Categories
All About Guns

The 1885 Browning High Wall

Someday I will own one of these puppies! The only things stopping me is. That they are as rare as hens teeth. (I guess no one wants to sell theirs.)
The other and major reason being. That they cost an arm & a leg. But no doubt they are worth every penny of it.
Grumpy
Image result for 1885 Browning High Wall
Image result for 1885 Browning High Wall
Image result for 1885 Browning High Wall

Compared: The Browning 1885
And Ruger No. 1 Rifles 
By Chuck Hawks 

The Browning 1885 and Ruger No. 1 falling block single shot rifles represent the best that two of the major American arms makers have to offer. Elegant, finely crafted and finished, and smooth in operation, they are as good as production rifles get.The Browning was based on a somewhat modernized version of John Browning’s first rifle design, which was later sold to Winchester and introduced by that company as the Model 1885. The Model 1885 came in two versions, a lightweight model for cartridges of moderate power with a low receiver wall and a heavier version for the most powerful cartridges of the day with a high receiver wall. Thus the Low Wall and High Wall nomenclature.
The Ruger is a modern rifle based on the aesthetics of the British Farquharson design. It combines modern design and production technology with classic lines. Ruger offers several variations on the No. 1 theme, including the No. 1A Light Sporter (roughly equivalent to the Browning Low Wall) and the No. 1B Standard, a heavier model more equivalent to the Browning High Wall.
All of these falling block rifles are loaded and cocked when the under lever is operated to lower the breechblock for loading. After a cartridge is manually placed in the chamber, the lever is pulled back and the massive breech block slides up and seals the chamber. The rifle is then cocked and ready to shoot.
The Winchester/Browning Model 1885
Winchester 1885 Low Wall
M-1885 Low Wall. Illustration courtesy of U.S. Repeating Arms Co.
Browning produced the modern Model 1885 High Wall from 1985-2001. The standard version of the High Wall was produced in calibers .22-250 Remington, .270 Winchester, 7mm Remington Magnum, .30-06 Springfield, and .45-70 Government.
The petite Low Wall, sold under the Browning name from 1995 to 2001, came in .22 Hornet, .223 Remington, .243 Winchester, and .260 Remington. As I write this in 2003, the Low Wall is offered under the Winchester name (Browning and Winchester are both owned by the same Belgian interests) in caliber .17 HMR only.
Among the distinguishing features of the Browning 1885’s are a free floating octagon barrel, self-cocking rebounding hammer, user adjustable trigger pull weight, highly polished high luster blue barreled action, gold plated trigger, select straight walnut stock and Schnabel forearm graced by plenty of cut checkering and a durable glossy finish. Detachable sling swivel posts are included, as are solid recoil pads on selected calibers. All standard models are drilled and tapped for scope mounts; only rifles in .45-70 caliber come standard with iron sights. The forearm is attached directly to the receiver on a husky hanger that prevents wood to barrel contact.
The High Wall includes an ejector (which can be set to eject to the right, left, or extract only), while the Low Wall extracts but does not eject the fired case. Another difference was the pistol grip buttstock supplied on the Low Wall, while the High Wall came with a straight hand stock. High wall rifles come with a heavy octagon barrel while Low Wall rifles come with a light contour octagon barrel. Low wall rifles weigh about 6.25 pounds; High Wall rifles weigh about 8.75 pounds, plus or minus an ounce or two. Both actions are extremely slick and smooth in operation.
The Ruger No. 1
Ruger No. 1-S
Ruger No. 1S. Illustration courtesy of Sturm, Ruger, Inc.
Introduced in 1966 and still going strong, the No. 1 single shot rifle was one of Bill Ruger’s pet projects. It was the first of the modern single shot rifles. The No. 1 uses a completely modern but classic looking Farquharson-style falling block action of great strength. The barreled action is finished in a polished deep blue, and the hand fitted, select walnut stock is hand checkered in a borderless pattern. The No. 1 is Ruger’s premium rifle.
There are several variations of the No. 1. The two models that are most similar to the two Browning 1885 models are also perhaps the most typical No. 1’s: the No. 1-A Light Sporter (22 inch round barrel, Alexander Henry forearm), and the No. 1-B Standard Rifle (26 inch round barrel, semi-beavertail forearm). The 1-A weighs 6.25 pounds while the 1-B weighs 8 pounds.
No. 1-A calibers include .243 Winchester, .270 Winchester, 7×57, and .30-06. No. 1-B calibers include .218 Bee, .22 Hornet, .223 Remington, .22-250, .220 Swift, .243 Winchester, 6mm Remington, .257 Roberts, .25-06, .270 Winchester, .270 Weatherby Magnum, .280 Remington, 7mm Remington Magnum, .308 Winchester, .30-06, .300 Winchester Magnum, .300 Weatherby Magnum, and .338 Winchester Magnum.
Both of these models feature satin finished stocks with a black recoil pad, a sculptured receiver, a trigger adjustable for weight of pull, a sliding shotgun-type tang mounted safety, an ejector which can be set for extraction only, a quarter rib barrel with integral scope base, sling swivel studs, and Ruger scope rings. The 1-A is furnished with open iron sights.
The forearm of all No. 1 rifles is suspended from a forearm hanger extending out from the receiver beneath the barrel. In concept this is similar to the forearm hanger of the Browning 1885, but the Ruger version is less massive. To quote from my article Modern Classic: The Ruger No. 1:
“Like many Ruger No. 1 rifles, varying the pressure on the forearm of the test rifle would change the point of impact of the bullet. This is due to flex in the forearm hanger, which allows the forearm to make contact with the supposedly free floating barrel. The fix is to have a gunsmith drill and tap the forearm hanger near its end for a set screw, which is then adjusted to put a constant pressure against the underside of the barrel, eliminating the flex in the forearm hanger and keeping the forearm away from the barrel.”
Not all No. 1 rifles require this fix, but many do. The No. 1B rifle fired for groups (see below) had the set screw installed in the forearm hanger.
The comparison – Browning 1885 and Ruger No. 1
While both rifles come with user adjustable triggers, the Browning’s steel trigger assembly is the superior unit. The aluminum Ruger trigger assembly is adjustable for weight of pull, but some owners find that it still requires too much pressure at its minimum setting and has too much creep. Many simply replace the stock Ruger trigger with a quality after market unit.
As mentioned above, all Browning 1885 models use a free floating barrel suspended from a beefy forearm hanger mounted directly to the receiver that does not let the forearm touch the barrel. This heavy-duty forearm hanger avoids the problem of the forearm touching the barrel that plagues the No. 1.
Judging by the samples I have seen the Browning is usually supplied with a higher grade of walnut and definitely has a more extensive checkering pattern. The 1885 comes with a high gloss finish on the butt stock and forearm that really brings out the figure of the wood. Likewise, the 1885’s barreled action is meticulously polished, and Browning’s deep luster blue metal finish shows this off to superior advantage. They are both very handsome rifles, but the Brownings clearly receive more Tender Loving Care at the factory.
Both the Low Wall and No. 1A are available in four calibers. But the range of available calibers is different. The light Browning rifle is chambered only for relatively mild, short action calibers ranging from .22 Hornet to .260 Remington. This helps keep recoil tolerable.
The No. 1A is chambered for calibers ranging from the .243 Winchester to the powerful .30-06 Springfield. Considering the recoil of the .270 and .30-06 cartridges, for which the No. 1A is chambered, the Ruger’s extra pound of weight is justified. In fact, the No. 1B is noticeably more pleasant to shoot than either the Low Wall or the No. 1A in equivalent calibers, and the heavy High Wall is the most user friendly of all.
The Low Wall is a slimmer and lighter rifle than the Ruger No. 1-A Light Sporter, and the Low Wall features a 24 inch barrel while the Ruger comes with a 22″ barrel, giving the Low Wall a potential ballistic advantage. The Low Wall’s light weight may make it a better mountain rifle, but the heavier No. 1A’s greater range of calibers may make it the more versatile rifle.
On the other hand, the High Wall is about 3/4 pound heavier than the No. 1B Standard rifle. Both are chambered for cartridges of similar power, but the No. 1B offers a much better selection of calibers. In hard kicking calibers the High Wall’s extra weight is a benefit, particularly at the range, but the Ruger 1B is handier and easier to carry in the field.
At the range
Shooting was done from sandbags at a bench rest with a Browning Low Wall in .243 Winchester caliber and a Ruger No. 1B in the similar 6mm Remington caliber, the same rifles reviewed in previous articles (which can be found on the Product Review Page). For this comparison, both rifles wore Leupold 3-9x scopes.
Before installation of the set screw to stabilize the forearm hanger, the Ruger had averaged 2″ groups at 100 meters using factory loaded ammunition. After the set screw was installed and adjusted, 3-shot 100 meter groups with Remington factory loaded 100 grain PSP Core-Lokt bullets shrank to just a touch over 1″.
The Browning Low Wall provided similar performance although, as is so often the case, with different ammunition. The best the Low Wall would do with Remington Express factory loads using the 100 grain PSP Core-Lokt bullet was 1.5″ groups at 100 meters. When Winchester Supreme factory loads with the 95 grain Ballistic Silvertip bullet were tested, 3-shot groups measured right at 1″ on the 100 meter outdoor range.
Both rifles would shoot an occasional larger or smaller than average group, which is what happens when a live human being (me in this case) is pulling the trigger. I would venture to say that in terms of accuracy these two rifles are functionally equal.
Conclusion
Both the Browning 1885 and the Ruger No. 1 are excellent, high quality, premium rifles built for the carriage trade. Functionally, once the triggers have been adjusted and the Ruger’s forearm hanger stabilized (if necessary), the two are essentially equal in performance. However, everyone I know who owns both (including myself) considers the Browning the superior rifle.
Let me interject that I am a big fan of The Ruger No. 1, and I consider it my second favorite among all (not just single shot) factory produced centerfire hunting rifles. But the Browning 1885 remains my favorite. The quality, workmanship, fit, and finish are simply superior.
Note: Individual, full length reviews of Winchester/Browning Model 1885 and Ruger No. 1 rifles can be found on the Product Reviews page.

