'cut off' in English rifle produced dum-dum

[michaeldr]

'INSIDE CONSTANTINOPLE DURING THE DARDANELLES EXPEDITION' by LEWIS EINSTEIN, published by John Murray, London, 1917, is the diary of an American diplomat. It does not describe the actions at the front line, but rather, describes the comings and goings in the Ottoman capital, and the rumours and the diplomatic gossip in the city at that time. It is available as a download from archive.com

One point raised several times by Mr Einstein is the supposed use of dum-dum bullets. I have not yet finished reading the book, but so far all of the medical evidence which he quotes suggests that this weapon was NOT used

Eg: "Captain W. showed me the other day the jacket of an English bullet which after passing through the thigh of a man had mushroomed and resembled the photographs of so-called dum-dums circulated here. They probably mistook, in good faith or in bad, some similar bullet for what the Germans have told them are dum-dums."

Notwithstanding the above, Einstein also mentions

"Goppert, the German councillor, told me that … … … he had seen hundreds himself while he was fighting. He said the "cut off" in the English rifle, which allowed it to be converted at will from a single shot to a repeater, was used to nick the cartridges, and most German soldiers thought it intended only for that purpose. "

Can any of our experts translate and explain Goppert's theory for this layman

Thanks in advance

Michael

[centurion]

Appears to echo some German propaganda post cards http://www.flickr.com/photos/29007475@N08/3312196227/ As you can see the result is to produce a round that could not be loaded or fired.

[4thGordons]

It would be very, very difficult to use the cut off to "nick" or score a .303 ball (FMJ) bullet I think.

You could perhaps use the handle to try and bend the bullet as demonstrated in the pictures but I think it highly unlikely.

It is essentially a flat piece of metal a couple of millimeters thick, that pivots on a hinge - closing off the top of the magazine. The back edge is thinner and sometimes a bit sharp but to try and use it for anything other than cutting of the magazine would be very awkward, fully open it only projects from the receiver a couple of centimetres at max - it would be far easier to use a bayonet I should imagine - perhaps that is why every soldier was issued with them?

I'll take some pictures of a cut-off later if it would be useful.....I'll also try bending a bullet in the handle!!

Chris

[centurion]

And a pair of wire cutters, readily available, would do a much better job anyway

[4thGordons]

And a pair of wire cutters, readily available, would do a much better job anyway

However......

The cut-off

The before (POF MkVII)

The after (chambers OK) and bent without undue effort

The tip of MkVII is not solid lead under the jacket - various materials being used to fill the point.... not sure I would want to fire it and, as Centurion says, many other tools far more handy. I was however surprised at how easily the bullet bent!

Chris

[T8HANTS]

Weren't the earlier rifles, with mag shut off's designed to use the .303" MkVI round nose , how would they fit?

G

[4thGordons]

Indeed, an excellent point. I do not have a MkVI or earlier to try.

I have some soft-point (round nosed) commercial ammunition if they approximate the dimensions (I suspect the MkVI was thicker) ...they do "fit" although with significantly less of the bullet inside.

Chris

[centurion]

The tip of MkVII is not solid lead under the jacket - various materials being used to fill the point.... not sure I would want to fire it and, as Centurion says, many other tools far more handy. I was however surprised at how easily the bullet bent!

Chris

But that is not a dum dum - you would need to sheer the point off for that

[michaeldr]

Gentlemen,

Many thanks for your thoughts and for the photographs; you have been a big help to this lay-person in understanding Herr Goppert.

Just to complete the picture so to speak; iro his "most German soldiers thought it intended only for that purpose"

I understand that it can bend bullets, even if it is unlikely to decapitate them, but what is its proper use?

Thanks again

Michael

[4thGordons]

Gentlemen,

Many thanks for your thoughts and for the photographs; you have been a big help to this lay-person in understanding Herr Goppert.

Just to complete the picture so to speak; iro his "most German soldiers thought it intended only for that purpose"

I understand that it can bend bullets, even if it is unlikely to decapitate them, but what is its proper use?

