@@vickersmg I'm hoping we see a rework of the British guns to see the inclusion of the SMLE and a reduction in sight picture sway while moving for all the rifles. I'm also hoping they give the Bren and the Bar bipods.
It is absolutely insane that the algorithm hasn't prompted this channel before. The quality and deep insight is insane. Guys, please keep doing what you're doing.
That's great. Thanks James. We'll add what we can when we can. Please do consider supporting us and getting others to do the same with www.patreon.com/vickersmg
If my memory serves me. The P14 Enfield was originally billed as a replacement or substitute for the SMLE Enfield. But due to production issues. Ended up being used as a second line issue rifle in British and certain Commonwealth forces in WW1. The U.S. did pretty much the same thing with the P14's cousin, the M1917 in .30-06. But due to having issues with cranking out enough Springfield M1903 rifles, the U.S. ended up issuing and fielding far more M1917 Enfields than M1903 Springfields in WW1. With the type carrying on in BOTH British and American service well until the end of WW2. Being largely relegated to British Auxiliary and Home Guard units and Philipine and American troops in WW2. Which isn't too shabby by ANY means for a rifle that was basicly a modified, 98 Mauser actioned bolt gun and meant to be a "substitute" rifle.
Yes plenty of history to the gun. It was heavily trialed in 1913/14 for conversion to .276-inch as well and then in the 1930s too. We have all of the trials information available for our patrons at www.patreon.com/VickersMG
No. 4 rifles with grooved handguards were common across English and US manufactured examples as well, especially earlier production, not just Long Branch in Canada. Whether the handguard had grooves or not seemed to be contingent on the capabilities of the various woodworking subcontractors rather than something controlled by Long Branch/Savage/Maltby/etc.
I’ll have a read through the Ordnance Board memoranda and see whether there’s a mention at all as to why. Sadly we haven’t managed to index them all yet but we have them photographed from 1900 to November 1942 and at www.patreon.com/VickersMG
@@vickersmg I'd expect they were deleted as a cost saving increased productivity measure. Can't imagine any contractor adding features they wouldn't get paid for. Think I might have heard there were variations in timber supplies that might have been a factor... might also be a legitimate reason for Canadian production to have kept theirs when others didn't.
Ive never actually seen a closeup of the action for the no.4, im really impressed how fast you can shoot it. Who would need a garand with a speed like that.
Well that’s what the British thought! We actually have all the trials information for the No 4 and the British evaluations of the Garand over on our patreon - www.patreon.com/VickersMG
@@vickersmg I find reloading the Garand is easier than the stripper clips on the Lee Enfield. While you can probably get superior accuracy out of a Lee Enfield, battlefield accuracy has shown both are plenty accurate to get the job done.
@@edm240b9 I believe the late Lee Ermey did a good comparison of rifles used in WW2. If I remember correctly the Lee Enfield beat all other bolt-actions when it came to accuracy and fire speed - but in his tests the Garand came out on top.
Great video, and thanks for showing how fast the rifle should be firing. Hopefully the game developers see this and change the default loadout and increase the firing speed accordingly!!
Thanks for the feedback. We’d be happy to help the developers. We completely understand the need for compromise on game play but there are some quick wins here.
@Vickers MG Collection & Research Association It would be great if your in depth specialist knowledge could assist the development. However the devs appear pretty poor at doing basic research. We live in the internet age and researching an incredibly popular topic such as WW2 has never been easier. Team17 have made a bizarre number of errors about extremely basic stuff that only requires ten or twenty minutes research to not get wrong. P14 as primary rifle? Few minutes on Wikipedia will set you straight. British tanks and uniforms used in North Africa? Simple Googke search. Lancaster bombers at a fictional El-Alamein airfield? Do some research FFS
Job well done. Thanks for sharing. A few bits of commentary if I may: the British Army trained their riflemen to do the full charge and then properly grip the rifle when firing. The British infantry learned they could perform the "mad minute" easier by using the middle finger as the trigger finger and keeping their thumb and index finger on the bolt handle. The Lee-Enfield action is faster due to the "cock on closing " (as you stated), but the actual physics of the matter is that the entire action and movement to charge the rifle is more fluid. Less torque is needed. That and the action is almost an inch shorter. :) Perhaps next time explain the differences in the sights, the traditional vs the ring and post. I wish the viewers could see the actual recoil of those rifles, they are a chore to handle and fire accurately shot after shot. Over all, job well done and thanks for sharing.
Glad you liked the video. Whilst we’ve dabbled in the rifles for this video, and do fire them quite often, we’ll leave the likes of @britishmuzzleloaders and @blokeontherange to explain the rate of fire and fluidity of firing much better than us, which they have in several videos, often using the many manuals and pamphlets we’ve shared on our website.
February 65 a boy seamaan in the RN i qualified as a marksman with a No4 Mk2. 300yds, 3ft target 9in bull, 10 shots prone freehand. I scored 78 the best score in my mess. Moved to AU and had several Enfield's in .22-303, .25-303 303 and an ishapore Enfield in 7.62 nato. A superb weapon.
@@vickersmgthe .22-303 and..25-303 were down to the Australian Government wanting to restrict military grade ammunition and weapons in civilian hands. So many Enfields were sporterised and converted. I moved there in 74 and by that time there were less restrictions. I should add I sporterised the ishapore with a flush magazine and scope.
I think the developers were thinking that the P14 would be better as it balances the firepower compared to the other teams who have 5 round magazines. This is silly though as all the other teams have belt feds that are a huge advantage over the British MGs so the British should have something to give them a bit more firepower.
the British having no access to any semi-auto rifles is also a bit of a pain, and more reason for them to have an edge on the Germans with their bolt action rifle.
I use to have a SMLE made in Lithgow Australia, date stamped 3-41. After a bad car wreck in January 95, I had to sell it to eat. Even 50+ years old, that rifle would shoot! It was as Accurate as it was the day it was made! I did meet an Aussie who had immigrated to America, and he told me how they were trained; to cycle the bolt without taking the stock off their shoulder! In the North African Campaign, the Germans thought they had autoloading rifles, because of the volume of fire they were putting out! Later I did get a #4 Mk1, but sold it because it was hard to find .303 ammo. A couple years ago, I found an Ishapore 2A in .308! It's an excellent shooter! Ammo is easy to find.
Cycling the bolt while maintaining aim is a skill but most of them managed it to some degree or another. Shame about 303 availability over there as we don’t have the same problem here. All new stock from Prvi.
@@vickersmg If you can find it here, it's crazy expensive! Whereas surplus .308 is relatively cheap; less than half the cost of .303! This 2A is very accurate too! I'd always hoped to find a #7 jungle carbine! I saw one once, but didn't have the money at the time. I wanted it for a truck gun. It would have been perfect for that! I do love those Enfields!
Great! There’s some difference in .308/7.62 over here but not much when we buy it new made, which we generally do. Enfields are great to shoot but we don’t shoot rifles often enough to have real favourites.
@@vickersmg Yes, the difference in .308/7.62X51 is miniscule. The surplus I speak of is the latter, of course. I used the Civilian caliber designation because it's shorter to write. That's all. I have other rifles I shoot more often these days; because I'm in my mid-50s now, with shoulder problems, and need lower recoil. 6.5 Grendel is spoiling me; 308 performance with less than half the recoil! It is in truth a 6.7mm I don't know why they call it a 6.5; that's a .257 caliber; like a .257 Roberts or .25-06.
I seem to recall that Australia never tooled up to produce No 4s and retained the MkIII right up until the Rifle Commitee settled upon the FN. Its very strange today to think of the 4 nations holding trials in Canada to decide on everyones universal rifle.
