British Military Intelligence....

[Adam Helmer]

Today I had a chance to shoot a few of my British MkIII rifles. (The MkIII became the No1 MkIII when the Brits renumbered their rifles in 1923.) My favorite was made is 1911 and has both the magazine cutoff and windage adjustable rear sight. In 1916, the Brits dropped both the magazine cutoff and windage adjustable rear sight on the MkIII. I can see the wisdom is dropping the magazine cutoff as it was easy to inadvertantly put the cutoff "On" by grasping the rifle.

As for the windage adjustable rear sight on the pre-1916 Mk III, I think it should have stayed on the rifle. Drifting the front sight left or right and staking same is woodshed gunsmithing at its finest; or it is military "intelligence" at its best. It seems only the Americans incorporated windage adjustments on their M1903s, 03-A3s, Garands and M14s. Us Yanks are on the crest of the wave, I suppose.

Adam

[Brithunter]

Hi There,

What you are forgetting is that by 1916 Britian had been at war for two years and dropping these things was not about anything more than cutting costs and speed of production. Later the mag cut off was re-introuduced but the adjustable sights were found not to be needed with proper set up and then proper training of the troops. Unit armourers were equipped with fore sight adjusters which had minutes of angles marked on them.

You are also forgetting that Britian adopted the aperture sight on the P-14 and actually designed on on the P-13. Even Canada had anbattle aperture sight on the Ross rifle in WW1. The US got their first taste of a battle aperture sight with the Model 1917 and it was quite some time after this that the Springfield got an aperture sight. The US was way behind on development and playing catch up in this and a lot of Military hard ware right up into WW2.

[Hawkeye6]

The US was way behind on development and playing catch up in this and a lot of Military hard ware right up into WW2.

Hmm. I guess that's proved by the introduction of the M-1 Garand in the US Army in the mid to late 1930s (before WWII). A full power semi-auto battle rifle was really behind the curve, wasn't it?

[Adam Helmer]

Brithunter,

With all due respect for your experience and training, I think you got it a bit backwards. I shall enumerate and wish you will clarify any faults in my thinking:

1. The U.S. Springfield rifle was adopted in 1903 and had aperature AND windage adjustable sights from day one. Your last two sentences in paragraph 2 of you prior post are in grave error.

2. The Brits dropped the magazine cutoff in 1916 and never re-introduced it to my knowledge. No other nation did re-introduce a magazine cutoff after WWI, which Mark and Number had such a feature in British service?

3. Windage adjustable sights are needed due to changes in ammunition, light conditions, soldiers to whom individual arms are issued and weather conditions. Rifles on "zero" in Africa may not be laterally "On" at Narvik. Different lots of issue ammo had different dispersions. How would "training" zero my issue MkIII?

4. Finally, what arms did the Brits have "right up to WWII" that were superior to the U.S. Garand, M1911A1 pistol, M1 Carbine, BAR, and Thompson. When did we achieve "catch up" with the Brits in WWII?

Where do you get your military firearms information?

Adam

[Brithunter]

Hi There,

If you can to examine the US military as a whole, you will find that as late as 1939/40 that it was still stuck in it's WW1 thinking. It had virtually no armour and had disbanded it's armoured division and had a few light tanks which were of no use really. It's fighter aircraft were quite a way behind and it had no effective heavy bombers. All this had to be brought online, yes even the B-17 which the procurement folks had said that they didn't want at first. It was the Spainish civil wat which chnged a lot of military thinking around the world.

If you look at it factually even the Sherman tank was not very good however it's greatest assest was that is was easy to produce and as made in vast numbers. As one German 88 anti tank gun commander said:-

[quote) we ran of ammuntion, but the Americans didn't run out of tanks[/quote] This was after the German gun crew had knocked out sherman after sherman unti they literally ran out of shells allowing the US tanks to get past the corner, Oh this was in Europe after D-Day.

Now I suggest that you go and take a lok at early Springfields 03's, they have a tangent sight just similar to a Mauser and no aperture sight which didn't come along until the 03A4 I believe it was. I have a friend her who collect Springfields and when he found one with the Pedersen cut Iwa the one to try it out on the range at Bisley where the show was being held. he had forgotten his distance glasses

Can you expalain why the Modle of 1917 was used by the US during their stint in WW1? could it be that :-

1) they didn't have enough, and could not produce enough Springfields

2) they were having trouble with the recivers cracking on the springfields at this time until they adopted the "double heat treatment" on them

3) the P-17 as it came to be know was actually a better battle rifle.


