How about a Long Lee Enfield

[rayg]

Brought this back up, see my post #50, Ray


Here's the one I have, Serial # 7527, Mk I, BSA & M CO. dated 1896. 303 cal. The serial number places the rifle as issued to Canadians and may have been used in the Boer war by them as they carried the MkI LE's Enfields there. Long Lees were still being used by some allied troops into WWI. It's all correct and matching with about 95% original bluing remaining and is complete with the volley sights. It also has the almost always missing, original "clearing", (not cleaning), rod. The bore is about good-VG condition with strong rifling. A very nice looking excellent condition rifle. It's complete with a correct good condition 1888 bayonet, the model that has the hole in the handle to accomodate the clearing rod. It's missing the scabbard.,
It shoots way to the right yet due to the error of the pattern rooms rifle's having the front sight offset too much apparently. This was what I had read and the sight was corrected in the MKI*. Apparently the offset sights on these rifles caused a lot of misses in the Boer war. Ray

[rayg]

#2

[rayg]

#3

[4thGordons]

Fantastic example of the type.

Probably the best I have seen in fact.

I have an 1896 MkI* but it has had the barrel recrowned for target shooting which means it is fractionally too short for the p1888 to fit.

It shoots ver well however.

Chris

[rayg]

Here's the difference between the MkI sight, (left), and the MkI* sight, (right). You can see how the MkI sight blade is offset to the left . This was corrected on the MkI* rifles. The corrected sight is indicated with a * stamped on the side. Ray

[TonyE]

Very, very nice rifle.

Regards

TonyE

[Andy A]

Bloomin nice rifle.

Thanks for showing the pictures.

Andy

[wainfleet]

It is a very nice rifle indeed. Am I right in thinking that any used in WW1 would have been converted to charger-loading?

[4thGordons]

It is a very nice rifle indeed. Am I right in thinking that any used in WW1 would have been converted to charger-loading?

Not necessarily.

On the Western Front the majority probably would have been, but not, I think, all.

In addition there are plenty of pictures of training units and service Battalions in early days with unconverted rifles.

I am far less familiar with operations outside the Western Front but I think it highly likely that unconverted rifles also served elsewhere.

Chris

[Whitedog]

Outstanding rifle Ray! Thanks for the pictures! Fred

[Pete1052]

That's a very nice rifle. Which reminds me, the voices in my head are telling me it's time to clean my guns.

[shippingsteel]

That is a truly beautiful rifle - thanks for posting.

They really knew how to make nice looking kit back then. That extra little bit of workmanship makes a lot of difference to the overall appearance.

I can think of only two things that I would change with that rifle .... and that is to fit it with a matching date P1888 bayonet and scabbard.!

I thought I should post this pic for you - after all they were made for each other.! (literally)

The bottom bayonet is the 1896 dated Wilkinson, with its matching scabbard shown above also manufactured in 1896. They do look really nice in their scabbards.

They are my favourite style of bayonet, showing that classical Victorian era workmanship - just like that awesome rifle.! Well done Ray.

Cheers, S>S

[geraint]

It looks in very fine condition. As a non-tech guy; how much of a diference was there between the short version and the earlier Long version as shown in your posting?

[4thGordons]

It looks in very fine condition. As a non-tech guy; how much of a diference was there between the short version and the earlier Long version as shown in your posting?

I can post some comparative pictures this evening but, in brief...

Apart from the obvious shortening of the barrel there were a couple of other significant changes. The sighting system was changed and protection was added to the front blade (the SMLE's famous "ears"). This meant that the means of attaching a bayonet differed and two new patterns; the 1903 and in relatively short order the famous 1907 Pattern bayonet were produced to fit the new short rifle. On earlier SMLEs the rear sight was also windage (left/right) adjustable as well as adjustable for range - this was abandoned as part of the production simplification process with the MkIII* model in late 1915 early 16. By the time of the introduction of the MkIII SMLE in 1907 the most significant and obvious innovation was the addition of the "charger bridge" (over the top of the receiver), to allow the magazine to be replenished using chargers of 5 rounds at a time. The Magazine Lee-Enfields such as that in the original post were loaded one round at a time. Early MkI SMLEs had a rather fragile charger guide on the bolt head but no bridge over the action. As noted in a post above, by WWI large numbers of MLEs had been modified by the addition of a charger bridge (then called CLLE - Charger Loading Lee Enfield). During this period there was a modification in the .303 round which involved both the shape of the bullet and the velocity produced which meant that modifications to the shape of the lip of the magazine was required - and obviously rifles needed to be re-sighted for the new round. The safety/locking lever was also moved from the bolt on MLEs to the side of the receiver on SMLEs and the sheet metal "dust-cover" that clips to the bolt of MLEs was dispensed with on the SMLE. The provision of a clearing rod had also been deleted by the time the SMLE was introduced (it was deleted from later versions of the MLE). There were also relatively minor modifications (internal) on how the trigger actuated the firing mechanism.

