by this time the worst of the fighting was over.

Crozier later admitted he ordered the shooting of sentries who fell asleep while on duty. He also described the execution of Private James Crozier of the Royal Irish Rifles: "There are hooks on the post; we always do things thoroughly in the Rifles. He is hooked on like dead meat in a butcher's shop. His eyes are bandaged - not that it really matters, for he is already blind." Crozier execution of one soldier during the First World War. "A volley rings out - a nervous volley it is true, yet a volley. Before the fatal shots are fired I had called the battalion to attention. There is a pause, I wait. I see the medical officer examining the victim. He makes a sign, the subaltern strides forward, a single shot rings out. Life is now extinct... We march back to breakfast while the men of a certain company pay the last tribute at the graveside of an unfortunate comrade. This is war."

He also admitted in his memoirs, A Brass Hat in No Man's Land, that soldiers in the British Army sometimes killed German prisoners: "The British soldier is a kindly fellow and it is safe to say, despite the dope, seldom oversteps the mark of barbaric propriety in France, save occasionally to kill prisoners he cannot be bothered to escort back to his lines."

Time Magazine, pointed out that Crozier had a successful war: "In 1914 he joined the Royal Irish Fusiliers with the rank of Captain. During the next five years he won the D.S.O., C.M.G., C.B., Croix de Guerre with palm, was mentioned seven times in despatches, left the War a Brigadier."

After the war he served as a commandant of the Black and Tans. In February 1921, he was forced to resign after an incident in Ireland. As Martin Ceadel, the author of Pacifism in Britain 1914-1945 (1980) pointed out: "... his career was finally ended by his resignation, amid a blaze of headlines and questions in the House, on the grounds that the punishments he had ordered for men in his charge who had looted a grocery store near Trim had been counter-manded by higher authority. In view of his pre-war Ulster connection, it is likely that he had, in reality, been moved to resign less by the revulsion at barbarous military methods to which he later tended to attribute his action than by a rigid concern for strict soldierly discipline."

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWcrozierF.htm
Crozier's Black and Tans could have given the Gestapo a few pointers.
They mutilated unarmed men they captured and regularly robbed non combatant civilians, even setting up shops to sell their stolen goods.

Crozier claimed in his book "the Men I Killed" that the only reason his troops didn't run from a fight was because they were afraid of his revolver. This hateful and patently untrue smear did not go unchallenged.
By the time he was censured and relieved of command he was probably the most hated man in the UK.

The Somme



Source 2

You will be able to go over the top with a walking stick, you will not need rifles … you will find the Germans all dead, not even a rat will have survived.

Before the battle of the Somme, the general assured their troops that the shells would destroy the enemy before they arrived.


Source 3

On that first day of the Battle of the Somme, 20,000 British soldiers were killed and 35,000 wounded, but this did not make General Haig want to change his methods. He ordered more attacks but the same tragic story was repeated each time. Against the advice of experts who said he did not have enough, he sent fifty tanks into battle in September. Twenty-nine broke down before they even reached the battlefield and the rest soon got stuck in the mud. By the end of the battle, the British and French had lost 620,000 men and the Germans 450,000. The allies had advanced 15 kilometres at the furthest point.

From Brooman’s, ‘The Great War’, 1991. The number of dead soldiers appears in the Guinness Book of Records as the greatest number of casualties in one battle!


Source 4

One regiment, the First Newfoundlanders, left the trenches with 752 men on the first day of the Battle of the Somme. 684 (91%) were killed or wounded in half an hour. No Germans were killed.

Modern history textbook


Source 5

In another six weeks the enemy will find it hard to get enough men

Haig believed in wearing the enemy down. He said the above after 2 weeks of the battle.


Source 6

We had heavy losses in men and material. As a result of the Somme we were completely exhausted on the Western Front.

Quote taken from the autobiography of General Ludendorff, one of the most senior officers in the German army.


Source 7

What the hell does that matter? There are plenty more men in Britain.

A quote from one of Haig’s generals in 1915, when told Britain had lost 60,000 soldiers at the Battle of Loos






Source 9

My God, did we really send men to fight in that?

One of Haig’s generals said this about the area where the Battle of Passchendaele (3rd Battle of Ypres, 1917) was fought. In it Britain lost 400, 000 men – many had drowned in a sea of stinking, liquid mud. As the dead bodies rotted, the generals in their headquarters could smell the decaying from 6 miles away!


Source 10

The horse is the future. Aeroplanes and tanks only aid the man and his horse and I feel sure that as time goes on you will find just as much use for the horse – the well-bred horse – as you have ever done in the past.

Even writing in 1926, Haig believed the horse would still be important in warfare. He was often criticised for not accepting new ideas. During WWI he felt that machine guns were hardly needed. The Prime Minister had to order him to send more to the front lines.

Yep the British had a real Einstein in charge.

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.studyhistory.co.uk/Y8/Haig%2520-%2520sources,%2520II.doc&sa=U&ei=4zNNUtXzFYzU9QSQq4FY&ved=0CAcQFjAAOAo&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNHotWEGcxLHg8AzJGprUELKK2fQEw

[robertbank]

Multigunner we had our own Canadian General Sir Arthur Currie who is widely recognized as the best military General of WW1 who commanded the Canadian Corp of four heavy Divisions. He was meticulous in his planning, often challenging plans offered up by his British superiors. He mastered the use of the rolling barrage where troops advanced with the artillery and heavy machine gun fire just ahead of them. This attention to detail resulted in one of the first major victories of WW1 in 1917 when the Canadian Corp captured and holding Vimy Ridge.

You spoke of the the US Marines taking out two German Divisions which is a significant victory to be sure. That said in the last 100 days of the war the Canadian Corp consisting of four heavy Divisions of 100,000 men defeated 42 German Divisions along a 70 mile front ending with the clearing of Germans from the City of Mons two weeks before the Armistice. During this action Canada incurred 20% of our losses for the war.

EDG yes the officers did reflect their Generation. Yes there were Canadian Soldiers who were executed by the Canadian Army and if they were found guilty of a capital crime while serving with British Units they would have faced a Canadian firing squad. There were American soldiers who suffered the same fate albeit by American military justice.

I hate to bring up sobering conversations I had with my Grand Dad who served with what would become the Loyal Edmonton Regiment but I asked him when his regiment at Ypres was faced with German Gas for the first time, why they held their ground when others fled, and make no mistake had the Canadians not held the line the Germans would have had a free run to Paris that day his reply was as follows:

Well Robert we had three choices. If we stayed in our trenches the gas, being heavier than air would have killed us. Had we run the officers would have shot us. So we pissed in our handkerchiefs, one of our officers was a chemist and knew the urine we lesson the effect of mustard gas, and as best we could advanced or held our ground." I pass that tid bit on only to remind you the primary reason why officers wore handguns during the war was to shoot those who would not advance or turned and ran. Get over it. Such were the attitudes of the day. If you think American soldiers in those horrible trenches were treated any differently you are sadly mistaken.

The horrible lessons learned at the Somme and Passchendale were lessons learned the hard way along with copious amounts of incompetence of the Generals in charge. But these observations are being made after the war and after the development of the tank by the British. The tank combined with the mastering of the rolling barrage spelled the death of trench warfare. The tank wasn't available to the British in the 1st Battle of the Somme nor was significant experience in attacking troops armed with machine guns. As bad as the carnage was the lessons were slowly learned. When the American troops arrived in numbers on the battlefield Pershing ignored the lessons learned by the Brits and the French and promptly donated thousands of young American men to the total carnage in their first engagements. Hero he is

The loss the the Newfoundland Regiment is well documented in our history books. Sadly the men died AFTER the attack was called off. Poor communications and a refusal to react to the obvious position that Regiment faced led to the disaster. Over 800 men slaughtered in about 20 minutes.

For those who have not taken the time to read the links earlier with some pride, because my Grandad's Regiment was involved I offer the following quote:


"Canada & the Battle of the Last 100 Days



As the war continued through 1917, the Canadians had moved their positions up from Vimy to take over the positions of the Australian and New Zealander's at Passchendaele. The battle for Passchendaele (a.k.a. the Third Battle of Ypres) had begun on July 31. Before the arrival of the Canadian forces 225,000 British and their allies had been killed or wounded. By November 12, 1917 Passchendaele was taken by the Canadians and after two days of unsuccessful German counter-attacks the Canadians were relieved by the British on November 14. The Canadians had suffered 15,654 killed and wounded.

The German spring offensive would retake this position from the British.




|The German Offensive: Spring 1918

The end of 1917 also saw the Russian war effort disintegrate due to revolution. With Russia out of the war, German forces could be united in their attack on the Western Front. The American troops would not be a significant factor as they were not prepared to assume fighting duties. Although the U.S. had declared war in April of 1917, they were not prepared for war. By the spring of 1918 they were finally prepared to, primarily, relieve elements of the French army to the north east of Paris and allow the French to move toward the attacking Germans to the north-west.

The Germans had 178 divisions ready to attack by February of 1918. Their “new” tactics would involve using storm troops – a lesson learned from the Canadians at Vimy Ridge – attacking the weaker sections of the allied lines. The main body of troops would move in later. On March 21, 2,500 guns opened up on a 50 mile front of the British line. This successfully pushed the British back beyond the Somme River. Germans also attacked and successfully pushed back the French forces located to the south of Arras.

The Canadians expected to be next, as the British forces to their left and the French to their right had already been pushed back.

The following is taken from Arthur Currie’s speech to his troops in anticipation of this German offensive:

“Today the fate of the British Empire hangs in the balance. I place my trust in the Canadian Corps knowing that where Canadians are engaged, there can be no giving way. You will advance or fall where you stand facing the enemy. To those who will fall, I say, you will not die but step into immortality. Your mothers will not lament your fate but will be proud to have born such sons. Your names will be revered for ever and ever by your grateful country and God will take you unto Himself. I trust you to fight as you have ever fought – with all your strength, with all your determination, with all your tranquil courage. On many a hard fought field of battle you have overcome the enemy. With God’s help you shall achieve victory once more.”

It soon became apparent that no attack would come. The Germans had purposely avoided engaging the Canadian Corps. It was believed by the German High Command that any attack on the Canadian line could easily result in a dangerous “slowing down” of the offensive if not halting it altogether. The Canadians had never been defeated and seemed unlikely to be beaten back within any reasonable time-frame. Haig desired the Canadians to work as a part of the British line in a defensive manner but was swayed by Currie to have the Canadians go on the offensive.

It was realized that the Germans knew the Canadians to be the Allied storm troops – their leading of any offensive was expected. The Canadians employed trickery to convince Germans that they were now to be stationed back in Flanders and this led the Germans to believe Flanders to be the site of the next allied attack. The Canadians were actually moving in total secrecy - even from the rest of their allies - to Amiens.



Amiens

The code word used by the Canadians for security at this battle was "Llandovery Castle" a Canadian hospital ship carrying both Canadian wounded and Canadian Nursing Sisters. The ship had been torpedoed and sunk in June of 1918.

Without using preliminary artillery but using tanks (effective early but out of commission later) the Canadians moved forward at 4:20 am on August 8, 1918. By 1:15 pm the Canadians had more than achieved their objectives. The German lines had been breached and the Canadians had pressed 13 kilometres into German held territory. The cost was high, with almost 4000 Canadians killed or wounded but the results were impressive; roughly 27,000 German casualties and approximately 5,000 taken prisoner. The "Flanders deception" had worked flawlessly. A German POW had expressed amazement that the Canadians had been his foe, as he was told by the high command that all the Canadians had been moved to Belgium. During the next 2 days, the Germans had been pushed back an additional 24 kilometres, 4 German divisions were "on the run" and 10,000 more prisoners taken by the Canadian forces. This victory had liberated 25 French towns and villages and put a stop to the German efforts to split the British and French armies. The German Spring Offensive had been stopped and the tide of the war reversed.

The result of this Canadian action is best verbalized by Germany’s Erich von Ludendorff, the general quartermaster of the German army, referred to this battle as the “black day of the German army”.

The Kaiser ordered an initiation of Peace negotiations"

I don't doubt the British and French high command were not equipped to deal with trench warfare. How could they be? The machine gun, used so effectively against advancing troops, had not been seen in large numbers before. Nor were the heavy guns, the use of mines ans lastly gas and hundreds of thousands of men died because of it. Almost 100 years later in the comfort of my retirement I am not about condemn the carnage nor accept it. War is what it is. Young men die when old men fail. The only difference today is we use different weapons, we wrap ourselves in self righteousness and national pride and justify the same carnage with different names. Vimy becomes Normandy, Normandy becomes Korea, Korea becomes Seven Day war, which becomes Vietnam which becomes Iraq which becomes Afghanistan which becomes .....

and young men die when old men fail.


"some wise words - ignored

Canada's General A. McNaughton's quote, referring to the armistice, speaks volumes:
"What bloody fools! We had them on the run. Now we shall have to do it all over again in 25 years."

"The peace, when it comes, must last for many many years. We do not want to have to do this thing all over again in another 15 or 20 years. If that is to be the case, German military power must be irretrievably crushed. This is the end we must attain if we have the will and guts to see it through."
- General Arthur Currie, Commander of the Canadian Corps


Take Care

Bob
ps the reaction to the sinking of the Canadian Hospital ship by the German Navy off Ireland

"The Canadian reaction was typified by Brigadier George Tuxford, a former homesteader from Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan: "Amongst those murdered were two Moose Jaw nurses, Sister Fraser and Sister Gallagher. I gave instructions to the Brigade that the battle cry on the 8th of August (Battle of Amiens (1918)) should be 'Llandovery Castle,' and that that cry should be the last to ring in the ears of the Hun as the bayonet was driven home."[

[Multigunner]

You spoke of the the US Marines taking out two German Divisions which is a significant victory to be sure.
Don't know where you get "two German Divisions", there were four German Divisions engaged in the initial battle and once those were dealt with the Germans kept on pouring in fresh troops. As I said earlier the Germans lost so many men that six of their divisions were decimated and declared unfit for further combat. No telling how many other divisions may have suffered heavy casualties but withdrew intact.
The Germans poured troops and artillery into those woods like it was a black hole for three weeks trying to force the Marines out.
The Marines took thousands of German prisoners but the Germans took no more than 25 USMC prisoners.
The Marines weren't well equipped with Machine Guns but they were killing off German gunners as one soldier put it "like hunting squirrels" and turned those captured guns against their former owners.
Theres a list of the machineguns, artillery pieces and heavy mortars captured in that battle that's pretty impressive.

In other actions U S Army troops took on as many as forty divisions at a time.

Few if any trusted the Germans to keep their word even if they had signed the armistice. The Germans had tried to pull a fast one not long after U S Troops arrived by sending out gun crews with Spandau LMGs among their stretcher bearers who were picking up dead and wounded Germans. They carried the MGs hidden under blankets on stretchers. Once in position to fire down the length of a trench they all opened fire.
Another common tactic was for a group of German troops to pretend they wanted to surrender, when U S troops advanced to take them in custody the Germans would drop to the ground and the gun crew that had moved up behind them would open fire.
And once again for those who missed it earlier, the standing order of the Supreme Allied commander in France was that everyone continue fighting till the last minute. So while Pershing might have saved lives by calling off that final action to do so would have meant disobeying a direct order from Supreme Allied Command.

The Canadian and Australian troops fought with skill and determination, but Australian lives were piddled away by actions such as Gallipoli, which no one seems to have forgotten
Both Canadian and Australian troops suffered far higher percentages of men killed in combat than the British did.

The Brigadier Crozier I mentioned earlier had been put in command of Bantam troops, these being young men who had not met the height requirement to serve in the first years of the war. By that time losses were so great due to Haig's tactics of Attrition that the British lowered the height and weight standards.
These young men were brave as they came, but in action many were simply not strong enough to bear the load. Most were undersized due to chronic malnutrition of the working class.

The British freely admit that almost an entire generation was ground up as cannon fodder by the tactics the "donkeys" had used for years.

Also while those rolling barrages were successful the sad state of the barrels on many of the big guns occasionally caused short rounds to fall among advancing British troops, and lack of rapid communication caused trenches freshly captured and occupied by British troops to be shelled by their own guns.

British troops in hospital camps mutinied when troops were sent back to the front lines with unhealed wounds and there were other mutinies, riots and such, many of the British troops were fed up with being treated like serfs.

Wilfred Owen wrote
"I thought of the very strange look on all the faces in that camp; an incomprehensible look, which a man will never see in England; nor can it be seen in any battle but only in Etaples. It was not despair, or terror, it was more terrible than terror, for it was a blindfold look and without expression, like a dead rabbit’s."

The French faced multiple mass mutinies all through Northern France in 1917 , one out of every twenty French males had been killed in action with little or no gain.

And we have the Australian mutinies of October 1918.
http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/first_aif/mutinies/
To avoid mass executions those Australian troops court martialed had the charges reduced to desertion, a conviction for mutiny carrying the death penalty.
They may have thought the Germans were on the ropes but they already knew they themselves were.

For the Canadians we have "Kimmel Park"
http://www.canadiangreatwarproject.com/writing/kinmelpark.asp

[robertbank]

For the Canadians we have "Kimmel Park"

This happened after the war and frankly I would have been ticked as well if I learned ships designated to take Canadian troops home were taken by American troops, some of whom had actually been in the conflict. Grand-dad did not make it back until late 1919.

Read the three links I provided earlier and you will learn something of the war. 20% of our casualties occurred during the last 100 days of the war. If you read what the Canadian Corp achieved during those 100 days I would suggest our losses were not in vain. Canadian troops were considered to be the best on the Western Front by both the Allies General Staff and more importantly by the Germans. The Canadian Corps achievements speak for themselves. We know what our grand-parents did. So to, the history books.

Take care

Bob
To add a little humour to all of this. When the regiment my Grand-dad was in entered Belgium, they found themselves in a turnip patch waiting to continue their advance the next day. Well they hadn't had fresh vegetables of any quantity since arriving on France in 1915. So, off came the helmets and the boys boiled up their turnips for supper. Some how the Germans learned of this. Well it turns out the Europeans grow turnips for pig food. Well the next morning when the whistle blew Grand dad said all you could see was Germans running the other way as they later learned the young Germans thought the Canadians were animals.

On a more somber note Grand dad quietly told his grand son about an incident that occurred after Vimy. He, along with others were marching German prisoners back to the rear in single file necessitated by the trenches. As they walked along the wooden walk way Grandad felt a hand by his right side where he had a field knife attached to his belt. He turned and struck with his bayonet. I recall tears in his eyes as he explained to me the young German soldier whom he had just killed had not had water for three days and was reaching for grand dads canteen. Such are the realities of war. Grand dD died in 1961 from Leukemia brought on from the gassing he took at Ypres. He died in the Col. Newburn Hospital in Edmonton among vets from WW1 and 11. There was a dignity about those men who were dying from one thing or another that I will never forget. If you have witnessed it you will know of what I speak. They certainly had no fear of what was to come. They had been through their own hell.

[Multigunner]

Mustard gas has mutagenic properties, and some who were gassed developed cancers and damage to the ductless glands governing growth. They have said that Rondo Hattan, the huge and grotesque horror movie actor known as the Creeper developed acromegaly due to exposure to gas. His photos as a young man in uniform show a handsome well made man, you can find photos of him in later life when he played the monster without makeup.
Normally Mustard gas related cancers presented within a few years of exposure.
The Massive casualties of Galipoli occurred midway of the war and nothing was gained other than the deaths of about as many Turk defenders.
Trying to rehabilitate the reputation of Britain's WW1 generals is like polishing a turd.

Euro-centric revisionism seems dedicated to hiding failures and playing up and exaggerating the failures of others, and Canadian seem to play along with this as much as possible.
An example is the U S detention of Japanese Americans during WW2, Canada had huge civilian detention camps as well, they just weren't limited to those of Japanese descent. You seldom hear of those anymore than you see the British Boer War civilian concentration camps brought up every few years.

As for transportation of U S troops back to the states, American shipping companies had lost a great many vessels to the U-boats and commerce raiders while supplying Britain and France with food and weaponry. It was only right that Britain supply a few vessels here and there to make up the short fall, plus who really wanted a bunch of idle U S troops cluttering up the countryside when the U S citizens had no political ties to Britain and were not versed in local customs.
As usual the British liked to see Americans only when they were doing the fighting or spending their pay, when no longer needed they resented the presence of "Yanks". In part because their presence was a reminder that Britain could not even feed itself during wartime and had to rely on U S industry to supply most of the ammunition for her guns. Same attitude was evident during WW2 as well.

People also forget that while the individual kingdoms had relatively small populations the total citizenry of the British Empire was far larger than that of the United States.
Also they forget that the only call to honor any of the major combatants could make for U S intervention came from the French who'd helped the U S in our revolution. Britain had burned our capital , seized U S Citizens as slave labor through impressment and both British and Canadians had stirred up Indian uprisings and given safe haven to Indian raiding parties and supplied them with weapons. Canada had no more claim to aide from the U S than Mexico would have.
Even the majority of Irish officially chose to sit out both wars with those Irish who volunteered to fight being vilified on their return.
Many returning U S Troops were recruited into the Archangel expedition to recover unpaid for war materials from Russia before the Red Army could confiscate it. The fighting didn't end with the Armistice.

[Green Lizzard]

see what you started 303 guy

[gew98]

Moolti...... The "victors"...the allies , and America being one of them ...yessir..the victors usually write history in their favor..duh.
The french started the stormtroop tactics in 1915. A french divisional pamphlet to this effect of this attack strategy & training was captured by the germans in 1915. The germans emulated it and expanded upon it greatly. The Brits followed behind but eventually came on par with the French & german tactics.
German "stormtroop" tactics and quality did vary greatly as their implementation was up to junior officers and NCO's whom were tasked and or volunteered to do this duty.
The most ingenius Artilleryman of the great war would have to be Georg Bruchmuller. He was a medically retired reservist officer whom was allowed to return to uniform and initially served on the Eastern front until late 1917. There he earned a superb reputation of studying the enemy to be attacked. His use of the german artillery available was without parallel in his ability to saturate enemy points with precisely the right calibers and amounts and coordinate fires of many batteries for the desired effects. His translated nickname was "breakthrough Bruchmuller". He was even awarded the "blue max".
The fledgling American Army of the day was no match for the professional eurpean armies then. Pershing was no match either as his ignorance and racism cost us dearly. And as usual moolti you stray from the subject at hand and muddy the waters with irrelevant babble.
Back to the core subject...was the No1 MkIII a better rifle than the 1903 springfield in combat...Yes , and that's not even arguable.The gew98 even bests the 1903 for combat effectiveness and durability. The old saying is still appropriate here...the germans brought a hunting rifle , the brits brought a battle rifle and the Americans brought a target rifle. And pray tell what is good about a target rifle that is delicate...not so much eh.
The Model 1917 was a fair copy of the patt'14 and considerably more durable and combat effective than the 1903..... that as well is inarguable.

[Multigunner]

The fledgling American Army of the day was no match for the professional eurpean armies then. Pershing was no match either as his ignorance and racism cost us dearly.
Black Jack was far less racist by the standards of the day than other generals. He put some black troops under French command specifically to get them out from under the command of notably prejudiced officers. The French had a better reputation for dealing fairly with black soldiers due to their experience with colonial forces.
Black troops had a burden of redeeming their reputation after a bloody mutiny and race riot in Texas ignited by local police mistreating black soldiers. Many of the mutineers were executed for murders of white civilians and police officers.



Who Was the Man Behind the Myths?
John Joseph Pershing was born on a farm in Missouri in 1860. He attended a school for exceptional children and after graduating from high school he spent time tutoring African American children. He put himself through what is now Truman State University in Mississippi where he earned a teaching degree. Later, he entered a competition to attend West Point Military Academy and won a spot. He was in the middle of his class and had served as class officer all four years. Serving as a lieutenant with the 10th Cavalry, the Buffalo Soldiers, he earned his nickname, Blackjack. He went on to participate in some of the western Indian wars, rode in the Cuban Campaign of the Spanish American War, and served in the Philippines as Adjutant General and in other commands. He was a military attache to the U.S. embassy in Japan. He chased Poncho Villa near El Paso, Texas and in northern Mexico. Ultimately, he was the Commanding General of the American Expeditionary Forces in Europe during World War I.

What is the Story Behind Blackjack and the Buffalo Soldiers?
In 1896, as a young lieutenant, he was assigned to the western frontier as an officer with the Tenth Cavalry, an all black regiment. They were known as the Buffalo Soldiers because of their competent ferocity in battle and because the Native Americans thought that their hair resembled that of the wooly buffalo. After serving with them he was assigned to teach at West Point. He was a tough examiner and was always full of praise for the Buffalo Soldiers. Out of spite cadets and offers at the academy called him ****** Jack. Later, during the Spanish American War, he commanded the Buffalo Soldiers once again and led them in Cuba at the Battle of San Juan Hill. At that point the press changed the insulting name to Blackjack Pershing. He was once again effusive about the exceptional quality of the black cavalry troops, an unusual thing to do during that time in American culture. Blackjack stuck. Remember that one of his first jobs out of high school was as a tutor to black youngsters. Though he had to bow to the separate but equal philosophy of the time, his actions and words could indicate a bent toward civil equality.
http://myths.answers.com/government/two-stories-about-general-blackjack-pershing



During the campaign, hundreds of Chinese residing in Mexico joined the expedition and added manpower to the American logistics mission. Chinese in Mexico had already been targeted for death as some had joined President Carranza’s Mexican government forces to defeat Villa. Villa’s forces had retaliated whenever they found Chinese, and reportedly several entire Chinese families were murdered, including the Mexican wives of the Chinese. Several hundred of the Mexican Chinese requested permission to leave with Pershing’s Army when they returned to the United States as the expedition ended in February 1917.

General Pershing did not forget his Chinese supporters from the Mexican campaign. In 1919, armed with the prestige he’d earned as the victorious commander of the American Expeditionary Forces in Europe during World War I, and newly promoted to the rank of General of the Armies of the United States, the highest rank ever given to any member of the United States armed forces, he and William Tracy Page, began a campaign to allow the Pershing Chinese to become legal permanent residents. William Tracy Page had been an Immigration Bureau officer in the American colony of the Philippines who’d been assigned as a civilian adviser to the 2,700 Mexican refugees, 527 of whom were Chinese, that were settled in Texas. He became a friend and tireless advocate of the Chinese as a result. In this effort the men were joined by the Chinese Benevolent Association and ordinary Chinese Americans across the United States.

On November 23, 1921, President Warren G. Harding signed Public Law No. 29, which granted the Pershing Chinese permanent residency rights. PL No. 29 established a legal precedent in immigration law, introducing special consideration for immigrants escaping political persecution.
https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.asianweek.com/2012/11/20/who-were-the-pershing-chinese/&sa=U&ei=nlVOUtqbLYK69gTbt4CgAg&ved=0CAcQFjAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNHX6CSTEJDNpU6UfByazKMwq6MTRQ

Only an ignorant person would consider Pershing to be ignorant.



One of the reasons Pershing was so successful in the Moro campaign was that he took the effort to study the local culture and learn their language and treated Moro dignitaries as equals.

As pointed out earlier the U S had little in the way of a standing army during that time frame, while European powers were still locked into the feudal mode with their populations little better off than serfs when those countries went to war. Our Navy on the other hand had defeated the Spanish fleet in a complete walk over, and despite high casualties our troops had defeated the Spanish troops and their slave conscripts as well.
The European powers had sent military observers to the U S to observe the battles of our Civil War and when they returned most European armies studied these tactics and methods of deployment to develop their own methods.

This whole crapfest of European style revisionist clap trap seems to have started over the simple statement that the superior accuracy of USMC marksmen at Belleau Wood was well recognized by enemy and ally alike.
A fraction of one percent of low number Springfield 1903 rifles suffered from burnt steel in forging, big deal. That made no difference in the long run, the rifles were still the most accurate on the battle field. With the addition of the "Hatcher Hole" to allow gas to escape in event of a ruptured case the low number rifles continued to provide excellent service when used by the USMC well into WW2.
Some earlier Mausers lacked sufficient gas escape ports as well, you'll occasionally see one of these with ripped open receiver ring.
Some P-13 and P-14 prototypes suffered burnt steel barrel shanks and blew up.
The British propellants were so erosive that the .276 cartridge would burn out a P-13 barrel in less than one thousand rounds and its muzzle blast lit up the countryside.
The front sight blade may have been prone to damage if a user got careless, so the Marines developed a sturdy front sight hood. The battle sight was set too high so the Marines modified their battle sight blade for close range combat.
It eats you up that the scoped 1903a1 was far more accurate than other WW2 sniper rifles.
It also eats you up when a photo of a blown up Mauser action is posted, or any mention is made of the Judenbusche scandal when German troops were injured by defective Gew88 rifles.
Get over it.
You may believe you are making friends with UK America bashers but you are only showing your true stripes.

Long range accuracy can be the deciding factor in Infantry battles, which is why U S forces have reintroduced the designated marksman equipped with 7.62 NATO rifles to reclaim the "Infantry half kilometer".
Accuracy and individual marksmanship is less important if you wish to herd troops into battle like cattle to block the enemy gun ports with your dead, as the Allied High command did throughout WW1.
After all there were plenty more bodies to feed to the meat grinder, and that's exactly what they had planned for U S Troops.



The Model 1917 was a fair copy of the patt'14 and considerably more durable and combat effective than the 1903..... that as well is inarguable.
That shows your mindset very well, The M1917 was not a mere off brand copy of the P-14 it was the same action built on the exact same machinery by the exact same American craftsmen with modifications to better suit it to the .30-06 cartridge, which wasn't hard to do since the P-14 was a warmed over P-13 which had been designed from the beginning to handle the rimless .276 cartridge.
The American owned manufacturing facilities were available because the British canceled their contract and nearly bankrupted those American companies that had trusted them and poured money into building and equipping these factories.

The m1917 and P-14 have many good qualities, but the British recognized their design was overly heavy and bulky. They spent quite some effort in post war years on redesigning the rifle making it shorter and lighter. But by then the No.4 had been developed.
The scoped versions of the P-14 soldiered on as a very effective sniper rifle in the early stages of WW2 till the scoped No.4 was developed to replace it.

Scoped sniper versions of the M1917 were developed but the Springfield proved to be more accurate.

PS
You can find a pretty good run down of Gew88 teething problems here.
http://www.riflemagazine.com/magazine/PDF/ri142partial.pdf
Apparently one of the worst problems was double feeding and like most early smokeless rifles it had poor gas relief. The narrow barrels also occasionally blew out the side till they redesigned the barrel to have a thicker wall.
I've seen a photo of a Gew 88 with the barrel jacket ripped open and the blown out barrel visible.
Also when the Gew 88 rifles were reproofed in Germany in the 60's it was common for those with the older .318 bore to fail proof.
The Gew88 was proofed to 58,000 CUP, about the same level as .303 British rifles, the low number 1903 Springfield was proofed at 70,000 CUP.

[robertbank]

My Grandfather served in France from May of 1916 to Nov 1919. I am not sure why he stayed so long after the war ended. His immediate family said he was not the same after coming home to Merritt BC, he often got drunk and was found out crawling around in the fields on the ranch reliving the horrors of war. Nightmares were his constant companion, he relived the war until his death on 1965 by his own hand.
I'm proud that he served his country, I miss him even though I never met him.
There are no winners in war.......

You should be proud and never forget his sacrifice. Nov 11 is our special family day. All our family members have joined their comrades from WW1, WW11 and Korea. One lives on from the Balkins and Iraq. Ah but we have relative peace now and we can argue over who had the best rifle to kill our fellow beings or which one was best at putting little holes in paper at distance as if our National pride was at stake.

