A musing on sportered milsurps

[H Wally]

Just thinking over something a cgn'er said to me earlier today.

I wonder how many milsurps out there were sportered or altered by someone in war or for a reason that would add value if we knew it?

Thinking about ross rifles specifically, and how we do know that snipers would cut the fore wood off of their guns in much the same way as later bubba's did.


Just some thoughts to keep all of the "returning to their former glory" folk off their high horses

 

[LeeEnfieldNo.4_mk1]

Considering how much trouble the soldier would get into by modifying their rifle, probably not many were done in the way you describe. Although I am sure it did happen, their was a pic posted here a while ago with a Canadian using a No.4 with a cut down stock somewhere.

 

[Drachenblut]

True, but don't forget, it was WAR. People, often officers, were allowed on the unit level to modify their arms, but, of course, not LEGALLY. The old "Your guilty only if you are caught" applies I think. I've heard of alot of WWI vets who cut their bayonets down to the length of a 6 inch knife for handiness and it worked just as well on the rifle.

 

[smellie]

In the Great War, especially following the replacement of the Ross Rifle, the "stripped Ross" was used quite a bit by Company and Battalion level snipers. As far as regular Infantry were concerned, you were liable to serious problems if you did something like this ($28 for a new rifle, $5.50 for a new bayonet.... my grandfather was being paid $1 a day plus 10 cents combat pay).

But the case with snipers was different and they were given a lot of leeway. The stripped Ross was more common than folk realise.... and I really wonder how many have been 'restored' mistakenly. I have 2 here that are absolutely identical and agree with old old photos posted here. I'm not refurbing them, believe me!

And I STILL wish I knew what PHAB 2 means, stamped on a Ross stock... and PHAB 1, too, for that matter. That's the markings on my pair of stripped rifles. Any ideas?

 

[smellie]

When the Ross was handed in and the SMLE issued, I rather think that a lot of equipment went "expended in action". The Ross bayonet is a good example here. As a bayonet, it was useless without a rifle.... but it sure made a great trench knife. Really decent steel in them for the period, too.

There was no trench knife issued..... and trench raiding was what you might call a 'growth industry' and would remain so for the rest of the War.

 

[maple_leaf_eh]

The Canadian War Museum and the Imperial War Museum have collections of trench fighting tools, clubs, revolvers, daggers and knuckle knives. All very necessary when both sides were launching battalion-sized raids. Five hundred silent and deadly men slithering into your positions whould have made even the strongest of men $hit their paints.

Funny this topic came up, just a day after the Canadian Forces issued a CANFORGEN ordering units to stop local purchase of unauthorized weapons and equipment. The only source for these things is the central procurement office.

 

[smellie]

Central procurement office is now going to do all their buying?

I guess Hell will be frozen over before the guys get any more modern equipment.

We should all write our MPs about this.

Our guys were using equipment that was older than they were, and that was 45 years ago. And not really a lot has been changed. C7, for example, is now 30 years old and it's a modernisation of a 53-year-old design.... and guys are still joining at 19.

There have been a FEW new developments in the last 40-odd years, one might think.

Money's money, but it's a lot cheaper than blood.

 

[Infanteer90]

Firearms modified during war by a soldier would be a very rare occurrence and of course without provenance it would be impossible for anyone to know now if a firearm was modified during the war or after. Therefore, IMO it is still a great idea to de-sporterize a military firearm rather than cling to the most unlikely hope that the rifle was modified by a soldier at some point.

 

[purple]

Local procurement of weapons and related equipment is'nt done for reasons of training and logistics support. The Army uses standardized equipment for these reasons. You do not need "local rambos" coming up with their personal ideas about a better mousetrap-otherwise it would be like a giant CGN forum with a gazzilion ideas on the best bear defence weapon!