Wanted: Vickers .50 tech data

[Tony Smith]

Originally Posted by Dave lean

I hadn't realized that the Lithgow small arms facility in NSW has info on the .50 as well. Anyway I am confident that with some basic drawings and measurements of the correct Mk, I can replicate what is needed.

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

[Tony Smith]

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.

[Tony Smith]

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.

[Tony Smith]

.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).

[Tony Smith]

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.

[Tony Smith]

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.

[Dave lean]

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.

[Tony Smith]

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.

[Dave lean]

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.