[Futo Inu]

Other than as a secure attachment point for a bayo lug or sling swivel (which are important functions, mind you, but), do the barrel bands and long stocks, top and bottom, serve any other purpose on rifles of yesteryear? (I particularly fail to see any utility in the top end stock, other than aesthetics of providing a tapered contour from the rear sight assembly to near the end of the barrel. Also, the bottom stock on most milsurps is much longer than is necessary to proved a hand support)

[Kor]

Upper handguards and full-length fore-ends are there to keep a soldier from burning his hand on a hot barrel if he has to fix bayonets and "give 'em cold steel" after firing several rounds. You might not think it, but once you start doing the quarterstaff thang with a rifle, your palm WILL cover the top part of the barrel, and your hand WILL move farther forward towards the muzzle than you ever thought it would. You just CANNOT do full-power bayonet-fighting movements like slashes, lunges and buttstrokes - and keep hold of the rifle - without wrapping your whole support hand completely around the barrel.

The barrel bands are there to help insure that the barreled action doesn't part company from the stock after a HARD, FULL-POWER slash, or after doing something silly like using your rifle as a stepladder to help your buddy over a wall or somesuch.

[Futo Inu]

Ahh, it all comes back to bayo use; gotcha. Thanks.

[Okiecruffler]

Made the mistake of laying my thumb on the end of my M44's barrel one day after sending about 50rds down range in a few minutes time. Got my attention right quick. They call them handguards for a reason.

[Nightcrawler]

Probably the same reason they have handguards cover the top of the barrel, and not just the bottom (where you'd normally grip) on more modern rifles, like the FAL, M16, etc.

To stop you from accidentally burning your hands.

[Swampy]

Futo INo wrote:

Ahh, it all comes back to bayo use; gotcha. Thanks.


Not quite......

What Kor wrote about bayos is true enough, but the primary reason for handguards is to prevent a severe burning of the hands (or any other exposed skin that might contact the barrel) after a brief firefight.

Fire 20 quick rounds from ANY military type rifle and then carefully touch the exposed front end of the tube. You'll be a believer really quick.... :)

Even us target shooters appreciate the skin saving application of the handguards on our M1-A's, Garands, and AR-15's. After 10 rounds in less than a minute of rapid fire the barrel is too hot to hold. After the second stage of another 10 rounds you don't dare touch the barrel.... skin will remain behind.

Best regards,
Swampy

[DMK]

Yea, you can get some pretty good burns and I doubt that any of us shoot as many rounds as quickly through the rifle as a soldier would in a firefight.

I once grabbed my Garand's front handguard when the rifle started to fall over. My thumb landed on the metal piece right behind the front handguard and it left a real nasty burn. this was only after maybe 100 rounds slow fire with cooling periods.

[Futo Inu]

Well, it DOES go back to bayo use, for the most part, seems to me, since otherwise, there's no real good reason to grab the far end of the barrel with your hands. I for one, after firing a hot bolt rifle, for example, use the stock area near the rear and on the underside to handle it. Reminds me of the old joke of, an Army guy and a Navy guy (or pick any two rivals) were standing beside each other, using two urinals in a bathroom. The Navy guy get through, and proceeds to begin to walk out without washing his hands. The Army guy looks at him with scorn, and says "Hmmphf, in the Army, we learn to wash our hands after urinating." The Navy guy replies "Well in the Navy we learned not to piss on our hands". And comparing to modern battle rifles like AR-15, is apples and oranges, since they're generally short enough that the place where you hold the rifle extends such a good ways towards the end of the barrel. But I guess in the heat of battle, you are gonna get your fingers or thumb around up top, either accidentally or on pupose at some point, so the top handguard makes sense, but it seems to me that the very very long lower guard or very long upper guard on the *old* rifles (which is really what I was asking about - I didn't make very clear) is going to come back to grabbing to attach/disattach bayo, for the most part. Swampy, that does make sense, even with Garands and such of mid-20th cent. - I did not realize that they get that hot after just 10 semi-rapid rounds. When you fire your Garand, for example, how exactly is your support hand contacting the upper guard? Or is it just to protect for accidental touchings? And obviously, in any event, as mentioned, the front band makes for a solid attachment point for bayo and sling swivel, so they're pretty well indispensable for that era. Ya know, come to think of it when one slings the rifle just after multiple shots, and would otherwise have a hot barrel up around the exposed neck area, the long uppers and lowers do start to make sense beyond bayo use, come to think of it. :) Semi-dumb question then I guess - sorry - lol. Still, in any event, longguards or no, there's that last little extending hot end of the barrel - wonder how many soldiers have been burned on the neck by that part - doh.

[Andrew Wyatt]

they also protect the barrel from impacts and whatnot. even after i'm done scouterizing my enfield, it'll have top and bottom handguards.

[Tamara]

Well, it DOES go back to bayo use, for the most part, seems to me, since otherwise, there's no real good reason to grab the far end of the barrel with your hands. I for one, after firing a hot gun, use the stock area near the rear to handle it.

Bear in mind that on those old long rifles the most natural grasping point when doing anything that required one hand free was forward of the action. Ref. pictures of guys going "over the top" in WWI.

