shippingsteel Posted 3 January , 2011 Share Posted 3 January , 2011 Prior to the introduction of the SMLE there was the MLE (Magazine Lee Efield) aka "Long" Lee-enfield and several versions of cavalry carbine, they did something similar (although less dramatic) to the bolt of those: see below and compare with an MLE/SMLE bolt. Chris Now you're just teasing .... Chris - why not show us the rest of it.?? (You know I'm a very big fan of the LE carbine) Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 3 January , 2011 Author Share Posted 3 January , 2011 Now you're just teasing .... Chris - why not show us the rest of it.?? (You know I'm a very big fan of the LE carbine) Cheers, S>S Ohh just for you.... Actually the only complete carbine i have is this one, an RIC carbine. I do not have a cavalry carbine. The picture of the action I posted is actually a bit of a mystery, to all intents and purposes it looks like an RIC or NZ pattern carbine (ie it is bushed to fit the p1888 bayonet) but there are some odditites...the front sight is not the standard (it is actually like ans SMLE foresight) and the bushing for the bayonet is not the same as the RIC carbine. All the markings are correct and I am fairly certain this has been a LEC all its life but it doesn't match a standard pattern. The closest match would appear to be an Ishapore conversion. Skennerton mentions these as "The first of Ishapore's rifle conversions [was] the "Cavalry carbine, Magazine Lee-Enfield, India Pattern" which was approved on the 8th of Jan 1904 and comprised an altered Lee-Enfield Carbine to fix the Pattern 1888 sword bayonet. These were intended for issue to drivers in the Corps of Sappers and Miners and the conversion comprised: Shortened fore-emd and Lee Enfield nosecap fitted: Martini-Henry upper sling swivel fitted on the nosecap; sling swivel fitted to the butt 2-in from toe, a slight bevel filed in the barrel holder of the nosecap under which the front end of the handguard was fitted; Pattern 1888 bayonet muzzle ring bushed to suit" This would seem consistent (although mine came as a barreled action not a complete rifle so refernces to the furniture etc cannot be checked. Further in Sept 1908 an adjustable barleycorn front sight was approved for all rifles undergoing refurbishment at Ishapore Skennerton's pictures of this would seem to be consistent with that fitted here and he reports "any damaged foresights in the hands of troops were to be repaired in aresenals by the replacement of this particular sight" (pp333-334) Received wisdom on this appears to be that these carbines were never produced - or if they were that they were all later converted again.... however it is the closest thing I can find to mine unless it is an out and out fake - which I do not believe it to be... anyway for your edification - a few detail snaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 3 January , 2011 Share Posted 3 January , 2011 Actually the only complete carbine i have is this one, an RIC carbine. I do not have a cavalry carbine. Ahh okay, for a moment there I thought you may have got around to refurbishing your 'incomplete' LEC action - must have just been wishful thinking.! Never mind, these new pictures you've most graciously posted provide even better fodder for discussion purposes. I agree it does appear to be a "mystery carbine". Just from the difference in the foresight and the quality of workmanship and metalwork found there, I think you may be correct with the Indian conversion suggestion. I believe the various proof markings that are present may provide you with the best chance to identify exactly where this one has originated from. From Skennertons good book it appears that 13,500 of these LE carbines were imported into India in 1901, and he suggests that later some of these were converted. I took the liberty of lifting a most interesting marking off one of your photos. Seen one of these before.?? ( Anyone who can explain this marking to me gets a cookie.!!) Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patje70 Posted 3 January , 2011 Share Posted 3 January , 2011 Hello Before 1901 the first Lee Enfield rifles were marked with Victoria Regina and IP means India Pattern. Kind regards Pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 3 January , 2011 Author Share Posted 3 January , 2011 (edited) Hello Before 1901 the first Lee Enfield rifles were marked with Victoria Regina and IP means India Pattern. Kind regards Pat Hi Pat - welcome to the forum! Whilst cookies are the last thing my waistline needs at this time of the year I do not think this is correct in this instance VR does mean Victoria Regina of couse, and in some Enfields contexts IP does indeed mean India Pattern, but not here I think....however I am sure S>S will enlighten us I believe the mark is actually 1P not IP: see Chris Edited 3 January , 2011 by 4thGordons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 4 January , 2011 Share Posted 4 January , 2011 I took the liberty of lifting a most interesting marking off one of your photos. Seen one of these before.?? ( Anyone who can explain this marking to me gets a cookie.!!) When I noticed this marking I did a thorough search of Skennerton's "Lee Enfield" story to try and find a reference. When I found nothing mentioned I automatically assumed it doesn't exist.!! But there it is - so who could I ask.? Surely there must be a resident Enfield anorak lurking on this forum .... that I could turn too in a time of need, with a genuine question that requires an answer.? Perhaps an offer of a low-fat or 'light' cookie might be tempting enough - or even a plain, tasteless 'diet' wafer ( to accomodate those who are watching their waistline). But still nothing .... never mind. But seriously when I first saw it I also wondered about the IP (for Indian pattern) connection, but then realised the time-frame didn't match to have the VR cypher attached. So, then it might be a 1P for a first inspection proof of the barrel - but where are the normal crossed flags that you associate with the standard proofing marks.? So my answer is that its a very early proof marking that was applied before the 'flags' became standardised (and something that ISN'T found in the Lee-Enfield "bible".!) Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 5 January , 2011 Author Share Posted 5 January , 2011 The flags are present on the second proofing marks on the receiver and barrel. My apologies I thought your question "seen one of these before?" was rhetorical. The answer is yes, its on all my Victorian era Enfields I believe. Like this (the closest I had to hand) on an 1896 Sparkbrook LE I modified to a "club rifle" format (ie the length of an SMLE to allow use in service matches) Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 5 January , 2011 Share Posted 5 January , 2011 Until about 1900 First Proof of the barrel consisted of a charge of 110 grains of RFG 2 blackpowder with a 350 grain lead plug with a .5 inch cork wad in front. Second Proof of the completed action used a black powder cartridge with a 450 grain long lead cylindrical bullet with a paper patch, giving a pressure of 20 - 21 tons. In 1895 the Mark I cordite proof cartridge was introduced and this used the conventional 215 grain Mark II ball bullet, giving a pressure of 19.6 tons. Picture of the black powder Second Proof cartridge attached. Regards TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 9 January , 2011 Author Share Posted 9 January , 2011 Another one followed me home: Berthier 1892 Carbine updated to M1916 format with the addition of the 5 rnd magazine Also updated post war to the Balle N Odd foresight design: Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patje70 Posted 9 January , 2011 Share Posted 9 January , 2011 Hello Chris Nice acquistion , do you have already the bajonet that matches with it. Pat ps Can you send your emailadress I have some interesting pictures, I am sure you will like them:thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 9 January , 2011 Author Share Posted 9 January , 2011 Hello Chris Nice acquistion , do you have already the bajonet that matches with it. Pat ps Can you send your emailadress I have some interesting pictures, I am sure you will like them:thumbsup: Hi Pat I PM'd you my email. No I do not (yet) have the bayonet to go with it but I am working on it! I have been looking around for an affordable 1892 version too (not hard to find examples but hard to find reasonably priced ones!) I did (I think) find a bayonet to go with the Kar 98a.... waiting for the postie. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patje70 Posted 9 January , 2011 Share Posted 9 January , 2011 Chris Last year my wife thought I went overboard with all my buying so I had too sign a christmastruce:whistle: Pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 9 January , 2011 Author Share Posted 9 January , 2011 Chris Last year my wife thought I went overboard with all my buying so I had too sign a christmastruce:whistle: Pat I know what you mean -- I traded another toy (of the2 seat 4 wheel variety) which filled the coffers temporarily... and I walk by lots of examples that are beyond my pocket... part of the fun for me is the "bargain hunt". If I had unlimited (or even substantial) resources, it wouldn't be nearly the fun...[but I'd quite like to give it a go] My recent flurry of 3 will be it for a while I think.... unless the lottery ticket comes good! Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 9 January , 2011 Share Posted 9 January , 2011 Chris, you can never have too many .... err, "investments".! (Thats always been the line I trot out quite regularly - works for me.!) Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 21 January , 2011 Share Posted 21 January , 2011 I've had cause to revisit this thread after coming across a unit marking on an old German bayonet (see pic). This unit marking is in a very similar format to the one shown on the carbine in the OP. The bayonet here is from a much earlier period, but the carbine in question was also dated in 1891, so there is a good chance they were issued to a similar type of unit in the pre-war period. I've also just newly acquired some exceptional old reference books, which have some good coverage of the Imperial German unit marking system. I've found these are becoming very useful.! In this particular case I believe the letter P in the marking is a red-herring, and is probably just a partial remnant of the letter B, which is well covered in the reference material as being linked with the E prefix, especially in the pre-war period when most of these markings were being applied. So with all that said, I'm still heading down the Railway Troops "track" (forgive the pun) but now believe the original unit marking represents the abbreviation for Eisenbahn-Betriebs-Kompagnie Nr.1, XIV Armee Korps, Waffe Nr. 10 (E.B.1.XIV.10) Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 23 January , 2011 Author Share Posted 23 January , 2011 Close inspection under magnification and bright lights leaves me 99% certain the letter on the initial Kar 88 is a P not a mis-struck or partially erased B. Make of that what you will. I did manage to lay my hands on some appropriate pointy bits for my Kar 98As Both are Erfurt blades and both have 1915 dates and standard inspection marks on the spine. Neither has unit markings but they fit well and display quite effectively. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 23 January , 2011 Share Posted 23 January , 2011 Very nice bayonets Chris, you can really see by their positioning on the rifle why they needed those flashguards added. There is not that much holding them in place though, just an inch of mortise slot.! Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 23 January , 2011 Share Posted 23 January , 2011 There is not that much holding them in place though, just an inch of mortise slot.! I thought that and am therefore glad to see you remark on it. Presumably it reflects the belief that troops armed with a carbine are unlikely to engage in heavy-duty bayonet work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 23 January , 2011 Author Share Posted 23 January , 2011 I thought that and am therefore glad to see you remark on it. Presumably it reflects the belief that troops armed with a carbine are unlikely to engage in heavy-duty bayonet work. Actually no I don't think this is the case...as the GEW 98 also used the same mounting system (as did the later WWII 98K.) It might refect a doctrinal orientation which did not pay as much attention to the bayonet (I'll leave that to the experts to debate) I too have always thought the Mauser system looks a bit flimsy without the muzzle ring - but in reality I do not think it is. I have certainly never read any reports that suggest it was and if we are to indulge slightly in stereotyping it seems hard to imagine the Germans UNDER-ENGINEERING something! The fit of these bayonets is actually very tight, far tighter than many of my SMLEs which sometimes have a bit of wiggle. If you compare the mounts for the SMLE and the Mauser you will see that actually the Mauser has almost twice the mounting length/mortice of the SMLE. The Mauser lacks the muzzle ring of course (on most WWI era German designs - which has the advantage of making them more interchangeable) but little of the mounting strength on the SMLE comes from that - it is more about postitioning than holding/strength it seems to me. here are a couple of comparative pictures Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 22 May , 2011 Author Share Posted 22 May , 2011 Pardon the "Lazarus thread" I ran across another one this week. As far as I can tell this is a Carcano M1891 Moschetto TS (Special Troops Carbine) in 6.5mm Carcano. The variety of models and modifications of these is extremely confusing (THIS PAGE IS A GOOD OVERVIEW) -my example exhibits a couple of intermediate elements (added handguard lip on the nosecap, added sling loop mounted into the stock) but I do not believe it is a later M91/24 nor 91/28 which were (I think) converted from long-rifles - As far as I can tell this was built in this format. It is dated 1915 and was manufactured by Brescia and has no later markings to indicate refinishing which most of the others I have seen do. The handguard however does look to have been modified from a long rifle or a later version as it is inletted for an additional band. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 22 May , 2011 Share Posted 22 May , 2011 Just a quick observation to offer from my area of knowledge. It may provide another pointer for some further research - and hopefully is of use.! Looking at the bayonet lug it appears to be for the attachment of the standard M1891 bayonet. I believe this is a later modification done circa 1920's. The original TS version was special in that it attached a very unique bayonet that featured the slot on top of the hilt and was fixed on from the side. I will look around for a suitable photo to illustrate how this mechanism worked. These bayonets are unique and scarce and attract a premium price. EDIT. This LINK may help explain the inletted handguard. This photo shows one with the front band in place. EDIT#2. Found a pic of the bayonet lug and attachment (see below) in THIS very informative article produced by John Sheehan. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 22 May , 2011 Author Share Posted 22 May , 2011 Hi S>S Yes quite correct about the bayonet modification although I have not been able to establish a date for this. The page I linked to above says that to do so would be misleading as the changes were introduced "mano a mano" and then goes on to list a number of changes about half of which are present - and half are not. Mine is missing the cleaning rod too. I was just reading the Sheehan article when you posted it! It would appear he dates the changes consistent with mine to 1916/17 as the modified "second variation" TS with the standard bayonet mount and swivels relocated to the side of the stock(although starting this in 1908).He pictures one that looks very similar. He also indicates the bayonet modification to the standard type as a wartime modification continued later. Whilst the upper handguard clip on mine looks to be an addition - the bayonet mount looks like it has always been there so perhaps later production. Chris EDIT: for comparison M1891 Rifle M1891 Cavalry carbine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 29 May , 2011 Author Share Posted 29 May , 2011 Another carbine oddity: Japanese Arisaka T38 Carbine (6.5mm). Saw WWI use as a secondary weapon with British Forces where it rejoiced under the glorious title: Carbine, magazine, .256", with cleaning rod, Pattern 1907. There is no evidence this particular carbine served in the the UK although it does appear to be a very early production example based on the serial number. The bolt dust cover is missing but apart from this (and a chunk of wood missing from the handguard tip) it is complete and functional. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patje70 Posted 29 May , 2011 Share Posted 29 May , 2011 By now your collection is almost complete I should think,again a nice item Chris Pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 29 May , 2011 Author Share Posted 29 May , 2011 By now your collection is almost complete I should think,again a nice item Chris Pat Thanks Pat. Complete ?? you mean a collection can be complete and then you stop? Shhhhh.... never know who may glance at this thread over my shoulder! Chris 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