Landships II

Hi James, an excellent find the same guy also has manuals for the portable hotchkiss with some interesting pictures of Belgian Cavalry..

The Rexer rings a bell though..... clearly the British didnt use madsens

Cheers

-- Edited by Ironsides on Monday 29th of March 2010 07:46:40 PM

James H wrote:

---

Rect - yes the pics of the Rexer are most interesting. The manual has the date 1905 hand-written on the title page, which makes sense. The hat is puzzling me, too. Something rings a bell about British cavalry and slouch hats, but I can't remember exactly what. The case continues.

---

Sorry, venturing a trifle off-topic on uniforms with some pondering prior to convergence.  Hat, khaki fur felt, prior to WW1 - mostly City (or County?) of London Volunteers of the Australasian persuasion from what is more readily apparent - but the 3rd Volunteer Battalion The Gloucestershire Regiment is also documented though the rest of their uniform was quite different I think.  So much is lost/awaiting rediscovery.  Even the 'distinctive' fore-and-aft' bash (with or without the side dimples) is far from being actually distinctive.

In colonial times tiny badges of various designs were used by some Australian units for the brim fastener turn-up but the recognizable and highly visible 'rising sun' badge was in place by 1902, in time for the Commonwealth Horse contingent to the 1902 Coronation - but as a specific CH badge. From 1904 the badge that was worn in both world wars was the official 'general service' badge for all army units though when/how it was 'rolled out' I don't know and certainly volunteer units retained their badges in peace-time service.

New Zealander Samuel Begg's once-famous etching "Sons of the Blood" is said to have contained a comprehensive sampling of all the regiments and detachments involved in the Boer War (as at 1899/1900?) but good luck finding an un-cropped copy on the internet.  A relatively un-cropped depiction is shown at http://www.military-art.com/mall/more.php?ProdID=7265 but small, low-resolution.  Even there it is cropped.  A book copy I have is differently cropped but shows the bloke next to (to the left of) that splendid NSW Lancer, lower left, is a sergeant, with right arm fully visible, and most of the Lee Metford (?) he is grasping too.  I'm not aware that anyone has ever identified and recorded all of those uniforms in that picture but it is getting pretty rare these days anyway, perhaps it is too late already.  And the picture may be just a couple of years too early to help with that strange slouch-hatted figure anyway (assuming Begg was accurate in the first place - but I think he was).

So, some wild conjecture, we could be looking at an Australian ordnance representative at the British trials, in pre-1904 kit, sort of 'faking it' as mounted infantry on a borrowed horse for the purpose of the exercise.  That would explain the lack of a visible hat badge or collar badges.  The turf and trees don't look Australian but (I may be kidding myself) the tents look about right for Australian service circa 1900.  A thoroughly unreliable assessment, if I do say so myself.

 

kieffer wrote:

---

Hi Rectalgia, the Japanese had their Type 96 (1936) with a bayonet on it, so it seems that concept was still alive after ww1. But it looks odd as do bayonets on sub machine guns too like the Sten Mk2 or the Swiss Rexim.

---

Indeed, it has always amused me about the bayonets on SMGs (or MCs - machine carbines - as we called them once).  The knife type, fair enough - (American) research once found those were about the last item to be discarded in extremity.  It is more for morale and general utility as a blade.  But the spike type? Well, better than a pointy stick I suppose.  But getting altogether too close to the foe in my view - and no match for most armed opposition.  But I'm a bit of a fan of the bayonet really - applauded when they (Americans) fitted their old P17s to shotguns again in Vietnam though I don't know that any one of these odd applications (shotgun, SMG) was ever seriously used in battle.  I suppose they must have been, in melee situations. We don't think about melees much in these forums but they were ever very much part of battle in all ages.

-- Edited by Rectalgia on Tuesday 30th of March 2010 09:02:28 AM

Just to note the tunic looks okay for an Australian (and buttoned to the collar which is correct). No hat badge or collar badges (as mentioned before), nor shoulder titles - but they might only be expected for specific formations like Commonwealth Horse?  Can't make out his qualification badge(s) but certainly not the hammer and tongs of an armourer/artificer which was one thought. One other thing - he is wearing riding boots, not standard boots and puttees.  Perhaps an improvisation, perhaps not. And another one other thing - the chin strap looks right for Australian - buckle at about the level of the mouth on the left side.