Australian here, can confirm that Australia primarily used the no 3 mk 1 SMLE throughout the war. However, to meet requirements for jungle combat, SMLEs were modified into no 6 mk 1 jungle carbines, these never saw action however I believe 200 or so were made. Cheers.
One could add that India and Australia both continued making SMLE rifles into at least the end of the 1950's. And I think that both countries modified or manufactured SMLE's in 7.62x51 NATO as a stop gap measure until the FAL came fully online. It's even arguable today what the British really gained by going to the #4 pattern rifles. Aside from maybe cost reductions in fabrication and reduced build time versus the SMLE. Having owned and fired BOTH types of Enfields side by side? I tend to think that if one has quality, early or post-war examples or both weapons? And good quality ammunition on hand? There's very little difference in their accuracy or function.
India produced a 7.62mm version but I don’t think Australia did. The SMLE certainly reduced costs of production and sped up production as well. Ideal in Britain and Canada where high volume was needed.
Thank you very much. Jonathan is a great friend and supporter of ours and his knowledge (and access) goes much beyond ours but we do thankfully do a bit of work together.
The main reason the Lee Enfield is faster to shoot than the P14 (which is cock on close, same as the Lee Enfield), is because the bolt doesn't have to travel as far. They made the action longer on the P14 as it was originally going to be chambered for a higher velocity, magnum style round due to the recommendations the committee designing the rifle had from the Boer War.
Thanks for another interesting video. During WW1, some British soldiers were also armed with Canadian made Ross rifles, including my late grandfather, Don Wilden. He effectively took leave of absence from the Great Western Railway to serve in the Royal Army Service Corps, where he spent his time running transport operations on the railways and canals in France. I think his use of rifles was (mostly or entirely) confined to training ranges (except perhaps just after the Germans' "big push" of early 1918). Hence his favourite rifle was the Ross rather than the SMLE.
We have quite a lot of in-depth information on who was issued which rifles. I hadn't really looked into the Ross for Army Service Corps troops though so I'll have to see what I can find.
Yes, the Kaiserschlacht! We visited some of the battlefields affected during our trip to France in March. We’ll put together a few clips and share them on the channel with the story of Rich’s great grandfather and great great uncle.
I’ve shot a No4 twice. Once as a 14 year old Air Cadet where the rifle was a bit too heavy on me and more recently on a short break in Krakow. I did have an opportunity a few years ago in Prague but my 14 year old experience got the better of me. We focussed on WWII weapons in Krakow including a KAR 98, Bren, MG42, PPSH, Colt automatic and Luger. I’ve shot an MP40 in Prague. I was interested to compare and contrast the No4 with the KAR and I’d definitely say the Lee Enfield is a far better rifle in every way. For U.K. residents there are lots of well managed ranges in Poland, Czechia and elsewhere to have an opportunity to shoot safely under excellent instruction. Look at reviews on trusted sites to pick your experience.
Skennerton’s ‘Australian Military Rifles and Bayonets’ discusses about 2000 Long Branch-made No 4 rifles entering Australian service in 1942 and issued to the RAEME and RAAF. They also feature in the 1945 illustrated parts lists for the AMF. They weren’t made there though.
Your point about the bayonet for the #4 rifle made me think of the soldiers carrying the weight of their kit for much longer than they used the rifles.
A great point. The 1907 pattern bayonet has a bad habit of hitting the back of your left knee as well! A lot of mechanised troops used an alternative way of wearing it on the shoulder strap.
It's great to see this series next to the game's content; i wouldn't mind to see uniforms/gear related content too, sadly idk much of the british gear during WWII.
No, but we found that the RAEME and RAAF ended up with a couple of thousand No 4s from Canada so they were included on the manuals and pams after that.
5:49 P14 rifles are cock on close, not cock on open. They were issued to the Home Guard alongside the P17 (the British name for the M1917, 30-06 version of the P14) and many underwent a Factory Through Repair programme which saw them lose their volley sights. If you see a nice looking P14 with a smooth plate where the graduations for the front volley sight ought to have been, it has likely been FTRed. There are also training videos available here on RU-vid, showing the Home Guard being taught to use the P14 (pathé news hosts them). The P14 and P17 did have to be distinguished so that one didn't attempt to use the wrong ammunition in the rifles, that's why some P17s have red paint on them.
