TF Rifle Units wearing brass buttons

[Ewan D]

Hi all, 

I flipping through a couple of books I have and noticed something unusual that caught my eye. A couple of photos of soldiers from the 15th(Civil Service Rifles) and 16th (Queens Westminster Rifles) Londons wearing brass buttons as suppose to black. Most pictures that I've seen of these units (and others) show them wearing black buttons. I was just wondering if this was common Territorial Rifle units? I have attached photos of said pictures. 

Thanks in advance, 
Ewan    

I should note that the photo of the chap in the CSR was taken in 1918. A replacement or 2/15th prehaps?

 

[Andrew Upton]

3 hours ago, Ewan D said:

 A couple of photos of soldiers from the 15th(Civil Service Rifles) and 16th (Queens Westminster Rifles) Londons wearing brass buttons as suppose to black. Most pictures that I've seen of these units (and others) show them wearing black buttons. I was just wondering if this was common Territorial Rifle units?

It is not unusual to see war-time shots of soldiers in Rifles affiliated units wearing the standard brass GS in lieu of the black horn buttons. SD jackets were usually supplied with the GS buttons attached so in theory would be swapped over, either by the soldier himself or the unit tailor etc. In peace time this was something that could be easily kept in force, in war-time things like issues of supply and soldiers being transferred about obviously made it more difficult to enforce with 100% success. 

[6RRF]

I think the point Ewan is making is that these aren't "wartime" photos in that that the men is question - still equipped with long Lee Enfields - are about to depart from home

[FROGSMILE]

Some of the units of the corps of the London Regiment favoured the wearing of black buttons with strict observance before the war, but others did not and it’s necessary to study each unit individually to see what their practice was. In general it’s important too, to keep in mind that until 1916 the Territorial Force was specifically responsible for organising the equipping and clothing of its own units.  This proved difficult in practice during the war and there were supply difficulties in keeping up with unit requirements**.  In addition those points made by Andrew caused additional problems.

Even Kitchener’s war-raised ‘Service Battalions’ of rifle regiments struggled to maintain a consistent supply of black buttons.  This was rarely the case with the regular army units and photographic evidence suggests that at the very least they were afforded some priority by the supply chain in maintaining a supply of the buttons so important to their identity.

**several of the units, for example Queen Victoria’s Rifles, had discrete buttons of their own, whereas others were content with the rifles pattern of GS button.  Such inconsistencies did not help the TF with maintaining an efficient supply.

Edited 29 March , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[Ewan D]

I see. Thank you for your information

[4thGordons]

On 25/03/2023 at 05:59, 6RRF said:

I think the point Ewan is making is that these aren't "wartime" photos in that that the men is question - still equipped with long Lee Enfields - are about to depart from home

 

Actually they are armed with CLLEs (Charger Loading Lee Enfields) a modification of the Magazine Lee Enfield introduced at the same time as the SMLE and modified for "Charger Loading" and sighted for the newer MkVII ammunition,  - the diagnostic charger bridges and foresight protectors are clearly visible in the picture.

These were common with TF Battalions (including in F&F) up until early Spring of 1916 at which time most units had turned them in for SMLEs (many of the TF units at Loos were armed with CLLEs and the 1/4th Gordons carried them at Bellewaarde on the same day) - they virtually disappear from the photographic record on the Western Front prior to the Somme - although there are records of their continued use in other theatres up through late 1917.

Chris

[6RRF]

That's interesting thanks, although the pictures from the Honychurch collection which Mike Chappell used in his book [and were copied in the OP] do appear to be pre-war/pre-embarkation.

Your note about CLLEs does however raise an interesting question. When the London Scottish first went into action there were bitter complaints about their rifles or rather the chargers jamming. Could this be down to using MkVII ammunition and chargers ? 

[4thGordons]

6 hours ago, 6RRF said:

 

Your note about CLLEs does however raise an interesting question. When the London Scottish first went into action there were bitter complaints about their rifles or rather the chargers jamming. Could this be down to using MkVII ammunition and chargers ? 

I think there is a long discussion of this exact case somewhere back in the dim and distant forum past - there was also an issue with incorrect/ill fitting bayonets (the MLE/CLLE took the P1888 and the SMLE the 1903 or 1907 of course and these are not interchangeable) 

The MkVI bullets were round nosed and the Mk VII were pointed (spitzer) and that could cause feed difficulties (they also had different ballistic properties so rifles had to be resighted for MkVII ammunition - they are marked HV (High Velocity) to indicate this had been done.

I am not sure the CHARGERS (clips) would be a problem, if they were armed with MLEs the chargers would be useless and if they were issued ammunition in chargers they would have to strip the rounds out and load them singly (this was the reason for the CLLE conversion - post 1903 introduction of the SMLE SA ammunition was shipped/issued in chargers rather than in bundles of loose rounds). If they had CLLEs or SMLE MkIIIs then chargers should not have been a problem

BUT....... if they had SMLE MkIs (the earliest SMLE) then there may have been an problem with chargers because the MkI didn't have a robust "Charger bridge" (which is part of the familiar MkIII profile and was added to make the MLE into a CLLE) but instead had a rather fragile sliding "charger guide" built into the bolt heard -- these were easily damaged and subject to problems with dirt (which was why they were replaced in 1907 with the introduction of the SMLE MkIII.)

My *guess* would be that if the issue was indeed with charger loading then they were probably armed with early ShtLE MkIs with the sliding charger guide.

Here is an illustration of how it worked: The guide is mounted on the bolt head

 

Compared to the much stronger and simpler charger bridge as fitted to the ShtLE MkIII and subsequent variations up through the No4 rifle.

 

Apologies to the OP for the thread hijack

Chris

[6RRF]

1 hour ago, 4thGordons said:

I think there is a long discussion of this exact case somewhere back in the dim and distant forum past - there was also an issue with incorrect/ill fitting bayonets (the MLE/CLLE took the P1888 and the SMLE the 1903 or 1907 of course and these are not interchangeable) 

The MkVI bullets were round nosed and the Mk VII were pointed (spitzer) and that could cause feed difficulties (they also had different ballistic properties so rifles had to be resighted for MkVII ammunition - they are marked HV (High Velocity) to indicate this had been done.

I am not sure the CHARGERS (clips) would be a problem, if they were armed with MLEs the chargers would be useless and if they were issued ammunition in chargers they would have to strip the rounds out and load them singly (this was the reason for the CLLE conversion - post 1903 introduction of the SMLE SA ammunition was shipped/issued in chargers rather than in bundles of loose rounds). If they had CLLEs or SMLE MkIIIs then chargers should not have been a problem

BUT....... if they had SMLE MkIs (the earliest SMLE) then there may have been an problem with chargers because the MkI didn't have a robust "Charger bridge" (which is part of the familiar MkIII profile and was added to make the MLE into a CLLE) but instead had a rather fragile sliding "charger guide" built into the bolt heard -- these were easily damaged and subject to problems with dirt (which was why they were replaced in 1907 with the introduction of the SMLE MkIII.)

My *guess* would be that if the issue was indeed with charger loading then they were probably armed with early ShtLE MkIs with the sliding charger guide.

Here is an illustration of how it worked: The guide is mounted on the bolt head

 

Compared to the much stronger and simpler charger bridge as fitted to the ShtLE MkIII and subsequent variations up through the No4 rifle.

 

Apologies to the OP for the thread hijack

Chris

Interesting, yes I remember the charging bridge for the No.4, but not that earlier one. Thanks for posting - and mea culpa on the thread hijack