Rule change, for comment : Milspec smokeless repeaters

[Niederlander]

I forgot to ask;  Are there any manuals that definitively say how the extra magazine was to be used?

[Charles Isaac]

Good day Gentlemen and I say with the utmost respect:

Outstanding synopsis of the use of the Lee Metford/Enfield by Rattlesnake Jack. Col. Drydocks proposal for a heavier initial load is well thought out and brings the tube fed guns and Lee Metford more up to speed when going up against the charger loading weapons and the Krag.

I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here.  I could see a stingy war department insisting on issuing a "spare" magazine because most senior officers still didn't really trust a magazine.  Most considered them something of a weak link.  It could be that once they were in the field a while, they began to be used for a second magazine.

I agree with Col Neiderlander, (who really does know first hand how Officers think) and I find this to be very probable. Mistrust of technology, both founded and unfounded, exists to this day and is well documented historically as displayed even pre GAF era-I.E.-flintlock vs percussion, smoothbore vs rifled musket and single shot vs magazine rifle to name just a few!

I forgot to ask;  Are there any manuals that definitively say how the extra magazine was to be used?

Col. Niederlander brings up a great point and I was discussing the history of military firearms with a military shooter/collector friend some time ago and what affected their development and use. Relying on my experiences in the shooting/collecting arena and over 20 years in the infantry, I came up with three key factors-

(1.) Intent of the designer-This is what the designer intended the device to accomplish while being employed.

(2.) Intent of the Command-This is how the people in charge intended the device to be employed and dictated how the manuals were written and how the device was used in training.

(3.) Actual use-This is the different ways in which the device was actually employed by the end user in combat.

This is very complicated because ALL are historically correct and for a given arm, all may or may not have affected each other and all may be totally different for a given device! All are intertwined and subjected to much change due to the experience of all three, material/manufacturing improvements, changing enemy situations etc.

There are many right answers. The challenge is in finding the best answer in what is right for the Match Rules of the GAF, which is dictated by historical accuracy (see points 1. 2. and 3.) and the demonstrated fairness of the Command of the GAF. This fairness is well beyond the scope of most shooting organizations and one of the many factors that makes me proud to be a member.

You can get a serious headache contemplating all of this, but it sure is a lot of fun, isn't it?

Yr Obdnt Srvnt
Private Isaac

[RattlesnakeJack]

I forgot to ask;  Are there any manuals that definitively say how the extra magazine was to be used?

Excellent thought!  I'll see what I can dig up .....

[Drydock]

A point:  if you were worried enough about an easly damaged magazine to issue an extra to each man, why then chain the original to the gun?  Hard to repair or turn in to the unit armourer,  really you'ld have to return the entire weapon.  However, if you simply wanted to ensure magazine retention after a switch out, then it makes more sense to me. 

Remember how the first 1911 magazines were fitted with lanyard loops for retention?  That was the mindset then, don't loose those valuable magazines!  Something that did not really change until the First World War.

[Niederlander]

I believe you could put the spare magazine in while the original was retained by the chain link.  You'd have to be able to remove the magazine to clean it thoroughly, and with the original chained to the rifle you would ensure it wouldn't be thrown away.  (Not that a private has ever been known to throw away issued items he doesn't have an immediate use for!) 

[RattlesnakeJack]

Good point, Drydock!

Here is something else to add to the discussion -

Although the "as-issued" magazine rifle finally adopted (i.e. Martini-Metford Mark I  .... and also in all subsequent versions) had the magazine attached irremovably to the rifle by the single elongated link, the Trials Pattern of the rifle (which was actually very close to the Mark I, as it was approved) had a considerably longer multi-link chain which was permanently affixed to the rifle ahead of the magazine well, but had sort of spring clip at the other end which hooked onto the loop on the magazine.  So it would clearly retain the magazine if it was dropped from the rifle .... but could obviously also be unhooked from that magazine and clipped onto another!   The diagrams of the Trials rifle also clearly depict a second magazine -





Although that type of chain/attachment did not survive into the final version of the rifle adopted for issue, it perhaps says something about the mindset in operation with respect to the magazine .... I'm just not clear what it may actually signify!

