Lee Enfield MkIII* Question!

[Canadian J]

Hi everyone, I am about to purchase an Enfield BSAco. 1917 mkIII* as a restoration project. I am pretty sure it was FTR'd in 1937, however it has the mag cut off! Is this normal? Was this Mark-three-star made with the mag cut off or did they re-apply the mag cut off during FTR's? it IS a MkIII* after all! I just find it strange that it has the mag cut off when it distinctly has the star! Thanks All!

- J

[Beerhunter]

The magazine cut-off and windage back sight were restored between the wars. Rifles treated so should have the * "barred out". Alternatively a later civilian owner may have re-fitted a cut-off.

[Stevie]

I have a 1917 dated Mk111* with the star cancelled out, it also has windage adjustable rear sight and early pattern woodwork. In Ian Skennerton's excellent book on the Enfield, The Lee Enfield Story, he says of this change...

"The cut-off still seems to have been a requirement for some forces, such as the Navy, because some 1917 Enfield Mk111* rifles have been noted with cut-off slots and the * suffix cancelled, with the cut-off plates added again."

Cheers,

Steve.

[trajan]

Ok, I finally give in, having seen this mysterious 'cut-off' referred to so many times here and there in connection with so many different rifles - so, what is it?

[Stevie]

Its a plate let into the right side of the receiver. When pulled out, it allows the magazine to be loaded. When pushed in, it 'cuts off' the ammunition feed to the chamber. The rifle can then be loose-fed single rounds of ammunition, and the main charge of 10 rounds can be saved for when needed.

Cheers,

Steve.

[T8HANTS]

It cuts the magazine off from the action of the bolt and chamber, in effect making the rifle a single shot weapon. This was to placate H.M. Treasury who didn't want overexcited soldiers firing off loads of expensive bullets at the oncoming hoards.

[Bombadier]

It's a pivoted plate like thing which covers the top of the magazine. It enables a full magazine to be retained whilst allowing the rifle to be loaded with single rounds. Controlled shooting permissable whilst keeping a full load for emergencies.

Nigel

[Canadian J]

In fact it does have the star barred out! Also, it does have the wind adjustable rear sight. Thanks a bunch guys!

[Beerhunter]

Here's a picture of a magazine cut-off that has been pulled out allowing use of the ten rounds loaded in the magazine.

Originally one was only supposed to do this on the orders of an officer. (Having been one I always ensure that I give myself permission.)

In the other position the rifle becomes a single shot. BTW, it also becomes a very good extractor spring breaker. Even when loading single round one should always load them into the magazine first so that the rim of the round cams under the extractor claw, rather than the claw having to snap over it.

[trajan]

Its a plate let into the right side of the receiver. When pulled out, it allows the magazine to be loaded. When pushed in, it 'cuts off' the ammunition feed to the chamber. The rifle can then be loose-fed single rounds of ammunition, and the main charge of 10 rounds can be saved for when needed.

Here's a picture of a magazine cut-off that has been pulled out allowing use of the ten rounds loaded in the magazine.

Etc., "Computer, she says: "You have posted more than the allowed number of quoted blocks of text" meaning wanted to thank you all (and now AndrewU)...

Seriously many thanks Stevie,T8Hants, Bombadier, and last but not least Beerhuner for the photograph (and now AU)! Now I think I know what to look for on the right (and tight?!) side of the receiver is a tabby like projection..

Again, thanks!

Trajan

[Andrew Upton]

As quoted previously on another thread:

"IAW Musketry Regs Part I, 1909 with 1914 Amendment, Page 104, Para 264.

Section 53 - Use of the Safety Catch and Cut-Off

Troops armed with rifles fitted with safety catches will invariably set the catch to safety before movement. The use of the cut-off is to be confined in their case to occasions when they are not actually engaged with the enemy, when it may be employed for the purpose of charging the magazine without inserting a cartridge in the chamber, or to unload the rifle while retaining cartridges in the magazine. It is never to be used to enable the rifle to be used as a single loader, and is not to supeceded the safety catch."

[4thGordons]

In fact it does have the star barred out! Also, it does have the wind adjustable rear sight. Thanks a bunch guys!

Be careful before you start trying to adjust the rear sight. Many of them were pinned in place at a later date - and if you try and "adjust" it - thinking it sticky/stuck you can break off the wheel (not as hard as it sounds - don't ask.)

Thanks for that Andrew... I was just searching for it!

Chris

[Beerhunter]

As quoted previously on a nother thread:

"IAW Musketry Regs Part I, 1909 with 1914 Amendment, Page 104, Para 264.

Section 53 - Use of the Safety Catch and Cut-Off

Troops armed with rifles fitted with safety catches will invariably set the catch to safety before movement. The use of the cut-off is to be confined in their case to occasions when they are not actually engaged with the enemy, when it may be employed for the purpose of charging the magazine without inserting a cartridge in the chamber, or to unload the rifle while retaining cartridges in the magazine. It is never to be used to enable the rifle to be used as a single loader, and is not to supeceded the safety catch."

