Honestly, I disagree. This situation is similar to the Garand ping myth. In order for this to happen, you would have to be unfortunate enough to be fighting alone and at a close proximity to the Jerry. It's very doubtful that you would be the only infantry firing at one (especially during combat) in the first place. Fellow troops near you will also be firing their rifles and the rattling sound made during reloading will be drowned out by their fire (and that's not counting other potential battlefield noises). If the Jerry somehow hears your troubling reloading situation, then he would be foolish to charge at you as your comrades who still have rounds will fire at and kill him.
I've got a Savage No.4 Mk I/II FTR that I love, and an Eddystone P14. I've shot both, and the Savage is faster, but the Eddystone shoots rings around it, accuracy wise. I am restoring a 1916 BSA SMLE, a Mk III*, just had a mint original barrel installed and headspaced, looking for furniture (it was bubba'd). Looking forward to comparing it against the other two.
Loading from the prone position is much harder because a soldier doesn't have the full motion as he is loading from kneeling or standing. Body mechanics of using any firearm will change. I remember qualifying with the M16/A1/A2/M4 rifle. My body position with combat equipment and different positions were factors in magazine changes or loading the rifle very quickly. A good example was the fox hole position versus the prone. My magazine changes were faster inside the fox hole or fighting position with the same result using the kneeling or standing position behind cover. The same goes with military bolt action rifles. Rifle qualification in modern times has become like stress fire to simulate combat. The British Army has pioneered this trend since the Boer War. The US Army have been obsessed with target shooting with some emphasis in rapid reloading with the adoption of the M1903. But the British Army were more focused on combat firing along with accuracy using their SMLEs which is outstanding. British Muzzleloaders really out stounded me seeing his video. The US Army started using combat style shooting after Korea as the train fire method till this day for Army qualification that is with pop up targets. The US Marines still use KD ranges to qualify but shoot on pop up targets for training for combat.
You're quicker reloading your M14 kneeling or standing since you've got better access to your pouches. Here we've got the ammo on the bench, and the reload is equipment-independent and quick. You also have the butt of the rifle on the ground which really helps with speed if the charger sticks at all.
Good shooting mate! I'd be interested to see how the No5 Mk1 Jungle Carbine compares too, it's a harder rifle to shoot (boots a bit) but is lighter and easier to throw around. It's also known to have worse accuracy but still retains excellent sights.
With a properly purpose-designed magazine there's no problems with the rims either ruclips.net/video/MOYTdoQkFrM/видео.html ruclips.net/video/BZlamWhwbi4/видео.html ruclips.net/video/hibb5eX58hI/видео.html ruclips.net/video/6RPSKj88DMM/видео.html etc :)
I'm genuinely impressed by the at range (200m) accuracy I can get out of me P14. Really a fine rifle, mine's brand bloody new nick yet was made in 1917! However, I'd take a No4 over it for the extra 5 rounds if I were kitting out the army. It's also a bit quicker shooting and retains the excellent sighting of an aperture (though I think the P14 has nicer sights). The Americans should have definitely went with this rifle over the M1903, at least until the 190A3 which was lighter and had nicer sights (thinking of their marines who still used the 1903s for a while).
A big factor is the chargers you used, my P14 has difficulty with ww11 chargers the same as you used. When I use ww1 chargers they function perfectly. The difference is ww1 chargers have much longer guide dimples and the ww11 ones just have single points. This difference doesn't seem to effect any of the SMLE's I've tried. Keep up the good work.
You made me dig out my '03 Springfield and M1917 to try loading with brass stripper clips. They do feed a little more smoothly,but I believe you hit it on the head with the anti-tilt feature of the Lee magazine as the main difference in reload time.
The Chap If you ever se a guy in his 20s on a bicycle with a suspicious Army Rucksack or something similar in shorts&sandals in the way to Interlaken or back.... That would be me on the way to the range.
I've never tried it myself, but I have been told to drop the charger in a vibratory case tumbler OR polish the insides with steel wool in order to smooth them out.....
The M1917 was originally a blued rifle, but the US pulled them all out of storage for WWII, sand-blasted the finish and parkerized them, and was quite complete in that endeavor. They were supposedly very nice looking rifles when they had their original finish. On the bright side, they were all re-arsenaled.
