Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

.303 rifle


PFF

Recommended Posts

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

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

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?

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

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

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

whether it was useful or not. I would certainly feel like I was a much scarier proposition.

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

:blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • 2 years later...

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

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

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...