Vintage Asylum

Posted by Timbo in Oz (A) on September 28, 2016 at 21:44:23

In Reply to: RE: "More of those were used by the US forces in WWI than the Springfield." posted by Bold Eagle on September 28, 2016 at 19:02:08

During the Boer War the Bristish Army were equipped with long magazine Lee Metford or Magazine Lee Enfield rifles firing a a heavier round nosed FMJ bullet. Cordite propellant. ~2K fps?

Better reach but not as flat nor quite as accurate as the predominant 'issue' arm to the Boers, being German made 7mm Mausers or Spanish 7MM Mausers. Some had Spitzer bullets and some had round nosed long bullets, lighter in both cases than then current .303 projectiles.

British tactics were also in transition and still quite linear. Intended to hold the enemy with fire!!? And advance in rushes. Volley fire as if we were still at Waterloo, even? yep! Tradition!! ? Film called 'Zulu' with Michael Caine.

The Boers were used to joining their local 'commando' for wars with the tribes. IE 'Mounted infantry'. They would dig-in into individual holes and mark out the ground in front of their positions, painting their side of carefully placed rocks. They were experienced marksmen and good at range estimation anyway. They didn't hunt for pleasure but to control predation, and to eat.

[But they were not cavalry - they hated and feared British Cavalry's swords and lances. Nor were they 'mounted rifles' which do everything cavalry do, except charge with a sword or lance. ? Screening,
listening-posts, recces, advance-guard, flank and rear-guard tasks, fighting dismounted, and staged withdrawals with retreats through the fresh rear-guard.]

Britain suffered very heavy losses due to their linear tactics. Esp. during Black Week. And the Boers were clearly superior at long-range shooting. Noting that British Infantry were not well trained in this at all.

So the target-shooting fraternity, which was large, well-off and very vocal decided that it was the British rifle and its ammunition that were at fault. Not the tactics nor the lack of longer-range musketry training.

It turns out that with the SMLE which began being issued in 1901 as the war was ending, and the later MKVII cartridge with a spitzer bullet, the technical quality was sufficient. Along with far better training and trained trainers. Like my course.

But, once you have a ball rolling, you ride it! And so a very strong Mauser 98 type action, front lugs and a rib, but with cock-on-closing, was developed at Enfield Lock and a 7mm / .28" cartridge developed. The trials weapons 1911-1913? metal-fouled and wore very quickly, had sharp recoil and unpleasant muzzle blast. Heavy and not easy to chuck about like the SMLE, VERY important in a very drilly Army.... Rejected.

Then, along came WWI. Now, the p13/14 had also been designed for ease of MFR, and because the SMLE wasn't, contracts were let to Winchester and Remington (& Eddystone) to make the P14 (.303 version.) Because UK capacity was flat out making SMLEs. Very few P14s were made in the UK.

Most of them were used for training, and rear echelon issue OR for sniping, marksmanship work in WWI, because the Tommies, Canucks, Diggers, and Kiwis, didn't want them. Which is a neat reflection of its target-shooting design 'target', if you will. They were very reliable, just like the SMLE.

The SMLE III and III* were much better suited to real-world battle.

LBNL I would have hated to have go into battle with any cock-on-opening Mauser type rifle, even a Springfield. Yes, a Ross would have been worse, but there you go!

Clear as mud?

Warmest

Tim Bailey

Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger

Edits: 09/28/16   09/28/16   09/28/16