annieb22 Posted 7 June , 2012 Share Posted 7 June , 2012 Please can someone tell me what rifle my grandpa is holding in the picture? Is it an SMLE and, if so, which model please? I am new to all of this so any information is much appreciated. Annie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 7 June , 2012 Share Posted 7 June , 2012 Yes, looks like an SMLE to me, with the little bayonet stud below the muzzle, but you'll have to wait for the specialists to log on to find out more! Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 7 June , 2012 Share Posted 7 June , 2012 Yes it is a SMLE. It is difficult to tell but it looks like it might be an early MkI as opposed to the standard wartime MkIII or MkIII* as I cannot see a charger bridge (a metal "bridge" over the top of the rifle which allowed ammunition to be loaded into the magazine in "chargers" (metal spring clips) 5 rounds at a time) The earlier MkI did not have this and instead had a guide on the bolthead and I think I can see that here. The foresight protector "ears" at the muzzle were also a different shape (straighter) and I think that is what is visible here. In addition on the earlier mark the rear sight protector ears were integral to the handguard - later they were moved to a separate piece, if you look just behind the fingers on his right hand you can see the earlier form I believe. So it is a Short, Magazine Lee-Enfield for certain, and my bet is a MkI. Chris here are some illustrations The rifle I think yours is The standard MkIII The early action Charger Clip in place on a MkIII The two forms of rear sight protector together (would not be seen in photos but here for comparison - the older integral type inside the MkIII separate type) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
annieb22 Posted 7 June , 2012 Author Share Posted 7 June , 2012 Thank you so much for your expert analysis Chris. I wonder why he had an old version of the gun. He was late into the war as he was born in Dec 1898 and was mobilized in March 1917 although he wasn't 19 until Dec of that year. Were they running out of equipment by this time? This is a naive question but is the thing he's wearing across his chest, just above the rifle in the picture, there to carry the ammunition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 7 June , 2012 Share Posted 7 June , 2012 I pinched your original picture for a direct comparison. The points I mentioned above are marked with red lines. Chris Sorry just saw your post. He is wearing a 1903 pattern ammunition bandolier yes. This was from a pre war equipment set (as the name suggests) but it continued in use for mounted troops up until the early years of WWII. This and the rifle suggests he may not have been a front line infantryman and may have had a mounted role? Looking at the badge is it possible he was a Royal Engineer? These rifles continued to be issued throughout the war (and actually quite a few were supplied to Ireland after the war), but they do tend to show up more frequently in early war pictures or, as I mentioned, in troops who were not expected to be using them all the time in their primary role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
annieb22 Posted 7 June , 2012 Author Share Posted 7 June , 2012 Thank you again, Chris. That's a nifty bit of digital work. Can I trouble you to say which is which so that I can learn the terminology? My grandpa was indeed in the Royal Engineers. He was demobbed from the 31st Bde RGA Signals Sub Section. As I understand it, he was a motorcycle despatch rider. This is him. I understand that they used to dodge the bullets but I suppose there wasn't much they could do with a rifle whilst riding a bike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terrylee Posted 7 June , 2012 Share Posted 7 June , 2012 A very interesting photo! The rifle is definately a S.M.L.E. Mk.I and I believe that we can be even more exact by identifying it as a Mk.I*. It seems to me that the butt swivel sticks out less than if it had been the slightly earlier Mk.I. I attach a comparative photo of the butts of a Mk.I (top) and Mk.I*. Please excuse the stickers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 7 June , 2012 Share Posted 7 June , 2012 Indeed, many thanks Chris - I bet that I am not the only one other than annie who has benefitted from a proper 'Naming of parts' (great poem that!)!!! Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 7 June , 2012 Share Posted 7 June , 2012 A very interesting photo! The rifle is definately a S.M.L.E. Mk.I and I believe that we can be even more exact by identifying it as a Mk.I*. It seems to me that the butt swivel sticks out less than if it had been the slightly earlier Mk.I. I attach a comparative photo of the butts of a Mk.I (top) and Mk.I*. Please excuse the stickers. Blimey! Better eyes than me if you can see that on the original pic! Annie B For a quick reference to the parts/types this quick guidemight be of interest (probably too much!) Cheers Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
annieb22 Posted 7 June , 2012 Author Share Posted 7 June , 2012 Wow TerryLee, you must have X-ray Specs! You guys definitely know your stuff. The original photo is about 1" wide by 1 + half " high so impossible to get a clearer image than this, I'm afraid. Chris, I've saved the quick guide and will read through it when time permits. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terrylee Posted 7 June , 2012 Share Posted 7 June , 2012 Perhaps this difference is more clearly seen in the original photograph: The rifle in that photo, a Mk.I*, has a swivel mounting in front of the trigger guard. The Mk. I, top in my comparative photo, has loops on the magazine and trigger guard with a connecting link, while the lower Mk.I* has a swivel mounting as seen in the original photo. The Mk.I arrangement is similar to the unmodified Long Lee Enfield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 7 June , 2012 Share Posted 7 June , 2012 Everything you say is accurate and I am not disputing it, I am simply unable to make out the level of detail you are on the original picture However, in my opinion, it is very hard to say it is DEFINITELY as you do that the photo in the picture is a MkI* (as opposed to, say, a SMLE MkII Cond. or a SMLE MkII* Cond.) or (given the apparent time period in question it seems to me to be probable that it is) a MkI*** (ie a MkI* resighted for MkVII ammunition). If I recall correctly all of these share the attributes you are identifying as being diagnostic of a MkI*. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terrylee Posted 7 June , 2012 Share Posted 7 June , 2012 Chris, I happily concede that the rifle could possibly have more stars or even be one of the converted S.M.L.E. Mk IIs. However, a careful examination of the photo shows me that it is not one of the earlier Mk.Is ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 7 June , 2012 Share Posted 7 June , 2012 OK! I thought I needed to get my eyes checked anyway! Cheers Terry. 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