But, after all that, Australian evaluation of the Rexer in Britain may have taken place a little later than 1905 and it may have been a little more low-key.

The Advertiser (Adelaide) - Monday 4 June 1906

THE MILITARY FORCES.

A NEW MACHINE GUN.

Melbourne. June 3.

The Commonwealth Government have under consideration the adoption of a new automatic machine gun, the "Rexer," which has been adopted by the Japanese army, and is now under the notice of the British War Department. Writing from London, under date April 27, Captain Collins has sent to Senator Playford full particulars and photographs of this deadly arm. The price of the "Rexer" automatic machine gun, complete with the usual spare parts, is £80. When the weapon is carried on horseback special gun buckets and ammunition wallets are necessary, but as the arm is especially useful to infantry, and is fired by men lying flat on the ground with the barrel raised by a sort of tripod, the cost of the cavalry accessories need not be taken into consideration at the outset. The principal advantages claimed for the "Rexer" over all other machine guns at present in use are as follow:

1. Its extreme lightness (18 lb.) and portability, combined with the highest rapidity of fire (15 shots per second).

2. It can be easily carried by a man on the march either on foot or horseback.

3. The ease and rapidity, with which it can be brought into action, fired, and moved to new positions.

4. It cannot be distinguished by the enemy from an ordinary rifle.

5. It affords no greater target than the   rifle, and is therefore much less liable than other machine guns to be put out of action.

6. Neither a wheeled carriage nor horse transport is required.

7. Its extreme lightness of recoil. No ammunition waggons are used, for the ammunition for the gun is carried in the magazines:

The gun is very easily handled, and the marksman lying prone could be sheltered by a few shovelfuls of earth. Both the King and Prince of Wales have personally inspected experiments made with the new gun, and the Army Council experts in England appear to be most favorably impressed with it. The Minister of Defence will probably order a couple of guns to be shipped to Melbourne for experimental work in Australia.

Bearing in mind that South Africans wore slouch hats too - Rexers were used in South Africa (although there was some confusion over what was a Madsen and what was a Rexer in some parts of the world).  The Nelson Evening Mail (9 April 1907) reported the use of an unspecified number of Rexers by "Natal Colonial troops" in the 1906 Natal (Zulu) uprising.  The South African Historical Journal (Volume 49, Issue 1, November 2003) mentions that 16 Rexers were used in two sections under the command of Captains Bullock and Sakers during the South African Rebellion of 1914-15 (or perhaps in the invasion of German South West Africa, the stories are interwoven and the Journal wants money before parting with the article).

Heh, as an aside Andrew Fisher, then Australian Prime Minister, secretly offered to send Australian troops to South Africa to lend a hand, sure that they had a fearsome reputation after their work there during the Boer War.  He was gently told that Australian troops were not welcome there, their reputation was more for thievery than for fighting. "O wad some Power the giftie gie us, / To see oursels as ithers see us!"  That's the same Andrew Fisher, who in 1919 as Australian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, fiercely pressed Lloyd George over the virtual dismissal of Lancelot de Moles' tracked tank invention.

[EDIT] Ah yes, this page from the Danish Military Historical Society says "In 1906, a committee of citizens from Natal, resident in London, purchased 8 Rexer guns which were afterwards sent to Natal." and the Rebellion and German South West Africa Order of Battle includes two Rexer sections:
Rexer Moter (sic) Cycle G.S.W.A. Northern and Central Force
Rexer G.S.W.A. Northern and Ceantral (sic) Force (Central 26.12.14, Swakopmund 25.1.15).

Incidentally, the Danish source refers to a 1906 Rexer Handbook, unhappily no longer linked.  The 1905 date on the one we see now may not be correct (on the other hand, since it contains minor corrections it may be correct for an initial version).

Note also reference in the Danish page to licencing problems with the British Rexer forcing the company to cease production.

Also there is reference in the Society of the Military Horse links in the Danish page to the saddle-bucket for the gun being rigged for colonial saddles, as distinct from the (British) Universal Pattern saddles. That has to be significant, if correct (and I would not doubt it). Australians used the UP saddle from 1912, maybe earlier.

Small pieces of the puzzle ...

-- Edited by Rectalgia on Wednesday 31st of March 2010 04:20:57 AM

kieffer wrote:

---

... was Rexer only the dealer ( the Madsens going abroad went under their name mostly) or did Rexer built Madsens themselves? ...

