Martini Henry

[Pete1052]

Occasionally threads on the evolution of military tactics, operational techniques and weapons technology transcend a specific war or point in time, so a bit of off-topic discussion ought to be tolerated and encouraged.

"Spray and pray" small arms fire pointed in the general direction of the enemy rather than disciplined aimed fire at actual or probable enemy locations (the latter being "Drake" shooting methods in the British service) continues to be a problem in military units today. The phenomenon was noted by the U.S. Army Ordnance Department circa 1864 shortly after the repeating Spencer carbine began to be issued to U.S. Cavalry units. Hence the Stabler Cut-off adopted for the Spencer. The British copied the magazine cut-off feature in some of its Enfield models and two bolt-action U.S. rifles had them until a design change circa 1941.

[4thGordons]

Occasionally threads on the evolution of military tactics, operational techniques and weapons technology transcend a specific war or point in time, so a bit of off-topic discussion ought to be tolerated and encouraged.

"Spray and pray" small arms fire pointed in the general direction of the enemy rather than disciplined aimed fire at actual or probable enemy locations (the latter being "Drake" shooting methods in the British service) continues to be a problem in military units today. The phenomenon was noted by the U.S. Army Ordnance Department circa 1864 shortly after the repeating Spencer carbine began to be issued to U.S. Cavalry units. Hence the Stabler Cut-off adopted for the Spencer. The British copied the magazine cut-off feature in some of its Enfield models and two bolt-action U.S. rifles had them until a design change circa 1941.

OK Pete - I'll bite as I have heard this claim from you and others before. Whilst clearly Lee was crucial as a designer is there really any evidence that "the British copied the magazine cut-off feature in some of it's Enfield models"

Alternative hypotheses seem plausible. Either 1) it is perfectly possible/ for two design teams to come up with similar answers to the same sorts of problems or 2)a similar solution be adopted to resolve two different problems (see below).

For example, on the former - is there any evidence that the designers of the M1903 and the SMLE copied each other when they both adopted an intermediate (between carbine and SMLE) length rifle at around the same time and contrary to the practice in most other nations?

The strongest evidence against your claim regarding the cut-off would seem to be be the intended purpose of the cut off: It has been posted here before (I think by Tom McCluskey) but in British service the cut-off appears to have been (at least by WWI) primarily intended as a safety device and explicitly not as fire control device.

To whit:

IAW Musketry Regs Part I, 1909 with 1914 Amendment, Page 104, Para 264.

Section 53 - Use of the Safety Catch and Cut-Off

Troops armed with rifles fitted with safety catches will invariably set the catch to safety before movement. The use of the cut-off is to be confined in their case to occasions when they are not actually engaged with the enemy, when it may be employed for the purpose of charging the magazine without inserting a cartridge in the chamber, or to unload the rifle while retaining cartridges in the magazine. It is never to be used to enable the rifle to be used as a single loader, and is not to supeceded the safety catch.

[emphasis added]

Chris

[Pete1052]

... is there any evidence that the designers of the M1903 and the SMLE copied each other when they both adopted an intermediate (between carbine and SMLE) length rifle at around the same time and contrary to the practice in most other nations?

No, there is no explict evidence to prove that. However, when U.S. Army Ordnance adopted the Model 1903 rifle I believe they were copying the example of the SMLE, to have a one-size-fits-all rifle for both Cavalry and Infantry, instead of two weapons.

The first magazine cut-off was designed in the U.S. and the British adopted one a couple of decades later. Was that a pure coincidence? Magazine cut-offs were never that great an idea in the first place because the "Spray and Pray" phenomenon has to be addressed during the training of soldiers and units, not in weapons design. There are occasions when a high volume of fire is a good thing but most of the time it amounts to having more misses per minute.

[4thGordons]

Magazine cut-offs were never that great an idea in the first place because the "Spray and Pray" phenomenon has to be addressed during the training of soldiers and units, not in weapons design. There are occasions when a high volume of fire is a good thing but most of the time it amounts to having more misses per minute.

Agreed, entirely - you are unlikely to modify behavior through an instrument.

