Krag Posted 3 February , 2016 Share Posted 3 February , 2016 I understand that after WWI the British supplied the new Baltic Republics with small arms including P/14s, long Lee-Enfields and Lee-Enfield carbines. I have found plenty of photos of Balts with P/14s but none with Lee-Enfields. Does anyone have any? If so please post them here or contact me.Many thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 3 February , 2016 Share Posted 3 February , 2016 I have Latvians with Lewis Guns and P14s not SMLEs though. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanie_Daniels Posted 3 March , 2016 Share Posted 3 March , 2016 No SMLE but interesting with the charger loading bridge: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 3 March , 2016 Share Posted 3 March , 2016 (edited) That is VERY VERY interesting. Never seen the like. It is a CLLE format (charger bridge/foresight protectors) but, unless he is a very tall bloke and there is a foreshortening effect in the photo it looks to have been shortened to SMLE or carbine length and had an upper (front) handguard added. Initially I thought it was a carbine (like an RIC/NZ carbine) but the handguards are incorrect (carbines do not have a rear handguard and CLLEs don't have a front handguard) as is the foresight/charger bridge. If I saw something like that for sale I would dismiss it as a fake -- so never say never I suppose. Fantastic picture -- any other information on it (is time/place etc known?) Chris EDIT: Looking again - this is certainly shortened not a photo effect. (compare length of p1889 bayonet to overall length of rifle) Also has a standard 10 rnd magazine rather than the shorter carbine mag -- so a shortened/cut down CLLE seems the best bet. Edited 3 March , 2016 by 4thGordons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 3 March , 2016 Share Posted 3 March , 2016 Those P.1888's certainly got around! Fascinating image there! It looks to me to be a Latvian artillery badge? - a winged griffin holding a sword superimposed on two crossed cannon Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanie_Daniels Posted 4 March , 2016 Share Posted 4 March , 2016 I have three photos with rifles/carbines like this - this one is the best. I got them from a guy in Poland. I also think thei rifles are shortend CLLE. The forends seems to be new made (no long range sight). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 4 March , 2016 Share Posted 4 March , 2016 I have three photos with rifles/carbines like this - this one is the best. I got them from a guy in Poland. I also think thei rifles are shortend CLLE. The forends seems to be new made (no long range sight). Amazing - would it be possible to see the others? The volley sight would only be visible on the other side of course. Is it possible to tell if the muzzle is sleeved to fit the p1888 (as per the RIC carbines etc) or if it is the correct diameter) I've never seen the like. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanD Posted 6 March , 2016 Share Posted 6 March , 2016 I wonder if it was something adapted and sold by a company such as the Soley Arms Co after the war to a country that had a small defence budget? Regards AlanD Sydney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lettman Posted 14 April , 2016 Share Posted 14 April , 2016 I've seen pics of Latvian cavalry with this kind of shortened weapon. My dad (who was Latvian) used to call the basic infantry weapon the 'Ross Enfield'. I think it was a term used for the P14 rather than the Canadian Ross rifle, but I've never been sure. Certainly the 'standard' cartridge for the interwar Latvian army was the .303. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanD Posted 28 January , 2018 Share Posted 28 January , 2018 MUN 4/6146 covers these rifles, sale of rifles to Latvian Government August 1921 to September 1923. It seems 2,000 were supplied with another 2,000 after that. So these must have been part of the 10,000 RIC carbines that were surplus to requirements. In addition 15,000 Pattern 14 rifles were supplied as well. There was some correspondence about the sights being for MkV1 ammunition rather than MkV111. However as the rifles were converted to CLLE configuration one would think this was attended to at the time of conversion. Regards AlanD Sydney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 28 January , 2018 Share Posted 28 January , 2018 Great find Alan! Were 10,000 RIC Carbines actually produced? that sounds like a huge number? I am a little confused about the sighting question P14s would have been sighted for MkVII obviously, same with CLLEs as you point out but I am not sure about RIC carbines nor really where they factor in here. I would have