PFF Posted 21 September , 2005 Share Posted 21 September , 2005 IN WWI was the .303 rifle ever issued in a "Carbine" Version? What was the standard Bayonet issued with a .303? How may days/hours was alloted to Byaonet practice? Becasue of the nature of WWI warfare were bayonet wounds accounted for smallest percentage of Wounds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryK Posted 21 September , 2005 Share Posted 21 September , 2005 The SMLE was a shortnened version of the older MLE. I am not aware of any further shortening of the weapon. The standard bayonet in WW1 was the 1907 pattern. Not sure about bayonet training, but the percentage of wounds caused by bayonets was very very small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gew98 Posted 21 September , 2005 Share Posted 21 September , 2005 IN WWI was the .303 rifle ever issued in a "Carbine" Version? What was the standard Bayonet issued with a .303? How may days/hours was alloted to Byaonet practice? Becasue of the nature of WWI warfare were bayonet wounds accounted for smallest percentage of Wounds? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> PFF ; There was no carbine version of the No1 MkIII rifle in the great war. Some metford carbines were used in Ireland and probably to equip some cavalry in africa and possibly some in the mideast. The bayonet was a fairly ineffective weapon considering industrialized warfare as it was then.But when used it was rather lethal. Like at times bayoneting enemy as they attempted to surrender or after they surrenedered in an animal bloodlust moment during combat. Many veterans remebrances of the great war include such horrors of trench warfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted 22 September , 2005 Share Posted 22 September , 2005 I can't remember where I read it but some wit opined that: "no one was killed with the bayonet that didn't have his hands up first" Sure that's not true as they seem to have been used as knives in trench raids etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Moretti Posted 22 September , 2005 Share Posted 22 September , 2005 The SMLE replaced both the long rifle (30 inch barrel) and the carbine (21 inch barrel, if I recall correctly) in the early 1900's, and was a way for the infantryman and the cavalryman to be issued with a weapon that was accurate enough for the former and light enough for the latter. I don't know just how good or accurate the carbine was (or wasn't), but if it was any good, one wonders why they didn't just 'recycle' it instead of coming out with (what some people claimed was) the abomination of the No.5 (Jungle Carbine) in WW2. Of course they'd have needed to add clip loading, ensure compatibility with the full 10 round magazine and modify the feed ramp and sights for .303 MkVII etc, and by the time you do this, it's probably easier to use the much stronger (and more easily mass-producible) No.4 anyway. But at those ranges, who needs any more than (at most) a two-position peep backsight anyway? (I know this is getting a little off topic, but I've always wondered about Cavalry Carbine vs. Jungle Carbine, and now that the issue of the CC is raised... etc. etc.) As far as bayonets are concerned, it's fair to say that most armies probably devoted far more time to training in its use than actually proved worthwhile. Still, in a melee fought at zero range, where it takes two or three valuable seconds to load the next round, and said round will probably pass through the German to kill your mate behind him, it would be nice to know that you had a 'stabby' option on the end of your eight and a half pound club... And I would certainly like to have had mine fixed when the enemy came towards me, whether it was useful or not. I would certainly feel like I was a much scarier proposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted 23 September , 2005 Share Posted 23 September , 2005 whether it was useful or not. I would certainly feel like I was a much scarier proposition. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think you're right there. Even in my Army time, (70's 80's). We did bayonet stuff and it was all about promoting aggression. Contemporary accounts (1982) point to the use of the implement in the Falklands. OOPS! Sorry to pinch the 303 thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AB64 Posted 23 September , 2005 Share Posted 23 September , 2005 A friend of mine told me how he twice had to use the bayonet during trench clearing in the first Gulf War - he told me that he can still recall the feel and noise as he did it and even now it seemed to disturb him a bit talking about it, so even now it is a relevant weapon. When I used to visit a WW2 veteran who won the MM at Arnhem, I asked him about the action in which he won his award - the citation included the line "he attacked with bayonet and grenade" but when I asked he said he never even fitted his bayonet in action, so I am not sure if it was sometimes used to spice up stories a bit - not that his story needed spicing up - he took 6 men and attacked a platoon of 30 driving them off and causing many casualties but suffering none. Alistair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BatterySergeantMajor Posted 27 May , 2008 Share Posted 27 May , 2008 A while ago I read in an Australian War Diary, describing the Battle of Broodseinde (4th of October 17) that "bayonets were extensively used". Erwin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 27 May , 2008 Share Posted 27 May , 2008 I don't know just how good or accurate the carbine was (or wasn't), but if it was any good, one wonders why they didn't just 'recycle' it instead of coming out with (what some people claimed was) the abomination of the No.5 (Jungle Carbine) in WW2. Of course they'd have needed to add clip loading, ensure compatibility with the full 10 round magazine and modify the feed ramp and sights for .303 MkVII etc, and by the time you do this, it's probably easier to use the much stronger (and more easily mass-producible) No.4 anyway. But at those ranges, who needs any more than (at most) a two-position peep backsight anyway? By the time the No.5 was required the old MLM and MLE carbines were long gone, and as you say, with the No.4 in full production it was relatively easy to make the No.5 with essentially the same action with a few lightening cuts added. I do not understand why you call it an abonination though. True, it has a fairly hefty perceived recoil and there was the myth of the wandering zero, but it was fine for what it was designed for - a relatively short range battle rifle. You also comment on the two position backsight, but this was the Mark II backsight of the No4 rifle, fitted as a stopgap measure because of the delay in producing the Mark I back sight. The No.5 had a sliding aperture sight graduated to 800 yards. Although it would have been a retrograde step considering the evolution of self loading rifles, consideration had at one point been given to making the No.5 the standard army rifle. I have fired a Boer War era MLE cavalry carbine and the accuracy was fair, but not as good as I could get out of my No.5. Regards TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now