charger laoding rifle lee-enfield

[BORSETTI]

Hello, I own a lee-enfield made by Birmingham in 1897  modified charger loading rifle by BSA in 1908. On the buttplate return, the following marking

6 NSTF 976 it is perfect condition, 

[4thGordons]

 

Welcome to the forum!

Congratulations. I really like CLLEs and their role in 1914 and 1915 is under appreciated I think. Do you have any pictures you might share?

The unit mark might be the 1/6 Battalion The North Staffordshire Regiment although I may be mistaken.

 

Chris

[593jones]

North Staffords, certainly, possibly the letters stand for North Staffordshire Territorial Force.   According to that fount of all knowledge, Wikipedia, the 6th North Staffs were, with the 5th Battalion, reorganised from the Volunteer battalions in 1908.  The 6th Battalion was based at Horninglow Street, Burton upon Trent, and served in France from 1915 to 1918.

[4thGordons]

I think the abbreviations is just N.STF  (for North Staffordshire) - at least that is what seems to be indicated here.

Chris

 

[BORSETTI]

Hello, I am going to take pictures of my rifle, can we identify the soldier who perceived his rifle with the number 976

[MikeyH]

 

Just now, MikeyH said:

 

Sadly, this is not possible.  But please post the photos.

 

Mike.

 

Edited 25 April , 2021 by MikeyH

[BORSETTI]

Thank you the information on my rifle, a little history about it, it comes from the région of Saint-quentin , department of Aisne in France vhere I live, there is a canvas sling with the waring's 1917 marking, a model 1888 bayonet by Sanderson 02 1902 unfortunaltely without scabbard.

[Dave66]

The rifle number was 976, what markings (if any) are on the pommel of the bayonet??

(Be nice to see N.STF 976)

 

Dave.

[BORSETTI]

no There is no number on the handle of the bayonet but just an N think for the navy?

[593jones]

12 hours ago, 4thGordons said:

I think the abbreviations is just N.STF  (for North Staffordshire) - at least that is what seems to be indicated here.

Chris

 

 

D'oh, yes, you're most likely right, that's me, unnecessarily complicating things  

[BORSETTI]

Hello, the first photos , charger loading rifle, example number one, the bayonet 1888 , will follow the photo of the rifle.

 

 

 

[Steve1871]

The blade of the P.1888 and 1903 have always looked the most WICKED looking for bayonets. We are fortunate as collectors to have so many sold off surplus for us all to collect 😊 India also made a version, same blade type, just longer 

[awjdthumper]

I'm sure that there was a lot of heated debate at the time that the P1888 bayonet and MLM were introduced into service to replace the Martini-Henry rifle with its p1876 socket bayonet since the reach of the new rifle and bayonet was some 10" shorter than its predecessor. The P1888 is aesthetically a lovely looking bayonet but I doubt if the troops thought it looked quite so frightening to the enemy (echoes of WW2 No. 4 rifle and spike bayonet). To some extent, the SMLE and the much longer Pattern 1907 bayonet must have restored this terror quality although, admittedly, its reach was the same as the CLLE and P1888 bayonet!

[593jones]

The P.1888 is a very nice looking bayonet, and I've always thought it would have made a somewhat handier weapon for trench warfare than the P.1907.  I know there was only a difference of 5", but it could still make a difference.

 

 

[awjdthumper]

The SMLE was originally fitted with the P1903 bayonet that was essentially a modified P1888. However, you would not have wanted to meet the enemy armed with a Gew 98 and the original S98 19.5" long bayonet with an SMLE and and a 12" long P1903.  However, by the start of WW1, both weapons had evolved to be about the same overall length.

[593jones]

3 hours ago, awjdthumper said:

The SMLE was originally fitted with the P1903 bayonet that was essentially a modified P1888. However, you would not have wanted to meet the enemy armed with a Gew 98 and the original S98 19.5" long bayonet with an SMLE and and a 12" long P1903.  However, by the start of WW1, both weapons had evolved to be about the same overall length.

 

I am aware that the P.1903 was originally fitted to the SMLE and of it's origin.  Size may matter, but so, too, does technique, something recognised by the Small Arms School in 1924.  Major EGB Reynolds quotes from their report in 'The Lee Enfield Rifle':

'It has been conclusively proved during the war, and since, with our present system of training with the bayonet, that 'reach' is not a main factor, but 'handiness' is.  A man with a short handy weapon will beat an equally skilled man with a cumbrous weapon practically every time.  As regards length of blade for killing purposes, the Physical Training Staff went into this in considerable detail during the war, and came to the conclusion that a 6-inch blade was sufficiently long to deal with the most thickly clad of our enemies - potential or otherwise.  The most thickly clad being a Russian in winter clothing.'

[4thGordons]

But what about repelling a cavalry charge?

