RobL Posted 9 January , 2010 Share Posted 9 January , 2010 I was talking to a friend of mine earlier who is moving from Italy to the UK and is bringing two of his SMLE's with him - both 1917 dated, and both live firing. One of them, with all matching numbers, he says has a stock a couple of inches or so shorter than the other. Could it be that this is an SMLE that was issued to a Bantam Battalion? Apparently large numbers of SMLE's were given to the Italian Navy and were released in the 1990's - 2000's, and his two were among them. Trying to get some photographs off him to show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 9 January , 2010 Share Posted 9 January , 2010 I was talking to a friend of mine earlier who is moving from Italy to the UK and is bringing two of his SMLE's with him - both 1917 dated, and both live firing. One of them, with all matching numbers, he says has a stock a couple of inches or so shorter than the other. Could it be that this is an SMLE that was issued to a Bantam Battalion? Apparently large numbers of SMLE's were given to the Italian Navy and were released in the 1990's - 2000's, and his two were among them. Trying to get some photographs off him to show There were Bantam stocks, although I think a "couple of inches or so" is probably an exaggeration . For SMLEs, initially stocks were issued in Standard (unmarked) "Short" (S stamped) and "Long" (L-long stamped) - later there were "B" marked "Bantam" stocks introduced. IIRC the lengths were Short (1/2 inch shorter than standard) and Long (1/2 inch longer) - Bantam stocks were 1 inch shorter than standard. So if you were comparing a Bantam to a Long the max diference would be 1 1/2 inches. Somewhere I have some comparative pictures....I'll have a look. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Tom Posted 11 January , 2010 Share Posted 11 January , 2010 Somewhat off the point. However I recall that in the late 1940's when I was in a school cadet force, we were 'armed' with Martini Henri Carbines (0.45 or .5 inch I think) which were an ideal length for boys to use for arms drill. The bantams were lucky that they di not get these shades of the Zulu wars and the like. Old Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 12 January , 2010 Share Posted 12 January , 2010 Somewhat off the point. However I recall that in the late 1940's when I was in a school cadet force, we were 'armed' with Martini Henri Carbines (0.45 or .5 inch I think) which were an ideal length for boys to use for arms drill. The bantams were lucky that they di not get these shades of the Zulu wars and the like. Old Tom Actually early on Martini-Henry Carbines were were indeed issued to second/third line units at home, although not - as far as I know based on stature! Somewhere I have a picture of some ASC men (IIRC) so armed, I certainly have a picture of a Gordon photgraphed in Blackpool with a Martini Rifle (although to be fair I think this one is a photographers prop and not an issue weapon). The Martini-Henry's were chambered for a number of different rounds - including some specifically for cadets - but most (TonyE will correct me if I am wrong!) were in .450 Martini calibre - some were later converted to .303 I think, including carbines. This is an example. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
27thBN Posted 12 January , 2010 Share Posted 12 January , 2010 " stocks introduced. IIRC the lengths were Short (1/2 inch Stupid question probably but i have seen IIRC on many posts ..meaning Thanks MC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 12 January , 2010 Share Posted 12 January , 2010 I will answer the Martini question later, but no time now1 Regards TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbox Posted 12 January , 2010 Share Posted 12 January , 2010 From about 1880 onwards, Martini-Henry rifles and carbines were converted from .450/577 (the big Zulu-war era bullet) to .303, which was then the "new" military calibre. In addition to converted British Army rifles, the gun trade made thousands of .303 Martini-Enfields for export. These rifles were ideal for arming colonial militias and police forces, being very simple in function and very reliable. During WW1 & WW2 Martini-Enfields were extensively used as training and home defence weapons, and later as cadet weapons. The Martini action is so durable that many rifles had three or four conversions in their lifetime: from Mk1 or Mk2 M-H to MkIV, then to .303 Martini-Metford, then to Martini-Enfield, then finally to .22"RF target rifle. At one auction house, I even saw an 1870 Mk1 Martini-Henry that had been converted into a whale harpoon gun - firing a massive steel harpoon.