Hail the World King............

I don't look too far into such things if they don't headspace on either a rim/belt. If they don't have either of those two, they are poorly engineered. Trust the Yankees to base their "best" cartridge on a bad design. Rookies.

But what can you expect from a country that joined every world war late...;)
 
This is true yes but often over emphasised ITO their exclusive use of the Mausers. Remember that many Boers were not wealthy and when joining Kommandos during the second Boer War they were encouraged to bring their own rifles (some even used shotguns - as evidenced from British surgeons reports). Some even had the money for high end 95 Plezier Mausers, other used what they had. There were many Mausers but many Boers used Lee Metfords. Boers shot whatever they could afford or get.

If you look at old Boer War photos you will see Boers with all kinds of Mausers from the .43" 71, 88 commission rifle right on through the 95, Lee Metfords, Martinis, Krag-Jorgsens, Snyders and I am sure the Lebel and Fusil Gras must have filtered down from the French colonies.

Lee Enfields became popular once they arrived even though they were the rifle of the 'enemy'.

Yes, at the margins they were superior to the Brits (they had local knowledge and were better shots) but the scorched earth tactics of Kitchener and the shear numbers of the British troop/artilery surge along with a tactical error or two by the Boers ended it officially for them.

The only thing that enabled them to conduct an effective guerrilla campaign was the lack of aircraft and aerial observation. 20 years later the Boers would have had their butts handed to them from the start, as the Iraqi's or Red cavalry did when they encountered a/c in 1919-21. That and the ineffective use of artillery due to lack of radio communications and antiquated tactics. Under use of MGs didn't help either, neither did the inaccurate sighting of the British rifles.

"No end of a lesson" which did us "no end of good" as Kipling put it.
 
I don't look too far into such things if they don't headspace on either a rim/belt. If they don't have either of those two, they are poorly engineered.

And what, pray tell, is the problem with the headspacing design of a rimless, non-belted cartridge? :rolleyes: The belt is certainly no winner. Only needed if the design has little or no shoulder, ditto a rim. Rims are the source of a serious feeding issue if the rim of the top cartridge in the magazine gets in behind the one below it. gimme a break! :confused: Eagleye.
 
Speaking of which what is this tonnes crap that we now have to trip over. It's tons, a ton being 2000 pounds and a metric ton or an English long ton being 2200 pounds. A new Francophone word wasn't unnecessary with the change to metric.

Actually the english Ton is 2240 pounds. 20 hundredweight of 112 pounds each.
 
And what, pray tell, is the problem with the headspacing design of a rimless, non-belted cartridge? ...Rims are the source of a serious feeding issue if the rim of the top cartridge in the magazine gets in behind the one below it.

My good sir, that "serious" feeding issue is only a problem with idiots. The British Empire did not breed idiots of whom could not figure out how to properly load a rimmed cartridge.

What a rediculous assertion.
 
Haha touche my good man.

(Just to clarify things a little, all my posts are tongue-in-cheek, and by no means are meant to call anyone out. Hopefully no one has taken them the wrong way.):redface:
 
Same country that spawned Lucas Electrics in cars...
:rolleyes:
:D

As an Automotive Repair Technican/College Instructor in that trade, I can completely appreciate that comment! Lucas electrical systems were famous for the fact that they would leak "smoke" at the slightest provocation. You know the story. If you keep the smoke inside the wire's insulation, everything works! Let the smoke out, and it quits working! ;) :p :D
Regards, Eagleye.
 
Back
Top Bottom