|
|
Introduction
The Model 1891 Three-Line-Rifle, known more commonly
as the Mosin-Nagant, was used by a wide variety of countries
prior to and during WWI. Recent imports from Europe,
have resulted in the availability of a large number
of Russian rifles on the U.S. market. Many of these
rifles were produced later than 1918 and do not have
any bearing on the subject matter of this article. Many
of the recent imports, however, are of WWI vintage or
earlier. Due to the later alteration of many of the
weapons, particularly those which have come in via Finland,
some of the rifles in U.S. collections have lead to
the incorrect identification of many of the earlier
patterns of sling swivels as used by the various countries
prior to, and during WWI. The purpose of this article
is to correct some of the common misunderstandings regarding
this subject. The research supporting this article is
ongoing. As a result, there may be information available
to many of you out there that has yet to be discovered
by those of us who have been studying this subject.
If any of you can shed additional light any variations
not covered in this article, please feel free to contact
us via Tuco’s Forum or web site.
Russia
The
obvious place to begin is with the use of the Model
1891 Three-Line-Rifle in Russian service. However, to
fully understand the evolution of the sling swivel arrangements
as used on the Three-Line-Rifle, you must first examine
the rifle, which the Model 91 replaced, the Model 1870
Berdan II.
The
Berdan II in Russian Service
This
subject matter begins with the Berdan II rifle and it’s
variants. This is due to the fact that the sling swivel
variations, which were used on the Russian Model 1891
Three-Line-Rifle, were to a great degree, determined
by the sling swivel arrangement on its predecessor,
the Berdan II.
The
original version of the Berdan II Infantry Rifle was
introduced in 1870. The Berdan II was a single shot
bolt action rifle, which was designed by Col. Hiram
Berdan. Berdan was an American who had achieved fame
during the American Civil War. Col. Berdan was the organizer
and commander of the famous 1st and 2nd
U.S. Sharpshooter Regiments, both of which fought for
the Union Army during the American Civil War.
Col.
Berdan’s rifle was very advanced in its day, possessing
ballistics, which in the 1870’s, were far ahead
of its rivals. The flat shooting Obr. 10.66x57.5mmR
cartridge raised tactical concerns all across Europe
following its introduction in 1870. Due to the very
slow burning rate of blackpowder, the barrel length
rifles during the blackpowder era were out of necessity
very long. The barrel of the Berdan II Infantry rifle
was no exception as it measures 32 5/8” inches
in length. Long barrels were the norm during the heyday
of blackpowder metallic cartridge. The slow burning
rate of the powder required barrels in excess of 30”
in order to exert the maximum amount of continual pressure
on the bullet as it traveled down the barrel. The original
Infantry version of the Berdan II was equipped with
sling swivels in front of the trigger guard and underneath
the top barrel band. This arrangement was in keeping
with the standard practice, which existed with most
muzzle-loading blackpowder firearms during the 19th
Century. The extremely long rifle barrels shifted the
balance point of the weapon forward ahead of the action.
This issue of balance was the determining factor regarding
the placement of the sling swivels on most weapons during
the 19th Century.
Following
the introduction of the Berdan II Infantry rifle, the
Russians sought to arm their specialist troops with
their own versions of the new weapon. The resulting
patterns were each designed to fit the needs of the
troops to which they were to be issued. This required
the introduction of three different models, the Berdan
II Cossack, Dragoon and Cavalry models.
Slots
vs. Swivels
The
Cossack and Dragoon Models can be easily covered together
as the difference between the two patterns was restricted
to the trigger guard. Both models were intended to be
carried by mounted troops. Full-length infantry rifles
of the day were far too cumbersome to be carried comfortably
on horseback. As a result, both patterns were substantially
shorter than the infantry rifle at an overall length
of 48.7” for the Cossack and Dragoon rifles vs.
53.35” for the infantry version. The primary difference
between the two classes of weapons was tied to the tactical
role each was expected to fill on the 19th
Century battlefield. Dragoons were in fact mounted infantry.