Some still haven't got over the fire in the White House. Seemed fair given the Americans had earlier leveled Ft. York aka Toronto and failed to bury the place. Now there is a reason to get ticked. Had they, we wouldn't have to listen to all the excuses about the poor play of the Toronto Maple Leafs.

Take Care

Bob

[savagetactical]

Black Jack was far less racist by the standards of the day than other generals. He put some black troops under French command specifically to get them out from under the command of notably prejudiced officers. The French had a better reputation for dealing fairly with black soldiers due to their experience with colonial forces.
Black troops had a burden of redeeming their reputation after a bloody mutiny and race riot in Texas ignited by local police mistreating black soldiers. Many of the mutineers were executed for murders of white civilians and police officers.


http://myths.answers.com/government/two-stories-about-general-blackjack-pershing

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.asianweek.com/2012/11/20/who-were-the-pershing-chinese/&sa=U&ei=nlVOUtqbLYK69gTbt4CgAg&ved=0CAcQFjAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNHX6CSTEJDNpU6UfByazKMwq6MTRQ

Only an ignorant person would consider Pershing to be ignorant.



One of the reasons Pershing was so successful in the Moro campaign was that he took the effort to study the local culture and learn their language and treated Moro dignitaries as equals.

As pointed out earlier the U S had little in the way of a standing army during that time frame, while European powers were still locked into the feudal mode with their populations little better off than serfs when those countries went to war. Our Navy on the other hand had defeated the Spanish fleet in a complete walk over, and despite high casualties our troops had defeated the Spanish troops and their slave conscripts as well.
The European powers had sent military observers to the U S to observe the battles of our Civil War and when they returned most European armies studied these tactics and methods of deployment to develop their own methods.

This whole crapfest of European style revisionist clap trap seems to have started over the simple statement that the superior accuracy of USMC marksmen at Belleau Wood was well recognized by enemy and ally alike.
A fraction of one percent of low number Springfield 1903 rifles suffered from burnt steel in forging, big deal. That made no difference in the long run, the rifles were still the most accurate on the battle field. With the addition of the "Hatcher Hole" to allow gas to escape in event of a ruptured case the low number rifles continued to provide excellent service when used by the USMC well into WW2.
Some earlier Mausers lacked sufficient gas escape ports as well, you'll occasionally see one of these with ripped open receiver ring.
Some P-13 and P-14 prototypes suffered burnt steel barrel shanks and blew up.
The British propellants were so erosive that the .276 cartridge would burn out a P-13 barrel in less than one thousand rounds and its muzzle blast lit up the countryside.
The front sight blade may have been prone to damage if a user got careless, so the Marines developed a sturdy front sight hood. The battle sight was set too high so the Marines modified their battle sight blade for close range combat.
It eats you up that the scoped 1903a1 was far more accurate than other WW2 sniper rifles.
It also eats you up when a photo of a blown up Mauser action is posted, or any mention is made of the Judenbusche scandal when German troops were injured by defective Gew88 rifles.
Get over it.
You may believe you are making friends with UK America bashers but you are only showing your true stripes.

Long range accuracy can be the deciding factor in Infantry battles, which is why U S forces have reintroduced the designated marksman equipped with 7.62 NATO rifles to reclaim the "Infantry half mile".
Accuracy and individual marksmanship is less important if you wish to herd troops into battle like cattle to block the enemy gun ports with your dead, as the Allied High command did throughout WW1.
After all there were plenty more bodies to feed to the meat grinder, and that's exactly what they had planned for U S Troops.


That shows your mindset very well, The M1917 was not a mere off brand copy of the P-14 it was the same action built on the exact same machinery by the exact same American craftsmen with modifications to better suit it to the .30-06 cartridge, which wasn't hard to do since the P-14 was a warmed over P-13 which had been designed from the beginning to handle the rimless .276 cartridge.
The American owned manufacturing facilities were available because the British canceled their contract and nearly bankrupted those American companies that had trusted them and poured money into building and equipping these factories.

The m1917 and P-14 have many good qualities, but the British recognized their design was overly heavy and bulky. They spent quite some effort in post war years on redesigning the rifle making it shorter and lighter. But by then the No.4 had been developed.
The scoped versions of the P-14 soldiered on as a very effective sniper rifle in the early stages of WW2 till the scoped No.4 was developed to replace it.

Scoped sniper versions of the M1917 were developed but the Springfield proved to be more accurate.

PS
You can find a pretty good run down of Gew88 teething problems here.
http://www.riflemagazine.com/magazine/PDF/ri142partial.pdf
Apparently one of the worst problems was double feeding and like most early smokeless rifles it had poor gas relief. The narrow barrels also occasionally blew out the side till they redesigned the barrel to have a thicker wall.
I've seen a photo of a Gew 88 with the barrel jacket ripped open and the blown out barrel visible.
Also when the Gew 88 rifles were reproofed in Germany in the 60's it was common for those with the older .318 bore to fail proof.
The Gew88 was proofed to 58,000 CUP, about the same level as .303 British rifles, the low number 1903 Springfield was proofed at 70,000 CUP.

Thanks for imparting some objective historical emphasis in this discussion. I find it amazing the level of revisionism that people goto as time has passed. It makes me wonder where we will be in another 20 or 30 years.

[gew98]

Moolti..... Pershing put more than just a little of the black US troops under french command...the french asked for all ..but he persisted in keeping as many as he could in lowly labor battalions unloading ships and building barracks regardless of their skills. What pershing did with the moro's was common sense...as well he gave no quarter.
Long range rifle fire in the great war...was proven mediocre at best. You see artillery stonked such massed in the open troops doing the shooting...as well as massed MG fire from many points put the kybosh on such old world "tactics". What happened then is not relevant to what is happening in todays warfare...again more irrelevancy.
What the hell does the P13 trials rifles have to do with this issue at hand ?... more irrelevancy.
What the heck does gew88's have to do with this issue ..more irrelevancy.
As for the Model 1917's...they were a badly rushed product , many with unseasoned wood. Like the 03 they had to be tweaked. I have friends that still have their century imported Patt'14's with new made barrels that were put on them by the importer.. and man can they shoot. Never seen a M17 do anything as good all things the same. Have seen more than a couple cracked receiver M1917's..but yet to see or hear of a Patt'14 that so failed.
And if one compares ANY scoped period 03 to a patt'18 rifle you will surely find the patt'18 the superior product...only outdone by some fine german examples of scharfschutzengewehr 98's !.
But back to the subject...the model 1903 US rifle was inferior to the Enfield and the gew98. I could reiterate the multitude of delicacies of the 1903 debacle in combat..but the thread hear is about the beloved Enfield...a true battle rifle...not delicate target rifles .




Black Jack was far less racist by the standards of the day than other generals. He put some black troops under French command specifically to get them out from under the command of notably prejudiced officers. The French had a better reputation for dealing fairly with black soldiers due to their experience with colonial forces.
Black troops had a burden of redeeming their reputation after a bloody mutiny and race riot in Texas ignited by local police mistreating black soldiers. Many of the mutineers were executed for murders of white civilians and police officers.


http://myths.answers.com/government/two-stories-about-general-blackjack-pershing

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.asianweek.com/2012/11/20/who-were-the-pershing-chinese/&sa=U&ei=nlVOUtqbLYK69gTbt4CgAg&ved=0CAcQFjAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNHX6CSTEJDNpU6UfByazKMwq6MTRQ

Only an ignorant person would consider Pershing to be ignorant.



One of the reasons Pershing was so successful in the Moro campaign was that he took the effort to study the local culture and learn their language and treated Moro dignitaries as equals.

As pointed out earlier the U S had little in the way of a standing army during that time frame, while European powers were still locked into the feudal mode with their populations little better off than serfs when those countries went to war. Our Navy on the other hand had defeated the Spanish fleet in a complete walk over, and despite high casualties our troops had defeated the Spanish troops and their slave conscripts as well.
The European powers had sent military observers to the U S to observe the battles of our Civil War and when they returned most European armies studied these tactics and methods of deployment to develop their own methods.

This whole crapfest of European style revisionist clap trap seems to have started over the simple statement that the superior accuracy of USMC marksmen at Belleau Wood was well recognized by enemy and ally alike.
A fraction of one percent of low number Springfield 1903 rifles suffered from burnt steel in forging, big deal. That made no difference in the long run, the rifles were still the most accurate on the battle field. With the addition of the "Hatcher Hole" to allow gas to escape in event of a ruptured case the low number rifles continued to provide excellent service when used by the USMC well into WW2.
Some earlier Mausers lacked sufficient gas escape ports as well, you'll occasionally see one of these with ripped open receiver ring.
Some P-13 and P-14 prototypes suffered burnt steel barrel shanks and blew up.
The British propellants were so erosive that the .276 cartridge would burn out a P-13 barrel in less than one thousand rounds and its muzzle blast lit up the countryside.
The front sight blade may have been prone to damage if a user got careless, so the Marines developed a sturdy front sight hood. The battle sight was set too high so the Marines modified their battle sight blade for close range combat.
It eats you up that the scoped 1903a1 was far more accurate than other WW2 sniper rifles.
It also eats you up when a photo of a blown up Mauser action is posted, or any mention is made of the Judenbusche scandal when German troops were injured by defective Gew88 rifles.
Get over it.
You may believe you are making friends with UK America bashers but you are only showing your true stripes.

Long range accuracy can be the deciding factor in Infantry battles, which is why U S forces have reintroduced the designated marksman equipped with 7.62 NATO rifles to reclaim the "Infantry half mile".
Accuracy and individual marksmanship is less important if you wish to herd troops into battle like cattle to block the enemy gun ports with your dead, as the Allied High command did throughout WW1.
After all there were plenty more bodies to feed to the meat grinder, and that's exactly what they had planned for U S Troops.


That shows your mindset very well, The M1917 was not a mere off brand copy of the P-14 it was the same action built on the exact same machinery by the exact same American craftsmen with modifications to better suit it to the .30-06 cartridge, which wasn't hard to do since the P-14 was a warmed over P-13 which had been designed from the beginning to handle the rimless .276 cartridge.
The American owned manufacturing facilities were available because the British canceled their contract and nearly bankrupted those American companies that had trusted them and poured money into building and equipping these factories.

The m1917 and P-14 have many good qualities, but the British recognized their design was overly heavy and bulky. They spent quite some effort in post war years on redesigning the rifle making it shorter and lighter. But by then the No.4 had been developed.
The scoped versions of the P-14 soldiered on as a very effective sniper rifle in the early stages of WW2 till the scoped No.4 was developed to replace it.

Scoped sniper versions of the M1917 were developed but the Springfield proved to be more accurate.

PS
You can find a pretty good run down of Gew88 teething problems here.
http://www.riflemagazine.com/magazine/PDF/ri142partial.pdf
Apparently one of the worst problems was double feeding and like most early smokeless rifles it had poor gas relief. The narrow barrels also occasionally blew out the side till they redesigned the barrel to have a thicker wall.
I've seen a photo of a Gew 88 with the barrel jacket ripped open and the blown out barrel visible.
Also when the Gew 88 rifles were reproofed in Germany in the 60's it was common for those with the older .318 bore to fail proof.
The Gew88 was proofed to 58,000 CUP, about the same level as .303 British rifles, the low number 1903 Springfield was proofed at 70,000 CUP.

[EDG]

It has been well demonstrated to me by many Canucks that they are the biggest braggarts and torturers of statistics when it comes to WWI and WWII.


For the Canadians we have "Kimmel Park"

This happened after the war and frankly I would have been ticked as well if I learned ships designated to take Canadian troops home were taken by American troops, some of whom had actually been in the conflict. Grand-dad did not make it back until late 1919.

Read the three links I provided earlier and you will learn something of the war. 20% of our casualties occurred during the last 100 days of the war. If you read what the Canadian Corp achieved during those 100 days I would suggest our losses were not in vain. Canadian troops were considered to be the best on the Western Front by both the Allies General Staff and more importantly by the Germans. The Canadian Corps achievements speak for themselves. We know what our grand-parents did. So to, the history books.

Take care

Bob
To add a little humour to all of this. When the regiment my Grand-dad was in entered Belgium, they found themselves in a turnip patch waiting to continue their advance the next day. Well they hadn't had fresh vegetables of any quantity since arriving on France in 1915. So, off came the helmets and the boys boiled up their turnips for supper. Some how the Germans learned of this. Well it turns out the Europeans grow turnips for pig food. Well the next morning when the whistle blew Grand dad said all you could see was Germans running the other way as they later learned the young Germans thought the Canadians were animals.

On a more somber note Grand dad quietly told his grand son about an incident that occurred after Vimy. He, along with others were marching German prisoners back to the rear in single file necessitated by the trenches. As they walked along the wooden walk way Grandad felt a hand by his right side where he had a field knife attached to his belt. He turned and struck with his bayonet. I recall tears in his eyes as he explained to me the young German soldier whom he had just killed had not had water for three days and was reaching for grand dads canteen. Such are the realities of war. Grand dD died in 1961 from Leukemia brought on from the gassing he took at Ypres. He died in the Col. Newburn Hospital in Edmonton among vets from WW1 and 11. There was a dignity about those men who were dying from one thing or another that I will never forget. If you have witnessed it you will know of what I speak. They certainly had no fear of what was to come. They had been through their own hell.

[Multigunner]

If you read what the Canadian Corp achieved during those 100 days I would suggest our losses were not in vain.
So you have no problem with Canadian commanders pressing the attack on Mons on November 11, 1918.
At least two Divisions of U S troops were assigned to aid the Canadian forces during that 100 days.

U S Troops fought along side and sometimes under command of other Allied forces. The point is that Pershing did not relinquish total control of U S forces to non U S commanders.

He sent Negro troops to a French Commander he knew and trusted to treat them with respect as fighting men. A highly decorated one armed officer with many years of experience commanding Negro troops in the African colonies.
That officer held the American negroes back from most mass attacks, and put them to better use in countering German night time infiltrations.
Those U S troops serving under non U S officers were not just tossed to the wolves. Pershing knew which officers he could trust and which officers could not be trusted.

Negro troops wanted to prove themselves in combat. Due to the extreme racial tension in the U S they had been relegated to stevedore work and menial jobs.
German propaganda would have you believe that Negro troops were herded like cattle to the slaughter and left to die in the mud if wounded. The facts were very
different.
It was under orders of the president that negro troops be relegated to support positions under U S command, I suspect due to the continuing hard feelings over the Texas mutiny. Many white officers who were not that hard on black troops before that mutiny went over the edge when put in command of black troops, in a way punishing them for the bloody mutiny they had no part in.
Pershing had always been a friend to the black soldiers, and gave them a chance to redeem their reputation as fighting men.

PS
Here's a Battle where the French reliance on the Creeping barrage proved more disastrous than it had for the British at the Somme.
http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/aisne2.htm

[Multigunner]

What the hell does the P13 trials rifles have to do with this issue at hand ?... more irrelevancy.
What the heck does gew88's have to do with this issue ..more irrelevancy.

What does a fraction of one percent of low number m1903 receivers being brittle have to do with the subject of this thread?


As for the Model 1917's...they were a badly rushed product , many with unseasoned wood.
Like every other rifle manufactured after the beginning of WW1 and every No.4 rifle manufactured in England during WW2.


Like the 03 they had to be tweaked. I have friends that still have their century imported Patt'14's with new made barrels that were put on them by the importer.. and man can they shoot. Never seen a M17 do anything as good all things the same. Have seen more than a couple cracked receiver M1917's..but yet to see or hear of a Patt'14 that so failed.
Cracking of M1917 receivers happens during rebarreling, due to excessive torque used when barreling these at the factory using an air powered wrench. There are a number of threads on this board that detail how to remove over torqued M1917 barrels without causing cracking. The P-14 was assembled in the same way and can crack in the same way if care is not taken in removing the old barrel.
The rifles were built on the same machinery by the same craftsmen.
Many P-14 rifles were sold off due to rusting from improper storage. Many of these were bought by European gun makers and converted to 8mm Mauser for sale to European clients.
Most P-14 rifles retained in service were rebuilt at Whedon depot.
Any P-14 in all original condition was one that saw little use in the field.


And if one compares ANY scoped period 03 to a patt'18 rifle you will surely find the patt'18 the superior product...
Interesting claim, now prove it. The Scoped P-14 rifles were not available for combat use before the armistice, all P-14 sniper rifles were iron sighted, using a fine elevation adjustable ladder sight. In " Sniping in France" the instructions warn against moving about with the ladder raised to avoid damaging the sight. Any P-18 rifles used in combat would have been contemporaries to the post WW1 1903A1/M1941 rifle. The Contemporary of the Scoped 1903 rifles of WW1 would have been the SMLE MkIII (T), a rifle with notably inferior accuracy compared with its contemporaries and that accuracy severely compromised in a very short time by the effect on its delicate bedding by the damp conditions of the trenches and bores eaten up by the highly erosive British ammo.



But back to the subject...the model 1903 US rifle was inferior to the Enfield and the gew98.

You must be mistaking this for the Springfield Bashing thread. Maybe you'll find that thread on some UK or German site.

The Gew 98 was no doubt accurate enough, though not quite as accurate as the Springfield. Those ridiculous looking Lange sights may have worked fairly well, though they were not carried over in any later Mauser military designs.

In Combat German troops were trained not to fire until within 400 yards of the enemy to avoid wasting ammo, which is why the German commanders at Belleau Wood were astounded to find their men dropping like flies when the Marines opened up at over 600 yards.

The SMLE MkIII has one of the most user friendly rear sights. Unfortunately the skinny windage adjustment screw is easily broken off despite the thick protectors, the windage adjustment was deleted from the MkIII*.


I could reiterate the multitude of delicacies of the 1903 debacle in combat..
Which somehow never actually adversely affected its use in combat.



but the thread hear is about the beloved Enfield...a true battle rifle...not delicate target rifles .
Nothing delicate about the Springfield, only a ham handed recruit could damage one unless they did so on purpose. Far too many Germans and Japanese ended up rotting in the jungle or at the bottom of a gun pit with Springfield bullets through the brain pan for any but those with too high an opinion of themselves to say the M1903 was not a proven battle rifle.
The bedding of the Enfield is its most delicate feature. Anyone can look into the extreme measures taken to accurize these rifles and the many historical references to loss of accuracy due to the difficulty in maintain that bedding under combat conditions.
Those historical sources were written by those who had a hand in the development of the rifle, and who had trained British snipers to get the best performance possible.

[perotter]

Theres the source of confusion. Only the Ghurka troops carried the Ghurka knife. Ghurkas aren't Indians, they are Nepalese, though commonly mistaken for the Indian nationals and having served with the British army in India for generations.

Ghurkas are professional soldiers contracted by the British and have had the reputation of striking terror in the enemy by this sort of night time foray.

A neighbor served in the India China Burma theatre and had photos of himself with Ghurka troops. He had a large Ghurka knife given him by one of the Ghurka sergeants .
He said when he was first handed the knife he took it from its sheath. When he did that the sergeant took the knife back for a moment and walked over to a group of Japanese POWs and chopped off a finger of one. He said you must never draw the blade without feeding it blood before returning it to its sheath.
The knife had not been taken from its sheath since then.

PS


Only reason I learned of this was a Australian on another board had an Indian SMLE that had come from battle field salvage of the Korean conflict and was trying to figure out how it got there.

Its possible that former Indian Army Ghurkas still carried rifles issued before the partition, or that the rifle was carried by an Indian peace keeper at some point.

In N. Africa one of my uncles was stationed near where Gurkhas where. My uncles commanding officer and the Gurkhas commanding officer got into a disagreement about how good the Gurkhas were and put it to the test.

The Gurkhas armed themselves with chalk. My uncles unit were told what was going to happen and the number of guards doubled. My uncle was on guard duty and his commanding officer sat awake at his desk all night. Come morning the US troops thought the Gurkhas never came. But every guard had a chalk mark on his rifle, the commanding officer a chalk mark on the back of his chair and there was a chalk mark a the head of each bed that US soldier was sleeping in.

[Multigunner]

In N. Africa one of my uncles was stationed near where Gurkhas where. My uncles commanding officer and the Gurkhas commanding officer got into a disagreement about how good the Gurkhas were and put it to the test.

The Gurkhas armed themselves with chalk. My uncles unit were told what was going to happen and the number of guards doubled. My uncle was on guard duty and his commanding officer sat awake at his desk all night. Come morning the US troops thought the Gurkhas never came. But every guard had a chalk mark on his rifle, the commanding officer a chalk mark on the back of his chair and there was a chalk mark a the head of each bed that US soldier was sleeping in.

They earned their reputation many times over.
Their speciality was silent ghost like infiltration and brutal yet quite killing with those wicked knives.

Theres a story of Ghurki troops being called on to quell a riot in Southern Asia.
Thousands of protestors were in the streets advancing and daring the Ghurkas to shoot them.
The Ghurkas slung their rifles and drew their knives instead. When they saw the knives come out the rioters fled like gazelles from lions.

[robertbank]

It has been well demonstrated to me by many Canucks that they are the biggest braggarts and torturers of statistics when it comes to WWI and WWII.

Yes very likely. We aren't even clairvoyant either. The story of the Devil Dogs and the Marines Multi quoted appeared in US newspapers in April apparently two months before the term was supposed to have been attributed to the Marines in their actions in June. That and the fact the quote does not translate back to German makes the story even more fanciful. The Canadian Corps advances in the summer/fall of 1918 are a matter of record. So are their Battle Honours. Wikepedia, the source of much of what I have read here refers to our troops as Dominion troops or worse British. Currie was sent to Amien to go on the offensive after he convinced Haig to allow them to do so. You won't read that in Wikepedia. You will have to do some more research.

Nobody, including me would ever question the bravery of the young soldiers on either side in the hell that was WW1. Mutli makes it out to be not much more than a shooting contest at 800 yards
with soldiers armed with 03 Springfields pot shooting German gunners when in fact the areas between the trenches were killing fields.
The development of the tank effectively ended trench warfare. The Germans sued for peace when the German Spring Offensive of 1918 and after they were routed at Amien. That is a matter of record. They realization that America was pouring in thousands of troops daily into France made further fighting impossible. That is a matter of record.

We sent our troops over to France initially armed with a hunting rifle called the Ross. It was a *** and cost the lives of as many Canadians as the damn thing did to the Germans. It was a great hunting rifle but hopeless as a battle rifle. One benefit of serving along side the Brits was our troops got to throw away their Ross rifles and pick up #1's. Mercifully the Ross was dropped early on and Enfields were issued. The procurement order for the Ross's was investigated after the war.

Pershing was no less an arrogant prig as other Generals of the war. He was no more prepared for the hell of trench warfare and the battlefields of the Western Front as the Brits and French were in 1914. How could he be? How could any of them been. Where he failed was he didn't listen, study or learn from the Brits and French General's experiences. He apparently preferred to learn the some lessons himself with exactly the same result. Thousands of young men died as a result. You can look up that for yourself.

Like most wars young men died while their senior officers figured it all out. Guys like Currie didn't have the trappings of privilege to deal with and were more interested in figuring out what went wrong, what went right and correcting the wrong and defining the right. Young officers like Patton and Eisenhower were doing the same thing and used those lessons 20 odd years later. History tells us the Brits never did get it completely but did develop the tank and worked out a way to defeat the trenches for that you have to give credit.

Nothing else matters. The dead lie in Flanders.

"So you have no problem with Canadian commanders pressing the attack on Mons on November 11, 1918."

No as the Armistice had not been agreed to. Hostilities did stop the day before the Armistice though. Unfortunately a German sniper in Mons was not so informed and our last solder died crossing a street in the city at 10:58 am Nov 11, 1918. If you read the article on Canada's last 100 days then you know he was buried along side the British soldier who is thought to be the first death of the war on the allies side. They are said to have died 100 yards apart. Four years, millions dead, for nothing.

Neither did the residents of Mons! Currie did not relieve Mons because he wanted a hot bath. If you read enough Wikepedia you will run across why I mention the bath. Hughes made an effort to attack Currie after the war. There was a lot of finger pointing after the war by those who resented the accolades Currie received.

"At least two Divisions of U S troops were assigned to aid the Canadian forces during that 100 days."

Yes and their were British artillery units in support as well. The Australians were there in numbers having gained a reputation for effectiveness. The Australian General was later knighted. PM Lloyd George wrote in his memoirs after the war that he would have replaced Haig with Currie and the Australian as his number 2 had the war gone into 1919. When the American troops served under Currie they answered to Currie not Pershing or they would not have been there. This likely was the first time Canadian and American troops fought together and it would not be the last. The Devil Brigade being one of the more famous associations during WW11. Today American and Canadian soldiers serve in each others units under the command of both Canadian and American officers. To my knowledge this has happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Gulf and during the Air War over Libya.

When Currie used the creeping barrage along with moving heavy machine gun fire successfully at Vimy he did something else that no commander had done before. First the Canadian Regiments practiced in the rear exactly what they were to do during the battle. Troops down to the Company level were advised of each of their objectives and the need to stick to the schedule. This was, from all accounts, the first time such meticulous planning had occurred. Aside from at least once when the barrage got to far ahead of the troops it worked. I need not tell you it was easy, you would no better because it wasn't but taking Vimy Ridge defined this country and the success solidified the reputation of the Canadian Corp. You should read about the engagement it might help you understand what trench warfare and what WW1 was all about.

EDG our little effort isn't written about much, not much point really. There is no glory in it. Just death and maiming that achieves little or nothing. If you think their is any satisfaction to see caskets returning from (Pick the war) or any meaningful result of any war then fill your boots and tell us all about it.

Nothing changes. Multi is critical of officers sending troops back in to battle when they likely should have remained in hospital. Just what the hell were they to do. Read Currie's speech to his men prior to an expected German attack that spring. Had it came and the troops retreated the war would have been handed to Germany. The attack never came but that is how bad the situation was on the Western Front in the spring of 1918.

Nice that the Marines were picking off machine gunners at 800 yards well done, good for you, I am surprised it wasn't at 1,000 yards or more. I can only imagine how proud the folks were back home to read of these exploits. In the mean time our countries youth ( American, Australian, British, Canadian, New Zealanders and a host of others) were being killed off by the thousands daily.

100 yards at Mons defines it for me. Not to sure about the rifle matches, the rifles ....where exactly are they held and who won again.

Take care

Bob

[303Guy]

This has been very interesting. Thanks all.

I know very little about WWI. The Galipoli landing is something I know a little about because of ANZAC. I had heard of that Gurkha exercise - it's hard to believe it's even possible!

P.S. It would be nice someone if would separate out the WWI discussion and put all it under a thread of that title so we can all find it easily.

[gew98]

What does a fraction of one percent of low number m1903 receivers being brittle have to do with the subject of this thread?

Like every other rifle manufactured after the beginning of WW1 and every No.4 rifle manufactured in England during WW2.


Cracking of M1917 receivers happens during rebarreling, due to excessive torque used when barreling these at the factory using an air powered wrench. There are a number of threads on this board that detail how to remove over torqued M1917 barrels without causing cracking. The P-14 was assembled in the same way and can crack in the same way if care is not taken in removing the old barrel.
The rifles were built on the same machinery by the same craftsmen.
Many P-14 rifles were sold off due to rusting from improper storage. Many of these were bought by European gun makers and converted to 8mm Mauser for sale to European clients.
Most P-14 rifles retained in service were rebuilt at Whedon depot.
Any P-14 in all original condition was one that saw little use in the field.

Interesting claim, now prove it. The Scoped P-14 rifles were not available for combat use before the armistice, all P-14 sniper rifles were iron sighted, using a fine elevation adjustable ladder sight. In " Sniping in France" the instructions warn against moving about with the ladder raised to avoid damaging the sight. Any P-18 rifles used in combat would have been contemporaries to the post WW1 1903A1/M1941 rifle. The Contemporary of the Scoped 1903 rifles of WW1 would have been the SMLE MkIII (T), a rifle with notably inferior accuracy compared with its contemporaries and that accuracy severely compromised in a very short time by the effect on its delicate bedding by the damp conditions of the trenches and bores eaten up by the highly erosive British ammo.



You must be mistaking this for the Springfield Bashing thread. Maybe you'll find that thread on some UK or German site.

The Gew 98 was no doubt accurate enough, though not quite as accurate as the Springfield. Those ridiculous looking Lange sights may have worked fairly well, though they were not carried over in any later Mauser military designs.

In Combat German troops were trained not to fire until within 400 yards of the enemy to avoid wasting ammo, which is why the German commanders at Belleau Wood were astounded to find their men dropping like flies when the Marines opened up at over 600 yards.

The SMLE MkIII has one of the most user friendly rear sights. Unfortunately the skinny windage adjustment screw is easily broken off despite the thick protectors, the windage adjustment was deleted from the MkIII*.


Which somehow never actually adversely affected its use in combat.



Nothing delicate about the Springfield, only a ham handed recruit could damage one unless they did so on purpose. Far too many Germans and Japanese ended up rotting in the jungle or at the bottom of a gun pit with Springfield bullets through the brain pan for any but those with too high an opinion of themselves to say the M1903 was not a proven battle rifle.
The bedding of the Enfield is its most delicate feature. Anyone can look into the extreme measures taken to accurize these rifles and the many historical references to loss of accuracy due to the difficulty in maintain that bedding under combat conditions.
Those historical sources were written by those who had a hand in the development of the rifle, and who had trained British snipers to get the best performance possible.

Wow...there you go again.

Ever seen a cracked receiver Patt'14....bet you have'nt. I have seen cracked receiver M17's...that were NOT rebarreled. I had a mint M17 that had green streked wood and when disassembled to remove the grease caked in and on it it was a major effort to get the warped stock back on !!.
I have had skennerton's book on the "US Enfield" for over two decades. I am well versed in the british use of fine adjustment rear sights on the Patt'14 for sniping. As an avid shooter whom has had gobs of all of these rifles I can tell you for a fact the 1903 is a delicate rifle. Very easily damaged front and rear sights , easily damaged handguard , the great war product having no recoil lug in the stock caused stock damage if shot alot , and the awesome heatret hundres of thousands of these potential IED's got. I've told you before of my personal experiances with two different 03's I owned that had peirced primer incidents with surplus ball ammo and in both cases the cockpeice became a reward darting and very dangerous projectile. That cannot happen on an enfield or patt14 as they don't use the weak two peice firing pin arrangement. I have encountered many 03's that had their rear sight bases pin pricked to swell the metal to stop worn and or sloppily made sight beds from walking windage while being shot or handled. Seen gobs of bent/broken 03 rear sights...a really delicate set of parts...almost as delicate as those on the Ross abominations.
Every No1 MkIII that I have had and own will outshoot any of the awesome 03's I have had or shot. I have had more than a couple No4's that were beautifully accurate and of course very durable.
Apparently you have never handled a gew98 in original trim on the "range". They had the best issue sight picture for fast and accurate snap shooting. The Patt'14 peep lends itself to excellent quick acquisition shooting . The Springyfield.... not so much with it's tiny krag like sight picture. The No1 MkII's...with those rear sight ears and front nosecap ears make snap shooting accurately on the fly easy. The gew98 sights were as well rugged.....you can toss a gew98 about and down and I'd wager you won't harm those sights ...whereas the 03...something will break or shift. I have original german field manuals for the gew88 and gew98..... there was no "wait until 400 meters" to fire in them strangely enough .

