عنوان

The British Army and the politics of rifle development, 1880 to 1986

Number

TLets540222

Title Proper

The British Army and the politics of rifle development, 1880 to 1986

General Material Designation

[Thesis]

First Statement of Responsibility

Ford, Matthew Charles

Name of Publisher, Distributor, etc.

King's College London

Date of Publication, Distribution, etc.

2008

Dissertation or thesis details and type of degree

Ph.D.

Body granting the degree

King's College London

Text preceding or following the note

2008

Text of Note

This thesis is concerned with the design and development of British infantry rifles. Thespecific weapons considered are the Lee-Metford (LEME) first introduced in 1888; theShort Magazine Lee-Enfield (SMLE) brought into service in 1904; the ExperimentalModel No. 2 (EM2) briefly designated the Rifle No. 9 MkJ in 195 1; and the Section SmallArms Post 1980 (SA80) issued to troops in 1986.Over the past twenty years academic literature has demonstrated that technologicaldeterminism has persistently crept into accounts of technical change. By consistentlyleaving human agency out of the equation, technology has appeared to evolveautonomously and to have determinate effects. Whilst studies of civilian technologieshave shown that this way of seeing has serious flaws, very little has been undertaken toshow how the same issues arise in a military context. The approach adopted hereexplicitly aims to highlight and avoid problems of technological determinism by puttinghuman choice back into the story of British rifle design.This is achieved through the identification of key personalities and social groups who hada perspective on, and an interest in, the development of the various systems. Havingidentified the key actors, their views on each artefact are explored. What emerges is thatdifferent groups see a particular technical solution differently. The arguments about whatmust be included in, and what is irrelevant to, a design of rifle are as a result exposed forfurther examination. The eventual weapon that emerges from these debates can be seenas a negotiation among the various parties: an artefact around which various perspectivescoalesce. What transpires is a detailed picture of the tactical problems each weaponattempts to resolve. This not only indicates how various groups see the battlefieldproblem but also describes how these same actors want the infantry to fight.-

Ford, Matthew Charles

King's College London

Electronic name

p

[Thesis]

276903

a

Y