thought these would have been all CLLE rifles (although some converted to carbines like that shown in the original post) Cheers Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanD Posted 28 January , 2018 Share Posted 28 January , 2018 Hi Chris Reading Skennerton, 10,000 RIC carbines were completed by 1904, the order being placed in 1903. Following this another 500 were made up in 1905 another 450 in 1907 and a final batch of 250 in 1913-1914, giving an additional 1,200 on top of the original 10,000. All of these with the possible exception of the last 250 - which I doubt - would have been made for MKV1 ammunition, Mark MKV11 not being adopted until November 1910. When the 4,000 were converted for Latvia to CLLE spec a modification to the sighting would have or should have been part of the conversion program, as it was for the rifles. The file is a bit ambiguous on this matter and I cant remember it even mentioning the CLLE up-grade. I will check my photos when I down load them onto my computer, whatever the case the RIC carbines were certainly modified by someone! I was at the National Archives in October 2017. Regards AlanD Sydney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 28 January , 2018 Share Posted 28 January , 2018 OK now I understand better - thanks. So the weapon pictured above was potentially an RIC Carbine to which a charger bridge was added as opposed to a CLLE that was reduced to carbine length. I had not understood that There actually might be some support for that from the picture because although the foresight looks like a CLLE (with protector "wings") the rear sight does NOT look like a CLLE rear sight (with prominent adjustment wheels) but much more like an MLE/Carbine sight. Excellent sleuthing! Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5thBatt Posted 29 January , 2018 Share Posted 29 January , 2018 On 1/28/2018 at 19:10, 4thGordons said: OK now I understand better - thanks. So the weapon pictured above was potentially an RIC Carbine to which a charger bridge was added as opposed to a CLLE that was reduced to carbine length. I had not understood that There actually might be some support for that from the picture because although the foresight looks like a CLLE (with protector "wings") the rear sight does NOT look like a CLLE rear sight (with prominent adjustment wheels) but much more like an MLE/Carbine sight. Excellent sleuthing! Chris http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?407871-Taken-off-the-NZ-carbine-thread-Odd-ball-Russian-Lee-Enfield-carbine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanD Posted 3 February , 2018 Share Posted 3 February , 2018 Looking closely at the photo of the soldier posing with his carbine in post number 3 the rear sight has not been up-graded to CLLE configuration. Also look at the slightly scalloped fore wood on the carbine, this is typical of an RIC carbine. Confusingly, the photo in the thread that 5thBatt has posted the carbine appears to have a CLLE type rear sight; very baffling. The wording in MUN 4/6146 is somewhat ambiguous regarding sighting for Mk 6 or Mk 7 ammunition, I got the impression that the rifles would still be sighted for Mk 6 ammunition, even thought Mk 7 had been around for a decade or more. Also there were two shipments of 2,000 apiece, so perhaps one was modified for Mk7., while the other was not. The carbine in Wheaty's collection has the same RIC carbine fore wood. When I up-load the photos of MUN 4/6146 onto my computer, I will try and post them on the forum. Regards AlanD Sydney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5thBatt Posted 4 February , 2018 Share Posted 4 February , 2018 19 hours ago, AlanD said: Looking closely at the photo of the soldier posing with his carbine in post number 3 the rear sight has not been up-graded to CLLE configuration. Also look at the slightly scalloped fore wood on the carbine, this is typical of an RIC carbine. Confusingly, the photo in the thread that 5thBatt has posted the carbine appears to have a CLLE type rear sight; very baffling. The wording in MUN 4/6146 is somewhat ambiguous regarding sighting for Mk 6 or Mk 7 ammunition, I got the impression that the rifles would still be sighted for Mk 6 ammunition, even thought Mk 7 had been around for a decade or more. Also there were two shipments of 2,000 apiece, so perhaps one was modified for Mk7., while the other was not. The carbine in Wheaty's collection has the same RIC carbine fore wood. When I up-load the photos of MUN 4/6146 onto my computer, I will try and post them on the forum. Regards AlanD Sydney The CLLE Mk1 had the standard type of Long lee rear sight & a groove cut into the top of the Chargerbridge to help with the sight line, the