 

  In 1878, the 23-year-old John Browning designed a falling-block single-shot rifle, for which he was granted a patent the following year.
Browning and his brother commenced making the rifles by hand in their second-floor workshop in Ogden, Utah, with limited success.
In 1883, Thomas G. Bennett, Vice-President and General Manager of the Winchester Repeating Arms Company. Traveled to Ogden and negotiated the purchase of the single-shot design.
Image result for Thomas G. Bennett, Vice-President and General Manager of the Winchester Repeating Arms Company
As well as the prototype of what would become the Model 1886 lever-action.Image result for 1886 lever-action
Thus the beginning of the fruitful 20-year Winchester–Browning collaboration.
Winchester’s engineers made some improvements to Browning’s design, including angling the block at six degrees to create a positive breech seal, and released the rifle as the Model 1885.
Two popular models were made, the so-called Low Wall which showed an exposed hammer, firing less powerful cartridges.Image result for low wall rifle
And the so-called High Wall for stronger cartridges whose steel frame covered most of the firing hammer when viewed from the side; but both were officially marketed by Winchester as the Single Shot Rifle.Image result for 1885 high wall rifle
It was produced principally to satisfy the demands of the growing sport of long-range “Match Shooting”. Which opened at Creedmoor, New York, on June 21, 1872.
As Target/Match shooting was extremely popular in the US from about 1871 until about 1917.Related image
Enjoying a status similar to golf today, and the Winchester company. Which had built its reputation on repeating firearms.
Image result for 1885 high wall rifle
Winchester had in 1885 challenged the single-shot giants of Sharps, Remington, Stevens, Maynard, Ballard et al.
Not only entering the competition, but excelling at it, with Major Ned H. Roberts (inventor of the .257 Roberts cartridge) describing the Model 1885 Single Shot as “the most reliable, strongest, and altogether best single shot rifle ever produced.
Winchester produced nearly 140,000 Single Shot rifles from 1885 to 1920, and it was found that the falling-block Model 1885 had been built with one of the strongest actions known at that time.
The falling block action was so strong that the Winchester Company used it to test fire newly created rifle cartridges. To satisfy the needs of the shooting and hunting public. The Model 1885 Single Shot was eventually produced in more calibers than any other Winchester rifle.” Image result for 1885 high wall rifle
Categories
Uncategorized

