Lee Enfield Rifle

[gew98]

Serialed forend.

[gew98]

some more.

[gew98]

some more.

[Heatseeker]

Very interesting rifle gew98, and yes, that indeed looks like the original 1911-dated barrel, meaning it is one of the earliest MkVII sighted SMLEs I have encountered.

It's amazing what treasures "bucked the system", to stay intact for more than 90 years.

I would be very interested to verify how that lovely rifle of yours stayed in that intact state ... although, and I do gloat, the original cocking piece would have been numbered .

I enclose correspondence from a fellow in teh Australian Defence Department about the recent import in to Australia of the "Gallipoli Rifles":

All of these rifles were ultimately obtained from army stores in Turkey and did not have any of the British / Australian arsenal modifications expected to have occurred to every rifle that went through the system after 1915.

At least two of these rifles were Australian issue (marked to VIC military district in 1912 / 1914), and one was made for an Australian contract but diverted to an Indian regiment in late 1914, before delivery. This Punjabi regiment was one that was deployed to Mesopotamia and was captured by the

Turks - probably at Kut - in 1916.

Three of the rifles were conversions from Long Tom Lee Enfield / Lee Metford rifles - 2x SMLE MkII Cd and 1x SMLE MkIV Cd. One of the Mk II Cd rifles was marked to an artillery unit that was at Gallipoli, but markings

on other 2 were inconclusive. However, all were still sighted for MkVI and were consistent in every way with the other marked rifles.

Noting the Turkish provinance, regimental markings and the fact that they have been in the configuration freezer since 1915, I would consider that the chances are very high that these particular rifles were battle field

pickups or captured at Gallipoli.

This memo came from here

And while you're at it, check out the main site for the forum: Digger History ... lots of good info there to wade through!

[gew98]

HS ; I did not realize that the changeover to the Mk VII was not so complete as early as 1911. I dare say my SMLE has not been apart nor armorer tinkered with. I find it amazing it is in such good shape - how it stayed in a vacuum as yours has is beyond my comprehension. If my rifle is one of the earliest sighted for the Mk VII SAA maybe it is likely it did not follow all the sequences such as numbered cockpeice. There is no FTR anything marking anywhere on it , not even any upgrade mark/dates on socket , butt or receiver. An enigma I guess. I do know the couple enfield addicts around me I have shown it too have drooled a good bit over it. If I could only find another !.

[Guest timbo]

Hi Guys,

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, but I`m back out in Iraq now for the final part of my tour. I`ve had to set up a new account as I can`t remember what my password was, and the reminder email is being sent to my PC at home, rest assured that big jar of wasps will return, in the meantime desert wasp will have to take its place.

Right Maenforren, yes your picture looks like a MkIII, to me. A nice example, do you own it?

Corkhead, you best bet is to go to a military fair, and pick one up from there or you could try a military dealer. I think they go for a few hundred quid these days, they used to be a lot cheaper. Didn`t everything!!!! As regards to the change in the law, your guess is as good as mine as to whether this will put the price up or do, we`ll have to see. i`m sure yuo`ll be able to still get hold of them, but you`ll have to do it privately.

Hope this has been of some help.

BJOW.

hi desert wasp.

great work your doing out there,proud of you all.

can you tell me about the change in the law you guys are talking about.im secretary of a rifle club and would be interested.

all the best timbo.

[laughton]

Thanks to the Brits my Grandfather left Canada with a Ross Rifle, left the CEF, signed up with the British 3rd Army (34th Division, 26th Northumberland Fusiliers) and left his Ross Rifle either in the barracks or the river!

If it had not been for that, I might not be here to write this post!!!!

[Arnie]

Thanks to the Brits my Grandfather left Canada with a Ross Rifle, left the CEF, signed up with the British 3rd Army (34th Division, 26th Northumberland Fusiliers) and left his Ross Rifle either in the barracks or the river!

If it had not been for that, I might not be here to write this post!!!!

Hi laughton

The Ross rifle a purely Canadian affair and was there not a scandal involving Government ministers? I believe the rifle was adopted by the Canadians as a result of a corrupt deal that led to a scandal within the Canadian Government. When the Canadians arrived in France they found that the Ross was useless under battlefield conditions. This resulted in the throwing away their useless Ross and picking up and using the SMLE's belonging to the British Dead and wounded. The Ross was finally consigned to a training roll in the UK.

Arnie

[Arnie]

Hi

To see you 'fellers' drooling over the old SMLE is quite amusing when you think that the rifle was very nearly superseded by the P13 in fact it was only the advent of the war in 1914 saved it.