Hawk 777 it's a more durable finish in some ways, but I don't like it as much as a nice blued finish. It doesn't look absolutely terrible on an M1917 other than on the bolt where the wear is VERY apparent.
Bloke on the Range I actually didn't notice any slower throws on it other than I'm a tall guy, and I have to move my head when I shoot (have to do that when I shoot my No.4 too). The rough finish kind of disappears when you get the thing moving. What might be a bit slower is that the rifle still doesn't have an anti-tilt follower that works as well as a No.4 or SMLE. I noticed it the first time I used my M1917 that it kind of hangs up on the second to last round because the follower has tilted down slightly, and the tip of the cartridge noses into the front of the magazine. Might be my example, might be evident of a problem with the M1917 as well. There were no feed issues with stripper clips, though.
I have exactly the same problem on mine when firing Kynoch M2-equivalent ball, cos it's shorter than US standard. Problem goes away when shooting Prvi, which has a longer COL. An anti-tilt follower would fix this, but given that they were originally designed to shoot exactly 1 type of ammo which always had the same (correct) COL, it's a non-issue from a military perpective and comes about with us civvies shooting "not to spec" ammo in it rather than an inherent issue, if you get what I mean. If the spec was to be able to feed ammo at any plausible COL it would be an issue, but it's just one of those things that didn't enter into the original equation.
Can't wait for the 1917! Will the US changes be enough to rival the British standard SMLE? Probably not, but I hope we'll see an '03 Springfield sometime as well, to really compare the two US options of the war.
I've been looking through your videos and couldn't find one with the current swiss army rifle (SIG 550). Didn't I search thoroughly enough or haven't you shot it? (or made a video about it)
That’s interesting, I would have thought you would want p14 , but you have the m1917 instead! After shooting both, which do you like more? I can’t buy both, not enough money to do so!
M17 was more available. I'll be buying the P14 from this video next year from its present owner. There's really no difference other than the extra round and better reloads with the M17, though mine has been parkerised to death and hence has a sticky bolt, which I will sort by polishing it out.
Hello Bloke Just shot my No. 4 MK 1 enfield for the first time today and I was able to land all 10 at 100 yards on a torso sized target fairly quickly, for some reason it was Keyholing every round. the barrel is numbers matching and the rifling is still strong, I was firing 174 grain WPA ammo it's a 2 grove Maltby barrel. Any advice?
When I handload for my Swiss M1889 it's really super sensitive to what you put down it at what velocity (cos it's really tight). My 2-groove 1943 Long Branch shoots S&B 180gn FMJ like an absolute dream, btw.
Think I may have figured it out the WPA ammo that I was shooting seems to have a Rather Pronounced Crimping groove but I'll have to try other ammo first to verify that
It would be nice if someone got a M1917 and a spare Model 30 bolt, and tested to see if there is an appreciable difference between cock-on-open and cock-on-close.
Yes, though it seems some work better than others. I failed to make that particular rifle rimjam even with S&B, and even deliberately trying to induce it - see towards the end of this vid: ruclips.net/video/oYg7Lk4CRgA/видео.html
worth noting it (p13) was originally designed for a rimless cartridge, then hastily adopted for a rimmed, unlike the SMLE. this may play some part in the follower/magazine design.
Maybe a little practice would make a difference. I suspect you have a lot more trigger time on the Lee Enfield so you know exactly how to do it. The first clip loaded fine. I suspected that if you had more practice with this rifle you would get better at it.
My experience is when in doubt, it is a charger clip issue. I am not saying that some rifles are not better at accepting chargers than others, but most chargeable rifles reload fairly cleanly with virgin mil-spec chargers. The issue, of course, is that virgin mil-spec chargers are rarer than hen's teeth and so we must make do with inferior assets.
Mind, Bloke is obliged to denigrate the P14 because it threatened to usurp the SMLE as the rifle of Britain and forbid it come to pass that a Mauser derivative send the Lee packing. hehe
eustace stritchers: true. heresy must be gaurded against. if the war had gone down in 1919 instead of 1914 it might well have been that only the italians, austrians and russians and their POS rifles would have been holdouts against the victory of light and truth that is paul mauser.
