Concerning rifle magazines and ammunition issued to Cold War era British Forces.

ugly

LE
Moderator
I have. I believe the pouches in the second pic are the same as those previously described as from WW1. Any photos, and real examples, I’ve ever seen were always black, and capable of carrying 3 x 5rd clips each.
You are in the minority on this
 
Sooooooo, here's a WW2 pouch. Full. You'll note that it takes exactly 2 chargers, and you'd have to bend time and space to get a third in, particularly as there's a metal divider down the middle to stop them rattling around when there's only 1 in there.

1539884706417.png
 
Sooooooo, here's a WW2 pouch. Full. You'll note that it takes exactly 2 chargers, and you'd have to bend time and space to get a third in, particularly as there's a metal divider down the middle to stop them rattling around when there's only 1 in there.

View attachment 358076
So what made ze Germans decide to reduce the rifleman's ready ammo by a 1/3 between the wars?
 
So what made ze Germans decide to reduce the rifleman's ready ammo by a 1/3 between the wars?
Same reason the British rifleman's standard load for his rifle was reduced from 120 to 50 ;)

(reduction in the significance of the rifle as a battlefield wpn)

((although the average British infantryman was carrying BREN ammo, whereas, contrary to popular belief, his average German counterpart wasn't carrying MG ammo))

(((unless he was one of the gun numbers, when he literally had his hands full with Gurttrommel carriers / ammo boxes)))
 
IIRC deliberate rate of fire on That rifle was one round every 12 seconds, or 5 rounds per minute?
With figures like that, one has to wonder what the statisticians were thinking. I don't know how many magazines the Aussies carried in Vietnam but the rates of fire at the battle of Long Tan were certainly higher than one shot ever 12 seconds.
 
With figures like that, one has to wonder what the statisticians were thinking. I don't know how many magazines the Aussies carried in Vietnam but the rates of fire at the battle of Long Tan were certainly higher than one shot ever 12 seconds.
I recall the 12 seconds allowed time to aim at a known target, shoot and follow through the shot, then acquire a new target and repeat.
Multiply that across a section/platoon/ company/battalion, add machine guns and other support weapons, and it's a fairly hefty amount outgoing per minute.
That, from the rifle armed at least, is single aimed, accurate shots, not spray & pray.
 
I recall the 12 seconds allowed time to aim at a known target, shoot and follow through the shot, then acquire a new target and repeat.
Multiply that across a section/platoon/ company/battalion, add machine guns and other support weapons, and it's a fairly hefty amount outgoing per minute.
That, from the rifle armed at least, is single aimed, accurate shots, not spray & pray.
Yes, we must all remember that a range practices weapon handling skills and isn't a battlefield simulation. At a single static target, you can get off an aimed round at every breath (and recover a little from lightheadedness during the mag change), giving about 18 rounds per minute. To avoid lightheadedness, it's one round at each alternate breath so about 10 rounds per minute.

Once you start changing targets, because everything's linked to your rate of breathing, you'd do well to achieve 5 rounds per minute. And it wouldn't make much difference with a different rifle, even one with a larger capacity magazine or comparing bolt-action with self-loading, it's still breathing that determines the rate of fire during deliberate shooting. It's a different story when giving rapid fire.

My theory anyway.
 
Reliance on the Section Machinegun as dominant weapon instead of individual riflemen
Indeed. And contrary to the myth, exactly the same as the Brits once Mr. Lewis had been replaced with Madam BREN.
 
It depends upon the manufacturer, I found FN mags worked ok in the L1A1 (Argentinian ones) and they have a stamped lip that fits in the retaining catch. The SLR Mags might fit, bearing in mind tolerances are just a range of measurements that you should be able to accommodate and the L1A1 mags the lip is on a plate brazed to the front of the magazine, this may put them out of spec in some weapons.
If you look inside the mag well of an FAL, the cut-out that holds the pressed out front "beak" on the magazine is much smaller than on the L1A1. Also, the magazine well is shorter by the thickness of the brazed on lug on L1A1 magazines.
Century Arms made some "Inch" receivers to metric FAL dimensions & L1A1 magazines require minor modifications to the front lug (round off the corners) & right rear (add slight taper) in order to fit.
This in no way affects their use in the L1A1 itself.
 
I've read that some of the magazines picked up and used in the Falklands would fit, but would only stay in place if held whilst the weapon was being cocked.
Some work, some don't but any time I've tried, they never feed 100% reliably due to the slack fit allowing the bolt to ride over the round every now & then - usually when said round is from the right hand stack in the magazine.
 

Similar threads

Top