Dreamcast270mhz
Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2010
- Messages
- 406
What could a military possibly need such a useless feature for? A magazine cutoff turns a repeating rifle into a single shot, how could that be useful?
Magazine Cutoff, what purpose?
- Thread starter Dreamcast270mhz
- Start date
- Status
Sam Cade
Member
The soldier was to use the weapon as a single shot during volley fire and hold the magazine in reserve for closer engagements when out of formation. At least that is my understanding.
Vern Humphrey
Member
The theory was rifle fights could be either at long range or short range. At long range, the rifle was to be used as a single loader with the magzine "held in reserve." As the range closed, and it was possible for the enemy to suddenly charge, the magazine cut-off switch could be thrown, and the soldier would have a fully-loaded magazine, instead of a partially depleted magazine.
The British magazine cutoff was a sort of sled that swung in over the magazine and formed a loading trough for single-loading. It could be accidentally activated, suddenly converting the rifle to single-shot by surprise.
The American magazine cutoff on the '03 Springfield was very unlikely to be activated accidentally, and also served a second purpose -- it was the bolt stop.
The British magazine cutoff was a sort of sled that swung in over the magazine and formed a loading trough for single-loading. It could be accidentally activated, suddenly converting the rifle to single-shot by surprise.
The American magazine cutoff on the '03 Springfield was very unlikely to be activated accidentally, and also served a second purpose -- it was the bolt stop.
Rifles could also be used as a single shot for training purposes.
Roan
Member
Military theory lauded the formation as the best possible fighting style, even though all indications was the the advances in repeating arms and artillery heralded the end to such fighting. As such, it was believed that a soldier who had access to a full magazine would lead to a breakdown in discipline because he would start firing wildly instead of following the very ordered and precise orders of the officers. You have to remember, at the time it was believed that the bayonet charge was still the way to win and that shooting was all secondary to that. This belief pervaded all military powers into the first world war, where it led to dire casualties. While not precisely about the magazine cutoff, the best book I have found to explain the ideas and military culture at the time is 'The Gun' by C. J. Chivers.
The military mind is the slowest to change.
I have seen writings of American Ordnance Officer’s from the 1840’s stating that the Army did not want their Soldier’s “wasting” ammunition in combat.
Part of this reason can be traced to the difficulty of supply back in those horse and buggy days, but this whole philosophy survived all the way past WWII.
You can see this desire to avoid “wasting ammunition” in the designs that the Army adopted. During the Civil War, it was shown time and again that battalions armed with 7 shot Spencers could hold off Regiments armed with muskets. So what did the Army adopt after the Civil War?: the M1873 trap door Springfield. Here was a cartridge rifle that was as close to the 1861 Musket as they could get. And it was single shot. We kept that rifle in inventory up to WW1, and it was the primary weapon in the Spanish American war. Our guys were using single shot Trapdoors against Spanish armed with Mauser magazine fed rifles. Eight hundred Spaniards fought 15,000 Americans. Given such a disparate in numbers it is obvious that the Americans were going to win, but look at the difference in causalities the Americans took. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_San_Juan_Hill
The Krag Jorgenson was available in limited numbers, but it was not quick to reload, as the Army did not want stripper clip loaded rifles. And it had that cut off, to control ammunition “wastage”.
The M1903 also had a cutoff.
John Garand original designs had box magazines, but the Army forced him to eight round clips. I have no doubt this was to avoid the wastage of ammunition and “expensive” box magazines.
It seems so ludicrous this emphasis on reducing ammunition “wastage”. I mean here the Army gets this American boy, who Mom and Dad have spent good money feeding, clothing, educating. The Army does the same, spending cash on housing, uniforms, training. Then the Army equips this lad with high dollar stuff, spends a lot of money shipping him half way across the world, and with all the logistical cost that entails. And having spent all this accumulated cost to date, what is the Army worried about? : That the lad will shoot too many rounds off at the enemy!
But that is the military mind. :banghead:
I have noticed this about the Military. They like what they have, they want something better but only a little different, and they totally reject revolutionary change.