---

The Danish reference I posted says Rexer built the things in Britain themselves without the benefit of a licence and stopped doing that when they were sued. They may have assembled a few more from parts supplied by Rexer Switzerland who was a distributor only.

kieffer wrote:

---

... There were by the way, 3 different chambers, Rectalgia...and the Australians had Madsens, hadn't they?
I remember I saw a picture somewhere, must look that up.

---

There were more than 3. You name a military rifle cartridge in front-line use anywhere 1904-1951 and there was probably a Madsen chambered for it, 6.5mm to 8mm. "... sold in 34 countries in a dozen different calibers." according to Small Arms of the World 1973 (WHB Smith, revised JE Smith).

According to Smith & Smith it was used by Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Holland, Honduras, Hungary, Indonesia, Italy, Lithuania, Mexico, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, Uruguay and Yugoslavia.

It is highly probable Australia obtained a small number of Rexers for evaluation about 1906/7. As far as I know Australia never officially adopted the Madsen, using the Lewis in that LMG role in WW1 and the Bren in WW2. A photo of a Madsen in Australian operational use (other than a borrowed British or French one) would indicate differently.

It (or the Rexer) was probably evaluated by many more countries in addition to those that adopted it but the USA and Japan are the only two I have seen mentioned.

[On edit]

kieffer wrote:

---

still a bit of a mystery I guess: I read that the British did some trials with the Madsen amongst others in the 30's, eventually deciding for the (later) Bren. If that's true, than it's hard to assume they already had some.
...

---

The British purchased Madsens in models 1915, 1919, 1929, 1931 and 1939. So, I'm guessing the word "trial" applying to the Madsen is a slight misnomer to the extent that they knew the Madsen already - but that's NOT the same as a side-by-side comparison with others. I'm thinking that, after the 1905/7 contretemps, a part of their supply concerns would be the ability (or lack of it) to obtain manufacturing licences. Of course anyone who ever used a Bren fell in love with it (I still pine but the authorities insist that is insufficient "reason to possess"). I'm not sure if the Madsen ever inspired such attachment.


-- Edited by Rectalgia on Thursday 1st of April 2010 08:07:19 AM

Rectalgia wrote:

---

 

---

---

The British purchased Madsens in models 1915, 1919, 1929, 1931 and 1939. So, I'm guessing the word "trial" applying to the Madsen is a slight misnomer to the extent that they knew the Madsen already - but that's NOT the same as a side-by-side comparison with others. I'm thinking that, after the 1905/7 contretemps, a part of their supply concerns would be the ability (or lack of it) to obtain manufacturing licences. Of course anyone who ever used a Bren fell in love with it (I still pine but the authorities insist that is insufficient "reason to possess"). I'm not sure if the Madsen ever inspired such attachment.

Hi Rectalgia,
I read that after ordering 200 Madsens in Denmark, by the British, Rolls Royce got involved, planning to build the Madsen in cooperation with the Danish manufacturer DRRS (Dansk Rekyl-Riffel Sydicat).
Drawings and technical information were given after a long period and were not that accurate so the project was skipped in 1916.
There must have been even a proposition to move the DRRS company to England.
I don't know about supply problems, but one major problem was a technical one, the British rimmed cartridge causing trouble with the vertical breech block. Apart from being not appropriate as an aircraft gun and the low firing rate.
I don't hope that I mention things here already posted in one of the various treads..if so apologise for that.

Regards Kieffer

---

 

Hi All. I do believe it was the mention of the Rexer in the Natal report where I read about it before but didnt really make the connection or simply forgot about it, I get sidetracked way to easy...

A good gun I think and very underated...

Theres an article there as well about the problems of obtaining the  gun in 1915...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/10873444/britain-the-madsen-machine-gun-191418#

Cheers

-- Edited by Ironsides on Friday 2nd of April 2010 12:58:16 AM

Ironsides wrote:

---

...A good gun I think and very underated...

Theres an article there as well about the problems of obtaining the  gun in 1915...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/10873444/britain-the-madsen-machine-gun-191418

---

Cheers Ironsides - again, great information and covers all of the matters raised recently by Kieffer (not that we ever doubted him ...). Hmmm ... yes Rexer Switzerland produced, not just in distribution as I had said.