one in the op photo might be converted from a Mk1 but photo is not clear enough to see if theres a groove on top of the Chargerbridge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanD Posted 8 February , 2018 Share Posted 8 February , 2018 Clicking on the photo a few times has made it a bit easier to view. It looks like there may be a groove cut in the top of the charger bridge, just a bit indistinct to be sure. What I can see clearly though is the fact that the bolt knob is of a fully rounded rifle type , not the ground down to flat carbine type that I would have expected! Same goes for the one shown in Wheatys collection in the Gunboards post, linked above. Regards AlanD Sydney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 16 February , 2018 Share Posted 16 February , 2018 Just as a reference, what I think was one of these just sold on an online auction site in the US: I was caught up at work and was unable to bid (it went for less than I expected) but for the record here are the pics. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanD Posted 17 February , 2018 Share Posted 17 February , 2018 Its made from a carbine alright but appears to have an extra barrel band added at some point. Regards Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5thBatt Posted 18 February , 2018 Share Posted 18 February , 2018 That rifle on Gunbrokers is a carbine fitted with rifle woodwork as the carbines never had volley sights so is just as likely a fantasy piece made up from parts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 18 February , 2018 Share Posted 18 February , 2018 32 minutes ago, 5thBatt said: That rifle on Gunbrokers is a carbine fitted with rifle woodwork as the carbines never had volley sights so is just as likely a fantasy piece made up from parts Yes I wondered about that too but if it is it seems to be well done. I wonder if a P1888 would fit? If it is an original carbine barrel I think it would be too thin without a bushing (re NZ/RIC Carbines) but if it is a cut down rifle barrel it seems to have been renumbered correctly. The bolt and receiver appear to come from a carbine. It would be interesting to know if the conversions were all from carbines or some were cut down rifles - the one in the original pic appears to have a rifle style bolt rather than a carbine bolt. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanD Posted 18 February , 2018 Share Posted 18 February , 2018 I think 5th Batt has hit the nail on the head, it is made up. Not sure if the barrel would be of correct diameter at the muzzle to fit the P88 bayonet. Incidentally, only the RIC carbines required the barrel to be bushed, the NZ carbines were made thick enough to fit the bayonet without bushing. Regards AlanD Sydney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 18 February , 2018 Share Posted 18 February , 2018 Right - quite correct on the NZ carbines, but as I recall the suggestion was that the Baltic rifles were converted from RIC carbines, not RIC, so they would have presumably needed sleeving (unless they were rebarrelled or cut down rifles) - which we don't appear to see on the Baltic rifles? It's a pity we can't get more detailed info on this example and on the conversion program. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wheaty Posted 23 February , 2019 Share Posted 23 February , 2019 (edited) A bit stale, but perhaps I can elucidate a bit on the pictures of the Lee Enfield carbines in Latvia. There is a short rifle in the military museum in Riga that is not a carbine. It is one of an order for somewhere between 2000 and 2500 that was made in the UK at Enfield of old CLLE receivers that were not used but in stock. Along with surplus parts and recovered parts from WW I these short rifles were made up and sold to Latvia. They were listed as a cavalry carbine in Latvia and the above info is what I obtained from both the curator of the Latvian Musuem and Herb Woodend of the pattern room. All this info is by personal conversation with both gentlemen. I'll try and post a picture of mine. Notice the Russian style sling plates on the stock and the Pattern 14 front sight ears. This one is IDENTICAL to the one in the Riga museum and the only other one I know of in private hands at the present. Edited 23 February , 2019 by wheaty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 23 February , 2019 Share Posted 23 February , 2019 Thanks for posting this Wheaty Does a P1888 bayonet fit yours? (MRD is the issue?) So it is a cut down rifle barrel or...... BTW I have still to fit the Ross foresight guard I got from you a couple of years ago - you weren't kidding when you said they were a pain! 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