"Mind, Bloke is obliged to denigrate the P14 because it threatened to usurp the SMLE as the rifle of Britain and forbid it come to pass that a Mauser derivative send the Lee packing. hehe" Oh, FFS...... No, it didn't. The P14 was only ever an emergency reserve arm, and was rightly considered inferior. Otherwise they'd have a) issued them as front-line rifles in both wars, and b) continued development from that basis post-WW1 rather than move in the direction of what became the No.4, which beats the pants off both the P14 and SMLE. They weren't *totally* supid (just some of the time) ;)
I would be interested to see a comparison between the 1917 and 1903 to see the difference cock on close vs cock on open makes (Same chambering, 5 round stripper clip very close bolt through and stroke...)
It will indeed :) Funny thing with the 03 is that although it's cock on open, it doesn't exploit the advantage this gives by having a heavy striker spring (since they wanted you to be able to re-cock the striker by pulling on the cocking piece). As such, it's probably the smoothest cock-on-open.
What is the reason for .303 British to be a rimmed cartridge, and why did they keep it? Everything I see on it is how "it's not bad if you do it properly" or "to avoid rim jam simply do this." Why even have rims? It seems like they kept a flawed design in service far past the point where it was useful and that all advantages of weapons that use the cartridge are in spite of the design, not because of it.
I don't know why rimmed cartridges were used in the first place but the reason they lasted so long is that in peace time there is no money to change them, and in war time, they can't afford to shut down production to retool with new ammo and new firearms.
It was rimmed because the British Army didn't want to be the first to adopt rimless (partly due to some misconceptions regarding machine guns of the committee in question). The British Army have rarely been early adopters of anything. Before chargers were a thing, rim or no rim makes no difference if you're single-loading rounds into mags. They fixed the rimlock issue pretty quickly once chargers were a thing (mag geometry and rim geometry), so it's a total non-issue from a military perspective. Then, changing ammo around is a Big Deal, and once the P13 project was obviously a dud re. the ammo, (if you wind the ballistics back so that it doesn't overheat and eat barrels, you're getting almost nothing over .303 Mk.VII) it was assumed that they'd adopt a new ammo when they adopted a self-loader. Which had been "around the corner" since about 1910. Basically changing ammo at any time before adopting a self-loader completely fails a cost-benefit analysis.
The British were all ready to go to a new rimless, 280 caliber round for the Pattern 13 but, as Othais on C&Rsenal's series on World War One weapons always says, "War were declared." Basically it's what Minute Man said. Same reason we didn't stay with the .276 Pedersen for the M-1. MacArthur knew war was imminent and didn't want to muck up the supply lines with a new cartridge when we still had 1919's, BAR's, and Springfields in 30-06.
To Home Guard and, early war, to home service and for training. Not had absolute confirmation of any making it into combat, the only photos I've seen could be training.
Much better. Fitted with a better scope and held to a tighter accuracy standard (5" at 200 yds rather than 6"). Should have mentioned that P14 sniper rifles were indeed used in combat during the war.
Constructive criticism: Your intro music gives me Vietnam flashbacks to when I was watching shitty documentaries on the Discovery Channel as a kid. It´s grating as hell, almost like a punishment for your otherwise good content...
C’est nul, la façon de tenir l’arme n’est pas correcte et la précision du tir n’est pas au rendez-vous avec ce genre de manipulation. La main doit tenir fermement le fusil. C’est la base.
Ooooooooo! Blue!
britishmuzzleloaders hello old boy! Top hole ey what
Any plans for a P14 video?
Ya know, All that rattling that the rounds make during the reload might have given an audio cue for Jerry to charge you. Very unsafe
*cue
Kings to you sir {-}7
Honestly, I disagree. This situation is similar to the Garand ping myth.
In order for this to happen, you would have to be unfortunate enough to be fighting alone and at a close proximity to the Jerry. It's very doubtful that you would be the only infantry firing at one (especially during combat) in the first place. Fellow troops near you will also be firing their rifles and the rattling sound made during reloading will be drowned out by their fire (and that's not counting other potential battlefield noises).