They provided a mobile force which, could be rapidly
deployed on the battlefield. When in action, Dragoons
were expected to dismount and fight as infantry. The
Cossack Regiments, on the other hand, were expected
to fight mounted. They fulfilled the traditional roles
of light cavalry, i.e. scouting, pursuit, raiding, etc.
Since the Cossacks were expected to fire their rifles
from the saddle, the Cossack Model was produced without
a trigger guard to enable the troops to find the trigger
by simply sweeping their finger back along the bottom
of the action. In place of the standard trigger, the
Cossack Model contained what is known as a “reed
drum” trigger. This configuration consists of a
cylindrical trigger which is approximately ½” in
diameter. The cylindrical portion of the “drum”
is knurled to provide a better gripping surface. The
Dragoon Model is equipped with the same basic trigger
and trigger guard as the infantry model. This is the
only difference between the two rifles. Where they both
differ from the infantry rifle is in the barrel length
and the sling arrangement. Due to the shorter barrel
length of both models, the point of balance is shifted
back towards the action. As a result, the arrangement
of the sling consists of two slots, one in the butt,
back of the stock wrist, while the other is placed through
the forearm, between the lower and upper barrel bands.
The cavalry carbine, for all the same reasons as the
Cossack and Dragoon Models, had slots cut through the
same locations in the stock and the forend.
When
the Model 1891 Three-Line-Rifle was introduced, all
of the same considerations were used for the establishment
of the sling swivel locations. The earliest production
rifles from Chattelerault had the lower sling swivel
located on the front of the magazine housing, since
this occupied the space directly in front of the trigger
guard. The top swivel was attached to the upper barrel
band. Following the same reasoning as was used with
the Berdan II, the Cossack, Dragoon and Cavalry models
were all produced with sling slots rather than fixed
swivels. This was the case up until the swivels on production
rifles were replaced by slots in 1908.
For
whatever reason, after 16 years of service, the Russians
decided to equip the Infantry Model 1891 Three-Line-Rifles
with slots, rather than the original swivels. Perhaps
it was to cut production cost or to streamline manufacturing.
I have yet to discover evidence, which confirms the
reasoning behind the change. I doubt that it was due
to battlefield experience as the rifle had been in the
hands of troops since 1892 and had seen service in the
war with Japan in 1904. Whatever the reason, the change
was made in 1908 at the same time as the introduction
of the new Model 1891g bullet. The rear sight was also
changed at this time.
Early
Slings
The
original buckle and button type slings (now most commonly
referred to as Mauser type slings), which were first
issued with the Berdan II, were in turn, the first sling
patterns to be used with the Three-Line-Rifle.
The
infantry pattern was similar in style to the typical
Mauser pattern sling with a brass buckle and button.
The sling passed through the bottom or top swivel, back
through the brass buckle and was then attached to the
other swivel through the use of two split holes in the
end of the leather sling. A brass or iron button with
a flat disc on one side and a wasted button on the other,
was slipped through the slits in the leather and aligned
with the holes. Tension on the sling kept the button
from slipping out. On the majority of the early pattern
rifles, the top swivel was permanently attached to the
top barrel band. There is evidence, however, to support
the fact that some percentage of the early sling swivels
were in fact attached to the sling. The swivel contained
a hook, which could be slipped in and out of the space
between the barrel band tightening flange and hooked
over the center of the tightening screw. This made it
in effect, a quick detachable swivel arrangement. It
is not known, however, how many of this type were produced
and over what length of time. It is also not clear if
this was an officially approved variation or a field
expedient design.
The
“Guards” Rifle
There
exists a second type of early sling swivel arrangement,
which cannot be accurately identified at the current
time. It has on occasion been described as a “Guards”
rifle. I cannot find evidence to prove it’s actual
issue in large numbers to any particular troops, let
alone the Russian Guard Regiments. The rifle does exist
and I have seen several examples in museums in Europe.