Yes, they wouldn’t generally be in the same unit, or county even so they could streamline ammunition logistics for .303 or .300 on a county basis. Matching the Lewis and Vickers they received as well.
Thanks. We fired blanks for this demo because the filming was not on a range but we have done this with ball ammunition and the recoil isn’t as bad as people make out so it’s still quite achievable to get this speed.
I don't object to the inclusion of the No5, Lanchester or P14 as they are interesting weapons that rarely receive depictions in games or film. While the SMLE really ought to be there too, I appreciate the added variety of being able to use these more seldom seen guns.
It does baffle me as to why they went for the 1914 over the smle. Even from a gameplay pointnof view it takes away the feel of playing as the british (making the main rifle feel like the Kar98k) and doesnt really work from a balance perspective because the US forces still use the M1. Perhaps its a progression thing. Great video, looking forward to the submachine gun one. Really enjoyed the bren one too after the disappointing performace of the weapon in game
Maybe it was part of some planned progression that hasn’t been realised yet. The SMG vid will happen in the next couple of weeks but the Thompson still needs some funding so please help out with that if you can: vickersmg.blog/product/project-thompson/
It's interesting to consider that, if the First World War hadn't broken out in 1914, the British Army would have probably adopted the P.13 rifle in .276" calibre, as the test reports were generally favourable. If that had been the case, then no No.4 and no No.5. I wonder what developments of the P.13 would have been?
The first set of Small Arms Committee Minutes from 1913 included a full report of the trials as they were then. It happens to be one of the examples we share publicly so take a look and consider if you'd like to become one of our Patrons for the full minutes from 1900 to 1938 as well as Ordnance Board proceedings until November 1942 (and we're still going). www.patreon.com/posts/37857468
The .276 ate barrels, it was an attempt to replicate some rather boutique niche hunting cartridges of the day used by some colonial officer types. It just wasn't suitable for rifle or machine gun use at all. Test reports may have been favourable but that was purely the result of someone in the process having a fetish for Mauser actions. Enfield even went so far as to publicly publish a report on the strength of the SMLE action to counter the misinformation doing the rounds.
I thought it was funny how much faster you are than the game after sending 10 rounds down range and had a cup of tea as the game took forever to do 10 LOL I finally got a number 4 mark 1/3 FTR 1953 last month now I can compete with my little brother who has a Lithgow number 1 mark 3* 1944 cheers from Australia mate
The British rifles definitely should have been the SMLE and the Mk.4. The P14 makes no sense. Wish these game developers would ask someone like yourself for your expertise. Great video.
There is a video that shows a comparison between the Garand and the SMLE when used in the Mad Minute mode. They were about equal both in speed and aimed fire. German testimony after the war said that they thought they were under fire from a platoon when it was justa squad of british riflemen. Same reports of being under fire from US Garands. IMO, the ONLY military rifle I have ever fired that is smoother than the SMLE is the beautifully made Krag-Jorgensen. The K-98 Mauser is a great design, mostly for its strength, but its function is sticky compared to the British rifles.
@@vickersmg Nationalist bias was behind the selection of the 7.62x51 round over a very good British offering , too. I think it was somewhere in the range of a .280 caliber, IIRC. Winchester no doubt had some weight pushing that one through, just as they did when lobbying for the NATO round over the very adequate and already successful .300 Savage. Now, it seems the US is going back towards that British cartridge in it's new infantry rifle.
Much as I admire your work I feel that you should have pointed out that the No 4 was only made in Britain and Canada (and America) but Australia and India continued making the MKIII* so the Anzacs and Indians fielded those throughout the war.