All that being said, the basic receiver/bolt design, 10 rnd box magazine (with cut-off plate on earlier models) and barrel (contour changed)/and rifling (Enfield) remained the same.

Obviously the furniture was also modified and one of the differences between the SMLE and many other rifle types in service with any army at the time, was that there was very little of the barrel exposed. This both protected the barrel and protected the soldiers' hand from burns as the barrel heated up.

If it would help I can post comparative pictures later unless someone beats me to it.

Chris

[geraint]

Chris thank you. I'm gonna have to read this again ( a couple of times) to get the gist. I'd appreciate a comparative photo as well. A picture encapsulates the text !.

Thanks

Geraint

[4thGordons]

OK here is a quick go - I'll try and clean it up later.

Chris

part 2

[T8HANTS]

The silly thing about SMLE's is that having been fitted with with a 'bridge charger loading guide, and there by rendering the bolt dust cover impossible to fit and use on the new rifle, they continued to machine at great expense the round version of the frame as if it was still there. I would have thought they could have cut down on the time and cost of machining by going to the slab-sided square frame of the No4, much earlier.

My LLE's dust cover has 'A. J. Parker' engraved on it, but I think that is because it was a service style target rifle, and not military or RV.

G

[geraint]

Chris - Many thanks for the photos and the explanation. I can visualise them now in my mind's eye. Much appreciated.

Geraint

[Pete1052]

It looks in very fine condition. As a non-tech guy; how much of a diference was there between the short version and the earlier Long version as shown in your posting?

The most obvious difference is that the SMLE has the stubby front end, Mannlicher-style, in which the wood of the stock goes nearly to the muzzle of the barrel, whereas the long Lee-Enfield has about three inches of barrel projecting forward in front of the end of the forestock.

[Gunner Bailey]

Here a quick photo of one I've got in my shop at present. Enfield made and dated 1901, has KRR stamped on Butt plate plus V and rack number. Most probably a Boer War Vet and maybe WW1 as well. Deactivated about a year ago sadly. Very fine condition though. Loading must have been pretty slow compared to the SMLE.

John

[Steven Broomfield]

I am far less familiar with operations outside the Western Front but I think it highly likely that unconverted rifles also served elsewhere.

Chris

Interestingly, the attached is a crop from the cover of Peter Hart's excellent new book "Gallipoli" (available from all good book sellers, and probably some bad ones, too). It is captioned A British soldier visits his conrade's grave on the cliffs on the tip of Gallipoli Peninsula, and is credited to the AWM.

It is obviously not a Turkish machine gun, and presumably isn't a souvenir of an encounter with a female Turkish sniper ( ), so presu,ably it is a long Lee?

[4thGordons]

Just as an observation: John's photo (above) shows what T8Hants was referring to regarding the machining of the receiver and shape. The rifle behind the MLE is a No4 and you can see, although the basic design is very similar (the WWII vintage No4 is a direct descendant of the MLE) the No4 was designed with mass production in mind and the rear of the receiver is slab sided and requires far less tool work to produce.

Chris

Edit: Steven yes looks to me to be a CLLE (Charger Loading Lee Enfield) a Magazine Lee-Enfield modified with the addition of a charger bridge (the hump visible just before the rifle blends into the horizon)

You can also see the added foresight protector and different pattern of rear sight (with prominent adjusters) compared to those MLEs pictured above. This would strongly suggest that this is a Charger Loading Lee-Enfield MkI* as approved in July 1908. It would be interesting (in an anorak sort of way) to know if the rifles used at Gallipoli had been modified to use the MkVII ammunition or not.... but I can't tell from here!

Chris

Edited 10 February , 2011 by 4thGordons

[Gunner Bailey]

Good observation Chris

Having had both the No4 and the MLE next to each other for a little while it is obvious that the MLE looks like a hand made piece of engineering whilst the No4 is workmanlike and mass produced. I think in battle I'd take the No 4.

John

[Pete1052]

During the late 1840s Britain sent the Whitworth Commission to the U.S. to study mechanized small arms production and shortly thereafter Enfield Armory changed its manufacturing techniques to make a greater use of machine tools rather than fabrication by hand. The Pattern 1853 Enfield was the first British weapon to be made under the new system. A civil servant at the Harpers Ferry Armory, James Burton, was hired by Enfield to help with the setting up of the new equipment. Burton later became a major figure in the Confederate Ordnance Department and was a designer of the Ward-Burton bolt-action rifle after the Civil War. The book Harpers Ferry Armory and the New Technology by Merritt Roe Smith, available here, describes the change in American manufacturing techniques and is an excellent read.

[Whitedog]

In profile are two MLE's, one with it's original clearing rod and the other a Mk I* that was made without provision for a rod. These are without sight modifications or charger guides. Also, two CLLE's MkI*'s with front sight guards, modified rear sights with windage adjustments and narrow front sight blades capable of finer shooting. The top rifle is marked KWC for King William's College on The Isle Of Man, which is where it was used in later years to train future Army officers.