SMLE Muzzle or Magazine

[4thGordons]

GR below crown - 1918 - SHT L.E III

On Brass Disc on butt TD C2 so not regimental, which I think was discontinued in 1915.

Did'nt think it was converted to .22

Ahhh it was the MkIV (in the initial post) that was the source of confusion so it is actually an SMLE MkIII.

Do you have a magazine for it?

It appears that stock marking discs, although discontinued during the war were reintroduced in the inter-war period.

Out of interest, what maker is it (Enfield / LSA Co / BSA or something else? this too should be stamped on the wrist beow the crown....if not look, on the rear of the boltway and you will probably see SSA or NRF) meaning it is a peddled scheme rifle Is it marked III or III*? It looks to be milled for the magazine cut-off but I cannot tell from the photo if it is installed.

Chris

[MikB]

B&gger - I should have known that Chris, in relentless pursuit of the pedantry crown (all divisions), would raise the earlier references to the 'First World War' ! Once again, typography is everything and such references were to <the first 'World War'>.

Don't seek the crown - 'tis of thorns, and uneasy lies the head and all that...

But it made me think of this, spotted on a battleship shell stood outside a grockleshop in Widecombe:-

http://i456.photobucket.com/albums/qq281/M...to152009004.jpg

I guess the plaque had to be around 20 years later than the presentation.

Regards,

MikB

[David B]

And so you should!

Actually I have no knowledge of a thirty round magazine, only the twenty.

I used to have one of those many years ago and regret selling it so much now (for about £25 if I remember correctly). The last one I saw sold for £1,000 in about 2003.

Regards

TonyE

Take heart TonyE,

That 1000 pounds is probably only worth the 25 pounds you received years ago

((Sorry I have to spell the pounds sign Aussie keyboards dont have a pound sign any more))

Cheers

[Pete1052]

David, copy other peoples' pound signs and paste them into your messages as necessary.

[SiegeGunner]

(Sorry I have to spell the pounds sign Aussie keyboards dont have a pound sign any more).

You could always use # signs – spelt 'Ashes' ...

[Mk VII]

believe I read that the term the "First World War" actually predates the second, the author, possibly in the Times in the 1920s was predicting that there would be more global conflicts and that the "War to End War" would not. I do not recall the author but it may have been Norman Angell?

Colonel Repington's book 'The First World War' was published in 1920 and this appears to have been the first use of the term.

[Old War Skule]

The SHT L. E. Mk I was a revolutionary idea for it's time. One rifle for infantry, cavalry, and artillery. The United States was impressed enough to follow suit in the design of the U.S. Rifle, Caliber .30, Model 1903; the "Springfield."

[Old War Skule]

David, if you're using a PC, go to the character map for these: £. Click start, all programs, accessories, then system tools. It's right there.

[TonyE]

Take heart TonyE,

That 1000 pounds is probably only worth the 25 pounds you received years ago

((Sorry I have to spell the pounds sign Aussie keyboards dont have a pound sign any more))

Cheers

You are probably right! I sold it in 1971 along with a lot of other good stuff (Webley .455 Auto Mk.IN for example) to fund the deposit on my first house. But then that only cost £7,000 so everything is relative.

Cheers

TonyE

[TonyE]

The SHT L. E. Mk I was a revolutionary idea for it's time. One rifle for infantry, cavalry, and artillery. The United States was impressed enough to follow suit in the design of the U.S. Rifle, Caliber .30, Model 1903; the "Springfield."

True, but it was only meant to be a stopgap pending the design of a new rifle.

The Small Arms Committee had been re-formed in 1900 and part of their brief was to investigate the possibility of adopting an automatic rifle in the near future. I am giving a talk at Bisley on Saturday about these early British automatic rifle trials.

Meanwhile work went ahead at Enfield on the design of both the Enfield SLR and the new Mauser type rifle that became the Pattern '13.

Regards

TonyE

[evolution]

Ahhh it was the MkIV (in the initial post) that was the source of confusion so it is actually an SMLE MkIII.

Do you have a magazine for it?

It appears that stock marking discs, although discontinued during the war were reintroduced in the inter-war period.

Out of interest, what maker is it (Enfield / LSA Co / BSA or something else? this too should be stamped on the wrist beow the crown....if not look, on the rear of the boltway and you will probably see SSA or NRF) meaning it is a peddled scheme rifle Is it marked III or III*? It looks to be milled for the magazine cut-off but I cannot tell from the photo if it is installed.

