Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

SMLE


Guest Chip Minx

Recommended Posts

i had one dated 1916 excactly the same like a 1939 one...

But as far as i know there were also covers whitout buttons, with a leather strap instead.

Also there were a lot of unissued covers, sometimes in burlap, improvised ones...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bkristof,

Thanks for the reply. My example has some numbers stamped in it, but no date. Can you tell me how the leather lace was affixed? I have not been able to find any information describing how this was properly attached to the rifle.

Chip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chip,

The Breech cover is fully described in LoC 17368, 24 June 1915.

"the Cover is made of Double texture waterproof drill, and is fitted with 3 press studs on the left side of the rifle. Two eyelets are fitted in the cover for a lace which is knotted on the inside to retain it in position:

The cover is attached to rifle by means of the lace as follows-

Rifles Short MLE-- To the guard sling swivel, or through the swivel screw hole in the lugs on the trigger guard."

There are also instructions on how to fit it to the Ross and long LE.

LoC 18301 23 Nov 1916, slightly changed the covers nomenclature to:

Cover Breech, No. 2 MK I---for P14 rifle

Cover, Breech No.1 Mk I--All other patterns

Description is nearly identical except the No' 2 is stamped with a figure 2 on the outside of the pleat. No'1had a figure 1.

Joe Sweeney

Link to comment
Share on other sites

normaly there is a little loop just in front of the magazine, but on the rifle. This is 99% of the times missing. The leather strap should be attached to it, so you can't lose it.

Your cover has a reinforced spot. That is were the bolt has to be. it goes around the stock a bit, over the trigger and the bolt and it stops inbetween the bolt and the vizor?? the aiming thing, i forgot the English word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plate J Picture 1 of the Osprey Warrior Series "British Tommy 1914-1918" shows the correct attachment of the lace.

My example was manufactured by the M E Co in 1915.

Cheers.

post-23-1094510211.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Joe, Raster and bkristof,

Joe, my cover has a black #2 at the pleat, does that mean it cannot be for the SMLE? Did this pattern cover have any changes up through WWII?

Raster, My example looks like the one you have pictured, only the buttons are not plain. They have a rivet in the center and then a design of concentric circles. On the back they have "Patent 29115/10".

Chip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chip

I too was struck by Joe's great info' on these as the most interesting one of mine has the '2' too. It is nicely ID'd to a chap who was in the 1/7th Welsh (a home service cyclist bn) and then the Loyal North Lancs.

While I can see a home service cyclist bn with the P14, one can't say the same for the LNLR. As it fits on the SMLE perfectly, I would think that, for practical purposes in the field, they were interchangeable.

I also have one with the circled studs and the '10 patent date; and believe/ hope that's entirely correct too.

My third is the same as Raster's and as it came from the same place as GWRCo and I got our John Bell Feb '16 dressings, I now believe it's (please don't ask how) a wrong 'un.

Rgds,

Grovetown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chip/Grovetown,

Yes, the number 2 specifically/officially makes the cover a P14 cover and not SMLE.

There is only a slight difference between the two and a P14 cover can be put on a SMLE.

I'm not home right now but the difference, I believe, was in placement of the lace holes and the pleating may have left more room for the P14. No.1 holes were more centered and the No2 were more towards the end. Going on memory so not 100% sure.

Joe Sweeney

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My third is the same as Raster's and as it came from the same place as GWRCo and I got our John Bell Feb '16 dressings, I now believe it's (please don't ask how) a wrong 'un.

Hi Grovetown.

Just because a John Bell Feb 1916 has been faked it does not mean they all are. By the same token I am perfectly happy that my Breech Cover is not a "wrong un".

Some time ago you convinced me my First Field Dressing was a fake and inside I would find packing and plastic tape. Instead when I opened it I found two perfectly good Feb 1916 dressings in their waterproof covers along with two attached safety pins.

Cheers

post-23-1094736459.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Raster

Unfortunately, the only way to truly tell is open the waterproof covers. I don't know if you saw the pictures on the old link...

Fake dressings

In those posts, GWRCo mentioned a dealer. Happily, for legal reasons, he got the name wrong (so no libel there); but one could work out who he meant. If you got your dressing from the same place, it's wrong.

I can't/ didn't say whether your breech cover is right or wrong. If it derived from the source as above though....

Regards,

Grovetown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...