What is a "Boys" rifle?

..and even after all this time, can we please spell Captain BOYS's name correctly.

Regards
TonyE

 

Do you put in an an "s" following a possessive apostrophe after an "s" now?

 

..and even after all this time, can we please spell Captain BOYS's name correctly.

Regards

TonyE

The only book I have with this weapon in it was translated from French. Gotta blame someone. Thanks, I will use BOYS from now on. On apostrophe, I prefer Frank Zappa's version.

 

Do you put in an an "s" following a possessive apostrophe after an "s" now?

I was not sure about that. I started without one but added it. It cannot be "Boys' ", as it is not plural but it looks wrong without an apostrophe.

Regards
TonyE

 

Per the Economist Style Guide you're right and I'm wrong :wow:

Use the normal possessive ending 's after singular words or names that end in s: boss's, caucus's, Delors's, St James's, Jones's, Shanks's. Use it after plurals that do not end in s: children's, Frenchmen's, media's.

 

I remember reading that Boys AT rifle was used on Algerine class minesweepers to puncture holes in the casing of swept and floating mines, causing the mines to sink. It's rarely captured in photgraphs as they were unmounted prior to entry to port.

Cheers,
Clive.

 

I'd hate to have to fire this, my poor shoulder! Red Army practice was indeed to have them in groups firing at the same target.

 

I can't see that this BEF training film has been linked before.

ANTI-TANK RIFLE PRACTISE - British Pathe

 

Looking at that footage Rich posted the recoil doesn't appear to be that bad does it? The firers aren't even in the prone position but still appear to be fairly stable when firing.

 

Did they use training rounds ? No need of AP on those targets.

 

Rich,

I found this link that explains all.

Enfield - BSA "Boys" Anti-Tank Rifle


Regards
Tom

 

Enfield - BSA "Boys" Anti-Tank Rifle

In order to economize on the expenditure of •55-in. ammunition during instruction, this device has been designed to attach a .22-in. cal. rifle to the service A.Tk, rifle in such a manner that "Holding and Aiming" is carried out with the A.Tk. rifle while the actual shot is fired from the .22-in. weapon.
-----

Ohhh, bad reflexes

But there are other devices including sub-calibre down that site.

 

As well as the two marks of armour piercing ammunition, there were also three marks of ball ammo. These had lead cores and were full charge, thus giving the full recoil but with "normal" bullets.

For training in handling and aiming the Boys rifle, three different approaches were tried, as apart from the expense the problem was the greatly increased danger area required for the ranges.

The first, in 1936/7, was to produce a .55 cartridge necked down to .303 inch with a lower charge. This has often been mistaken as an attempt to make a high velocity round like the German Patr. 318 but the opposite is the case. The .55/.303 is mentioned in the early Boys manual. Whatever the problems it was not proceeded with and attention turned to a full size practice round with a lower than normal charge. The Practice Mark I had a lead cored bullet but the Mark II had an aluminium cored bullet to reduce the danger space even further. Practice rounds were marked with a half inch wide blue band above the belt.

The final idea was to use a steel sub calibre "round" which took a .22 LR and had an integrated rimfire striker. These were made both in the UK and Canada but seem to have been little used, probably because by the time the system was developed the Boys was obsolescent.

Incidentally, later in the war the British and Canadians did produce a design for a high velocity 7.92mm round based on a necked down Boys case.

Picture shows .303 for scale, the .55/,303, steel sub calibre and practice Mark II.

Regards
TonyE

 

I have been quite undecided by how effective this weapon was in 1940 for some time. Of the many accounts I've read on its use in Dunkirk related books it seems to be around half the witness accounts suggesting it was successful at damaging and knocking out armour and the other half stating they saw the rounds bounce off the armour. I decided this was probably to do with the type of armour being engaged with Mk1 Panzers being the most vunerable and the Mk3'S and 4's being relatively safe.

That said I read an account tonight which puts another possible dimension into why the rifle may not have been as effective all of the time.

A volley of return fire from the Boys rifles had little effect - it emerged that they had been provided half charged training ammunition by mistake.

7 Royal West Kents War Diary.

 

That is an interesting comment from the West Kents, Drew, but I wonder if that is what he really means?

A couple of points spring to mind. First, Practice ammunition was identified by a one inch wide blue band round the case (as shown in my post above) and I would have thought a Boys gunner would recognise this. Secondly. the lower charge would have been immediately noticed by the reduced recoil.

If they were issued with the wrong ammunition it is much more likely that it would have been ball ammunition. This was visually identical to the armour piercing ammunition apart from the headstamp and had a full charge so the recoil would be similar. However, the bullet only had a mild steel core rather than a hardened AP one and so would have been ineffective against even the thinner armoured vehicles.

Regards
TonyE

 

Thanks Tony - I can say the book the article came from (That uses 7 RWKs diary as the source) is about the labour units in France and many of the soldiers in the book had never fired the .303 before arriving in France let alone the Boys A/T Rifle. There is a real impression that any equipment was very thin on the ground, One unit having 500 Bren magazines but no Bren guns. I was reading it last night and an there was a paragraph about a S/Sgt that was in charge of some 120 men and they only had 28 rifles between them.

I'll keep my eyes peeled for anymore snippets.

Thanks again,
Andy

 

I have been quite undecided by how effective this weapon was in 1940 for some time.

It was quite effective at Gallabat, knocking out a couple of tanks; unfortunately they were ours. The Italians had captured some Boys in Somaliland and reused them.