How many Americans died in the mud with german and jap bullets through the brain as well ?.What a stupid macho remark of irrelevancy you replied with.... and I say that from my experiance of having at least been active duty as Infantry and later in the ARNG - 13 yrs combined.
You really should read more on Belleau wood...especially from some real german veterans accounts...you might not be jingling the johnny so propaganda like. I have one veteran MG gunners account of swatting down US troops at belleau wood in scores as they left a shattered treeline into an open field...time and time again. No laser like 03 ever got him strangely enough.
You don't think the US service ammunition was not just as corrosive as that used by other belligerents ?. There is in my experiance no such thing as Mildly" corrosive priming..it either is or isn't and how you clean your bore..or not.
You have to know the politics behind the 03 rifle. You have to know many experianced shooters of the day in it's heyday whose target & combat experiance proved to them how not so stellar it was as you seem to ignore those that used it whom had considerable hands on with 'in the day'.
I digress but it reminds me how the US got saddled with the M14 in the 1950's due to politics.
You keep your range queens and I'll keep my proven rugged battle rifles.

[303Guy]

... it reminds me how the US got saddled with the M14 ...Might I ask why you say "saddled with"?

[robertbank]

This has been very interesting. Thanks all.

I know very little about WWI. The Galipoli landing is something I know a little about because of ANZAC. I had heard of that Gurkha exercise - it's hard to believe it's even possible!

P.S. It would be nice someone if would separate out the WWI discussion and put all it under a thread of that title so we can all find it easily.

My father in law had a similar experience either in Africa while attached to the 8th Army or in Normandy. While standing guard he felt a hand by his boot laces, with a whispered comment, "OK Johnny". Canadians as you know wear boots with laces, Germans have the laceless type of boot. At night, who knew who was who? Linda's dad told me they were to stay still if they felt the hands touching their boots. Hello Ghurkas. Met some of them at the Small Arms Competition held at the Connaught Range near Ottawa, ON in 2007. Very professional soldiers. Cool knife.

Take Care

Bob

[Multigunner]

Nice that the Marines were picking off machine gunners at 800 yards well done, good for you, I am surprised it wasn't at 1,000 yards or more.
Those were kills with iron sights, one Marine Sniper ( Roland Fisher of the 51st Company )with scoped Springfield killed six gunners in a row at 1400 yards and was recommended for the Silver Star, the award was later downgraded to Distinguished Service Cross.
These kills at 1400 yards are not on official world records because it was impossible to confirm the exact range afterwards.
Marine snipers of WW2 often confirmed the range using artillery range finders. Kills at 1200 yards were recorded. During the Iraq conflict the record kill for a 7.62 NATO rifle was 1300 yards. All longer range kills where range was confirmed were with magnum chamberings or .50 BMG rifles.
I have seen a photo of a British officer in North Africa in WW2 being tended after being centered in the chest by a scoped .20mm anti tank rifle that the Italians sometimes used as long range sniper rifles. The range was given as 2,000 yards. Though since the officer was standing alongside a tank when hit its possible that the tank was the actual target and the officer just got in the way.



Yes very likely. We aren't even clairvoyant either. The story of the Devil Dogs and the Marines Multi quoted appeared in US newspapers in April apparently two months before the term was supposed to have been attributed to the Marines in their actions in June. That and the fact the quote does not translate back to German makes the story even more fanciful.
The term may have been first used in an earlier action, Belleau wood made it stick.
The German words for Devil and for Dog are there, its not unlikely that Germans could have called Marines devils and called them dogs, the words spoken separately rather than as a phrase.
Earliest news story I found on this was that the words were blurted out by a wounded German.
There are a number of German regional dialects, just as there are numerous English dialects.
Yiddish is based on High German. I remember a NAZI propaganda article on the Superman comic book. The German author was very anal about the Germans in the comic book using words and phases that came from Yiddish High German rather than the common German tongue.
Devil Dog in Yiddish is "Sotn Hunt".

PS
http://archive.org/stream/jstor-27785902/27785902_djvu.txt
The author, who was there, says that the Germans gave the Marines the title Devil Dogs.
He does not give the exact date but this was apparently some time before the main Battle at Belleau wood after several engagements with German Patrols.


These trenches which we were to occupy had been dug by
the French Colonial troops in the early part of the war. They
were in a very bad condition and there was plenty of work
to do in repairing them. The dugouts swarmed with vermin;
huge rats ran across the men as they slept, and wrought havoc
with the emergency rations. This section had been an inac-
tive one since the great Verdun offensive of 1916 and was
being used at the time by the French as a rest sector under
what seemed to us a tacit agreement that, "if you don't shoot
at me, I won't shoot at you." Our instructions were to keep
our heads down and not to permit the enemy to see that the
Americans had entered the lines.

But they didn't know the Marines.

When the dawn came our men climbed onto the parapets
and when they saw some Germans down by a creek washing
their clothing they promptly opened fire on them. This not
only brought down the wrath of the French but a raid by the
Germans. Now came our long waited chance for action. The
Germans after a preliminary bombardment, came over on us
in force. When they reached the barbed wire entanglements
in front of our trenches, we opened up such a heavy rifle and
machine gun fire that we held them in the wire until the
American artillery, which had only moved in an hour before,
got into action, and the barrage they poured upon them sent
them back with a heavy loss of life. We had been successful
in our first encounter, and a wave of such pride and en-
thusiasm swept over the line that it silenced all criticism and
dispelled any doubt in the minds of the French that we could
fight.

Resistance became more stubborn and raids more daring
as our first feeling of nervousness wore off. Encounters with
the enemy patrols were eagerly sought as the clashes grew
more frequent, for we invariably exacted a heavy toll. The
Germans infuriated at the appearance of this new foe, bom-
barded our positions and resorted to every device to make our
stay in the trenches as uncomfortable as possible. Every
trick known to trench warfare was resorted to and sleep soon



184 Indiana Magazine of History

became impossible. There they first conferred upon us the
name of "Devil Dogs," and as there had been only two other
units named by the Germans during the entire war: The
Scottish troops, called "The Ladies from Hell," and the Alpine
Chausseurs, the "Blue Devils," we felt that we had been very
highly complimented. When we left the trenches General
Harbord was placed in command. General Pershing told him
at that time he was placing him in charge of the finest body
of troops in France. We now took our position in the Allied
armies as an equal, for we had been tried by fire and sur-
passed their expectations.




Near the southern limits of the Bois Belleau the Germans
encountered a stone wall of resistance. They advanced
through a wheat field in their famous mass formation, confi-
dent of victory. Bayonets flashed, machine guns burst forth
and a heavy rifle fire raked their ranks. The Boche recoiled,
came on. Our men took careful aim before they shot. The
Boche wavered and broke, crawling off through the wheat to
shelter in the woods. A French colonel witnessing the fight
declared it was the first time in the history of European war-
fare that men ever sighted their guns and fired with such
precision.

Many difficulties were experienced as we advanced
through the wooded areas. The tree tops were infested with
machine gun nests. This meant work with the bayonet, hand
to hand with an enemy we had already found we could master.
We took no prisoners and the only Germans we left behind
were dead Germans. They were quick to perceive this and
changed the whimper of "Kamarad" to the plea, "La Guerre
est fini."
Harrison Cale, U. S. M. C,

[303Guy]

I thought the 7.62 NATO could not shoot accurately passed 1000 yds due to the bullet going transonic? Doesn't mean a bullet can't be put on target but the uncertainty would be high.

[Multigunner]

I thought the 7.62 NATO could not shoot accurately passed 1000 yds due to the bullet going transonic? Doesn't mean a bullet can't be put on target but the uncertainty would be high.
The standard ball round probably would not be suited to such long ranges.
Modern long range target ammo with heavier boatail bullets launvhed at higher than normal velocities can maintain supersonic velocities past 1200 yards. Use of ammunition of this sort in competition at Bisley is why all Converted no.4 rifles now have to be reproofed for the higher chamber pressures before they can be used in competition.
The chamber pressure of M118 is 52,000 CUP with a maximum allowable deviation of 57,000 CUP as opposed to 48,000 CUP for M80 Ball.
Some civilian long range target loads run to 59,000 CUP.

Not sure about the maximum accurate range of the newer M118 Long Range Special ball, it uses the Sierra Matchking boatail bullet.

If the bullet suffers transonic buffeting it does not necessarily cause instability as such, though it would increase spread at longer ranges.

From what little I've found on the USMC snipers of WW1 it appears they used the same Winchester A5 Scope preferred by Canadian and British snipers, rather than the Warner Swasey scope used by Army snipers.
Canada also used the Warner Swasey scope to some extent.
The Marine snipers also used some rifles that had been used by their marksmanship units in completion.
While I found no record of the ammunition used, and its presumed they used standard 150 gr .30-06 Ball, its possible that some Remington match grade ammunition with 180 gr bullets would have been available though not a standard issue.

Marine snipers outranged the enemy to the point that the Germans often had to call in artillery strikes to deal with a single sniper.

[gew98]

Might I ask why you say "saddled with"?

Collector Grade Publications over 20 years ago put out an excellent book on the development , adoption and history of the M14. There are alot of reasons why it was the shortest lived US issue rifle since the civil war. Politics made the M14 adoption...not the best product. My late father whilst serving as a Navy SeaBee at Gitmo during the Cuban missle crisis had their M1's pulled...even the marines with them had their M1's pulled and were issued brand spanking new M14's. First range session to zero these rifles had alot of gas regulators coming apart and the majority had rear sights that loosened up to th epoint of bits falling off. Within a couple days they repacked these junkers and got reissued their M1's.

[gew98]

Harrison Cale, U. S. M. C,

Wow..you must be wiki's best "customer". 51'st company....never saw an infantry batt with with 51 comapnies oddly enough ?. Maybe one day practical experiance and stayin on topic might happen....guess not.
But to stick with the topic...The No 1Mk III is the superior bolt rifle , seconded by the gew98 And maybe thirded as a close tie by the Patt/14/M1917...the 03...yeah right it's last at #4.

[Multigunner]

Wow..you must be wiki's best "customer". 51'st company....never saw an infantry batt with with 51 comapnies oddly enough ?.


Group photo 51st company 5th Marines 1919.
https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.flickr.com/photos/usmcarchives/8367780636/&sa=U&ei=8XFRUt-FG-vc4AO8wgE&ved=0CAcQFjAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNEJPFgTLecBT59zFPB6VoMM3byXiA


You just keep on digging your hole deeper Von Clauswitz.

Anyone who'd claim that the Sten Gun walked away with all the prizes at sub machine gun competirions isn't likely to be considered an authority on firearms.
Your opinions don't carry as much weight as you think they do.

[robertbank]

Some here should do some searches and look at photos of the battlefield to see exactly what most of the land looked like. One could get the impression all one had to do was hook up a few riflemen and decimate the opposition with rifle fire.

Not that it matters much but a Canadian squad in Aftghanistan held the longest kill by a sniper unit at over 2,000 yards. I believe this has since been eclipsed by an American team in the same war zone.

While I appreciate the voracity of the US Marine Corp one should be able to concede there is a great deal of folklore in some of what history brings forward.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_Dog

The poster on the page is pretty typical of the recruitment posters used to encourage enlistment and keep the home fires engaged.

There are some pictures attached to this article that give you some idea of the conditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Passchendaele

It is no wonder men went crazy during and after the war.

Take Care

Bob
ps As an aside scrolling through the pages I found a site that had a copy of my Grand Fathers Enlistment at Edmonton, Alberta, April 15, 1915 Kind of neat. He listed himself as a carpenter. He departed, with the 49th Battalion - later the Loyal Edmonton Regiment May 29, 1915. 20 odd years later Pvt Krause, my wife's uncle, lost an eye at Ortona, Italy serving with the Loyal Eddies

[Multigunner]

Some here should do some searches and look at photos of the battlefield to see exactly what most of the land looked like. One could get the impression all one had to do was hook up a few riflemen and decimate the opposition with rifle fire.

Not that it matters much but a Canadian squad in Aftghanistan held the longest kill by a sniper unit at over 2,000 yards. I believe this has since been eclipsed by an American team in the same war zone.
If you had noticed I said the1300 yard shot was a record for the 7.62 Nato class of sniper rifles. >50 BMG and the magnum caliber sniper rifles have a much longer range.

Why don't you read Hesketh Prichard's book "Sniping in France", you might get an idea of just how effective rifle fire could be.




While I appreciate the voracity of the US Marine Corp one should be able to concede there is a great deal of folklore in some of what history brings forward.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_Dog

The poster on the page is pretty typical of the recruitment posters used to encourage enlistment and keep the home fires engaged.
Gee posting a link to Wikipedia, Gew 98 will have a conniption fit for sure.




There are some pictures attached to this article that give you some idea of the conditions.
I've seen all sorts of photos of the WW1 war zone.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Passchendaele

It is no wonder men went crazy during and after the war.

Take Care
Shelling will do that. These days they call it traumatic brain injury.


Bob
ps As an aside scrolling through the pages I found a site that had a copy of my Grand Fathers Enlistment at Edmonton, Alberta, April 15, 1915 Kind of neat. He listed himself as a carpenter. He departed, with the 49th Battalion - later the Loyal Edmonton Regiment May 29, 1915. 20 odd years later Pvt Krause, my wife's uncle, lost an eye at Ortona, Italy serving with the Loyal Eddies


Everyone my age has lost family members in at least three wars that I know of, those fought since I was born. I don't have the record of WW1 casualties in the family.
My Mother suffered from one of the Spanish flu mutations which killed most of her family and decimated her farming community. She was unable to walk till she was over ten years old and had vision problems all her life.
When a child they wrapped her legs with sacking so she could crawl along dragging a pail to take water to those working the fields.
Being the son of a Spanish Flu survivor I had a particular interest in the subject.

Someone mentioned the M-14 earlier. Sniper versions of the M-14 have a sterling record and the M-14 based designated marksman rifles have been in use for quite some time now.
The sniper versions of the FN FAL used by Argentina had a rather poor showing in the Falklands and at least one British sniper found his L42 rifle had lost its zero after a few rounds fired during an icy drizzle, then the bolt began to bind so badly that he tossed the rifle in a creek and took up a captured FAL rifle to continue the fight. This is recorded in one of Martin Pegler's books on sniping. So it appears concerns about rain wetted ammo have a basis, the situation worsened when an Enfield has been converted to the more potent 7.62 NATO chambering.

There will always be a place for long range accuracy and penetration power, make no mistake about that.

German machine gunners often wore heavy steel breastplates and reinforced helmets. Various types of anti fragmentation cloaks were worn as well.
The French dealt with these well protected gunners by employing flying squads armed with the Chauchat LMG and rifle grenades, the grenades had to land very close to kill by concussion since the gunner's armor shielded them from fragments. An expert rifleman could pick off these gunners with a bit less fuss, the breastplates would not stop a .30-06 at ranges of 200 yards or so, bullets to the gunner's face were most effective, and the effective range was much longer that way.
The .303 MkVII had the least penetration on trench armor of any rifle tested at the time. There is a very good book on the subject here.
http://archive.org/details/helmetsbodyarmor00deanuoft


PS
The discussion on the origin of the term Devil Dog reminded my of something I read among the accounts of Marines that were in the Belleau Wood fight.
When they over ran a German fortification a German officer came out of his dug out screaming at the Marines that they were drunks and animals. He didn't get the opportunity to elaborate since a marine LT then shot him in the head with a .45 ending the tirade.
The High German for Devil Dog is Sotn Hunt (meaning I suppose Satan Hound) , the word Sot in American English is commonly used to describe a drunkard. If the German where calling them Devil Dogs in High German or the related Yiddish dialect ( and there were many Jewish officers in the German army in those days) the man who wrote about this may have mis understood believing the German had said drunks and animals.
High German is still spoken by some Christian religious enclaves in the United States, and of course Yiddish is still commonly spoken by European jews.

[savagetactical]

Collector Grade Publications over 20 years ago put out an excellent book on the development , adoption and history of the M14. There are alot of reasons why it was the shortest lived US issue rifle since the civil war. Politics made the M14 adoption...not the best product. My late father whilst serving as a Navy SeaBee at Gitmo during the Cuban missle crisis had their M1's pulled...even the marines with them had their M1's pulled and were issued brand spanking new M14's. First range session to zero these rifles had alot of gas regulators coming apart and the majority had rear sights that loosened up to th epoint of bits falling off. Within a couple days they repacked these junkers and got reissued their M1's.

You ever actually used an M14 in service ? I have.. more than once and I assure you that what you are saying is total tomfoolery. The M14 had and today has an excellent service record. The M14 does not do well in Full Auto but no full powered shoulder fired rifle does, the M14 in stock trim is just as reliable as the FAL or L1A1, and more accurate. The M14 was initially replaced in service for a host of reasons that had nothing what so ever to do with it not being an excellent rifle. The M1 while a great rifle has weaknesses the M14 improved upon, Its a fact that the M14 is more accurate than an M1 . It has been proven many times.

I own both and they are both great rifles , one is a product improvement of the other. It benefits from the knowledge gained from manufacture and use of the first over the course 30 years.

[savagetactical]

Group photo 51st company 5th Marines 1919.
https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.flickr.com/photos/usmcarchives/8367780636/&sa=U&ei=8XFRUt-FG-vc4AO8wgE&ved=0CAcQFjAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNEJPFgTLecBT59zFPB6VoMM3byXiA


You just keep on digging your hole deeper Von Clauswitz.

Anyone who'd claim that the Sten Gun walked away with all the prizes at sub machine gun competirions isn't likely to be considered an authority on firearms.
Your opinions don't carry as much weight as you think they do.


Truth they did not call it the stench gun for no reason at all , and they did not sort through magazines for fun it was to find a given number that would work with a specific gun. It was not an uncommon practice for new STENS to literally be discarded on the battle field because they were not reliable or sometime operative at all when they arrived. The STENS best quality was that it could be manufactured in large numbers cheaply.

[robertbank]

Great grandad died of the Spanish Flu in 1918. More folks died of the Spanish Flu then all the deaths from WW1.

When folks were dying by the thousands daily do you really think snipers played a major part in affecting the outcome of any of the battles? Look at the pictures at Pachendale where you were more likely to drown in shell holes then be killed by snipers.

How did your 30-06 compare to a shotgun blast in the chest or a shovel driven squarely in the neck or the use of the bayonet. Truth is once in the trenches the rifle was an effective spear or club more that a firearm. The 1911 pistol in the trenches was probably the most effective firearm on the battlefield other than the shotgun once troops got into the trenches.

Do you really believe all these trials and matches you continue to bring up had any significance other than to justify some bean counters decision. The M 14 went up against the FAL and lost in the trials but being from Europe the US went with the M14 which in reality was not much more than a warmed over Garand eg change the cartridge and add a magazine, I have had both. The FN had it's problems as well but in semi-auto mode did quite well. Incidentally the Brits used the FN FAL in the Falklands, and IIRC won the day or at least so said the boys I talked to. Not sure why they would pick up an Argentina FN FAL other than they were fun to shoot as they shot full auto while the Brits were limited.

Take Care

Bob

[Multigunner]

Great grandad died of the Spanish Flu in 1918. More folks died of the Spanish Flu then all the deaths from WW1.

When folks were dying by the thousands daily do you really think snipers played a major part in affecting the outcome of any of the battles? Look at the pictures at Pachendale where you were more likely to drown in shell holes then be killed by snipers.
Gee you have an extremely narrow view of what went on during those battles. As I said read "Sniping in France" it might open your eyes a bit.


How did your 30-06 compare to a shotgun blast in the chest or a shovel driven squarely in the neck or the use of the bayonet. Truth is once in the trenches the rifle was an effective spear or club more that a firearm. The 1911 pistol in the trenches was probably the most effective firearm on the battlefield other than the shotgun once troops got into the trenches.
The USMC also employed shotguns, the only ones on the Western Front to do so officially, which brought some protests from the Germans. They had to be reminded that the U S had not signed that part of the Hague convention.

Best way to avoid a shovel to the neck is to shoot the man carrying the shovel stone dead.
Pistols were fairly expensive back then, not every soldier had a pistol handy.




Do you really believe all these trials and matches you continue to bring up had any significance other than to justify some bean counters decision. The M 14 went up against the FAL and lost in the trials but being from Europe the US went with the M14 which in reality was not much more than a warmed over Garand eg change the cartridge and add a magazine, I have had both. The FN had it's problems as well but in semi-auto mode did quite well. Incidentally the Brits used the FN FAL in the Falklands, and IIRC won the day or at least so said the boys I talked to. Not sure why they would pick up an Argentina FN FAL other than they were fun to shoot as they shot full auto while the Brits were limited.

Take Care

Bob

The Argentines used a scoped FAL as their sniper rifle.
Since the rifle the sniper picked up was a captured rifle I suspect that the British FAL rifles were all still being employed by the soldiers who'd carried them.
Since both sides used basically the same rifle it was individual marksmanship that decided the winner.

The Test version of the FN tested by the U S was an unrefined early version, not notably better in any way than the M-14.
I'm not a fan of the M-14, the M-1A rifles I've fired always seemed a bit awkward compared to my Garand. It is a highly refined design, the refinements not obvious from simply looking at it.

I like the FAL type rifles, I've used a few different versions over the years. One fault with these is that some heavy ball ammo can cause premature unlocking. If the Propellant and projectile combination delivers excessive gas port pressure the bolt starts to unlock before residual pressure in the case drops. This can cause a torn off rim and stuck case putting the rifle out of action.
There's usually not enough adjustment in the gas nut to compensate for this.
The bolts with sand cuts are more reliable than earlier versions.

The M-14 uses a expansion chamber system. The gas enters that chamber in a measured amount while continuing to expand, which provides a gentle and very positive thrust to the op rod.

PS
The FN T48 test versions failed the arctic weather tests, even though FN engineers made modifications on the spot, the T44 M-14 prototypes passed the tests handily due to the superior gas system.
This could be one reason the never issued the obsolete Canadian versions of the FAL to the Canadian Rangers.

The Israelis found the FAL was not suited to desert warfare, but I doubt the M14 would fare much better unless kept scrupulously clean. Its easier to clean out the trigger group of a Garand or M-14 than with any other rifle I've seen.

[gew98]

NO - I did not thankfully use that M14 HALFBREED. My FATHER did and it was soundly a peice of junk new out of the crate. Read up on the teething problems of the M14 and the politics behind it's adoption. Very Very few M14's are in individuals hands. The vast majority of rifles out there like that are CLONES and are tweaked..either real good or real bad. The M14 was a step backwards when adopted.That it was rushed and had a gob of problems are fact. That it was one if not the shortest lived rifle in US service speaks volumes.
My uncle served in vietnam with the M16..it and it's ammunition were prone to get a grunt killed. With the scandal on ammunition and cheapened product conclusions effectively hidden from the public hardly a soul new except the guys like my uncle using the dumbed down product until the A1 variation made it in the field and the ammo companies quietly supplied the PROPERLY loaded ammo. Please do read on about the M14 teething troubles with accuracy and such. The "M14" clones in civilian hands that have been tweaked and bedded like a newborn baby can shoot awesomely...issue rifles as made..not so.



You ever actually used an M14 in service ? I have.. more than once and I assure you that what you are saying is total tomfoolery. The M14 had and today has an excellent service record. The M14 does not do well in Full Auto but no full powered shoulder fired rifle does, the M14 in stock trim is just as reliable as the FAL or L1A1, and more accurate. The M14 was initially replaced in service for a host of reasons that had nothing what so ever to do with it not being an excellent rifle. The M1 while a great rifle has weaknesses the M14 improved upon, Its a fact that the M14 is more accurate than an M1 . It has been proven many times.

I own both and they are both great rifles , one is a product improvement of the other. It benefits from the knowledge gained from manufacture and use of the first over the course 30 years.

[gew98]

Truth they did not call it the stench gun for no reason at all , and they did not sort through magazines for fun it was to find a given number that would work with a specific gun. It was not an uncommon practice for new STENS to literally be discarded on the battle field because they were not reliable or sometime operative at all when they arrived. The STENS best quality was that it could be manufactured in large numbers cheaply.

Funny guys ha ha . I have attended quite a few years of Knob Creek MG shoots and the STEN gun acquits itself often there in the SMG shoots ...but then again it's not an exotic sexy high dollar pill squirter or SMLE . Ever serve with an M3 or M3A1 "greasegun" ? , I did as a 19D.... they are about as junk as they come.

[gew98]

Gee you have an extremely narrow view of what went on during those battles. As I said read "Sniping in France" it might open your eyes a bit.
.

Wow...such a condescending ****...... for a guy that uses wikipedia like his right arm and knows almost nothing of the great war ...thou blow like a whale.

[savagetactical]

Funny guys ha ha . I have attended quite a few years of Knob Creek MG shoots and the STEN gun acquits itself often there in the SMG shoots ...but then again it's not an exotic sexy high dollar pill squirter or SMLE . Ever serve with an M3 or M3A1 "greasegun" ? , I did as a 19D.... they are about as junk as they come.

Actually yes I did , former Sheridan crew member here the M3A1's I shot ran like a raped ape. Even the well worn version I used in the 80's ran very nicely. The only issue with the Grease guns were the original M3's which had the crank charging handle which was done away with on the M3A1.

[EDG]

It has been noted that a Sten failed to fire during the attack on Reinhard Heydrich.
The Sten was dropped and a mine converted to a bomb was thrown at the car wounding Heydrich.


Funny guys ha ha . I have attended quite a few years of Knob Creek MG shoots and the STEN gun acquits itself often there in the SMG shoots ...but then again it's not an exotic sexy high dollar pill squirter or SMLE . Ever serve with an M3 or M3A1 "greasegun" ? , I did as a 19D.... they are about as junk as they come.

[EDG]

I would assume that you were not in the great war so all you can do is repeat what others have said.


Wow...such a condescending ****...... for a guy that uses wikipedia like his right arm and knows almost nothing of the great war ...thou blow like a whale.

[BruceB]

Rather a wide-ranging (and somewhat heated) thread running here. I'll try to avoid raising hackles...

There's a goodly amount of experience with ALL these rifles on my backtrail.

I was fortunate enough to NOT have to go to war, but my amassed time with the rifles amounts to many years.

This specifically INCLUDES years spent with a pair of original, *real* TRW-built , US-issue M-14s, as well as several M1A "clones" of the -14, which I used in the far North of Canada, down to forty-below-zero or worse. Given reasonable care, they all performed perfectly, and I liked them better than the several Garands I also owned. (The M-14s were readily-available in Canada, unlike their verboten status in the USA.... and cheaply, too!)

I've also owned and/or used the FAL (Canadian, British, Australian "inch" rifles as well as a few metric ones from Europe and my current DSA SA58).

It seems that very few new rifle systems were ever adopted by the various nations without a lot of star- and navel-gazing, along with vast amounts of politicking, infighting and argument. For being "horses designed by committees" (i.e.: camels) the rifles as a group do rather well.

The STEN is indeed a better weapon than its appearance indicates, as is the similarly-crude US-made M3 .45 SMG. The ones I owned were quite reliable and enjoyable to shoot. My issued SMG was the Sterling, very much a follow-on design to the STEN but of much higher quality of manufacture.

At one time or another, I owned, loaded-for, and studied EVERY major rifle type from the rifled-musket to the AR15/AR180, with the only conspicuous missing link being the trapdoor Springfield... one will probably follow me home one of these days.

NO NATION willingly equips its men with deathtraps. Mistakes are certainly made, or snake-oil pitches accepted as valid, but there was no attitude of knowingly buying or building junk.

A reasonable rifle of almost any type, IN THE HANDS OF A MAN WHO UNDERSTANDS RIFLES IN GENERAL, will probably serve adequately... not necessarily perfectly, but adequately. This, of course, excludes draftees and others with little-to-zero knowledge concerning how to keep a rifle (or other weapon) operational.

Picking nits from another man's particular favorite serves no good purpose and mostly leads to hard feelings or contempt.

For example, MY pet service rifle is the #4 Mk1*.... I'm well aware of its compromises, shortcomings etc, but those don't diminish its qualities or its practicality. Others in the ranks of .303 service rifles are almost as good (always barring the Ross in this category)..

In the autoloaders I like the M-14/M1A followed by the FAL.... long experience has proven their abilities in my hands.

There are surely a LOT of folks who are willing to condemn almost ANY given rifle type purely on the strength of "war stories" or "I read somewhere that...."

Not me. I even found such reputed "dogs" as Snyders, Carcanos and Mosins to have positive attributes, and TAKEN IN THE CONTEXT OF THEIR TIMES, to be serviceable and useful WEAPONS.... because 'weapons' is what they were, and we should remember that fact.

[EDG]

The Falklands War was a goat roping if I ever saw one. The Brits puny carrier, the Hermes, and its 20 or so Harriers were all that allowed them to prevail. The only thing that allowed the Harriers to prevail was the Sidewinder. The Argies had no comparable missile and no countermeasures for them.
The Brits were terribly unprepared. As soon as the war started the company where I worked went on overtime manufacturing chaff cartridges for the AN/ALE 40 countermeasure system used on the Harrier.

More people died of the flu because it went around the world a couple of times thanks to soldiers carrying it the civilians. There is no good reason to compare the flu to battle deaths though. It means nothing in the context of the Lee Enfield.


Great grandad died of the Spanish Flu in 1918. More folks died of the Spanish Flu then all the deaths from WW1.

When folks were dying by the thousands daily do you really think snipers played a major part in affecting the outcome of any of the battles? Look at the pictures at Pachendale where you were more likely to drown in shell holes then be killed by snipers.

How did your 30-06 compare to a shotgun blast in the chest or a shovel driven squarely in the neck or the use of the bayonet. Truth is once in the trenches the rifle was an effective spear or club more that a firearm. The 1911 pistol in the trenches was probably the most effective firearm on the battlefield other than the shotgun once troops got into the trenches.

Do you really believe all these trials and matches you continue to bring up had any significance other than to justify some bean counters decision. The M 14 went up against the FAL and lost in the trials but being from Europe the US went with the M14 which in reality was not much more than a warmed over Garand eg change the cartridge and add a magazine, I have had both. The FN had it's problems as well but in semi-auto mode did quite well. Incidentally the Brits used the FN FAL in the Falklands, and IIRC won the day or at least so said the boys I talked to. Not sure why they would pick up an Argentina FN FAL other than they were fun to shoot as they shot full auto while the Brits were limited.

Take Care

Bob

[303carbine]

Truth they did not call it the stench gun for no reason at all , and they did not sort through magazines for fun it was to find a given number that would work with a specific gun. It was not an uncommon practice for new STENS to literally be discarded on the battle field because they were not reliable or sometime operative at all when they arrived. The STENS best quality was that it could be manufactured in large numbers cheaply.


I have never shot a sten or know about whether or not it's a good firearm, but my recently passed uncle who served in Korea was issued one and tried it out. He said, "I shot the sten quite a bit, I want my No4 back"
He turned it in and was given his No4Mk1 Longbranch back to fight with, he was there for over a year before being shipped home after the shootout stopped.

[savagetactical]

I have never shot a sten or know about whether or not it's a good firearm, but my recently passed uncle who served in Korea was issued one and tried it out. He said, "I shot the sten quite a bit, I want my No4 back"
He turned it in and was given his No4Mk1 Longbranch back to fight with, he was there for over a year before being shipped home after the shootout stopped.

This is actually a quite common account, they were notoriously unreliable guns. The best version was the MKV and it was never ran with a great level of reliability. It is one of the reasons the STEN was supplanted with the Sterling which while based on the STEN had many improvements including a vastly better magazine and much tighter tolerances. I often hear people talk of a military weapon needing to be held to lose tolerances for it to be reliable, the STEN is an example of a gun when held to overly loose tolerance can be an issue. The STEN guns magazine well was notorious for not being uniform in dimensions from gun to gun as were the magazines. Also the design was weak and prone to failure. I have shot STENS at machine gun shoots that were totally reliable guns that were built by on registered tubes. The problem is when one compares a STEN built on a DLO tube by a gunsmith who was paying attention to detail he produces a quality weapon that functions reliably, when you have girls cranking them out by the wheel barrow full as fast as they can you will get many duds. The British got many duds, hence the STENCH GUN name given the STEN by the troops.

[303Guy]

I did my military training with an FN clone. Some thought is was great - those who faced real enemy with it and others hated the damn thing - those who had to run around with it in training and standing to attention with it. That carry handle was pain! It had a reputation for ripping through the case rim leaving the case behind and jambing if not cleaned. it also had a reputation for accuracy and reliability in the bush if maintained. I only fired two on full auto (we had semi-auto's). The first I fired two-shot bursts to good effect (the guy only gave me a few rounds) the second I fired from the hip with hand over the fore-grip to prevent muzzle climb. That gun was fun - it spat out the rounds very irregularly! with sometimes long pauses in between shots of varying times. But it shot them all out and I made the observation that it would be uncomfortable to be on the wrong end of it.

A rifle I really liked is the mini-14. Can't see how it can be unreliable in any way. Accuracy wasn't bad with hand loads and the right bullet. Factory ammo didn't shoot worth a damn in it. Not by my reckoning anyway. I was using it for varmint hunting. It's a handy rifle, simple to operate, easy to carry in the bush and quick to bring to bear. Very usable safety catch. A shear delight. It would be my first choice if I were to be forced into a combat situation. But then I have no combat experience to base decisions on. Just carrying one in the bush all day long.

[Multigunner]

This is actually a quite common account, they were notoriously unreliable guns. The best version was the MKV and it was never ran with a great level of reliability. It is one of the reasons the STEN was supplanted with the Sterling which while based on the STEN had many improvements including a vastly better magazine and much tighter tolerances. I often hear people talk of a military weapon needing to be held to lose tolerances for it to be reliable, the STEN is an example of a gun when held to overly loose tolerance can be an issue. The STEN guns magazine well was notorious for not being uniform in dimensions from gun to gun as were the magazines. Also the design was weak and prone to failure. I have shot STENS at machine gun shoots that were totally reliable guns that were built by on registered tubes. The problem is when one compares a STEN built on a DLO tube by a gunsmith who was paying attention to detail he produces a quality weapon that functions reliably, when you have girls cranking them out by the wheel barrow full as fast as they can you will get many duds. The British got many duds, hence the STENCH GUN name given the STEN by the troops.

When GEW98 first made his ridiculous claims about the STEN walking away with all the prizes I looked up its ranking. Out of a field of fifty the only STEN to reach the final stage of competition was a MkV and it ranked around 24 out of 50. None of the earlier marks even came close.

Even the Chauchat LMG has some interesting features, and was in many ways a recoil operated precursor to the STEN and other second generation SMGs.
When well made and the magazines kept clean the gun worked fairly well.
Unfortunately most of these guns were not well made.
The French had a series of trials of French manufacturers of the Chauchat for war profiteering and use of substandard materials.

The M3A1 Greasegun was still in limited issue as late as 2008.

[robertbank]

The USMC also employed shotguns, the only ones on the Western Front to do so officially, which brought some protests from the Germans. They had to be reminded that the U S had not signed that part of the Hague convention.

The US never signed the Hague Convention , never mind one part of it.

Best way to avoid a shovel to the neck is to shoot the man carrying the shovel stone dead.

You really don't have an appreciation for what went on do you.


Since both sides used basically the same rifle it was individual marksmanship that decided the winner.

I don't suppose tactics and training had much to do with the final outcome or did it? Really war is not bulls eye shooting

This could be one reason the never issued the obsolete Canadian versions of the FAL to the Canadian Rangers.

The Canadian Rangers are not a fighting infantry force. They are presently issued #4 rifles. With the resent budget cuts plans to replace the #4's with another bolt gun (the Remington 700 is rumoured to be on the short list chambered in .308.) have been placed on hold. The old #4's are wearing out and there are no replacements available. There has never been any plans to replace the #4's with the FN when it was the service rifle for the Canadian Army. The FN operated in the Arctic environment. There are former members of the Cdn Army on this board who can comment on the rifles performance. During WW11 the Rangers on the West Coast were issued Win 94 in 30-30.



Take Care

Bob

[Multigunner]

Take Care

Bob

With thousands of obsolete FN rifles available why does Canada have to buy Pakistani made No.4 rifles to equip the Rangers?

As for fighting inside a trench, you should check out the old drawings of Italian trench raiding parties. They carried any sort of weapon, but mainly they depended on handguns, and the officers often wore thick breastplates and a helmet that looked down right medieval.

If any troops were limited to using only edged and blunt force weapons during trench raids it was only to avoid excessive noise which would alert the enemy. A .30 bullet can pass through three men when they are bunched up in a trench. The only time anyone used bayonet or fighting blades during an assault was when they were out of ammo or had no time to reload.
Occasionally some pinhead officer would order men over the top with empty magazines on the theory that if they had loaded rifles they would stop to fire during the advance and slow things down. This resulted in massive casualties since they had no way of countering the enemy fire.

As for Passchendaele
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-471468/Last-survivor-lives-horrors-Passchendaele.html


Endless torrential rain and an Allied barrage of more than four million shells that preceded the initial assault on July 31, 1917, turned the battlefield into a quagmire that would bog down the offensive.

Before Allied forces finally captured the town in November 1917, many soldiers were sucked under and drowned, and guns, tanks and horses also sank in the mud.

On the morning of August 16, Harry's battalion of the 7th Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry was given the task of launching an assault on the village of Langemarck.

"The ground we had to cover was just shell holes," Harry recalled.

"There were bodies, both our own and German, from the first wave. It was sickening to see your own dead and wounded, some crying for stretcher-bearers, others semi-conscious and others beyond all hope.

"There were men who had been ripped to pieces ? it wasn't just a case of seeing them with a neat bullet-hole in their tunic. Lots of people were crying for help but you couldn't stop.

"It was hellish," he adds in his slight Somerset burr.

"Just one long nightmare from the thunder of the guns as the battle began to the sound of the wounded crying out. You could do nothing to help them. You just had to go forward through all that mud and blood. It was absolutely sickening.
Still think those mass bombardments were such a good idea in every situation?
The effects of the bombardment itself prevent the Allies from making a successful advance.
The Tanks could not advance and many became bogged down to become sitting targets.



You really don't have an appreciation for what went on do you.

I've had to deal with armed opponents in the past, I've seen more than my share of blood, its nothing to brag about especially online.
As someone pointed out earlier, no one here fought in WW1. You are going by what you have read and what you have been told just like everyone else.

Colonel Fredrick May Wise
On the effects of a pre assault barrage at Belleau wood


[Later] I stood there under some trees by a ditch on the southern edge of the Bois de Belleau, and in the growing light watched my battalion march into position. It was getting lighter every minute. Suddenly the barrage dropped, several hundred yards in front of our lines. . . Amid the explosions of the bursting shells we could hear the German machine guns in the woods come to life. They couldn't see us yet, but they knew from the barrage that the attack was coming."

Others who were there said basically the same thing, The Barrage did little or nothing to silence the enemy gunners, it only alerted the Germans to the impending assault.
The same has been said about other battles.

I've studied photos from the aftermath of the Civil War battle at Knoxville Tennessee, a nearby city. The photos of the area around the University of Tennessee look very much like those photos of Passchedaele.

Theres an old saying about insanity being performing the same actions over and over and expecting a different outcome every time. The British made many insane attacks, cutting their own nose off to spite their face by chewing up no mans land to the point that their own troops found it impossible to advance and the supporting tanks could not advance to perform their duty.
Passchendaele was a prime example of failed tactics. The British sacrificed millions of lives in battles like this with little or no return on that bloody investment. Haig's war of attrition ground on.

PS


The US never signed the Hague Convention , never mind one part of it.

Wrong.
There are many articles to the Hague Convention. The U S did not sign onto the 1899 prohibition of Bullets designed to "expand or flatten easily in the human body".
The US did sign onto the 1907 Hague convention IV article 23 on "Arms, Projectiles, or Material Calculated to cause un necessary suffering."

[robertbank]

With thousands of obsolete FN rifles available why does Canada have to buy Pakistani made No.4 rifles to equip the Rangers?

Multi did you miss something? The Cdn Rangers use their guns for wilderness survival for the most part and the #4 rifle is their issued rifle. There aren't that many sources of decent #4s left The FN is not a gun suited for their purposes so why would you think we would consider issuing FN's to them. What they need is a modern bolt gun chambered in .308.

Sorry I don't have to look at pictures. My first source was my Grand father who was there and CBC had done some remarkable series on WW1. The helmet used by the allies on the Western Front was primarily designed for protection from artillery barrages. None that I know of provided 100% protection from rifle bullets which was true up to including the Korean conflict.

If any troops were limited to using only edged and blunt force weapons during trench raids it was only to avoid excessive noise which would alert the enemy. A .30 bullet can pass through three men when they are bunched up in a trench. The only time anyone used bayonet or fighting blades during an assault was when they were out of ammo or had no time to reload.

You must have read this in some manual written before the war. It certainly wasn't the reality. Don't let your imagination get the best of you.

As for Passchendaele

Go here: "http://www.canadaatwar.ca/content-12/wwi-passchendaele/

Canadian Lights German Prisoners Cigarette

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a387/robertbank/CanadianLights.jpg (http://s15.photobucket.com/user/robertbank/media/CanadianLights.jpg.html)

Canadian Pioneers carrying trench mats with wounded and prisoners in background during the Battle of Passchendaele.
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a387/robertbank/pdale_pioneers2.jpg (http://s15.photobucket.com/user/robertbank/media/pdale_pioneers2.jpg.html)

I know your incite would have changed the course of the war but you and Wikepedia were not around. I am sure Currie and the Canadian Corp could have used your incite.


Haig was what he was no matter or worse than a number of Generals of his era, including some of the American Generals. You are trying to play 2nd advocate 100 years after the events. Let them lie. All who fought in that war are dead now. Be happy you weren't there and be saddened others had to be. The Canadian Corp distinguished themselves there and had the benefit of what some say was the best Commander of the war, Sir Arthur Currie. Not bad for a high school graduate who joined the ranks as a Private and ended up commanding his countries contingent.

Take Care

Bob

[gew98]

Take Care

Bob

Bob , My sympathies when dealing with wikipedia types. Myself only having shot many Stens and M3's can give you my personal experiance..I'd take the sten. And yes moolti...A class 3 owner smoked all comers with a sten more than one year at Knob creek MG competition shoots. I was there while you were reading wikipedia in the armchair.
Your dissertation on trench raiding is laughable at best.... more wikipedia lik bunk and not actual veterans experiances. Trench raiding was an art - at night where bayonets , pistols , clubs , knobkerries etc etc were the preferred weapon to take prisoners and neutralize a hopefully surprised enemy...not shooting through three men in the dark like john wayne. But you would'nt know anything about that.

[robertbank]

Bob , My sympathies when dealing with wikipedia types. Myself only having shot many Stens and M3's can give you my personal experiance..I'd take the sten. And yes moolti...A class 3 owner smoked all comers with a sten more than one year at Knob creek MG competition shoots. I was there while you were reading wikipedia in the armchair.
Your dissertation on trench raiding is laughable at best.... more wikipedia lik bunk and not actual veterans experiances. Trench raiding was an art - at night where bayonets , pistols , clubs , knobkerries etc etc were the preferred weapon to take prisoners and neutralize a hopefully surprised enemy...not shooting through three men in the dark like john wayne. But you would'nt know anything about that.

Yuppers. I haven't shot the Sten but have shot the MP 4 which is a great weapon. The Cdn forces used the Sten in Italy and Europe with some success in house clearing, an art perfected by the Loyal Eddies at Ortona. Worked well in NW Europe later.

Three at a time Multi comment will no doubt be confirmed by a Wikepedia paragraph. Grand dad was involved with a few of the trench raids and I don't recall him getting into to many details of the mayhem involved when both on the giving and receiving end. It wasn't pretty.

Take Care

Bob

[Multigunner]

Bob , My sympathies when dealing with wikipedia types. Myself only having shot many Stens and M3's can give you my personal experiance..I'd take the sten. And yes moolti...A class 3 owner smoked all comers with a sten more than one year at Knob creek MG competition shoots. I was there while you were reading wikipedia in the armchair.

The you won't mind posting the official rankings for those years.
Heres the ranking for 2010 Open Bolt Iron sight class


Open Bolt/Iron Sights
Place Last Name Gun Score
1 Andy Blaschik Beretta PM 12 S 82.48
2 Tom James Thompson 95.48
3 Ron Montgomery Uzi 106.93
4 Jeremy Parker Sterling Mk IV 115.27
5 Chuck Phillips Sterling Mk IV 129.53
6 MG Sawyer Sten Mk V 131.92
7 Andy Montgomery Sterling Mk IV 135.48
8 Randy Sneed Thompson 136.51
9 Joe Carrere Port Said 145.38
10 JL Holden Thompson - M1A 147.93
11 Monty Mendenhall Beretta 148.60
12 Paul Tapar Max 11 - Lage 148.78
13 Michael Winthrop Spitfire 152.75
14 Bruce Emery Max11 - Lage 172.25
15 Ed Varner MP40 178.07
16 Pete Laub SW 76 179.97
17 Karl Stevens MAX10 195.20
18 David Brunberg Uzi 198.41
19 Thomas Ezendam Max11 - Lage 200.16
20 Dustin Montgomery Uzi 200.32
21 Ryan Crawford Max11 - Lage 201.81
22 Tony McKown Max11 - Lage 206.36
23 Clayt Stevens Max11 - Lage 210.78
24 Mike Kummer M3 - Grease gun 216.56
25 Samantha Sawyer Port Said 226.64
26 John Bingham Swedish K 245.58
27 Dave Schmidlin Thompson - M1A 247.26
28 Joe White Thompson 265.77
29 Hugh Dobbins Thompson 283.29
30 Thomas Kummer M3 - Grease gun 296.49
31 Dan Overcast Beretta 12S 301.12
32 Ron YaFanaro Thompson 316.54
33 Joel Baillie Swedish K 353.10
34 Curtis Angel Mk 760 416.29
35 Larry Ejzak Uzi AD
36 Leo Ottoni Swedish K AD
37 Paul Winters Thompson - 1928 West Hurley AD
38 Tyler Ejzak Uzi DNF
39 Wyatt Mangum Uzi DNF
40 Frank Vanpacpeghan Uzi DNF
41 Jim Weaver Beretta M38 DNS

That being the first I've heard of a STEN scoring that high at sixth place.
Hardly "walking away with all the prizes".
Once again it was the same competitor with the same MkV STEN who comes every year and does better than expected. If he ever got to first place I'd be pleased to hear it, he has certainly put in the hours. the rest of the STEN crowd are also rans.

2012 results
http://bullethose.com/2012/10/16/knob-creek-fall-2012-results-videos/
Sawyer placed tenth, good showing just the same but still no cigar.

here's the results for 2013

Open Bolt/Iron Sights
Place Score Shooter Gun
1 28.34 Andy, Blaschik Beretta PM12
2 35.25 Jeremy, Parker Sterling
3 38.52 Andy, Montgomery Sterling
4 44.88 Chuck, Phillips Sterling
5 50.79 Ron, Montgomery Uzi
6 53.48 Tom, James Thompson
7 54.94 Daniel, Allen M11
8 56.65 Andrew, Asnip Sterling
9 59.68 Richard, Lage M11
10 63.04 Jim, Reinhold Uzi
11 64.96 Joe, Carrere, Sr Swed K
12 65.02 Michael, Winthrop Spitfire
13 71.26 Bruce, Emery M11
14 71.78 John, Russell Swed K
15 77.32 Pete, Laub S&W76
16 77.33 Joe, White M11
17 80.06 Thomas, Kummer MP40
18 85.14 Andrew, Wampler Uzi
19 88.14 Hugh, Dobbins Uzi
20 90.60 Jeff, Russell Swed K
21 92.43 Matt, Hammond M11
22 92.60 Cain, Grocox Uzi
23 98.03 Brian, Luettke Uzi
24 101.83 Edward, Schillig M11
25 105.07 Gerald, Dorsey Swed K
26 109.29 Douglas, Dunham M11
27 111.13 Nick, Childs Thompson
28 114.92 Mike, Kummer MP40
29 121.53 Austin, Hipes M11
30 124.53 Jeff, Beck Beretta 38A
31 134.66 Dennis, Norman M11
32 165.67 JL, Holden Thompson
33 209.86 Ed, Varner MP40

A few Sterlings scored high, but no STEN Guns to be seen. Guess Mr sawyer couldn't make it this year.


Your dissertation on trench raiding is laughable at best.... more wikipedia lik bunk and not actual veterans experiances. Trench raiding was an art - at night where bayonets , pistols , clubs , knobkerries etc etc were the preferred weapon to take prisoners and neutralize a hopefully surprised enemy...not shooting through three men in the dark like john wayne. But you would'nt know anything about that.
Of course your many experiances in trench raiding during WW1 makes you an expert.
I was speaking of fighting in the trenches when an assaulting force reached the enemy trench. Of course few British troops ever reached those enemy trenches alive.
At close quarters a battle rifle bullet will pass through several men. During the assassination of a rebel leader by U S Navy officers in Nicaraqua in the 1920s the officers who were Hispanic bluffed their way into the rebel camp pretending to be rebels who had captured an American BAR. When they were brought to the rebel commander instead of presenting him with the weapon they opened up on him and his staff with bullets passing through three or four men at a time, killing more men than they had cartridges.
The penetration power of the .30-06 is well known.

I can just see some poor Tommy charging a trench full of Germans with his rifle slung over his back and a shovel in his hands. The shovel would have been put to better use in digging his grave before hand.

There have been many battles where individual marksmanship made the difference between winning and losing, and far more situations where it meant the difference between life and death. So grab your shovel and start clearing away the bull feces you drizzle over every thread you visit.

[savagetactical]

All I can say is Facts hurt Gew ... Multi seems to know how to find them with his research, you seem to not be able to do the same.


As for Trench raiding parties all accounts I have ever read there was a demand for compact firepower its where things like the Winchester Model 97 came into play hence the name TRENCH GUN.. Also even though it was too late for the the party the Late Col Thompson's sub machine gun was originally dubbed the Trench Broom. I have never read a single account where soldier preferred a blunt or edged weapon to a firearm.

[robertbank]

Preference who spoke of preference? I posted a couple of pictures from the link I posted. Neither depicts a scene out of the Camp David Matches. At Vimy a single mine killed over 600 German troops while they slept in their trenches.

The top sniper of all was Simo Häyhä of Finland with 705 confirmed kills, top American of all time
Adelbert F. Waldron with 109 confirmed kills and lastly, why not,

Corporal Francis Pegahmagabow with 378 Confirmed kills, 300+ Captures.

Three times awarded the military medal and twice seriously wounded, he was an expert marksman and scout, credited with 378 German kills and capturing 300+ more. He was an Ojibwa warrior with the Canadians in battles like those at mount sorrel. As if killing nearly 400 Germans wasn’t enough, he was also awarded medals for running messages through very heavy enemy fire, for directing a crucial relief effort when his commanding officer was incapacitated and for running through enemy fire to get more ammo when his unit was running low.Though a hero among his fellow soldier, he was virtually forgotten once he returned home to Canada. Regardless he was one of the most effective snipers of world war 1.

Compared to other ways to kill our fellow humans, in terms of numbers there are other methods.

Take Care

Bob

[felix]

None compare to Oppenheimer??? ... felix

[robertbank]

Nope, more slower but just as effective will be our trash we dump in our oceans, in the air and into the ground. Either that or our inability to control our population.

Take Care

Bob

[savagetactical]

None compare to Oppenheimer??? ... felix

Actually LeMay bested the body count of the A Bomb with conventional bombs by along shot. Make no mistake that had LeMay had the bomb sooner he would have used it had it been allowed and he would have used it prolifically.

[felix]

No argument there! ... felix

[robertbank]

Bomber Harris did quite the job in Europe as well but for quick result you just can't beat a surgical strike with a good old fashion Hydrogen bomb. Now there is a proper oxymoron.

Take Care

Bob

[Multigunner]

Preference who spoke of preference? I posted a couple of pictures from the link I posted. Neither depicts a scene out of the Camp David Matches. At Vimy a single mine killed over 600 German troops while they slept in their trenches.
Then why not simply rely on digging tunnels and packing them with explosives?
Because the application is extremely limited and men under fire from a Spandau don't have time to dig a tunnel





The top sniper of all was Simo Häyhä of Finland with 705 confirmed kills, top American of all time
Adelbert F. Waldron with 109 confirmed kills and lastly, why not,

Corporal Francis Pegahmagabow with 378 Confirmed kills, 300+ Captures.

Three times awarded the military medal and twice seriously wounded, he was an expert marksman and scout, credited with 378 German kills and capturing 300+ more. He was an Ojibwa warrior with the Canadians in battles like those at mount sorrel. As if killing nearly 400 Germans wasn’t enough, he was also awarded medals for running messages through very heavy enemy fire, for directing a crucial relief effort when his commanding officer was incapacitated and for running through enemy fire to get more ammo when his unit was running low.Though a hero among his fellow soldier, he was virtually forgotten once he returned home to Canada. Regardless he was one of the most effective snipers of world war 1.

Compared to other ways to kill our fellow humans, in terms of numbers there are other methods.

Take Care

Bob

As is so often pointed out the U S was a late entry in both World Wars.
Also our Scout snipers usually worked far from our lines often with no back up at all. Carlos Hathcock has less than 100 "confirmed " kills but over 300 kills in all.

Due to the superior accuracy of the American Infantryman snipers were not needed in many situations. An average Marine with an open sighted 1903 could kill at ranges that other men would require a scoped rifle.

Quite a few American Indians have served in our armies. During the U S Civil war the American Indian volunteered to fight in far greater numbers compared to total population than any other race or ethnicity. The Cherokee divided down the middle, some fought for the South while others fought for the North.

PS
Since we are drifting into WW2 sniping remember this. The Soviets fielded a fairly effective bullet resistant breast plate that would stop even the iron core German 9mm SMG bullet at 100 yards and the 9mm fired from a pistol at much closer ranges. The only sure way to drop them was to use a full power battle rifle, though the STG could penetrate at medium ranges.
The Soviet engineering battalions were issued even more effective armor that made it difficult to drop them with a body shot at long range, and practically immune from SMG fire except right off the muzzle.
The Japanese also fielded body armor for officers and machinegunners, that included leg armor. Their special air commando service wore bullet proof vests that could stop SMG bullets. luckily they were not able to equip more than a small fraction of their troops.
Best way to deal with these guys was to put a bullet in their head. Marines were very good at that. Its far better to kill the enemy before they breech your lines than to have to call in artillery or an airstrike on your own position.

The British had in 1918 ordered up thousands of sets of Body armor for use in expected coming battles, though the Armistice made these un necessary. Even the late issue gas mask pouches had a rear pocket added to hold a manganese steel plate to partly protect the chest. German gunners had their lobster armor vests , reinforced helmets, and some had a beak like masks that could deflect rifle bullets at longer ranges. At that stage of the war you could no longer depend on a body hit stopping the enemy.

Then there's the gun shields and similar armor plate protection for MGs. It takes a sharp eye and a steady hand to put a bullet through the view port of a gun shield or the opening where the barrel fits.

[savagetactical]

Bomber Harris did quite the job in Europe as well but for quick result you just can't beat a surgical strike with a good old fashion Hydrogen bomb. Now there is a proper oxymoron.

Take Care

Bob

I don't want to be a kill joy on your euro centric joy ride Bob but the US carried most of the water in both the European and Pacific bombing campaigns.

Yes I can back it up with facts.

83720


ETA the Pacific bombing campaign was almost singlehandedly carried on by the US.

[Multigunner]

I wouldn't be bragging on Bomber Harris that much, he is mainly known for the Dresden Fire Bombing raid. I've seen ill informed UK students try to blame the death toll at Dresden (always greatly exaggerated)on the U S Air force, though in fact the only U S bombers involved had been placed under direct command of the British for that mission.
The British executed that raid based entirely on spurious Soviet reports of a NAZI troop build up.

[303Guy]

I have a nephew living in Dresden. He says everything is new there.

I remember seeing a report on the bombing of Dresden in which it was said the decision to bomb Dresden was not taken lightly and was made with the belief that it was of strategic importance. But nothing was said of whether it was actually of any benefit.

[Multigunner]

The mention of the mine at Vimy ridge reminded me of this.
http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/the-crater.html

Most of the tactics adopted by the British in WW1 were tactics that had failed or been excessively costly during the U S Civil War. Only range and power of guns and types of explosives being different.
Even the Barbed Wire Entanglements were first used in the U S, during the "Lincoln County War" and vicious range war pitting organized rustlers against an army of mercenary gunslingers. I've heard that nitroglycerin based explosives were first used in combat at Lincoln County, not sure if that true.

[robertbank]

I wouldn't be bragging on Bomber Harris that much, he is mainly known for the Dresden Fire Bombing raid. I've seen ill informed UK students try to blame the death toll at Dresden (always greatly exaggerated)on the U S Air force, though in fact the only U S bombers involved had been placed under direct command of the British for that mission.
The British executed that raid based entirely on spurious Soviet reports of a NAZI troop build up.

RCAF Squadrons were involved with the fire bombing of Dresden. This raid is often considered Churchill's retaliation for the bombing of Coventry by the Germans. I grew up surrounded by vets from this raid. I recall one pilot said you could see the fire 25 miles away. Not sure where you got the Soviet information (Wikipedia) and nobody I knew of apologies for the bombing. I doubt anyone is about to now. The German people voted Hitler in, supported his time in power and paid the price for their belief in they being the superior race. Well a bunch of dumb *** Texas cowboys and a handful of Saskatchewan sod busters spent 10 years over two wars to end the myth. Sorry folks but the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK and others didn't start these wars but they sure as heck ended them. Dresden wasn't a mistake, it was a calculated destruction of a city. Get over it.

Take Care

Bob

[robertbank]

The mention of the mine at Vimy ridge reminded me of this.
http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/the-crater.html

Most of the tactics adopted by the British in WW1 were tactics that had failed or been excessively costly during the U S Civil War. Only range and power of guns and types of explosives being different.
Even the Barbed Wire Entanglements were first used in the U S, during the "Lincoln County War" and vicious range war pitting organized rustlers against an army of mercenary gunslingers. I've heard that nitroglycerin based explosives were first used in combat at Lincoln County, not sure if that true.

And your point is? The Germans used the same tactics with the same results. Pershing used them to long after they had proven to be ineffective.

The battle plan, and taking of Vimy Ridge was a Canadian effort not British. The mine that I referred to was laid by Canadian Engineers not British. Mines were used along the Western Front by both sides. The underlying strata was chalk. This was easy to mine through and was an effective method of destroying opposing trenches. The chalk allowed engineers to build underground holding areas for troops as well. They exist near the Vimy Memorial. CBC crews toured them in a documentary on the war.

You really have no idea what the tunnels were do you. How effective do you think German aircraft was attacking troops who were underground doing the digging. It is called mining for a reason.


Take Care

Bob

[Multigunner]

And your point is? The Germans used the same tactics with the same results.
Point is the European powers made few if any innovations since the Crimea and those few were based on what they has learned during the U S Civil War. Even the setting up of any quick moving of encampments was based on U S methods which themselves were based on methods used by traveling Circuses. Even Aerial artillery observation was pioneered during the U S Civil War. Early crank operated automatic guns were used as anti-aircraft guns as well as in their primary role.




Pershing used them to long after they had proven to be ineffective.
The field of battle was set by previous actions and demands of Supreme Allied Command, there was little room for innovation by the time the U S entered the war.




The battle plan, and taking of Vimy Ridge was a Canadian effort not British. The mine that I referred to was laid by Canadian Engineers not British.
Excuse me then, did not intend to step on your national pride, but the Canadians were there as allies of the British with no real national interest in the outcome of a war in Europe other than their ties to the British, so they sometimes run together.


Mines were used along the Western Front by both sides. The underlying strata was chalk. This was easy to mine through and was an effective method of destroying opposing trenches. The chalk allowed engineers to build underground holding areas for troops as well. They exist near the Vimy Memorial. CBC crews toured them in a documentary on the war.

Then why not use the same tactic to simply destroy all German emplacements and avoid all frontal assaults? Because the actual applications were limited and it took a great deal of time to dig these tunnels, which the Germans often destroyed with countermines.




You really have no idea what the tunnels were do you. How effective do you think German aircraft was attacking troops who were underground doing the digging. It is called mining for a reason.
As If I'd never been underground, this region is honey combed with mines and natural caverns that run for many miles.

You have in fact proven my point as to why those massive bombardments were so ineffective.
The Germans rode out the shelling in their rabbit warren of tunnels and bunkers, then popped up and fully alert to impending assaults were at their guns moments after the last shell.

How many men crossed no mans land in the comparative safety of a tunnel?
Mines were used to create artificial gullies that allowed large scale movement but these tunnels could not accommodate massive assaults, and if they had tried it that way the Germans could have used counter mines to wipe out entire Allied formations in seconds rather than hours.
If German ground attack fighters had been as numerous and efficient as you suggest, would you rather be spread out in the open with numerous craters and other obstacles to use for cover or in long lines trapped in a wide gully unable to move to either side when they came calling?
They could strafe the length of a gully more easily than troops in the open. Just like strafing a road but with no way for troops to get off that road.

You were going on about trench raids as if this was the only proper form of combat.
Tell us about the Trench raid that cost the lives of 687 men with no gain at all.
Or the raid that cost all but 16 out of 76 men with the only gain a captured German cap.

[robertbank]

Multi the tunneling was underground not on the surface. Either look for a different reference or quit making a fool of yourself. Really it is getting embarrassing. The tactics used early in the war failed because of he use of machine gun fire against troops out in the open. Pershing used the same tactics when he first arrived on the scene. I guess if they had your wisdom all would have been different. As it was we had Currie who led the Canadian Corp from:

Vimy to Passchendaele, to:

Canada’s Hundred Days was a series of attacks made along the Western Front by the Canadian Corps during the Hundred Days Offensive of World War I. Reference to this period as Canada's Hundred Days is due to the substantial role the Canadian Corps of the British First Army played in causing the defeat and/or retreat of the German Army in a series of major battles from Amiens to Mons which along with other Allied offensives ultimately led to Germany's final defeat and surrender. During this time, the Canadian Corps fought at Amiens, Arras, the Hindenburg Line, the Canal du Nord, Bourlon Wood, Cambrai, Denain, Valenciennes and finally at Mons, on the final day of the First World War. In terms of numbers, during those 96 days the Canadian Corps' four over-strength or 'heavy' divisions of roughly 100 000 men, engaged and defeated or put to flight elements of forty seven German divisions, which represented one quarter of the German forces faced by the Allied Powers fighting on the Western Front.[2] However their successes came at a heavy cost, the Canadians suffered 20% of their battle-sustained casualties of the war during the same period.[3]

Enough said. You can sit and argue why others failed or what might have been had the war gone on but it didn't. What was a constant was the bravery of those involved on both sides and the hell that was WW1. You might want to reflect on that.

Take Care

Bob

[Multigunner]

Multi the tunneling was underground not on the surface. Either look for a different reference or quit making a fool of yourself.
Get a grip and look it up yourself. Mined tunnels were in fact used among other things to blast out open gullies that gave advancing troops refuge from German MG fire.
At Vimy ridge eight (one source stated nineteen) specially set charges blew an open gully the full length of no mans land.
No large scale assaults could be made through those narrow tunnels, they had to blast them open to provide a deep gulley to provide cover for advancing troops.
They may have used more explosives to accomplish this than they had placed directly under enemy positions.