But that was later. Originally it was so that the rifle became a single shot.

[18th Battalion]

Be careful before you start trying to adjust the rear sight. Many of them were pinned in place at a later date - and if you try and "adjust" it - thinking it sticky/stuck you can break off the wheel (not as hard as it sounds - don't ask.)

Thanks for that Andrew... I was just searching for it!

Chris

I guess that explains why the adjuster doesn't work on mine, fortunately I resisted the temptation to try mechanical assistance to free the 'stuck' thread.

[Demo]

I guess that explains why the adjuster doesn't work on mine, fortunately I resisted the temptation to try mechanical assistance to free the 'stuck' thread.

You should be able to see clearly if the sight has been pinned. It could also just be seized.

[18th Battalion]

You should be able to see clearly if the sight has been pinned. It could also just be seized.

Looks like you're right, I haven't used the rifle for sometime, so I'd forgotten that is does turn 3 clicks before it doesn't want to go any further.

[Andrew Upton]

But that was later. Originally it was so that the rifle became a single shot.

Evidence please - well before the start of the Great War they were clearly stressing the cut-off was not to be used as such, and you have yourself illustrated a good example of what damage can be done to a rifle if you attempt to load rounds like this.

[Beerhunter]

I could say that use of the magazine cut-off as I describe it is "common knowledge" but you are right to ask for references which I shall find.

However the cut-offs had been in use for twenty years before that publication. BTW, is the quote part of the original 1909 or the 1914 amendment?

[4thGordons]

However the cut-offs had been in use for twenty years before that publication. BTW, is the quote part of the original 1909 or the 1914 amendment?

Not on the Sht LE though of course, and not on the MkIII.

It would be interesting to know if the change in usage to a safety feature rather than a fire control device, dates to around the time of the introduction of the ShtLE (1902) or the MkIII(1907) or earlier.

As I was typing this one thought struck me - The Lee-Metford MkII in 1890 and subsequent models of Metford (Inc CLLM) and conversions were not fitted with a safety catch. In these circumstances the cut-off is essentially the only mechanical safety device isn't it?

It was not until the MLE MkI in 1895 that the bolt mounted safety appeared and later with the ShtLE MkI it moved to the body. So I wonder if there are in fact two changes in use?

from 1888?-1895 the cutoff served as a safety rather than a fire control device (MLM)

from 1895-1909/14 primarily as a fire control device with a secondary safety feature(MLE-SHTLE)

from 1909/14 as a supplemental safety device (CLLE-SMLE) with prohibition of single loading.

One of the key changes was obviously the introduction in the period 1902-8 of universal CHARGER LOADING capability and men carrying and being supplied with rounds in chargers not loose. At that point single loading would usually have required removing rounds from chargers. Infantry equipment changed to take this into account in 1903 with the bandoleer equipments and of course in 1908 with the ammunition pouches on the 1908 web.

I'll be very interested to see what you discover here.

Chris

[Beerhunter]

As I was typing this one thought struck me - The Lee-Metford MkI in 1888/9 and subsequent models of Metford (Inc CLLM) and conversions were not fitted with a safety catch. In these circumstances the cut-off is essentially the only mechanical safety device isn't it?

Half-cock?

[4thGordons]

Half-cock?

Hmmm as in "going off....." yes good point I suppose that does count.

I may have found your reference for you

LoC Para 5877 22nd Dec 1888 (viz MLM)

...

"a "cut off is fitted to the right side of the body, which, when pressed inwards, stops the supply of cartridges from the magazine, so the arm may be used as a single loader"

however when looking at this I also read:

"a safety catch" is fitted on the left side of the body, the pulling back of which when the rifle is at full cock, prevents any effect being caused by pulling the trigger....."

This puzzles me as I was pretty sure the MLM II did not have a safety. I do not own one so now I will have to look!

Edit: OK the MLM II (31/12/90) and on deleted the safety so perhaps the shift dates from then? it was missing for a very short period - being reintroduced (on the cocking piece) in 1894 and reverting to the left side of the action with the SMLE in 1902.

Chris

[Andrew Upton]

I may have found your reference for you

LoC Para 5877 22nd Dec 1888 (viz MLM)

...

"a "cut off is fitted to the right side of the body, which, when pressed inwards, stops the supply of cartridges from the magazine, so the arm may be used as a single loader"

Thanks Chris, that certainly is a useful reference. It still strikes me though that if the references to it being used like this seem to date to the 1880's on the Long Lees then transferring its use as such into a pre-/Great War context with the SMLE (when it had apparently undergone a 180 degree turn) still seems to be perpetuating something of a myth.