The Gurkhas

The Gurkhas

Image result for The Gurkhas

  Now most folks outside of the Military or the United Kingdom. Have never heard of these guys at all.

  But they are worthy of study as they are some REAL STAND UP GUYS! As they have been serving the British Crown now for almost 200 years. Which says a lot as the British Army
is not exactly noted for being a “Safe Space for Soft folks”.
Image result for british army toughness memes
Words of an American soldier about the British Army.
  Their Regiments have served the British Crown in India, The North West Frontier against the Afghans. Also in both World wars & the retreat from the Collapse of the British Empire.Image result for the gurkha regiments
  Their reputation as fighting men is such. That when the Argentine’s heard that they were landing in The Falklands.Image result for falklands war
The Argentinians  surrendered the next day. They also enjoy a very high reputation in the British Army.Where they are really tight with the Rifle Regiments and especially with The Scottish Highlanders.
Image result for the gurkha regiments
  Another thing that I found interesting. Was this. When India started to collapse with the British Withdrawal in 1947.
Related image
They were the only non European troops that were completely trusted by the British. This trust continues on today.Image result for the gurkha regiments
As shown by the fact. When they have stood Guard at Buckingham Palace in London several times in the recent past.
Image result for The Gurkhas
Now I am going to hand it off.
Here is also some other stuff & resources if this interests you
Some Books that I have read that are pretty good
about the last vestige of the Old Indian Army of the British Raj. You can easily find them on amazon.com. by the way.
 Image result for The Gurkhas
 Image result for The Gurkhas books about
Image result for The Gurkhas books about
Attachments area
Preview YouTube video Gurkha Soldiers Combat Taliban in Afghanistan Death and War But Never Afraid

Preview YouTube video Kukri Training With British Army Gurkha Recruits

Gurkha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Monument to the Gurkha Soldier in Horse Guards Avenue, outside the Ministry of DefenceCity of WestminsterLondon.

khukuri, the signature weapon of the Gurkhas

The Gurkhas or Gorkhas or “Gorkhali” (गोर्खा) (/ˈɡɜːrkə/ or /ˈɡʊərkə/) are the soldiers of Nepali nationality recruited in the British ArmyIndian ArmyGurkha Contingent SingaporeGurkha Reserve Unit Brunei, UN Peace Keeping force and war zones around the world. Historically, the terms “Gurkha” and “Gorkhali” were synonymous with “Pahadi”,[1] and derived from the hill town and district of Gorkhafrom which the Kingdom of Nepal expanded under Prithivi Narayan Shah.[2][3] The name may be traced to the medieval Hindu warrior-saint Guru Gorakhnath[4] who has a historic shrine in Gorkha.[5] The word itself derived from Go-Raksha, raksha becoming rakha. Rakhawala means protector and is derived from raksha as well.
Ethnically, GurungChhetri or KhasThakuri, and Magar mainly were the Gorkha tribes who united erstwhile Gorkha kingdom and fought against the British invasions. But today, Gorkha soldiers mostly belong to the GurungChhetriMagarRaiLimbuSunuwarMadhesis and Tharus. There is no ethnicity based restriction to join. There are Gurkha military units in the NepaleseBritish and the Indian army enlisted in Nepal, United Kingdom and India. Although they meet many of the requirements of Article 47[6] of Protocol I of the Geneva Conventionsregarding mercenaries, they are exempt under clauses 47(e)&(f) similar to the French Foreign Legion.[7]
Gurkhas are closely associated with the khukuri, a forward-curving Nepalese knife, and have a well known reputation for fearless military prowess. The former Indian Army Chief of Staff Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw, once stated that[8] “If a man says he is not afraid of dying, he is either lying or he is a Gurkha.”

Background

During the Anglo-Nepalese War (1814–1816) between the Gorkha Kingdom and the East India Company, the Gorkhali soldiers made an impression on the British, who called them Gurkhas.[9]

British East India Company Army

Gurkha soldiers during the Anglo-Nepalese War, 1815 AD.

