shippingsteel Posted 10 January , 2014 Share Posted 10 January , 2014 Both of the other M.R abbreviations which were suggested as possibilities, are for units which were formed in 1920, and prior to that would not have carried the M.R. Skennerton's useful reference book "Broad Arrow" does list those stated regiments as using that abbreviation, however he does not cross reference this with periods. This book should be used as a guide for further research into the units suggested, but the dates and periods the weapons were used in must always be kept in mind. Here are a couple of links to the Canadian Soldiers website which provides some useful Order of Battles for the different periods. Infantry units HERE & Cavalry HERE Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 10 January , 2014 Share Posted 10 January , 2014 LF, thank you for raising another couple of possibilities on the potential heritage of the "MR" marking. Here is an example of the Manitoba Rangers pre-WW1 cap badge, they were formed in May 1911, and as you can see, although at that time they were the 99th Manitoba Rangers, they were known as the Manitoba Rangers, and like all Canadian Regiments, they were subject to the 1920 Canadian Army re-organisation, when their name was shortened to just the Manitoba Rangers. I still think we are on track with your bayonet marking being for the Manitoba Rangers. Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 10 January , 2014 Share Posted 10 January , 2014 those regiments in the last couple of years leading up to the Great War, potentially just beyond the dates of issuance of the MLE and the P1888 bayonet, as they migrated into the Mk II Ross. 1914 dated photo of a soldier of the Canadian Expeditionary Force ( C.E.F. )., although not a good clear image, member MenoftheNorth has kindly identified the rifle as being the Mk.II Ross Rifle with the Ross bayonet fitted. LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangeRover Posted 10 January , 2014 Share Posted 10 January , 2014 1914 dated photo of a soldier of the Canadian Expeditionary Force ( C.E.F. )., although not a good clear image, however, judging by the length of the rifle and the bayonet, looks to be armed with a Magazine Lee-Enfield rifle fitted with a P1888 bayonet. LF Thanks LF, I would suggest the Manitoba Rangers moves to the front of the line of contenders for the marking. As for the photo, in looking at the knob on the "donut hole" profile of the bolt of the illustrated rifle, I would suggest that, rather than an MLE, that's a Mk II Ross with the "butter blade" bayonet fixed. (see Mk II bolts pictured below and my Mk II and Mk III Ross rifles with bayonets below that) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 10 January , 2014 Share Posted 10 January , 2014 Thanks LF, I would suggest the Manitoba Rangers moves to the front of the line of contenders for the marking. As for the photo, in looking at the knob on the "donut hole" profile of the bolt of the illustrated rifle, I would suggest that, rather than an MLE, that's a Mk II Ross with the "butter blade" bayonet fixed. (see Mk II bolts pictured below and my Mk II and Mk III Ross rifles with bayonets below that) Many thanks for the Ross Rifle info, I do not have a Ross Rifle in my Collection, so I had nothing to compare with, however, with your really good photos showing the hole in the bolt knob, I can now see the shadow of that hole in the bolt knob shown in the photo, so thank you for the quick Ross Rifle lesson, I shall edit the photo accordingly. Yes, I agree, Manitoba Rangers are now well out in front, and will get back to you on any more info or photos on the Manitoba Rangers. Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 10 January , 2014 Share Posted 10 January , 2014 In the years leading up to the Great War, the marking system in use was based on the numbered regiments, in the format of Regiment Number over Weapon Number. The Ross Mk.II Rifle illustrated below was made in 1910 when the Canadian Army began to adopt their new rifle, and shows a very long history of numbered markings. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jscott Posted 10 January , 2014 Author Share Posted 10 January , 2014 A quick aside - S>S would you recommend Skennerton's "Broad Arrow" book (which you refer to above) as a good supplement to his British and Commonwealth bayonets book? Thanks, J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 11 January , 2014 Share Posted 11 January , 2014 As I said, it's a useful reference but I wouldn't say it was an essential book for a collector. Has a lot on general markings found on weaponry, plus an extensive listing of unit abbreviations. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5thBatt Posted 11 January , 2014 Share Posted 11 January , 2014 1914 dated photo of a soldier of the Canadian Expeditionary Force ( C.E.F. )., although not a good clear image, member MenoftheNorth has kindly identified the rifle as being the Mk.II Ross Rifle with the Ross bayonet fitted. LF Not a MLE as the swivels are not off-set to the RHS of the rifle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 11 January , 2014 Share Posted 11 January , 2014 Yeah NOT an MLE as its got a flippin' Ross bayonet sittin' on top of it ... Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 11 January , 2014 Share Posted 11 January , 2014 Yeah NOT an MLE as its got a flippin' Ross bayonet sittin' on top of it ... Cheers, S>S SS, The only reason you know that was a Ross bayonet, based on that photograph, is because MenoftheNorth and 5thBatt came up with intelligent observations regarding the rifle and were able to identify it as a Ross Rifle, so then SS puts 1 and 1 together and says - Duh! a Ross rifle it must have a flippin Ross bayonet on top if it - perhaps I'll send a silly post So for you to try and make out you were able to spot that as a Ross bayonet, without the 2 previous intelligent rifle observation posts is you just being plain stupid ( again ). Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 11 January , 2014 Share Posted 11 January , 2014 Not a MLE as the swivels are not off-set to the RHS of the rifle. 5thBatt, Many thanks for the useful information, it all helps in the learning curve. Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 11 January , 2014 Share Posted 11 January , 2014 NO ... by far the easiest way to tell what rifle that is in that photo, is to look at the bayonets, and the pommel in particular which provides an easy tell-tale. If you look at the illustrations below, you will see that the Patt.88 bayonet has the large slot in the bottom of its pommel, which is quite easy to see in pics. That, and the Ross bayonet has the shorter blade, shorter chunkier grips, and a much more prominent barrel-like press stud which sticks out a long way. I just thought seeing you are posting on a P1888 thread, that you might realise what one looks like when you see it in a period photo, but apparently not. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 11 January , 2014 Share Posted 11 January , 2014 NO ... by far the easiest way to tell what rifle that is in that photo, is to look at the bayonets, and the pommel in particular which provides an easy tell-tale. If you look at the illustrations below, you will see that the Patt.88 bayonet has the large slot in the bottom of its pommel, which is quite easy to see in pics. Cheers, S>S SS, Whilst your 2 example photos clearly show the difference between the 2 types of bayonet, the distinctive ' slot ' on the P1888 you rely on for easy identification is not able to be seen in that photograph ( see attached ) by you, myself or indeed anyone else, so even based on the good information you have provided, there was absolutely no way you or I knowing that was a Ross bayonet without the supporting information provided by the other 2 members confirming the rifle to be a Ross rifle. I appreciate you posting the photos, and pointing out the differences, they will be very helpful to future identification. Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 11 January , 2014 Share Posted 11 January , 2014 Well you might not be able to tell the difference, but for people who handle these things regularly it becomes 'second-nature', and to me it was immediately apparent that it was not a P1888. The blade is too short in relation to its overall length to be a P1888, while the press stud which is clearly visible is too large for a P1888. I guess I should know as I have a few Ross bayonets. And a few P1888's ... (these are just the ones I put out in a display case) Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 11 January , 2014 Share Posted 11 January , 2014 And this angle shows just how prominent the press stud is on the Ross bayonet. You simply can't miss that sticking out there ... like flamin' dogs b@!!5 Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 11 January , 2014 Share Posted 11 January , 2014 With reference to post # 53, does anyone have a side-by-side comparison photo of the Mk.II Ross rifle and the Magazine Lee-Enfield ( Long Lee ), as for future reference, I would be interested in the comparison rifle lengths. I have a Long Lee, but no Ross Mk.II for comparison. Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangeRover Posted 11 January , 2014 Share Posted 11 January , 2014 With reference to post # 53, does anyone have a side-by-side comparison photo of the Mk.II Ross rifle and the Magazine Lee-Enfield ( Long Lee ), as for future reference, I would be interested in the comparison rifle lengths. I have a Long Lee, but no Ross Mk.II for comparison. Regards, LF Well, it's not the best photo (once the snow is gone, I'll update these) but here's a photo I pulled together a while back showing some of of my Canadian-owned (marked) and operated military arms. I've added a couple more since then . This shows the relative length of the MLE, the Ross Mk II, Ross Mk III and the SMLE (plus the No. 4 snuck into this photo). I can't quote exact overall measurements (someone here can likely provide those) but the MLE and Mk II Ross are close in length. The Mark III Ross on the other hand, is much longer. It towers over the MLE, and the Gew 98, and certainly sticks out over the No. 1 Mk III*. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 11 January , 2014 Share Posted 11 January , 2014 This shows the relative length of the MLE, the Ross Mk II, Ross Mk III and the SMLE (plus the No. 4 snuck into this photo). I can't quote exact overall measurements (someone here can likely provide those) but the MLE and Mk II Ross are close in length. The Mark III Ross on the other hand, is much longer. It towers over the MLE, and the Gew 98, and certainly sticks out over the No. 1 Mk III*. Many thanks, and a surprise that the Ross rifle was so long, particularly the Mk.III, without knowing, I assumed the Ross to be similar in length to the SMLE. Great to see the Mk.4 Sniper's Rifle and the Smith & Wesson revolver. Thanks for taking the time to follow up, much apprecaited. Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangeRover Posted 11 January , 2014 Share Posted 11 January , 2014 Well, the "sniper" is just a Fulton mount on a standard No. 4, but I could afford it at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 12 January , 2014 Share Posted 12 January , 2014 Well, the "sniper" is just a Fulton mount on a standard No. 4, but I could afford it at least. The No.4 is an excellent rifle, and your's looks great with the scope fitted. Some years ago, I was able to obtain a No.4 Mk.2 ( 1955 ) produced at the Royal Ordnance Factory at Fazackerley, Nr. Liverpool, England, which was unissued, so it is mint unfired condition. The Smith & Wesson revolvers are also excellent. Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 12 January , 2014 Share Posted 12 January , 2014 Well, the "sniper" is just a Fulton mount on a standard No. 4, but I could afford it at least. There are several places selling both original and repro cheek pieces for the comb of the butt if you want to dress it up a bit! (allows for better cheek weld with that highish mount on the scope (is that a Weaver K2?) Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Boonzaier Posted 13 January , 2014 Share Posted 13 January , 2014 I have 2 1888 bayonets. I remember seeing a Gallipoli display in Istanbul with a few 1888s pulled out of the sea... then the next day found a 1915 stamped one at a market. It is stamped %.Y.L.I. - 683 (I assume the % must be a "K" ) The other one is a mystery one picked up in Cape Town, stamped 5 M.B.F.T. 9 It is a December 1900 stamped piece. Best Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 13 January , 2014 Share Posted 13 January , 2014 Well there's absolutely no mistaking what weapon the Canadian Mounted Rifles were using in the Boer War (and with what looks to be the pommel of a Patt.88 securely nestled at his hip) They are lovely rifles, and I like attaching my bayonets to them ... they make such a beautiful sound when they snap into place. They certainly had 'build quality' back then. I have this all matching MLE dated 1901 that saw service in Australia (Victorian issue marks) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 13 January , 2014 Share Posted 13 January , 2014 It is stamped %.Y.L.I. - 683 (I assume the % must be a "K" ) 5 M.B.F.T. 9 Chris, Y.L.I. is The King's Own ( Yorkshire Light Infantry ) The M.B.F.T., as yet I have not seen listed, with M.B. often being used by Mountain Battery Regiments. Regards, LF 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