Thanks Andy. It’s a fair point but we can’t get every bit of information in there all the time. By covering off the theatres they remained in service in, we covered off the countries using them as well we thought: Australia and India didn’t have soldiers in NW Europe after the No 4 was introduced (or not in significant numbers).
When I read that the thought that came to me was, Everybody knows that. A moment later I realised my mistake. Although I don't shoot I do read. Yes, remember your audience and speak to them, not your imagination of who they are.
But do they need to know that in a short video about the rifles in a particular computer game? If we were doing a specific video on the history of the SMLE or British rifles in general then we’d be covering a lot more. Also, Australians and Indians aren’t portrayed in the game so it’s a constant balance of relevance versus details and everyone always wants something different.
The Pattern 14 rifle was cock pn close...the cocking piece engages on closing the bolt. Most post 1890 model Mauser Bolts are cock on open...the cocking piece engages when the bolt is turned up on pening.
I don’t think we know rifles well enough to say either way. I’ve just checked if we’ve got the illustrated parts list and can’t find it at the moment. - Rich
I’ve been trying to find a good explanation of it in a period text and largely unsuccessful but I think this 1950s armourer’s document covers it with the diagrams. It’s apparent that the mechanism can be cocked without closing, whereas the Lee mechanism has to be fully closed to cock. vickersmg.blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/195x-uk-armourerswingprecis-vol2-lowres.pdf
@@vickersmg I'm not sure I fully follow. The diagram on page 33 does seem to demonstrate that the P14 is capable of being cocked while not fully closed, it's "cock on *closing*" if you will as opposed to the Lee's "cock on complete close" -- which is a nice, fine detail of distinction, but both are deemed as cock on close as the cocking piece is engaged with the forward motion of the bolt. C&Rsenal has an animation demonstrating this in their video on the P14: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-rxPRFQCGSgM.html
No, you're absolutely right. We'll pop a correction / explanation video up and may cover some wider actions as well to show the real difference with the Mausers rather than just Mauser-type actions.
@@vickersmg Yes, I knew that. There is a very interesting channel called Bloke on the Range who has actually done quite extensive scientific-kinda tests of how the sight picture wobbles or not, on all of the WW2 rifles. And he was able to prove the really small amount the Smilie wobbles, it was quite surprisingly small. I was pointing out that in their game play model, they clearly have not included that. As I understand, the game play has made the rifle cycle slowly AND lose its aim for longer than the bad-guys gun.
We know Mike from @blokeontherange and he’s one of our great supporters. His channel often answers these questions much better than us so definitely a go-to resource.
11:30 that was brilliant! :D hahah exactly what I thought. They are going with "history accurate". Weapon should be reloadable as fast as humanly possible. Of course you will shoot all over the place then but it should be capable of much much faster reloading.
Thanks Echo. Well I’m quite rocky while reloading and don’t normally shoot the rifle (see our machine gunnery videos for what we normally do) so a trained soldier on the No 4 would be hitting their target every time!
@@vickersmg Yes, I can imagine that in real life with training but I mean "all over the place" in game. I forget to mention I would like to talk about the game reloading. :) SHould be much faster and after each reload crosshair shouldn't be exactly in the same spot (pixel).
In the game, since the British don't have a single semi-auto rifle (the best class of gun in the game) they should heavily increase the firing rate of the their bolt actions so that they can compete. It's so one-sided having to use bolt actions and the Lewis gun against Gewehrs and MG42's. The only thing the British has which is on the same level is the Lanchester vs the MP40. I also wish they'd add the Vickers. Maybe you could take a short time to deploy it in a location and anyone can use it? Kind of like an AT gun but without needing any supplies. Because as it stands, the MG42 is better in every way than the Lewis gun and the FG42 is better than the Bren.
I think the pattern 14 and m1917 are cock on closing like some Mauser actions(but different to the cock on open Mauser 98 pattern). You can see the cocking piece move rearwards as you close the bolt.