Chris

Yes do have a mag, and has the cut off see pic, it is III*, and is SSA

Yes do have a mag, and has the cut off see pic, it is III*, and is SSA

[4thGordons]

Yes do have a mag, and has the cut off see pic, it is III*, and is SSA

This is interesting, formally speaking a mkIII* should not have the cut-off (one of the things deleted that makes it a *)

Given the 1918 date this is another example (as in previous threads) of a "cusp" rifle - probably restored to MkIII standard in the inter-war period - it is quite common to find this, but is interesting none the less - more so as it is a comparatively rare SSA marked receiver.

SSA is Standard Small Arms and there is some dispute as to whether they actually completed whole rifles or just components (later assembled at Enfield)... they were certainly intended to complete rifles but the company ran into numerous difficulties and was taken over, emerging briefly as the National Rifle Factory (NRF). You will notice that the crown cypher on these rifles is distinctly different than those on standard manufacturers also (slightly squarer and more stylized)

Chris

[TonyE]

This is interesting, formally speaking a mkIII* should not have the cut-off (one of the things deleted that makes it a *)

Given the 1918 date this is another example (as in previous threads) of a "cusp" rifle - probably restored to MkIII standard in the inter-war period - it is quite common to find this, but is interesting none the less - more so as it is a comparatively rare SSA marked receiver.

SSA is Standard Small Arms and there is some dispute as to whether they actually completed whole rifles or just components (later assembled at Enfield)... they were certainly intended to complete rifles but the company ran into numerous difficulties and was taken over, emerging briefly as the National Rifle Factory (NRF). You will notice that the crown cypher on these rifles is distinctly different than those on standard manufacturers also (slightly squarer and more stylized)

Chris

I agree it is very interesting. I have often wondered where these rifles were restored to Mark III standard. It is obviously beyond unit armourers to mill the cut off slot post war, and I am sure a SSA 1918 III* did not have one to start with. Maybe they went back to Enfield and commercial contractors, as did the P.14s in later years during the Weedon refurbishment.

Regards

TonyE

[evolution]

Clearer pic of the III* (I ope)

[evolution]

And second

[4thGordons]

I have been doing some thinking about this. Admittedly most of this is unsupported (in terms of primary documentation) guesswork but I would like to think it is reasonably informed guesswork.

The issue is there are a large number of SMLE rifles in circulation which are stamped MkIII* but which are in MkIII configuration (absent volley sights - although some of these exist too - true oddities).

The MkIII* simplifications were introduced in early 1916 and included the deletion of the long range volley sights, the magazine cut-off and the windage adjustable rear sight. The dates at which these changes were implemented differ considerably. London Small Arms Co. for example appear to have continued to produce MkIIIs far longer than the other manufacturers (the simplifications to the MkIII* standard were approved not actually required.)

The sight changes are relatively simple. The magazine cut-off is more complex as MkIII receivers have a slot milled in them and, in addition, a threaded hole at the front of this slot into which the bolt that the cut-off pivots on is screwed. The pivoting of the plate and this bolt also require the wood of the fore-end to be shaped differently - with a section relieved to allow the pivot and of course the side cut lower to expose the slot/cut off plate.

There was obviously a transition period where earlier receivers (produced for the slot) were utilised in the assembly of MkIII* standard rifles (so these would be slotted receivers marked with a * and assembled without a cut-off and often with "high cut" wood. One also runs into MkIII* (solid) receivers assembled with low cut wood, presumably using up older fore-ends. Some of these are also shaped as though a volley sight base plate would be fitted although it was not.

After the war there was apparently a process by which many rifles were returned to the MkIII standard by adding the cut-off. So the question is, were MkIII* (solid) receivers milled with a slot and drilled/threaded for the bolt and fitted with modified wood OR were only MkIII receivers (however marked and assembled previously) already slotted for the cut-off reassembled as MkIII standard rifles

I suspect the latter, it simply seems too involved a process otherwise. If there was a significant program at Enfield or one of the other manufacturers to return rifles to the MkIII configuration (machining etc as Tony says - beyond a unit armourey) I suspect Skennerton (or TonyE!) would have seen documentary evidence of it. This is largely supposition on my part but it seems reasonable to me.

