.303 British clips


#1

I recently received 10 clips of Iraqi-made .303 British cartridges. I was not surprised to find a mix of makers marks after reading the comments on the forum regarding the reuse of these clips. There were 4 variations in the group, based on the number and size of the holes in the sides and bases, and the shape and number of protrusions on the sides. Do these differences represent changes made to the standard that were introduced over time. If this is the case, I assume the Roman numerals stamped on the sides refer to the pattern or ‘mark’. The picture below shows side and bottom views of each of the variations. The two on the left side have four slots in the bottom and are both marked with a "II’, but the upper one has an extra protrusion on the side. The two on the right have four round holes in the bottom, with the upper one (stamped ‘III’) having 5 round holes in the side, while the sides of the lower one (stamped 'IV) has three round holes and one elongated hole. While I am not a clip collector, I do see the attraction.


#2

Guy,

Be very careful, it was just such an aper


#3

Peter,
Thank you. What does the Mark I look like, and how many different Marks were produced?


#4

APERCU! Just learned a new word. Thanks Peter.


#5

[quote=“Guy Hildebrand”]Peter,
Thank you. What does the Mark I look like, and how many different Marks were produced?[/quote]

The MkI is a simple affair with the cartridges being held by two little indents rather than springs. The base is slotted but doesn’t have the transverse reinforces.


The MkIV went on to an improved version that has a longer spring with an even lower rate. This makes it the best type for easy and rapid reloading. The chargers of this type made before 1945 are marked with Roman numerals whilst those made post 1945 use Arabic ones. This is just a marking variation, not a new mark.

The only other significant variation is one made in Portugal which has the sidewall holes of the MkIV but which doesn’t have the ends cut into retention springs.

Each successive type was an improvement, except the MkIII which I find horrid to use. It took a while but the final versions work very well indeed.


#6

Peter,
Thank you. I guess I need to try to locate the ones I don’t have in order to account for all of the variations.


#7

[quote=“enfield56”]Guy,

Be very careful, it was just such an aper


#8

[quote=“gravelbelly”]
Peter,

Shame on you! You describe the bottom right charger as the FIRST model mark IV. It is the SECOND model as it has one elongated hole.

gravelbelly[/quote]

David,

Probably too excited about finding a thread I actually knew something about. Serves me right for being so impetuous.

Peter