Perhaps at the end of the day the Madsen was sufficiently different in performance characteristics and capability from the more readily-available weapons within the fluid/emergent supply chain to challenge the relative comfort of Britain's war planners and battlefield tacticians. And Rolls Royce was more use doing what they did best. I'm sure that's what the Chief of the Imperial General Staff would be thinking. And maybe it was at least as much about keeping it out of the hands of the Central Powers for the duration of "the present hostilities"?

I remain puzzled by reference in the above to the 'difficulties' with rimmed cartridges (noting the Austrian 8x50R Mannlicher for the Bulgarian guns is yet another rimmed round - NOT the same as the French 8x50R Lebel). Those difficulties were not at all evident in any of the reported trials and demonstrations.

There were exigent times when there was a distinct superiority in quality of 'machine gun' cartridges and perhaps the use of 'rifle' quality rounds in the Madsen might contribute to such comments. Exactly the same could be said in relation to any machine gun of course, that's (one of the reasons) why there was designated machine gun ammunition in the first place.

Clutching at straws perhaps but there is a discrepancy between the virtually faultless trials reports and other overwhelmingly positive accounts of demonstrations both verbatum and second-hand (not to mention the fact the gun was initially designed for the rimmed Danish round) and this virtual throw-away, non-sequitur line of discourse about 'technical difficulty' with the rimmed rounds.

It is fascinating to see the effect of demand and transportation risk on price (and the consequent elasticity of price-demand). From a prospective unit price of £80 at the time of the 1905 trials it shot up to £239 then £256 with wartime supply from Denmark (admittedly with an extra barrel and probably more spares). Then dropping to £100 per unit with prospective supply from Britain and with further volume reduction to £85 pencilled in.

But yes, a 'good gun' indeed, as its 50-year production run would attest. By comparison, the FN-derived L2A1 "AR" to replace the Bren in British and Commonwealth service in the 1960s was an unmitigated disaster. Whatever its service life, that was by how much it was too long. Not the Belgian original necessarily, but certainly the Australian-licenced manufactured version and (judging by short service life) probably the British and Canadian(?) as well.

The problem was receiver stretch and we don't like to talk about it. The same thing even affected the L1A1 SLR but naturally took a little longer to show up. That's an illustration of what I meant earlier when I said the LMG was possibly the most demanding of small arms formats. Anyway, it was a metallurgical problem and one which was eventually cured but too late, the damage to reputation and confidence had already been done (well, that's my 'take' on matters).

I wonder if part of the Rolls Royce problems with specifications might have been metallurgical too. Reading between the lines in Ironsides' referenced report it is easy to imagine so. "Rolls Royce doubted if the Danes themselves knew the formulae, or the properties ...". That could refer to many things but, as we know from the L2A1, precise metallurgical specification and replication was not a simple thing, even much later.

James H wrote:

---

. . . which I linked to in the original post. It explains about the Rexer company, Rolls-Royce, and everything.

You're starting to forget things, Ivor.

---

Me too


-- Edited by Rectalgia on Friday 2nd of April 2010 08:59:39 AM

Rectalgia wrote:

---

 

I remain puzzled by reference in the above to the 'difficulties' with rimmed cartridges (noting the Austrian 8x50R Mannlicher for the Bulgarian guns is yet another rimmed round - NOT the same as the French 8x50R Lebel). Those difficulties were not at all evident in any of the reported trials and demonstrations.

Hi Steve, generally rimmed cartridges were a bit of a problem in magazine fed weapons, you can't get them smooth on each other just because of the protruding rim. Here the problem was at the beginning the quality of the round itself, a tendency to get bend during chambering and causing trouble by ejecting afterwards. I think you're right with:

There were exigent times when there was a distinct superiority in quality of 'machine gun' cartridges and perhaps the use of 'rifle' quality rounds in the Madsen might contribute to such comments. Exactly the same could be said in relation to any machine gun of course, that's (one of the reasons) why there was designated machine gun ammunition in the first place.