Oh even the P-51 Mustang was a flop until it recieved an Allison built Rolls Royce Merlin engine, where upon it became one of the outstanding fighter aircraft of WW2 and even in it's latest form during WW2 the Sherman was still no match for the Panzer V, Tiger forget about them it had no hope unless there was about 5 shermans and they could get behind the Tiger. Luckily there were only about 300 or so Tiger tanks built during WW2. a model sherman was equipped with a long barrel british 17 pounder HV gun which made it capable of penetrating the Panzer V's armour and gave it a better chance of stopping a Tiger tank provideing it didn't brew up first. Even the Tank crews called it the "Ronson" because it light up on the first strike.

For your information the Sht Le and Le No4 rifles were and are far superior battle rifle than the 03 Springfield, WW1 prooved that after al the P-14/17 was a better battle rifle than the 03 and the Le's far outstipped them. the Garand also which used a Mannlicher packet loading system by the way only held 8 rounds. Ask any Pacific vet about the Ping and how quick the Japs twigged it meant that the Marine was out of ammo!

Now as to squad automatic weapons, well there is the BREN LMG which carried far more ammo than the much vaunted BAR, the Sten gun whilst crude was far easier to carry and was made so that captured German ammo could be fired through it and it was lighter to carry too Due to the same old fuddy duddies which killed Millions of our own troops in WW1 were still in chargeat the start of WW2 in a lot of cases. Semi Automatic weapons were not considered a cgood choice even though the Browning High Power pistol was issued to some troops in WW2.

Oh were you aware than BSA made lots of Thompsons during WW2?

Despite the fact that the British Empire cover about 1/3 of the globe, troops were trained in sighting alowance which meant that a rifle sighted in at Enfield Lock in England could and was used accurately in the Moutnains of Afganistan or on the Plains Africa, every troop had a little training book which showed the difference in trajectory fro the MkV11 cartridge which was loaded to a velocity of 2440 fps +/- 50 fps. Youseem to place a lot of pride on the Garand yet still an awful lot of US troops fought with the 03 during WW2 and a lot of the troops didn't want to be issued with the Garand.

There was a series of doucumentries about Tank development done by the Bovington Tank Museum with the Imperial war Museum and various tank warfare experts. It pulled apart the variuos tanks and their performances in battle around the world. The British tanks came in for some particular bad comments as they had adopted the Crusier policy of fast manoverable tanks light the Cruisr 80 which had guns fitted which were not man enough forn the job asked of them and were unable to fire HE rounds, later during the war the adoption of the 17PDR gun corrected that problem but their armour was still to light except for the Churchill tank which was a strange design harking back in Tank design fo a cross country tank. It carried 4" armour, the Sherman had at most 3" and it's high profile with it's ammo stored up top made it a easy target.

You seem to forget the America had an Isolationist policy right up to WW2. It was only concerned with border security but Germany and Japan split that policy wide open for you. America relied upon quantity not always quality in it's design. The M1 carbine was not developed untill WW2 was well under way, remember that the US didn't come into the fight untill 3 years after it had begun! Also the US was not bombed so production was a lot easier. In one night airraid by the Germans 5 acres of the BSA plant was destroyed, yet they still kept up production. The Triumph factory in Coventry was virtually wiped out in one raid. I wonder how US workers would have coped? It's something which fortunately and hopefully we will never know.

The other thing is that Americas losses in WW1 were tiny compared with Britains or our Empires. The Australia lost more men than the US did! This led to an dissarmement policy in Britain and the Empire despite warning from those such as the BSA board of directors and Churchill who were labeled "Sabre rattlers" and ignored for the most part. However they were prooved to be right in the end, perhaps if they had been listened to them the course of WW2 would have been very different.

Funny how things repeat themselvs now with Blair and his cronies cutting back our armed forces again I wonder how they expect them to do their jobs?

Oh as for the Mag cutoff, the Royal Navy never dropped the cut off and the dropping of it was a war time expediant, the Mk111* was dropped again after 1918 however due to the huge number of rifles on hand very little new production was made and the MkV was of course done in 1924 leading to the No4 in 1939. I recently looked over a batch on Mk111*'s which had the * canceled and the cut off fitted, sory to say that the rifles were in not very good condition so I passed.

[Adam Helmer]

Brithunter,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I will comment on small arms.

