Unfortunately 'Mythbusters' is now out of production and, as they themselves often demonstrated, you can't always trust what's shown on the internet to be true.
Unfortunately 'Mythbusters' is now out of production and, as they themselves often demonstrated, you can't always trust what's shown on the internet to be true.
No. I don't believe that's what I said. Plus, not the burn rate, the burn time. There is a difference.by HARRY THE MOLE
That is the point i intended to convey exactly.
This is not necessarily the case. When firing ammunition designed and loaded for a firearm, it will all be burnt. However, unburnt gunpowder is a result of low pressure when firing. Such as would be the case when a relatively long barreled firearm (SMLE or Mosin) shooting relatively slow burning powder has a great section of its barrel cut off.
I apologize for whatever misunderstanding their might have been, it was not my intent.
Going back to the original subject of cut-down Lee Enfield's, I cannot see any tactical advantage to a soldier for using these weapons - either within the confines of tunnelling operations or trench raids. It takes two hands to operate, as opposed to one hand for a pistol. Just my thoughts on the subject!
Could it have been done for a Tanker ? I'm sure it would fire safely but with a large flash . The only other time I can remember something similar are weapons captured from guerrilla armies like the type shown earlier . Could have been a one off by a board machinist or the like .
In my opnion these "cut downs" were used by illicit organisations, in urban areas, that could not obtain proper handguns.
A "cut down" is better than nothing.
I know these "cut downs" (from K98k's) were used by the Dutch resistance in WW2.
Cheers,
Emile
I would have thought that a cut-down rifle would be a rather dangerous weapon for a tanker to use - certainly if firing through an observation slit. I would agree with the Emile on the use of these weapons, clandestine and guerrilla/terrorist organisations.
Plus I have a hard time believing that a Tanker (Tankie?) could not get a better weapon than a shopped up rifle. Add to the fact that if he really needs to use a personal weapon doesn't he have bigger problems? (I.e. his tank is out of action)
Whether they are practical or not, people-and especially soldiers-have always improvised weird weapons. Look at some of the absurd trench knives,clubs, you name it. Many are about as practical as a gum ball machine, but it didn't stop guys from making and carrying them. Who can say, 100 years later, just who made the posted Enfield or why? But from the looks of it, it "was there",regardless. Was it ever used at all? Nothing would surprise me...
William
"Much that once was, is lost. For none now live who remember it."
Trench knives, clubs, and even sharpened entrenching tools, used in close combat with the confines of a trench, are somewhat different than a cut-down bolt action rifle. A picture of one example in a private museum does not prove wide usage of these guns. Now if I saw one in the IWM, NAM, or the MOD Pattern room collection, I might start to believe.
The French and Germans also used improvised weapons for trench raids, but have any forum members ever come across pictures of cut-down Berthier or Gew98 rifles - or ever seen such examples?
Last edited by HARRY THE MOLE; 09-09-2016 at 11:10 PM.
Okey then...it's a totally made up and superbly aged fake piece of rubbish that somehow found it's way into a display by Hill 62 and.....?? Somehow, I'm not seeing that as plausible either...I guess it is what it is and is there whether anyone accepts it or not...just one of those oddities that was left behind to confound future generations...
William
"Much that once was, is lost. For none now live who remember it."
Similar Threads
Posting Permissions
.
Bookmarks