[Drydock]

I think having an elongated magazine release inside the triggerguard says something about the intent of the designers!

[Charles Isaac]

I think having an elongated magazine release inside the triggerguard says something about the intent of the designers!

I used to wonder about this when using No. 1 MKIIs/IIIs etc, because they were viewed by most as having a "semi detachable" magazine and relying solely on chargers or single loading- but this was before I knew about the Long Lees and them having no charger guide.

I don't know if the US issued Lees in 45/70 were ever issued with extra magazines, but they would lend themselves to a pretty rapid magazine change also-

[pony express]

Wow, that US Lee is a really nice loking rifle.....kind of a cross between a 2-band Enfield, and a bolt action.

[Niederlander]

Gentlemen,
       Something else that occurred to me concerning the Lee-Enfields.  While they were evidently issued with an extra magazine, I'm unaware that they ever issued any sort of pouch to carry it.  All the ammunition carrying system that I'm aware of were meant to carry extra ammunition either as single rounds in loops, or else in five round stripper clips.  It seems to me if the extra magazine was intended to provide for a rapid reload there would have been a dedicated pouch of some sort to make it readily available.
       What'scary is that we spend this much time and effort thinking about archaic weapons systems!

[Drydock]

Its interesting.  I've seen mills belts for the Remington Lee, with loops for individual rounds on the right side, and pouchs for magazines on the left.  

Now the Brits issued individual round bandoliers, but also had pouchs on their waist belts.  I believe Jack has posted some photos of this.  It would make sense that way to me.  Pull a mag from a pouch for a quick reload,  with the bandolier to refill the magazines.

'Cause its fun!

http://www.19thcenturyweapons.com/608/remingtonleebelt.html

Again, the intent of the designer is clear, and this is basicly the same design as the British Lee.  (The Brits split the stock and put in the collar for recoil, the US lee was well known for splitting stocks.)

[Charles Isaac]

       What'scary is that we spend this much time and effort thinking about archaic weapons systems!

Archaic is good Col. Neiderlander!

Great info on the militia Lee 30-40 Col Drydock. I've found four for sale in my travels and sadly, all were sporterized with hacked off barrels. One gun dealer had a full military M1882 45-70 that he restored into a great shooter-it had been made into a lamp! Seems to me the US Lees didn't get the respect they deserved.

I sometimes wonder if the M1903 would have existed if the Lee Speed had won the US magazine rifle trials of the late 1800s.

[Drydock]

I remember reading somewhere that in the 1880s, Lee had so P.O. the army trials board that they swore no design of his would ever be accepted!

[Niederlander]

What did the pouches on the British belts look like?  Jack, have you got pictures?  I've only seen the bandoliers.

[RattlesnakeJack]

First off, Ned, I must acknowledge that your observations are beginning to sway me toward the point of view that the second magazine issued with each Lee-Metford rifle may indeed have been intended as a spare, and not as an item which would be carried charged with cartridges for a quick reload.  Perhaps the most salient of your points is that I have not been able to locate any reference to a component of the Pattern 1888 Slade-Wallace carriage equipment specifically designed for such a loaded magazine so that it would be readily usable.

What did the pouches on the British belts look like?  Jack, have you got pictures?  I've only seen the bandoliers.

Well, my friend .... I have been working on some images to show exactly what the pouches looked like. 
Go get yourself a coffee, because I fear that one of my infamous "Treatise" posts ensues ......

Firstly, I'll mention that the official British Patterns of cartridge bandoliers (Pattern 1882 for .577/.450 Martini-Henry cartridges and Pattern 1889 for .303 cartridges) were actually intended solely for the use of mounted infantry and cavalry.  However, they proved very popular, and ended up being used by regular infantry quite extensively.

