25th (Frontiersmen) Batt, Royal Fusiliers (City of London Regiment)

[Whitedog]

Somebody told me that this rifle was issued to the 25th (frontiersmen) Battalion, Royal Fusiliers (City of London Regiment). That unit has a very interesting history. I'd thought that possibly the rifle was used by the 25th Bicycle (County of London) Battalion, but this person didn't think so as he said their rifles weren't updated CLLE's like this one is. I added the correct clearing rod to this rifle recently just because I didn't like the looks of the empty channel, although it's correct in not having a rod attached. Can anyone share any information on the 25th (Frontiersmen) Battalion, Royal Fusiliers (City of London Regiment)? Any opinions regarding the accuracy of this assessment would be welcome. Thanks Fred

[SteveE]

Fred

I assume there's an externally hosted photo of the said item on this post it's just that I can't see it at present due to those sites being blocked by my employer.

Have a read through this thread.... http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...etford&st=0 and see what you think.

Regards

Steve

[Whitedog]

Maybe these photo's might come through for you. Anyway, the information you sent me is Very informative! Thanks. I think that IF this rifle is indeed marked correctly for issue to the 25th Battalion of the City of London Regiment, then could it be one of the 35% of the rifles mentioned in the last post that were the CLLE's used for training as mentioned in the Sept. 1st, 1914 correspondence? Of course the unit designation on the tang of the buttplate might be of another unit, ANy ideas on that? Assuming of course that you're able to see the photo's. I can't understand why there is a line under this entire message as I'm printing it. Maybe something to do with the way I tried to transfer the pictures. Oh well, please let me know if you are able to see the photo's. Thanks, Fred

http://s25.photobucket.com/albums/c72/Whit...fLondonBatt.jpg

[SteveE]

[Of course the unit designation on the tang of the buttplate might be of another unit, ANy ideas on that?

Fred

Rifles etc. are way outside my area of interest but now I can see the photos (I'm at home so not blocked any more ) I'd suggest that the marking "25 LD" is more likely to refer to the 25th (County of London) Cyclist Battalion of the London Regiment rather than the 25th Battalion Royal Fusiliers (Frontiersmen).

I don't know how the Royal Fusiliers marked their rifles but I suspect they'd use "RF" as the designator, LD being more likely for the London Regiment. Hopefully somebody who knows what they're talking about will be along to help soon as I'd be interested to find out a bit more too.

Regards

Steve

[Whitedog]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25th_(Frontie...Royal_Fusiliers

Quite possible Steve and probable too that you're right. Certainly would like to have some addintional input from others as well. Either way, it's a nice rifle. Above is a link to some information on the unit. Thanks again, Fred

[TonyE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25th_(Frontie...Royal_Fusiliers

Quite possible Steve and probable too that you're right. Certainly would like to have some addintional input from others as well. Either way, it's a nice rifle. Above is a link to some information on the unit. Thanks again, Fred

I agree with Steve. The marking for the Royal Fusileers (City of London Regiment) was "RF", although "LD" is listed as being used by both the London Regiment and the City of London Regiment.

For what it is worth, here are the tang markings on a .256" Arisaka Pattern 1907 (Japanese Type 38) rifle.

Regards

TonyE

[4thGordons]

I agree with TonyE and SteveE (hmmm is there some sort of Econspiracy here)

I think 25 RF is the more likely abbreviation for the City of London Regiment, and LD (I believe I have also seen LON?) for London Regiment.

In general I think unit markings can be confusing and at time misleading, especially when weapons have had a long service life and gone through several refinishes. This is further complicated by the thriving secondary trade in unit marking discs (buttplates are probably far rarer) and the ease with which things can be replaced always leaves me a little leery of attaching too much to particular identities. I mean this in a general sense and I am absolutely NOT saying this is the case here BTW the patina and fit of the buttplate etc would all argue against this. I am extremely envious of this particular rifle as it is a glaring hole in my own collection (although one I am currently negotiating to fill!), the only CLLE conversion I have is a rather battered India Pattern one.

Chris

[shippingsteel]

Just a quick comment, I think the first place to start with the unit abbreviations is to try to date the markings by looking at the items other characteristics such as model, issue dates and conversions. By doing this first it can then put your unit markings into the correct period context, which can be very important when trying to find the exact reference.

I am sure the rifle experts would be able to narrow down the period in question considerably by dating the model and conversion. Would the butt plates be changed very often, or would that one attached most likely be the original issue.? From my understanding the WD broad arrow mark was discontinued from usage around the 1896 period so that might give some assistance, however I may be mistaken when it comes to the rifles.?

