Different arms in the Militia & British Army

[JMB1943]

My grandfather enlisted in the local militia on Jan. 21st, 1902 and joined as a regular in the infantry on April 4th, 1902.

He served 3 yrs with the Colours, so was discharged to the Reserve on April 3rd, 1905 for 9 yrs.

Which rifles/bayonets would he have likely trained with over those three different periods of service ?

Regards,

JMB

[shippingsteel]

Well the main service rifle at that time was the Magazine Lee-Enfield, which of course attached the Patt.1888 Sword Bayonet. Not likely to have seen a SMLE.

Not sure what the Militia might have had, I think it varied quite a bit between particular units, possibly a Martini-Enfield.? Reserves may have the Lee-Metford.?

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

I know very little about the Militia but assume they may have had the previous generation of arms?

If so the Militia were perhaps armed with .303" Lee-Metford (introduced in 1888/9) or perhaps Martini-Metford or Martini-Enfield rifles (taking the P1895 socket bayonet)?

On that basis, in 1902 Regular soldiers would probably have been armed with the Magazine Lee-Enfield (MkI introduced in 1895, MkI* in 1899) these of course take the Pattern 1888 bayonet

The Short, Magazine Lee-Enfield MkI was introduced in 1902/3 and various conversions (MkI Cond. and MkII Cond.) of MLEs to SMLEs between 1902/3 also. Initially these were issued with the Pattern 1903 Bayonet. The Pattern 1907 not being introduced until....well- you know!

Chris

(SNAP!)

[shippingsteel]

Chris do you have any figures on the early years production of the SMLE. I am wondering about the speed of the roll-out of SMLE's to the Infantry regiments - I don't really know.?

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

Chris do you have any figures on the early years production of the SMLE. I am wondering about the speed of the roll-out of SMLE's to the Infantry regiments - I don't really know.?

Cheers, S>S

Well according to Stratton RSF Enfield produced @194,000 between 1903 and 1907, Sparkbrook @14,000, BSA 150,000 and LSA 65,000 so that is @ 423,000 rifles by 1907?

So I suspect they might have been issued starting 1904/5 in significant numbers - I have always wondered about this actually how soon were they actually in the hands of serving soldiers I assume there was a stockpile built up first before they were issued.

Chris

[JMB1943]

Many thanks to the usual suspects for continuing my education.

Your answers help me to justify the recent purchase of a P.1888 bayonet; nothing special (other than a frozen locking stud), so no photos.

Regards,

JMB

[shippingsteel]

Well according to Stratton RSF Enfield produced @194,000 between 1903 and 1907, Sparkbrook @14,000, BSA 150,000 and LSA 65,000 so that is @ 423,000 rifles by 1907?

So I suspect they might have been issued starting 1904/5 in significant numbers - I have always wondered about this actually how soon were they actually in the hands of serving soldiers I assume there was a stockpile built up first before they were issued.

Thanks for that Chris, yes it is hard to try and pin down exactly how many rifles were produced in those first couple of years, but I guess we should assume that 'some' soldiers were armed with them.

Just looking at the Appendix in the back of B&CB (page 401) it shows that of all the Colonial outposts of the Empire in 1905, only Australia with 5,719 and New Zealand 2,000 were armed with SMLE.

I like to think that the Line regiments with 'precedence' would have been those first armed with the new SMLE rifles, and that my battered P1903 example marked to Coldstream Guards was the first.!

I have posted this one before, you may remember it is stamped with an interesting S on the timber of the grips (both sides) and you surmised it could have been to indicate Short for the new Short rifle.

This P1903 is a converted P'88 (dated 4 '01) and it also shows '06 and '07 'reissues' ... so I think it is a good example of the first bayonets that were used on what was to become the ubiquitous SMLE.

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

Here is the closeup view of the S marking in the grips. The theory being that it was there to help differentiate between the very similar P1888 bayonet for the "old rifle" (MLE)

If this theory is correct, then by definition it would mean that both rifles were in use concurrently and there was room for mistaking the 2 similar bayonets. Interesting anyway.!

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

To aid others on this particular bayonet of SS's, as I am a great believer in cross referencing where it is useful, see the discussions with extra photographs at: http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=157244 and http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=158859&hl=coldstream

While I do follow 4G's highly persuasive explanation for the 'S' mark on this bayonet's grips, I confess that I am not totally convinced. There is, for example, no mention of such grip markings being required, in the WO specifications SA/245 of 14 March 1903 for 'Sword - bayonet Pattern 1903 converted'... And as many will know, all kinds of branding and other marks are to be seen on bayonet grips... These ones are, apparently, neatly done, suggesting officialese - but I'd like to see more examples before I accept the argument! Not, I hasten to add, that I have any particular axes to grind - P.1903's are not my thing: I just would like to see more - shall we say? - 'evidence' for the theory before it becomes (as is the way of the internet!) 'established fact'!

On which note, though, Happy New Year to one and all on this and other bayonet-inspired threads!

Trajan

PS: JMB: I got the deal on 'carbon leaching' - PM to come.