The few survivors may indicate that these rifles were
from an experimental issue or from troop trials. Once
again, this is pure speculation. The swivels on these
rifles are found on the bottom barrel band and under
the rear of the butt, just ahead of the buttplate. The
swivel attachment is located on the underside of the
butt and is held in place with two screws, which anchor
a swivel plate recessed into the wood. The inletting
on the examples I have seen is very well done and the
metal to wood fit is excellent. They do not appear to
be an expedient wartime alteration. More research needs
to be done on this subject before this rifle can be
accurately identified in terms of it’s original
intended use or issue.
Dog
Collars
The
Three-Line-Cossack, Dragoon and Cavalry Models, like
the earlier Berdan II equivalents, were from the very
beginning, equipped with sling slots rather than swivels.
The most common type of sling issued with the slotted
weapons has come to be called the “dog collar’”
sling by today’s collectors. This type of sling
employs two short (lengths vary, but most are approximately
6” to 10” in length) belts, generally equipped
with roller buckles, which pass through the slot at
either end of the stock. The loop formed by the “dog
collar”, in turn, provides the two attachment point
at either end of the stock, which the buckle and button
type of sling can then be attached to. In this manner,
the earlier pattern Russian buckle and button slings
could be utilized with rifles equipped with slotted
stocks.
Lesser
Known Sling Patterns
Despite
the widespread use of the “dog collar” type
of sling, there existed a variety of documented variations,
which were used by the Russians both before and during
WWI. Please bear with me as the terminology for some
of the various patterns are my own. For the majority
of the rather unusual and obscure types of slings I
have encountered, there is no official nomenclature
of which I am aware. I have attempted to use descriptive
phrases, which are easily recognized once they have
been compared to the accompanying photographs.
Split
Tip Knotted Slings
One
of the simplest designs can be seen in the collection
of the Royal Belgian Army Museum in Brussels, Belgium.
I know of no known official name for this sling, so
I will simply call it the knotted pattern. The sling
consists of a long leather or canvas strap, which has
two tips which are thin enough to be passed through
the slots of the stock. Both ends of the sling have
been split lengthwise for a distance of approximately
3” to 5” from the tip. The sling tips are
then passed through the sling slots on the side of the
weapon opposite the bolt. They are then pulled through
the slot to the other side and tied in a double knot.
The knots prevent the tips from being pulled back through
the slots. The net effect is that while this sling type
is not adjustable, it makes a very simple and effective
side mount sling arrangement for cavalry carbines as
well as both the Cossack and Dragoon models. Slung in
this fashion, the weapon rides on the back with the
bolt side away from the body.
Dumbbell
Slings
Next
on the list is what I refer to as the “dumbbell”
style sling. The tips of this version are made from
very thin material whether constructed from cloth or
leather. The tips of the sling are doubled over and
then passed through the slots on the stock. The tip
of the sling remains on the same side of the stock as
the sling. Only the loop made by doubling over the sling
tip passes through the slot. When the loop appears on
the other side, a small “dumbbell shaped piece
of leather is passed through the loop to function as
a retaining bar, which prevents the loop from pulling
back through the slot when pressure is applied. As with
the knotted sling, by running the loops into the slots
from the side opposite the bolt, the sling becomes in
effect, side mounted.
Slots
with Swivels
In
addition to the early pattern swivels which were mounted
on the magazine well and top barrel band of the pre
1908 rifles, sling swivels were also used by the Russians
within the sling slots of post 1908 Three-Line-Rifles,
Cossack, Dragoon and Cavalry carbines. For many years,
collectors in the U.S. have wrongfully believed that
ALL metal swivels, which are found mounted within the
slots of original Russian rifles, were added in Finland.
It is understandable why this myth became fact to a
large number of collectors. So many of the rifles that
came into the U.S. from Finland had seen service all
over Europe during WWI! Naturally, collectors assumed
that all of the variations, which arrived from Finland,
were attributable to the Finns. This is definitely not
the case! While there is a pattern of swivel, which
was designed and introduced by the Finns, it is very
specific in design. These swivels appear to be cast,
as there is a visible parting line, which runs around
the top and bottom of the midpoint of the swivel. The
Finnish swivels are made in separate sizes for the top
and bottom slots. They are mounted via a screw, which
passes through the swivel on one end and screws through
the threaded tip on the other side of the slot. These
swivels follow the contour of the stock very closely
around the side of the stock, at which point they then
turn away from the stock to form a bearing surface for
the standard 1 1/2” wide Finnish sling.