From a look at the Wikipedia page, it appears the London Regiment was first formed in 1908, I am not sure how that compares with the rifles dates etc. but someone will know more no doubt. If the marks do relate to the London Regiment, the correct designation would most likely be 25th (Cyclist) (County of London) Battalion, London Regiment .

Cheers, S>S

[Whitedog]

Chris, isn't it amazing that the CLLE's were used for so long? I personaly like them better than the SMLE's. They just look better. Fred

[TonyE]

Actually, when one considers the numbers it is easy to see why the CLLEs continued in service.

At the outbreak of war in August 1914 there were 795,000 serviceable rifles available, of which 320,000 were long LEs. The strength of the regular army was 237,000, which with 224,000 reservists called up brought the strength to around 460,000. There were also nearly 270,000 Territorials.

Given that the bayonet strength would be slightly below this, that gave a War Reserve of only about 70,000 rifles.

Now look at the increase in the army numbers following recruitment.

December 1914 1.08 million

December 1915 1.77 million

December 1916 2.35 million

In addition to the rifles mentioned above, in August 1914 there were also 130,000 obsolete Lee Metfords in store which were considered as only fit for drill. These were re-barrelled and re-sighted along with many of the LEs at the rate of about 10,000 per month in 1914 rising to over 20,000 per month in 1915.

The army was desperate for rifles to arm the New Armies and the continued use of CLLEs was just one way to solve this problem.

Regards

TonyE

[Thunderbox]

There was also considerable remaining sentiment that "long" rifles were "proper" rifles, compared to the new-fangled "short" rifle. There were some perceptions about differences in shooting accuracy, and also efficacy of the all-important bayonet (one of the drivers behind the switch from the 1903 to the 1907 bayonet for the SMLE). This was particularly strong in the TA and reserve forces, and also in the considerable part of the population who were either target shooters or armchair experts (nothing changes over the decades!). There are accounts of units - especially TA - deliberately delaying the eventual handover of CLLEs for SMLEs. Its clear that many Long Lee-equipped units did not feel in any way deprived of the newer SMLEs. In fact probably the only real disadvantage of a Long Lee over an SMLE is the difficulty in handling the rifle (eg for bayonet fighting or climbing in and out of trenches) when the exposed barrel is very hot from firing. Since Pattern 1888 bayonets and CLLE parts have been found on the Somme battlefields, it seems that the rifle lasted until at least mid-1916 in front line Army service.

[SteveE]

Just for information there's a very decent website on the 25th (County of London) Cyclist Battalion, London Regiment here.... http://www.25thlondon.com/index.htm. It may be worthwhile contacting the site's owner/author (Simon Parker-Galbreath) for his opinion or, alternatively, just have a trawl around the site. There appear to be a number of photos showing rifles so it may be of use.

There's also an interesting IWM Postcard reproduction of a 1912 Recruitment Poster shown on the site (link to it is here... http://www.25thlondon.com/poster.htm). I've added a cropped section just for interest.

Steve

[4thGordons]

There was also considerable remaining sentiment that "long" rifles were "proper" rifles, compared to the new-fangled "short" rifle. There were some perceptions about differences in shooting accuracy, and also efficacy of the all-important bayonet (one of the drivers behind the switch from the 1903 to the 1907 bayonet for the SMLE).

I think this is a good point and when added to the numbers TonyE provided, shows the reason the rifle was in service so long. I have never seen any documentary evidence that TA units actually delayed the transition but it is clear that many of them (inc the 1/4th GH) did not make the transition until early 1916.

Just to put the "shortness" of the SMLE in historical (and visual) context of British army rifles:

1. 1856 Pattern 1853 Musket

2. 1860 Snider II** Rifle

3. 1887 Martini Henry IV

4. 1896 Magazine Lee Enfield MkI

5. 1912 Short Magazine Lee Enfield MkIII

6. 1916 Pattern 14*

7. 1952 SMLE No4 Mk2

The other comparative point is of course that the "Long" lee was not really "long" compared to the arms that other nations were using (Gew 98, Lebel, Nagant etc) and that only the 1903 Springfield (and carbine versions of long rifles such as the Kar 98a etc) compared to the SMLE in length

Chris

[Whitedog]

Nice collection Chris. I like the longer rifles myself. The SMLE is Great of course, but the longer Lee's are so seldom seen at the gun shows if at all. They tend to catch my eye and hold it. The bayonet for the Long Lee's is a great design too. Mounted close, tight and inline with the rifle instead of hanging underneath.

