Vickers .50 tech data
 

G'day all, trying to get some tech data and line drawings of a Vickers .50 MG so as to create a pair of gas firers for Colin's two Vickers light tanks he is rebuilding. (Check out the Armour section of this forum) any tips would be greatly appreciated. Even if you know of one in a museum where I might be able to obtain some basic measurements, cheers Dave

Contact Richard Fisher.


https://vickersmg.blog/

Tim

Is it just the "Front end" you want details of (ie the part external to the turret and visible from the outside), or the whole gun in detail?

And does it need to specifically be the English-made MkV that was supplied with the Vickers Light Tanks, or will the Australian-made MkXXI version be sufficient?

Hi Tony, am after the whole gun mate, be nice to poke ones noggin down through the hatch and see as much correct detail as possible. Another contact of mine does very excellent and discreet gas conversions for all manner of weaponry so the desire is to have a pair of Vickers that not only look the part but sound it as well. I have only one photo of the two guns mounted in the Bovington tank but there is insufficient detail to scale off. B2U Dok

Sorry Tony I missed adding the type, It's really up to Col but I suspect it doesn't really matter? Were the Au built units used in these tanks I guess is the question.

A pair of Vickers .50s is ambitious. A single would be a score. And even if you found them the cross border restrictions shipping may be a deal stopper. I wish you the best of luck. Fabricating replicas should be a day's work for Colin given what he'd demonstrated so far but getting hold of an original would be the key. Let me know if you need details on a plain old .303 Vickers.

G'day Bruce, I have been in touch with Richard Fisher in the UK and it would seem that he is able to give me sufficient info/detail on these guns. I hadn't realized that the Lithgow small arms facility in NSW has info on the .50 as well. Regarding originals.. wouldn't it be nice to pop into the local butchers shop and ask for a pair of NOS .5 ins ?? Anyway I am confident that with some basic drawings and measurements of the correct Mk, I can replicate what is needed. I note that the turret mounted 303 V has a slightly shorter cooling jacket than does the standard unit, can you confirm this? As I only have some less than ideal photos to go on. As for the fabrication of all these guns, this will be my contribution to Cols project. I can assure you he has plenty on his plate with all the other details that need his attention.

OK, so you want a .5 MkV Tank Vickers? Well, you can't have all 3!

Lithgow have a .303 MkXXI TANK Vickers (Lithgow made), a .303 MkV Aircraft Vickers, and a .5 MkIII Naval Vickers. I will have a deeper look through the Archives on Tuesday to see if there any drawings or images of the .5 MkV Tank Vickers.

BTW, the nomenclature for these guns is .5, not .50. The ammunition is unique and not regular .50BMG

Mk III .5 Naval Vickers. The feedblock is significantly bigger that the regular .303, but otherwise, the receiver end and cooling jacket are approximately similar sized to the standard .303. I am doubtful of the displayed ammunition, it looks to be a .50 Spotter round for a 106RCL. not the correct .5 Vickers.

The Mk XXI .303 Tank Vickers. The forward end, including the barrel and cooling jacket, and the main body of the gun appear the same components as the standard .303 Vickers. The significant difference is the change from the double spade grips on the rear of the body to a single pistol grip underneath the body.

.303 Mk V Aircraft Vickers. The significant change with this model is away from a water-cooled jacket surrounding the barrel and operation of cocking handle and trigger by remote cable. Note that this is a closer relative to the standard Vickers MG than the "other" aircraft Vickers, the Vickers K or "GO" (Gas Operated).

Hi Tony, I suspect that with the info coming in I will be well on the way to creating reasonable replicas of both these guns, Thanks for clarifying the correct nomenclature by the way. Do you have access to the LSA collection? Even though I have some reasonably good photos of the 303 in its various Mks, I am still to get my hands on accurate measurements ( particularly the pistol grip assy and the set up forward of the main frame) and I have no measurements whatsoever for any part of the .5 MkV tank.

Once we find the correct arrangement of the version of "R Finch" that was installed in the Light Tanks, you might find that features or details of the other guns can be studied for the finer details.

I will look through the Archives on Tues for detailed drawings and correct measurements, but failing that, measurements can be taken off the guns themselves, but of course these are not the version you want.

Yes I figured the main frames would be much the same on the various .5 s but I'm keen to know the detail forward of the frames. Not entirely critical as we will still need to fabricate the mounting bracketry in anycase. But it would be best to try and aim for as much accuracy in the whole set up as possible. I suspect the mounting arrangement will be more difficult to replicate as so far I have yet to find an example to copy.