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 12 January , 2010 Share Posted 12 January , 2010 Stupid question probably but i have seen IIRC on many posts ..meaning IIRC it means If I Remember Correctly But then I might be mistaken ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 12 January , 2010 Share Posted 12 January , 2010 From about 1880 onwards, Martini-Henry rifles and carbines were converted from .450/577 (the big Zulu-war era bullet) to .303, which was then the "new" military calibre. In addition to converted British Army rifles, the gun trade made thousands of .303 Martini-Enfields for export. These rifles were ideal for arming colonial militias and police forces, being very simple in function and very reliable. During WW1 & WW2 Martini-Enfields were extensively used as training and home defence weapons, and later as cadet weapons. The Martini action is so durable that many rifles had three or four conversions in their lifetime: from Mk1 or Mk2 M-H to MkIV, then to .303 Martini-Metford, then to Martini-Enfield, then finally to .22"RF target rifle. At one auction house, I even saw an 1870 Mk1 Martini-Henry that had been converted into a whale harpoon gun - firing a massive steel harpoon.... First may I offer a belated welcome to the Forum. However, I would be failing in my role as Forum small arms pedant if I did not make a couple of points with respect to your post. The conversion of Martini-Henry rifles to .303 inch Martini-Metford commenced in late 1889, approval having been given for the M-M Mark I in July that year. After all, the .303 inch round had not been introduced until 1889, so conversion could not have taken place in 1880. Also, the Martini-Henry round is the .577/,450", the convention being that the calibre of the parent round is given first. I would also disagree that the .303 Martini-Enfields (after rebarreling from Metford rifling) were extensively used for training in WWI, let alone WW2. The Royal Navy did purchase a few .577/.450 carbines from the trade in 1914, but these were for use against Zeppelins by the RNAS. They also purchased sime .303 Martinis from the trade for arming merchantmen. The army made virtually no use of Martini-Enfields in training, normally using either obsolete Lee-Metfords that were only fit for drill or the Arisaka rifles obtained from Japan. In fact, in the official history of the Ministry of Munitions on the supply of rifles there is no mention of Martinis of any kind. I posted a list of the number and types of rifles in store in August 1914 on another thread. On the other hand, the home defence volunteers (Imperial Defence Corps?, I forget their correct title) did contract with various Birmingham gunmakers to produce new .303 Martinis that did not conform to any previously approved pattern. In WW2 all sorts of weapons were used by the LDV/Home Guard and I am sure plenty of personally owned Martinis were pressed into service, but again I do not think the regular army used any. School cadet units had Martinis of both calibres in their armouries between the wars, and we certainly had a few .303 Martini Artillery Carbines in the school armoury in the early 1960s. (not on charge and hidden before every inspection!) Chris- the Cadet Martini, much used in Australia, used a small .310 calibre round. Regards TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 13 January , 2010 Share Posted 13 January , 2010 We have digressed a bit from SMLE buttstock length - however here is the picture I was thinking of - a wartime image of what I believe are ASC men with Martini carbines and Pattern 14 leather equipment To get us back on topic a bit - here is the best I could do at the moment to show the effect of the difference between a Short and Standard length Butt on a SMLE. The rifle closet to the camera (missing the front band screw!) is standard, second in rack short, then back to standard. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 13 January , 2010 Share Posted 13 January , 2010 Thanks for the picture Chris. I wonder when that was taken and exactly what unit it is? Could it have been a Locally Raised battalion? I do not know enough about how the ASC was organised and expanded at the beginning of the war. Regards TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 13 January , 2010 Share Posted 13 January , 2010 Actually early on Martini-Henry Carbines were were indeed issued to second/third line units at home, although not - as far as I know based on stature! Somewhere I have a picture of some ASC men (IIRC) so armed, I certainly have a picture of a Gordon photgraphed in Blackpool with a Martini Rifle (although to be fair I think this one is a photographers prop and not an issue weapon). The Martini-Henry's were chambered for a number of different rounds - including some specifically for cadets - but most (TonyE will correct me if I am wrong!) were in .450 Martini calibre - some were later converted to .303 I think, including carbines. The rifle club at my first university still had some MH rifles tubed to 0.22. Horrible things as the extractor often didn't and the trigger mechanism was so worn you only had to think the wrong thought to fire it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Boonzaier Posted 14 January , 2010 Share Posted 14 January , 2010 I feel guilty about making fun of a man long dead...... but proof that the German soldiers just had to make do..... For me the rifle ends about 5cm above my bellybutton.