They are indeed. They wanted to retain the cock on close action of the Lee. Although it still wasn't as quick being much heavier with a longer throw. They also gave the bolt handle a dog-leg to bring it closer to the shooter's right hand.
Will you do other game comparisons? For example the SMLE in Verdun handles much more as expected in my limited experience opinion but would be great to see what you think as the experts
It might be something we do in the future but more likely with the MGs we have as there are plenty of other channels that do rifle shooting like that. Head to @britishmuzzleloaders and @blokeontherange for more of that.
I have a P14 model, and the bolt action system from the P14 as the P17 is thr same way as the lee enfield family of weapons, if you want to do the mind Minute, cok on close, same way as the Lee enfield, not as the Mauser weapons that Germany used in world war 1 and 2
I collect rifles of WW1. Obviously I have a SMLE (No. 1 Mk III) manufactured at Enfield in 1919. And his brother, made at "F" something. I'm sure I've heard it at some point. I'm old, gimme a break. And a P14 as well. I rather like the old beast (SMLE). Seems a chum to me. I do not play war games. Thanks anyway.
Fazakerly? Rich doesn’t play video games either which is why it’s quite good to have him chat about the weapons without a vested interest in the gaming side of it.
It has a Mauser-type bolt and some of the original literature refers to it as such, hence part of the confusion, but yes it cocks on close; there’s further confusion because it can be cocked while still open and not fully closed and some of the armourer’s documents we’ve scanned discuss that. We have popped a note on the video at the appropriate point as a flag for a correction video in the future though.
Team 17 have made a Dogs breakfast of British forces giving them weapons they didn't use. Don't know why but the No.1 MK3 looks so much nicer than the the No.4
The Lanchester is far overused in loadouts, the Bren should really be given it's bipod, and their tank choices, are questionable. One thing to note: Team 17 didn't make the update, just released it. Black Matter Studios made this update IIRC, but fault also goes to Team 17 for releasing it in this stage. Hopefully, now that Team 17 have taken over development, they will tie it together a bit better and it looks like they are already doing so.
It appears that guns are being matched on their technical characteristics rather than their true capabilities which offsets the overall balance in the game.
The Home Guard’s weapons were all then in .30-06 including their Lewis, Vickers, BAR and rifles. You see P14s in use with the Norwegian troops, Czech and I think some other exiled armies during their re-formation and training in Britain - the Polish troops seem to have the No 1 Mk III though.
Both P14 and P17 were used by the Home Guard, it depended more on supply of ammunition. Once established, there was a serious attempt to standardise calibres of small arms within Home Guard units, those using 30.06 generally stuck to 30.06 weapons, units using .303 doing the same. The main driving force for the use of 30.06 at all seems to be availability, ammunition and weapons were available in quantity from the U.S. "off the shelf" so there wouldn't be an additional burden on domestic manufacturing to provide weapons and ammunition in .303 that were already in high demand from an expanding Armed forces. The Armed forces did make some limited use of the P14 too up until 1942/43, which was sensible as they were primarily using .303 ammunition, but as supply of new weapons like the No.4 caught up with demand then the P14 gradually disappeared back into warehouses and armouries.
If I had any intention of trying this game, it's disappearing fast. Would I be right to assume you can only use the battle sight, and not the other one?
I would still very much recommend playing it, the American and German factions have been balanced quite well and it’s incredibly immersive! They have just cocked up a little with the new release of British forces. And yes, only battle/fixed sights throughout the whole game.
Games aren't there for accuracy. Even when using simulators, they can't ever simulate everything to the same level so they at least drive some engagement. Rich hasn't played it yet but perhaps that could be a bonus video at some point.
@@merlinmediaproductions cheers - I play other milsims where adjustable sights are normal, that's useful information, thank you.. I do disagree that games are not there for accuracy (pardon the pun!). Some are, some aren't and it's the punter's choice about whether they want to play Fortnite or ARMA. Still an excellent video @vickersmg as you're delivering history despite games makers bending and breaking it
Interesting. We've no experience of the developers (or the games) so looking at this from a weapons perspective. Something we'll try to correct in the future though.