You are starting to sound like Gew98, you think you know more than you actually do know.

I believe you are stuck on the tunnels used for bringing troops up to the front rather than the actual crossing of no mans land.
The tunnels could not have been large enough to accommodate an entire assault force of tens of thousands of men with full battle gear at one time, even if you could get that many men into those tunnels there's no way they could have ventilated the tunnels to allow them to breathe.
Smaller groups could use tunnels to move up to perform raids and flanking operations.
German aircraft were not so much dangerous due to any bombing or straffing they might do, it was that German observer aircraft could spot and call in artillery if they saw a target on the surface.

It was the same for allied aircraft. Tiny loads of 25lb Cooper bombs were not going to make much impression, but aerial observers spotted and called in strikes on 80 percent of the German big guns, which was far more effective than trying to blast the Germans out of their bunkers and tunnels with artillery.
I don't believe the Canadian Tunnels would have reached the Germans supporting artillery batteries.

PS
This is what happens when troops are caught by ground attack aircraft in places where they can't spread out.
The following was only possible because the allies had total air superiority in that region.


Following the success of Allenby's attack at Megido on the 19th of September, the Turkish divisions were forced to retreat through the narrow defile of Wadi Farra. On the 21st of September the Australians trapped them there, when they bombed the head and the tail of the Turkish column. Together with RAF SE5as and DH9s the Australians mercilessly bombed and strafed the terrified Turks.

In the words of T. E. Lawrence, "When the smoke had cleared it was seen that the organization of the enemy had melted away. They were a dispersed horde of trembling individuals, hiding for their lives in every fold of the vast hills. Nor did their commanders ever rally them again. When our cavalry entered the silent valley the next day they could count ninety guns, fifty lorries, and nearly a thousand carts abandoned with all their belongings. The RAF lost four killed. The Turks lost a corps."


Luckily for those using the open gully at Vimy Ridge the Germans never had air superiority during that action.

PS
An example of the ignorance of the value of individual marksmanship displayed by those with only "equipment familiarity".
http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/woodfill.htm

[gew98]

Bob ; Seems we have more than one armchair commando here...amazing is it not. And moolti I have been going to knob creek for over 14 years..could'nt tel you what years those stens did their work in skille dhands...but they did..I was there while you sipped your latte and perused wikipedia.
Surely you are just poking robert in the side regarding trench warfare, tunneling and tactics ?.You are aware of such books on this subject Like :
STEEL WIND
THE EMBATTLED SELF
ON ARTILLERY
ON INFANTRY
BATTLE TACTICS OF THE WESTERN FRONT - the british Army's art of attack 1916-1918
THE STORM OF STEEL
STORMTROOP TACTICS
EYE DEEP IN HELL
THE GREAT WAR AND MODERN MEMORY
GHOST'S HAVE WARM HANDS
A PRIVATE IN THE GUARDS
PRIVATE PEAT

Suffice it to say I could go on ...you'd know something if you read these books and not the wikipedia drivel you worship.

[savagetactical]

Bob ; Seems we have more than one armchair commando here...amazing is it not. And moolti I have been going to knob creek for over 14 years..could'nt tel you what years those stens did their work in skille dhands...but they did..I was there while you sipped your latte and perused wikipedia.
Surely you are just poking robert in the side regarding trench warfare, tunneling and tactics ?.You are aware of such books on this subject Like :
STEEL WIND
THE EMBATTLED SELF
ON ARTILLERY
ON INFANTRY
BATTLE TACTICS OF THE WESTERN FRONT - the british Army's art of attack 1916-1918
THE STORM OF STEEL
STORMTROOP TACTICS
EYE DEEP IN HELL
THE GREAT WAR AND MODERN MEMORY
GHOST'S HAVE WARM HANDS
A PRIVATE IN THE GUARDS
PRIVATE PEAT

Suffice it to say I could go on ...you'd know something if you read these books and not the wikipedia drivel you worship.

I am still waiting for you to cite an actual fact.

[Multigunner]

could'nt tel you what years those stens did their work in skille dhands...but they did..
In your dreams. You claimed the STEN walked away with all the prizes at Knob Creek. Suggesting they always proved superior to other SMGs in their class.
I have no great interest in pistol caliber full auto weapons, but two friends visit Knob creek on a regular basis, one owned a STEN but never tried it in competition, but he had mentioned that a single competitor had shown up every year that he knew of with a MkV STEN and though he never won he always displayed great talent with the weapon. The other competitors said that if he had not stuck with the STEN he'd have likely won every year.
I later read basically the same information in a gun publication.
When you first made your claim long ago I had hoped the old guy had finally won after all those years of putting in such effort.
So why don't you either post confirmation of your claim or admit you were wrong.

Though I don't intend to buy any full auto weapons I have had opportunity to examine several more common types and my friend who collects belt fed MGs has showed me how to field strip a few. Though that's been so long ago I doubt I could do it today without a manual at hand.

No one seems to share your overblown opinions on the STEN, certainly not the vast majority of Allied service men who got saddled with it.

[robertbank]

No one seems to share your overblown opinions on the STEN, certainly not the vast majority of Allied service men who got saddled with it.

Were they surveyed? Seemed to work well in house clearings in Italy and Northern Europe. Not sure what else you want a $3.00 gun to do. It was relatively light, easy to manufacturer and effective for what it was designed to do. It was no HK MP5 but it didn't cost as much either. I don't recall it being made for shooting competitions ...but maybe.

Take Care

Bob

[savagetactical]

Were they surveyed? Seemed to work well in house clearings in Italy and Northern Europe. Not sure what else you want a $3.00 gun to do. It was relatively light, easy to manufacturer and effective for what it was designed to do. It was no HK MP5 but it didn't cost as much either. I don't recall it being made for shooting competitions ...but maybe.

Take Care

Bob

Actually no Bob it did not seem to work well, there are reams of historical account from users who attested to the fact it was unreliable and dangerous. Just because it was used for room clearing does not mean it was a great gun. It is generally acknowledged by experts that the best mass produced sub gun of WWII was the PPSH 41 , while the best over all subgun was the Thompson.

[Multigunner]

Were they surveyed? Seemed to work well in house clearings in Italy and Northern Europe
British forces in Italy kept their Thompsons, haven't heard of the STEN being used there.

The Sten cost more than $3, though not much more.
For a weapon intended to be mass produced extremely cheaply its a decent design, but GEW98 likes to pretend that it was a better SMG than other more sophisticated weapons.
Other SMGs were more expensive to produce, but they were also far more reliable, more controllable, more accurate due to better sights that were often adjustable for elevation. The lousy quality of STEN magazines produced in wartime has never been in doubt. By sticking to the single feed mag they left the weapon prone to misfeeds because of the overall poor quality of construction. A single feed mag requires high quality springs and precisely made feed lips to operate properly.
Deaths due to accidental discharge if the weapon were dropped continued to be a problem when the Israelis used the STEN post WW2.
The safety slot only worked if the bolt were retracted. If carried with bolt closed on an empty chamber and the weapon dropped on the butt the bolt could move back far enough to strip a round but not far enough to engage the sear.
Due to poor heat treatment of the sear the weapon could runaway firing the entire magazine.
Even when the STEN worked as intended a higher quality SMG could do the job better.

I remember an old article on British officers dealing with an Asian uprising of some sort, Possibly Malaysia. The British in that area preferred the Remington auto loading shotgun to the Sten.
A local bandit leader had gained a rep by ambushing travelers with a STEN Gun. The Officer tracking him nailed the bandit with his Remington before the bandit could get a shot off.

Canadian troops were especially critical of the STEN, I'm surprised that you haven't encountered that criticism from vets of WW2 you may have spoken with.
In Korea Canadian troops were ordered not to insert a magazine until they were ready for battle, to avoid ADs.
The STEN was especially disliked in Korea.

The Australians tried to improve on the basic STEN design, but the AUSTEN SMG never gained much popularity.
Practically every pre war SMG still in use at the time was a better weapon than the STEN.
Even the stripped down version of the Berretta is recognized to be a better SMG than the STEN.

PS


(The Fisherman’s Advocate, December 24, 1943, page 8)


Tragic Death of Wm. Gullage

Death struck down suddenly a man in the prime of life when William Gullage of Catalina was accidentally shot in St. John’s last Thursday. To quote from the Evening Telegram:

“It was officially announced Thursday night by Naval Headquarters of the Newfoundland Command, that William Gullage, of Catalina, carpenter foreman, on a Naval dock, was accidentally hilled in an unfortunate accident on the Southside of St. John’s. The death of the victim was due to the accidental discharge of a Sten gun carried by a sentry. It appears that the sentry, holding the gun by a strap over his left shoulder, was stooping to get a drink from a tap when there was a burst of shots. At the time, Mr. Gullage had come around the corner of a building and three of the bullets entered his body, causing injuries from which he died almost instantly. The sentry had a narrow escape as one of the bullets ripped through the pocket of his coat.”



Pte George Preston Smith: son of William W. and Mary Mabel Smith, of Kinkora, Prince Edward Island. He was accidentally killed Nov 12th 1944 by the discharge of a Sten gun while disembarking from a truck. Preston was 21 when he died. (BURIED AT GROESBEEK CANADIAN WAR CEMETERY, Netherlands)
From Sussex History forum.


John:
Dover Express - Friday 02 June 1944

STEN GUN ACCIDENT. On Monday night, Mr. Walter Abbott, of 6, Adrian St., a Southern Railway employee, was injured by the accidental discharge of Sten gun by a member of the Home Guard at the Priory Station. He was hit in the legs, and taken to hospital with a compound fracture of the right leg and a wound in the left leg.

Harold was awarded the Military Medal (MM) for an action at Louvain on th night of 2/3 September 1944 when Harold took command of his platoon after both the platoon officer and sergeant had been killed. Tragically, Harold died only a few days later on 18 Sept 1944, killed by an accidental discharge from his own Sten gun. He is buried in Leopoldsburg War Cenetary
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/14/a4547414.shtml

922643 Gnr PATON E., 222 Med Bty RA killed by accidental discharge of his sten gun.



13th June 1944

Place: Coleville



service number 6850467
May 26 1946
Lance Corporal Harry Payne 52nd Inf. Division Provost Company C.M.P., B.A.O.R.

complications to a head injury caused by accidental firing by him of a Sten gun when on military duty".


https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.britains-smallwars.com/cyprus/Davidcarter/ROH.htm&sa=U&ei=st9UUtqPDpGx4AOl2IDgDA&ved=0CBUQFjAG&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNFSvh0eO9nBbvV3mgVnRtft5NQSMA


Driver R T Body (service number T/23462049) "dies three days after his STEN Gun accidentally discharges several rounds into his body when he is leaving his truck"
Trooper P Livingstone (Service number 23411767) "died from accidental discharge of his STEN Gun."
Corporal R I Vickers (Service number 1931902 ) "Accidental discharge of his STEN Gun killed him as he rested on patrol"
(A dozen or so AD deaths are listed with most not identifying the weapon, two involved handguns, one Webley .38 and one Browning both discharged when being cleaned)



More recently



Ahmedabad, May 30: A state reserve police (SRP) personnel posted at the state secretariat in Gandhinagar, died after his service sten gun went off accidentally, police said today.

The incident took place last night when the gun of ASI Veerpal Chauhan (of Group-7 Nadiad) presently posted at gate number 7 of state secretariat fell and the trigger went off, they said.

According to police, the on-duty ASI was hit by a bullet and fell down on the ground bleeding profusely.

He died before medical aid could reach him.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-05-30/ahmedabad/39627638_1_state-reserve-police-gun-state-secretariat
Pays not to get over confident when it comes to the STEN gun.

[303Guy]

Gentlemen. Firstly, thanks all for the lively debate!:drinks:

May I ask y'all to keep it friendly? You folks are bringing up history that I have never heard of before and it is most interesting. I bet there are others who find it just as fascinating as I do. There is nothing wrong with having different perspectives (from having read different accounts) and debating them. It does make a third party ready (like me) aware that there can be different takes on history and reminds us to keep an open mind and be prepared to alter what our understanding of events.

[robertbank]

Surprises me the damn thing lasted as long as it did. A lot of internet navel gazing and BS commentary. It was never meant for sniping but at 10 yards it would get most folks attention. Too, there were more than one manufacturer including Afghan village armourers.

Take Care

Bob

[BruceB]

Gents;

At he time I joined the Canadian Army in '61, there were still plenty of WWII and Korea veterans on active service. Naturally, there were plenty of war stories recounted.

Many of those soldiers liked the STEN, and at least as many detested it. There were few sitting on the fence. ALL agreed that the Sterling was a huge improvement, just as we might expect. As mentioned, theSTENs I owned worked very well, but we must remember that I was able to coddle and 'smith them as needed, which surely helped.

(Almost to a man, the old salts said the then-new C2 [FAL squad automatic rifle] was a poor replacement for the much-loved BREN LMG.)

[Multigunner]

Surprises me the damn thing lasted as long as it did. A lot of internet navel gazing and BS commentary. It was never meant for sniping but at 10 yards it would get most folks attention. Too, there were more than one manufacturer including Afghan village armourers.

Take Care

Bob

Don't be so hard on yourself. You just lost track when it came to the subject of accuracy and the value of individual marksmanship. Plus whatever tour they may have of Vimy ridge must not make much mention of the open gully blasted by linked up mines before the assault. It probably looks like a natural formation after near a century of erosion.

The Thread drifted from the original subject which was how the Lee Enfield action might fail and in what manner it could fail, with a request for images. The thread starter is very interested in the mechanical aspects of the action.
Gew 98 has repeatedly tried to kill any thread that deals with safety concerns or mechanical aspects of a design, unless it is centered on the Low Number Springfield. Personally I don't have more than an academic interest in the Springfield.

The thread has been informative, with some opportunity to debunk claims and address prejudices. It gave you an opportunity to brag on Canadian troops while carefully skirting the fact that Canadian troops were always praised for the high level of individual marksmanship they demonstrated in battle, at a time when due to horrific casualties the level of individual marksmanship of British forces was at its lowest level ever.

PS
I remember a RAF history site that I looked over when studying the use of the No.1 and No.4 rifles in competition.
There was a section on the RAF SMG competition with the mention that in RAF competitions they used the STEN Gun and the Sterling side by side and the STEN usually took the trophy.
Perhaps Gew 98 read of this and extrapolated into his fantasy of the STEN walking away with all the prizes at competitions where it has always made a poor showing when pitted against more sophisticated, or at least better made, designs.

[gew98]

Actually no Bob it did not seem to work well, there are reams of historical account from users who attested to the fact it was unreliable and dangerous. Just because it was used for room clearing does not mean it was a great gun. It is generally acknowledged by experts that the best mass produced sub gun of WWII was the PPSH 41 , while the best over all subgun was the Thompson.


Funny how the germans made a copy of the sten ( MP3008 ) and there are gobs of german accounts of using and carrying captured stens ..they liked them alot. The chinese made a gob of them too , and these turned up in Korea and later in vietnam... I've handled two such examples..yep and they worked. But hell you armchair commandos whom never have handled them know it all...amazing knowledge wikipedia imparts...wow.
So somehow you twist this into how I apparently in your jaded outlook find the sten superior ?. You are most certainly delusional. There are many more effective subguns of that era. But for the cost a sten is hard to beat for mass issue and effect. The germans could not crank out MP36/40's in such quantities , nor could the russians knock out as many PPSH41/43's. I've handled a couple beretta SMG's of that era...they are a work of art. You seem to forget the Thompson had a two flaws..was way heavy and the 30 rd magazines had a bad tendency to drop from the peice often and the 20 rounders just did not pack enough rounds. Ha...really how many troops used adjustable sights on SMG's...you make me laugh. ND's with SMG's...that covers ALL such weapons that fire from open bolts...you'd know that if you ever were issued and handled such things....but wiki is your friend !.

[gew98]

Gew 98 has repeatedly tried to kill any thread that deals with safety concerns or mechanical aspects of a design, unless it is centered on the Low Number Springfield. Personally I don't have more than an academic interest in the Springfield.

.

There you go again showing your "inner engineer" and lack of practical application(s).

[gew98]

Gents;

At he time I joined the Canadian Army in '61, there were still plenty of WWII and Korea veterans on active service. Naturally, there were plenty of war stories recounted.

Many of those soldiers liked the STEN, and at least as many detested it. There were few sitting on the fence. ALL agreed that the Sterling was a huge improvement, just as we might expect. As mentioned, theSTENs I owned worked very well, but we must remember that I was able to coddle and 'smith them as needed, which surely helped.

(Almost to a man, the old salts said the then-new C2 [FAL squad automatic rifle] was a poor replacement for the much-loved BREN LMG.)

I agree with you especially on the Bren...it's quite a different peice to fire...a little slower than the jap 99 and Vz26...but once you handle and shoot one...you kinda want one bad. Shame they are so expensive and scarce these days...thanks democrats !.

[Multigunner]

Funny how the germans made a copy of the sten ( MP3008 ) and there are gobs of german accounts of using and carrying captured stens
Maybe you should take a look at other last ditch weapons the Germans manufactured after allied bombing destroyed most of their ability to manufacture firearms before assigning any motivation behind the few German copies of the STEN.
The Germans also converted many captured PPSH SMGs to 9mm and used every type of captured allied weapon they could find ammunition for.
The Germans intercepted shipments of M1 carbines air dropped to resistence forces in Holland and used these till they ran out of ammunition for them.
The STEN was in part chambered in 9mm because the British had captured vast quantities of Italian 9mm ammunition, that ammo was free and the British used captured German ammo whenever available. Since the Germans had plenty of 9mm ammo they preferred to use captured weapons chambered for that cartridge.
They also used many Browning Hi Power P-35 pistols made in Belgium by slave labor, and the Polish Radom was another favorite.

The major saving grace of the STEN was relative ease of manufacture, and that was really its only selling point from the beginning.

After WW1 the Greeks and a number of European armies bought up the surplus Chauchat MGs, not because it was a great MG but because it was dirt cheap.

[BruceB]

...but once you handle and shoot one...you kinda want one bad. Shame they are so expensive and scarce these days...thanks democrats !.

I owned a MkI .303 BREN in Canada until we moved to the USA in '97. BATF would not allow its importation, so it was legally stored at my Mother-in-law's home in Canada.

My %$&*($%^ brother-in-law REMOVED it from there. Since he has some very shady connections, WE blew the whistle and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police raided him and seized the BREN and some other "gun stuff".

The BREN was subsequently melted down... a sad end, but better than having it in criminal hands. Sure do miss that gun... we owned it for over twenty years.

[Multigunner]

The occasional BREN vs BAR debates are an example of spurious comparision.
The BREN is a better LMG than the standard BAR, because the BAR was not a LMG though often pressed into that role. The American LMG of WW2 was the Browning M1919A6, the BAR as its title suggests was an "Automatic Rifle". The BAR design also predates the BREN by a generation.
The locking system of the BAR has been adapted to a number of modern LMGs.
The Swedes developed both quick change barrel and belt feed conversions for their FND versions of the BAR. The Poles developed a number of heavier constructed versions of the FND and a flexible mount belt fed aircraft version that held the record for rate of fire till the development of the Mini Gun.

The BREN is a fine weapon, and an example of how the British could recognize an excellent design and adapt it to their purposes.
A cheaper to produce stamped metal LMG based on the BREN was designed but didn't go beyond prototype stage.

Interestingly the only major Battle rifle cartridge that proved a failure in the BAR was the .303 MkVII. The cordite propellant ate up bores too quickly for use in a fixed barrel automatic rifle.
The prototype BAR in .303 with curved magazine has an interesting look to it. Because they could not adapt the BAR to .303 the British used limited numbers in .30-06 mainly for Home Guard issue along with surplus U S aerial Lewisguns in .30-06 converted for ground use.
The BAR was adopted by several nations in calibers from 6.5 to 7.92. The Swedish FND with quick change barrel can be converted from 6.5x55 to 7mm ,8mm or 7.62 NATO in a matter of seconds by using spare barrels in those chamberings and the proper
magazine.

PS
Engineers designed almost every firearm used since the 17th century, and improved on those designs by recognizing potential problems.
The original version of the BREN passed every test, but earlier production versions were very prone to jamming in North African sand and dust.
A plant manager had thought he knew more than the engineers and had set the tolerances closer in expectation of longer service life.
These early production versions required rectification, and tolerances at the factory returned to the original specs before the gun became reliable in combat.

Something similar occurred when plant managers at Lithgow chose to build their Enfield clones to closer tolerances than those recommended by the engineers. In 1916 the Lithgow proved prone to jamming in the dust and sand of Gallipoli. all Lithgow rifles built before 1916 had to be modified to return to original specs and the factory was notified to use only the original specified tolerances from then on.
Rifles with unaltered pre 1916 Lithgow are considered a bit more accurate due to more closely fitted bolts. These are rare.

The Long Range Desert Patrol group much preferred the Lewis gun and the Vickers K aircraft guns.

[gew98]

Like I say...what's the difference bewtwwen a pig and an engineer...you can argue with a pig.

[robertbank]

Well I have to say this is the first time accuracy and the Sten were ever mentioned in the same sentence. I must be getting old.

Multi mentioning the achievements of a bunch of farmers and city folk collected into a group of soldiers called the !st Canadian Corp is not bragging, it simply is pointing out the achievements of four heavy divisions from 1915/16 to wars end. I can tell you for a fact I never heard a vet ever comment on their achievements. I doubt they were any better marksman than any others on the line. They likely just wanted to get home more than some. Too, there is something called honour and not wanting to let down the Regiment down.

Hell I didn't even know our boys were over fighting in the Belgium Congo until 1997. For Americans, UN Peace Keepers is not a term widely held with much respect within the Canadian Army. The Liberals up here like to think Peace Keeping is just a matter of getting everyone to hold hands. The folks in the Canadian Army no different.

Bruce B thank you for your service to our country. Were you with the Pats? One of our family members served with the Loyal Eddies in Italy, while other served in Calgary Highlanders, S0uth Alberta Tank Regiment, and the Cdn Artiliery attached to the British 8th in Africa then with the Cdns in Sicily and Italy before moving over to NW Europe for D Day.

Take Care

Bob

[Multigunner]

Here are a couple of sites with good images of late WW1 body armor.
http://georgy-konstantinovich-zhukov.tumblr.com/post/33264134688/body-armor

http://www.oobject.com/category/ww1-armor/

[EDG]

You will never win with an engineer because he is used to working with facts and test data.
If you don't have the fact or data then tough.
Typically managers that are used to pushing people around hate engineers.
Quote from a meeting - test engineering manager talking a VP , "begging your pardon but you are full of XXXX"


Like I say...what's the difference bewtwwen a pig and an engineer...you can argue with a pig.

[EDG]

The BAR was used in a very different manner than the Bren when employed in the Pacific after Guadalcanal.
A squad had 3 BARs and 6 Garand rifles plus the arms of the fire team leaders and the NCO. That is a lot of firepower.

About 2/3 the way down the page

http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?87120-The-Marine-Rifle-Squad-The-begginings-of-the-modern-fireteam

The Rifle Squad was realigned to something most readers may recognize. A thirteen-man group consisting of:

1x Squad Leader (Sergeant)

Three Fireteams each with:
1x Fireteam Leader (Corporal)
1x Automatic Rifleman* (Pfc/Pvt)
2x Rifleman (Pfc/Pvt)

[Multigunner]

An example of those who would argue with an engineer is the guy who figured two 1" bolts would be a proper substitute for one 2" bolt.

I've seen some real doozies when it comes to lack of understanding of the basics. One was a guy who argued that a .30-06 caliber semi auto rifle was a better choice than a bolt action .50 for shooting down a helicopter because three .30 bullet holes were bigger than one .50 bullet hole. That would only make sense if you were shooting at a blimp.

There are still many who believe the Viet Cong shot down our Choppers with AK-47. I had to find and post a list of helicopter losses with description of weapons used to prove that the 12.7 mm belt fed MG was the culprit in almost every recorded shoot down. I don't think the AK was even mentioned in that list.

[savagetactical]

An example of those who would argue with an engineer is the guy who figured two 1" bolts would be a proper substitute for one 2" bolt.

I've seen some real doozies when it comes to lack of understanding of the basics. One was a guy who argued that a .30-06 caliber semi auto rifle was a better choice than a bolt action .50 for shooting down a helicopter because three .30 bullet holes were bigger than one .50 bullet hole. That would only make sense if you were shooting at a blimp.

There are still many who believe the Viet Cong shot down our Choppers with AK-47. I had to find and post a list of helicopter losses with description of weapons used to prove that the 12.7 mm belt fed MG was the culprit in almost every recorded shoot down. I don't think the AK was even mentioned in that list.

The DSHk and the RPG were the prime culprits IIRC there were several that were destroyed by RPG fire as they were landing or taking off.

[Multigunner]

Back too the Lee Enfield.
Up till 1925-26 if a Lee Enfield or SMLE rifle had a damaged receiver, but barrel and other parts were still serviceable, they would replace the action body with one drawn from a stock of production over runs kept to make up for action bodies damaged in proof testing.
Since British practice before that date was to consider the serial number on the barrel to be the identification number the replacement action body was given the serial number of the barrel rather than the other way around.

This was still occasionally done by civilian gunsmiths in the U S if licensed to do so up till the 60's at least. If a sporting rifle under warrantee suffered a crack or other defect of a receiver the factory would send out a replacement to be installed and given the same number as the original receiver.

So its sort of like the old joke about "no Rolls Royce has ever broken down".


If the barrel and other parts were worn enough they would simply break the break the rifle down for salvageable parts and junk both barrel and action body, or stamp the rifle with the "DP" Drill Purpose Only markings on most if not all parts.

[gew98]

Back too the Lee Enfield.
Up till 1925-26 if a Lee Enfield or SMLE rifle had a damaged receiver, but barrel and other parts were still serviceable, they would replace the action body with one drawn from a stock of production over runs kept to make up for action bodies damaged in proof testing.
Since British practice before that date was to consider the serial number on the barrel to be the identification number the replacement action body was given the serial number of the barrel rather than the other way around.

This was still occasionally done by civilian gunsmiths in the U S if licensed to do so up till the 60's at least. If a sporting rifle under warrantee suffered a crack or other defect of a receiver the factory would send out a replacement to be installed and given the same number as the original receiver.

So its sort of like the old joke about "no Rolls Royce has ever broken down".


If the barrel and other parts were worn enough they would simply break the break the rifle down for salvageable parts and junk both barrel and action body, or stamp the rifle with the "DP" Drill Purpose Only markings on most if not all parts.

And when an 03 went pop.....all parts got scrapped as too badly damaged and likely the poor shooter got buried. The germans salvaged gew98 rifles very early in the great war and never relented , but they did not have heat treat issues nor delicate bits from day one. Much akin to Enfields..never heard a wisper of bad steel making them go boom.

[gew98]

An example of those who would argue with an engineer is the guy who figured two 1" bolts would be a proper substitute for one 2" bolt.

.

Are that many apprentice enginners that bad off ?.

[Multigunner]

And when an 03 went pop.....all parts got scrapped as too badly damaged and likely the poor shooter got buried.
Never heard of a fatality due to a 1903 Springfield Kaboom, care to post details of any such incident?
I have found cases of fatalities due to blown out Enfield bolt heads.

Also your favorite SMG the STEN left quite a bloody trail of deaths due to accidental discharges.

PS
Only 11 Springfield receiver failures during U S involvement in WW1, and only one of those caused any serious injuries.
There were no failures of Low Number rifles in use by the USMC during WW2.
The worst recorded injuries of all failures in war or peace time use were three cases of loss of an eye.
No deaths.
Years ago I'd have bought into your bull but actual information is available these days, so we don't have to rely on rumor and fantasy of self styled gun gurus.

[robertbank]

I have found cases of fatalities due to blown out Enfield bolt heads.

Also your favorite SMG the STEN left quite a bloody trail of deaths due to accidental discharges.
......rumor and fantasy of self styled gun gurus.

How long was the Enfield, in it's several iterations, in service? How many were made and by who? Same question for the STEN. Some of what you read in Wikepedia is pretty fanciful stuff. One incident reported a thousand times is not a thousand incidents.

The 03 Springfield was not the rifle in the hands of the majority of your troops in WW1 and you know that. What it is, is a copy of the Mauser made in the US. Great little rifle no doubt but it didn't do yeoman service in actual combat for any length of time. It certainly can be an accurate rifle and no doubt is, but that hardly distinguishes from hundreds of other makes based upon the same action.

Had the 03 been in service as long as the Enfield, and served in so many environments then we could have a meaningful discussion and comparison as a combat rifle. As it is we can't. Look up how many variations of the LE there are over it's service life. To my knowledge the #4 rifle had none of the attributes you speak of yet it is an Enfield so it must have....I guess. So to the #5 rifle, a rifle that is much maligned by folks who wanted a semi auto rifle instead.

Take Care

Bob

[Multigunner]

How long was the Enfield, in it's several iterations, in service? How many were made and by who? Same question for the STEN. Some of what you read in Wikepedia is pretty fanciful stuff. One incident reported a thousand times is not a thousand incidents.

Exactly what "one incident" are you speaking of? For confirmation of deadly STEN Gun ADs I posted excerpts from News stories and Funeral notifications, and official cause of death from Military sources.
None of that came from Wikipedia.
The deaths due to blown out bolt heads I found in an article written by James crosman, who was the forensic investigator in one cases, and one fatality was brought up in the debates of the Canadian House of Commons. Another near fatal injury was reported in the same records, a bolt head passing completely through the neck of a range officer.


The 03 Springfield was not the rifle in the hands of the majority of your troops in WW1 and you know that. What it is, is a copy of the Mauser made in the US. Great little rifle no doubt but it didn't do yeoman service in actual combat for any length of time.
The rifle proved itself in some of the most intense fighting of WW1 and Korea. Only reason it was replaced was because its replacement was an autoloader which was the next step in evolution of military rifles. Had the British been able to mass produce any of their autoloader designs before WW2 they might well have retired the Enfields at the same time.
There were other U S Military actions besides WW1 and WW2 both before WW1 and between wars, from the plains of Mexico to the jungles of South America and the Phillipines, and the Springfield continued to serve in a limited capacity after WW2.
The Springfield sniper rifles served in combat into the 70's.




It certainly can be an accurate rifle and no doubt is, but that hardly distinguishes from hundreds of other makes based upon the same action. [quote]
Proven to be the most accurate combat rifle, not something to sneeze at.

[quote]
Had the 03 been in service as long as the Enfield, and served in so many environments then we could have a meaningful discussion and comparison as a combat rifle.
The 1903 Springfield served in every type of environment on the planet at one time or another.


As it is we can't.
Not till you brush up on U S history a bit.


Look up how many variations of the LE there are over it's service life. To my knowledge the #4 rifle had none of the attributes you speak of yet it is an Enfield so it must have....I guess.
The No.4 was designed to correct short comings of the No.1, but was not that much of an improvement other than accuracy was slightly better if properly bedded.