From
here, the use of metal swivels mounted within sling
slots becomes difficult to follow and verify. This is
due to the fact that so many of the surviving rifles
saw service with so many different armies! The identification
of each type of swivel, when it was added to the rifle
and by whom, becomes very difficult. There is ample
photographic evidence to confirm the use of metal swivels
mounted through the sling slots by Russia, Serbia, Germany
and Austria during WWI. In addition, so many weapons
were captured and reissued by both sides during the
war! It is impossible to tell if the swivels in the
slots of the rifles which, are found in wartime photographs,
were added by the army shown in the photo, or by someone
else from whom the weapon was subsequently captured!
Despite this, there are some styles of metal and wire
swivel, which can be traced to particular countries,
based on combined evidence provided in the photographic
record and on rifles found in both private collections
and museums. At this point, it will perhaps be easier
to deal with the identifiable patterns on a country
by country basis.
Wire
Swivels
One
of the most valuable research tools which survives today
regarding the weapons used both before and during WWI,
is the huge number of battlefield and studio photographs.
There exists a surprising number of photographs of Russian
troops armed with slotted Three-Line-Rifles which very
clearly have swivels mounted through the slots in the
stocks. The only problem with the photographs, in most
instances, is that they are not clear enough to identify
the specific type of manufacturing used to produce the
swivel. However, individual specimens found in the museums
in Russia and Western Europe show most of these swivels
to be constructed with heavy gauge wire, which has usually
been bent into a rectangular swivel within the sling
slots of the weapon. Interestingly, this type of swivel
does not appear in any photo I have seen, which was
taken during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904. Based on
this and knowledge of the supply problems which plagued
the Russian Army throughout the war, I think it is safe
to assume that the use of wire for the production of
sling swivels was an expediency born of necessity in
the early days of WWI. Wire swivels could be produced
in the field by Regimental armorers with nothing more
than a pair of wire cutters and pliers. The obvious
advantage is that the early pattern Russian buckle and
button slings as well as any pattern of sling, which
was captured from the armies of Germany, Austria, Turkey
or Bulgaria, could be utilized with slotted Russian
rifles through the simple addition of wire sling swivels.
No other type of metal swivel other than those fashioned
from cut wire can be positively attributed to the Russians.
Russian
“Ersatz” Slings
Although
the term ersatz is German in origin, it’s translation
as “substitute standard” can easily be applied
to the various makeshift slings that the bedraggled
Russian troops resorted to when standard issue or captured
enemy slings were not available. In both Russia and
Europe, there exist countless varieties of slings, which
were fashioned from whatever was available at the time.
These slings take many forms and shapes, including but
not limited to, cloth slings which are passed through
either swivels or slots and then stitched together.
Leather slings are encountered made in the same fashion.
The use of cord or rope is documented which was simply
tied and knotted to the swivels or through the slot.
On other rifles, cord or rope was tied around the stock
wrist and forearm. These are but a few of the wide variety
of solutions to the dismal system of supply that the
Russian soldiers were forced to endure.
Austria-Hungary
The
Austro-Hungarian Army faced the Russian Army across
thousands of miles of forest, mountains and swamps.
The bitter fighting which began in 1914 saw the fortunes
of both sides shift back and forth across the entire
length of the Eastern Front. The war in the East took
on a different complexion than in the West. The front
lines were never deadlocked in the same static manner,
which became synonymous with the Western Front. As was
the case with nearly every army that took the field
in 1914, the arms production of the Austro-Hungarian
Empire could never keep up with the demands of mobilization.
As a result, the Austrians were forced to issue large
numbers of captured Russian rifles to their own troops.
Weapons collected from the battlefield were sent to
the rear areas where they were sorted by type and then
sent on to one of the many arsenals or arms depots which
were equipped to inspect, repair and when necessary,
alter the weapons before they could be reissued to Austro-Hungarian
troops.