The SMLE was primarily adopted as a standard weapon for the infantry and the Cavalry (Mounted Infantry). This standardization was the brain child of General Smith Dorian. Who was responsible for reorganising and training the Cavalry in a Mounted Infantry Roll.

When SD's tour of duty ended, his successor supported by Haig returned the Cavalry to its traditional roll and gave them their swords and lances back.

The infantry who had been unhappy with the SMLE agitated for a 'proper' infantry rifle. So in 1910 the work on the weapon that came to be known as the P13!£ started. It had one or two advantages over the SMLE in that it was very accurate, fired a smaller, more powerful magnum round(.276 in) and could easily be mass produced. The war came to soon though to see it adopted. Here is an article from the internet that gives more information:

During the earliest part of the XX century, British army had some doubts about the effectiveness of its newest infantry weapon, the famous Rifle, Short, Magazine, Lee-Enfield, or SMLE in short. Because of that, government arms factory at Enfield Lock was set up to produce Mauser-pattern rifle and new rimless ammunition for it. By the 1912, such rifle was produced in the form of the Enfield P13 (pattern 1913) rifle, alongside with powerful magnum-class .276 Enfield ammunition. Being too powerful, this cartridge produced excessive muzzle flash and recoil, and worn barrels too quickly. The Great war (1st World war) effectively stopped the development of a new cartridge, and also put the British troops into desperate need for more and more rifles. As the British industry had no spare capacity to produce Lee Enfields, in 1915 the British Government decided to order rifles from private US contractors. The P13 rifle was especially suited for rapid mass production, so it was ordered for British troops, rechambered to the standard .303 British ammunition. The .303 caliber P14 rifles were manufactured by the three US arms plants, the Remington, the Winchester and the Eddystone (subsidiary of the Remington). As the USA entered the 1st World War in 1917, it immediately felt a shortage of infantry rifles, and, like the Britain before, government plants were unable to turn out enough Springfield M1903 rifles for US troops. As the .303 caliber P14 rifles were already in production in USA, US government decided to adopt this pattern to US issue .30-06 ammunition. Resulting rifle was adopted as "US Rifle, .30 caliber, Model of 1917", and produced by the same three plants between 1917 and 1918. During that short time, more than two millions of M1917 rifles were delivered to US Army, and most of the American troops in Europe were actually armed with M1917 rifles. Nevertheless, after the end of the war the Army officials decided to keep the Springfield M1903 as a general issue rifle, probably as a matter of a national pride. Many of M1917 rifles were sold as surplus or put into storage. During the early part of the 2nd World war some of M1917 rifles were shipped to Britain, where they were issued to the Home Guard. To distinguish .30 caliber US-made M1917 from very similar .303 caliber P14 rifles, British-issue .30 caliber M1917 rifles were marked with painted red strip on the buttstock. In general, M1917 rifles (also known as US Enfields) are known as a strong and accurate rifles; many of these were latter sporterized and often rechambered for various hunting cartridges.

The P14 and M1917 are manually operated, rotating bolt action rifles. Mauser-type rotating bolt has two frontal lugs which lock into the receiver ring. Integral staggered-row box magazine holds five rounds and can be loaded using M1903-type stripper clips or loose rounds. Bolt handle is bent down for more comfortable carry, and located at the rear of the bolt. Solid rear receiver bridge has guide slots for stripper clips, and serves as a base for rear diopter sight. manual safety is located at the right side of the receiver, above the trigger guard. Adjustable diopter rear sight offered high accuracy, once the proper windage was set by the drifting of the front sight. M1917 rifles were issued with detachable M1917 knife bayonet and scabbard. The easiest way to distinguish British P14 and US M1917 rifles is to look at the buttstock: the British rifles have a brass disk set up into the right side of the butt, which carries the regiment number. US rifles have no such disk.

undefined

[Arnie]

P13 and 14 Rifle

P13 British Rifle

P13 Rear sight

P13 British Sniper Rifle

US Army 1917 Enfield .30 06 Used by he way by the famous Medal of Honour winner Sgt Alvin York

Arnie

[TonyE]

The story of the Ross rifle was not a purely Canadian affair, nor was it as simple as stated.

The story really started in the Boer War when the UK refused to supply Canada with Lee Enfields claiming all production was needed for British forces. This was not well received by Canada and they determined to set up a domestic rifle facility. BSA were asked to set up a factory to manufacture the SMLE but refused, possibly under UK government pressure so Sir Frederick Borden, the Canadian Minister of Militia, and a close friend of Ross, awarded him the contract for the Canadian government without any real trial. Realising this was open to question, he convened a trial committee of Ross admirers, including Sam Hughes and pushed the decision through.