The Anglo-Nepalese war was fought between the Gurkha Kingdom of Nepal and the British East India Company as a result of border disputes and ambitious expansionism of both the belligerent parties. The war ended with the signing of the Treaty of Sugauli in 1816.
David Ochterlony and the British political agent William Fraser were among the first to recognize the potential of Gurkha soldiers in British service. During the war the British were keen to use defectors from the Gurkha army and employ them as irregular forces. His confidence in their loyalty was such that in April 1815 he proposed forming them into a battalion under Lieutenant Ross called the Nasiri regiment. This regiment, which later became the 1st King George’s Own Gurkha Rifles, saw action at the Malaun fort under the leadership of Lieutenant Lawtie, who reported to Ochterlony that he “had the greatest reason to be satisfied with their exertions”.
About 5,000 men entered British service in 1815, most of whom were not just Gorkhalis but Kumaonis, Garhwalis and other Himalayan hill men. These groups, eventually lumped together under the term Gurkha, became the backbone of British Indian forces.
As well as Ochterlony’s Gurkha battalions, William Fraser and Lieutenant Frederick Young raised the Sirmoor battalion, later to become the 2nd King Edward VII’s Own Gurkha Rifles; an additional battalion, the Kumaon battalion was also raised eventually becoming the 3rd Queen Alexandra’s Own Gurkha Rifles. None of these men fought in the second campaign.
Gurkhas served as troops under contract to the East India Company in the Pindaree War of 1817, in Bharatpur in 1826 and the First and Second Anglo-Sikh Wars in 1846 and 1848.[10]
During the Indian Rebellion of 1857, Gurkhas fought on the British side, and became part of the British Indian Army on its formation. The 8th (Sirmoor) Local Battalion made a particularly notable contribution during the conflict, and indeed twenty-five Indian Order of Merit awards were made to men from that regiment during the Siege of Delhi.[11]
Three days after the mutiny began, the Sirmoor Battalion were ordered to move to Meerut, where the British garrison was barely holding on, and in doing so they had to march up to 48 kilometres a day.[12] Later, during the four-month Siege of Delhi they defended Hindu Rao‘s house, losing 327 out of 490 men. During this action they fought side by side with the 60th Rifles and a strong bond developed.[13][14]
Twelve regiments from the Nepalese Army also took part in the relief of Lucknow[15] under the command of Shri Teen (3) Maharaja Maharana Jung Bahadur of Nepal and his older brother C-in-C Ranaudip Singh (Ranodip or Ranodeep) Bahadur Rana (later to succeed Jung Bahadur and become Sri Teen Maharaja Ranodip Singh of Nepal).
After the rebellion the 60th Rifles pressed for the Sirmoor Battalion to become a rifle regiment. This honour was granted then next year (1858) when the Battalion was renamed the Sirmoor Rifle Regiment and awarded a third colour.[16] In 1863 Queen Victoria presented the regiment with the Queen’s Truncheon, as a replacement for the colours that rifle regiments do not usually have.[17]

British Indian Army (c. 1857–1947)

The Nusseree Battalion later known as the 1st Gurkha Rifles circa 1857

Hindu Rao‘s house shortly after the siege

Gurkha Soldiers (1896). The centre figure wears the dark green dress uniform worn by all Gurkhas in British service, with certain regimental distinctions

From the end of the Indian Rebellion of 1857 until the start of World War I the Gurkha Regiments saw active service in BurmaAfghanistan, the North-East Frontier and the North-West Frontiers of India, Malta (the Russo-Turkish War, 1877–78), Cyprus, Malaya, China (the Boxer Rebellion of 1900) and Tibet (Younghusband’s Expedition of 1905).
Between 1901 and 1906, the Gurkha regiments were renumbered from the 1st to the 10th and re-designated as the Gurkha Rifles. In this time, the Brigade of Gurkhas, as the regiments came to be collectively known, was expanded to twenty battalions within the ten regiments.[18]

2nd/5th Royal Gurkha Rifles, North-West Frontier 1923

During World War I (1914–1918), more than 200,000 Gurkhas served in the British Army, suffering approximately 20,000 casualties, and receiving almost 2,000 gallantry awards.[19] The number of Gurkha battalions was increased to thirty-three, and Gurkha units were placed at the disposal of the British high command by the Gurkha government for service on all fronts. Many Gurkha volunteers served in non-combatant roles, serving in units such as the Army Bearer Corps and the labour battalions.
Also, a large number served in combat in France, Turkey, Palestine, and Mesopotamia.[20] They served on the battlefields of France in the LoosGivenchy, and Neuve Chapelle; in Belgium at the battle of Ypres; in MesopotamiaPersiaSuez Canal and Palestine against Turkish advance, Gallipoli and Salonika.[21]One detachment served with Lawrence of Arabia, while during the Battle of Loos (June–December 1915) a battalion of the 8th Gurkhas fought to the last man, hurling themselves time after time against the weight of the German defences, and in the words of the Indian Corps commander, Lieutenant-General Sir James Willcocks, “… found its Valhalla”.[22]
During the ultimately unsuccessful Gallipoli campaign in 1915, the Gurkhas were among the first to arrive and the last to leave. The 1st/6th Gurkhas, having landed at Cape Helles, led the assault during the first major operation to take out a Turkish high point, and in doing so captured a feature that later became known as “Gurkha Bluff”.[23] At Sari Bair they were the only troops in the whole campaign to reach and hold the crest line and look down on the Straits, which was the ultimate objective.[24] The 2nd Battalion of the 3rd Gurkha Rifles (2nd/3rd Gurkha Rifles) was involved in the conquest of Baghdad.
Following the end of the war, the Gurkhas were returned to India and during the inter-war years, they were largely kept away from the internal strife and urban conflicts of the sub-continent, instead being employed largely on the frontiers and in the hills where fiercely independent tribesmen were a constant source of troubles.[25]
As such, between the World Wars, the Gurkha regiments fought in the Third Afghan War in 1919. The regiments then participated in numerous campaigns on the North-West Frontier, mainly in Waziristan, where they were employed as garrison troops defending the frontier. They kept the peace amongst the local populace and engaging with the lawless and often openly hostile Pathan tribesmen.[citation needed]
During this time the North-West Frontier was the scene of considerable political and civil unrest and the troops stationed at Razmak, Bannu and Wanna saw an extensive amount of action.[26]

Gurkhas in action with a 6-pounder anti-tank gun in Tunisia, 16 March 1943.