While
a percentage of the rifles captured from Russia were
actually rechambered for the Austrian 8x50mmR service
cartridge, the bulk of them were either reissued as
they were captured or they had the sling swivel configuration
altered to accept the standard Austro-Hungarian sling.
This necessitated the addition of a rather large rectangular
swivel attached in one of several ways, to the butt
of the stock. The standard Austro-Hungarian sling was
produced with a leather loop attached to one end of
the sling and a tongue and roller buckle arrangement
at the other end. The tongue was approximately 5”
long while the buckle that it engaged was located approximately
2” from the base of the tongue. The end of the
sling with the tongue and buckle arrangement was passed
through the swivel on the butt of the rifle and then
back through the leather loop. The tongue was then passed
through the top swivel and secured through the buckle.
The leather loop provided a sliding adjustment to the
sling’s length while the roller buckle provided
the static attachment to the swivel mounted to the forearm
of the weapon. As a result of this sling pattern, the
bottom swivel on Austro-Hungarian weapons was quite
large, as it had to allow the thickness of the leather
sling, plus the additional thickness of the roller buckle,
to pass through the bottom swivel. The top swivel was
of the usual thickness as found on most rifles of the
period as it was designed to only accommodate the thickness
of the leather tongue. Rifles that were reissued without
alteration would have been issued with one of the various
patterns of Russian slings. In order to use the Austro-Hungarian
sling, a new rear swivel had to be adapted to the rifle.
The order, issued in November of 1914, which approved
this work to the sling arrangement on captured rifles,
still exists in the Austrian Archives.
Screw
Post with Swivel
The
rework to the sling configuration, which was approved
in November of 1914, was performed by many different
facilities and over the course of the war. These alterations
were accomplished in several different manners. The
earliest form of conversion utilized a simple wood screw
post, which supported a block of metal, which was drilled
out to accept a simple wire loop. This was screwed into
the underside of the butt 2” to 3” forward
of the buttplate. The location of this new swivel on
the underside of the butt made it necessary to add a
new swivel to the forearm. Otherwise, the distance between
swivels as well as the balance of the weapon when slung,
would prove to be unacceptable. The new upper swivel
was rectangular in shape and was fashioned out of bent
wire. It was mounted through a hole drilled through
the forearm several inches in front of the bottom barrel
band. This conversion was performed on rifles that were
originally equipped with slots or Russian type swivels.
Many of the early pattern Three-Line-Rifles altered
in this fashion, still retain the original Russian swivel
mounted on the front of the magazine housing. This type
of alteration is unmistakably Austro-Hungarian. Slight
variation in this type of rear swivel may be encountered
due to the variety of reclamation depots and arsenals,
which performed this work over the course of the war.
Wire
Swivels
The
Austro-Hungarian alterations to captured weapons were
carried out throughout the war. In addition to the above-mentioned
method, weapons were converted for Austro-Hungarian
use through the addition of simple wire swivels as well.
Whether or not this type of alteration was in use throughout
the war or only in the later stages when the production
of the special rear swivel might have been considered
a waste of manufacturing time, is impossible to tell.
When wire was used for both swivels, the rear swivel
that was added was of the same construction as the front
swivel. Holes were drilled through both the butt and
the forearm of the stock and crude wire rectangular
swivels were bent into place. The rear swivel is generally
deeper in form than the top swivel. If the rifle contained
slots, the wire swivels were sometimes, but not always
placed within the slots. Slotted stocks are sometimes
encountered with holes drilled through which were used
for the placement of this type of wire swivels. Once
again, this was done to accommodate the Austro-Hungarian
sling.