If the Jerry somehow hears your troubling reloading situation, then he would be foolish to charge at you as your comrades who still have rounds will fire at and kill him.
@@paleoph6168 I was being facetious
@@battleranch ok, but I'll still leave my reply for those who those who, like me, didn't see it as such.
I've got a Savage No.4 Mk I/II FTR that I love, and an Eddystone P14. I've shot both, and the Savage is faster, but the Eddystone shoots rings around it, accuracy wise. I am restoring a 1916 BSA SMLE, a Mk III*, just had a mint original barrel installed and headspaced, looking for furniture (it was bubba'd). Looking forward to comparing it against the other two.
Loading from the prone position is much harder because a soldier doesn't have the full motion as he is loading from kneeling or standing. Body mechanics of using any firearm will change. I remember qualifying with the M16/A1/A2/M4 rifle. My body position with combat equipment and different positions were factors in magazine changes or loading the rifle very quickly. A good example was the fox hole position versus the prone. My magazine changes were faster inside the fox hole or fighting position with the same result using the kneeling or standing position behind cover. The same goes with military bolt action rifles. Rifle qualification in modern times has become like stress fire to simulate combat. The British Army has pioneered this trend since the Boer War. The US Army have been obsessed with target shooting with some emphasis in rapid reloading with the adoption of the M1903. But the British Army were more focused on combat firing along with accuracy using their SMLEs which is outstanding. British Muzzleloaders really out stounded me seeing his video. The US Army started using combat style shooting after Korea as the train fire method till this day for Army qualification that is with pop up targets. The US Marines still use KD ranges to qualify but shoot on pop up targets for training for combat.
You're quicker reloading your M14 kneeling or standing since you've got better access to your pouches. Here we've got the ammo on the bench, and the reload is equipment-independent and quick. You also have the butt of the rifle on the ground which really helps with speed if the charger sticks at all.
The Bloke is back! Excellent stuff.
Good shooting mate! I'd be interested to see how the No5 Mk1 Jungle Carbine compares too, it's a harder rifle to shoot (boots a bit) but is lighter and easier to throw around. It's also known to have worse accuracy but still retains excellent sights.
Man. That was a lot of struggling with the stripper clip.
proves that a the magazine makes the gun (good or bad).
As distinct from struggling with a stripper
seems to me if the magazine was designed properly you wouldn't need to struggle with the stripper. or is that sarc?
b. griffin Rimmed cartridges are the problem there, nothing wrong with the magazine
With a properly purpose-designed magazine there's no problems with the rims either
ruclips.net/video/MOYTdoQkFrM/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/BZlamWhwbi4/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/hibb5eX58hI/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/6RPSKj88DMM/видео.html
etc :)
Watched this first on Patreon, enjoyed it enough to watch it again here LOL
doubling your daily does of bloke.
I'm genuinely impressed by the at range (200m) accuracy I can get out of me P14. Really a fine rifle, mine's brand bloody new nick yet was made in 1917! However, I'd take a No4 over it for the extra 5 rounds if I were kitting out the army. It's also a bit quicker shooting and retains the excellent sighting of an aperture (though I think the P14 has nicer sights). The Americans should have definitely went with this rifle over the M1903, at least until the 190A3 which was lighter and had nicer sights (thinking of their marines who still used the 1903s for a while).
A big factor is the chargers you used, my P14 has difficulty with ww11 chargers the same as you used. When I use ww1 chargers they function perfectly. The difference is ww1 chargers have much longer guide dimples and the ww11 ones just have single points. This difference doesn't seem to effect any of the SMLE's I've tried. Keep up the good work.
Interestingly, the WW2 chargers go straight through my 1918 SMLE's charger guides without being held. My No.4 takes anything.
Bloke on the Range would you be willing to do a video on the different Lee Enfield chargers?
You made me dig out my '03 Springfield and M1917 to try loading with brass stripper clips. They do feed a little more smoothly,but I believe you hit it on the head with the anti-tilt feature of the Lee magazine as the main difference in reload time.
Oh, the brass clips feed lovely on both the M17 and the 03, don't they? :) The parkerised ones are horrible though!