During World War II (1939–1945), there were ten Gurkha regiments, with two battalions each making a total of twenty pre-war battalions.[27] Following the Dunkirk evacuation of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) in 1940, the Nepalese government offered to increase recruitment to increase the total number of Gurkha battalions in British service to thirty-five.[28] This would eventually rise to forty-three battalions.
In order to achieve the increased number of battalions, third and fourth battalions were raised for all ten regiments, with fifth battalions also being raised for 1 GR, 2 GR and 9 GR.[27] This expansion required ten training centres to be established for basic training and regimental records across India. In addition five training battalions[29] were raised, while other units[30] were raised as garrison battalions for keeping the peace in India and defending rear areas.[31] Large numbers of Gurkha men were also recruited for non-Gurkha units, and other specialised functions such as paratroops, signals, engineers, and military police.
A total of 250,280[31] Gurkhas served in 40 battalions, plus eight Nepalese Army battalions, plus Parachute, training, garrison, and porter units during the war,[32] in almost all theatres. In addition to keeping peace in India, Gurkhas fought in SyriaNorth AfricaItalyGreece and against the Japanese in the jungles of Burmanortheast India and also Singapore.[33] They did so with considerable distinction, earning 2,734 bravery awards in the process[31] and suffering around 32,000 casualties in all theatres.[34]

Gurkha military rank system in the British Indian Army

Gurkha ranks in the British Indian Army followed the same pattern as those used throughout the rest of the Indian Army at that time.[35] As in the British Army itself, there were three distinct levels: private soldiers, non-commissioned officers and commissioned officers. Commissioned officers within the Gurkha regiments held a Viceroy’s Commission, which was distinct from the King’s or Queen’s Commission that British officers serving with a Gurkha regiment held. Any Gurkha holding a commission was technically subordinate to any British officer, regardless of rank.[36]

The 2/5th Royal Gurkha Rifles marching through Kure soon after their arrival in Japan in May 1946 as part of the Allied forces of occupation

British Indian Army and current Indian Army ranks/current British Army equivalents

Viceroy Commissioned Officers (VCOs) up to 1947 and Junior Commissioned Officers (JCOs) from 1947:[37]

Warrant officers

Non-commissioned officers

Private soldiers

Notes

  • British Army officers received Queen’s or King’s Commissions, but Gurkha officers in this system received the Viceroy’s Commission. After Indian independence in 1947, Gurkha officers in regiments which became part of the British Army received the King’s (later Queen’s) Gurkha Commission, and were known as King’s/Queen’s Gurkha Officers (KGO/QGO). Gurkha officers had no authority to command troops of British regiments. The QGO Commission was abolished in 2007.
  • Jemadars and subedars normally served as platoon commanders and company 2ICs, but were junior to all British officers, while the subedar major was the Commanding Officer’s advisor on the men and their welfare. For a long time it was impossible for Gurkhas to progress further, except that an honorary lieutenancy or captaincy was very rarely bestowed upon a Gurkha on retirement.[36]
  • The equivalent ranks in the post-1947 Indian Army were (and are) known as Junior Commissioned Officers (JCOs). They retained the traditional rank titles used in the British Indian Army: Jemadar (later Naib Subedar), Subedar and Subedar Major.
  • While in principle any British subject may apply for a commission without having served in the ranks, Gurkhas cannot. It was customary for a Gurkha soldier to rise through the ranks and prove his ability before his regiment would consider offering him a commission.[36]
  • From the 1920s, Gurkhas could also receive King’s Indian Commissions, and later full King’s or Queen’s Commissions, which put them on a par with British officers. This was rare until after the Second World War.
  • Gurkha officers commissioned from the Royal Military Academy – Sandhurst – and Short Service Officers regularly fill appointments up to the rank of major. At least two Gurkhas have been promoted to lieutenant colonel and there is theoretically now no bar to further progression.[36]
  • After 1948, the Brigade of Gurkhas (part of the British Army) was formed and adopted standard British Army rank structure and nomenclature, except for the three Viceroy Commission ranks between Warrant Officer 1 and Second Lieutenant (jemadar, subedar and subedar major) which remained, albeit with different rank titles Lieutenant (Queens Gurkha Officer), Captain (QGO) and Major (QGO). The QGO commission was abolished in 2007, Gurkha soldiers are currently commissioned as Late Entry Officers (as above).[36]

Regiments of the Gurkha Rifles (c.1815–1947)

Princess Mary’s Own

Second World War training battalions

  • 14th Gurkha Rifles Training Battalion[38]
  • 29th Gurkha Rifles Training Battalion
  • 38th Gurkha Rifles Training Battalion[38]
  • 56th Gurkha Rifles Training Battalion[38]
  • 710th Gurkha Rifles Training Battalion[38]

Post-independence (1947–present)

THE GURKHA
SOLDIER
Bravest of the brave,
most generous of the generous,
never had country
more faithful friends
than you.
Professor Sir Ralph Turner MC[39]

After Indian independence—and the partition of India—in 1947 and under the Tripartite Agreement, the original ten Gurkha regiments consisting of the twenty pre-war battalions were split between the British Army and the newly independent Indian Army.[31] Six Gurkha regiments (twelve battalions) were transferred to the post-independence Indian Army, while four regiments (eight battalions) were transferred to the British Army.[40]
To the disappointment of their British officers, the majority of Gurkhas given a choice between British or Indian Army service opted for the latter. The reason appears to have been the pragmatic one that the Gurkha regiments of the Indian Army would continue to serve in their existing roles in familiar territory and under terms and conditions that were well established.[41] The only substantial change was the substitution of Indian officers for British. By contrast the four regiments selected for British service faced an uncertain future, initially in Malaya—a region where relatively few Gurkhas had previously served. The four regiments (or eight battalions) in British service have since been reduced to a single (two battalion) regiment, while the Indian units have been expanded beyond their pre-Independence establishment of twelve battalions.[42]
The principal aim of the Tripartite Agreement was to ensure that Gurkhas serving under the Crown would be paid on the same scale as those serving in the new Indian Army.[43] This was significantly lower than the standard British rates of pay. While the difference is made up through cost of living and location allowances during a Gurkha’s actual period of service, the pension payable on his return to Nepal is much lower than would be the case for his British counterparts.[44]
With the abolition of the Nepalese monarchy, the future recruitment of Gurkhas for British and Indian service was initially put into doubt. A spokesperson for the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), which was expected to play a major role in the new secular republic, stated that recruitment as mercenaries was degrading to the Nepalese people and would be banned.[45] However, as of 2016, Gurkha recruitment for foreign service continues.