Thanks again

Michael

Its proper use is to block the top of/depress (cut-off) the magazine. 10 rounds would be held loaded in the magazine "in reserve" whilst the rifle was fired (loading one at a time as in previous generations of rifles). I believe the idea might have been slower aimed fire (singly loaded) as an enemy approached from distance, switching to more rapid, magazine fed fire as they neared.

Probably largely outmoded by the introduction of charger loading (5 rounds held in a charger clip - and stripped down into the magazine in one swift action - almost as rapid as single loading) but retained on MLEs and SMLEs up until the approval of the MkIII* simplification in early 1916.

Chris

[michaeldr]

Chris,

To put it in terms of the infantry weapon which I know, it was sort of like the switch for changing from single shot to automatic?

Thanks again

Michael

[dave.ib_walker@ntlworld.co]

Its proper use is to block the top of/depress (cut-off) the magazine. 10 rounds would be held loaded in the magazine "in reserve" whilst the rifle was fired (loading one at a time as in previous generations of rifles). I believe the idea might have been slower aimed fire (singly loaded) as an enemy approached from distance, switching to more rapid, magazine fed fire as they neared.

Probably largely outmoded by the introduction of charger loading (5 rounds held in a charger clip - and stripped down into the magazine in one swift action - almost as rapid as single loading) but retained on MLEs and SMLEs up until the approval of the MkIII* simplification in early 1916.

Chris

As far as I've ever been made aware, the mag cut-off was a typical Victorian reflection on the inadequacies of the disreputable soldiery in so far as ammunition management was concerned, and was added to allow Officers to regulate rates of fire by ordering single rounds only to be fired, whilst maintaing the advantage of a charged magazine should rapid fire be called for. This would have been equally apllicable once charger loading was introduced, and hence a cut off was retained in all of the Magazine Lee Enfields up to and including the No1 Mk III (including the various conversions of earlier models to include a charger guide). The real reasons for doing away with it were 1) it was utterly redundant in the context of the tactical situation pertaining during the war (as opposed to Colonial policing) and 2) it added expense and complexity to manufacture when mass production was required - hence the cut-offs, windage rear sights and volley sights all disapperaing at the same time (though not with any great degree of uniformity!).

The effect of bending a bullet would surely be to make it monstrously inaccurate! As other respondents have said, it's much easier to take off the tip of the jacket or nick it deeply to expose the lead core. This would surely have a less disastrous effect on the ballistic properties and a greater effect on the explosive expansion of the round. Interesting to note that one commentator on the postcard pictures states boldly of Dum Dum bullets that "the British and French had them"; nothing like a little conjecture and balanced opinion! This is a propoganda piece pure and simple - I don't reckon you'd have to doctor too many rounds before you bent or broke the cut-off plate; why bother when there are easier ways?

Pics below are in response to T8HANTS' point earlier and show a Mk VI round being inserted in the same way - it fits, but there's not a great deal of the tip going in (stop sniggering!); I suspect that if I applied any force the rounded shape would probably cause it to pop out before it deformed much. Sadly I only have this clip of Mk VI and I'm not willing to bend it in the name of science! The second pic shows the furthest left round with a black pen mark indicating the depth of insertion into the cut-off plate handle. Hope this is of some interest.

[Andrew Upton]

I'm struggling to find my copy, but I recall reading a couple of years ago in the 1914 Musketry Regulations that the cut-off was never originally intended to be used to allow the rifle to be loaded and fired singly, and was specifically not to be used for that purpose, and was to be used only to allow the magazine to be removed safely. Someone else with access to a copy would be able to give chapter and verse.

[4thGordons]

I'm struggling to find my copy, but I recall reading a couple of years ago in the 1914 Musketry Regulations that the cut-off was never originally intended to be used to allow the rifle to be loaded and fired singly, and was specifically not to be used for that purpose, and was to be used only to allow the magazine to be removed safely. Someone else with access to a copy would be able to give chapter and verse.