If I am correct - the story of "Evolution's" rifle would be:

Receiver manufactured by SSA as a MkIII (slotted)

Rifle assembled (possibly actually at Enfield) in 1918 as a MkIII* and so stamped.

Post war rifle restored to MkIII configuration with the installation of the cut-off.

A crucial bit of information that would assist in this (and several other queries I have) is: At what point in the process were the receivers dated and mark stamped? was it when they were PRODUCED or was it when the rifle was ASSEMBLED on the receiver? I have not been able to discover the answer to this so if anyone knows I would love to hear!

This is assuming all the changes were official and not just a previous owner who fancied a cut-off (readily available and installed using just a small screwdriver).

Chris

[TonyE]

A good analysis Chris, and one which I think is very likely to be the case. I do not know of any program at Enfield (or anywhere else) to slot the receivers of III* rifles for a cut-off, and as you say, I am sure one of us would have found evidence by now.

As far as the fore ends are concerned, it would be relatively easy to convert "high" wood to "low" wood even at unit level. What is hard to explain is why, in the case of my own rifle, an Enfield 1918 dated receiver should have a slotted receiver UNLESS, as you summise there were left over receivers and they were dated at assembly and not at manufacture.

I believe on the evidence we have that this must have been the case. One day perhaps we wil find something to prove this one way or the other.

Regards

TonyE

[4thGordons]

As far as the fore ends are concerned, it would be relatively easy to convert "high" wood to "low" wood even at unit level. What is hard to explain is why, in the case of my own rifle, an Enfield 1918 dated receiver should have a slotted receiver UNLESS, as you summise there were left over receivers and they were dated at assembly and not at manufacture.

Hi Tony,

IIRC your rifle also has volley sights fitted does it not? to me this is the real oddity!

The other explanation of a slotted 1918 receiver MIGHT be that Enfield returned to MkIII production immediately upon the cessation of hostitilities and your rifle was produced in Dec 1918.... but for me that seems a stretch.

Chris

[Old War Skule]

I looked at my Mk III* after reading this thread. It's dated 1918, marked SSA, no cut off or provision for one, high stock. It has a steel butt plate with brass door.

[4thGordons]

I looked at my Mk III* after reading this thread. It's dated 1918, marked SSA, no cut off or provision for one, high stock. It has a steel butt plate with brass door.

Any chance of a picture of the Buttplate? IIRC these were only made by one subcontractor (Linley?) and are almost exclusively found (I hear) on SSA/NRF rifles. I have never seen one myself.

Chris

[Old War Skule]

Any chance of a picture of the Buttplate? IIRC these were only made by one subcontractor (Linley?) and are almost exclusively found (I hear) on SSA/NRF rifles. I have never seen one myself.

Chris

I'd be glad to take a few of the rifle and butt plate, Chris.

[Joe Sweeney]

The SHT L. E. Mk I was a revolutionary idea for it's time. One rifle for infantry, cavalry, and artillery. The United States was impressed enough to follow suit in the design of the U.S. Rifle, Caliber .30, Model 1903; the "Springfield."

Please elaborate on this.

Detailed study of arms is not my area of expertise, but I had thought the SMLE MKI and the Springfield 03 were introduced with-in a couple of months of each other and designed very independently. Wasn't the 03 actually technically introduced first?

Joe Sweeney

[evolution]

Here's the butt plate on mine.

and 2

[TonyE]

Please elaborate on this.

Detailed study of arms is not my area of expertise, but I had thought the SMLE MKI and the Springfield 03 were introduced with-in a couple of months of each other and designed very independently. Wasn't the 03 actually technically introduced first?

Joe Sweeney

The first experimental Enfield shortened rifles were made in 1900 and the troop trial "A" and "B Type" rifles were manufactured in late 1901 before formal adoption in December 1902 as the SMLE Mark I.

Whilst I am not so familiar with the Springfield family, I believe the chronology was about the same. Experimental "long" rifles had been made in 1900 and there were experimental Model 1901 and 1902 rifles, both shorter models, but I do not think these were formally adopted. The Model of 1903 was adopted in June 1903, so I think the SMLE was actually first. However, I suspect it was both ordnance departments coming to similar conclusions rather than one influencing the other.

Regards

TonyE

[Ghost]

I trust you don't do as the USMC and sleep with your rifle do you evolution? Didn't your mummy tell you not to play with it in bed?

Alan