I have seen writings of American Ordnance Officer’s from the 1840’s stating that the Army did not want their Soldier’s “wasting” ammunition in combat.
Part of this reason can be traced to the difficulty of supply back in those horse and buggy days, but this whole philosophy survived all the way past WWII.
You can see this desire to avoid “wasting ammunition” in the designs that the Army adopted. During the Civil War, it was shown time and again that battalions armed with 7 shot Spencers could hold off Regiments armed with muskets. So what did the Army adopt after the Civil War?: the M1873 trap door Springfield. Here was a cartridge rifle that was as close to the 1861 Musket as they could get. And it was single shot. We kept that rifle in inventory up to WW1, and it was the primary weapon in the Spanish American war. Our guys were using single shot Trapdoors against Spanish armed with Mauser magazine fed rifles. Eight hundred Spaniards fought 15,000 Americans. Given such a disparate in numbers it is obvious that the Americans were going to win, but look at the difference in causalities the Americans took. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_San_Juan_Hill
The Krag Jorgenson was available in limited numbers, but it was not quick to reload, as the Army did not want stripper clip loaded rifles. And it had that cut off, to control ammunition “wastage”.
The M1903 also had a cutoff.
John Garand original designs had box magazines, but the Army forced him to eight round clips. I have no doubt this was to avoid the wastage of ammunition and “expensive” box magazines.
It seems so ludicrous this emphasis on reducing ammunition “wastage”. I mean here the Army gets this American boy, who Mom and Dad have spent good money feeding, clothing, educating. The Army does the same, spending cash on housing, uniforms, training. Then the Army equips this lad with high dollar stuff, spends a lot of money shipping him half way across the world, and with all the logistical cost that entails. And having spent all this accumulated cost to date, what is the Army worried about? : That the lad will shoot too many rounds off at the enemy!
But that is the military mind. :banghead:
I have noticed this about the Military. They like what they have, they want something better but only a little different, and they totally reject revolutionary change.
Dreamcast270mhz
Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2010
- Messages
- 406
Ah, now I see why our military seems so stupid at times. Thanks a lot, case is closed for me...
Vern Humphrey
Member
That's really not true -- if you look at the changes implemented in the American Army, you see clearly we stayed on the cutting edge in everything from rifles (not used by most nations) to artillery fire control to heavy bombers.
That is partly true. But before you dismiss the problems of supply, read a good book like With the Old Corps by E.B. Sledge. Sledge was a mortarman with K/3/5 Marines at Peleliu and Okinawa and he talks a great deal about resupply -- remember, in actual combat, every morsel the troops eat, ever cartridge they fire reaches the front lines on men's back.
Read about the Battle of the Somme -- Huge traffic jams developed in the communications trenches where supply parties bringing up ammunition met litter bearers with wounded coming back. Many a man died because of that.
Those of us who served in Viet Nam (I was a rifle company commander) remember the resupply problems. Yes, we had helicopters. But in intense combat, helicopters couldn't land. If we got ammo, it often came from APCs that halted some distance away and had to be man-packed in. Ammo boxes had to be opened, magazines reloaded, and somehow this had to get up to the men on the firing line.
60,000 British causalities before lunch, on the first day, will sure clog up the offensive.
And how long did Haig keep it up?
How many did the French lose at Verdun, and how long did they keep it up?
Too long.
Thank you for your service to our country.
The side that cannot keep the supplies flowing will lose. Uncle Ho understood that, and they kept the supplies flowing and we could not cut them off. The paradigm should not be on restricting usage, but rather getting the maximum to the front so the most force can be applied to the enemy.
Vern Humphrey
Member
The problem the British and French faced was the possibility of a Russian surrender (which actually happened in 1917.) To keep the Russians in the war, they had to keep the pressure in the Germans -- and offensives like the Somme and meatgrinder battles like Verdun were the result.
It was fear of a Russian collapse, and British attempts to aid the Russians that led to such disasters as Gallipoli and Kut.
That's easy to say, but very hard to do. Even in Viet Nam, a lot of ammo and supplies were man-packed.