British Army Gurkhas

Four Gurkha regiments were transferred to the British Army on 1 January 1948:

They formed the Brigade of Gurkhas and were initially stationed in Malaya. There were also a number of additional Gurkha regiments including the 69th and 70th Gurkha Field Squadrons, both included in the 36th Engineer Regiment. Since then, British Gurkhas have served in Borneo during the Confrontation with Indonesia, in the Falklands War, and on various peacekeeping missions in Sierra LeoneEast TimorBosnia and Kosovo.[46]

The Band of Brigade of Gurkhas December 2007

Gurkhas in Hong Kong:

  • 26th Gurkha Brigade (1948–50)
  • 51st Infantry Brigade (disbanded 1976)
  • 48th Gurkha Infantry Brigade (1957–76; renamed Gurkha Field Force 1976–97; returned to old title 1987–ca. 1992)

As of November 2006, the Brigade of Gurkhas in the British Army has the following units:

The Brigade of Gurkhas also has its own clerks and chefs posted among the above-mentioned units. Gurkhas were among the troops who retook the Falklands in 1982 and have served a number of tours of duty in the current War in Afghanistan.[47][48][49]

Indian Army Gurkhas

The 1st Battalion of 1 Gurkha Rifles of the Indian Army take position outside a simulated combat town during a training exercise

Upon independence in 1947, six of the original ten Gurkha regiments remained with the Indian Army.[40] These regiments were:

Additionally, a further regiment, 11 Gorkha Rifles, was raised. In 1949 the spelling was changed from “Gurkha” to the original “Gorkha”.[50] All royal titles were dropped when India became a republic in 1950.[50]
Since partition, the Gurkha regiments that were transferred to the Indian Army have established themselves as a permanent and vital part of the newly independent Indian Army. Indeed, while Britain has reduced its Gurkha contingent, India has continued to recruit Gorkhas of Nepal into Gorkha regiments in large numbers, as well as Indian Gorkhas.[42] In 2009 the Indian Army had a Gorkha contingent that numbered around 42,000 men in forty-six battalions, spread across seven regiments.
Although their deployment is still governed by the 1947 Tripartite Agreement, in the post-1947 conflicts India has fought in, Gorkhas have served in almost all of them, including the wars with Pakistan in 1947, 1965, 1971 and 1999 and also against China in 1962.[51] They have also been used in peacekeeping operations around the world.[50] They have also served in Sri Lanka conducting operations against the Tamil Tigers.[52]

Singapore Gurkha Contingent

The Gurkha Contingent (GC) of the Singapore Police Force was formed on 9 April 1949 from selected ex-British Army Gurkhas. It is an integral part of the Police Force and was raised to replace a Sikh unit which had existed prior to the Japanese occupation during the Second World War.[53]
The GC is a well trained, dedicated and disciplined body whose principal role is as riot police. In times of crisis it can be deployed as a reaction force. During the turbulent years before and after independence, the GC acquitted itself well on several occasions during outbreaks of civil disorder. The Gurkhas displayed the courage, self-restraint and professionalism for which they are famous and earned the respect of the society at large.[53]

Brunei Gurkha Reserve Unit

The Gurkha Reserve Unit is a special guard and elite shock trooper force in the Sultanate of Brunei. The Brunei Reserve Unit employs about 500 Gurkhas. The majority are veterans of the British Army and the Singaporean Police, who have joined the GRU as a second career.

Other

Victoria Cross recipients

There have been twenty-six Victoria Crosses awarded to members of the Gurkha regiments.[54] The first was awarded in 1858 and the last in 1965. For a detailed list of the recipients and their deeds, see the British Ministry of Defencewebsite.[55] Thirteen of the recipients have been British officers serving with Gurkha regiments, although since 1915 the majority have been received by Gurkhas serving in the ranks as private soldiers or as NCOs.[19] In addition, since Indian independence in 1947, Gurkhas serving in the Indian Army have also been awarded three Param Vir Chakras, which are roughly equivalent.[56]
Of note also, there have been two George Cross medals awarded to Gurkha soldiers, for acts of bravery in situations that have not involved combat.[19]

Treatment of Gurkhas in the United Kingdom

Nick Clegg being presented a Gurkha Hat, by a Gurkha veteran during his Maidstone visit, to celebrate the success of their joint campaign for the right to live in Britain, 2009

The treatment of Gurkhas and their families was the subject of controversy in the United Kingdom once it became widely known that Gurkhas received smaller pensions than their British counterparts.[57] The nationality status of Gurkhas and their families was also an area of dispute, with claims that some ex-army Nepali families were being denied residency and forced to leave Britain. On 8 March 2007, the British Government announced that all Gurkhas who signed up after 1 July 1997 would receive a pension equivalent to that of their British counterparts. In addition, Gurkhas would, for the first time, be able to transfer to another army unit after five years’ service and women would also be allowed to join—although not in first-line units—conforming to the British Army’s policy. The act also guaranteed residency rights in Britain for retired Gurkhas and their families.
Despite the changes, many Gurkhas who had not served long enough to entitle them to a pension faced hardship on their return to Nepal, and some critics derided the Government’s decision to only award the new pension and citizenship entitlement to those joining after 1 July 1997, claiming that this left many ex-Gurkha servicemen still facing a financially uncertain retirement. A pressure group, Gurkha Justice Campaign,[58] joined the debate in support of the Gurkhas.
In a landmark ruling on 30 September 2008 the High Court in London decided that the Home Secretary’s policy allowing Gurkhas who left the Army before 1997 to apply for settlement in the United Kingdom was irrationally restrictive in its criteria, and overturned it. In line with the ruling of the High Court the Home Office pledged to review all cases affected by this decision.[59]
On 29 April 2009 a motion in the House of Commons by the Liberal Democrats that all Gurkhas be offered an equal right of residence was passed by 267 votes to 246. This was the only first day motion defeat for a government since 1978. Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, stated that “This is an immense victory […] for the rights of Gurkhas who have been waiting so long for justice, a victory for Parliament, a victory for decency.” He added that it was “the kind of thing people want this country to do”.[60]
On 21 May 2009, the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced that all Gurkha veterans who retired before 1997 with at least four years service would be allowed to settle in the UK. The actress Joanna Lumley, daughter of Gurkha corps major James Lumley, who had highlighted the treatment of the Gurkhas and campaigned for their rights, commented: “This is the welcome we have always longed to give”.[61]
A charity, The Gurkha Welfare Trust, provides aid to alleviate hardship and distress among Gurkha ex-servicemen.[62]
On June 9, 2015, a celebration called the Gurkha 200, held at The Royal Hospital Chelsea and attended by members of the royal family, will commemorate the bicentennial of the Gurkha Welfare Trust by paying tribute to Gurkha culture and military service.[63][better source needed]

