Bloke on the Range videos

Nomad1382

War Hero
I think where Karl is coming from is the US Cavalry's use of the Spencer rifles in the post Civil War era. It used a tube magazine loaded through the butt, was lever-action but after working the lever you still had to manually cock the hammer. In comparison to that, the loading and working of the Winchester would have an improvement.
 

HE117

LE
But - since it is much, much easier to train troops to shoot fast, than it is to to teach them to shoot well, and to ingrain all the requisite ancillary skills* - we brits seem doomed to a cycle of forgetting in peacetime how to do the latter, with those under fire on operations then having to learn the hard way, on the two-way range.
= = = = =
* Locating the enemy; target indication; fire control orders yadda yadda . . . . .
...amen to that!
 
The Seige of Plevna in 1877 where the Turks/Ottomans kept back the Russians by the use of a mix of Peabody/Martini action single shot rifles and Winchester repeaters is often sited as the first use of repeating arms in a major conflict. Contemporary analysis was however that it was the combination of the long range Peabody at a slow rate of fire with the high rate, short range Winchester able to counter the mass attacks by the Russians.

This seems to have set the development of military rifle design down a bit of a rabbit hole, with the introduction of tubular magazine systems such as the Kropatschek, which was copied in the Mauser 71/84, the Gras and the Murata. It was still around in the Lebel! This gave a repeating capability to a full power rifle, but at the expense of a very slow reload time.

It was the introduction of box magazines and packet loading in the Mannlicher that finally solved the rapid, sustained fire issue. This was then copied by the Mauser 98, Lee and Schmidt Rubin designs..

IMHO this always comes back to the big v small calibre argument.. historically up to 1930 Armies have decided that having a long range rifle means you can engage high rates at short range if you want to, but allows attrition at long range! Please always remember that quality of fire rather than quantity is always a better and more sustainable reaction (although not as spectacular or as much fun!)
In one of the In Range videos Ian stated that he looked at accounts which gave a more detailed view of what actually happened at Plevna, and he said that the role that the Winchester repeaters played in the battle have been greatly exaggerated in modern mythology.

In my opinion the magazine cut-off made a great deal of sense in the context of the very late 19th century prior to the introduction of charger loading, and given the emphasis on colonial warfare in remote areas. You can't speed up the overall rate of fire of a unit of infantry as a whole significantly if you are manually single loading a magazine. You have to reduce the number of manual actions required to load rounds, and a charger does that by loading multiple rounds in a single manual cycle.

In the context of major warfare on the European continent combined with charger loading and the extensive use of machine-guns, magazine cut-offs were no longer as useful and could be eliminated to save cost, weight, and complexity.

On another note, I have read that one of the reasons for the emphasis on long range rifle fire in the latter part of the 19th century was that field artillery, particularly horse artillery, had lagged behind small arms in development. As a result, under many tactical situations it was believed to be feasible for very long range fire of small arms, when used collectively in units, to successfully engage field artillery operating in direct fire mode. Artillery was to evolve to counter this by changing to indirect fire, and through better fire control coordination and signalling between forward observers and artillery batteries. However the situation where artillery was vulnerable was around long enough to, according to this explanation, influence the development of small arms doctrine.

However, I have not seen a direct reference to this in appropriate primary sources such as infantry training handbooks, so I can't verify that this is correct and can only present it as something I have read which may or may not be correct.
 
 
Just got a Client Registration Number card from Southams with a 3 letter and 1 digit code. But the absentee bidding form has 5 boxes for client number...

I'm confused...

Anyone else got a Southam's number? @ugly @HE117 @4(T) ???
 

4(T)

LE
In one of the In Range videos Ian stated that he looked at accounts which gave a more detailed view of what actually happened at Plevna, and he said that the role that the Winchester repeaters played in the battle have been greatly exaggerated in modern mythology.

In my opinion the magazine cut-off made a great deal of sense in the context of the very late 19th century prior to the introduction of charger loading, and given the emphasis on colonial warfare in remote areas. You can't speed up the overall rate of fire of a unit of infantry as a whole significantly if you are manually single loading a magazine. You have to reduce the number of manual actions required to load rounds, and a charger does that by loading multiple rounds in a single manual cycle.

