shotguns

[David B]

Hi,

were shotguns used much in battle. I thought they would have been an extremely effective weapon

during close encounters in a trench, and if so were automatic shotguns available during 14-18.

David/canberra

[TonyE]

There is no evidence that I know of British use of shotguns in trench warfare. As I have just posted in another thread, in 1915 Sir Hiram Maxim proposed an automatic device that fired shotgun like cartridges down a trench and could be fired when the enemy had gained our trench. It was considered to contravene the Hague convention though and only one example was purchased for trials.

By contrast, the Americans made considerable use of 12b shotguns for trench work. These were mainly Winchester Model 1897 pump guns and were fitted with a ventilated steel handguard and a M1917 bayonet. Some other makes were also used. The Germans considered this against the rules and complained vigourously. The usual load for these was OO buckshot, comprising nine .33" calibre balls per round.

Automatic shotguns were certainly available. The Browning A5 (which is still in production) was used by the RFC for training air gunners, as was another early automatic shotgun, the Winchester M1911.

Regards

TonyE

[MikB]

Hesketh Prichard the sniping jedi regarded the prospect with horror in 'Sniping In France'. He was concerned the Germans might start carrying them, but thought they had been dissuaded by the fact that Britain probably could get a lot more of them to the front than they could. The British, of course, would never initiate such a shameful practice. H-P also thought it against the Geneva convention.

"...plenty of excitement out in No Man's Land, what with machinegun bullets and rifle fire, without the added horror of a charge of small shot in the face."

People may snigger today, but the code of honour by which these people fought was real to them, and the cynicism we take for granted now was the exception then.

Regards,

MikB

[David B]

Hesketh Prichard the sniping jedi regarded the prospect with horror in 'Sniping In France'. He was concerned the Germans might start carrying them, but thought they had been dissuaded by the fact that Britain probably could get a lot more of them to the front than they could. The British, of course, would never initiate such a shameful practice. H-P also thought it against the Geneva convention.

"...plenty of excitement out in No Man's Land, what with machinegun bullets and rifle fire, without the added horror of a charge of small shot in the face."

People may snigger today, but the code of honour by which these people fought was real to them, and the cynicism we take for granted now was the exception then.

Regards,

MikB

Thanks guys for those replies, it sure is a changing world I dont think anyone would worry about the nicetities now, shoot

first and ask questions afterwards et al

David

[dman]

Hi,

were shotguns used much in battle. I thought they would have been an extremely effective weapon

during close encounters in a trench, and if so were automatic shotguns available during 14-18.

David/canberra

The US Army made extensive use of shotguns for outpost duty, patrols, trench raids and guarding of

prisoners/supply. Most were Winchester Model 1897 (with exposed hammer) and a few Remington

Model 10/Winchester Model 12 (Hammerless). Tests were made using semi auto recoil operated

Remington Model 11 (Browning A5).

All these (except Remington Model 11) were pump (slide) action. Guns were modifed for military service

by attaching sling swivels and slings. "Trench" guns had a ventilated hand grip over the barrel and

a bayonet mount attached under the barrel. Barrels lenght was normally 20 inches (some had longer

barrels).

The Winchester 1897 had one particular feature - it lacked a trigger disconnector. Holding the trigger

down gun would fire as soon as round chambered. A good man could empty the magazine of 6 rounds

(5 in tube, 1 in chamber) in 3 seconds by stroking the action.

So effective as weapons that when US commander John J Pershing asked one commander what he needed

responded wanted more shotguns. Germans were incensed by this barbaric Yankee terror weapon that

sent protest note warning anyone captured with shotgun or its ammunition would be executed as terrorist

US responded that shotgun was not forbidden by Hague convention and had long history - threatened to

take reprisals against German prisoners if Germany carried out it threat

Ammunition was 9 pellet 00 buckshot - shells were cardboard bodied which in the trenches absorbed water and swelled up or became soggy. A brass case round was developed, but too late for service

Definitive book on topic is "UNITED STATES COMBAT SHOTGUNS" by Bruce N Canfield. Covers all models

of American military shotguns from colonial ( Washington ordered that colonial soldiers load cartridges for

muskets with 4 to 8 "buckshott" in addition to musket ball)

[Gunner Bailey]

There is no evidence that I know of British use of shotguns in trench warfare. As I have just posted in another thread, in 1915 Sir Hiram Maxim proposed an automatic device that fired shotgun like cartridges down a trench and could be fired when the enemy had gained our trench. It was considered to contravene the Hague convention though and only one example was purchased for trials.