So to the #5 rifle, a rifle that is much maligned by folks who wanted a semi auto rifle instead.
A number of short rifle experiments were done with No.1 ,No.3 and No.4 rifles culminating in the No.5.
A similar shortened Springfield 03 (the Bushmaster) was field tested but not adopted, the autoloading M1 Carbine filled the role better despite its lower powered cartridge.
A shortened Garand was also tested but not adopted, the progenitor of the "Tanker Garand".
A Shortened M1917 rifle was developed for the Chinese troops serving under Jolting Joe Stillwell.
The No.5 is a very handy bolt action carbine, but suffered its own development problems, some were never fully solved.
Best explanation I've seen for loss of zero of some No.5 rifles is spreading of the rear receiver walls due to firing heat damaged ammunition. Most likely due to a manufacturing defect that affected very few of these rifles.
Recoil of the full power battle rifle cartridges in a short light carbine is a bit too much for extended combat use, which is why some users of the short barreled Mauser police carbines developed special cartridges of about the same power level as the .30-30.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Heard the story from a long time ago (don't know if true or not) that the Brits hung on to the Enfield action for international long range competition well past the time of more modern or better actions. When questioned by team members (or others), one British coach reportedly said-- maybe for the benefit of his team's morale--, "the spring in the action gives the bullet a little more umph." :)

There is a certain amount of truth in that, but I don't think it would be international competition as usually understood. In events such as the Queen's Prize at Bisley, service ammunition was once issued. (They have long since gone over to allowing handloads.) In some years that gave a considerable variation in velocity and pressure, and the Lee action has a compensating quality which enabled it to send off the higher-pressure round at a slightly lower elevation than the low-pressure one. At long ranges it could thus give superior performance to rifles such as Mausers. Heavy target barrels just extended the range at which the optimum compensation took place. With really consisten batches of ammunition, the Lee-Enfields lost out, and they disliked rainwater in the chamber more than most.

The thing we have to remember about breech explosions in any kind of rifle, is that they are less than consistent, and testing one rifle to even carefully controlled destruction doesn't prove what the next will do, or one subjected to a long succession of very hot rounds which don't produce any immediate effect. It is true that the British proof houses decided against proving the SMLE (any SMLE I think) I would not go beyond SAAMI standard loads for 7.62x51 in a No.4 for which I had carefully checked the headspace, or conventional .303 ones for the SMLE. Excellent as headspace adjustment by interchangeable bolt-head may be, there is always the chance that somebody has accidentally interchanged them the wrong way.

When the Lee action fails, it is less likely than some to fail catastrophically. With M1903 Springfields of the early heat treatment, and doubtless otherr rifles, the failure of a case-head is likely to release high pressure gas into the receiver ring, which can burst quite disastrously. The Enfield is much more likely to leave you (and bystanders) feeling shaken but unhurt. These things are well documented, but who is to know about all Arisakas, for example? I would be much warier of my Austro-Hungarian M1895 Mannlicher if I hadn't drilled it for scope bases, and found that difficult, but the little wiry shavings extremely tough.

A very old soldier indeed once told me a story which may have involved any type of Lee-Enfield or even Lee-Metford. A soldier on India's plains in summer became so depressive that he decided to end it all. But he knew that soldiers do sometimes survive being shot through the brain, and didn't know that muzzle-blast range is messily different. So he filled up the barrel of the rifle with water. At the decisive moment he became reconciled to this world, but he was so nervous that he accidentally triggered the rifle while it was too close to his head, and blew off much of his ear.

When he woke up in hospital, it was to find the awful figure of the Regimental Sergeant-Major sitting by his bedside. In some consternation he asked if he would go to jail (suicide was then an offence), or be dismissed the service. The Sergeant-Major was quiet and polite, as would naturally expect in a Highland regiment, and told him that he has been the victim of an accident which was its own punishment, so he would stay in the service, and be put under stoppages for £5-10/- to pay for the rifle he had destroyed. He was quite indignant at this, since it was the price of a single rifle retail while the Queen-Empress presumably got a discount (and I verified that price from an old Army and Navy Stores catalogue decades later), and the rifle appeared undamaged.
The would-be suicide’s part-liquid missile would have amounted to around 610gr. for the Mk. VII cartridge in a 25in. barrel and rather more for the Long Lee-Enfield, but no obvious explosion took place.

I don't think there is much doubt that the lightweight filling in the nose of the Mk. VII bullet originated to improve its ability to retain velocity to a distance. But it did indeed produce more destructive wounds, although everyone else's change to spitzer bullets did much the same. It reversed a trend (visible with the Martini-Henry and much more marked with the round-nosed .303 and other nations' equivalents) for far less destructive wounds. It was very rare for a close-range musket-ball wound to heal by first intention (i.e. by simply being bound up and left alone), but a turn-of-the-century .303 wound, especially in the hygienic conditions of South Africa , frequently did.

I have the book of Sir Sidney Smith, a pioneering forensic pathologist, who held an academic post in Egypt, and was asked to investigate some rioters who had died by gunshots. The authorities were most helpful, even supplying him with a verdict, that they had shot each other with pistols, although this would be eccentric even by Egyptian standards. Instead Smith found broken-off conical pieces of papier-maché which he identified as coming from the Mk VII round, instead of the aluminium he knew to be specified for the purpose. He very commendably reported that they were probably shot by soldiers or native policy, and wrote to the authorities in case a contractor had been cutting corners in a way that imposed a a danger of being accused of bacteriological warfare. A reply informed him that it was an authorised wartime substitution, and the material was carefully sterilised, so that it was no worse than being shot in the normal way.

The Lee-Enfield rifle did enjoy some advantages. It is smooth - smoother than the rotary magazine Mannlicher-Schoenauer, even - and the short bolt movement reduces the chance of jamming by short-stroking under stress. Its resistance to mud is legendary. It could be argued that the US accepted some disadvantages (as well as some advantages) by adopting a Mauser based rifle. I am not sure they wouldn't have done as well in both wars with a clip-loading adaptation of the Krag. But if there was a mistake there, the British tried to make it too, by deciding to adopt the Mauser-style P13, a decision preempted when some idiot started a war. It took a cartridge much resembling the 7mm. Remington Magnum, which brought problems of blast, noise and metallic fouling with the ammunition of the time. It would have been just fine, with a little development, for fighting the Boer War all over again, but not in Flanders with late WW1 conscripts.

The No. 5 carbine was indeed unpopular for its recoil, and I'm not sure that its "walking group" was due to deformation of its receiver, which was certainly no lighter than the SMLE's. I think it was just as likely to be inadequate rigidity of the forend arrangements. It is true that many nations developed lower-velocity and/or round-nosed police rounds, but I don't believe recoil is the main reason, especially since the number of rounds fired is likely to be low. People shot by policy have a tendency to be tried, and sometimes acquitted, and it looks bad if you have blown his arm off.

As for comparison of the SMLE and No. 4, the former was usually better built or at least finished, even in wartime. Many No. 4s had oversized bore dimensions, and shot much better with oversized bullets than the standard ones. (I would size down .318in. bullets made for the J-bore 8x57 Mauser.) This aberration bucks the trend so common with rifles, of standards dropping in wartime, since it is common in early production, but less so later. If I were building a sporting rifle, I would try to find a Long Lee-Enfield which had someone else had already deprived of its original and collectible status. It has a more satisfactorily contoured barrel, if shortened, a heavy but single-stage trigger, and a half-cock notch which is far safer than its safety, which is easily released by accident.

My own choice of a bullet for the .303 would be as close as possible to the original 215gr. round-nosed. There are relatively few hunting situations where the trajectory is a serious objection in practical terms, and I know of an incident when a WW2 sniper school obtained a quantity of this ammunition from a local rifle club or cadet training corps, and found it extremely good. It appeared that the makers had never left off throating the No. 4 for this cartridge. On a similar note I have a photograph showing a pre-war sporting bullet for the 6.5x54 Mannlicher-Schoenauer of possibly my all-time favourite sporting rifle, and a modern copy of the 150gr. Swedish military bullet. They are suspended side by side in the jaws of a digital caliper set at the land diameter of the rifle, and those rounds, of the same length, were supported at just the same distance from either end. I would be surprised if the situation with 215gr. and 174gr. Lee-Enfield bullets was very different.

[robertbank]

Please. You can't begin to compare the two. A few banana republics does not make a war make. The US did not become a world player until after WW11. The Enfields were in the hands of the Brits during their hey day and served across the "Empire".

Shooting bullseye competitions hardly is a test of a combat rifle. Seems to me the shooters have something to do with the results of shooting competitions. Like the Ross rifle before it though it was a very accurate gun and did well in the hands of accomplished shooters. That doesn't make either the best combat bolt gun. The AK 47 and variants were arguably the best combat arm of their day but would not be my first choice for bullseye competitions.

The loss of zero was mostly if not entirely fiction. The British Army wanted a semi auto and did everything they could to discourage the adoption of the #5. You might to do some more reading on that subject. You are right though, the carbine is a handful to manage when it comes to felt recoil.

We actually take US history in High School. Probably not in the same context as American students but do take it.

Take Care

Bob

[Multigunner]

Please. You can't begin to compare the two. A few banana republics does not make a war make. The US did not become a world player until after WW11. The Enfields were in the hands of the Brits during their hey day and served across the "Empire".
The U S didn't need an "Empire" just to feed its own population.
Brush up on your American history as I said, you'll find a lot more than Bananna republics.




Shooting bullseye competitions hardly is a test of a combat rifle. Seems to me the shooters have something to do with the results of shooting competitions. Like the Ross rifle before it though it was a very accurate gun and did well in the hands of accomplished shooters. That doesn't make either the best combat bolt gun. The AK 47 and variants were arguably the best combat arm of their day but would not be my first choice for bullseye competitions.
The AK has long been proven to be overblown as a combat weapon. The U S never lost a battle to the NVA, and the Middle East dust ups have proven that the superior accuracy of the M-16 and M-4 have put AK armed foes at a severe disadvantage.



The loss of zero was mostly if not entirely fiction.
Tell that to British Armorers of the day who have written on the subject.

The British Army wanted a semi auto and did everything they could to discourage the adoption of the #5. You might to do some more reading on that subject.
I've already done a good deal of reading on the subject. You are simply repeating the standard conspiracy theory.
The Wandering zero was a known phenomena, and a lot of effort was put into finding the primary cause and dealing with it.
Since the British fully intended to adopt an autoloader no matter what they chose not to put any more effort into improving the No.5.
Canada developed the "No.4 Lightened Rifle" to fill the slot of the No.5.
That rifle used a longer barrel without flash hider and a one piece stock with an actual functional recoil pad rather than a hard rubber buttplate insert.



You are right though, the carbine is a handful to manage when it comes to felt recoil.
I have some experience with the No.5 and short barrel Mauser carbines.




We actually take US history in High School. Probably not in the same context as American students but do take it.
I've seen the result of that "context", like all the misinformation and outright lies about the development and cancelation of the AVRO Arrow. Another set of lies would be the drivel about the origin of the all flying tail used on the US X-1 and its subsequent use on the F-86 Sabre.

I've seen Canadian university graduates that never knew that slavery once existed in Canada, or that there were still negro and Indian slaves in Canada during the U S Civil War despite cessation of importation of slaves.

[gew98]

Wow, a jingling johnny of a post on the 03. The 03's that served past WW2 were for training..with very very few utilized post WW2 for sniping or grenade launching as they were just too delicate - Between the A5 & Unertl systems they were range queens. The 03A4 was a joke - more or less an ersatz 'sniper' rifle. My father had 03's for his navy boot back in 1960 - sans the striker assy's for Drill only.
There were still some 03A4's available in ARNG supply chain (storage ) up until the clinton years and these were disposed of back then. Not sure if they were scrapped but I sure don't recall them ever reaching the DCM and these were not available when they were there still to be doled out to ARNG units when requested to do so.
I can recall reading about Marines ditching 03's by the score on guadal canal when the Army turned up there armed with M1's. They made the right decision for sure as the M1 was a much more durable combat rifle in gobs.



Exactly what "one incident" are you speaking of? For confirmation of deadly STEN Gun ADs I posted excerpts from News stories and Funeral notifications, and official cause of death from Military sources.
None of that came from Wikipedia.
The deaths due to blown out bolt heads I found in an article written by James crosman, who was the forensic investigator in one cases, and one fatality was brought up in the debates of the Canadian House of Commons. Another near fatal injury was reported in the same records, a bolt head passing completely through the neck of a range officer.

The rifle proved itself in some of the most intense fighting of WW1 and Korea. Only reason it was replaced was because its replacement was an autoloader which was the next step in evolution of military rifles. Had the British been able to mass produce any of their autoloader designs before WW2 they might well have retired the Enfields at the same time.
There were other U S Military actions besides WW1 and WW2 both before WW1 and between wars, from the plains of Mexico to the jungles of South America and the Phillipines, and the Springfield continued to serve in a limited capacity after WW2.
The Springfield sniper rifles served in combat into the 70's.

[quote]

It certainly can be an accurate rifle and no doubt is, but that hardly distinguishes from hundreds of other makes based upon the same action. [quote]
Proven to be the most accurate combat rifle, not something to sneeze at.


The 1903 Springfield served in every type of environment on the planet at one time or another.


Not till you brush up on U S history a bit.


The No.4 was designed to correct short comings of the No.1, but was not that much of an improvement other than accuracy was slightly better if properly bedded.

A number of short rifle experiments were done with No.1 ,No.3 and No.4 rifles culminating in the No.5.
A similar shortened Springfield 03 (the Bushmaster) was field tested but not adopted, the autoloading M1 Carbine filled the role better despite its lower powered cartridge.
A shortened Garand was also tested but not adopted, the progenitor of the "Tanker Garand".
A Shortened M1917 rifle was developed for the Chinese troops serving under Jolting Joe Stillwell.
The No.5 is a very handy bolt action carbine, but suffered its own development problems, some were never fully solved.
Best explanation I've seen for loss of zero of some No.5 rifles is spreading of the rear receiver walls due to firing heat damaged ammunition. Most likely due to a manufacturing defect that affected very few of these rifles.
Recoil of the full power battle rifle cartridges in a short light carbine is a bit too much for extended combat use, which is why some users of the short barreled Mauser police carbines developed special cartridges of about the same power level as the .30-30.

[303Guy]

The loss of zero was mostly if not entirely fiction. Considering that the rifle did not have a free floating barrel (or did it?) and it was used in the jungle, hence its name, where conditions are hot and wet to very hot and dry, it should be no surprise that the zero could wander. I have heard of spreading of the receiver. The No5 was lightened at the rear by milling out some material at the rear so it would not be as rigid as an SMLE but the area of metal removal might not have any influence on the action strength.

On the strength of the SMLE versus the No4, I believe that from the 1920's on the receivers were made from the same steels, that being EN19/4140. We've been told that the North American No4's were made from 8620 steel, the same as Garand's and Springfield's. I'm not sure about P14's and M17's. So theoretically, the later SMLE's were as strong as No4's. 8620 is not that different to 4140 but allows for a harder surface. My Long Branch No4's do not appear have such a hard surface. (I've been told by 'experts' that all No4's were made with the steels as per the British specifications). Apparently the Ishapore 2A's were of the same steel as their SMLE's which I gather to be 4140.


As for comparison of the SMLE and No. 4, the former was usually better built or at least finished, even in wartime.I am given to believe the No4 was about ease of manufacturing rather than functioning and no effort was made in finishing, other than the sliding parts.


Many No. 4s had oversized bore dimensions, and shot much better with oversized bullets than the standard ones.Interesting. My two two-groove No4's take a .310 bullet (180gr) which almost touch the leade. The one I've been using is very accurate. I've had three five-groove barrelled rifles and those barrels have pretty tight chambers and bores. One is fitted on an MLE action and another on a Lee Speed. Those have had a little breach face shortening to align the extractor groove, one needed reaming to take a factory case the other not but is tight on closing on a new case. I do have a five-groove No4 with a bad bore in that there is a groove all the way down one land and the lands seem uneven. it's a little rough so once I've finished fire-lapping it I'll give it a go but as far as I can tell the chamber and bore dimensions or 'normal'. My SMLE's on the other hand are all over the place.

[Multigunner]

When the Lee action fails, it is less likely than some to fail catastrophically. With M1903 Springfields of the early heat treatment, and doubtless otherr rifles, the failure of a case-head is likely to release high pressure gas into the receiver ring, which can burst quite disastrously. The Enfield is much more likely to leave you (and bystanders) feeling shaken but unhurt.
Had I not mined the available sources so thoroughly I'd agree, but I have found both fatalities and potentially fatal injuries from blown out bolt heads.


A very old soldier indeed once told me a story which may have involved any type of Lee-Enfield or even Lee-Metford. A soldier on India's plains in summer became so depressive that he decided to end it all. But he knew that soldiers do sometimes survive being shot through the brain, and didn't know that muzzle-blast range is messily different. So he filled up the barrel of the rifle with water. At the decisive moment he became reconciled to this world, but he was so nervous that he accidentally triggered the rifle while it was too close to his head, and blew off much of his ear.

When he woke up in hospital, it was to find the awful figure of the Regimental Sergeant-Major sitting by his bedside. In some consternation he asked if he would go to jail (suicide was then an offence), or be dismissed the service. The Sergeant-Major was quiet and polite, as would naturally expect in a Highland regiment, and told him that he has been the victim of an accident which was its own punishment, so he would stay in the service, and be put under stoppages for £5-10/- to pay for the rifle he had destroyed. He was quite indignant at this, since it was the price of a single rifle retail while the Queen-Empress presumably got a discount (and I verified that price from an old Army and Navy Stores catalogue decades later), and the rifle appeared undamaged.
The would-be suicide’s part-liquid missile would have amounted to around 610gr. for the Mk. VII cartridge in a 25in. barrel and rather more for the Long Lee-Enfield, but no obvious explosion took place.
A story I never heard before and one I find highly unlikely. I have heard of water slugs fired by a blank cartridge to obscure the cause of death in a murder.



I don't think there is much doubt that the lightweight filling in the nose of the Mk. VII bullet originated to improve its ability to retain velocity to a distance.
The original Taylor Velopex bullet was intended to allow high velocity light bullet loads in the old large bore express rifles while maintaining sufficient bullet length and surface for engraving to not adversely affect accuracy. Its destructive wounding effect was immediately noted.




But it did indeed produce more destructive wounds, although everyone else's change to spitzer bullets did much the same. It reversed a trend (visible with the Martini-Henry and much more marked with the round-nosed .303 and other nations' equivalents) for far less destructive wounds. It was very rare for a close-range musket-ball wound to heal by first intention (i.e. by simply being bound up and left alone), but a turn-of-the-century .303 wound, especially in the hygienic conditions of South Africa , frequently did.
A clean wound from a round nose bullet could heal if no infection set in, but anti-biotics were at a primitive stage of development.
I've examined photos of poachers shot with the MkVII bullet that showed chest wounds wide enough to see the countryside behind a body propped against a tree, and a young boy with the upper arm completely de-fleshed.




I have the book of Sir Sidney Smith, a pioneering forensic pathologist, who held an academic post in Egypt, and was asked to investigate some rioters who had died by gunshots. The authorities were most helpful, even supplying him with a verdict, that they had shot each other with pistols, although this would be eccentric even by Egyptian standards. Instead Smith found broken-off conical pieces of papier-maché which he identified as coming from the Mk VII round, instead of the aluminium he knew to be specified for the purpose. He very commendably reported that they were probably shot by soldiers or native policy, and wrote to the authorities in case a contractor had been cutting corners in a way that imposed a a danger of being accused of bacteriological warfare. A reply informed him that it was an authorised wartime substitution, and the material was carefully sterilised, so that it was no worse than being shot in the normal way.
I've sectioned a POF bullet and found that brown paper wad, which when dug out resembled shreds of the old brow paper towels. When sawing through the nose plug a very rank acrid odor came from it, the odor disappearing in seconds.


The Lee-Enfield rifle did enjoy some advantages. It is smooth - smoother than the rotary magazine Mannlicher-Schoenauer, even - and the short bolt movement reduces the chance of jamming by short-stroking under stress. Its resistance to mud is legendary. It could be argued that the US accepted some disadvantages (as well as some advantages) by adopting a Mauser based rifle. I am not sure they wouldn't have done as well in both wars with a clip-loading adaptation of the Krag. But if there was a mistake there, the British tried to make it too, by deciding to adopt the Mauser-style P13, a decision preempted when some idiot started a war. It took a cartridge much resembling the 7mm. Remington Magnum, which brought problems of blast, noise and metallic fouling with the ammunition of the time. It would have been just fine, with a little development, for fighting the Boer War all over again, but not in Flanders with late WW1 conscripts.
The original .30-06 sent a 150 gr bullet on its way at 2700 FPS, the original specs for the 7.62 NATO cartridge duplicated the .30-06 ballistics.
Just before WW1 cartridge designers in Europe had tested a great many cartridges and decided the best battle rifle cartridge would propel a circa 150 gr bullet to a minimum of 2600 FPS muzzle velocity.
Lowest trajectory up to its longest expected battle field range was the main issue in the design.
Lower trajectories increase hit probably when errors in elevation are taken into account. In other words the flatter shooting cartridge is less likely to send a bullet over the head of an intended target if the shooter has not estimated the range properly.




The No. 5 carbine was indeed unpopular for its recoil, and I'm not sure that its "walking group" was due to deformation of its receiver, which was certainly no lighter than the SMLE's.
Whole point of the lightening cuts was to make the action body lighter.
Spreading of the rear walls seems to have been more a matter of spring than permanent deformation. It was discovered that affected rifles had rear sight pivot locking pins sheared part way through by the expansion. To put these rifles back in action these receivers were replaced with No.4 receivers.



I think it was just as likely to be inadequate rigidity of the forend arrangements. It is true that many nations developed lower-velocity and/or round-nosed police rounds, but I don't believe recoil is the main reason, especially since the number of rounds fired is likely to be low. People shot by policy have a tendency to be tried, and sometimes acquitted, and it looks bad if you have blown his arm off.
The reduced charge cartridges for Mauser police carbines were intended to reduce recoil and muzzle blast to promote better marksmanship. The .30-06 version of these cartridges was also used with full length mauser rifles by cadet schools for two hundred yard targets.




As for comparison of the SMLE and No. 4, the former was usually better built or at least finished, even in wartime. Many No. 4s had oversized bore dimensions, and shot much better with oversized bullets than the standard ones. (I would size down .318in. bullets made for the J-bore 8x57 Mauser.) This aberration bucks the trend so common with rifles, of standards dropping in wartime, since it is common in early production, but less so later. If I were building a sporting rifle, I would try to find a Long Lee-Enfield which had someone else had already deprived of its original and collectible status. It has a more satisfactorily contoured barrel, if shortened, a heavy but single-stage trigger, and a half-cock notch which is far safer than its safety, which is easily released by accident.
The regulations for musketry forbade use of the half bent as a safety notch.
I've read of ADs caused by WW2 soldiers using the half bent as a safety when on guard duty in cold weather, gloves making manipulating the safety lever very difficult.
Also I've repaired a rifle with badly bent upper sear leg. From the looks of it someone had tried to pull the trigger forgetting it was in the half bent. Once slightly bent the upper leg won't go far enough down to fully clear the cocking piece and will catch in the half bent again and again bending more till it catches the half bent every time the trigger is pulled.




My own choice of a bullet for the .303 would be as close as possible to the original 215gr. round-nosed. There are relatively few hunting situations where the trajectory is a serious objection in practical terms, and I know of an incident when a WW2 sniper school obtained a quantity of this ammunition from a local rifle club or cadet training corps, and found it extremely good. It appeared that the makers had never left off throating the No. 4 for this cartridge. On a similar note I have a photograph showing a pre-war sporting bullet for the 6.5x54 Mannlicher-Schoenauer of possibly my all-time favourite sporting rifle, and a modern copy of the 150gr. Swedish military bullet. They are suspended side by side in the jaws of a digital caliper set at the land diameter of the rifle, and those rounds, of the same length, were supported at just the same distance from either end. I would be surprised if the situation with 215gr. and 174gr. Lee-Enfield bullets was very different.

The Australians much preferred the MkVI cartridge, and I've read that some snipers preferred it as well.
The MkIV and MKV bullets with open nose tubular jackets caused the destruction of a number of fine target rifles, the tube jacket stripping of and becoming lodged in the bore.
The Hollow point bullets proved a bit more accurate than the solid nose bullets for much the same reason, though to a much lesser extent, as the MkVI showed better long range performance. The long cavity reduced weight from the nose of the bullet.

[gew98]

Had I not mined the available sources so thoroughly I'd agree, but I have found both fatalities and potentially fatal injuries from blown out bolt heads.

*So as you always demand..where's the beef ?.

A story I never heard before and one I find highly unlikely. I have heard of water slugs fired by a blank cartridge to obscure the cause of death in a murder.

* So sisnce YOU never heard of it your engineer brain discounts it as an anomoly ?.

The original Taylor Velopex bullet was intended to allow high velocity light bullet loads in the old large bore express rifles while maintaining sufficient bullet length and surface for engraving to not adversely affect accuracy. Its destructive wounding effect was immediately noted.

* This has been done in a myriad of calibers to include the 7,35 carcano..and your point ?.


A clean wound from a round nose bullet could heal if no infection set in, but anti-biotics were at a primitive stage of development.
I've examined photos of poachers shot with the MkVII bullet that showed chest wounds wide enough to see the countryside behind a body propped against a tree, and a young boy with the upper arm completely de-fleshed.

* Another wow of goofy factor. I have seen 5,56 55 grain bullets do clean throughs and then some do fantastic destruction. I had the complete displeasure of having to train USAF personell in small squad tactics wherein one week two had fatalities by their comrades uber careless handling of M16A1's - they were close up and greusome injuries. Many works to include Wilfred Owen's letters recount amazing destruction by german S patrone bullets on french wounded he observed in a hospital in france during WW1. The germans accused the brits of using unusually lethal SAA , and the brits and french accused the germans of using unuasually lethal ball...first war with high velocity pointed bullets..go figure.

I've sectioned a POF bullet and found that brown paper wad, which when dug out resembled shreds of the old brow paper towels. When sawing through the nose plug a very rank acrid odor came from it, the odor disappearing in seconds.

* And the acrid smell accounts for what with Indian projos ?.


The original .30-06 sent a 150 gr bullet on its way at 2700 FPS, the original specs for the 7.62 NATO cartridge duplicated the .30-06 ballistics.

* The caliber 30 M2 or M1906 bullet was 152 grains..and yes the 147gn BT M80 ball duped for the most part velocity..and this is relevant here why ?. If you read Dunlap or George's works on serving in WW2 you may have a different opinion of your pet 'system'.

Just before WW1 cartridge designers in Europe had tested a great many cartridges and decided the best battle rifle cartridge would propel a circa 150 gr bullet to a minimum of 2600 FPS muzzle velocity.

* So why did the germans settle on a 154 gn bullet at apprimately 2900 FPS ?...and the french loved their 225 gn Balle D boat tailed spitzer. Yet the germans stuck with the 215 gn 88 patrone bullet for MG use as it offered better long range abilities...the french had no such problem as their bullet shape and weight made it superior to all comers of the day.

Lowest trajectory up to its longest expected battle field range was the main issue in the design.
Lower trajectories increase hit probably when errors in elevation are taken into account. In other words the flatter shooting cartridge is less likely to send a bullet over the head of an intended target if the shooter has not estimated the range properly.

* wow...did you stay in a holdiay inn to come up with that generic knowledge statement ?.

Whole point of the lightening cuts was to make the action body lighter.
Spreading of the rear walls seems to have been more a matter of spring than permanent deformation. It was discovered that affected rifles had rear sight pivot locking pins sheared part way through by the expansion. To put these rifles back in action these receivers were replaced with No.5 receivers.


The reduced charge cartridges for Mauser police carbines were intended to reduce recoil and muzzle blast to promote better marksmanship. The .30-06 version of these cartridges was also used with full length mauser rifles by cadet schools for two hundred yard targets.

* Ah..the full Mil loads caused gobs of balst and unwanted penetration not needed for "police"..hence little carbines with often reduced loads. There was a handfull of different 'guard & gallery" loadings for the 30 cal in US service...most very short lived and hence rather collectible.

The regulations for musketry forbade use of the half bent as a safety notch.
I've read of ADs caused by WW2 soldiers using the half bent as a safety when on guard duty in cold weather, gloves making manipulating the safety lever very difficult.
Also I've repaired a rifle with badly bent upper sear leg. From the looks of it someone had tried to pull the trigger forgetting it was in the half bent. Once slightly bent the upper leg won't go far enough down to fully clear the cocking piece and will catch in the half bent again and again bending more till it catches the half bent every time the trigger is pulled.

* Half bent is NOT half cock last I heard. Never heard of ANY enfield discharging when cockpeice is pulled form halfcock to full cock manually...even i fyou slip and let go it's caught by the sear. Now if some sod moves the safety lever halfway back ..yeah I can see some bad ju ju happening there by some lame brain . This is what you infer by half bent..right ?.



The Australians much preferred the MkVI cartridge, and I've read that some snipers preferred it as well.

* The vast majority of Enfield rifles in brit service up until 1916 were Mk VI SAA sighted . and the Mk VI ball in any event provided better long range ballistics.

The MkIV and MKV bullets with open nose tubular jackets caused the destruction of a number of fine target rifles, the tube jacket stripping of and becoming lodged in the bore.

* The brits where the first to go there with Hollow points and there was a learning curve. I can recall gobs of surplus ammo with clipped tips and many a core was shed and jacket remained in the bore....all calibers included in such tom foolery. The germans turned out H mantel bullets and other's much better designed SP's and HP's as time went on. But soemone had to start somehwere...right ?.


The Hollow point bullets proved a bit more accurate than the solid nose bullets for much the same reason, though to a much lesser extent, as the MkVI showed better long range performance. The long cavity reduced weight from the nose of the bullet.

* Really ?....do indulge us with the details.




Blah blah blah blah.

[303Guy]

The half-cock isn't always a safe bet. My 1902 MLE with a SMLE two-stage trigger will fire from the half-cock. With that rifle the safety is on the cocking piece which makes for a large gripping piece but the small SMLE and No4 cocking piece is likely to slip out the fingers and fire the gun. The MLE safety was way better anyway and far less likely to get bumped off. I would never trust the SMLE safety. Another problem with using the half-cock as a safe carry is getting it there. One has to close the action on a chambered round with the trigger depressed and that can fire the gun! I know this for a fact - it happened to me. The striker moves forward as much as a cock-on-opening striker does and with a quick closure of the bolt there is enough forward speed to fire.


I don't think there is much doubt that the lightweight filling in the nose of the Mk. VII bullet originated to improve its ability to retain velocity to a distance.
For a long time I have been hearing how the British developed the MkVII bullet to be unstable on impact for severe wounding effect and for as long as I've heard that I have disagreed. I argued that it was to maintain the bullet shank length and for streamlining of the bullet. Now for the first time I'm hearing that was indeed so.

Something about the Jungle Carbine flash suppressor - not how it resembles a rocket engine nozzle? The bloody thing probably increases recoil! Ironically, a relatively small device not any bigger than the flash suppressor, would have cut recoil and eliminated the muzzle flash altogether. It would have had additional advantage of keeping water and crud out the muzzle.

[Multigunner]

Something about the Jungle Carbine flash suppressor - not how it resembles a rocket engine nozzle? The bloody thing probably increases recoil! Ironically, a relatively small device not any bigger than the flash suppressor, would have cut recoil and eliminated the muzzle flash altogether. It would have had additional advantage of keeping water and crud out the muzzle.
The conical flash hiders aren't flash suppressors. Rather than reduce the flash from the enemy's point of view they block the flash from the shooter's point of view. The only purpose is to avoid loss of the shooters sensitivity to low light (night vision) due to after image from a muzzle flash.
There may be a venturi effect of some sort, though that normally would require an expansion chamber as well as a nozzle.
The Canadian Lightened No.4 simply used a longer barrel with no flash hider. OAL of that rifle was around two inches longer, but excessive flash was not a real problem.