 

Just because I happened to have them handy -- on length of weapons and bayonets - a few pics:

 

Pattern 1853 rifle musket > Snider>M-Henry>CLLE >SMLE>No4 >No5> SLR

 

Standard WWI types with bayonets showing relative length:

 

 

 

[593jones]

28 minutes ago, 4thGordons said:

But what about repelling a cavalry charge?

 

Just because I happened to have them handy -- on length of weapons and bayonets - a few pics:

Pattern 1853 rifle musket > Snider>M-Henry>CLLE >SMLE>No4 >No5> SLR

 

Standard WWI types with bayonets showing relative length:

 

 

I'm sure that facing cavalry was a possibility that was considered, presumably the idea that an infantryman with a rifle and long bayonet would outreach a cavalryman with a sabre, and just hope he's not equipped with a lance!

 

On the subject of 'reach', the Small Arms School had this to say:  'It is generally agreed that the present long bayonet is far from being an ideal weapon owing to it's length, weight and shape.  The reason for it's adoption seems to have been:

     (a) Length.  When the rifle was shortened it apparently was thought that a long bayonet was attached so that 'reach' should not be sacrificed.  The 'spirit of the pike' was still alive.

     (b) Shape.  It seems to have been desirable to the authorities that the bayonet should, when off the rifle, take the form of a cutlass or dagger, both for offensive reasons and as a means of clearing brushwood, etc.  The peculiar shape of the blade is rendered necessary owing to it's great length, and to reduce weight without sacrificing stiffness.'

 

It would seem from these extracts that the Small Arms School were not overly impressed with the P.1907!

 

Nice collection of rifles you have there, it makes my own small collection of deacts look very sad.  I'm exceedingly jealous!  

Edited 30 April , 2021 by 593jones

[JMB1943]

Nation	Rifle	Rifle Length	Bayonet Blade Length	Length Overall
		(R)	(B)	(R +
Austria-Hungary	1895 Mannlicher	1270	241	1511
Belgium	1893 Mauser	1276	241	1517
France	1886 Lebel	1301	526	1827
Germany	Gewehr 98 (Mauser)	1255	517	1772
Great Britain	Pattern 1907 SMLE	1130	437	1567
Italy	Modello 1891**	1289	295	1584
Japan	Type 38 Arisaka	1275	400	1675
Russia	3-Line Nagant	1318	435	1753
Turkey	Gewehr 98 (Mauser)	1234	457	1691
United States	1903 Springfield	1097	406	1503

 

I looked into the comparative lengths of rifles, with and without bayonet fixed, several years ago.

Also compared the rifle/bayonet vs. lance dimensions.

I'll show that table in a separate post.

 

Regards,

JMB

[BORSETTI]

Hello, the bayonets used extensively during mouvement warfare at the start of the war then with position or trench warfare they were used to guard prisoners or as a tool and stake for tents.

[JMB1943]

 Length of cavalry lance by nation

Nation	Length of Lance (mm)
Austria-Hungary	2410
Belgium	2850
France	2991
Germany	3137
Great Britain1	2743
Russia	3277
Average	2901
Standard Deviation	307.8
RSD-%	10.6

 

Have also included some of the write-up that accompanied the Tables.

 

"The average length is 2901 mm, which seems to rather overshadow the average rifle-and-bayonet combination length at 1640 mm. However, because of the weight of a lance (about 2.19 kg for the British Patt. 1894) it could not be used with a single-handed grip at the extreme end. Rather, it was held at the point of balance, which for the British lance was at about 1155 mm from the foot of the lance. This meant that for the British Lancer, there was a length of only about 1558 mm of lance with which to spear the enemy infantryman. Inspection of Table 1 reveals that all but three of the rifle-and-bayonet combination lengths exceeded this length. Interestingly, the lengths of the lances have a quite low RSD = 10.6%, which suggests that all of the nations had also selected a reasonably uniform length to defeat their potential infantryman enemies.

Although it seems that the infantryman was well-provided for, there are obviously the extreme cases in which the overly long lance (e.g., Germany, Russia) could potentially overwhelm the overly short rifle-and-bayonet combination (e.g., Austria-Hungary, Belgium, GB, US). Such a situation may well have arisen in the age of single-fire long-arms, whether musket or rifle."

 

Regards,

JMB

[JMB1943]

8 minutes ago, BORSETTI said:

Hello, the bayonets used extensively during mouvement warfare at the start of the war then with position or trench warfare they were used to guard prisoners or as a tool and stake for tents.

Not just used for utilitarian purposes.

When a trench raiding party of bomb-throwers and riflemen was sent over, the instructions explicitly stated that the riflemen (there to protect the bombers) were to have fixed bayonets.

 

Regards,

JMB

[BORSETTI]

yes these exact use also during assault to take an apposing position.

[BORSETTI]

Hello, here are the pictures of my charger loading rifle all comments will be welcome. best regards

[BORSETTI]

Bonjour, voici les photos de mon chargeur de fusil de chargement tous les commentaires seront les bienvenus. meilleures salutations