Settlement rights

A 2008 UK High Court decision on a test case in London, R. (On the Application of Limbu) v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2008] EWHC 2261 (Admin)), acknowledged the ‘debt of honour’ to Gurkhas discharged before 1997. The Home Secretary of State’s policy allowing veterans to apply on a limited set of criteria (such as connection to the United Kingdom) was quashed as being unduly restrictive. The Court found that the Gurkhas had suffered a “historic injustice”, and that the policy was irrational in failing to take into account factors such as length of service or particularly meritorious conduct.[64]

Categories
Ammo

Ammo on Budget: 6.5 Creedmoor Sellier & Bellot

Categories
All About Guns

Browning Arms Co. Mod.Invector BPS 28 Inch Ribbed Bl Ducks Unlimited 12 GA

Browning Arms Co. - Mod.Invector BPS 28 Inch Ribbed Bl Ducks Unlimited
This is a very beautiful 12 Ga Browning BPS limited edition “Ducks Unlimited Pacific Edition.
Browning Arms Co. - Mod.Invector BPS 28 Inch Ribbed Bl Ducks Unlimited - Picture 2
Browning Arms Co. - Mod.Invector BPS 28 Inch Ribbed Bl Ducks Unlimited - Picture 3
Browning Arms Co. - Mod.Invector BPS 28 Inch Ribbed Bl Ducks Unlimited - Picture 4
Browning Arms Co. - Mod.Invector BPS 28 Inch Ribbed Bl Ducks Unlimited - Picture 5
Browning Arms Co. - Mod.Invector BPS 28 Inch Ribbed Bl Ducks Unlimited - Picture 6
Browning Arms Co. - Mod.Invector BPS 28 Inch Ribbed Bl Ducks Unlimited - Picture 7
Browning Arms Co. - Mod.Invector BPS 28 Inch Ribbed Bl Ducks Unlimited - Picture 8
Browning Arms Co. - Mod.Invector BPS 28 Inch Ribbed Bl Ducks Unlimited - Picture 9
Browning Arms Co. - Mod.Invector BPS 28 Inch Ribbed Bl Ducks Unlimited - Picture 10
 

Categories
Hard Nosed Folks Both Good & Bad

Townsend Whelen My Kind of Outdoor Writer!

    • By Roger Wiltz, Hunting/Fishing Enthusiast

Related image

I might be wrong, but I don’t believe that the genius of the past exists anywhere today. Think about it. Will we ever see another writer the likes of Shakespeare, Aldous Huxley, Charles Dickens, William Sidney Porter, or Sinclair Lewis?
A poet the equal of Robert Frost? How about the musical genius of Beethoven, Rossini, or George Gershwin? More important, will another George Washington, Abe Lincoln, or Thomas Jefferson ever grace our White House again?
Many of us aspire to reach a high degree of proficiency in our pastimes – to pick a guitar like B.B. King, hit a golf ball like Jordan Spieth, or paint a waterfowl scene like or own Joshua Spies. We seldom reach these levels, but it is our attempts that keep us going. I know it keeps me going!
I want to drop down about five gears and talk about something totally mundane – outdoor writing. Was there ever a writer who was to the great outdoors what Louis Armstrong was to entertainment? Archibald Rutledge had his quail, Ernest Hemingway had deep sea fishing, Jack O’Connor had his mountain sheep, and Elmer Keith had his guns. But what about the total package?
Image result for Townsend Whelen

Let’s look at Colonel Townsend Whelen (1877-1961). Whelen, at one time or another, held key positions with every major outdoor magazine. He was a soldier, writer, explorer, hunter, fisherman, rifleman, and pioneer in cartridge development. The .35 Whelen is obviously named after him. He once said, “The .30-06 is never a mistake.”
This has nothing to do with Whelen, but later in my hunting career I went back to the .30-06 after carrying everything from the .25-06 to the .375 H&H Magnum. This included Africa in 2014 as well as my 2016 moose hunt. I feel pretty good about that.