Simply switching from Cordite to a cooler burning single base or low Nitroglycerin content Ball powder with flash suppressant additives would have eliminated the need for a bulky flash hider.

PS


* Ah..the full Mil loads caused gobs of balst and unwanted penetration not needed for "police"..hence little carbines with often reduced loads. There was a handfull of different 'guard & gallery" loadings for the 30 cal in US service...most very short lived and hence rather collectible.

The "Guard" cartridge you speak of was for use in full length rifles to deal with unarmed prisoners and rioters. The muzzle velocities were between 1,000 and 1,200 FPS.
The reduced charge cartridge for the Mauser Police carbine was intended for use against armed criminals, the charge was a 170 gr bullet at 2,200 FPS.
South American Police have never been noted for concern over excessive wounding of criminals.
I've used the same basic load with a 8mm Persian Mauser carbine, using a relatively fast powder (4198) to give best efficiency in the short 18 inch barrel.

Most efficient loads for the No.5 Carbine are a 150 gr bullet at circa 2600 FPS using the same 4198 powder.



Just before WW1 cartridge designers in Europe had tested a great many cartridges and decided the best battle rifle cartridge would propel a circa 150 gr bullet to a minimum of 2600 FPS muzzle velocity.

* So why did the germans settle on a 154 gn bullet at apprimately 2900 FPS ?...and the french loved their 225 gn Balle D boat tailed spitzer. Yet the germans stuck with the 215 gn 88 patrone bullet for MG use as it offered better long range abilities...the french had no such problem as their bullet shape and weight made it superior to all comers of the day.

Got any idea what the word "minimum" means?
The French stuck with the Ball D through WW1 then developed the 7.5 cartridge.
The British tried to develop the .280 cartridge but failed due to constrants of the available propellants. Attempts to develop .303 loads using lighter bullets also failed. The first production run of the MkVII bullet was a 160 gr bullet, that bullet failed to maintain minimum accuracy standards so they went to the 174 gr weight.
Heavier bullets were more efficient for long range MG indirect fire, and firing a rifle from a secure area with a rest such as long range sniping. In each case there would be more time to estimate ranges and set elevations accordingly, so the more arched trajectory would not be an issue.
The Infantry cartridges which evolved from the 150 gr 2600 FPS minimum suggestion is what most countries settled on for Main battle rifles and is seen today in the 7.62 NATO.
For long range Machinegun fire and sniping there are the M118 Special Ball and M118 long Range sniper cartridge with 175 gr boat tail bullets.

As for the Barrel full of water story. With the very loose cartridge case to chamber wall fit of a Lee Enfield just how many seconds would it take for this barrel full of water to run out the breech?
I've plugged the chamber of an Enfield to fill the bore with solvent and even the slightest leakage anywhere around the rubber plug will result in the solvent level dropping very rapidly. The unfired .303 cartridge will not seal the chamber anywhere near as well as a rubber plug.
It does not require an engineer to know that most if not all the water would run out the breech before this idiot could pull the trigger.

From Anniversery 1981 Edition Gun Digest.

page 215
Jim Crosman

"One of them brought back interesting memories. More than a dozen years ago I was retained by an attorney as an expert in the case involving the death of a hunter. The man had been using an old British .303 surplus rifle with Federal ammunition."

"Further examination by state police showed that the rifle had "blown up" and that the man had died from bleeding caused by metal fragments that hit him in the chest".

"When I had a look at the material it was evident that there had been very high pressure, as the back of the .303 rifle chamber had bulged somewhat. The locking surfaces showed some upsetting, and the head of the cartridge case was separated from the body of the case."

"according to the coroner's report , he was hit in the right side of the chest with fragments which turned out to be part of the extractor assembly, as well as a couple of big brass fragments."




Service Rifle—Muzzle Velocity, etc.

HC Deb 22 October 1908 vol 194 cc1321-2 1321

§ MR. COURTHOPE (Sussex, Rye)
To ask the Secretary of State for War what breech pressure is exerted by the .303 ammunition producing a muzzle velocity of 2,600 foot seconds with a 1322 bullet of 150 grains; and what are the length in calibre of the point of the bullet, the point-blank range, the ballistic coefficient, the time of flight for 1,000 yards, and the deflection at 1,000 yards for a wind of ten miles per hour.

(Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) As regards breech pressure, a mean pressure not exceeding 18¼ tons would be exerted. No pattern of 150-grain bullet has yet been decided upon, and it is not therefore practicable to give any information as regards the length in calibre of the point of the bullet or the ballistic coefficient. As regards point-blank range, the range in which a 150-grain bullet, at 2,600 f.s. velocity, would not rise more than five feet above the line of sight would be about 700 yards. The time of flight for 1,000 yards would be about two seconds (calculated), but this varies with different designs. The deflection at 1,000 yards for a wind of ten miles per hour would be about 12½ feet (calculated).


§ Mr. COURTHOPE
To ask the Secretary of State for War what are the point-blank range, the breech pressure, the ballistic coefficient, the time of flight for 1,000 yards, and the deflection at 1,000 yards for a wind of ten miles per hour, in the case of each of the following types of .303 ammunition: service Lee-Metford, with bullet of 215 grains; Swift, with bullet of 225 grains; Velopex, with bullet of 150 grains, and Lee-Metford Palma, with bullet of 225 grains.

(Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) For the service 215-grain bullet the point-blank range for a height of trajectory above line of sight not exceeding five feet is 550 yards; as regards breech pressure the mean pressure does not exceed 16½ tons. The ballistic coefficient is .42 approximately; the time of flight for 1,000 yards is 2.4 seconds; the deflection at 1,000 yards for a wind of ton miles an hour is 13¼ feet (calculated). Similar information as regards the three other bullets is not available.

[gew98]

Moolti.... your "forensic " whatever you want to adjudge it means nothing. I knew a man whose son died as a result of an 03 going pop....it was a sad affair and cost a very young kid his life. I racked it up to misfortune then. I know better know.So your diatribe proves what ?...oh yeah you stayed in a holiday inn last night maybe ?.
The "guard" cartridges and the like were a flop all around ..hence their very collectible nature. One good thing is they likely saved alot of shooters of those heat treat deficient 03's from an early demise. And what does M118 loaded 7,62x51 have with discussions regarding WW1 era enfields...you so love to derail topics with your wikipedia misdirection again and again. Just like knowitall enginners in the field I have had to deal with....common sense and hands on don't count with them.

[Multigunner]

Moolti.... your "forensic " whatever you want to adjudge it means nothing. I knew a man whose son died as a result of an 03 going pop....it was a sad affair and cost a very young kid his life. I racked it up to misfortune then. I know better know.So your diatribe proves what ?...oh yeah you stayed in a holiday inn last night maybe ?.
The "guard" cartridges and the like were a flop all around ..hence their very collectible nature. One good thing is they likely saved alot of shooters of those heat treat deficient 03's from an early demise. And what does M118 loaded 7,62x51 have with discussions regarding WW1 era enfields...you so love to derail topics with your wikipedia misdirection again and again. Just like knowitall enginners in the field I have had to deal with....common sense and hands on don't count with them.

I found plenty of incidents of the STEN being subject to accidental discharges with names dates and service numbers of most of the victims.
I found evidence that the early production Gew 88 was subject to failures that created a national scandal.
I also found evidence that a blown Enfield bolthead can cause fatal injuries, yet this has no effect on your love affair with anything not American made.

Since you have no understanding of cartridge development but others here are interested in the subject a little history with modern comparisions was in order.
The M118 Special Ball is a near duplicate of the .30 M1 Ball cartridge and used in the same manner.

Heres a little something those with an interest in the subject of the thread will find useful.
http://books.google.com/books?id=hR8lAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA8878&lpg=PA8878&dq=lee+enfield+rifle+broken+bolt&source=bl&ots=PDDfwf8Zhj&sig=wiB1VmqHaNHYFqrUbdXOSaJj7fY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=B95aUvOBMoO28wTrg4CgAQ&ved=0CGkQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=lee%20enfield%20rifle%20broken%20bolt&f=false
Check page 8986 onwards.
"Report on Damaged Lee-Enfield Rifles"
You may fall into a coma when you read the remarks about the Springfield rifle, "recognized as the Best Rifle in the World". That coming from Canadians is especially unusual.

Contrary to your beliefs every military rifle has been subject to failures due to manufacturing defects and/or defective or degraded ammunition, and none are totally safe in event of such a failure.

[gew98]

I found plenty of incidents of the STEN being subject to accidental discharges with names dates and service numbers of most of the victims.
I found evidence that the early production Gew 88 was subject to failures that created a national scandal.
I also found evidence that a blown Enfield bolthead can cause fatal injuries, yet this has no effect on your love affair with anything not American made.

Since you have no understanding of cartridge development but others here are interested in the subject a little history with modern comparisions was in order.
The M118 Special Ball is a near duplicate of the .30 M1 Ball cartridge and used in the same manner.

Heres a little something those with an interest in the subject of the thread will find useful.
http://books.google.com/books?id=hR8lAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA8878&lpg=PA8878&dq=lee+enfield+rifle+broken+bolt&source=bl&ots=PDDfwf8Zhj&sig=wiB1VmqHaNHYFqrUbdXOSaJj7fY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=B95aUvOBMoO28wTrg4CgAQ&ved=0CGkQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=lee%20enfield%20rifle%20broken%20bolt&f=false
Check page 8986 onwards.
"Report on Damaged Lee-Enfield Rifles"
You may fall into a coma when you read the remarks about the Springfield rifle, "recognized as the Best Rifle in the World". That coming from Canadians is especially unusual.

Contrary to your beliefs every military rifle has been subject to failures due to manufacturing defects and/or defective or degraded ammunition, and none are totally safe in event of such a failure.

More gobbleygook. How many poor sods fo any given nationality met an untimely 'accidental' fate at the hands of Mp38/40's..PPSH41's & 43's..thompsons of all marks , M3 grease guns etc etc. Open bolt SMG's are inhernatly dangerous..duh !.
The Enfield rifles served far longer in much harsher environments than the 03 'IED' did , and it did not have deficient heat treating and delicate sights from the get go.
Your "have no understanding" is typical of your lot , and again more misdirection and deflection of the OP's post. Somehow you seem to think the 1903 changed the world or ruled it...far far from it my engineer friend.

[Multigunner]

Somehow you seem to think the 1903 changed the world or ruled it
Oh really, what led you to that conclusion?
You bring up the Springfield at every opportunity, usually in threads that have nothing to do with the Springfield, and in what amount to strawman arguments.

The STEN is certainly not the marvel of design and manufacture that you seem to believe it to be, and British military records as well as eye witness accounts reveal it to have been more prone to accidental discharges which were often fatal than any other weapon in its class.
I'd still like to see verification of the STEN being a prize winner, other than those RAF competitions against the Sterling which I've already mentioned.
It was a cheap stripped down knock off of the MP18 , no where near as well made, and lacking the positive bolt lock of the later versions of that WW1 design.

Your remarks on another thread about the rear sights falling off an 03A3 would suggest that you've never handled one that wasn't battered by some kitchen table gun butcher, most likely a reactivated drill rifle at that. I suspect the same would go for any 1903 you got your mits on.
The Low Number 03 rifles managed to give good service in two wars before being completely replaced by the autoloader Garand. Remington tooled up to manufacture both 1903 and 1903A3 rifles and there were no complaints about brittle receivers then or with the double heat treatment or Nickel Steel receivers of the post WW1 production.

The Lee Enfield design is not perfection itself, and was subject to burst barrels and shattered bolt heads if seriously defective ammunition was used. A blown out bolt head can kill and has done so in the past. Everyone on this board hand loads, so any pretense that the Lee Enfield or any other milsurp rifle is somehow immune to damage or dangerous blow outs is a very real dis service to all who visit this board.

I think what really gets your goat is that the Springfield earned its reputation as the most accurate bolt action military rifle honestly and against all comers.

[savagetactical]

Moolti.... your "forensic " whatever you want to adjudge it means nothing. I knew a man whose son died as a result of an 03 going pop....it was a sad affair and cost a very young kid his life. I racked it up to misfortune then. I know better know.So your diatribe proves what ?...oh yeah you stayed in a holiday inn last night maybe ?.
The "guard" cartridges and the like were a flop all around ..hence their very collectible nature. One good thing is they likely saved alot of shooters of those heat treat deficient 03's from an early demise. And what does M118 loaded 7,62x51 have with discussions regarding WW1 era enfields...you so love to derail topics with your wikipedia misdirection again and again. Just like knowitall enginners in the field I have had to deal with....common sense and hands on don't count with them.

This and your other responses all through this thread are excellent examples of a red herring. It is where multi and I disagree as he asserts you make a straw man argument. and its the only point he and I disagree on. A red herring is an attempt to sidetrack or detract from the subject of the debate. This is most often done using a logical and factual fallacy.

All of your rebuttals so far fit that criteria.

[robertbank]

Heres a little something those with an interest in the subject of the thread will find useful.
http://books.google.com/books?id=hR8lAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA8878&lpg=PA8878&dq=lee+enfield+rifle+broken+bolt&source=bl&ots=PDDfwf8Zhj&sig=wiB1VmqHaNHYFqrUbdXOSaJj7fY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=B95aUvOBMoO28wTrg4CgAQ&ved=0CGkQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=lee%20enfield%20rifle%20broken%20bolt&f=false
Check page 8986 onwards.
"Report on Damaged Lee-Enfield Rifles"
You may fall into a coma when you read the remarks about the Springfield rifle, "recognized as the Best Rifle in the World". That coming from Canadians is especially unusual.

Contrary to your beliefs every military rifle has been subject to failures due to manufacturing defects and/or defective or degraded ammunition, and none are totally safe in event of such a failure.

For gods sake you are using quotes from Hansard from the mouths of Canadian Politicians about incidents from the Boer War in South Africa. Jeez man these are the same clowns who sent our boys over with the Ross Rifle! You know when those twits are lying as soon as their lips begin to move. Now there is a group who know so very much about firearms.[smilie=b: The whole of the quote is dealing with the Ross Rifle and problems it had with dirty ammunition and it's frequency to jam. The whole contract with the Ross Rifle was political after the UK would not allow the SMLE to be produced in Canada.

Our troops eventually were armed with the #1 Mke 3 for WW! then the #4 for WW11.

Quite laughable really, better go back to Wikipedia and do some more research Hansard isn't doing much for your argument.

Incidentally the Boer War was well over long before the 03 saw the light of day. The comment in the Hansard quote are about the Ross Rifle not the Enfield. The fact that a Canadian politician who wouldn;t know an 03 from a broom made such a comment is kinda funny really. Buy the whole book and you might find the debate in question was over the purchase of the Ross Rifle over the Enfield. Grand Dad said the damn Ross killed as many of our guys as it did Germans and was mercifully replaced. The rifle would not stand up to the mud of the trenches. Not sure why you hold the 03 as to be such a great military rifle for all the action it saw in WW1. The P 17 did most of the work with your troops in their brief time in combat.

Take Care

Bob
ps if you Google the Ross Rifle there are quotes about Canadian Troops rummaging around for Enfields from British Soldiers. This is true, Grand Dad was at Ypres and spoke about doing just that. The Ross was a jammatic when it was fed dirty ammo, a fact of life in the muddy trenches. The Ross was not unlike your 03, a very accurate sporting rifle. It too was used as a sniper rifle where it excelled as long as you kept the ammo clean. Wikepedia quotes accuracy out to 600 yards.

[Multigunner]

Incidentally the Boer War was well over long before the 03 saw the light of day. The comment in the Hansard quote are about the Ross Rifle not the Enfield. The fact that a Canadian politician who wouldn;t know an 03 from a broom made such a comment is kinda funny really. Buy the whole book and you might find the debate in question was over the purchase of the Ross Rifle over the Enfield.
Check the dates of those damaged Enfields , long after the Boer War and the incidents were in Canada on proper firing ranges under ideal conditions.
I've gone over this entire volume of the Debates, saved it to documents long ago, along with other related volumes.
You have to search through thousands of pages and several volumes to find the complete picture.
You haven't gotten to the good parts yet.
The Ross appears to have given good service so long as good quality ammunition was available for it, and excelled as a Naval Sharpshooter and Sniper Rifle.
The low quality of .303 ammunition supplied by the British was the major cause of failure of the Ross.
Straight pull rifles for the most part have little leverage and are as ammunition sensitive as an autoloader.
The Lee Enfield, being an updated Black powder era design has the well earned reputation for being able to digest lower quality ammunition due to its generous chamber and head space allowances.
I've seen nothing that would suggest that the Springfield or any other turn bolt military rifle of the day had any notable problem of jamming in WW1 conditions.



Not sure why you hold the 03 as to be such a great military rifle for all the action it saw in WW1. The P 17 did most of the work with your troops in their brief time in combat.

I'd mentioned only the USMC marksmanship at Belleau Wood as evidence that a high degree of accuracy was important in combat situations.
The USMC was armed with the 1903 Springfield rifle, already recognized as the most accurate military bolt action rifle.
The fact that the USMC continued to use the Low Number rifles without major incident through the early days of WW2 suggest that relatively few of those rifles suffered from improper heat treatment.
I suspect that the process of drilling the "Hatcher Hole" gas relief port would allow the armorer to judge whether or not the interior steel was burned. That and the simple expedient of smacking the receiver with a lead or brass hammer to weed out those receivers that were really brittle.

The Low Number rifles were victims of poor heat treatment methods, which are no reflection on the design. Later rifles suffered no such problems.
You might as well condemn all Lee Enfield rifles due to the poor quality of Dara manufacture action bodies.
The first runs of Indian manufacture Enfields were noted for poor heat treatment as well.

[robertbank]

To say the Ross rifle gave good service is to say a hooker gave good service because you didn't get crabs. The only reason it hung on as long as it did was there was a shortage of SMLE's. It was a hunting rifle that got into service when the UK and Canadian Gov't could not come to an agreement on the manufacture if SMLEs in Canada. It was a scandal at the time. A scandal that you have fallen upon and quoted from Hansard. Any comment a Canadian politician would have made about your 03 or any gun at the time would be like a blind man commenting on the beauty of a sun set.

When the writers refer to dirty ammunition it isn't the quality of the cartridges they are talking about. The dirty cartridges are just that dirty. Look at the photos I posted earlier. The field conditions were deplorable from the constant shelling. In the one photo Canadian Pathfinders are laying wooden walkways on the surface due to the mud. The Ross had very tight chambers and would jam up quickly if there was any grime on the cartridges at all or if any dirt - read mud got into the actions. Combine that with the cordite cartridges of the day and you have the recipe for a jam. You really have no idea of how primitive conditions were in those trenches do you?

The low heat treatment methods employed by the Indians hardly reflects on the design of the gun. I would suggest it reflects on those who manufactured the gun. Had they made the 03 I would expect the results would have bee the same. Watch some TV and you will see Indian armed officers of some sort still carrying their SMLE. The last I saw was about a year ago when the TV NEWS cast was covering an Indian trial of some terrorists. As an aside just because the 03 suffered from the early poor manufacturing as well hardly reflects on the design. The design was good the early manufacturing process, not so good. Bringing up the Indian failures in manufacturer to offset the early American glitches is just fluff. Neither event reflects on the design of the guns.

Take Care

Bob

[Multigunner]

When the writers refer to dirty ammunition it isn't the quality of the cartridges they are talking about. The dirty cartridges are just that dirty.
Best you read up on the deplorable quality of the British .303 ammunition of the era.
Cartridges seldom met the dimensional specifications. Rims could be thicker than the maximum specification and the body of the cartridge over sized among other defects.
The problem became so bad that Machine gunners had to gauge cartridges before loading them in belts, even a Maximum gun could not always digest these cartridges.
The RAF had to contract for properly dimensioned cartridges from a limited list of manufacturers to avoid jams in aerial combat.
Add the occasional muddy finger print to an out of specification cartridge and you'd need an over sized chamber for that cartridge to feed, and even then mud on a cartridge case could cause the expended case to seize up to the point that the Lee Enfield extractor couldn't maintain enough grip for extraction.
The British were trained to clean each cartridge before loading into chargers, applying then wiping away thin oil to avoid dirt sticking to the case. No one put a dirty cartridge in a magazine if they could avoid it.



Watch some TV and you will see Indian armed officers of some sort still carrying their SMLE.
Read up on the deplorable performance of those police Enfields during the Mumbai terrorist attack. Reports of rifles seizing up tight on the first shot for example.
The Indian police issue these old rifles with ten rounds per officer, with no extra ammo issued for training or target practice.



As an aside just because the 03 suffered from the early poor manufacturing as well hardly reflects on the design. The design was good the early manufacturing process, not so good. Bringing up the Indian failures in manufacturer to offset the early American glitches is just fluff. Neither event reflects on the design of the guns.

My point exactly though you had to be led to reach the conclusion on your own.
The British had plenty of objections towards the Lee Enfield design, you can find these in books from that era.
http://books.google.com/books?id=kd_NAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Most perceived problems were addressed to some extent in the design of the No.4 rifle.

[robertbank]

Yup it was a terrible design, poorly made with cartridges that were terrible led by officers who knew nothing about warfare. and were saved when US Marine snipers decimated the entire German Army from distances of 600 yards using their trusty 03 rifle.

Take Care

Bob

ps you have to be the only man on the planet that would quote, from a snip out of Hansard, Canadian Politicians in the middle of partisan debate on who got their fingers in the pie first over a rifle that excelled as a hunting rifle and was **** as a combat rifle. If Grand dad was only still alive.... they are all gone now so we can re-write history pretty much how we want to.

pps The best thing about this thread as I found a copy of Grand Dads enlistment papers on the net and the date he shipped out May of 1915

[Multigunner]

Yup it was a terrible design, poorly made with cartridges that were terrible
Nothing that bad about the design, but there was room for improvement as the British military decided when the pressure of wartime eased up enough to work out a improved design. The overall lousy quality of the WW1 era .303 ammunition is documented fact.



led by officers who knew nothing about warfare.
Too often true, with millions dying without any gain of ground.


and were saved when US Marine snipers decimated the entire German Army from distances of 600 yards using their trusty 03 rifle.
Your attitude is plain enough. You wish to denigrate the contributions and sacrifices of American fighting men. That's most often seen from those who still think all history lessons come from motion pictures.
Which reminds me of the movie based on the AVRO Arrow that was actually used by some Canadian schools as if it was an accurate historical documentary. You should look up some of the inaccuracies and out right lies found in that film.



ps you have to be the only man on the planet that would quote, from a snip out of Hansard, Canadian Politicians in the middle of partisan debate on who got their fingers in the pie first over a rifle that excelled as a hunting rifle and was **** as a combat rifle. If Grand dad was only still alive.... they are all gone now so we can re-write history pretty much how we want to.
Rewrite all you like, I'll stick to looking up the facts.
Most of the criticisms of the Lee Enfield rifle found in those debates came from British and Canadian military field tests and experiance in combat. In some cases these criticisms resulted in improvements of the rifle. In other cases the criticisms resulted in changes in how the rifle was to be used and warnings on how to avoid un necessary wear of the extractors and other parts.

[robertbank]

What in Gods name has the Avro Arrow got to do with anything here. The Arrow was an advanced aircraft design intended to be used against Russian bombers. Sputnik effectively ended the program with a large helping of internal Canadian politics resulting the end of one Prime Ministers career and the start of another.

Nobody, including me would ever degrade the efforts of the Americans who gave their lives for a greater cause. You seem to think, though the American snipers played some kind of magic over there. Well they didn't. Get over it. And while you are at it try to explain how the American newspapers referencing the Devil Dog logo to the US Marines two months before the quote was supposed to have been made by the Germans. Just so much gung ho nonsense to keep the home fires burning. Don't feel like Americans are unique in this regard. Rallying around the flag for King and Country put 10% of our population into uniform in WW11. Same kind of nonsense just a different flag and story. Like your Devil Dog story it all makes for great theater, unless of course you are unfortunate to have been caught up in it all. Bless those that did and never forget their sacrifice but never downplay the uselessness of it all.

American losses in WW1 were way out of proportion to the American effort and largely were due to the leadership of American Generals who were no more brighter than their English counterparts. What is unforgivable was their utter failure to learn what the French and English learned at the Somme that you couldn't line abreast with any success against entrenched machine guns. Thousands of young Americans died for nothing more than officers egos. It is just such a shame. There in no glory in any of this and the more you glorify the subject the further we getaway from the human tragedy and waste on both sides for absolutely nothing. Wars are like that and haven't changed at all. Just a waste of young men's lives usually for nothing, the exception perhaps would be WW11. The rest since, just more of the same. With the decline in Cold War confrontations and the slow integration of the world economies and financial markets all this may change and we can finally put down our path to insanity.

From the comfort of my home I can say the #4 rifle was the best bolt gun made for warfare, period. Better than the #1 Mke 3 and certainly better than your 03. It could be shot faster, held more rounds and was just as accurate as you vaunted 03. Incidentally there is a complete matching #4 T sniper rifle for sale on one of our gun forums. Fellow is asking $5,200 for it.

The 03 is just a Mauser actioned bolt gun that saw limited service in WW1 and hung on later as a sniper rifle. The rifle benefited from internal American politics as well given it was chosen over the excellent P 17, the rifle most American troops carried in WW1. Fortunately for all concerned your military replaced the bolt guns with the Garand a much better rifle in every respect over any rifle, ally or axis fielded in WW11.

The sniper with the greatest number of confirmed kills in WW1 was a Canadian native and his kills are insignificant to the number of those who died on either side. Like other Canadians of his generation, they went over, did what they had to do and came home. The #1 Mke 3 was used by the Brits into WW11 as well as the Aussies who never did move to the #4 rifle.

Take Care

Bob

[Multigunner]

What in Gods name has the Avro Arrow got to do with anything here. The Arrow was an advanced aircraft design intended to be used against Russian bombers. Sputnik effectively ended the program with a large helping of internal Canadian politics resulting the end of one Prime Ministers career and the start of another.
It was mentioned as an example of how Canadian schools have been used to promote anti-American propaganda, read up on it sometime.




Nobody, including me would ever degrade the efforts of the Americans who gave their lives for a greater cause. You seem to think, though the American snipers played some kind of magic over there.
The praise of Americam marksmanship was not limited to our Snipers , it was praise of overall marksmanship of USMC riflemen.
Well they didn't. Get over it. The French certainly thought differently, perhaps because it was their capital that was saved from the German advance. Belleau wood was renamed the wood of the Marine Brigade in honor of that battle.




And while you are at it try to explain how the American newspapers referencing the Devil Dog logo to the US Marines two months before the quote was supposed to have been made by the Germans.
Already did in the memoirs I posted excerpts from. The nickname was in use by the Germans before the battle at Belleau Wood in previous actions, it was repeated at Belleau Wood, something being said once does not preclude it being said again at a latter date. News papers have never been noted for getting their facts straight before printing a story.


Just so much gung ho nonsense to keep the home fires burning. Don't feel like Americans are unique in this regard. Rallying around the flag for King and Country put 10% of our population into uniform in WW11. Same kind of nonsense just a different flag and story.
I'd hate to think that fighting the AXIS powers hell bent on world domination had nothing to do with Canada sending troops.


The 03 is just a Mauser actioned bolt gun that saw limited service in WW1 and hung on later as a sniper rifle.
You continue to ignore the use of the 1903 Springfield by the USMC as a battle rifle during some of the most intense combat against a most tenacious enemy and under the worst conditions of WW2. You ignore the 1903 Springfields supplied to allies by both the United States and Great Britain.


The sniper with the greatest number of confirmed kills in WW1 was a Canadian native
Any record of the type of rifle he used? Seems to me the Canadian snipers on the whole preferred the Ross rifle.
Austrailian snipers had the choice of scoped P-14 rifles or accurized No.1 rifles fitted with heavy barrels (the heavy barrels reduced bullet throw to the left to some extent). Either could be more accurate than the No.4 (T). The SMLE actioned rifles and the No.4 actioned rifles both suffered serious loss of accuracy due to swelling of the fore ends under tropical conditions, an unavoidable drawback of the Lee Enfield two piece stock.
The No.4 (T) while a good rifle was not in fact as accurate as the run of the mill Springfield 1903. Even after being worked on and accurized by a prestigious gun makers firm the acceptance standard for a brand new No.4 (T) was lower than that for a common Infantry issue Springfield 1903 rifle. The No.4 (T) could have 3.5 MOA vertical spread and still pass, even a used and rebarreled 1903 Springfield had to keep its sighting in groups within 2 MOA to pass acceptance. You can check those figures in Farrows manual of military training circa 1915. The method used was the same as used by the British in acceptance testing except the allowable deviations were one half the size. Sighting in bands formed a cross with the square in the center being the money spot. The British used four inch bands at 100 yards while the Americans used four inch bands at two hundred yards with two inch bands used at one hundred yards if range space was limited.
One key to the long range accuracy of the 1903 was that its right hand twist rifling gave spindrift that offset ballistic jump to the left at the muzzle due to flexing of the receiver(all bolt actions with open right side to allow ejection have some degree of bullet throw, the front locking actions have minimal throw). At aprox 600 yard spin drift and jump canceled out completely, you could bore sight a Springfield at a 600 yard bull and the rifle was dead on at all ranges in between. Past 600 yards spin drift was predictable and the ladder sight had this drift worked into the design to compensate at all ranges.
All Lee Enfields (rear locking action)have significantly more muzzle jump (bullet throw) to the left, and with left hand twist rifling the bullet continues to drift to the left at all ranges, the front sight bases are off set to the left to compensate. I've seen nothing to indicate that the No.32 scope has any built in compensation for drift at longer ranges. You can't expect to bore sight a No.1 or No.4 and have POI anywhere near POA at other than close range, throw and drift don't allow it. A few post ww2 Canadian No.4 rifles have been fitted with right hand twist barrels, I'd like to find out what affect this would have in compensation for bullet throw.

[robertbank]

Multi sorry but if you are into reading and believing what the right wing crazies got to say you are less than the individual I think you are. The movie, and remember it is a movie likely was shown, if it really was shown, was more likely shown to illustrate one of the examples Canadian politics and the bitterness back then between PM Diefenbaker and PM Lester Pearson. To suggest Canadian Schools would show the movie to promote anti-American sentiment is just a god damn lie.

Sorry to be blunt and I apologize to my many American friends on this board but when this type of inference is made it is high time we stood up and said BS. Kinda like the right wing press claiming the 911 terrorists entered N.A. via Canada.

Take care

Bob
ps Any one of my cohorts in the Moderator group on this forum are free to give me a 5 point infraction for use of language.

[Multigunner]

Multi sorry but if you are into reading and believing what the right wing crazies got to say you are less than the individual I think you are. The movie, and remember it is a movie likely was shown, if it really was shown, was more likely shown to illustrate one of the examples Canadian politics and the bitterness back then between PM Diefenbaker and PM Lester Pearson. To suggest Canadian Schools would show the movie to promote anti-American sentiment is just a god damn lie.
Your not believing it doesn't make it any less true.




Sorry to be blunt and I apologize to my many American friends on this board but when this type of inference is made it is high time we stood up and said BS. Kinda like the right wing press claiming the 911 terrorists entered N.A. via Canada.
Never heard that one.

Why don't you simply read up on the history of Canadian anti-Americanism, its certainly been a significant factor in Canadian politics as long as Canada has existed.

As for that film. Among other inaccuracies was the claim that a Canadian invented the "Area Rule" principle that allows sustained super sonic flight. The film is more fiction than fact and geared towards supporting old conspiracy theories, yet presented in Canadian schools as if it was fact.
The Arrow had some good qualities, but had fatal basic design flaws that could not be corrected without a total overhaul of the design from ground up. It was not suited to the role planned for it.