Pretty amazing shooting. I’ve been debating a M1903 Springfield and the M1917 Enfield.
and hes back on air!
Good vid mike....nice group for mad minute....!!!
Who else loves the technical nerd loading talk? I really enjoy the small details like this. Great job Bloke!
The first reload was epic!
He's back!
Glad you are back! If you ever going to Faulensee, let me know.
Luzian Wasescha We go through quite often taking kids to Interlaken for sports.
The Chap If you ever se a guy in his 20s on a bicycle with a suspicious Army Rucksack or something similar in shorts&sandals in the way to Interlaken or back.... That would be me on the way to the range.
I've never tried it myself, but I have been told to drop the charger in a vibratory case tumbler OR polish the insides with steel wool in order to smooth them out.....
These are the same chargers I've used in every other vid and I've had no problems with them :)
well, so much for my bright idea!
The M1917 was originally a blued rifle, but the US pulled them all out of storage for WWII, sand-blasted the finish and parkerized them, and was quite complete in that endeavor. They were supposedly very nice looking rifles when they had their original finish. On the bright side, they were all re-arsenaled.
I personally prefer parkerizing to bluing aesthetically, but I can see how it makes non lubricated surfaces rougher.
Hawk 777 it's a more durable finish in some ways, but I don't like it as much as a nice blued finish. It doesn't look absolutely terrible on an M1917 other than on the bolt where the wear is VERY apparent.
I suspect my M17 will be faster on the reloads than the P14, but slower on the splits cos the bolt is lightly parkerised.
Bloke on the Range I actually didn't notice any slower throws on it other than I'm a tall guy, and I have to move my head when I shoot (have to do that when I shoot my No.4 too). The rough finish kind of disappears when you get the thing moving. What might be a bit slower is that the rifle still doesn't have an anti-tilt follower that works as well as a No.4 or SMLE.
I noticed it the first time I used my M1917 that it kind of hangs up on the second to last round because the follower has tilted down slightly, and the tip of the cartridge noses into the front of the magazine. Might be my example, might be evident of a problem with the M1917 as well. There were no feed issues with stripper clips, though.
I have exactly the same problem on mine when firing Kynoch M2-equivalent ball, cos it's shorter than US standard. Problem goes away when shooting Prvi, which has a longer COL. An anti-tilt follower would fix this, but given that they were originally designed to shoot exactly 1 type of ammo which always had the same (correct) COL, it's a non-issue from a military perpective and comes about with us civvies shooting "not to spec" ammo in it rather than an inherent issue, if you get what I mean.
If the spec was to be able to feed ammo at any plausible COL it would be an issue, but it's just one of those things that didn't enter into the original equation.
We used our little finger without letting go of the bolt similar to you. Try rubbing candle wax inside the stripper clip . Just a thought.
At least for me - Lee Enfield No. 4 is still best bolt action of WWII :) But...Is there any chance to do mad minute with MAS 36?
Done it. Vid in the pipeline
That look of disgust befor the groan.
Got same one but cut down and sportrized by BSA
Lovely.
Can't wait for the 1917! Will the US changes be enough to rival the British standard SMLE? Probably not, but I hope we'll see an '03 Springfield sometime as well, to really compare the two US options of the war.
I'm looking forward to that video myself. I imagine that the rimless .30 06 cartridge will make a difference.
Isn't the '03 just a Mauser clone but worse?
The 03 is a Mauser clone but better in practically every single way compared to almost every military model (except the Swedish M38, possibly).
My bad, never actually used one
sedan57chevy: I second a '03/17 comparison video!
alughter round: they are honnies.
The p14 just throws that brass compared to a no1 or no4. Always have to search for the brass when i take it out.
I had a 300 win mag built on p17
That looks like it would really make your thumb smart...
EEEEUUUUAAAAAAHHHHH
Not the best for a "historical" mad minute with correct kit, but M14/7.62 NATO chargers work pretty well for my 1917s (and you can bolt through them)
I have enough original brass ones :)
I think you are dead right on the mechanical binding.