And let me point out that the magazine cutoff was for use only in long range fighting -- there was never a case when troops in close combat used them.
Joe in fla
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2011
- Messages
- 127
The magazine cut off had nothing to do with training. When the trainers want you to fire one shot at a time, they give out the ammunition one round at a time. Trust me on this, I KNOW!
SlamFire is exactly correct, the magazine cut off was to effectively make the rifle a single shot in an effort to conserve ammo. Even Abraham Lincoln personally tested repeating rifles while in the White House and wanted them for the Union Army but the Army commanders were afraid the troops would "waste" ammunition and drug their feet regarding adopting rapid fire rifles. Even after the War of Northern Aggression they refused to adopt a repeating rifle until they finally adopted the Krag rifle in 1898! Even then they demanded that it have magazine cut off (the original Danish model didn't) and that the troops fire the rifle as a single shot rifle and reload after each round and leave the rounds in the magazine for "emergencies". Even as late as the 1980s, military ordnance officers were complaining about excessive ammunition usage so the military replaced the full auto M16A1 with the M16A2 which deleted the fully automatic fire capability and replaced it with a three round burst mode.
Quote:
The military mind is the slowest to change.
Then Vern said:
That's really not true -- if you look at the changes implemented in the American Army, you see clearly we stayed on the cutting edge in everything from rifles (not used by most nations) to artillery fire control to heavy bombers.
That's true to a point but that's not the issue with the magazine cut-offs. The driving force behind the requirement for the cut off was to conserve ammo along with reducing the load on the manufacturing and supply systems and ammunition costs, pure and simple. The military is usually quick to adopt new ideas BUT they're also VERY aware of the costs for the various systems and are VERY aware of the costs impacts when a change involves MILLIONS of weapons and soldiers and TENS if not HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of rounds of ammunition. FWIW After WW I, DWM sued the US government for patent infringment over the Spitzer Bullet. The US lost and had to pay royalties to DWM for 300 MILLION rounds of ammunition used in WW I. And the US was only in the war for less than a year!
FWIW I did Level of Repair Analysis and Spares Costs Analysis for the US Army, Navy and others in a previous life. Now I can tell you why toilet seats costs $600!
SlamFire is exactly correct, the magazine cut off was to effectively make the rifle a single shot in an effort to conserve ammo. Even Abraham Lincoln personally tested repeating rifles while in the White House and wanted them for the Union Army but the Army commanders were afraid the troops would "waste" ammunition and drug their feet regarding adopting rapid fire rifles. Even after the War of Northern Aggression they refused to adopt a repeating rifle until they finally adopted the Krag rifle in 1898! Even then they demanded that it have magazine cut off (the original Danish model didn't) and that the troops fire the rifle as a single shot rifle and reload after each round and leave the rounds in the magazine for "emergencies". Even as late as the 1980s, military ordnance officers were complaining about excessive ammunition usage so the military replaced the full auto M16A1 with the M16A2 which deleted the fully automatic fire capability and replaced it with a three round burst mode.
Quote:
The military mind is the slowest to change.
Then Vern said:
That's really not true -- if you look at the changes implemented in the American Army, you see clearly we stayed on the cutting edge in everything from rifles (not used by most nations) to artillery fire control to heavy bombers.
That's true to a point but that's not the issue with the magazine cut-offs. The driving force behind the requirement for the cut off was to conserve ammo along with reducing the load on the manufacturing and supply systems and ammunition costs, pure and simple. The military is usually quick to adopt new ideas BUT they're also VERY aware of the costs for the various systems and are VERY aware of the costs impacts when a change involves MILLIONS of weapons and soldiers and TENS if not HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of rounds of ammunition. FWIW After WW I, DWM sued the US government for patent infringment over the Spitzer Bullet. The US lost and had to pay royalties to DWM for 300 MILLION rounds of ammunition used in WW I. And the US was only in the war for less than a year!
FWIW I did Level of Repair Analysis and Spares Costs Analysis for the US Army, Navy and others in a previous life. Now I can tell you why toilet seats costs $600!