By contrast, the Americans made considerable use of 12b shotguns for trench work. These were mainly Winchester Model 1897 pump guns and were fitted with a ventilated steel handguard and a M1917 bayonet. Some other makes were also used. The Germans considered this against the rules and complained vigourously. The usual load for these was OO buckshot, comprising nine .33" calibre balls per round.

Automatic shotguns were certainly available. The Browning A5 (which is still in production) was used by the RFC for training air gunners, as was another early automatic shotgun, the Winchester M1911.

Regards

TonyE

Totally agree Tony though one article I read said the balls were .32. I think the best description of this weapon was the one that emerged at the time - 'Trench Broom'. Dmans post pretty well completes the picture.

Gunner Bailey

[TonyE]

Hi GB

According to the Eley Kynoch catalogue (mid sixties vintage), 00 Buck had a diameter of .332" or 8.5mm, and weighed 8 to the ounce. I will check back to my earlier WWI catalogues to see if it changed at all over the years. One US source gives diameter of .33" and 115/lb, so much the same.

Regards

TonyE

[Gunner Bailey]

Hi GB

According to the Eley Kynoch catalogue (mid sixties vintage), 00 Buck had a diameter of .332" or 8.5mm, and weighed 8 to the ounce. I will check back to my earlier WWI catalogues to see if it changed at all over the years. One US source gives diameter of .33" and 115/lb, so much the same.

Regards

TonyE

Tony

It was probably the .332 that stuck in my memory. I'd not heard of .33 shot before.

John

[TonyE]

A bit OT, but when the British were fighting the Communist insurgents in Malaya in the early 1950s, an operational research based investigation was conducted to find the most effective weapon for jungle patrolling.

The weapons in use were the L-E No.5 (Jungle Carbine), Sten (Mainly Mark V), Bren and Browning automatic shotgun. The result showed the shotgun was by far the best weapon. They also used SG loads (British terminology for 00 Buckshot). The cardboard cases are usually grey with a large broad arrow and "SG" printed on the side.

BTW, dman, Bruce Canfield says that there is no evidence that Winchester Model 12s ever were purchased by the US army in WWI. There is no documentation nor examples with WWI ordnance acceptance marks.

Regards

TonyE

[MikB]

The weapons in use were the L-E No.5 (Jungle Carbine), Sten (Mainly Mark V), Bren and Browning automatic shotgun. The result showed the shotgun was by far the best weapon. They also used SG loads (British terminology for 00 Buckshot). The cardboard cases are usually grey with a large broad arrow and "SG" printed on the side.

Tony,

I recall hearing as a cadet, I think authoritatively, that there was a poisoned buckshot load in use by the British in that conflict. Anyone surviving a penetrating hit needed to get medical attention within 24 hours (presumably the antidote was widely available) to avoid being killed by the poison.

This was, I think, told to me on an official Armourer's course in 1967. Are you aware of any truth in it? Frankly, I'd hope it's a myth....

Regards,

MikB

[Gunner Bailey]

Tony,

I recall hearing as a cadet, I think authoritatively, that there was a poisoned buckshot load in use by the British in that conflict. Anyone surviving a penetrating hit needed to get medical attention within 24 hours (presumably the antidote was widely available) to avoid being killed by the poison.

This was, I think, told to me on an official Armourer's course in 1967. Are you aware of any truth in it? Frankly, I'd hope it's a myth....

Regards,

MikB

In breach of the Geneva convention, but then so were the terrorists!

Gunner Bailey

[SiegeGunner]

I recall hearing as a cadet, I think authoritatively, that there was a poisoned buckshot load in use by the British in that conflict. Anyone surviving a penetrating hit needed to get medical attention within 24 hours (presumably the antidote was widely available) to avoid being killed by the poison.

This sounds like a myth that may have been officially promoted in order to encourage lightly-wounded insurgents to break cover and seek medical attention. Almost certainly more to do with psychology than toxicology ...

[truthergw]

In breach of the Geneva convention, but then so were the terrorists!

Gunner Bailey

I never heard that one. There were stories of Dyaks from North Borneo/Brunei who were not discouraged from headhunting. As far as the Bandits were concerned, they were never asked to sign the Geneva conventions so could not be in breach of it.While on patrol or in ambush, I hope they had a very steady man carrying the shotgun. I think I would have always had one eye on where he was and where was I in relation to his scatter.

[centurion]

Somewhere I've seen an account of some British junior officers carrying privately purchased shot guns when going over the top. The theory seems to have been that carrying a long gun made one less obvious to enemy snipers etc and heavy buck or deer shot would be more useful in trench clearing than a rifle. Not an official policy. I'll try and remember where I saw this and dig it out if possible.

[TonyE]

I think Mick has made a good point about the psychology of the story. I have not come across it before, and certainly have not come across any "poison" ammunition. Perhaps though it was just a squaddies myth because even light wounds in jungle heat and humidity would soon turn septic.