1. The BREN came to the Brits thanks to design ideas from BRNO just before WWII.

2. The M1903 has a "ladder" rear sight with a battle sight (open) and if you flip up the ladder sight leaf, walla, you will see an aperature, even without your distance glasses.

3. Are you aware Savage Arms (USA) made about one million #4 rifles that have the square "S" on the receiver?

4. I have heard that old "G.I. Barracks Wisdom" about a Jap hearing the ping of the empty Garand clip and then the Jap rushing the Yank. That is a myth because a battlefield is noisy and a "ping" would be drowned out by small arms fire from many soldiers firing at the same time. Secondly, if true, why wouldn't a savvy GI carry a few empty Garand clips to "decoy" a Jap out of his hiding place by dropping an empty Garand clip on the closed bolt of his loaded Garand? A similiar myth is "hitting a man in the thumb with a .45 automatic pistol round will knock him off his feet." Some myths go on and on forever.


I hope you did not get writer's (typer's) cramp doing your essay. Be well.

Adam

[Brithunter]

Hi There,

hey you forgot about the Longbranch plant! Savage was contracted to make No4 rifles as production capacity here in the UK was at full stretch and during that raid on the BSA plant the barrel mill was destroyed. BSA continued to make the SHtLe/ No1 MK111* during WW2 as well as making No4 rifles. with the huge amount of force being gathered all over the Empire the need for rifles was vast and the factories here in the UK could not managed to supply them all, Australia of course had their own production based at Lithgow and they never adopted te No4 rifle.

Bren of course is the BR from Brno and the EN from Enfield so yes I am well aware of it's origins. The Czech version is I believe the ZB30. The Springfield 03 of course is a Mauser derivative for which the US paid Paul Mauser royalties.

Now as for flipping up the 03's ladder which is more correctly a tangent sight, sorry never done it as I have only shot them a few times and each time they have been one of Mikes collection including a Marine Corps sniper variant, as I say he collects them.

Yes I wholeheartedly agree some myths do go on......and ........ on and I can think of a few more.

The Great war (WW1) had much to answer for, but then again it was supposed to be the war to end all wars and yet it's still going on and I really believe it will continue whilst man occupies this earth.

[Adam Helmer]

Brithunter,

You are a game chap, eh, wot? Ok, let's sort out your last post. I did not forget the Longbranch Plant. Wotever,

In paragraph 3 you state the 03's ladder sight is "more correctly a tangent sight." Sorry, old boy, but "tangent" means curved per my dictionary and the 03 rear LADDER sight is as flat as that long version rear sight on the No.4 Mk1. Better go look at those 1903s in Mike's collection and give it a bit of a go.

Wot? You now think the Garand empty clip "Ping" is a myth? Well, I knew it all along.

What do you get to hunt these days in Britain? What arms can you legally posses at this point in time until the government takes up some more slack? How is the crime rate these days? Be well.

Adam

[Brithunter]

Hi There,

I might just do that when I am next down Mike way. Recently moved 200 miles from him to be at my parents as this place is geting too much for them to manage now.

As for hunting ............. well we have 6 species of Deer and Deer hunting all year, in the early part of this year up to the middle of May I shot 4 deer. Three Fallow and one Roe Doe and I used a diffrent rife each time, they were as follows :_

30-30 Medwell & Perritt bespoke Bolt action rifle with 6x42mm Schmidt & Bender scope in Apel mounts

7x57 BSA CF2 which hs a 4-10 Pecar in Apel roll off mounts

3-06 P-H Safari? ( still trying to positivly ID this model) with a 3-9x44 Tasco Titan 30mm tubed in Apel roll off mounts

303 BSA Model E sporting rifle (which is a rebuilt-converted P-14, circa 1949-1953) which is fitted with a Pecar 3-7x36 scope in P-H mounts.

My small collection is mainly based on sporting rifles, and the earliest is not complete. Has some part missing! it's a Snider sporting rifle in .577 snider which hopefully one day I will be able to complete. Next up is a M93 Mauser special sporting rifle built for the Boers in about 1897 then it's a Rigby best sporting rifle built upon a Mannlicher Mdl 1892 (dated 1893) action in 6.5x53R. One of the latest rifles I have is a P-H 1200V in 6mm Remington which I have yet to fire as I have no ammo for it and due to an oversight on the Police's part I do not have permnission to purchase expanding ammo in 6mm. Components in 6mm Rem are not that easy to find either so I wait.