Germany
In
the opening months of WWI, the stunning German victory
at Tannenburg, left the German Army with over a quarter
of a million captured Russian Three-Line-Rifles. When
the war did not end in the three month time frame that
everyone in Europe had expected, the Germans found themselves
without enough rifle to equip the millions of men who
were mobilized for the war effort. They too, were forced
to issue captured enemy rifles to both first and second
line troops in the early days of the war. As time passed,
these weapons were relegated to the rear echelon troops,
as more standard German rifles became available. Like
the Austro-Hungarians, many of these rifles were issued
as they were captured without alteration. Unlike the
Austro-Hungarians, the German regulation sling could
be used without alteration to the existing sling swivels
as found on the early version of the Three-Line-Rifle.
Many German troops appear in photos using the early
(magazine housing/top barrel band) Russian swivels with
German or Russian slings. However, the Germans did use
other methods of attachment for their own regulation
slings.
Bent
Wire Top Swivels
The
German garrison of occupied Brussels was equipped for
much of the war with captured Three-Line-Rifles. Large
numbers of Three-Line-Rifles were also issued to Naval
units throughout the war. The well-known photograph
of a detachment of sailors from the I. Matrosen-Division
taken in Kiel in 1918, shows 15 German sailors equipped
with captured Russian rifles. All of the rifles are
equipped with German bayonets and all of the rifles
utilize the early style sling swivels arrangement with
the bottom swivel located on the magazine housing and
the top swivel attached to the top barrel band. The
top swivels, however, are not permanently attached to
the barrel band. They are of the hook style, which could
be attached or removed by slipping the hook over or
off, of the tightening screw on the top band. I have
seen this type of swivel in the Royal Belgian Army Museum
and have one in my collection as well. The Museum in
Brussels has a large number of the rifles abandoned
by the retreating Germans when they pulled out of Brussels
in 1918. There are a number rifles equipped with this
type of swivel in the Museums possession. The swivels
are formed with a single strand of heavy-duty wire,
which is formed into a hook, and then bent around to
form the swivel with the end opposite the hook butted
up against the hook to complete the loop which holds
the sling. The question is, is this a German swivel,
or is it the early Russian type, which was attached
to the sling rather than permanently to the top barrel
band? To date, I have not confirmed this exact type
in any photos of Russian soldiers. We must assume, for
the time being, that this was a German alteration. However,
if this is the case, why do the Russian top barrel bands
lack swivels when the rifles obviously are not equipped
with slots? More study of this type of swivel is required
and if there is anyone out there who can shed some light
on this subject, I would love to hear from you!
Slots
with Swivels
The
Germans utilized special swivels, which were purpose
built for mounting through the sling slots or holes
drilled in the stocks on post 1908 Russian Three-Line-Rifles.
This particular type of swivel has been found in a variety
of surviving German capture marked weapons and is without
question, a German addition. They are closer in style
to the later Finnish swivels in that they fit perfectly
over the slots and are drilled and threaded to accept
a round headed screw. These swivels are rectangular
in cross section and have a flat round section at each
end of the swivel through which the screw passes. They
have been found in both the top and bottom slots of
German capture marked rifles. They also appear mounted
in a hole drilled through the forearm of early type,
capture marked, Three-Line-Rifles which lack sling slots.
71
Jaeger Rear Swivel
In
recent months, small numbers of German altered Three-Line-Rifles
have surfaced out of the recent shipment of Mosin Nagants
which have come into the US from either Bulgaria or
Romania. There were a dozen or so of these rifles among
the 10,000 or so rifles imported by Century Arms. Some,
but not all of these rifles, bear German capture marks.
What they all have in common, is that they have been
adapted to accept a German Ersatz bayonet through the
addition of a Gew 98 H-type barrel band and nosecap
with bayonet bar. A few of these rifles still retain
the original German sling swivel alteration which, was
performed during the bayonet conversion. The top sling
swivel is of the same type as is mentioned above. The
bottom swivel, however, is identical to the swivel found
mounted on the butt of the German Model 71 Jaeger Rifle.
One of these rifles in my collection has the Jaeger
swivel mounted on the butt, but has a bent wire swivel
mounted through the hole in the forearm rather than
one of the screw style swivels. The remaining rifles
of this type in my collection have all been plugged
in the exact same locations where these swivels were
originally mounted. There is little doubt that these
rifles were all converted in the same manner and most
likely at the same time, and in the same depot.
