Why didn't more bolt action rifles adopt 10-round box magazines like the Lee-Enfield?
Posted by PolymathArt@reddit | ForgottenWeapons | View on Reddit | 21 comments
The only time a Mauser has had a magazine capacity greater than 5 rounds was in those Gewehr 98 Trench rifles, right? (Also the P14/M1917 Enfield counts as a Mauser-style action)
jefferysteele@reddit
Wasn’t really a need to as detachable magazines were too expensive to make compared to just using a disposable 5 round clip to charge the rifle.
Even for the British the 10 round magazine had its issues
There is also the older doctrine where bolt guns had a magazine cutoff to limit ammo usage like on early 1903s, Lee-Endfield, Krag, and G98 rifles.
CrabAppleBapple@reddit
Just a slight correction, the 10 round magazine on a Lee-Enfield isn't detachable in that you were expected to detach it and load a fresh one. They were still loaded with a disposable stripper clip.
TheRaptorSix@reddit
The original intention was actually to do exactly that - detach the magazine and load a fresh one.
The idea was each rifle would come with two magazines - one for the rifle and one for emergencies. This is why early Lees have a small loop on the front of the magazine, that's where a chain was attached to connect the magazine to the rifle. If the order came for rapid fire and the soldier exbausted the magazine, he was supposed to detach the magazine, have it hang on its chan from the rifle and insert his second magazine. This gave troops 20 rounds of rapid fire before reloading the magazines.
This was before Britain adopted chargers, hence why Lee Metfords and other "Long Lees" have a magazine loop and no charger bridge. But as far as I know, the two magazine policy was never implemented, but it was part of the brief for the rifle's design. So yes, Lees have a detachable box magazine because you were supoosed to swap magazines.
jefferysteele@reddit
Iirc the magazine being removable was a carry over from the older Lee Metford where they detached the magazine to hand load it.
But yes you wouldn’t remove it unless you were doing maintenance.
CrabAppleBapple@reddit
That sounds incredibly annoying to do.
DrBadGuy1073@reddit
Makes it easier to load .303 Brit right and avoid rimlock issues. Plus the Lee Metford is a looong gun with a 30' barrel.
joshsmog@reddit
30 foot holy moly they pole vaulting into position or what
DrBadGuy1073@reddit
Whoops fixed 🤣
ZETH_27@reddit
When you're loading magazines out of combat, it's far nicer to have to handle only the magazine than to do it with the whole rifle. It also makes maintinance way easier since you have a clear space straight through the rifle when the bolt is open.
Quarterwit_85@reddit
It was to be removed for cleaning and inspection, not for loading.
GhanjRho@reddit
Because it mostly isn’t worth it. At the time, detachable magazines are very expensive, so even guns designed around them are using clips. And loading 2 clips to fire 10 rounds is basically the same over time as loading 1 clip to fire 5 rounds, twice.
Add in the new ways Pvt. Conscript can screw up, and it just isn’t worth it
Gustav55@reddit
This is also why you didn't see a big push for repeating rifles and why single shots hung around for so long.
It takes about the same amount of time to load and fire a large number of shots if you single load or shoot several and then stop and load several.
It's only with the invention of packet loading do we see the big push for repeating rifles.
whatever_054@reddit
5 round double stack magazines also have the advantage of being fully protected by the stock.
Damaging the magazine might not be a likely occurrence, but it’s one more reason in addition to things like cost that other people have mentioned
Cliffinati@reddit
Because well one the Enfield mags were detachable but soldiers were issued 2. Their ammo is carried in stripper clips. They were mechanically detachable but not drilled to be run that way.
They were there as a replacement mag Incase of a spring failure.
justaheatattack@reddit
you'd just shoot it all.
IS YOUR CUT OFF ON!?!?
HachikoNekoGamer@reddit
As other have already mentioned, magazines back then were both expensive and a "luxury" plus you're basically arming and traininf people that were just regular joes, not exactly "Special Forces" kind of training and discipline
Basically ship out as many soldiers as possible
joku75@reddit
It wasn't necessary. The firepower was more trusted for the machine gun at the longer range and submachine guns at shorter range.
I_2_Cast_Lead_45acp@reddit
Wasn't originally the 10 round was supposed to be for emergencies? They kepted the mag cut off feature for a extended period of time.
E4g6d4bg7@reddit
They were worried about supply issues. They wanted to limit how much ammo a soldier could fire off, and the magazine cutoff was wanted for a similar reason.
PolymathArt@reddit (OP)
Forgot that the Schmidt-Rubin 1889 had a box magazine with a 12-round capacity.
AutoModerator@reddit
Understand the rules
Check the sidebar. It's full of resources to help you.
Not everyone is an expert such as yourself; be considerate.
No Spam. No Memes.
No political posts. Save that for /r/progun or /r/politics.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.