The other thing I should note is that, from the days of the percussion rifle musket right up until charger-loading was finally introduced with the Short Lee-Enfield following the Boer War, British service cartridges were issued in paper-wrapped packets of ten cartridges.  Accordingly, the successive infantry equipment patterns had to provide for carriage of both unopened packets and the loose rounds once a packet was opened.  Up to and including the Pattern 1879 Equipment for Martini-Henry ammunition the standard British service rifle was always a single-shot, so there was a pouch (or pair of pouches) to hold the unopened packets of cartridges and a separate pouch (referred to as either a "ball bag" or "expense pouch") in which the extra loose rounds from the opened packet were placed.

Indeed, when the Pattern 1888 "Slade-Wallace" Equipment was adopted, the first pair of pouches approved were actually designed for .577-450 Martini-Henry cartridges, because the .303 Lee-Metford had just been approved, and it would be quite some time before the Army would be fully re-armed with the new rifle.  Here is an image of those first belt pouches ....  The pouch worn on the right had a 30-round capacity (two 10-round packets in separate compartments, and loops for 10 loose rounds, eight of which were enclosed in a front pocket, plus one loop sewn onto the gusset at each end of the pouch.)  The pouch worn on the left had a 40-round capacity (two inner compartments, each of which held two 10-round packets.)


The first pouches specifically designed for .303 cartridges were approved in mid-1889.  Again, there were two different pouches - the right pouch was deemed to hold 40 rounds - but actually accommodated 42 (two 10-round packets in separate inner compartments, 20 rounds in loops sewn into two 'stacked' front pockets, plus a single gusset loop at each end.)  The left pouch had a 50-round capacity (four 10-round packets in two compartments, plus 10 rounds in loops in a single front pocket.)


A new pouch pattern was adopted in 1890.  This time the right and left pouches were identical ..... each pouch had a nominal capacity of 50 rounds but in fact accommodated 52 (four 10-round packets in two inner compartments, 10 loose rounds in loops in a front pocket, plus a single round in a gusset loop at each end of the pouch.)  Note that this pattern was essentially the 50-round Pattern 1889 pouch, with the "ears" removed and a single gusset loop added at each end.


The final pouch pattern for the Slade-Wallace Equipment came along in 1894.  Again, the right and left pouches were identical, each with a capacity of 50 rounds (three separate compartments in the center of the pouch, each holding one 10-round packet, flanked by a row of 9 loops sewn both to the front and back walls of the pouch, plus a single gusset loop at each end of the pouch.  Note also that the cover flap of this pouch pattern was an extension of the front wall of the pouch, and thus opened away from the body.

[RattlesnakeJack]

Having posted the above "Treatise" on the various pouch patterns used with the British Pattern 1888 infantry equipment, I am now posting separately with reference to the issue of whether the second Lee-Metford magazine might indeed have been carried charged with cartridges, to permit a quick reload of the rifle.

It does seem evident that the ammunition pouches were not designed to carry such a loaded magazine .... but it also seems readily apparent to me that a loaded extra magazine (or two) quite easily could have been carried in both the P'89 and P'90 pouches!

The Mark I Lee-Metford rifle adopted at the end of 1888 had an eight-round straight-stack magazine which would easily fit in one of the inner pouch compartments designed to hold two ammunition packets.  The pouches were six inches wide, so each of the two compartments is about three inches wide, with a top-to bottom body depth of 3.75" and a front-to-back depth of a bit more than two inches. A British Lee magazine measures 3.25" front-to-back and 3.5" top-to-bottom.  I am not sure of the width of the slimmer original 8-round magazine, but the later 10-round (staggered) magazine introduced in 1892 with the Mark II Lee-Metford is about 1 1/8" wide.  (The magazine dimensions then remained essentially the same right through to the late No. 4 and No. 5 Lee-Enfield rifles produced into the 1950's.)