Rate of fire as you mentioned already: I think that was always a relative item. High rate costs lots of ammo, barrel wear, cooling problems. I heard that for instance the German M42, a 'big spender', was listened carefully to by Allied soldiers, knowing how long it could fire till barrels had to be changed, giving some opportunity to attack.
The Madsen was a bit 'slow' with 400/m but many others were mostly around 500/m. A very slow gent was the Chauchat with 250/m...
I think that tactically there was a difference in LMG and heavy's, the first being much more mobile. Short burst of fire and may be changing position is another thing than sustaining fire. But I guess you know the Bren by your service days and therefore you're the expert here. I heard that practise was firing short bursts, 5 rounds each and pause?
May be high firing rate is more important with aircraft guns, for which the Madsen was evaluated too, but not suited as you can't fire it 'upside down'.
Some later Madsen's had a muzzle device to increase the gas power, which resulted again in torn shells. The problem was solved by oiling the ammo, this again causing trouble with dust and the powder residue ..I wonder how they did that, keeping the oiled ammo in some sealed cases or something? Or was there an oil flask in the kit?

regards Kieffer

 

kieffer wrote:

---

...I think that tactically there was a difference in LMG and heavy's, the first being much more mobile. Short burst of fire and may be changing position is another thing than sustaining fire. But I guess you know the Bren by your service days and therefore you're the expert here. I heard that practise was firing short bursts, 5 rounds each and pause?

---

Yeah, LMGs were fully integrated into the "fire and movement" of rapid advance or retreat at section level. The Madsen was unusual in being able to sustain fire for extended periods, making it a sort of magazine-fed GPMG ahead of its time, going by the hyperbole of the trials reports. Not a lot of call for that in fire and movement - can't keep the ammo up anyway (relatively low cyclical rate still chews through a heck of a lot if you fire a whole magazine at a time). Monash introduced aerial re-supply towards the end of WW1 - but you still can't afford to 'prop' when you ought to be moving, according to doctrine.

Australian doctrine with the Bren was for 3-round bursts routinely but you might be right that slightly longer were more usual in combat (fortunately I never got to find out). 3-round bursts were easily done with a tap on the trigger - in fact we were encouraged to practice single-round taps with the selection lever set to full automatic and no cheating (just a skill game). Same with the AR - when the mongrel thing could be coaxed into full auto at all that was. I think all armies would use them similarly, when there were such 'full calibre' LMGs as the "squad automatic weapon" as some called them.

Barrel conservation was another consideration with the 'lights' - the Bren had a quick-change barrel but we had no extras to change to. The AR didn't have that facility anyway - and it operated from a closed breach so that discouraged successive long bursts (rounds might start to 'cook off' without the trigger being operated). Did I mention it was a mongrel thing? The Madsen of course had the quick-change barrel and was apparently supplied with a spare.


-- Edited by Rectalgia on Friday 2nd of April 2010 07:59:45 PM

Brennan wrote:

---

My limited work with a Bren we always had a spare (in the few "realistic" exercises our "old sweats" often managed to make shure we had 2)...

---

Ah, so that's where *our* spares got to!

Brennan wrote:

---

PS for a while the fight in the infantry was to aviod getting the Brens converted to belt feed. The true LMG's were much prefered!

---

I didn't know/had forgotten that conversion existed or was considered. .303 or 7.62mm? A lot of change when there were perfectly adequate GPMGs already available. Still, I suppose you had to use up all those spare barrels somehow...

One or two Australian units clung to the 7.62mm version of the Bren (the L4..) as long as they could but that was a magazine-feed LMG, same as before.

just took a quick look at these wonderful drawings, so my first impression might be a total miss: it looks like a mixture of the Martini rolling block and Winchester repeating system...

Thank you Ironsides, again an interesting patent you've found!

Kieffer

Hi Kieffer, yes its basically an automated Martini action(I believe) theoretically impossible but worked well in practice...

Cheers

Hi Kieffer,

The Martini Henry 577/450. That thing had a kick like a mule, especially the carbine versions. Needs research but I think India was the last front-line user in 1905. But they were converted (even manufactured new) in .303 as the Martini Enfield. They were not front-line in WW1 but would certainly have seen some use.

The British idea of the magazine was not initially as we know it - rifles were loaded single-shot and the 'reserve' in the magazine was supposed to be only for when things got sticky. Well, that idea soon went by the board (and the magazine cut-out on the SMLE was soon scrapped) but the idea that the single-shot was past its use-by date would not have sunk in straight away, not with the generals and the bureaucrats anyway.