I've been looking through your videos and couldn't find one with the current swiss army rifle (SIG 550). Didn't I search thoroughly enough or haven't you shot it? (or made a video about it)
Not done a vid on it yet.
How many rounds if the magazines are used as preloaded boxes as they were destined to become ?
This magazine is fixed ;)
That’s interesting, I would have thought you would want p14 , but you have the m1917 instead! After shooting both, which do you like more? I can’t buy both, not enough money to do so!
M17 was more available. I'll be buying the P14 from this video next year from its present owner. There's really no difference other than the extra round and better reloads with the M17, though mine has been parkerised to death and hence has a sticky bolt, which I will sort by polishing it out.
Lift the tip of the first shell and push them from stripper clip
As these old war horses start to thin out I start to cringe when I see them being rapid fired.... I wish old milsurps were still $100 a pair.....
Hurrah
Can you reload the DMR K31 without moving your head like with the Enfield?
Nope
Will you be doing this sort of thing with a Carcano?
yes, we have a carcano and will do this.
thanks looking forward to it:)
When will you do the mad minute with the M1917? Looking forward to it. Is your M1917 an Eddystone, Remington or a Winchester?
I'll do it next time we're in Sion. It's an Eddystone.
Hello Bloke Just shot my No. 4 MK 1 enfield for the first time today and I was able to land all 10 at 100 yards on a torso sized target fairly quickly, for some reason it was Keyholing every round. the barrel is numbers matching and the rifling is still strong, I was firing 174 grain WPA ammo it's a 2 grove Maltby barrel. Any advice?
Wierd. Is the crown OK? Try different ammo and see if that helps.
It looks alright. I think it might be the ammo I've read online that some 2 groove rifles don't like boat tail ammo too much so that may be it
When I handload for my Swiss M1889 it's really super sensitive to what you put down it at what velocity (cos it's really tight). My 2-groove 1943 Long Branch shoots S&B 180gn FMJ like an absolute dream, btw.
I've heard some weird stories about it but I'll try some different ammo and see what happens Thanks still able to hit at 100 with the tumbles
Think I may have figured it out the WPA ammo that I was shooting seems to have a Rather Pronounced Crimping groove but I'll have to try other ammo first to verify that
It would be nice if someone got a M1917 and a spare Model 30 bolt, and tested to see if there is an appreciable difference between cock-on-open and cock-on-close.
Is the magasine designed to prevent rimlock like the SMLE and the no4?
Yes, though it seems some work better than others. I failed to make that particular rifle rimjam even with S&B, and even deliberately trying to induce it - see towards the end of this vid: ruclips.net/video/oYg7Lk4CRgA/видео.html
I suspect that they should all give no problems with issue Mk.VII, which is unfortunately not obtainable any more :(
worth noting it (p13) was originally designed for a rimless cartridge, then hastily adopted for a rimmed, unlike the SMLE. this may play some part in the follower/magazine design.
I made exactly that point in the video :) It's a bodge, trying to get a mag that works into a space designed for something else.
Maybe a little practice would make a difference. I suspect you have a lot more trigger time on the Lee Enfield so you know exactly how to do it. The first clip loaded fine. I suspected that if you had more practice with this rifle you would get better at it.
Not sure how true that is
So you dont lose your vision when opetating or cycling the bolt even the bolt of the p14 is long right or maybe the bolt is short like the lee enfield
The bolt does not block the sights. But you have to move your head a bit since its stroke is long.
@@BlokeontheRange thanks for your reply but it is still unlike the mausers and other longer bolts right
In what way? even the short turned down bolts on the 98a and 98k block the sights.
@@BlokeontheRange it maybe the bolt handle blocks the sights of the 98a and 98k
Winchester, Remington, or Eddystone?
Winchester
shorter version: when in doubt, it's a magazine issue.
My experience is when in doubt, it is a charger clip issue. I am not saying that some rifles are not better at accepting chargers than others, but most chargeable rifles reload fairly cleanly with virgin mil-spec chargers. The issue, of course, is that virgin mil-spec chargers are rarer than hen's teeth and so we must make do with inferior assets.
agreed
Mind, Bloke is obliged to denigrate the P14 because it threatened to usurp the SMLE as the rifle of Britain and forbid it come to pass that a Mauser derivative send the Lee packing. hehe
eustace stritchers: true. heresy must be gaurded against. if the war had gone down in 1919 instead of 1914 it might well have been that only the italians, austrians and russians and their POS rifles would have been holdouts against the victory of light and truth that is paul mauser.