The tank at Puckapunyal has something in the turret, but it's not clear how much complete MG remains. It does show, however, that the flash eliminator used on the Tank .5's are different items to the Naval .5. The Tank version uses a key in the wide end of the cone (probably due to clearance issues around the mantlet cowl), while the Naval version uses a C spanner on the small end of the cone.

While it would seem sensible to use common components across different versions of the .5, there are plainly going to be major differences.

Thanks for the photos Tony, I can confirm that there is no guns or part there of in the pucka tank. There is however, two counterweights where the guns used to be. I'm not sure why they would have put them there as there is a locating locking pin to secure the gun ports at different elevations. it is located at the bottom left in the Bovington Vickers photo.

listed as a shipboard version.. the cocking wire seems like the right idea


https://www.museedelaguerre.ca/cwm/e...20&page=0.html

From http://modernfirearms.net/en/machine...vickers-5-eng/

It can be seen that the body of the Mk V .5 is basically the same dimensions as the Mk I and Mk III (Naval), but without the tripod mounting lugs, so measurements can be taken off the Naval version, and building it with a flat "bottom". The cooling jacket also appears the same. The pistol grip has minor differences to the Mk XXI Tank, but also a lot of similarities, so that detail can be copied as well.

Some good reading by Forum member Tony Williams HERE

So a .303 on the left and a .50 on the right? I have a spare 1936 dated sighting scope and case that I bet is right for these tanks.

The Enfield Pattern Room
 

Not sure where this collection/library is hiding these days but they very likely have all the documentation needed to fabricate a replica.

David

Sighting scope
 

Hi Bruce, not sure if Col has these as they haven't come up in conversation (Yet) but I'll communicate with him to discuss, unless that is, he spots your post and then he can comment himself.. For my own benefit though, I take it these scopes are the same as is found on 2 and 25 pounders etc? Certainly looks like they are from a photo of the Bovington tank.

The scopes on 25 pounders and tanks are all the same, the different numbers and 'marks' relate to the different reticle markings depending on what the scope is being used for. There are British and Canadian made ones (REL Canada). The one I have for Colin is similar in detail, and is marked:

TEL. SGT
No72
Mk 2
OS 1935 GA
SRS. P/L
REG No N37

The early registration (serial?) number suggests it is a very early one.

What's also different is the case. The ones for tanks and armoured vehicles are the same, however this one is different in having substantial external fittings presumable for mounting on something. I hope there is a Vickers Mk.VB stowage diagram that might tell if this is the right case for these tanks.

Pictures are of the scope in question and a Canadian 1942 one for comparison.

Good comparison shots Bruce, I seem to recall somewhere hearing that the colour of the eye cup indicated their intended use as well?

The nomenclature for these guns is: "Guns, Machine, Vickers, .5-in., MkV"
(not just .5, but .5-in)
This I believe is a rimmed cartridge. Can someone please confirm or otherwise.

The various guns were:

a MkI, a Mk IVA, a Mk IVB, A MkVI, a MkVI* and a MkVII all in .303-in.

In .5-in. there were a few MkI guns,(trials in M.G.carriers) then a MkII in dual mounts in armoured cars. Then there were a few MkIV with 303 sized mounting slides built. These suffered breakages which lead to the development of the MkV gun.

The Mk II,Mk III,and MkV .303-in. guns were air ministry guns while the Mk III .5-in guns were special to naval requirements.

This all from a 1940 publication,(training pam) "Machine gun handbook (technical) Vol.1 Pamphlet No.1."

There is a detailed description of the MkV gun, in this book if required.

Confirmation for you here, Lynn,

Vickers Mk V
 

Hi Lynn, thanks for the additional info and clarification. This subject seems to have caused quite a degree of interest with members and others. You will forgive this old grunt for being lazy and simply referring to the weapon as a .5 in all these exchanges as typing in its correct nomenclature every time will result in my developing RSI....Some very good leads and helpful info is coming in on this weapon so I am confident that very convincing examples can
now be made. Once I have sufficient detail I will start work on all four Vickers and post progress as I go. cheers Dok

Hi Dave, Tony, I wouldn't want to type it in every time either and as I cant even put the dot in the middle, I can't even do it properly once. Anyhow, I was just trying to clarify as Tony stopped short of the full deal.
Thanks on the bullet being rimless. I didn't know one way or the other, but with Vickers building guns to work with the British rimmed .303, then I expected the .5-in. round might be the (impractical) same. The Vickers was obviously built in a number of different calibers, my guess being the majority were rimless. I just didn't know / remember and never took the trouble to check. Thank you.

I believe White is for use inside a tank/AFV and Black is for use outside on a field gun.

Tim

Eye cups
 

Hello again Tim, yes that's what I am lead to understand, thanks mate.