Serbia
and Montenegro
The
rifles supplied by Russia to both Serbia and Montenegro
before and during WWI consisted of both the early and
later types of Model 1891 Three-Line-Rifle. Due to the
fact that so few of the Balkans issued rifles have survived
in identifiable form, the primary source of evidence
for the type of sling arrangements used by the Serbs
and Montenegrins comes to us through photographs. As
would be expected, most photographs of the troops of
both armies show the use of one or the other of the
standard types of Russian sling attachment. There are,
however, a few photos, which have come to light, which
show metal swivels mounted either directly through the
stock or through the slots in the stocks. The photos
are inconclusive other than to confirm that a variation
beyond the top barrel band/mag-housing or “dog
collar” type of sling attachment did exist. Once
again, whether these alterations were of Serb or Montenegrin
origin cannot be proved at this time. The rifles in
the few photos that exist might have been captured from
Austro-Hungarian troops, which had been supplied with
rifles captured from the Russians! If this were the
case, then the alterations pictured in the photos could
be of Austro-Hungarian origin. More research needs to
be done in this area, although the amount of source
material is very limited at best!
The
Ottoman Empire
The
Turks acquired thousands of Model 1891 Three-Line-Rifles
from the Russians during the course of the war. Little
information has made it’s way out of Turkey either
in the form of surviving examples of the Model 91s used
by the Turks, or in the quantity of photographs which
have been published in the West. I have two rifles in
my collection which are Turkish marked, however, nothing
has been done to them other than the application of
Turkish markings on the stock of one and the renumbering
in Turkish Arabic of the rear sight of the other. Both
rifles are equipped with sling slots. The captured weapons,
as used by the Ottoman Turks during WWI, deserve more
research than the subject has received to date. I hope
to do additional study in this area in the near future.
Conclusions
In
closing, there are a few words of caution that all of
us, as collectors, need to consciously remember from
time to time. WWI was a constantly flowing, evolutionary
current event for those people who lived through it
or were alive to read about it in the newspapers of
the day. Real events of this nature, due not occur in
clean and neat subdivided categories. One of the pitfalls
that many collectors slip into from time to time is
to try to ascribe order to the chaos that was WWI, or
any other historical period for that matter. Dates of
issue, patterns of equipment, model introductions, weapon
alterations, etc. etc., the list is mind boggling, did
not take place simultaneously on every front, in every
unit, or for that matter, among every soldier in the
same unit. While generalization makes our collecting
and classifying easier, it oversimplifies greatly the
wide degree of variation that existed in every aspect
of the War. Keeping this in mind, this article can only
ever hope to scratch the surface of the subject matter.
At a time when the entire World was turned on it’s
ear, anything that could have possibly been turned to
an alternate use, most likely was. Keeping this in mind
while doing everything from combing gunshows for that
special find, to researching a particular weapon or
unit history, will serve as a constant reminder that
there is more out there that we don’t know, than
what we do know! I hope this article is of use to you
and that it might serve as a jumping off point for someone
else’s research.
I
would like to thank my usual group of coconspirators!
Both Kevin Carney and Karl-Heinz Wrobel helped me immensely
with this work. They are both very knowledgeable and
have contributed greatly in so many areas of my research.
Tuco, once again! Without his efforts, none of us would
be here exchanging information and building friendships!
My apologies for some of the photographs as they were
taken at times and places when I had no idea that they
would ever be seen outside of my reference material.
Many were taken in museums without a flash while others
were taken in museum basements, which if you have ever
been in one, are singularly like dungeons! I am always
pleased to hear from everyone out there regarding additional
information or comments. Please forward them to the
address that Tuco provides. As always, any mistakes
are my own! But with the help of JohnWall’s proof
reading, if there are any, they will be in the content
of my research itself, rather than in the grammar or
spelling of the article! John must have been an English
Professor in one of his past lives!
John P. Sheehan
March 1st, 2000
With
Credits To Kevin Carney - Owner North
China Arms
|
Overview & Section Summaries
gunboards