Andrew

Now you mention it I recall something similar too....I hope I haven't misled....

Chris

[centurion]

Interesting to note that one commentator on the postcard pictures states boldly of Dum Dum bullets that "the British and French had them"; nothing like a little conjecture and balanced opinion! This is a propoganda piece pure and simple - I don't reckon you'd have to doctor too many rounds before you bent or broke the cut-off plate; why bother when there are easier ways?

Of course the French using solid (not jacketed) bullets could not have dum dums

The cut off was introduced before Munro and McMahon instituted a new regime of training based at Hythe from 1903 onwards. The original fear was, as has been stated elsewhere, that the untrained soldiery would blaze away at very little. Its easy to scoff today but experiences in WW2 when SMLEs were issued in emergency to troops untrained in musketry bear this worry out. For example a number of Indian support units were issued with SMLEs in order to assist in the defence of Kohima. After large numbers of bullets had been fired in many directions putting friendly troops at more risk than the enemy they were disarmed.

[Pete_C]

Andrew

Now you mention it I recall something similar too....I hope I haven't misled....

Chris

Yes chaps, you’re both correct – herewith that very page from the 1915 Musketry regulations. Regardless of how it may have been deployed in the field, the intended function of the cut-off was to enable the charging of the magazine without chambering a round or, the emptying of the chamber without stripping another round from the magazine when closing the bolt - indeed the rules are clear that the cut-off should not be used “when engaged with the enemy” nor should it ever be used “to enable the rifle to be used as a single loader”.

In the case of rifles without safety catches, e.g. Mk II charger loading Lee Metford, it could be deployed in lieu of a safety catch.

Cheers

Manxy

[Pete1052]

Probably the first magazine cut-off in firearms history was on U.S. Spencer carbines made by the Burnside Rifle Company and delivered to the U.S. Army in 1865. To my knowledge delivery of the carbines made under that Burnside contract began shortly after the war ended. The feature was called the Stabler cut-off and after the war was added as a modification to many of the U.S. Army's Spencer carbines and rifles that didn't have it. Then and now in the U.S. Army ammunition procurement, supply and distribution is an Ordnance responsibility--I speculate that when U.S. Army Ordnance Department officers realized how magazine-fed repeating arms on the battlefield would increase ammunition consumption they blinked and thought addition of the magazine cut-off might help to delay the inevitable.

The German theory that the purpose of the Enfield magazine cut-off was to produce so-called "dum-dums" was silly.

[centurion]

The Germany theory that the purpose of the Enfield magazine cut-off was to produce so-called "dum-dums" was silly.

But it was a 'good' propaganda line.

[John Thorne]

Yes chaps, you’re both correct – herewith that very page from the 1915 Musketry regulations. Regardless of how it may have been deployed in the field, the intended function of the cut-off was to enable the charging of the magazine without chambering a round or, the emptying of the chamber without stripping another round from the magazine when closing the bolt - indeed the rules are clear that the cut-off should not be used “when engaged with the enemy” nor should it ever be used “to enable the rifle to be used as a single loader”.

In the case of rifles without safety catches, e.g. Mk II charger loading Lee Metford, it could be deployed in lieu of a safety catch.

Cheers

Manxy

A comment here. The "intended" use of the cut-off, as stated in official documentation, changed over time. Earlier references do specifically direct that the cut-off be closed and the rifle be operated as a single loader. As as early as the introduction of the Lee-Metford Mk. II, though, the cut-off begins to be called as safety device. As far as I can tell, just about all references to the use of the cut-off for single fire use disappear after the "Trial of the One Thousand" (Short Rifle Trials) of 1902. In his report on the new design, Lord Kitchener made specific reference to the cut-off, which was omitted from the trials rifles, as a necessary safety device, and it was reintroduced for the SMLE on that basis. I'll dig out some of the early references and post them.

[Mk VII]

The Germans made a great play of this supposed use of the cut-off, particularly in neutral America, to counteract the Allied claims about 'frightfulness'