Vern Humphrey
Member
No, the magazine cut off was to conserve the magazine. The idea was for the troops to have full magazines at the critical moment in the battle.
No, the US had to pay royalties for the stripper clip. The royalties stopped when we entered WWI, since all German patents were confiscated as enemy property.
Dreamcast270mhz
Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2010
- Messages
- 406
@Vern
Although I see the point in the fully loaded magazine part, it took your average soldier what, like 6-9 seconds to reload a 5 round magazine by hand and like 3-4 for a stripper clip, counting cycling the bolt? I know next to nothing regarding manufacturing costs, but wouldn't a magazine cutoff, especially during a war where the supplier's goal was to make a rifle cheap, simple and reliable, wouldn't a magazine cutoff be a frivolous expense, especially when it is nearly as easy to chamber a round each time you cycle the bolt? Just my observations, I mean, look at Russia (Probably the chief innovator in cheap, reliable firearms to date), they probably thought the same way in terms of volleys and such, yet the Mosins they armed their troops with lacks such a mechanism.
Although I see the point in the fully loaded magazine part, it took your average soldier what, like 6-9 seconds to reload a 5 round magazine by hand and like 3-4 for a stripper clip, counting cycling the bolt? I know next to nothing regarding manufacturing costs, but wouldn't a magazine cutoff, especially during a war where the supplier's goal was to make a rifle cheap, simple and reliable, wouldn't a magazine cutoff be a frivolous expense, especially when it is nearly as easy to chamber a round each time you cycle the bolt? Just my observations, I mean, look at Russia (Probably the chief innovator in cheap, reliable firearms to date), they probably thought the same way in terms of volleys and such, yet the Mosins they armed their troops with lacks such a mechanism.
Joe in fla
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2011
- Messages
- 127
Vern Humphrey said:
No, the magazine cut off was to conserve the magazine. The idea was for the troops to have full magazines at the critical moment in the battle.
I had said: "the Army commanders demanded.... that the troops fire the rifle as a single shot rifle and reload after each round and leave the rounds in the magazine for "emergencies".
Isn't that the same thing or am I missing something???
Quote:
The US lost and had to pay royalties to DWM for 300 MILLION rounds of ammunition used in WW I
And Vern said:
No, the US had to pay royalties for the stripper clip. The royalties stopped when we entered WWI, since all German patents were confiscated as enemy property.
NO! It was for the Spitzer Bullet! There may have been a suit over the stripper clips but there WAS one over the Spitzer Bullet and it didn't end when the US entered WW I! The US adopted the Spitzer Bullet in 1906. We now call it the ".30-06" because it's .30 caliber and was adopted in 1906. Anyway, in 1907 DWM, the inventor/patent holder of the Spitzer bullet, started asking for royalties on it. Gen Crozier instructed Lt Gen Thompson to "stall them" which he did. In 1914 DWM filed a lawsuit against the US for their royalties. But when the US entered WW I, the US government seized DWM's holding including the rights and turned them over to the Office of Alien Property, effectively ending the suit. In 1920, after WW I ended, DWM again filed suit and was awarded $300,000. But the US appealed and it wasn't until 1928 that the award was upheld and the US finally paid DWM $300,000 PLUS interest which amounted to something like $415,000.
If you don't believe me go read 'Mauser Bolt Rifles' by Ludwig Olson or go read it online here <http://www.asymco.com/2010/03/11/the-tale-of-the-spitzer-bullet-patent-lawsuit/>
My point is that the US used 300 Million bullets in the short time we were in WW-1!! And that was primarily in a bolt action rifle that was supposed to be used as a single shot rifle! Can you imagine how many bullets we would have used in a true repeating rifle? Or a Garand?? Or, heaven forbid, in fully automatic weapons! The numbers would probably be beyond counting! THAT'S why the army demanded a magazine cut-off!
No, the magazine cut off was to conserve the magazine. The idea was for the troops to have full magazines at the critical moment in the battle.
I had said: "the Army commanders demanded.... that the troops fire the rifle as a single shot rifle and reload after each round and leave the rounds in the magazine for "emergencies".
