Wanted: Vickers .50 tech data

[Dave lean]

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.

[Bruce Parker (RIP)]

Originally Posted by Dave lean

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.

[Dave lean]

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

[Lynn Eades]

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.

[Tony Smith]

Originally Posted by Lynn Eades

This I believe is a rimmed cartridge. Can someone please confirm or otherwise.

Originally Posted by Tony Smith

Some good reading by Forum member Tony Williams HERE

Confirmation for you here, Lynn,

[Dave lean]

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

[Lynn Eades]

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.

[Tim Bell]

Originally Posted by Dave lean

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

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

Tim

[Dave lean]

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

[Tony Smith]

Have found an interesting fact. The Flash Eliminator for the Mk V .5 is not part of the gun. It is permanently mounted to the Mantlet Cowl, and when the the MG is fitted, the muzzle just projects into the opening. The clearance between the OD of the barrel and the ID of the Flash Eliminator acts as a venturi to draw fumes from the interior of the turret.

Similarly with the .303 on the left side, the booster muzzle just protrudes through an enlarged opening in the cowl. Gases from the booster are projected forward and draw fumes out of the turret. The front face of the cooling jacket on both guns do not contact/seal against the front face of the mantlet cowl.

[Dave lean]

Very handy info Tony. Was wondering if this was the case as a few pics of the .5 " show a plain barrel protrusion from the cooling jacket. As Colin has fitted up the "external parts" of the guns I intended doing much the same as you have described so this is good news.

[motto]

Another part that changed on different models of the .303 Vickers is the top cover. On some models it pivoted from the end on others intended for use in a confined space (aircraft, AFV) it opened to the side.
The Imperial Japanese Navy used an exact copy of the Vickers Mk 5 in the Zero and the Val and no doubt other aircraft. The calibre was .303 or to give it it's metric designation 7.7 by 56R. Predaux disintegrating links were used with some even featuring the patent number though these may have been from captured stock.

David

[Dave lean]

Hi David, yes I was aware of the different top cover but was very un-aware of the guns type being used by the Japanese Air Force . Still awaiting some further info from some members who were researching these guns, hopefully we will have more info to share around very soon, cheers Dok