[Futo Inu]

Ahh yes, maneuvers. A lot of utility indeed when you think of what all the soldiers had to do versus me at the range - OK, *almost entirely* dumb question - lol (but that's how I learn). :)

[Andrew Wyatt]

Am i the only one who only goes to a square range to zero my guns, and then not often?


I do a lot of fire and maneuver stuff, and not much benchrest shooting.

[Lochaber]

Keep in mind that handling a hot bolt action on the range is different then doing so in combat. I never burn myself on the exposed heavy barrel of my 10FP. But I have burned myself a number of time on my 98k. Curse the german goof who decided to only install that tiny upper guard. I never burn myself with the longer guard on the my M38 Turks. What really freaks me out is how in the name of Jebus you are supposed to adjust the sights on a hot Mauser in the middle of combat. All my Mauser rear sights are freaking hazardous after 30 rounds and I fail to see how they expected a soldier to adjust them during a figher fight.

Loch

[Detritus]

What really freaks me out is how in the name of Jebus you are supposed to adjust the sights on a hot Mauser in the middle of combat. All my Mauser rear sights are freaking hazardous after 30 rounds and I fail to see how they expected a soldier to adjust them during a figher fight

you're kidding about adjusting DURING a fire fight right???

if you've got TIME to adjust your sights you're not in a fire fight!!

and i fully and firmly beleive that any "marksmanship instructor" who advocates the adjustment for range of a combat rifle's sights in such a situation (slow aimed fire at individual targets is NOT a firefight btw) is 1. "retally retentive"(that a more acceptable version of what i'm trying to say??)
2. has NEVER actually BEEN in such a fight his own self..

or and most likely..

3. BOTH

in other words for rapid "oh hades here the buggers come boys fire at will" type engagements. one might quickly move the sights to a "middle of the road" position and then hold over/under as needed from there.. but once "the butcher's work" starts sight adjustment qualifies as, wasted movement/time, that's better used reloading

[Futo Inu]

Andrew, I'm sure you're not the only one, but I'll bet you're in the vast minority of shooters. :) As for THR'ers, maybe you're not in the minority, however - dunno. Not that we probably shouldn't do as you do, for more realistic training with all types of small arms, but most people don't, myself included. I don't think the gun club where I'm a member has any facilities for that (not that I know of).

[Nightcrawler]

Even in the very Rural UP, you can't simply go running around the woods with a rifle, as much as I'd like to. For one, I think the DNR would get on your case (as it's technically illegal to shoot anywhere but a range). For two, there's not much open land here, it's almost all either private, state, or fed. For three, there's lots of houses, camps, hikers, bikers, ATVs, and such in my local woods. Not a good idea to go shooting there without a solid backstop.

[Andrew Wyatt]

Not a good idea to go shooting there without a solid backstop.


Well, the west has more solid backstops per mile than most places, and there's the vast, wide open mojave desert in which you can see people coming.

As for adjusting the sights during a firefight, It's something i'd do, because i like to hit what i'm aiming at.

[Art Eatman]

Aren't "battle sights" essentially a 300-yard (meter) deal? People are vertical targets, so you go for the belt buckle. "Point it and pull." If you have time to look for "way out yonder" targets, you hold over.

Art

[Detritus]

that's the basics of every reliable account of combat i've heard, read, etc.

i've spoken in person with combat vets of WW1 (god do i feel lucky there!!!) WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. setting aside Vietnam where the rifle sights were not readily elevation adjustable, EVERY one of the men i spoke with and asked (and yes i DID ask b/c i was interested in that tidbit) about the usage of the elevation slide/knob said soemthing along the lines of "HELL NO we never touched that thing int eh middle of a fire fight!! we'd have been DEAD if we'd taken time to "fine tune" blasted thing!! "

maybe it's an ingrained misconception that in war a shooter should take the same careful aim he takes at the target range. but EVERY man i have spoken to in person who has as they say "been baptized in fire" holds to the "truth" of "tis better fire fast and possibly wound many, than to slow down and kill just a few..."

personally i think the "semi-target" style sights of the M-16A2 are a mistake, the average "rifle life support system" (aka "grunt"/ poor bloody infantry) does not have time to utilize, nor NEED of, a target gun what they need is a sight system that is fast and easy to use, and "soldier proof" in how well it holds a 2-300 yard zero.
but the A2 is what you get when the "rifle re-design team" (or what ever it was called) contains NOT people focused on what is actually useful in combat, but a cadre of "rifle competitors" who's natural "bent" is for a gun like "they would like" rather than "what does Pvt dummkopf NEED"

but i'll quit as this is bordering on hi-jacking the thread.....

[Hand_Rifle_Guy]

I always thought that full wood stocks were to primarily prevent bent barrels on 30-ish-inch-barreled rifles in the hands of fumble-fingered sojers.

Drop a '41 Johnson on it's nose, and you have a gun that shoots a long way from where it looks. One of the reasons it failed in military procurement was it's relatively "delicate" appearance in the form of that unsupported barrel.