Pistols are banned except for M/L ones although it seems that a special type of target .22RF pistol may be allowed as are special long barreled pistols for target shooting. The only semi auto rifles allowed are .22 RF but any normal manually operated rifles are allowed but you have to have permission for each and every one one you licence which is issued by the police. ammo is restiricted and you can only buy what is on your licence and that includes quantities.

So back to the 03's rear sight, Hmm the book I have here shows no peep on the 03's laddr sight and it looks like apart from the low folding down setting that you have to raise the ladder up like on the Mannlicher M95's. This is a poor design fro a battle rifle, ok for a target rifle I suppose. The No4's battle peep covers up to 300 yards.

Yes I was quoting an urban myth about the Garand, I have never handled one although friends used to have them and mosyt of them had them converted to 7.62x51 for cheap ammo usage. They were banned back in 1986 or so.

[Hawkeye6]

Adam:

Notice that he does not contest the clear superiority of the M-1 Garand as the most superior battle rifle of WWII.

Hawkeye

[Brithunter]

Hawkeye,

Read it again! the Le Enfield served in conditions which the Garand could not hope to work in, sorry old chap but even the Garand's rate of fire in only slightly faster than a manually operated Le. in the hands of a well trained soldier. Look it up the Le hold the record for the most rounds fired accurately at 300 yards

I have never handled a Garand so of course never fired one, but looking at it's specs well it's a heavy club to be carrying about

[Adam Helmer]

Hawkeye6,

Yes, we agree the Garand was the best battle rifle in WWII, and after.


Brithunter,

Thanks for your informative description of your hunting battery. Now about the Garand versus the SMLE, again we need to sort this out, but first the M1903 ladder sight.

-The M1903 rear sight does lie flat just like the long ladder on your No4 Mk1. When you flip up the 03 sight you will see several aperatures: the round one is at the bottom with a triangle shaped one above and then another atop that. I would send you a rear sight for the 03 if I had a spare.

-Come now, "The Le Enfield served in conditions which the Garand could not hope to work in." Please tell me where those conditions were found? The Garand served in Iceland, the Bulge (1944), frozen Chosen in Korea as well as Africa (1942-43) along side the SMLE and British troops. Did the US ask for SMLEs in the ETO in WWII so we could keep doing our bit? LOL.

As for the Garand being only "slightly" faster than a Lee in rate of fire is dubious, at best, even in the hands of "trained troops." The bolt gun assumes a soldier CAN and MUST "crank" the bolt despite frostbitten limbs, wounds or fatigue. Also, the bolt-trained soldier MUST fully stroke the bolt each and every time to stay in the game. In cramped quarters or with a wounded hand, the bolt may not get the requisite stroke, eh, wot? A gas gun (Garand) will fire each time the trigger is pulled, even if the other hand is wounded or frozen, right?

-I am not aware of any 300-yard accuracy record for the SMLE versus the Garand. If you want a rematch, I will see what I can do to accomodate the event in the USA.

-Yes, the Garand may look "like a heavy club" and it is. It is not comfortable to carry about, but being a shooting machine, it sure is comforting when the chips are down. I have shot mine with iron sights to 600 yards. In the "rattle battle" I got 18 hits total on two silhouette targets at 600 yards in one minute. Bring your SMLE and give it a go.

I enjoy your chats, please continue, my friend.

Adam

[Gil Martin]

I applaud you folks for having a lengthy and frank exchange and even disagreeing without being disagreeable. All the best...
Gil

[Adam Helmer]

Gil,

I like chatting with Brithunter and would like to have him as a neighbor so he could come sit on the front porch and chat without all this typing being involved. I would also show him a few of my prized arms for his thoughtful comments.

Brithunter knows a lot of history and is prepared to discuss his ideas in a friendly manner, as do all others on your site. Good show!

Adam

[justwannano]

My land lord is a talkative old fella of 80+ years.
His favorite topic is WWII. He was stationed in India I think but his knowlege of the whole war is amazing.
Acording to Wayne during the first part of WWII the Germans pretty much had their way.
That is until the Americans got involved.
After we got involved if Germans were sighted on the other hill someone was shooting at them.They,the Germans , wern't used to that.Oh there was resistance but nothing like after our involvement.
Of course we had marksmen but often it was just small arms fire from ordinary infantrymen that made things miserable for the german soldier.
Anyway thats the story acording to Wayne.