PS
The Indigenous sniper you spoke of could not vote in Canada unless he lived to see the 1960's. Most American Indians were recognized as U S Citizens by 1925, despite the dual citizenship factor of being members of sovereign nations within the United States.

[gew98]

Best you read up on the deplorable quality of the British .303 ammunition of the era.
Cartridges seldom met the dimensional specifications. Rims could be thicker than the maximum specification and the body of the cartridge over sized among other defects.
The problem became so bad that Machine gunners had to gauge cartridges before loading them in belts, even a Maximum gun could not always digest these cartridges.
The RAF had to contract for properly dimensioned cartridges from a limited list of manufacturers to avoid jams in aerial combat.
Add the occasional muddy finger print to an out of specification cartridge and you'd need an over sized chamber for that cartridge to feed, and even then mud on a cartridge case could cause the expended case to seize up to the point that the Lee Enfield extractor couldn't maintain enough grip for extraction.
The British were trained to clean each cartridge before loading into chargers, applying then wiping away thin oil to avoid dirt sticking to the case. No one put a dirty cartridge in a magazine if they could avoid it.


Read up on the deplorable performance of those police Enfields during the Mumbai terrorist attack. Reports of rifles seizing up tight on the first shot for example.
The Indian police issue these old rifles with ten rounds per officer, with no extra ammo issued for training or target practice.


My point exactly though you had to be led to reach the conclusion on your own.
The British had plenty of objections towards the Lee Enfield design, you can find these in books from that era.
http://books.google.com/books?id=kd_NAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Most perceived problems were addressed to some extent in the design of the No.4 rifle.

What a toad !. The germans made select 7,92 for aerial MG's for bbvious reasons !. That the brits did too only enforces the fact that higher quality ammo in a wing mount or such MG that cannot be accessed by pilot or crew has a less likelihood of failure and or to damage to the plane...good god man are you that daft ?.
Have you ever handled or shot alot of Pre 1920 US made 30 caliber ball ammo ?. I have... and it was sub par all around !. Most of it with split case necks , all loaded with cupronickel bullets , and a fair amount with a powder charge that reacted with te brass and went to green goo inside the cases.
It's exceedingly rare to come across german 7,92 of the same era with anywhere near that lack of quality control...and much the same for 303 ball. I have yet to come across split case necks on WW1 birt 303...and I've fired a bunch of it up mind you.
Somehow in your boxed in regimented my way is the only way mindset lathered up with an America & US Marine snipers won the damned great war single handedly. You need to get away from wiki and get a life...no wonder the other serious gunboards bumped you !.

[gew98]

To say the Ross rifle gave good service is to say a hooker gave good service because you didn't get crabs. The only reason it hung on as long as it did was there was a shortage of SMLE's. It was a hunting rifle that got into service when the UK and Canadian Gov't could not come to an agreement on the manufacture if SMLEs in Canada. It was a scandal at the time. A scandal that you have fallen upon and quoted from Hansard. Any comment a Canadian politician would have made about your 03 or any gun at the time would be like a blind man commenting on the beauty of a sun set.

When the writers refer to dirty ammunition it isn't the quality of the cartridges they are talking about. The dirty cartridges are just that dirty. Look at the photos I posted earlier. The field conditions were deplorable from the constant shelling. In the one photo Canadian Pathfinders are laying wooden walkways on the surface due to the mud. The Ross had very tight chambers and would jam up quickly if there was any grime on the cartridges at all or if any dirt - read mud got into the actions. Combine that with the cordite cartridges of the day and you have the recipe for a jam. You really have no idea of how primitive conditions were in those trenches do you?

The low heat treatment methods employed by the Indians hardly reflects on the design of the gun. I would suggest it reflects on those who manufactured the gun. Had they made the 03 I would expect the results would have bee the same. Watch some TV and you will see Indian armed officers of some sort still carrying their SMLE. The last I saw was about a year ago when the TV NEWS cast was covering an Indian trial of some terrorists. As an aside just because the 03 suffered from the early poor manufacturing as well hardly reflects on the design. The design was good the early manufacturing process, not so good. Bringing up the Indian failures in manufacturer to offset the early American glitches is just fluff. Neither event reflects on the design of the guns.

Take Care

Bob

Bob ; If desk bound engineers would only read works like "Old Soldiers never die" as an example...but they won't as it does not fit their preconceived notions of "reality" , they may very well change they're verbose jingling johnny sing song.

[Multigunner]

Old Fishermen never die, they just smell that way.
Sort of like the way your claims about the STEN have such a fishy odor.

[Multigunner]

What a toad !. The germans made select 7,92 for aerial MG's for bbvious reasons !. That the brits did too only enforces the fact that higher quality ammo in a wing mount or such MG that cannot be accessed by pilot or crew has a less likelihood of failure and or to damage to the plane...good god man are you that daft ?.
Name one WW1 Aircraft that had wing mounted guns, other than the overhead mounted Lewis Gun used on a few French and British fighters , those guns easily accessible to the pilot for reloading of the drums.



Have you ever handled or shot alot of Pre 1920 US made 30 caliber ball ammo ?. I have... and it was sub par all around !. Most of it with split case necks , all loaded with cupronickel bullets , and a fair amount with a powder charge that reacted with te brass and went to green goo inside the cases.
It's exceedingly rare to come across german 7,92 of the same era with anywhere near that lack of quality control...and much the same for 303 ball. I have yet to come across split case necks on WW1 birt 303...and I've fired a bunch of it up mind you.
Split necks don't normally cause jams they just prevent reloading which is of no importance. Only a blind chimpanzee would put a cartridge with an already split neck in a machinegun belt.
Splitting of case necks was caused by "Stress Corrosion Cracking" of cases not properly annealed during the manufacturing process and affected British manufacture cases as well but only when cases are exposed to atmosphere with a significant pollution of Ammonia or similar chemicals. The U S Calvary identified the cause when it was found that ammo left on unsealed cases stored in or near stables could split at the neck on firing.
The British identified the exact cause in the 1920's in India when ammonia released from the soil and rice paddies by monsoon rains caused stress corrosion of .303 ammo within weeks of it being removed from sealed cases.
I have occasionally run across unfired .303 cartridges with radial splits in the shoulder below the neck. Haven't seen one of these since the early 80's.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/684875.pdf
SSC was not a noticeable problem in Black Powder cartridge days because of lower Zinc content of cartridge cases and the bullet lubes of the era that migrated to smear the neck of cartridges when handled.
Mercury embrittement is a similar but un related issue and not found in unfired cases, only expended cases of Smokeless propellant cartridges with Mercuric primers.

Oiling of cases before loading chargers could stave off SCC for the short time the ammo would be exposed to dank ammonia laden air of the muddy fields and pastures.

Read up on the problems of out of specification .303 ammo during WW1, especially the origin of Green Cross and Red label .303 ammunition, and try to learn a little bit about the history of cartridge manufacture before you make a bigger fool of yourself.
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/RAF%20guns.htm


I now want to turn to ammunition developments, since aerial fighting in the Great War prompted considerable development efforts, in two directions. One was to improve the variable quality of the ammunition (a problem affecting all combatants). A certain percentage of stoppages was acceptable in a ground gun, since the gunners could usually quickly clear the jam, but was a different matter in an aircraft, especially if the gun was mounted out of reach. In an attempt to resolve this, the British introduced in 1917 "Green Label" (or "Green Cross") .303" ammunition specifically for synchronised guns. This was taken from standard production lines, but carefully selected from batches which complied with tighter manufacturing tolerances and gave reliable ignition. This proved successful and was followed up in 1918 by establishing special production lines to make high quality ammunition for this purpose. This was known as "Red Label" (also as "Special for RAF, Red Label", "Special for RAF" and finally "Special").
Any weapon which requires high quality ammunition ,such as the Ross which I had refered to, will not work well with out of spec cartridge cases any more that an autoloader would. The Aerial guns had the advantage of no dirt to contend with during operation, yet out of spec cases could jam them just as easily.
None of the turn bolt rifles in use by the major combatants had any notable problems in feeding or ejecting the low quality ammo of the day, except the occasional extractor failures more common with the smaller claw extractors such as that used by the Lee Enfield actions and some mannlicher designs.

PS
After each World War the British dumped hundreds of Millions of rounds of both .303 and Captured German ammo in the North sea, using the port of Antwerp as a staging area. Some of this ammo was sold off as scrap to various European gun merchants to be broken up for components the rest sent to a watery grave. Only ammunition that had been stored with care escaped being scrapped in this manner.
The Propellants from broken down ammunition were recycled into furniture finishes, wood glues, and the older pre vinyl style record discs.

PPS
This discussion
http://www.iaaforum.org/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5251
Reveals some of the difficulties due to out of specification cartridge cases made by "the new factories".
One manufacturer "Birmingham Metals and Munitions" in particular was known for poorly made cases.
Remington manufacture .303 ammo got a well deserved bad reputation for bad ammo due to having bought up hundreds of millions of defective primers from a subcontractor. IIRC they had to recall 400,000,000 rounds of .303 to be returned to the factory and re manufactured with properly made primers.
Case neck cracking was also a known issue with Remington .303 cases, due to lack of annealing. Russian inspectors insisted that the 7.62X54 ammo manufactured by Remington should have visible annealing lines to insure the cases were annealed.
The British proscribed use of Remington ammunition in any machinegun either aerial guns or ground guns.
Also the exterior appearance of cartridges found in collections can be deceiving. Remington manufacture .303 ammo recovered from the debris field of the Lusitania looks fine after cleaning up the exterior, though this is the same ammunition that would have developed case neck cracks after a few months of exposure to ammonia laden air in the muck of WW1 fields and trenches.

Anyone who thinks any particular ammo has never been subject to degradation in storage hasn't dealt with much milsurp ammo.
I've run across WW2 manufacture German ammo with cases that could be crushed between the fingers like a roasted peanut due to internal corrosion. Same for 80's manufacture 7.62 NATO ammo stored under poor conditions.

http://clevelode-battletours.com/the-first-world-war/the-usa-in-ww1/

[gew98]

Split necks don't normally cause jams you say ?. Do you live in a vaccuum ?. Split necks cause loose bullets whcih cause jams by the score....but you would'nt know much about that lacking practical experiance.
You do recall the majority of "fighter" aircraft had emmagees which shot through the props or were mounted several feet above the pilot. Any such jams were serious cause for alarm as trying to clear either type mounting could get a pilot killed toot sweet as they say. When anthony fokker deveolped the interruptor as opposed to the french props with "deflector plates" quality ammuniiton was even more of an issue.
I've shot gobs of steel cased german WW2 and soviet WW2 surplus...and even fired off a couple hundred steel cased WW1 german 7,92's ( wish I had kept it now ! ) . Storage is a major consideration over the long haul with ANY ammunition but even a rube would know this.
But again you digress with more wind blowing and can't deny the Enfield was simply the best battle rifle all around in the great war.

[Multigunner]

Split necks don't normally cause jams you say ?. Do you live in a vaccuum ?. Split necks cause loose bullets whcih cause jams by the score....but you would'nt know much about that lacking practical experiance.
Not if the neck only splits on firing. When have you ever seen a split case neck prevent extraction of the fired case. As I said only a blind chimpanzee would load a belt with a cartridge that already had a split neck.



You do recall the majority of "fighter" aircraft had emmagees which shot through the props or were mounted several feet above the pilot.
Almost all WW1 fighters had their Sychonized guns mounted on the upper deck of the fuselage directly in front of the pilot with charging handles within easy reach, that was a necessity. None had guns buried in the wings or in any position where the pilot could not reach them.
The Foster mount allowed the over head Lewis gun to be drawn back down to the cockpit for reloading and clearing stoppages, stoppages were always a problem with the Lewis gun even with good ammunition, and they drilled gunners on how to quickly clear a stoppage, diagnosing the cause by observing the position of the charging handle. A simple misfire could be serious business but an actual jam that could not be quickly cleared, such as a tightly stuck case or a case separation, could be a death sentence


Any such jams were serious cause for alarm as trying to clear either type mounting could get a pilot killed toot sweet as they say. When anthony fokker deveolped the interruptor as opposed to the french props with "deflector plates" quality ammuniiton was even more of an issue.
Of course if was, which is why the abominable quality of much of the .303 ammunition from all but a few manufacturers resulted in the RAF (formerly the RFC) contracting in 1918 for their own supplies of ammunition from manufacturers who strictly kept to dimensional specifications.
Reliable ignition was also very important since a hang fire could damage a prop. Early on the deflector plates were retained after the synchronized gun was adopted to deal with hang fires. The early RFC synchronizers usually gave a much lower round per minute count than that of the Fokker design.



I've shot gobs of steel cased german WW2 and soviet WW2 surplus...and even fired off a couple hundred steel cased WW1 german 7,92's ( wish I had kept it now ! ) . Storage is a major consideration over the long haul with ANY ammunition but even a rube would know this.
Well Rube now you know why those old .30-06 cartridges you had were in such sad shape.
The Ammo I spoke of was brass cased. Though I've seen some rusty steel cases as well.The flat flake powder used was as hydroscopic as any of its type, when stored in humid warm conditions it could draw moisture just like any other powder.
Cordite was very resistant to humidity, but the primers used were just as vulnerable to humidity as any other. Also much of the British WW1 ammo used Dupont MR powder no different than that used by the US under the name Pyro-cellulose. Dupont greatly improved the storage characteristics of their powder around 1925, which resulted in Hodgdon being able to market WW2 surplus IMR powder for decades. He stored this powder in old box cars buried on a farm, where the powder remained cool and dry. that's how he built up his business.
When his supply of Surplus powder ran low he sent samples to a company in Scotland to duplicate the powder as near as possible using more advanced techniques. This powder was then mass produced in Australia and still is.
Some of the alternative Cordite formulas the British used to avoid short falls due to lack of acetone solvents turned out to have a shelf life of less than ten years, all of this stuff was scrapped in the 1920's



But again you digress with more wind blowing and can't deny the Enfield was simply the best battle rifle all around in the great war.
The whistling in your ears is from your own wind bag deflating.
Nothing I've said was intended to detract from the Enfields good qualities, your words are why I've said you make strawman arguments. Your pretense is that you are defending the reputation of the Lee Enfield while in fact you merely use this as an excuse to denigrate the U S Army and all things American made. I'm simply pointing out that you are often as full of it as a Christmas turkey when you pontificate on subjects beyond your meager experience.
The major criticisms of the Lee Enfield rifles came from those who had the most to do with developing , manufacturing, and using the Lee Enfield in combat situations. Men like Lord Cottesloe and Hesketh Pritchard for example. The difficultly in maintaining proper bedding of a two piece stock in wet climates should be obvious, its certainly well documented, it was certainly no surprise to any who used the rifle in the field.

As I said earlier any pretense that any rifle ever built is immune from dangerous blow outs if defective ammunition is used is a great dis service to any who visit these boards.

Back to the subject of the thread


Probably the first attempt at scientific inquiry into munitions operation problems occurred under Hake's guidance when, with Dr Thomas Lyle, Professor of Natural Philosophy at Melbourne University, they carried out experiments to prove his theory that the bursting of 0.303 inch magazine rifles was not caused by defective composition of ammunition from the Colonial Ammunition Company.
http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/tia/901.html

On this site
http://iaaforum.org/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7900&view=next
You will find a Canadian government report on defective .303 ammunition, ammunition not affected by wartime manufacturing pressures.
The report deals with "ringing" of primers, by which they meant staking or crimping of primers into the pockets to prevent blown primers.

[gew98]

Apparently captain wiki you have never cleared a jam in a maxim or a vivkers...let alone a lewis. Charging handles DON'T clear 90% of a jam/stoppage. But you only know what you read lacking practical experiance and winning wars with springyfields.
Seeing and handling gobs of surplus ammuntiion spilt case necks were found readily in surplus WW1 era 30 caliber...more so than any other surplus I have encountered - excepting some batches of surplus turk 7,92. Bad annealing and shoddy US production then. You keep wiki at your fingertips and I'll keep my practical experiance at mine. I know which one works....and not from behind an armchair.

[Multigunner]

spilt case necks were found readily in surplus WW1 era 30 caliber...more so than any other surplus I have encountered - excepting some batches of surplus turk 7,92. Bad annealing and shoddy US production then.
And in Britain as well, the British sent their mistakes to the bottom of the North Sea.
The standard British method of forming the .303 case shoulder after the cordite charge was in place precluded annealing of the neck and shoulder after forming. The case necks were as likely to be work hardened and subject to SCC as any other. Since they did not figure out the cause till the 1920's they did not come up with a fix for neck cracking till long after WW1.

We've already established that the overall state of ammunition of WW1 was poor, you seem to believe that only American made cartridge cases were subject to cracking.



Charging handles DON'T clear 90% of a jam/stoppage
The manuals say the exact opposite.
http://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/Lewis/Lewis%20Gun%20Mechanism%20Made%20Easy.pdf
They also list the "number four stoppage due to oversize or bulged cartridge. Also the Number five stoppage due to separated case, both listed as faulty ammunition. And this manual is from 1941 when the quality of ammunition was much better than in WW1

The British terminology is "temporary stoppage" cured by immediate action and "Prolonged stoppage" which can not be cleared by immediate action especially when under fire, that's what I'd call an actual jam.

This particular manual is the dumbed down version most likely intended for the Home Guard, maybe you can understand it.
Its a 1941 edition and makes note that the majority of jams and breakages in WW1 were due to defective ammunition, and that the higher quality of ammunition then available resulted in very few stoppages and those more easily cleared.

You also don't seem to recognize that theres a difference between a mere stoppage and an actual jam.
Any stoppage that the user can't clear by use of the charging handle is serious business. If 90% of Lewis gun stoppages were not quickly cleared by following the instructions with diagnosis based on position of the charging handle then the weapon would have never been approved for combat.
Actual ammunition related jams that could not be cleared with the charging handle would put the gun out of action until the aircraft landed, if the aircraft survived that is. Breakages are a whole new story.
The "immediate action" included working the pan magazine around a bit as well to be on the safe side.
Pilots kept wooden mallets in the cockpit to pound on the charging handles of the deck mounted Maxium guns.
When the Lewis was used on the ground the gunner had a helper who carried a kit of tools and spare parts to make quick repairs in the field. Rather than a five man section to service one gun the aerial gunner was on his own.
The French used the British .303 cartridge for most aerial guns and when they received ammo from the British they pulled the bullets, dumped the cordite, then replaced the charge with Poudre B nitrocellulose powder similar to the pyrocellulose used with American cartridges, then reseated the bullet, gauging each round during the process to insure reliable function. They had plenty of reason not to simply assume the British ammo was good to go as is.
At least one French ace insisted on his mechanic rolling each cartridge on a flat surface to be sure the bullet was concentric and not canted, among other methods of inspection.

PS
Heres the manual for the Aircraft mounted Lewisgun
http://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/Lewis/Lewis%20Machine%20Gun%20%28Aircraft%20Type%29.pdf
It gives more complete instructions for diagnosing the cause of a stoppage by observing the exact position of the charging handle.
Much more useful than the 1941 manual with its vague anywhere other than fully forwards instruction.

PPS
I'm looking over the records of a Senate Subcommittee investigation into defective ammunition dated September of 1917.
So far it appears that the only problem that Frankford Arsenal had with their .30-06 ammunition was a run of defective primers that caused hangfires, that particular lot of ammunition never caused any problems in service because it was used up before the degradation of the mixture set in and when the problem was discovered the remaining ammunition from that lot was used up in training. No serious injuries occurred though one a soldier had opened the action just as the hang fire ignited, the burst case causing burns to his face, his eye sight was not affected. A similar incident happened a few years ago when a hang fire of a POF .303 cartridge ripped most of a shooters thumb off when he opened the bolt of his SMLE rifle.
The staff at Frankford ordered 25,000,000 primers from civilian ammunition companies to finish out the contract, no problems were reported when using these primers.
The problem with the Frankford primers were traced to Bromide contamination of the Potassium Chlorate salts.
Before the war all potassium chlorate used by Frankfort had come from mines in Germany, this raw material was nearly free of comtamination. When the supply from Germany was cut off substitute sources were found.
The bromide contamination reacted with residual sulphur from the original formula used.
The formula was later changed to eliminate this particular sulphur compound from the mix.
The substitute primers bought to make up the short fall (most from Winchester) were made using an alternative formula that left no sulphur residue free to react to bromide. Also some of the commercial cartridge companies had huge stockpiles of the German Potassium Chlorate they had bought up before the war.

[gew98]

Again your wiwki use and lack of hands on shows. How many manuals did you ever have to utilize while in the Army...and found them hysterically lacking.....written by an engineer no doubt.

[Multigunner]

Again your wiwki use and lack of hands on shows. How many manuals did you ever have to utilize while in the Army...and found them hysterically lacking.....written by an engineer no doubt.

Yep just ignore the manuals and listen only to some guy on the net who claims the STEN Gun wins all the prizes at Knob Creek.

Perhaps your Dr should adjust your meds, the Alzheimers seems to be gaining ground.

Manuals are only "hysterically lacking" for those who don't know what all them big words mean.

[robertbank]

Yep just ignore the manuals and listen only to some guy on the net who claims the STEN Gun wins all the prizes at Knob Creek.

Perhaps your Dr should adjust your meds, the Alzheimers seems to be gaining ground.

Manuals are only "hysterically lacking" for those who don't know what all them big words mean.

Well in the case of the AR 15, sent over initially to Vietnam with no cleaning kits and dirty ammo. The cleaning manual consisted of pictures with a cute lady giving instructions came later IIRC. Why the pictures, well the soldiers were initially told the gun didn't need cleaning and had received no training on how to clean the gun. I am sure there are Vets from that era on the forum who can attest to the difficulties that little bit of nonsense caused.

As to your comments about the Brits dumping their mistakes in the North Sea, you really have no idea do you. When WW11 ended there were millions of rounds of ammo of all sorts laying around in Europe as well as equipment. The Western Governments didn't have any use for it and a lot got deep sixed. Tough to keep an economy going if you try to introduce all the surplus equipment back into the civilian market.

Most of the road building equipment used to build the Alaska highway was buried along the highway once it was built. Jeeps. trucks, graders you name it. About the only thing left behind were kinky haired native children. Most of the American soldiers involved in building the highway were African Americans who inevitably met the local native girls. There was a base in Labrador built towards the end of the war that never got used by the Americans that never got used due to the war coming to an end. Years ago there was a picture published of the rows of vehicles of all types left behind along with stockpiles of equipment and food stuffs. Too costly to return so it was just left behind. To my knowledge the stuff is still there.

Take Care

Bob

[Multigunner]

Well in the case of the AR 15, sent over initially to Vietnam with no cleaning kits and dirty ammo. The cleaning manual consisted of pictures with a cute lady giving instructions came later IIRC. Why the pictures, well the soldiers were initially told the gun didn't need cleaning and had received no training on how to clean the gun. I am sure there are Vets from that era on the forum who can attest to the difficulties that little bit of nonsense caused.
And any such manuals have been known to be incorrect from a few months after the M-16 first went into service. The Lewis Gun manual I posted was updated with information gained from years of use in combat and written by a veteran machine gunner.




As to your comments about the Brits dumping their mistakes in the North Sea, you really have no idea do you. When WW11 ended there were millions of rounds of ammo of all sorts laying around in Europe as well as equipment. The Western Governments didn't have any use for it and a lot got deep sixed. Tough to keep an economy going if you try to introduce all the surplus equipment back into the civilian market.
And defective ammunition was the first dumped, any useable ammo was stockpiled in strategic stores or sold off to civilian dealers. Hundreds of millions of rounds manufactured during WW2 deemed still useable were later used during the Korean War and various other actions. Millions of rounds of WW1 ammo of known decent quality was stored for decades some occasionally coming to light even now.
Ammunition of known poor quality was scrapped or sunk in the North Sea.

Guess you never read up on testing of stored ammunition by lots.
Also the British as a cost saving measure often remanufactured ammunition that had failed test firing by lots so long as cases and bullets were within specification.
Bullets were pulled , primers replaced, and if charged with MR powder the charges replaced. In some instances the cordite from old ammo was pulled and the strands sorted by color, darkened strands were discarded and strands that showed no deterioration were used to load fresh cartridges.
The salvaged cordite strands were combined into lots and samples were tested to determine the exact charge needed to obtain full velocity. Charge weights were adjusted according to the test results.
They did not throw away anything that still had value.

Civilian companies that bought up surplus ammo usually remanufactured it as sporting ammo, unless they had a contract with a foreign government to supply ammo of that caliber. Much of the Canadian and Australian .303 hunting ammunition till more recent years was remanufactured military ammunition.

Here's a PDF with an article on re capping of .303 ammunition salvaged from the battle fields.
http://cartridgecollectors.org/documents/sample-IAA-journal.pdf
There's a list of brands deemed suitable for salvaging. Cartridges had to be manufactured after 1914 Royal Laboratory cartridge cases for example often broke off at the necks during resizing or detonated at some point during the procedure, which damaged machines and slowed down production. IIRC the Royal Laboratory ammunition loaded with a cheaper substitute formula of cordite was found to deteriorate after less than ten years storage so most of it was dumped in the sea at some point post war. Unstable propellants or primers made much ammunition too dangerous for salvaging.

[robertbank]

Do you really think anyone, even the Brits would go to any length to determine what ammo was sub standard and what wasn't when you have millions of rounds to dispose of....like really. Somewhere, at some time the little grey cells between ones ears should run into practicality.

"Much of the Canadian and Australian .303 hunting ammunition till more recent years was remanufactured military ammunition."

Really, you believe this? I am sure Winchester, Federal, Remington and CIL (the owner of the Dominion Brand) would find this morsel interesting.

Let's see:

- Brass - nope unless they had a way of erasing head stamp info and changing it to read Win or Dominion
- Bullets - Nope none of the military bullets were soft point
- Powder nope unless you could get the cordite strands out of military cases and somehow turn it into the stick powders found in the commercial ammo.

In all my years living up here I have never seen or heard of re manufactured ammo being sold for hunting purposes. If it was it was disguised well.

The use of solids as a hunting round is illegal in Canada. Not sure what the Aussies rules are. They have water buffalo down there and they may use .303 solids on them.

FYI IVI the new company formed from the old Dominion Cartridge Co makes .303 Brit ammo with soft point bullets for the Cdn. Rangers. They use the round for hunting purposes and against four legged threats when on patrol. None of it is re manufactured ammo.

I have a couple of boxes of WW11 .303 ammo laying around here. Mercury primed so I am in no hurry to fire them off. The boxes are sealed so they become a collector item for my sons one day.

Take Care

Bob

[Multigunner]

Do you really think anyone, even the Brits would go to any length to determine what ammo was sub standard and what wasn't when you have millions of rounds to dispose of....like really. Somewhere, at some time the little grey cells between ones ears should run into practicality.
Read the article I supplied, then go find yourself some old texts on management of ammunition supplies. then read the most recent rules for inspection of NATO ammunition stockpiles.




"Much of the Canadian and Australian .303 hunting ammunition till more recent years was remanufactured military ammunition."

Really, you believe this? I am sure Winchester, Federal, Remington and CIL (the owner of the Dominion Brand) would find this morsel interesting.
Check with cartridge collectors sites.




Let's see:

- Brass - nope unless they had a way of erasing head stamp info and changing it to read Win or Dominion
The Dominion cartridge company made military ammunition sporting ammunition and remanufactured Dominion military ammunition bears the Dominion headstamps.


- Bullets - Nope none of the military bullets were soft point
Guess again, several pre WW1 marks of .303 military ammunition used soft point and/or hollow point projectiles. Some companies modified MkVI bullets by weakening the nose and cutting slits near the tip to produce expanding bullets. Solid MkVI bullets were commonly used on larger game animals for best penetration. FMJ Solids are still used for many game cartridges.
When the MkIV bullet was made obsolete due to occasional stripping of the jacket the MkV bullet was given a lead antimony alloy core that reduced the probability of this happening in degraded bores.
When the Hague Conventions made use of this hollow point ammo politically incorrect millions of rounds of MkV ammunition and millions of MkV bullets were sold off to commercial cartridge dealers.




- Powder nope unless you could get the cordite strands out of military cases and somehow turn it into the stick powders found in the commercial ammo.
Cordite was used for commercial sporting ammunition for generations. Some Australian remanufactured sporting ammo has the original cordite charge still in place, only bullets replaced or altered.
At present Kynamco, successor to Kynoch makes a specially blended powder that mimics Cordite in burning qualities.
If you had not noticed MkVIIz ammunition used smokeless powder no different from those commonly used for sporting ammunition.




In all my years living up here I have never seen or heard of re manufactured ammo being sold for hunting purposes. If it was it was disguised well.
Guess you should ask a few old timers.
There was no real effort to disguise the source, it was simply packaged in commercially branded cartridge boxes.

"more recent" in the context of this discussion means long after WW1, well into the 50's, 60's, and to some extent the 70's.
Remanufactured MkVI Ball was being sold for use in vintage military target matches in the 90's. The ammo was broken down as I described it, given a new primer and the cordite strands sorted and recharged. How they managed the over the charge card wad was not mentioned in the ads or reviews at the time.
Similar remanufactured .30-40 Krag ammo was also being advertised at the time, most likely from the same source.
In the 1990's Belmont Ammunition of Palmerston New Zealand remanufactured several million rounds of WW2 era .303 Canadian Defence Industries Limited tracer ammunition to 150 gr soft point sporting ammunition.
This military ammunition was boxer primed so replacing primers would have posed no problems but the primers were still good so nothing was done other than replacing the bullets. They may have replaced the "z" Nitro cellulose charge, I'm not sure.



The use of solids as a hunting round is illegal in Canada. Not sure what the Aussies rules are. They have water buffalo down there and they may use .303 solids on them.
Which is why they altered MkVI bullets to produce expanding bullets, and or replaced bullets when necessary.
Some altered MkVI bullets caused damage to rifles so most such ammo was recalled and the bullets replaced with purpose made expanding bullets.




FYI IVI the new company formed from the old Dominion Cartridge Co makes .303 Brit ammo with soft point bullets for the Cdn. Rangers. They use the round for hunting purposes and against four legged threats when on patrol. None of it is re manufactured ammo.
No great call for cheap remanufactured ammo these days, though old stocks of this remanufactured ammo shows up now and then, especially in Australia and South Africa.
This ammo has its own collector value.



I have a couple of boxes of WW11 .303 ammo laying around here. Mercury primed so I am in no hurry to fire them off. The boxes are sealed so they become a collector item for my sons one day.

Take Care

Bob
Then you should check the cartridge collectors forums, you might learn something.
Also since only that remanufactured ammo downgraded for training use only was marked the ammo you have could well be remanufactured salvaged ammo.

PS
http://www.oldammo.com/september03.htm
One of many

PPS
From other sources it appears the problems with Remington cartridges due to the softer primers were cured by the French when Remington ammunition was shipped to them by the British they pulled the bullets, staked the primers then reloaded the case, using the original charge or replacing the charge if necessary.
They also pulled bullets and dumped charges from British make ammo, replacing the cordite with poudre B and replacing the bullets with those of French manufacture for better performance in aerial combat.
They appear to have kept only the primed case of the British ammo, sending the salvaged cordite and bullets back to the British for reuse.

The documents on defective Remington ammunition mention no problems in the field due to split necks, one lot had soft bases that made the cartridge unsuitable for use in automatic weapons and another had the soft, or possibly undersized primer cups I mentioned.
I found no mention of the cartridge being used in rifles, only its successful use in the French Lewis Guns when primers were staked in place and the prohibition against using it in the Vickers Guns.