The British War Office fiercly opposed this contract, quoting a trial at the School of Musketry where the Ross was found to be greatly inferior to the LE.

In September 1914, faced with a need for huge numbers of rifles to arm the Kitchener New Armies, Britain reluctantly awarded Ross a contract for 100,000 Mark IIIB rifles, delivery to commence in March 1915 with delivery of 2,100 per week from April 1915, the whole to be complete by April 1916.

Ross failed to meet the contract and the first 19 rifles were not accepted by British inspectors until 21st August 1915, and it was recommended that the contract be cancelled.

Meanwhile the 1st Division of the CEF had gone into the line at Neuve Chappelle where their Ross Mark IIIs had failed them miserably, the bolts often jamming at crucial moments. The problem was originally thought to be chambers that were too tight so these were modified. Then it was found that the bolt lugs were being damaged so these were re-heat treated in the UK which proved to be a disaster. Eventually it was found that the bolt stop was the cause of the problem and this was replaced with a larger version.

The Canadians were issued with SMLEs and the British took over 95,000 of their Ross Mark IIIs for training. The British contract for the Mark IIIB rifles was cancelled in February 1917 when 65,590 rifles had been delivered. Many were issued to the Royal Navy to replace their Arisakas and the remainder were used for training.

Sam Hughes, by now Minister of Militia in Canada was forced to resign and the Ross factory was expropriated by the Canadian government in March 1917.

The Ross story is somewhat more complicated than those are the essentials.

With regard to the Pattern 13 rifle, although the war did result in the final abandonment of the project, it is very unlikely that the P.13 would have been adoptedin 1914 even if the war had not happened. There were a great many problems with the ammunition, including excessive muzzle flash, heavy metal fouling and bore erosion. There were 1050 rifles issued for troop trials which were cancelled after two rifles burst, one at Aldershot, seriously wounding the firer. This was found to be caused by "cook-off" in a hot chamber.

A decision to redesign the ammunition was made but little work was done before the war started. Some work was done in 1916 on a .276 armour piercing cartridge for the P.13 for use in France but this did not progress. After the war work started on a completly new series of .256 and .276 inch cartridges, but again WW2 interfered with this.

Regards

TonyE

[TonyE]

I think those pictures are of a Pattern 14 rifles, not a P.13.

A P.13 has quite distinctive finger grooves in the foreend as per the attached picture. The sniper rifle appears to be a standard P.14 Mk.I*W (T) with a Pattern 1918 scope. As far as I know, no P.13 rifles were made up as sniper equipment for issue, although of course Enfield may have made up an experimental rifle in 1916 for the AP trials.

Regards

TonyE

[DCLI]

Too big to read, too much information at this time of night - so I logged on twice to take it over 3000 reads - sorry for being so purile

regards

[Arnie]

quote name='TonyE' date='Apr 7 2006, 04:59 PM' post='431388']

I think those pictures are of a Pattern 14 rifles, not a P.13.

A P.13 has quite distinctive finger grooves in the foreend as per the attached picture. The sniper rifle appears to be a standard P.14 Mk.I*W (T) with a Pattern 1918 scope. As far as I know, no P.13 rifles were made up as sniper equipment for issue, although of course Enfield may have made up an experimental rifle in 1916 for the AP trials.

Regards

TonyE

Tony

Thank you for 'fleshing' out the Ross rifle scandal and what you say is basicacally correct However the your assertion that the British had a part in the scandal is a little way off the mark.

I can find no evidence other than extracts from the investigations, that the British refused to issue the Canadians with Lee Enfields. probably because the British regular army went to war with the Lee Metford. 20,000 Lee Enfields became available later in the war. But, for some reason to do with the War Office parsimony, to allow the Regulars to wear out the old Lee Metfords, the Lee Enfields were issued to the Yeomanry Mounted Infantry Units going out to South Africa. Thus the Canadians armed with Lee Metford were in the same boat as the British regular. The shortage of Lee Enfields was a convenient excuse for the Ross Rifle Scandal. Remember Tony, only 8372 Canadians were called to arms for the Boar war and many did not serve in South Africa. Out of the 25,000 Australian, Canadians and New Zealanders who served in the Boar War. It was only Canada where this complaint arose.

In the period from 1904 until 1914 the British economy was in decline after the boom of the Boar War There was neither funds or the will to export jobs to Canada. Maybe the decision by the War office to develop a new rifle may have influenced the decision not to manufacture in Canada.