[Whitedog]

[Whitedog]

[4thGordons]

Without changing the topic too much here - what on earth pattern of equipment is being worn here?

I like to think of (thought of!) myself as reasonably conversant with equipment generally but what is this? I can only assume it is an early TF pattern? Looks like slade wallace belts with 03 pouches and shoulder straps from P37 gear. In fact it most resembles p37 skeleton order with cartridge carriers....

[Whitedog]

[Whitedog]

Without changing the topic too much here - what on earth pattern of equipment is being worn here?

I like to think of (thought of!) myself as reasonably conversant with equipment generally but what is this? I can only assume it is an early TF pattern? Looks like slade wallace belts with 03 pouches and shoulder straps from P37 gear. In fact it most resembles p37 skeleton order with cartridge carriers....

I can answer that when I get back from picking up the Memsaab. It's of an early variety that is being reproduced by What Price Glory. I'd have to look it up. How young they all look! I'm getting old of course, but these young men look like kids! Weren't we all when we were young riflemen in uniform!

[4thGordons]

I can answer that when I get back from picking up the Memsaab. It's of an early variety that is being reproduced by What Price Glory. I'd have to look it up. How young they all look! I'm getting old of course, but these young men look like kids! Weren't we all when we were young riflemen in uniform!

I don't think it is... as far as I know they produce 1903 bandoleer equip (and 08 etc) and the '03 equipment does not have the shoulder braces....SEE HERE does it?

Chris

[Andrew Upton]

Chris, isn't it amazing that the CLLE's were used for so long? I personaly like them better than the SMLE's. They just look better. Fred

A nice photo of the Canadian 1913 pattern webbing in use as well, especially the unusually designed entrenching tool carrier:

http://www.karkeeweb.com/patterns/1913/pic...tool_front.html

[Whitedog]

Without changing the topic too much here - what on earth pattern of equipment is being worn here?

I like to think of (thought of!) myself as reasonably conversant with equipment generally but what is this? I can only assume it is an early TF pattern? Looks like slade wallace belts with 03 pouches and shoulder straps from P37 gear. In fact it most resembles p37 skeleton order with cartridge carriers....

Well, the bucke isn't familiar but i've seen similar types on US leather belts before. The pouches are 10 round and 15 round, two of each. That's all I know. But, you all ready know that I'm sure.

[4thGordons]

The waist-belt looks like that from the earlier Slade Wallace valise equipment, the pouches indeed do look like the 03 pattern cartridge carriers, but in the 03 bandoleer set they were worn without any shoulder straps....so is this a cobbled together set or an official order?

I think we need to call in the experts from Karkee Web (John Thorne)

Chis

[John Thorne]

Thanks for the undeserved compliment, Chris, but luckily I do know this one.

First off, what a GREAT picture! Can we use it on Karkee Web, please? With proper attribution, of course.

This is indeed a pre-war Territorial variation of Bandolier Equipment, Pattern 1903. Some of the better heeled Territorial Associations spent quite a bit of money on upgraded versions of B.E., and some weird and wonderful things were created. It's not unusual to see belts from the earlier valise patterns used in these outfits. In fact, the B.E. 1903 Fitting Instructions reads under Belt, waist, "Until present stock is used up the Belt, waist, buff, G.S. will be used; afterwards a plain brown leather belt will be issued".

I do actually have a pair of these braces. They have a lightly woven twilled web centre section with leather ends. I can't seem to find a photo of them at the moment. I'll locate them and post a picture. Do you notice how long the brace attachments are, and how high up they buckle? There was a special variation of the 15-round ammunition pocket that could be fitted on the vertical section above the pockets fitted to the belt, to create a two tiered one-above-two (or even three) arrangement. We do have a photo of an example of this type of pocket on KW -

Pocket, cartridge, 15 round, Territorial Force

There were other accessories that could be added as well. There were various types of rucksacks with straps that reached over the shoulders and attached to the front buckles, and even a variation of the Pattern 1908 entrenching tool head carrier, with loops that slid over the belt instead of the standard 2-inch buckles. You can see those on KW as well -

Carrier, entrenching tool

Someday, we hope to have enough info on these private purchase patterns to add a page on them to Karkee Web. Rog has been collecting data on them since the 1970's!

[Whitedog]

John, yes, of course you can use it on Karkee Web. I found it on some site somewhere that didn't restrict anyone from copying it, so I assumed that it was allright to use as a reference. It IS a great picture isn't it?! Fred