I believe many Commonwealth countries would have held stocks of the .303 version for many years, even through WW2. You could fit some pretty fearsome bayonets to those things too, including a bushed version of the "Yataghan". They bent the barrels if used too vigorously, but you can't have everything. They may have been issued to some 'home guard' type units in WW2 (the Volunteer Defence Corps in Australia) - I can't say I have actually heard of that as far as Australia goes.

Slightly different but because the 577/450 had such a kick there was a cadet version of the Martini (several different makers). In Australia that was the .310 - and that was a Greener cartridge. Those were issued by Australian colonial governments and then the Commonwealth government for many years. They were never front-line, some said you could overtake and pass the bullet on a bicycle, but they were retained for many years, in Australia at least.

Cadets didn't actually use them once the ex-WW1 SMLEs became available, but for some reason they were not sold off into surplus for a long while (early 1960s I think). They are still available here to this day in the original .310 calibre - though many were converted to .222 Rimmed (which made them very useful for hunting conditions here).

Hi Kieffer,

Much of the problem with the 577/450 was with the first Boxer-type rolled cartridges. In just a few years they were changed to to drawn modern type and at least the case no longer pulled apart and blocked the works on extraction. Always going to be problems with blackpowder in the relatively small .45 bore though (yes, the cartridge designation is back-to-front from 'usual' US type). And a little sand could jam the action. The Turks used their Peabody version to good effect though, as mentioned elsewhere.

I mentioned the "kick" of recoil of these. Here is a recoil energy/velocity chart:

http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/9521/graphht8.png - the horizontal axis shows the recoil velocity, the vertical is the same figure translated into how far a body (the rifle) would fall to pick up that speed - onto the poor shoulder. Which is the same as how far the rifle would jump into the air if fired straight down and not constrained. It is intended to give some "feel" for recoil. The area of comfort is subjective (depends on geometry of stock, area in contact with shoulder etc. and supposes no recoil dampening - pads or mechanical methods). But, trust me, anything outside is 'elephant gun' territory.

The Martini Henry in rifle weight and standard load gave

16.4 fps (5 m/s) equivalent to 4 ft 2½ inches (1.28m) vertical jump with 8½ lb rifle (3.86 Kg). OUCH!

The 6½ pound (2.95 kg) carbine gave 20.7 fps (6.3 m/s) equivalent to 6ft 8½ inches (2.04 m) vertical jump. OUCH! OUCH!

By comparison the .303 SMLE gave the equivalent of about 0.4 m vertical jump, both in the old 215 grain bullet (13.93 g) and the later 174 gn (11.275 g). The 7.62x51 NATO in the SLR (L1A1) gave just a little less, near enough the same.

The 5.56x45 NATO in the AUG Steyr gives about 4½ inches (114 mm) and, looping back again, that is about the same as the Martini .310 Cadet rifle - 98 mm even though it weighs only 6 pounds. That Greener cartridge was only about 3 times the power of a .22LR rimfire ('pea-rifle' us old guys call the 22).

Incidentally, the cadet rifle in Australia didn't have the cocking indicator - or not all of them did. Here is a picture (same rifle, both sides)

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/4296/martini310fe7dy6.gif. No provision for bayonet either. Ah, I like to see bayonet even on sniper rifles (you never know ...). But they did bayonet practice with broom-handles in those days.

Steve

Hi Kieffer,

The police primer system sounds to me like it was Berdan primed than any special kind (the anvil is part of the cartridge case rather than part of the primer, the latter is the Boxer primer, not to be confused with the rolled/wound Boxer cartridge case). Basically the Berdan makes reloading harder and is routinely used in military ammunition too, and probably for that reason.

The cases for Boxer primers have a centre flash-hole and it is easy to obtain Boxer primers. Berdan primers have to be chiselled out, replacement primers are not as common and it is relatively difficult to seat them securely without setting them off. But people become quick and efficient at just that task - earlier Australian reloading books were full of advice on how to do it and it is said some could de-cap and reprime a Berdan-primed case just as quickly as most could do so with a Boxer-primed one.

I have Greener's own book The Gun and its Development 1881 and certainly he doesn't mention any special primers but nothing would surprise me, it may have come later, that was a time of great experimentation and change which we can hardly imagine even though it is said there is unprecedented change happening in our own times.

