previous post next post  

More on rifle attachments.

By The Armorer on March 3, 2004 | | Comments (3)

The Commissar asks a question in a comment to the rifle pic below. The answer to his question leads to a new entry...

The Commissar had probably better stick to banking and aviation history...

The sharp pointy things don't interfere with shooting, though the
design of the Beaumont bayonet does reflect the muzzle-loading era when the
bayonet had to be offset so that the soldier could load the weapon.

No, the only bad ju-ju for the rifles in this pic would be if the
soldier firing the rodded grenade got excited and used a bullet rather than
a blank. That would cause some excitement, with minimum a bulged
barrel, and if the barrel didn't burst (they are pretty strong) the wood
might still shatter at the bulge, which would annoy the soldier and his
compadres. It happened often enough anyway when launching rodded
grenades that rifles no longer suitable for accurate fire were taken and had
the stocks wrapped in wire to prevent just that from happening.

Like the top rifle in this photograph, which is a SMLE with grenade discharger cup attached:

The other rifles are also British, second one down a SMLE with wire-cutter attachment, the next a No 4 Mk 1 with spike bayonet, and the one below that a No 5 Mk 1 Jungle Carbine with bayonet.

Share This Article:

Share |

Categories:

3 Comments

By Calliope on March 4, 2004 5:45 AM
I'm waiting for a post about that water-cooled machine gun myself. I have a couple of questions about that thing. Like how did they keep the water part from freezing in the winter in France and Korea? What happened if it DID freeze? Was it unuseable? And how hard is it to maintain with water and all - did it rust etc? And what the heck did they do...carry big cans of water around to pour in it? And did the water evaporate...or was it a closed system, and if it was closed how did that work? I assume it didn't have a pump. Does it have a radiator? Does the water just sit in that big...what is it anyway a cylinder surrounding the barrel? What rate of fire could they maintain before it got too hot? I've just never understood the use of water around a firearm like that.
 
By John of Argghhh! on March 4, 2004 6:17 AM
Guess I didn't cover that in my post about the Maxim. I'll cover most of it in a series on the Vickers. Short answer though... in the order you asked em: They didn't. They drained 'em and filled 'em as they needed to. The soviets modified theirs so they could stuff snow in the jacket. if it was full, the jacket would expand and sometimes crack - but you never kept them FULL, just about half-full in winter. Plenty of room. No. Normal maintenance against rust. Just more of it. Yes. Any water will do. It doesn't have to be drinkable. Yes, the water evaporates. You leave about a quarter of the water in the can, stick the end of the hose under the water, the steam condenses back into the can. When the can is over half-full, pour it back into the jacket. No radiator - see previous paragraph. The water just sits in the water jacket. As long as they could keep it supplied with water and bullets, they could fire at the max rate of the weapon. The limiting factor there is barrel life. In tests the Vickers fired some ridiculous number of hours continuously (I'd have to look it up) stopping only to change barrels. with water cooling, you don't have to change barrels as often, and can keep firing at the max rate of fire.
 
By triticale on March 5, 2004 7:29 AM
There are also rumors of other fluids being used in emergencies, but the nasty smell of hot urine does not go away after rinsing.