In the context of major warfare on the European continent combined with charger loading and the extensive use of machine-guns, magazine cut-offs were no longer as useful and could be eliminated to save cost, weight, and complexity.

On another note, I have read that one of the reasons for the emphasis on long range rifle fire in the latter part of the 19th century was that field artillery, particularly horse artillery, had lagged behind small arms in development. As a result, under many tactical situations it was believed to be feasible for very long range fire of small arms, when used collectively in units, to successfully engage field artillery operating in direct fire mode. Artillery was to evolve to counter this by changing to indirect fire, and through better fire control coordination and signalling between forward observers and artillery batteries. However the situation where artillery was vulnerable was around long enough to, according to this explanation, influence the development of small arms doctrine.

However, I have not seen a direct reference to this in appropriate primary sources such as infantry training handbooks, so I can't verify that this is correct and can only present it as something I have read which may or may not be correct.

I think most civilian commentators fail to understand military imperatives such as fire control and ammunition conservation, or the tactical employment and firepower potential of very large bodies of infantry in the pre-MG era.

Cut-offs were indeed a key tactical tool in the single-load era, but they were also an ideal safety device when mass conscript armies were equipped with magazine rifles. Rifles could be kept permanently loaded, but in a very safe condition. The No4 only lost its cut-off as a war expediency and IIRC, Britain even considered them on its post-war auto rifle concepts.
 
I think most civilian commentators fail to understand military imperatives such as fire control and ammunition conservation, or the tactical employment and firepower potential of very large bodies of infantry in the pre-MG era.

Cut-offs were indeed a key tactical tool in the single-load era, but they were also an ideal safety device when mass conscript armies were equipped with magazine rifles. Rifles could be kept permanently loaded, but in a very safe condition. The No4 only lost its cut-off as a war expediency and IIRC, Britain even considered them on its post-war auto rifle concepts.
I find it very interesting that the Musketry Regulations 1909 expressly forbids the use of the cutoff to permit use of the rifle as a single-loader. It's sole use being the reduction in the chance of a screwup resulting in an ND from a soldier doing what would now be termed a "make safe".
 
@gloworm may be able to help?
morning all, I just log in and bid online, I don’t recall filling in an absentee bidder form.
I created the account online then added card details and I think that was it?
They then sent a card through the post with the details on
GW
 
Just dug the card out, there is a three letter, two number ident on the back
 
Just dug the card out, there is a three letter, two number ident on the back
Thanks. I wonder why mine only has 1 number then?
 

4(T)

LE
Just got a Client Registration Number card from Southams with a 3 letter and 1 digit code. But the absentee bidding form has 5 boxes for client number...

I'm confused...

Anyone else got a Southam's number? @ugly @HE117 @4(T) ???

I've not registered for their "online only" auction yet. For their normal "live" auction I've always previously bid via "AuctionNet" or whatever it was called. I guess they've dropped that now?
 
Thanks. I wonder why mine only has 1 number then?
Favoured client? ;-)

Not sure, mine is only two numbers which surprised me too
 
I'm at the very end of this InRange vid, having an awful lot of fun :)

 
The weapon's nearly as ally as the strides.

You lucky, lucky bleeder :-D
Are you jealous that your strides got to do that? :razz:
 
Are you jealous that your strides got to do that? :razz:
Bet you didn't think back in the day that your trousers would ever contribute to something quite that awesome :razz::razz::razz:
 
Bet you didn't think back in the day that your trousers would ever contribute to something quite that awesome :razz::razz::razz:
Part of me says they were destined for it: but fate intervened, and the vehicle happened to be crewed by the wrong bloke on the day of the race.

That's how life works, as I have discovered, repeatedly over time . . . . . :-D
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S The Intelligence Cell 27
CptDanjou Waltenkommando 17
putteesinmyhands Military History and Militaria 1

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top