All sorts of interesting things in that book - the dum-dum with the cross in the nose (and a central hole below) is called "Lord Keanes' Cruciform Expanding Bullet". And it is supposed to be for animals only. Also there is the formula of the filling for small-calibre exploding bullets which was soon banned in war too. And the incredible "McLeod's Revolving Bullet" for shotguns that spun the projectile by funnelling air through the wall of the bullet, exiting through offset holes in the base.

All sorts of things, including many different breach-loader actions, all but forgotten today. The "star" was the single-shot Soper, a side-hinged, swinging block type operated by a flick of the thumb which demonstrated rates in excess of 60 shots per minute ("sufficient for any purpose. ... "the barrel became so hot that the sight, which was soldered on, fell off."). It was officially rated at 58 rounds per minute, the Winchester lever action at 52 and the Martini at 40.

Steve

kieffer wrote:

---

...0.782" it was at the base, after the neck 0.740". The base has stamped "Greener" and 'Police'. A special large groove at the base of the cartridge responded to 2 lugs in front of the block, the gun could by this only load and fire this shell.
I think this came in the 20's or 30's so may be the Greener book was earlier?

---

Yes, the book is much earlier. At first I thought you were describing something like the groove in the base of the M1891 6.5mm Carcano (pic follows) but no, that is something entirely different. 0.740" - bullet therefore just slightly less diameter? Yes, that is definitely getting into the shotgun bore size, in fact that would handle a slug for 12 bore quite comfortably (let alone 13 bore). That is an interesting weapon I have not heard of before this.

Incidentally, the groove in the base of the Carcano cartridge is just to save on materials I think. Like the corrugations in a rainwater tank, thinner gauge metal can be used. I am surprised more military ammunition didn't use the same trick. It is only a small amount but multiply it by millions of rounds ... it mounts up.

Rectalgia wrote:

---

 

Incidentally, the groove in the base of the Carcano cartridge is just to save on materials I think. Like the corrugations in a rainwater tank, thinner gauge metal can be used. I am surprised more military ammunition didn't use the same trick. It is only a small amount but multiply it by millions of rounds ... it mounts up.

Hi Steve, that's good engineer-thinking: realising strenght and saving material, is saving weight and production costs. At the other hand, any extra machining costs more. But you're right about the saving principle: in the old days Amsterdam diamant-workers gave in the tiny copper rods, where the stone was fixed upon. Their union financed amongst others a hospital for tuberculoses by selling the copper. I remember something about their aprons too, containing diamant dust that was recycled for industrial use.

Less human but on topic at last again: the use of shotguns in the trenches. As you mentioned the 1917 and 1912, were this shot guns? And pump-actions, I remember seeing them, still used by US navy men when inspecting ships (on TV news reels, not personally of course..)

regards Kieffer

On the Matini-Henry, a mate of mine owned one & I can attest to its impact if not handled 'perfectly'. Bluntly once fouling realy starts - 30 to 50 rounds it dosen't matter its going to thump bloody hard. We did a 'test' & I put 80 rounds though it at quick rates while prone, by the end I was a good 6" back from where I started - at that stage I weighed almost 90Kg stark naked! I ALL Ways used an additional shoulder pad foring the bloody thing. The thing was perfectly capable of fracturing a collar bone if handled badly - I was present when despite advice etc one of my mates light weight friends (he was only 60 to 70 Kg's & we had put close to 120 rounds through it in the last couple of hours) fired it without it realy jammed into his shoulder & he did end up with hairline fractures in his collar bone.

The issue with boxer rolled / wound cartridges was if the rifle over heated or was not kept really clean. Bluntly in significant air temperatures & even moderate rates of fire the @#$%^& always over heated - I used a glove on my left hand if firing a significant number of rounds, especialy if doing so quickly. Historical records cite long service 'old sweats' regularly shrinking a rawhide leather cover over the barrel & forstock to protect their hands!

For all its "downsides" I was always keen to have it along if we were pig hunting or in a pig area. Saw the bitching thing literally bowl a 100+kg pig head over heels when hit from the front! Admitadly at about 20 yards, but it was the Martini-Henry or a 12 gauge with Pig Shot as far as I was concerned if we were hunting pigs. The only thing I saw that was better at taking the big pigs down was a lunatic who used 0.303 API aircraft ammo & I stayed yards away from him always half expecting a breech failure!

Regards,

Brennan