Centurion; I have not heard that before although it would make sense. Usually one reads of them carrying rifles to be less distinguishable as "skinny legs".

Regards

TonyE

[Wardog]

The fiction book 'Other Paths To Glory' by Anthony Price, features officers armed with shotguns on the Somme. Had he based that on some truth? Cheers, Paul.

[Wardog]

Before my RAF basic training pass out we were told not to clean our bayonets with brasso as that was against the convention!

[centurion]

The fiction book 'Other Paths To Glory' by Anthony Price, features officers armed with shotguns on the Somme. Had he based that on some truth? Cheers, Paul.

I remember that (although its not the source I'm referring to) Price was a keen historian (a couple of minor characters in that book are based on WW1 vets that used to live near my old home) and tried to base his books on a sound factual background. Perhaps we both read the same source.

[dman]

Tony,

I recall hearing as a cadet, I think authoritatively, that there was a poisoned buckshot load in use by the British in that conflict. Anyone surviving a penetrating hit needed to get medical attention within 24 hours (presumably the antidote was widely available) to avoid being killed by the poison.

This was, I think, told to me on an official Armourer's course in 1967. Are you aware of any truth in it? Frankly, I'd hope it's a myth....

Regards,

MikB

The "poison round" is a myth - actually it was infected wounds caused by shotgun pellets. The fetid

jungle climate and lack of cleanliness combined to create conditions for even minor wounds becoming

infected. Supposedly SAS created mixed round of half (4) buckshot with remainder smaller "T" pellets

(.20") The heavier buckshot would carry farther and penetrate the jungle better, while smaller pelllets

gave larger pattern and better chance to wound.

[4thGordons]

Re poisoned ammunition. I suspect this is a long running myth.

An old chap I used to chat with when I was at school (a WWII veteran who was in the RAF and went over quite soon after D-Day to set up advanced airfields) told me he had found and kept some "German - Poisoned bullets". He showed them to me and to me they appeared to be wooden bulletted 7.92mm mauser rounds which I assumed were some form of training or "blank" round. I suggested as much, but he maintained that they were special poisoned rounds. He was a nice chap and had good stories (and used to come into the library where I was working at the weekends and tell them which was also good!) so I didn't contradict him further.

BTW lead IS poisonous/toxic isn't it? so perhaps not all myth

Chris

[Gunner Bailey]

I think worth raising in this thread are the tactics the US shotgun teams used. The team composition and roles was clearly a development of the british bombing team from a couple of year earlier and just as effective.

Gunner Bailey

[TonyE]

The "poison round" is a myth - actually it was infected wounds caused by shotgun pellets. The fetid

jungle climate and lack of cleanliness combined to create conditions for even minor wounds becoming

infected. Supposedly SAS created mixed round of half (4) buckshot with remainder smaller "T" pellets

(.20") The heavier buckshot would carry farther and penetrate the jungle better, while smaller pelllets

gave larger pattern and better chance to wound.

What do you mean by "T" pellets? A shot with a diameter of .20" would be AAA size (actually .203").

I am not saying it did not happen, but unpacking and reloading a 12b cartridge seems unlikely. Perhaps just another "SAS myth"?

Regards

TonyE

[gothic69]

I recall hearing as a cadet, I think authoritatively, that there was a poisoned buckshot load in use by the British in that conflict. Anyone surviving a penetrating hit needed to get medical attention within 24 hours (presumably the antidote was widely available) to avoid being killed by the poison.

This was, I think, told to me on an official Armourer's course in 1967. Are you aware of any truth in it? Frankly, I'd hope it's a myth....

Hi,

Small slow moving projectiles cause high rates of infection because the low heat of the projectile being fired isnt enough to sterilize the bullet and the pure lead bullet is extremely toxic. This why Mossad used 0.22 LR round in their assassination squads because they if the bullet didnt kill the target the infection/blood poisioning would. Possible reason?

Ian

[centurion]

An American firm (I think it was the Automatic Machine Company) in 1916 acturally advertised that their shells were made of a form of steel that would guarantee suppricating wounds from the splinters and tried to sell the stuff to both sides - charming business people!

[truthergw]

A shotgun was a very familiar weapon to the class providing most of the officers. A trench or dugout such an ideal place to use a shotgun, especially a sawn off ( Not the Purdey, Jenkins) that it would be common sense to combine them. I have not heard of Germans using them, did they perhaps really believe they were in contravention of the Conventions? As mentioned earlier, the damp conditions of the trenches might have made storing waxed cardboard ammunition a problem but not the heavy bore, brass cartridge. Was there perhaps a shortage of shotgun cartridges during the war?