Hummm! This “middle finger” firing position.....🤔 I know the Army has different rates of fire but they all rely on “aimed shots”. Where’s the accuracy in the “middle finger” position, as the firing position appears far less supported with this, rather than with the standard position?
Well the Army permitted it and adopted it for quick-working of the action so they must have found it acceptable. I’ve only shot with it a few times but not seen a major difference, albeit for quite simple service competitions rather than target shooting. - Rich.
@@vickersmg I owned a number 5 for some years. It was milled in the bolt and reciever to remove weight. The carbine barrel with the flame supressor most likely was accurate but that rifle was not ballanced right as an item never shot right. Worse over distance than the 2 grove in the number 4. The singer tangent sight was much better than the battlefield sight of wartime...
It is pretty much accurate - the blade may be slightly too narrow but otherwise correct. We have the sniper manual available through our website: Pamphlet No 28 - vickersmg.blog/manual/small-arms-training-manuals/
They didn’t. The first British rifle that was ambidextrous (and arguably the only one) was the SLR L1A1. People learnt to shoot right handed and all the manuals are based on this. Possibly a legacy of when people weren’t literate and didn’t write like we do today.
@@vickersmg yes or guns in general based on your experience. I use OX24 on my machine guns, subs and rifles Regards from Luxembourg and thanks for the amazing content!
@@vickersmg yeah No32 scopes are for the No4 Mk1(T) sniper the P14 sniper used the British Aldis, the American commercial Winchester A5 and the British PPCo. But they did pretty good, use Enfield guys are just picky🤣
Not a lot of our ammunition goes through rifles at all but we have members with all of those examples I think. I remember checking out the reticule on the scope in the game and it seemed spot on but, yes, the wrong scope on the rifle. The No 4(T) would be right for the later maps though so an easy one to upgrade to. - Rich.
There seems to be some problems but hopefully it doesn’t impact the long term nature of the game as all of these benefit understanding history, even if the details are a little off.
What was the noint of giving the Lee Enfield detachable magazines if they were never given spares? Is it a logistics issue or a conscious part of the design?
The problem was that the idea of detachable magazines though the initial design idea, was too far ahead of the manufacturing technology at least on the huge scale of a primary infantry rifle of a major power. Precision manufacturing that allows for interchangeable parts was not readily available yet which is why Lee Enfield rifles come with one of four sizes of bolt from the factory depending on how the receiver turned out amongst other hand fitting. Not every mag works in every rifle so each rifle would have to have a bunch of mags serialised to it like pistols of the era, or a numbering system like the bolts put in place and the cost would be huge. They tried to compensate by making the mags as cheap as possible but that just meant they got damaged all the time as they were too thin. By the time the technology caught up, and sub machine guns in particular pushed magazine construction forward, then charger loading had become institutionalised and no one thought it was worth changing it. especially as the MK4 was all about cost savings and speed of production.
Not that we’re aware of. We’ve had a look through the small arms committee minutes (all available from 1900 to 1942 by subscribing to www.patreon.com/VickersMG) and we can’t see any reasoning. It would have meant a reduction in capacity without a full redesign of the rifle’s woodwork.
A video game based in the Second World War. They recently released a British element and we were asked to review the machine guns in the game. That video was so popular we decided to use it as an opportunity to use some of the other guns from the collection which we have as they were personal weapons of the machine gunners.
The Brits made so many patterns and changes, and for what ? The Americans, Italians, Russian, and the Germans made one a very good one to this day, consider that the mosin nagant was invented at the end of the American Civil War.
Well yes and no: the Americans had the M1903 in the Great War and into the Second World War, then the Garand but also the M1 Carbine. The British had the No 1 Mk 3 then the No 4. There were variations and differences on all models through manufacturing. The Germans had the G98 then the K98 as well as the G43 and more. No one has ever really achieved standardisation.