Isn't that the same thing or am I missing something???
Quote:
The US lost and had to pay royalties to DWM for 300 MILLION rounds of ammunition used in WW I
And Vern said:
No, the US had to pay royalties for the stripper clip. The royalties stopped when we entered WWI, since all German patents were confiscated as enemy property.
NO! It was for the Spitzer Bullet! There may have been a suit over the stripper clips but there WAS one over the Spitzer Bullet and it didn't end when the US entered WW I! The US adopted the Spitzer Bullet in 1906. We now call it the ".30-06" because it's .30 caliber and was adopted in 1906. Anyway, in 1907 DWM, the inventor/patent holder of the Spitzer bullet, started asking for royalties on it. Gen Crozier instructed Lt Gen Thompson to "stall them" which he did. In 1914 DWM filed a lawsuit against the US for their royalties. But when the US entered WW I, the US government seized DWM's holding including the rights and turned them over to the Office of Alien Property, effectively ending the suit. In 1920, after WW I ended, DWM again filed suit and was awarded $300,000. But the US appealed and it wasn't until 1928 that the award was upheld and the US finally paid DWM $300,000 PLUS interest which amounted to something like $415,000.
If you don't believe me go read 'Mauser Bolt Rifles' by Ludwig Olson or go read it online here <http://www.asymco.com/2010/03/11/the-tale-of-the-spitzer-bullet-patent-lawsuit/>
My point is that the US used 300 Million bullets in the short time we were in WW-1!! And that was primarily in a bolt action rifle that was supposed to be used as a single shot rifle! Can you imagine how many bullets we would have used in a true repeating rifle? Or a Garand?? Or, heaven forbid, in fully automatic weapons! The numbers would probably be beyond counting! THAT'S why the army demanded a magazine cut-off!
Joe in fla
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2011
- Messages
- 127
DreamCast asked:
but wouldn't a magazine cutoff, especially during a war where the supplier's goal was to make a rifle cheap, simple and reliable, wouldn't a magazine cutoff be a frivolous expense, especially when it is nearly as easy to chamber a round each time you cycle the bolt? Just my observations, I mean, look at Russia (Probably the chief innovator in cheap, reliable firearms to date), they probably thought the same way in terms of volleys and such, yet the Mosins they armed their troops with lacks such a mechanism.
Well first you have to remember that in the early 1900s the governments weren't as concerned over mass producing weapons as they were in WW-II and later. They were also much more willing to produce expensive, high quality, complex weapons than they were later.
Second, most countries didn't seem to obsess about ammunition usage the way that the US did (and does). Perhaps because they have smaller armies or maybe because their soldiers are more disciplined. I'm no expert of foreign weapons but the only country other than the US that that I know of that used a magazine cut-off was Great Britain in some of their older Enfields. As I pointed out, the Krag was designed in Denmark and used by their army but they didn't use a magazine cut-off.
Russia was so short of arms from 1890s to ~1950 that a magazine cut off probably wasn't seen as being needed. Have you see Enemy at the Gates where they only issue a rifle to every fourth soldier and they tell the others to pick up the rifle after the man carrying it is killed? Yeah, it really happened that way!
but wouldn't a magazine cutoff, especially during a war where the supplier's goal was to make a rifle cheap, simple and reliable, wouldn't a magazine cutoff be a frivolous expense, especially when it is nearly as easy to chamber a round each time you cycle the bolt? Just my observations, I mean, look at Russia (Probably the chief innovator in cheap, reliable firearms to date), they probably thought the same way in terms of volleys and such, yet the Mosins they armed their troops with lacks such a mechanism.
Well first you have to remember that in the early 1900s the governments weren't as concerned over mass producing weapons as they were in WW-II and later. They were also much more willing to produce expensive, high quality, complex weapons than they were later.
Second, most countries didn't seem to obsess about ammunition usage the way that the US did (and does). Perhaps because they have smaller armies or maybe because their soldiers are more disciplined. I'm no expert of foreign weapons but the only country other than the US that that I know of that used a magazine cut-off was Great Britain in some of their older Enfields. As I pointed out, the Krag was designed in Denmark and used by their army but they didn't use a magazine cut-off.
