Might be Trillions Dick but most people don't understand what a trillion is.Originally Posted by Dick Hosmer
Senior Member
Might be Trillions Dick but most people don't understand what a trillion is.
Senior Member
"I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let's face it. It was you, (Charley) BOOF"
jn
Senior Member
The model 1899 Remington-Lee was equipped and used with a few spare magazines. The British turned the Lee into a very good 'battle rifle', but, never exploited the quick magazine change capability. The Lee-Enfield evolved into a 'Charger-Loading' magazine rifle. Perhaps, the Lee magazine system was hampered by generally being utilized with rimmed cartridges (.45-70, .30-40, and .303 British).
The Swiss were quick to see the merits of a rimless cartridge and removable sheet metal box magazine in their straight-pull bolt designs. However, they also left the magazine attached to the rifle and utilized 'Chargers'.
It was probably John Moses Browning and his BAR, (coupled with the rimless .30-06 cartridge), that made quick-changing, high capacity, sheet-metal magazines a true success and the eventual direction of military rifle design.
The French, with the Chauchat (and other semi-auto rifles), probably deserve some credit in advancing 'snap-in' detachable magazines, but, the marriage to the 8X50R cartridge caused limitations and problems with strength and function.
Last edited by butlersrangers; 10-24-2016 at 02:33.
Senior Member
The original committee on the Lee Enfield actually advocated giving three magazines per soldier followed by reloading singles after that. Was given up as too pricey and was before charger bridges. I think bean counters got in the way for a few decades. The Remington Lee was in the mix but the US Army wasn't convinced yet. I think Remington continued pushing Rolling blocks because that's what the market wanted during that time.
Very Senior Member - OFC
I do understand that it has become popular to not curse the Chauchat as much as was once popular, but the magazine was hardly the strong point! In fact, it was, outside of the strength problems when the conversion to .30-'06 was botched early on, THE most griped about part. Of course, the open sides (the French always seem to have to have their own flair) were an unmitigated disaster. Offhand, I cannot think of another case where the box was not closed.
Senior Member
What "strength problems?"
The way to determine if the Chauchat with a box magazine seen in that war is to, ignoring the Belgian guns for a moment, look at the location of the pistol grip. If it's in front of the magazine it's the .30-06. If it's behind the grip you're looking at a Chauchat captured by the Germans and rechambered in 7.92mm. They functioned flawlessly. The Polish received over 11,000 surplus guns from the French and about half were converted to 7.92mm and those all worked just fine.
Seems a bit strange that the gun had no strength problems with the German 7.92mm but had them with the U.S. .30-06.
Myself, having just done some pretty extensive research on them, I'm not a believer in those "strength problems." In the middle of "pass two" on the books. The story of the Chauchats receives a lot of coverage. Dug up the bodies, opened the closets, shook the containers dry - it's going to be an interesting read.
Very Senior Member - OFC
Perhaps "strength problems" was a bad choice of words - maybe the less-specific "issues" would have been better, since the gun's design was not on the table. Sometimes one only means to ask the time, not how to build a watch. Yes, the Chauchat did have a (detachable - don't want to start an argument over "snap" vs. "slide", to say nothing of snapandslide or even slideandsnap) box magazine - the general subject of this thread - but it was probably the very worst example of such to see wide service. The obvious dirt-catching issues were only compounded by the shape necessitated by the absurd form of the 8mm Lebel cartridge. Then too, early single-stack box mags (even our side-fed Johnson) were not very space-efficient, either. All I really wanted to point out was that the 1879 concept has held up remarkably well.
Last edited by Dick Hosmer; 10-25-2016 at 09:33.
Senior Member
The original subject of this thread was Naval Rolling-Blocks.
Detachable Box Magazines were an interesting tangent, that came up.
I was just puzzling, off the top of my head, as to when the Detachable Box Magazine began to show promise (for Rifle Cartridges) and pull away from Fixed Magazines. (The BAR and Chauchat came to mind).
The 'weakness' I was envisioning with the Chauchat was its 1/2 Moon Shaped Magazine, (a difficult task for a Spring), and the exposed/open sides. (A lot of the problem was inherent with the geometry of the 8X50R cartridge).
Last edited by butlersrangers; 10-25-2016 at 10:18.
Very Senior Member - OFC
You are absolutely correct as to the original point of the thread, Chuck. Sorry for the detour!
Senior Member
I enjoyed it! I think 'p246', the OP, did too.
Last edited by butlersrangers; 10-25-2016 at 03:33.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote