Re-loading SMLE's

[rayoung74]

O.K. here's the gist of this I know that the smellie was meant to be reloaded by 5 round chargers to the magazine .

However can anyone give me instances of the rifle being reloaded by use of a "spare" magazine being pu onto the weapon?

It seems to me that this would be quicker than the charger method even if it wasn't in the manual.

I look forward to hearing from you chaps.

Youngie

[david lee]

O.K. here's the gist of this I know that the smellie was meant to be reloaded by 5 round chargers to the magazine .

However can anyone give me instances of the rifle being reloaded by use of a "spare" magazine being pu onto the weapon?

It seems to me that this would be quicker than the charger method even if it wasn't in the manual.

I look forward to hearing from you chaps.

Youngie

Difficult to dis-prove, of course, but I doubt it myself, which is certainly not to say it was never done----just not regularly, I think. More so with Mag. shut off versions, when, (it was thus designed) the idea was full mag. ---shut off---then load and fire single shots, then if the enemy charges, you remove the shut-off, and have a full ten shots.

One of those 'imponderables' I think------with it being well nigh impossible to factually say yeah or nay.

Cheers,

Dave.

[4thGordons]

No.

Magazines were only removed for cleaning and repair and no one (to my knowledge) carried or was ever issued with spare/additional magazines into the front lines.

Actually I think it would be touch and go as to whether replacing a magazine would be much quicker as they are sometimes difficult to seat correctly, also the lips of SMLE mags are notoriously easy to damage (outside the rifle) and even minor bending of them in the wrong way will prevent correctly feeding of rounds into the chamber. Removing a magazine also allows for the increased possibility of foreign matter (mud!) entering the chamber. Far better to leave it in place and strip rounds in off a charger. This can be accomplished rapidly and without fear of the magazine being damaged.

So to the extent that I am ever prepared to be definitive....NO.

Cheers

Chris

[Bombadier]

I believe that the magazine wasn't designed for fast removal. It was meant to be attached to the rifle and left there. Spares were kept by armourers but not by the soldiers.

Speed record was 38 shots in a 12 inch target from 200 yards in one minute. With chargers, the rifle could be kept at the shoulder during reloading. I suspect that this would have been more difficult with a magazine.

My thoughts which could be totally off target.

Nigel

[Thunderbox]

The very first Lee Metfords were issued with a spare mag that was intended for quick reloads, but the concept of magazine reloading was abandoned almost immediately.

In sustained fire, such as the "Mad Minute", charger loading is much faster than magazine replacement - which has all the disadvantages outlined by 4thG above.

Charger loading is so effective that the British version of the FAL was originally developed with a top cover incorporating a charger bridge. The charger bridge was only deleted when Enfield altered the FAL magazine to make mag-changing quicker and more positive.

[david lee]

I won't swear to this, but I seem to recall the magazine on Lee-Metfords was chain linked to the weapon-----as I say, my memory (old and addled) might well be at fault here.

Dave.

[MikB]

No.

Magazines were only removed for cleaning and repair and no one (to my knowledge) carried or was ever issued with spare/additional magazines into the front lines.

Actually I think it would be touch and go as to whether replacing a magazine would be much quicker as they are sometimes difficult to seat correctly, also the lips of SMLE mags are notoriously easy to damage (outside the rifle) and even minor bending of them in the wrong way will prevent correctly feeding of rounds into the chamber. Removing a magazine also allows for the increased possibility of foreign matter (mud!) entering the chamber. Far better to leave it in place and strip rounds in off a charger. This can be accomplished rapidly and without fear of the magazine being damaged.

So to the extent that I am ever prepared to be definitive....NO.

Cheers

Chris

Wot u sed.

The guide for the mag is short and not very positive - it's a lot fiddlier than shoving a fresh mag in a typical SMG or Bren or SLR. Plus it's not particularly robust without the support of a rifle wrapped around it. If dropped or jarred, it's quite likely to spill several rounds, as the location of these is not as positive as with parallel-cased cartridges either - and the top one remaining might also foul the front face of the well as you're struggling to stuff the thing in.

There might be folk who can gain a slight advantage working this way under range conditions, but I'd say forget it if Fritz was coming over the skyline. Use chargers.

Regards,

MikB

[Thunderbox]

I won't swear to this, but I seem to recall the magazine on Lee-Metfords was chain linked to the weapon-----as I say, my memory (old and addled) might well be at fault here.

Dave.

Yes - that was originally done because of the second magazine. The idea was to drop out the first magazine - left dangling on the chain link - then insert the second mag. The spare magazine was abandoned after trials reports, and the chain link went when LMs/ LE1s were converted to CLLEs, or replaced by SMLEs.

[david lee]

Yes - that was originally done because of the second magazine. The idea was to drop out the first magazine - left dangling on the chain link - then insert the second mag. The spare magazine was abandoned after trials reports, and the chain link went when LMs/ LE1s were converted to CLLEs, or replaced by SMLEs.

Many thanks for that Thunderbox

Dave.

[James Blonde]

Were magazines not serial numbered items to the individual weapon,

along the lines of the bolt, bayonet etc . . . etc . . .?

Connaught Stranger.

[Gunner Bailey]

Didn't someone invent a 20 round Lee Enfield magazine so mag loading could take place? Later than WW1 or possibly post WW2?

John

Yes - that was originally done because of the second magazine. The idea was to drop out the first magazine - left dangling on the chain link - then insert the second mag. The spare magazine was abandoned after trials reports, and the chain link went when LMs/ LE1s were converted to CLLEs, or replaced by SMLEs.

Is that why some SMLE trigger guards have a small ring in front of the guard?

John

[Thunderbox]

Were magazines not serial numbered items to the individual weapon,

along the lines of the bolt, bayonet etc . . . etc . . .?

Connaught Stranger.

The magazines were fitted to the individual rifle, as the adjustment of the locking spline affects both the magazine catch retention and the height of the magazine in the rifle - which in turn affects feeding.

Magazines were not generally factory numbered to the rifle, for the Long Lees, No1s and wartime No4s. Factory numbering was done on No5 rifles and post-war British No4s, and Indian Ishapore No1s and 2A1s. However it was quite common for individual unit armourers to number the magazines to the rifles in their charge.

[Thunderbox]

Didn't someone invent a 20 round Lee Enfield magazine so mag loading could take place? Later than WW1 or possibly post WW2?

John

Is that why some SMLE trigger guards have a small ring in front of the guard?

John

The small ring has evolved through several uses:

Initially, on the Lee Metfords and early Lee Enfields, the ring was there for the small chain link to attach the magazine. Once the spare magazine was cancelled, the loop and link were deleted. When the first of the short rifles was developed - the No1 Mk1 - the rifles were offered with four sling swivel positions - butt magazine well, mid-band and nosecap. Thus the loop re-appeared as a tapped screw hole for the sling swivel. As the No1 MkIII and MkIII* went into mass production during WW1, the magazine and nosecap swivels were to be deleted again (a piling swivel had by then taken the nosecap position). However it had already come about that rifles in the trenches were being protected with breech covers, and the covers were being tied to the rifle via the swivel point. Thus - again - a small wire loop was re-introduced for this facility. The wire loop then stayed on No4, No5 and L42 rifles for the same purpose.