What was the purpose of a magazine cutoff?

it was a hinged plate that could be closed over the top of the magazine, thereby effectively making the rifle a single shot rifle.
this was used to attempt to reduce wastefulness of ammunition on the front line
 
From what I understand, they were used to feed the rifle single shots in the time that was appropriate, so that the soldier would have 10 shots in reserve when they were needed...that way you wouldn't be walking around half the time with only a few in the magazine.
 
The PURPOSE was to make a ten round rifle into a single shot.
The REASON was because officers know best. Or at least they thought they did, and without orders from one you were not allowed to fire more than 'one at a time', you know those 'uneducated' schmucks can't be expected to ration their gear or use their brains.
Back in the day ammo was a lot more 'expensive' than today. But in all truth, this concept is pretty much still standard in some backwards nations. Our C7's have full auto, but the Americans still insist on a lot of their M-16's having 'burst' fire... three rounds max at one time. Cuz again, servicemen are wasteful and apparently incompetant. Same ####, different pile.
Officers know best.
 
mtallman said:
From what I understand, they were used to feed the rifle single shots in the time that was appropriate, so that the soldier would have 10 shots in reserve when they were needed...that way you wouldn't be walking around half the time with only a few in the magazine.
Click to expand...

Bingo!

It's allows for the mag to be 10 rounds ready on reserve. IMHO it is a brilliant device, and was first thought up by a Scottish regiment.

IMHO the other reasons offered ie...not trusting the troops with wasting ammo sound like stories made up after the fact.
 
the 3 shot burst on m16's was because of the experince gained in vietnam

the street figthing in 68 the marines considered 1 20 rnd magazine a ticket for 1 marine across the street

the rnd count per enemy kill was huge i cant remember it now

spray and pray was the way of the day there likely was little to no actuall aiming going on...
 
"...not trusting the troops with wasting ammo..." That's the exact reason. The Generals thought they'd still be fighting wars the same way they were fought in the 19th Century until W.W. I showed them what a stupid that idea was. They truly believed that the troopies would waste ammo if given the chance.
Officers did not come from the 'great unwashed public'. They were still very much involved and thoroughly believed in the 'class system'. Officers were born. Not made.
 
Originally the cutoff plate was installed at the insistence of the General Staff that the average British Tommy would waste ammo given a magazine.

the 10 rounds in the Mag were to be saved untill an officer gave the order for rapid fire, usually reserved to repell a calvary charge.
 
The general theme here of distrust of the "unwashed masses" makes a lot of sense. Especially when you consider the Lee Enfield magazines were removable yet chained to the rifle to prevent removal!

It is very amusing to see an element of arrogance and Victorian class-prejudice actually built into a physical relic. I can't think of any other type of item where one could observe this.
 
After all of that slagging of officers about thier contemp for the lower ranks ability to conserve ammunition I have to point out that in the Canadian infantry I believe it is still current doctrine for the section commander ( Sgt or MCpl ) to control the fire of his section. Why? To conserve ammunition while fighting his section effectively. Excessive use of ammo causes huge logistical burdens when considered at Brigade or Div level while being less effective than aimed fire.

Yes I know that there are times in combat where the soldiers entire world consists of his fight and he probably will not even here the section commander yelling at him till the crisis is over, but if the entire platoon fought like this all the time they would be out of ammo in no time. And that is like being naked in the lions cage.

I remember ( Oh no not another 1970's war story from an old relic that never fired a round in combat.... ) being on live round defensive exercises and the fire base in a platoon attack where we loaded our FN mags on the rifle using the charger guide on the body cover with 5 round clips from our bandoleers so that we could maintain the other 3 mags ( EIS was 4 x 20 round mags ) full in case we needed 60 rounds fast.

The charger guide on the FNC1 sounds very much like the mag cuttof principal applied to modern arms.

The mag cuttoff did no harm to the rifleman it only offered him the chance to keep up slow fire while maintaining his 10 rounds in the mag in reserve. A very good idea in my opinion

From an ex NCO and Officer of Canada's Militia.

OK,so now you can start slagging the militia
 
I don't recall where I read it, but I had heard the cut-off was a cavalry development, meant to prevent the rifle from grabbing rounds out of the magazine in case the bolt shook open while riding. It was a safety feature.
 
Absolutely.... the platoon commander controls both the firing and the rate of fire, but an order to conserve ammo can be given, it's not necessary to be built in the rifle.
One more point... an untrained scared soldier will not be of much use, even if he's manning a machine gun.
 
The magazines of the old Lee-Metfords and early Lee-Enfields were chained to the rifle to prevent LOSS, not REMOVAL. You could still remove the magazine and service it with the chain attached.

Cutoffs? Just something to get used to. They work fine and can be regarded as an extra safety feature, if you like. Once you're used to one, it's only the work of one second to flip it off if you decide to feed from the magazine.
 
Musketry Reg's
Section 53
Para's 264 and 265

Quote
264. Troops armed with rifles fitted with safety catches will invariably set the catch to safety before movement. The use of the cut-off is to be confined in their case to occasions when they are not actually engaged with the enemy, when it may be employed for the purpose either of charging the magazine without inserting a cartridge in the chamber, or to unload the rifle while retaining cartridges in the magazine. It is never to be used to enable the rifle to be used as a single loader, and is not to supersede the use of the safety catch.

265. In the case of rifles which have no safety catches, the cut-off will be pressed in and the rifle unloaded on all occasions.
Unquote

Other than for rifles with no safety catches, the cut-off was designed as a fixture for dealing with the (at that time) new addition of the magazine. It was not an item to neuter the repeater back into a single shot rifle.
 
History has shown that what's in the regs and what was a common practice on the field under fire are two different things...necessity is the mother of invention.

Recalling conversations I have had with old relatives before they died many many years ago, I'm darn sure they mentioned using the rifle cut offs as a single shot option so as to retain a full mag if things got heavy. Regardless of what the regs of the day may have said.
 
Skirsons original title was:

"What was the purpose of a magazine cutoff?"

Hence the quote from the Musketry Regs, that WAS their purpose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom