Enfield 'EY' Grenade Launcher Rifle Questions

[MikeS0000]

Evening Gentlemen!

I've always wanted to add a Great War Enfield that was converted to grenade firing configuration to the collection. Need something to mount the discharger cup on.... and not one of the 1950's Indian modifications.

Here is an EY Grenade Launcher rifle I found. From the descriptions I've read it may be close to original (EY) configuration with only the wire on the forearm. Not like the later double wrapped Indian examples. Looks made in 1917 from an earlier MkII ?

There doesn't seem to be a lot of info on the makeup of the early EY rifles, but lots on the later Indian rifles. This one is matching except for the 10 shot magazine,

Here are a couple pics...

Any info on the what and where of this one would be appreciated.

Best regards!

- Mike

[TonyE]

What is stamped on the left side of the receiver wall? I cannot read it in the picture. I have seen your enquiry on other foreums.

What makes you think it is made from a Mark II, which was a conversion from the previous long Mark I* or earlier Lee Metford?.

Regards

TonyE

[4thGordons]

I would be interested in knowing to which "Descriptions" (of wrapped EY/GF rifles) you are referring.

This rifle is stamped EY (emergency use of ball round only) many of these rifles do apprear to have been converted to grenade launchers but there are also many that were not. There are also GF (Grenade firing) marked rifles. I am not sure it is safe to automatically equate EY and GF. A good number of the rifles supplied to Ireland were MkI*** rifles that appear to have become EY...GF this does not look like one of those as it has the charger bridge (added if a conversion)

Like Tony I would like to know why you think this is a conversion of a MkII? Was this a typo? I don't see anything obvious in the pictures to suggest this.

It is however an interesting variant. The single wrap and the use of a screw rather than a bolt through the forend are of note (most later Indian ones use a bolt). It also has the lightened rear sight protector and the profile of the front handguard looks like the earlier shape with the marked step by the barrel band... but both of these would be consistent with a MkIII, as would the large head lateral bolt in the foresight protector. Wrist markings would be good to see as TonyE mentioned. If they are absent then it would (for my money) almost certainly be an Indian conversion as Ishapore is (in my limited experience) far more likely to scrub markings than any British conversion. The advantage of the single wrap is that you can look under the rear handguard and examine the dates and proofs on the knox form.

The white stripe on buttstock is interesting as it suggests UK marking actually usually found on DP (drill purpose) rifles as opposed to EY rifles.

I have several Indian conversions, one from the early 40s and one from the late 50s which exhibit some variations from this one.

Are there any stampings below the safety? FR.....?

Chris

[MikeS0000]

Tony, Chris -

Thanks very much for your replies. I had attached additional pics, but it was more than allowed so I just posted those two. Will post some others in a bit.., dinner is on! However, it is an L.S.A. 1917 ShtLe marked rifleand the MkII was a wild guess at my own risk. I don't profess to be an expert on these.

More in a bit!

- Mike

[Khaki]

If EY is 'emergency use' ,is Y the end of emergency or what does the letter represent. Am I missing the obvious??

khaki

[MikeS0000]

OK..., quick dinner. With the heat and all, not too much of an appetite... Anyhow! It hasn't arrived yet, so a couple of the questions I cannot answer. Here are the stamps on the wrist plate. Can't really tell on what is after the ShtLe but it looked like perhaps a II that had been appended.

References..., I am not loaded with Enfield references, but in Skennerton's Buyer's Guide for the Lee-Enfield he refers to the ShtLe modifications and specifically the E.Y. Grenade Launching Models and then goes on to describe them. Similarly in John Walters Allied Small Arms of World War One he has a fairly lengthy section (pgs 143-144) on "The 'EY' Rifle" and he indicates they were referred to at the time as the "SMLE Mark III EY" and the "SMLE Mark III* EY" all grenade launchers. He concludes by adding that the EY Rifles were abandonded at the end of WW1.

The rifle has completely matching serial numbers, except for the magazine and the cutoff is still in place.

One other pic of the stock markings... (I hope :-)

Hope some of this helps. Wish it were in hand for a closer look. I agree, it is an interesting variation and hopefully does not bear too much post (ww1) war rework, as that's what I was looking for.

Best regards!

- Mike

[MikeS0000]

If EY is 'emergency use' ,is Y the end of emergency or what does the letter represent. Am I missing the obvious??

khaki

Yes, while it is all supposition, the thought is that EY derives from EmergencY.

[Khaki]

Mike,

Thanks for clearing up the EY issue, unusual stamping concept when compared to the others such as DP (drill purpose}, etc , I wonder why they just didn't go with EU, unless it has another meaning already in use. However thanks again for tidying up the loose ends,

Regards

khaki

[shippingsteel]

Here is a LINK to the photos posted on another forum if it helps. When I noticed it I immediately knew Mike would get more benefit by posting here.!!

Nice looking rifle and looks to be an interesting variation. I had a flick through Skennertons "Lee Enfield Story" but couldn't find too much detail to add.

The O prefix serial number does check out as a late-war LSA manufacture, but it is interesting that they were still making them in Mk.III form at that time.

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

The O prefix serial number does check out as a late-war LSA manufacture, but it is interesting that they were still making them in Mk.III form at that time.

For whatever reason (I am not sure it is established - other than the MkIII* simplifications were APPROVED but not REQUIRED of manufacturers) LSA Co appear to have continued producing in MkIII format far longer than the others. Some people have suggested their rifles went to Naval contracts where there was still a desire for the cut-off to be included but personally I am not sure of the veracity of this and have never seen any documentation to that effect.

OK - for what it is worth I do not think it is a conversion of an earlier mark but a standard later war LSA with a rather poorly struck wrist stamp. (as with other things like bayonets 1917 and 18 were peak production years and speed rather than neatness appears to have been the order of the day!)

If I had to guess, I would suggest that the stock marking is probably Indian. In particular the style of filling the butt-marking disc and especially the circular stamp partially obscured by the painted stripe looks like one of numerous Indian stamps in this format). It is less common to find rack numbers and the like (might one stamp be 7 '40? a date?) stamped into British used enfield butts. (the Australians did it - as did the Canadians on Rosses etc) but it is less common on British rifles, in my experience.

You mention that the magazine "is not matching" - is it blank or is it numbered differently? Magazine numbering on MkIII/III* rifles was not standard practice in British Service (never say never though!) but WAS common (almost universal) on Indian Service rifles, possibly another indication of use.

I am away from all of my references apart from those I have electronically so I cannot add much more.

There are several forms of wrapping of rifles for GF. Some early ones used cord instead of wire, some use sheet metal, and there are various styles of wrapping using copper wire. Somewhere amongst my stuff I have a reference to these but I do not have it with me. IIRC (and that is a big IF) I think the British ones tended to have pins holding the ends of the wire wrapping in place whereas Indian ones were more likely to have a blob of solder/braising. Yours appears to have the latter?

I actually think it is a very nice example and one I would be happy to add to my collection! I would be hesitant to say this is a British conversion - the butt markings and wrapping would push me towards Indian USE (if not conversion) but it is a different format and I would suggest an early and very possibly WWI one. I like it (but then for no reason in particular I have an interest in both LSA rifles and Indian rifles!)and think it is probably about as close as you are easily going find to what you are looking for.

Caveat - I am working entirely from memory here with no references to hand.

just my 2p

Cheers

Chris

PS: just noticed one other indirect indicator: The US import stamp appears to be CAI Century Arms International and the style of marking looks to be the more recent/current dot-matrix "banner" style - far more prominent than earlier stamped marks. Century have imported very large numbers of Indian surplus rifles in the past couple of years...

Edited 13 July , 2011 by 4thGordons

[wainfleet]

Was this modification for firing the No. 23 (rodded Mills) grenade, the No. 36 (Mills with gas check disc) grenade, or both?

[TonyE]

.......The O prefix serial number does check out as a late-war LSA manufacture, but it is interesting that they were still making them in Mk.III form at that time.

Cheers, S>S

For whatever reason (I am not sure it is established - other than the MkIII* simplifications were APPROVED but not REQUIRED of manufacturers) LSA Co appear to have continued producing in MkIII format far longer than the others. Some people have suggested their rifles went to Naval contracts where there was still a desire for the cut-off to be included but personally I am not sure of the veracity of this and have never seen any documentation to that effect......

LSA was always the smallest producer and at their maximum only made 2,000 SMLEs per week compared to 10,000 at BSA and 11,000 at RSAF Enfield. LSA was also poorly managed and suffered constant labour disputes. Even in 1915 when they had a blank cheque to produce as many rifles as possible they made a substantial loss (which they claimed was due to increased engineers wages) and nearly closed down. The Treasury decided to bail them out wtth a subsidy rather than lose a source of production and gave them further contracts.

They were were given a new contract on 2 March 1916 to make 70,000 Mark III rifles at 84/10d each, delivery to begin on 4 May 1916, and a further contract on 3 October 1916 for 26,000 rifles at 84/8d each with deliveries to begin on 31 March 1917. The difference in price was an additional 3d for increased cost of stocks and a reduction of 5d due to "omission of wind gauge and substitution of cap backsight". These were thus Mark III* rifles, but it seems LSA was still fitting cut-offs and other Mark III details as BSA had the price of their rifles reduced by 5/- when they switched to the Mark III* with all features.

LSA production was further hit in 1917 by a fire at the British Gun barrel Company's works which left them short of 700 barrels per week and continued material and labour disputes.

So you can see why there are not that many LSA Mark III* rifles about. Even if they kept to their contract (and that is by no means certain) they did not make their first hybrid Mark III* until May 1917 and I cannot find any reference to when they ever made a full Mark III*.

Regards

TonyE

[shippingsteel]

From another quick read through Skennerton's Lee-Enfield "bible" it doesn't appear that any forms of barrel 'wrapping' date to GW era usage.

There is not that much detail on the GF rifles, and what I did find is very fragmented, however there were a couple of points worth quoting here.

1. "The firing of any form of grenade from the service rifle raised certain pressures and stresses, for which the rifle was not originally intended." p.417

2. "The List of Changes announcement (circa 1940) advises that rifles should be strengthened by binding, now better known as the EY rifle adaption." p.412

3. "Many .303 No.1 EY rifles were bound with copper wire for use with the No.1 Mk.I discharger cup, to project Mills and other grenades from the No.1 rifle." p.353

4. "Rifles were reinforced with a screw/bolt through the fore-end ... The copper wire was to generally stiffen the rifle and prevent flying splinters in the event of a blow up." p.353

5. "Britain's SMLE grenade-firing rifle was approved on 2nd December 1918, (so post GW) intended for use at the School of Instruction and it was first bound with whipcord." p.353

6. "It was originally intended that the reinforced and bound rifles be used in training, with the standard service rifle being used for the launching of grenades in action." p.353

Cheers, S>S

[MikeS0000]

Thanks Gentlemen!

Will work my way through all the details and perhaps have some additional information once it is 'in hand.'

Couple of thoughts from all the above... it seems it may be a fairly intact 19171 made L.S.A. Mark III(?) that was at some point in time designated EY and made into a GF rifle? I know what you mean by the CAI stamp, it would be very interesting to see their import records (HA!). I know that many of their import batches seem to contain a few really out of character, oddball and perhaps scarce or rare examples that were thrown in. I searched long and hard for a decent P14 and finally found a beautiful intact example that I believe came from India, but in no way resembles the typical import. Same for some of the interesting Mosin imports. The German and Austrian alterations that came in were real surprises!

SS - Thanks very much for the review of Skennerton. He seems to be in exact opposition to Walter's summary. Unfortunately Walter does not indicate from which reference he obtained his information.

Oh, another question. On the butt marking disk plug. Is it true this may have been deleted during the GW and filled at that time because they were using NOS parts? Seems I read that somewhere, but where....

One other quickie... and ideas on what the "BP" stamp on the stock is? Can't find any reference to it in my books.

Best regards!

- Mike

[4thGordons]

Mike

I reckon the odditites in the CAI batches are oddities from the source... ie there are all sorts of things in stores in various places that get gathered up. I once witnessed opening a crate of rifles from India at a gun-shop (purchased en masse from the importer) and the range of things in there was amazing... from absolute rubbish to almost mint, all stacked together and covering the best part of a century of production. I have picked up a couple of very early IP rifles from recent imports so there is clearly a broad range in there.

I too recently got an original format P14 (w/ volley sights etc) that was incredibly dirty but otherwise in great shape which had come out of India (it was one of 4 or 5 similar - all Eddystone which leads me to believe it was part of the shipment direct to India during the Great War.

I often have an uneasy feeling about the information in Walter - in part it might be the lack of documentation but I think it is more than that. No one author is perfect of course (hence skennerton's multiple editions!) but on this I would tend to lean towards his suggestions.

The unit marking plug was indeed discontinued during the Great War and clearly there was a transition period (same with forends, and all the other parts) but my my impression is the stocks were plugged with wood later not during the war (I cannot substantiate this it is simply an impression and may well be erronious)Blank disks were cerainly also used. The situation here is complicated by the return to the use of the disc in the interwar period. What I was referring to was the tool marks/relatively rough finish on the disc-plug. On my British rifles the disc is either absent or the plug is far more finished (like the P14 Weedon rifles) but on many of my Indian rifles they look like this. It would be interesting to know whether plugging was a great war practice but I suspect (along with trimming of the fingers on hanguards) likely to be the subject of endless speculations.

I have a couple of reference works with Indian markings in (Edwards "Indian Enfields" being one of them - another work that lists prescious few sources of its information) but as I said I cannot access them at the moment. Anything with P in suggests "Police" in an Indian context (Unless it is DP - which is also in British service what the white stripe indicates!) so take your pick with locations/districts etc. Variants of a circular cartouche/stamp containing 3 letters and an broad arrow continued in use on Indian Enfields up until the early 1980s whereas circular manufacturer stamps seem to have largely disappeared from British rifles around the turn of the century.

Once you have it in hand I will be very interested to see if anything revealing lies beneath the handguard.

Chris

[Gunner Bailey]

Yes, while it is all supposition, the thought is that EY derives from EmergencY.

Wrong!

EY is a reference to Edward Yule a man who contributed to the later designs of the cup discharger. The cup discharger was brought in with the Mills 23 MkIII which initially used a rod like the MkII but then was used with the gas check plate in the new discharger. The No 36 was brought in as a dual use grenade and the heavy cup discharger with adjustable vent allowed greater range control. The idea was that as any rodded grenade ruined a rifle's barrel quickly, this method would allow a rifle to fire grenades withoud damage to the rifling. However, the shock of the discharge could obviously weaken the whole structure of the rifle, hance the re-inforcement of guns used exclusively for grenade work.

John

[MikeS0000]

'17 LSA arrived today. She won't win any beauty prizes, but pretty neat...

Pried off the rear handguard and everything matches perfectly. No added or spurious markings. Photo of s/n's follows. Also, on the buttstock ahead of the "BP" is a faint Circular Cartouche with Broad Arrow in Center and "LSA" wrapped around it. The mag, which is an EFD is renumbered to match. All numbers on the rifle look to be originally matching.

Bore is crisp and shiny and looks almost unfired!

Seems I'm unable to add images or links right now, but will try later!

[MikeS0000]

Let's try this...

http://www.frontiern...ullivan/17a.jpg

http://www.frontiern...ullivan/17c.jpg

http://www.frontiern...ullivan/17b.jpg

[MikeS0000]

[MikeS0000]

From another quick read through Skennerton's Lee-Enfield "bible" it doesn't appear that any forms of barrel 'wrapping' date to GW era usage.

There is not that much detail on the GF rifles, and what I did find is very fragmented, however there were a couple of points worth quoting here.

1. "The firing of any form of grenade from the service rifle raised certain pressures and stresses, for which the rifle was not originally intended." p.417

2. "The List of Changes announcement (circa 1940) advises that rifles should be strengthened by binding, now better known as the EY rifle adaption." p.412

3. "Many .303 No.1 EY rifles were bound with copper wire for use with the No.1 Mk.I discharger cup, to project Mills and other grenades from the No.1 rifle." p.353

4. "Rifles were reinforced with a screw/bolt through the fore-end ... The copper wire was to generally stiffen the rifle and prevent flying splinters in the event of a blow up." p.353

5. "Britain's SMLE grenade-firing rifle was approved on 2nd December 1918, (so post GW) intended for use at the School of Instruction and it was first bound with whipcord." p.353

6. "It was originally intended that the reinforced and bound rifles be used in training, with the standard service rifle being used for the launching of grenades in action." p.353

Cheers, S>S

SS -

Your summary seems to agree with one of the observations on Gunboards, that the 7.40 on the butt may mean it was pulled from stock after Dunkirk and put into use. Speculation of course, but the timelines seem to fit and it's a great scenario!!

Regards!

- Mike

[calibre792x57.y]

Re Gunner Baileys contribution. For those not so familiar with these items it would be worth pointing out the 'Cup' for use with the No.23 was not a discharger. The grenade could be discharged equally well by placing the safety lever against the blade of the fixed bayonet to hold it's position, or indeed by removing the safety pin and lever and striker spring prior to firing so that the shock of discharge caused the weight of the striker to ignite the fuse. The cup was just a device to secure the lever after the safety pin had been removed, it served no other function. Secondly both the No.23 and the No.36 were actually introduced solely as rifle grenades and were intended to supplement the No.5 which was the 'Hand Pattern'. Only after their introduction was it perceived that these grenades could perform both functions, when the nomenclature was then changed to 'Hand and Rifle'. One problem with the dual purpose in the No. 36 was the long flight time of the grenade in the rifle projected role. It was necessary to increase the time delay of the igniter set: in turn this caused problems with grenades being returned by the enemy when used in the hand role! Eventually no less than eight marks of igniter sets were issued, varying from 4 to 7 seconds delay. -S.W.

[Gunner Bailey]

Re Gunner Baileys contribution. For those not so familiar with these items it would be worth pointing out the 'Cup' for use with the No.23 was not a discharger. The grenade could be discharged equally well by placing the safety lever against the blade of the fixed bayonet to hold it's position, or indeed by removing the safety pin and lever and striker spring prior to firing so that the shock of discharge caused the weight of the striker to ignite the fuse. The cup was just a device to secure the lever after the safety pin had been removed, it served no other function. Secondly both the No.23 and the No.36 were actually introduced solely as rifle grenades and were intended to supplement the No.5 which was the 'Hand Pattern'. Only after their introduction was it perceived that these grenades could perform both functions, when the nomenclature was then changed to 'Hand and Rifle'. One problem with the dual purpose in the No. 36 was the long flight time of the grenade in the rifle projected role. It was necessary to increase the time delay of the igniter set: in turn this caused problems with grenades being returned by the enemy when used in the hand role! Eventually no less than eight marks of igniter sets were issued, varying from 4 to 7 seconds delay. -S.W.

I would disagree about the 36 being introduced solely as a rifle grenade, although some engineering drawings are so marked. Gas check plates were not factory fitted and in the field the choice to use by hand or rifle could be taken on the spot. The 23 MkIII was termed a Grenade, Hand or .303 Rifle. So why would the 36 be different? It was in effect the same grenade. The 23 Mk I and II on the other hand were introduced as rifle grenades and then in January 1917 grenades marked No 5 ceased to be produced although the only real difference between the No 5 and the No 23 (Mk I and Mk II) was the baseplug. The No 23 Mk I and II drawings are also qualified by having added (Grenade Hand, No 5 with special base plug and rod). I would not take the term rifle grenade too strictly in these cases.

Never heard of this 'or indeed by removing the safety pin and lever and striker spring prior to firing so that the shock of discharge caused the weight of the striker to ignite the fuse'. Do you have a source?

John

[calibre792x57.y]

I would disagree about the 36 being introduced solely as a rifle grenade, although some engineering drawings are so marked. Gas check plates were not factory fitted and in the field the choice to use by hand or rifle could be taken on the spot. The 23 MkIII was termed a Grenade, Hand or .303 Rifle. So why would the 36 be different? It was in effect the same grenade. The 23 Mk I and II on the other hand were introduced as rifle grenades and then in January 1917 grenades marked No 5 ceased to be produced although the only real difference between the No 5 and the No 23 (Mk I and Mk II) was the baseplug. The No 23 Mk I and II drawings are also qualified by having added (Grenade Hand, No 5 with special base plug and rod). I would not take the term rifle grenade too strictly in these cases.

Never heard of this 'or indeed by removing the safety pin and lever and striker spring prior to firing so that the shock of discharge caused the weight of the striker to ignite the fuse'. Do you have a source?

John

Authority for discharging the No.23 from the bayonet w/out using the cup, is in instructions from H.Q. Reserve Army dated 3rd Aug 1916. See 'Grenade' by Rick Landers, Page 74. I cannot find my authority for stripping the lever and spring from the bomb, at the moment, so it is probably in 'Instructions to Grenadiers', as I sold my copy when I disposed of the collection. But it was an approved method. As for the No.36 being introduced as a Rifle Grenade, I refer you to Landers book again, Page 111 where the opening lines are 'The Grenade, .303 inch rifle, No.36 Mark 1 was introduced, as its correct service nomenclature suggests, purely as a rifle grenade.' I think when you discuss official nomenclature, one should take terms like 'rifle grenade' seriously, otherwise what is the point of it.? S.W.

[Gunner Bailey]

Authority for discharging the No.23 from the bayonet w/out using the cup, is in instructions from H.Q. Reserve Army dated 3rd Aug 1916. See 'Grenade' by Rick Landers, Page 74. I cannot find my authority for stripping the lever and spring from the bomb, at the moment, so it is probably in 'Instructions to Grenadiers', as I sold my copy when I disposed of the collection. But it was an approved method. As for the No.36 being introduced as a Rifle Grenade, I refer you to Landers book again, Page 111 where the opening lines are 'The Grenade, .303 inch rifle, No.36 Mark 1 was introduced, as its correct service nomenclature suggests, purely as a rifle grenade.' I think when you discuss official nomenclature, one should take terms like 'rifle grenade' seriously, otherwise what is the point of it.? S.W.

It's a pointess description. If it was a grenade like the 20, 35 etc yes then it is solely a rifle grenade. The 36, coming from the 23 MkIII which was stated as a dual purpose grenade had to be dual purpose as well.

Can you imagine a debate in a trench, between an NCO and an Officer " Sorry sir we can't do the trench raid tonight we've only got these No 36 grenades and they must only be used as rifle grenades". Utter rubbish. The fact that they were suppied with seperate gas checks always gave troops the choice and the 7 second fuse was not WW1 issue. My response is don't get tied up in nomenclature. Reality is always different. Can you imagine an RAF pilot refusing to fly his 'Night Fighter' in daylight?

John

[calibre792x57.y]

It's a pointess description. If it was a grenade like the 20, 35 etc yes then it is solely a rifle grenade. The 36, coming from the 23 MkIII which was stated as a dual purpose grenade had to be dual purpose as well.

Can you imagine a debate in a trench, between an NCO and an Officer " Sorry sir we can't do the trench raid tonight we've only got these No 36 grenades and they must only be used as rifle grenades". Utter rubbish. The fact that they were suppied with seperate gas checks always gave troops the choice and the 7 second fuse was not WW1 issue. My response is don't get tied up in nomenclature. Reality is always different. Can you imagine an RAF pilot refusing to fly his 'Night Fighter' in daylight?

John

My mistake - I thought we were discussing authorities. I see you weren't. - SW