 
In 1901, northern British Columbia was unexplored wilderness. Bill Andrews and Townsend Whelen combined hunting and exploration into a six month plus journey that brought them through the British Columbia unknown. Their sojourn began in July 1901.
We’re talking no ATV’s, snowmobiles, or communication. Keep in mind that their time frame included December! They would begin at a Hudson Bay post on the Scumscum River and work their way north to the Yukon. They covered over 1,500 miles.
I have enjoyed thinking about their 1901 outfit as compared to how we would do it today. Their outfit included: two saddle horses, four pack horses, and a dog. They packed two extra sets of shoes for each horse and the tools for shoeing them. How many outdoor writers today can shoe horses and load full panniers on pack horses? In my circle of hunting partners, I’d bet on Doug Koupal.
The gear included: Ten heavy army blankets, a tent, two canvas sweat pads, two axes, 25 boxes of wax matches, a can of gun oil and cotton gun rags, two cleaning rods, two changes of underwear, six pairs of socks, six pairs of moccasins each and leather for re-soling, toilet articles, a hundred yards of fish line, two dozen fish hooks, an oil stove, screwdriver, file, needles and thread. Since clothes other than underwear and socks aren’t mentioned, the clothes they wore were it.
For cooking utensils they carried two frying pans, three kettles, two tin cups, three tin plates, and a gold pan. Bill carried a .38-55 Model 94 Winchester. Townsend toted a .40-72 Model 95 Winchester.
Both men packed 300 cartridges each. Both rifles had Lyman sights, and both men carried an extra front sight, main spring, and firing pin for their rifles. Neither rifle failed. Whelen hand-loaded the ammo for both rifles.
The four packhorses carried approximately 150 pounds of food and gear each. Included were 150 lbs. of flour, 50 lbs. of sugar, 30 lbs. of beans, 10 lbs. of rice, 10 lbs. of dried apples, 20 lbs. of prunes, 30 lbs. of cornmeal, 20 lbs. of oatmeal, 30 lbs. of potatoes, 10 lbs. of onions, 50 lbs. of bacon, 25 lbs. of salt, 10 lbs. of soap, 10 lbs. of tea, 10 lbs. of tobacco, six cans of baking powder, and a pound of pepper. Whelen didn’t mention oil for the stove.
Can we learn anything from Andrews and Whelen? When they killed a deer or sheep for camp meat, they first ate the ribs as they relished them. Of all the deer and antelope I’ve killed, we have never grilled the ribs. Generally, I cut the meat from between the ribs and use it for burger. What about you? Any advice?

 Whelen mentions that no meat was ever wasted. They never killed an animal larger than a deer or sheep, and one of these didn’t last very long as their appetites were prodigious. Fifty pounds of bacon would amount to two pounds per week.
Much of the game must have been cooked in animal fat. Whelen spoke of thousands of grouse, and they shot the heads off of them when they needed grouse for the pot.

 
The two men took “deer” rifles into grizzly bear country, but they didn’t know it, and they didn’t worry about it. Today’s expert outdoor writer would look at a .38-55 as totally inadequate. He would carry a .300 magnum or more. There’s way too much gun hype in today’s outdoor world. It’s all about marketing guns.
About fifteen years ago, Doug Koupal and I made a ten-day horseback hunt into the Canadian Rockies of Alberta’s Jasper Wilderness. I can relate to Whelen and Andrews.
At that altitude at that time of year, I felt like I’d freeze to death if it weren’t for the little wood stove in my tent. If Whelen were around today, I’d bet that would say that the ten woolen army blankets were the most important gear they had.
I can’t imagine six months with one change of underwear apiece! Were those old long johns strong enough to weather that kind of wear and tear? I would also imagine that Whelen’s soap would peel the hide from a buffalo calf’s back. Those guys were tough!
Well, “Townie” as his friends called him, could walk the walk. He’s what I’d call a real outdoor writer. Like I said, they don’t make ‘em like they used to.
Image result for Townsend Whelen

Categories
All About Guns

REMINGTON – CUSTOMIZED MODEL 1903 MILITARY SPORTER W/BEAUTIFUL WOOD .30-06 Springfield

REMINGTON - CUSTOMIZED - MODEL 1903 MILITARY SPORTER W/BEAUTIFUL WOOD!
Here is a good reason on why I keep buying sporterized 1903 Springfields! I am willing to bet that it shoots just as well as a lot of commercially made Bolt actions. But it would cost a hell of a lot less!
REMINGTON - CUSTOMIZED - MODEL 1903 MILITARY SPORTER W/BEAUTIFUL WOOD! - Picture 2
REMINGTON - CUSTOMIZED - MODEL 1903 MILITARY SPORTER W/BEAUTIFUL WOOD! - Picture 3
REMINGTON - CUSTOMIZED - MODEL 1903 MILITARY SPORTER W/BEAUTIFUL WOOD! - Picture 4
REMINGTON - CUSTOMIZED - MODEL 1903 MILITARY SPORTER W/BEAUTIFUL WOOD! - Picture 5
REMINGTON - CUSTOMIZED - MODEL 1903 MILITARY SPORTER W/BEAUTIFUL WOOD! - Picture 6
REMINGTON - CUSTOMIZED - MODEL 1903 MILITARY SPORTER W/BEAUTIFUL WOOD! - Picture 7
REMINGTON - CUSTOMIZED - MODEL 1903 MILITARY SPORTER W/BEAUTIFUL WOOD! - Picture 8
 

Categories
All About Guns

Us Springfield Armory 45/70 Trapdoor in .45-70 Govt.

US Springfield Armory - 45/70 TRAP DOOR - Picture 1
US Springfield Armory - 45/70 TRAP DOOR - Picture 2
US Springfield Armory - 45/70 TRAP DOOR - Picture 3
US Springfield Armory - 45/70 TRAP DOOR - Picture 4
US Springfield Armory - 45/70 TRAP DOOR - Picture 5
US Springfield Armory - 45/70 TRAP DOOR - Picture 6
US Springfield Armory - 45/70 TRAP DOOR - Picture 7

Categories
Cops Well I thought it was funny!

Monday!

Inline image 2

Categories
Well I thought it was funny!

Nuts

Image result for funny gun memes

Categories
All About Guns

Massachusetts- Thanks for the Free Stuff!

Massachusetts: Surrender Your Bump Stock/Trigger Crank By May 2 or Go to Prison

Slidefire bump stock
In its infinite wisdom, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has made the sale or possession of a bump fire stock or trigger crank a crime. They sent a letter to gun owners — of whom they have a list — giving owners of said devices 90 days to turn them into police. Without any financial compensation. Here’s the missive . . .
Official MA bump fire stock surrender letter

 
Official MA bump fire stock surrender letter page 2

Ads by Revcontent