"Mind, Bloke is obliged to denigrate the P14 because it threatened to usurp the SMLE as the rifle of Britain and forbid it come to pass that a Mauser derivative send the Lee packing. hehe"
Oh, FFS......
No, it didn't. The P14 was only ever an emergency reserve arm, and was rightly considered inferior. Otherwise they'd have a) issued them as front-line rifles in both wars, and b) continued development from that basis post-WW1 rather than move in the direction of what became the No.4, which beats the pants off both the P14 and SMLE. They weren't *totally* supid (just some of the time) ;)
I would be interested to see a comparison between the 1917 and 1903 to see the difference cock on close vs cock on open makes (Same chambering, 5 round stripper clip very close bolt through and stroke...)
It will indeed :)
Funny thing with the 03 is that although it's cock on open, it doesn't exploit the advantage this gives by having a heavy striker spring (since they wanted you to be able to re-cock the striker by pulling on the cocking piece). As such, it's probably the smoothest cock-on-open.
What finger are you using to pull the trigger ?
middle
What is the reason for .303 British to be a rimmed cartridge, and why did they keep it? Everything I see on it is how "it's not bad if you do it properly" or "to avoid rim jam simply do this." Why even have rims? It seems like they kept a flawed design in service far past the point where it was useful and that all advantages of weapons that use the cartridge are in spite of the design, not because of it.
I don't know why rimmed cartridges were used in the first place but the reason they lasted so long is that in peace time there is no money to change them, and in war time, they can't afford to shut down production to retool with new ammo and new firearms.
It was rimmed because the British Army didn't want to be the first to adopt rimless (partly due to some misconceptions regarding machine guns of the committee in question). The British Army have rarely been early adopters of anything. Before chargers were a thing, rim or no rim makes no difference if you're single-loading rounds into mags. They fixed the rimlock issue pretty quickly once chargers were a thing (mag geometry and rim geometry), so it's a total non-issue from a military perspective.
Then, changing ammo around is a Big Deal, and once the P13 project was obviously a dud re. the ammo, (if you wind the ballistics back so that it doesn't overheat and eat barrels, you're getting almost nothing over .303 Mk.VII) it was assumed that they'd adopt a new ammo when they adopted a self-loader. Which had been "around the corner" since about 1910.
Basically changing ammo at any time before adopting a self-loader completely fails a cost-benefit analysis.
The British were all ready to go to a new rimless, 280 caliber round for the Pattern 13 but, as Othais on C&Rsenal's series on World War One weapons always says, "War were declared." Basically it's what Minute Man said. Same reason we didn't stay with the .276 Pedersen for the M-1. MacArthur knew war was imminent and didn't want to muck up the supply lines with a new cartridge when we still had 1919's, BAR's, and Springfields in 30-06.
is p14 was issued in WW2??
To Home Guard and, early war, to home service and for training. Not had absolute confirmation of any making it into combat, the only photos I've seen could be training.
Bloke on the Range so later no.4 enfiled was all in all better than p14?? even in sniping?
Much better. Fitted with a better scope and held to a tighter accuracy standard (5" at 200 yds rather than 6").
Should have mentioned that P14 sniper rifles were indeed used in combat during the war.
Constructive criticism: Your intro music gives me Vietnam flashbacks to when I was watching shitty documentaries on the Discovery Channel as a kid. It´s grating as hell, almost like a punishment for your otherwise good content...
You have to suffer for my art :p
But its stronger rifle than the mark 1 no 4
Fritz would have got him! Can I say Fritz? That's your word right? I'm American so I normally call them Germans.
khartog01 damned huns
Its actuly faster with a britt made gun
bad reload
C’est nul, la façon de tenir l’arme n’est pas correcte et la précision du tir n’est pas au rendez-vous avec ce genre de manipulation. La main doit tenir fermement le fusil. C’est la base.