But wouldn't the manual quote I posted above suggest that, in British service at least, they were not intended to address this ("Spray and Pray") issue. Thus "....the use of the cut-off is to be confined in their case to occasions when they are not actually engaged with the enemy,...it is never to be used to enable the rifle to be used as a single loader"

Chris

[Pete1052]

I'm inclined to believe that the purpose of magazine cut-offs evolved between 1865 and 1941 -- they were a feature of military rifles for a few decades and the doctrine and training for using them probably changed through the years.

In the absence of documentary evidence it's pointless for you and I to argue about what their purpose was. It turns into I-think and you-think speculation. The U.S. Army and Patent Office documentation about it from 1865 is obscure about their original purpose. There was probably a reason for them in 1865 that became increasingly irrelevant as time went on.

[4thGordons]

I would agree that their origins may be obscure and it is likely there were moodification in the use of cutoffs over their lifetime

In the absence of documentary evidence it's pointless for you and I to argue about what their purpose was.

and yes, "...in the absence of documentary evidence" you would be correct, discussion would be inconclusive (but perhaps not pointless). Which is why I tried to provide documentary evidence which spoke specifically to their purpose in the British Army in the pre WWI period, as cited above: IAW Musketry Regs Part I, 1909 with 1914 Amendment, Page 104, Para 264.

of course the Germans knew their "real purpose" -- to be used to break the tips of bullets thereby creating "dum-dums!"

Chris

[Pete1052]

I'm inclined to think that the Stabler Cut-off on Spencer weapons was intended to reduce ammunition expenditures. In 1865 the men of U.S. Army Ordnance saw clearly what magazine-fed repeaters portended for ammunition resupply and they tried to stop what has turned out to be an inevitable process. What had once been a few wagons supplying ammunition to a unit turned into five times as many wagons. In the blink of an eye we'd gone from the Brown Bess smoothbore to the M1 Garand semiautomatic rifle in terms of ammunition resupply. What it meant was the need for a massive increase in the personnel and equipment of Ordnance ammunition supply trains.

Doctrine and practices for the use of magazine cut-offs might well have changed a great deal from 1865 to 1941 -- what had originally started out as a fire-control measure turned into an increasingly superflous feature that was rarely used. Because the feature was there on the rifles the doctrine-writers had to say something about it in the manuals they wrote. What a British manual said about them in 1909 might have little to do with what their original purpose was in 1865.

[4thGordons]

Fair points all.

So - if it were possible to discover musketry regulations and or other official documents that refer to the use of the cut-off covering the period @1888 (about the earliest date they are fitted to British rifles I think) -1909 we might be able to establish 1) if there was indeed a doctrinal change and 2) when it happened?

If for example early musketry regs refer to the single loading, fire control role then your case would be made. If however they are similar to the 1909 doctrine specifically prohibiting this or offering another primary use your case would at very least (in Scotish terms) be "not proven". I will ask around and see what can be found.

Interestingly Skennerton (TLES p377)notes that it was the RSAF who added a cut-off to the trials versions of the "Improved Lee Rifle" (300they purchased from Remington in .43" Spanish calibre which were delivered in April 1887) Skennerton does indeed state here that the purpose was "to enable single loading as well as magazine fire"

Chris

[apple]

"Spray and pray"

Spray and Pray, no, no, no. I believe the term you're looking for, in modern military terminology, would be "maintaining fire superiority".

[Old Tom]

I'm still inclined to think that cut offs should have have been the subject of a new thread. However; if you can't beat them join them! I'm no expert on WWI and earlier rifles and as the cut off had long gone before I picked up a No 4 I would only offer an opinion. Given a rifleman in a defensive position with a rifle with a charged magazine with cut off closed (or were they shut). He could fire single hand loaded rounds at opportunity targets, and with a single simple movement have a full magazine available should a high rate of fire be needed. Justification for the device but not sufficient to maintain it in production when large numbers at minimum cost are needed.