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangeRover Posted 14 January , 2010 Share Posted 14 January , 2010 Another perspective on SMLE butt length. The top rifle is a 1910 Enfield No. 1 Mk. III, converted later to a .22 No. 2 Mk IV*. There is no marking for length stamped into the butt, but I'm assuming the shorter butt stock was installed at the time of conversion, for cadet training (pure supposition on my part, however). The bottom rifle is a 1918 BSA No. 1 Mk III*. The difference in length shows up I hope, even allowing for parallax error and the fact that I didn't line the noses up exactly (This is an older photo I just cropped a bit to add to this thread). I was talking to a friend of mine earlier who is moving from Italy to the UK and is bringing two of his SMLE's with him - both 1917 dated, and both live firing. One of them, with all matching numbers, he says has a stock a couple of inches or so shorter than the other. Could it be that this is an SMLE that was issued to a Bantam Battalion? Apparently large numbers of SMLE's were given to the Italian Navy and were released in the 1990's - 2000's, and his two were among them. Trying to get some photographs off him to show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 14 January , 2010 Share Posted 14 January , 2010 I don't suppose it would make a great deal of difference in the grand scheme of things, but people do sometimes use an SMLE in a photograph as a yardstick by which to gauge the size of other features in the image, or perhaps the height of the man holding the rifle. What are the overall lengths of the short, standard and long butt SMLEs? And am I right in thinking that one of the criticisms levelled at the film Zulu Dawn was that the infantry as well as the mounted troops were armed with Martini-Henry carbines? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 14 January , 2010 Share Posted 14 January , 2010 I don't suppose it would make a great deal of difference in the grand scheme of things, but people do sometimes use an SMLE in a photograph as a yardstick by which to gauge the size of other features in the image, or perhaps the height of the man holding the rifle. What are the overall lengths of the short, standard and long butt SMLEs? And am I right in thinking that one of the criticisms levelled at the film Zulu Dawn was that the infantry as well as the mounted troops were armed with Martini-Henry carbines? If it helps: The overall length of the SMLE is 44.55" (1132mm) The photo below of a couple of butts I had lying around (1 "new") and 3 used - none with visible stamps for size. Comparison indicates that the standard length is about 13" (33mmm) without the buttplate which would add about half an inch (13mm) The right hand stock is about 13mm longer so it may be a long. As noted above a bantam stock would be 1" (25.4mm) shorter than the standard. Assuming the standard overall length was measured using the standard butt a LONG would be 45.05" (1144mm) and a bantam would be 43.55" (1106mm) Skennerton reports the official lenghs as: Length of Long butt about "1foot 1.8 inches Length of normal butt about "1 foot 1.3 inches" Length of short butt about "1 foot 0.8inches" Length of rifle with normal butt and bayonet: "5 foot 2inches" (1575mm) Length of rifle with normal butt and no bayonet "3 foot 8.5inches" (1132mm) (Lee Enfield Story p122) I need to get this anorak off! Cheers Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tocemma Posted 14 January , 2010 Share Posted 14 January , 2010 I feel guilty about making fun of a man long dead...... but proof that the German soldiers just had to make do..... For me the rifle ends about 5cm above my bellybutton.... Chris, Was his name Kurz Waldheim? Tocemma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobL Posted 2 April , 2011 Author Share Posted 2 April , 2011 Bumping the thread up again, ANOTHER friend of mine has a 1917 SMLE with a short Bantam stock, with a 'B' stamped on it 'at the top just in front of the buttplate' - are these relatively rare? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 2 April , 2011 Share Posted 2 April , 2011 Bumping the thread up again, ANOTHER friend of mine has a 1917 SMLE with a short Bantam stock, with a 'B' stamped on it 'at the top just in front of the buttplate' - are these relatively rare? Obviously - stocks were short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 2 April , 2011 Share Posted 2 April , 2011 That is seriously bad, Centurion. Go and stand in the corner! Cheers TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 2 April , 2011 Share Posted 2 April , 2011 That is seriously bad, Centurion. Go and stand in the corner! Cheers TonyE Peccavi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 2 April , 2011 Share Posted 2 April , 2011 Peccavi Sir Charles Napier? You are looking well Sir! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 2 April , 2011 Share Posted 2 April , 2011 Sir Charles Napier? You are looking well Sir! I do believe it was! Cheers TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 2 April , 2011 Share Posted 2 April , 2011 Somewhat off topic to the original post in this thread, but since the earlier discussion was about Martini rifles in the war, this has some relevence. In 1914/early 1915 the Admiralty purchased quantities of both .45 Martini Henry and .303 inch Martini Enfield rifles and carbines from the gun trade, weapons that the government had previously sold out of service. The .45 carbines were issued to the RNAS for use with the anti-Zeppelin "Flaming Bullet" and the remainder were issued to armed trawlers and merchant ships. Regards TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex falbo Posted 2 April , 2011 Share Posted 2 April , 2011 That is seriously bad, Centurion. Go and stand in the corner! Cheers TonyE You must admit it was a good effort... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now