Drop a full-stocked military bolt gun, (Italian/french jokes aside.) and the springy wood, combo'ed with a stiff barrel pinned firmly at the ends, and you have a structural unit that's a lot stronger than a plain steel tube, with more built-in springiness to withstand the impact. During a war, rifles get thrown around a LOT. The wood stock soaks up a lot of the energy of an impact before it starts to try and inflict permanent changes to the geometry of the metal parts. It speaks well of the durability of the concept that milsurps today don't shoot where-ever in the context of the amount of use that many of them have seen over the years. This reasoning is also supported by the continuance of full-length stocks, but the DIS-continuance of full top handguards. (With a few exceptions, like Lee-Enfields, and french MAS 36's.)

In the late 1800's, carbines were available, and were a bunch lighter than the full-length rifles, but infantries were universally armed with full-stocked rifles, all the way up to the M-1 Garand. Cavalry needed the handiness of the carbine more than it's durability, and if your rifle got bent falling off the horse, that was generally further down the list of worries than lacking your horse.

I would also agree with all the bayonet reasoning too. I've been burned a couple of times by hot rifles.

But soldiers spend a lot more time hiking and humping over ground than actually fighting, so I think that having the gun survive to reach the fight in usable form is paramount over it's utility in the fight for hand-to-hand CQB. Or at least on equal footing for consideration, at any rate.

And 200-yd battle sights,. a la Enfield #4's, are definitely the way to go. Having target potential is ok, but you need a fast, durable battle sight.

(However, Lance-Constable Detritus' Siege Crossbow does NOT need such a sight, as it handily demolishes buildings at the across-the-street ranges typically found in downtown Ahnk-Morpork or The Shades. And tell 'em I said "Kick 'em inna fork!" ;) )

[Tamara]

As for adjusting the sights during a firefight, It's something i'd do, because i like to hit what i'm aiming at.

I just really don't see the usefulness of sliding, say, the sights on a 98k back and forth a lot. :uhoh:

[Andrew Wyatt]

well, if the bad guys were out at ranges where the holdover would be largish, i'd adjust the sights. if it was within the point blank range of the weapon, no way.

that said, i hardly ever use the battle sight, anyway. as part of my immiediate ation drill with the number 4, I flip it up, and leave the aperature preset on 200.

[Kor]

Guys, ya gotta keep in mind that "fire-and-maneuver" infantry tactics are a relatively new development(i.e. WWII Blitzkrieg), whereas bolt-action milsurp rifles were designed NOT for WWII, or even for WWI trench warfare per se, but more to reflect the battlefield experience of the previous conflicts, the Boer and Spanish-American wars.

First, you gotta understand that the range, velocity, power and relatively flat trajectory of smokeless-powder repeating rifles were, at the turn of the century, revolutionary, cutting-edge developments - and infantry tactics were still in the process of adjusting to this radically improved(compared to blackpowder-cartridge Trapdoor Springfields and Martini-Henrys) weaponry. Those 2000-yd graduated tangent sights weren't put there on a whim - the cartridges chambered in those rifles were actually capable of chucking a bullet out that far, hard enough to actually wound another soldier. Granted, it was bloody tough to hit somebody on purpose that far out, but if you really needed to engage the enemy that far away, you detailed a platoon or two to fire several volleys at the enemy's AO, raining bullets into a "beaten zone" - and if their officer told them to adjust their sights accordingly, at least they would all be aiming more-or-less at the same area, instead of hurlin' bullets "by-guess-and by-Gawd." For that matter, the Brits couldn't help but remember the Boers sniping at them -and actually hitting them - with their Mausers from absolutely ludicrous distances way across the veldts and from kopje to kop(hilltop to hilltop).

Also, this was before any of our modern battlefield conveniences, like really long-range artillery/mortars, or ground-attack aircraft - without them, the only weapons an army had that could actually reach that far from the forward line of battle and cause casualties were those selfsame high-powered rifles. And, with "leather personnel carriers"(boots) instead of vehicles, a company or battalion of infantrymen couldn't close ground quickly enough to avoid being spotted somewhere along the way, especially in open terrain, and taking fire all the way in.

Basically, using the tactics of the time, in the wars these rifles were designed for, you wouldn't be sliding your sights back and forth incessantly - you'd be told where to engage the enemy ("In that trench/by that hilltop over there, lads - At 700 yards, volley by platoons, FIRE!!!"), you'd set your sights accordingly, and by the time the enemy managed to close the range, they'd either be attritted or you'd be out of ammo - in which case you could either adjust your sights if you still had ammo, or fix bayonets if you didn't. These were NOT modern fire-and-maneuver tactics, this was more like a clumsy attempt to adapt traditional Napoleonic-era infantry tactics/mindset to modern weaponry.

Granted, the assumptions these tactics were based on were proven wrong in modern, 20th-century warfare - but they were disproven too late to have any effect, by and large, on the late-19th-century designs of these rifles. Only in the 1930's, AFTER the lessons of WWI had been studied and learned, did rifles begin to reflect the realities of the modern battlefield, and then only in relatively minor details, like "battle-sights" zeroed for short-to-intermediate distances.