Old Tom

[4thGordons]

I'm still inclined to think that cut offs should have have been the subject of a new thread. However; if you can't beat them join them! I'm no expert on WWI and earlier rifles and as the cut off had long gone before I picked up a No 4 I would only offer an opinion. Given a rifleman in a defensive position with a rifle with a charged magazine with cut off closed (or were they shut). He could fire single hand loaded rounds at opportunity targets, and with a single simple movement have a full magazine available should a high rate of fire be needed. Justification for the device but not sufficient to maintain it in production when large numbers at minimum cost are needed.

Old Tom

And this is the standard explanation one reads all over the place. But this is a description which, unless I am reading them incorrectly, appears to be flatly contradicted by the musketry regs of 1909(14) posted above which presumably informed training and practice.

Chris

[Pete1052]

The following was sent in a letter by U.S. Army Chief of Ordnance Brevet Maj. Gen. A.B. Dyer to the Secretary of War on July 31, 1866. It tends to support the theory that the first magazine cut-off in arms history was indeed a fire control measure.

"My attention was drawn to to the subject in the early part of October 1864 by the Assistant Secy. of War, who introduced to my notice Mr. Edward Stabler of Sandy Spring, Maryland, who had an improvement in magazine repeating arms, for which improvement he held a patent regularly issued. The improvement consisted of a magazine stop, whereby the repeating arms might be easily and readily converted into and used as single breech loaders, reserving the charges in the magazine for use in any emergency that might require it. I found this patent stop to be a desirable improvement to the Spencer arms which were being made under existing contracts, and I directed it to be applied to those arms in exact conformity with the specifications of Stabler's patent."

Source: Marcot, Roy, Spencer Repeating Firearms, Northwood Heritage Press, Irvine, Calif., 1990

[4thGordons]

The following was sent in a letter by U.S. Army Chief of Ordnance Brevet Maj. Gen. A.B. Dyer to the Secretary of War on July 31, 1866. It tends to support the theory that the first magazine cut-off in arms history was indeed a fire control measure.

Source: Marcot, Roy, Spencer Repeating Firearms, Northwood Heritage Press, Irvine, Calif., 1990

Excellent - thanks Pete.

Still looking for earliest refs in Brit. service.

Chris

[Pete1052]

By the way, the inventor of the cut-off, Edward Stabler of Sandy Spring, Maryland, was not just another guy with a good idea -- he was a friend of the former Secretary of War Simon Cameron. Sandy Spring is a Quaker enclave about 15 miles north of Washington DC. Stabler had access to the corridors of power in Washington in a way than an unknown inventor would not have. Stabler, an engraver and a Quaker, was incongruously an avid hunter and gun nut.

[Pete1052]

"....the use of the cut-off is to be confined in their case to occasions when they are not actually engaged with the enemy,...it is never to be used to enable the rifle to be used as a single loader."

By inference, that means that by circa 1909 in British service the purpose of the magazine cut-off was to allow units not engaged with the enemy to carry rifles with loaded magazines with the chambers left empty; with the cut-off engaged the bolt could safely be opened and closed without loading a round into the chamber. It would have had some usefulness as a safety feature to prevent negligent discharges because soldiers and NCOs could have checked the rifles to ensure they were not loaded without inserting a round when the bolt was closed. That of course is again speculation on my part.

At times in the past I've practiced aiming and dry firing semiautomatic pistols with a loaded magazine inserted into the grip but with the chamber left empty -- the ammo in the mag gives the weapons a more realistic heft and feel than were it empty. It gives me a creepy feeling though because even with empty chambers it's a bit too much like playing with loaded guns. Also the magazines on some German pistols have grip extensions on the mags and dry-firing without a mag inserted is unrealistic.

[bushfighter]

If any Member is still interested in the origins of this thread, here is a quote about hard extractions from Martinis, taken from Tim Wright's excellent The History of the Northern Rhodesia Police (page 110):

. . . Captain Fair was the crack shot of the force. He would lie on top of an anthill while a dozen or more askari would hand him their Martini-Enfields to fire, meanwhile struggling to eject the cartridge case by hooking the trigger guard on a tree stump.

Some of the former district police were still armed with the .450 Martini-Henry, but soon all those at the front were to be re-armed with the Long Magazine Lee Enfield, and before the end of the war with the SMLE, mainly the converted Mark IV, a cut down Long Lee Enfield.

Harry