Although the inner compartments of the 50-round pouches of both the 1889 and 1889 patterns were designed to each hold two ammunition packets, it is evident that a loaded magazine would be quite easy to insert in (and remove from) one of those compartments.   Although each such compartment is only 3" wide, its front-to-back depth in conjunction with the flexibility of the side gusset, would allow it to distort quite readily to accommodate a magazine.

My reason for entering into this analysis is this:  although clearly these pouches were not designed to carry a magazine, and although I have not yet been able to locate any official reference to carrying a charged spare magazine for a quick reload, it seems to me that the known references to such a practice (like the one in the link Drydock provided) must have some basis in fact.  I would hazard a guess that it soon became apparent in the field that a rapid reload of the Lee-Metford rifle was not possible, and that it was thus at a serious disadvantage against the Mauser or other stripper-clip loaded rifle.  Since every British soldier was issued with a spare magazine for his rifle .... which was designed with a quickly detachable magazine .... I would be willing to bet that it didn't take Tommy very long to figure out that he could greatly improve his chances (for at least one reload) by having his spare magazine, fully charged, in one of his pouch compartments!



Having come to the above conclusion, I will readily admit that a magazine will not fit anywhere in a Pattern 1894 pouch.  However .... by then, spare magazines were no longer being issued to each man .... so the "field expedient" i suggest would no longer be an option, anyway .....

[Niederlander]

Thank you, Jack!  This is why I love this forum!  It does seem apparent to me that while Tommy may very well have carried his spare magazine loaded for emergency use, (it certainly made sense!) I doubt the command structure intended it that way.  Most fire fights would have been over before a soldier fired twenty rounds, so I would guess most of them soon found loading the extra magazine would make the most sense for combat reloads.  (Regarding ammunition expenditure, S.L.A. Marshall did extensive interviews with troops who landed at Normandy.  As I recall, the most ammunition any of them had fired in the first two days of the battle was about fifteen rounds.  The enemy often fails to give you many clear shots if he can help it!)

[RattlesnakeJack]

The enemy often fails to give you many clear shots if he can help it!)

Yes indeed, Ned!  And by all accounts, the Boers in South Africa excelled in that regard!

Although I said that a magazine would not fit in a Pattern 1894 pouch, it has since occurred to me that the pouch would be pretty easy to alter so it would accommodate a mag ......  The three packets in the center of the pouch were separated by dividers, and if one of those leather dividers was removed, a magazine would easily fit in that larger space.  

If it came down to possibly saving one's life by having a quick reload available, I imagine Tommy wouldn't worry overly much about the possible later repercussions of having a damaged pouch!  (And in the event such a practice might be unofficially sanctioned, it seems mighty likely it would have happened.  So it certainly would not surprise me if a charged spare magazine was frequently carried in the 1899-1902 South African campaigns, even if the soldier happened to be issued with the latest pattern of pouches ....)

Ironically, none of this applies to Canadian troops engaged in the Second Boer War!

Most of the troops supplied by Canada were Mounted Infantry, at the specific request of the British War Department .... but the regular infantry who made up the bulk of the Canadian First Contingent were equipped with the standard Canadian-issue Oliver Equipment, which had only a single large center-mounted ammunition pouch without compartments.  So it would have easily accommodated a spare magazine, if such were available, especially since our infantry were also supplied with the very commodious "double stack" Mills bandolier to augment their ammunition carrying capability:


Our Mounted Infantry utilized bandoliers only ..... usually the standard British Pattern 1889 leather bandolier.  Troopers frequently had two such bandoliers so they could carry 100 rounds, but this chap actually has one bandolier of each type .... and thus could carry 150 rounds!

[Drydock]

Well, for our purposes, Tommy may carry his spare MLM/MLE magazine loaded and ready, however he may manage it!   

[RattlesnakeJack]

Egad!  Perhaps one of these days I ought to shoot my MLE, instead of floundering through with a black powder single shot!  

But then I wouldn't get nearly as much shooting time ......