Russia was so short of arms from 1890s to ~1950 that a magazine cut off probably wasn't seen as being needed. Have you see Enemy at the Gates where they only issue a rifle to every fourth soldier and they tell the others to pick up the rifle after the man carrying it is killed? Yeah, it really happened that way!
Sunray
Member
It had nothing to do with the supply chain. Magazine cut offs were put on SMLE's because the British General Officers didn't trust the troopies not to waste ammo. The British Generals were still thinking in terms of Napoleonic tactics and strategy, not MG's and indirectly fired artillery. The early battles of W.W. I put an end to it. Plus eliminating it reduced production time.
It was on the 1903 for the same reason. Pershing wasn't any better than the British Generals who had been replaced after the 1914/15 battles. His only experience was chasing Pancho Villa around. He used exactly the same tactics in 1917 that had been discarded by the Brits and the French 3 years earlier. Despite being told not to by far more experienced General Officers.
It was on the 1903 for the same reason. Pershing wasn't any better than the British Generals who had been replaced after the 1914/15 battles. His only experience was chasing Pancho Villa around. He used exactly the same tactics in 1917 that had been discarded by the Brits and the French 3 years earlier. Despite being told not to by far more experienced General Officers.
It has been established that General Officers did not trust front-line troops to manage their ammo supply, therefore the cut-off device and the rifles without detachable magazines. Generals were also likely unsure of their ability to manage & maintain an umbroken supply chain.
My readings also show that Allied generals spent the first three years of WW1 pushing waves of infantry onto artillery and MG-swept terrain. Very little tactical imagination was shown and it wasn't till 1917 that the coordinated use of preparatory bombardment came about. When coordinated with infantry training on mocked-up enemy trench networks, close artillery support showed its true worth and the Germans were forced out of play.
No doubt the men in the trenches felt General Officer staff were not up to the challenge of adapting to new circumstances (notwithstanding the prophetic circumstances of the Civil and Spanish-American wars).
Many believe this revelation - the tactical, moral and intellectual faillability of Western leadership in the face of unlimited attrition levels - is part of what fed the social ferment of the 20th Century.
General Officers often are simply not up to the task, whether that be in WW1 and during parts of other conflicts. It took Vietnam for the civilian population to impose a "cut-off device" of its own onto Westmoreland and his General Staff.
My readings also show that Allied generals spent the first three years of WW1 pushing waves of infantry onto artillery and MG-swept terrain. Very little tactical imagination was shown and it wasn't till 1917 that the coordinated use of preparatory bombardment came about. When coordinated with infantry training on mocked-up enemy trench networks, close artillery support showed its true worth and the Germans were forced out of play.
No doubt the men in the trenches felt General Officer staff were not up to the challenge of adapting to new circumstances (notwithstanding the prophetic circumstances of the Civil and Spanish-American wars).
Many believe this revelation - the tactical, moral and intellectual faillability of Western leadership in the face of unlimited attrition levels - is part of what fed the social ferment of the 20th Century.
General Officers often are simply not up to the task, whether that be in WW1 and during parts of other conflicts. It took Vietnam for the civilian population to impose a "cut-off device" of its own onto Westmoreland and his General Staff.
leatherneck448
Member
the magazine was initially concepted to be used only as a reserve ammunition source.
several bolt action rifles (notably the Krag and 03 springfield) have magazine cutoffs intended so troops using the rifle would not "waste" ammo...
several bolt action rifles (notably the Krag and 03 springfield) have magazine cutoffs intended so troops using the rifle would not "waste" ammo...
Vern Humphrey
Member
Correct -- the aim was not to conserve ammo overall, but rather to ensure the troops had a full magazine at the critical moment in the battle.
As for how quickly a soldier can reload, that's not really relevant, because when the magazine cut off was originally adopted clips were not in use, and smokeless powder magazine rifles had not been used in combat.
- Status
Similar threads