The real scandal was that even when the deficiencies of the Ross rifle was well know, the Canadian Government still sent their troops in to action with a seriously defective rifle. Compounding the scandal by sending the second Canadian division to France armed with the same rifle. Even though it was well know that Canadian soldiers were recovering SMLEs from wounded and dead British soldiers. The hopeless situation with the Ross was not solved until FM Haig ordered all Canadians be issued with SMLEs from British stocks

Your assertion that the P13/14 would not have gone into service is also a little off the mark although at this point in time, arguments can be made for both points but considering that the US armed the majority of it army with a rechambered version of the P14. However consider the following:

The P14 was designed for mass production where as the SMLE was for a great part still hand made right up to the end of SMLEs history with the weapon.

The main problem with the P13 in conception was the ammunition the .276 in magnum cartridge was too powerful, but development problems blessed all small powerful rounds but time and science solved the problems.

There was probably over 5 million P14/ US 1917 Enfields, and during its whole life here was only one modification, the bolt incorporated a longer locking lug and when it was reissued in WW2 they removed its volley fire sight. Not bad for a rifle that according to you was not good enough for issue to the Army

One final point I was taught that all rifles with finger grooves are definitely P13. But, all rifles with out are not definitely P14. simply because in the cause of mass manufacture it was easier to a one long groove along the upper stock and later manufactured P13 rifles (after the initial trial model) had the single groove. It was the .303 in. model that was eventually called the P14

[

Ross Rifle 1910 model with .303 magazine

[Heatseeker]

quote name='TonyE' date='Apr 7 2006, 04:59 PM' post='431388']

There was probably over 5 million P14/ US 1917 Enfields, and during its whole life here was only one modification, the bolt incorporated a longer locking lug and when it was reissued in WW2 they removed its volley fire sight. Not bad for a rifle that according to you was not good enough for issue to the Army

Don't forget the P14 was chosen as the British sniper rifle in 1918, and it soldiered on well in to World War II in that role, especially in Australian service.

[Arnie]

Don't forget the P14 was chosen as the British sniper rifle in 1918, and it soldiered on well in to World War II in that role, especially in Australian service.

Heatseeker

Thanks for that, it only reinforces the point I was trying to make a rifle that was converted to an excelent sniper rifle would not have been developed into a good service rifle if the war in 1914 had not intervened.

Its cousins the German Gewehr 98 Mauser and the US Springfield 03 both did sterling service with their respective countries, both considered their rifle the best bolt action rifle in the world. Perhaps the P13/14 firing a smaller more powerful round would have been supierior to both

Arnie

German Gewehr 98 mauser

US Springfield 1903

[Heatseeker]

Heatseeker

Thanks for that, it only reinforces the point I was trying to make a rifle that was converted to an excelent sniper rifle would not have been developed into a good service rifle if the war in 1914 had not intervened.

Its cousins the German Gewehr 98 Mauser and the US Springfield 03 both did sterling service with their respective countries, both considered their rifle the best bolt action rifle in the world. Perhaps the P13/14 firing a smaller more powerful round would have been supierior to both

Arnie

Ah yes, but a great sniper rifle does not necessarily make a good general service infantry rifle, although I believe the P14 was an excellent rifle that was a victim of history.

The Ross, which was hated by the Canadian infantry, excelled on the target range before and after the war and in the sniping role, when it was not required to fire rapid shots and could be kept relatively clean, it was as good as any weapon available.

This is reversed in the case of the SMLE, which is great in the mud and in a brawl, but was never great in the sniping role.

The side mounted Great War conversions were a compromise at best, and the Australian HT of World War II achieved mixed results ... some were superb, others dogs.

That said, the No4 Enfield was the basis for a great sniper rifle that served more than 45 years (the L42A1 was based on a No4 action).

But by all account the P14 snipers were sound rifles, and the Pattern 18 a very reliable scope.

[Arnie]

Ah yes, but a great sniper rifle does not necessarily make a good general service infantry rifle, although I believe the P14 was an excellent rifle that was a victim of history.

The Ross, which was hated by the Canadian infantry, excelled on the target range before and after the war and in the sniping role, when it was not required to fire rapid shots and could be kept relatively clean, it was as good as any weapon available.

This is reversed in the case of the SMLE, which is great in the mud and in a brawl, but was never great in the sniping role.

The side mounted Great War conversions were a compromise at best, and the Australian HT of World War II achieved mixed results ... some were superb, others dogs.

That said, the No4 Enfield was the basis for a great sniper rifle that served more than 45 years (the L42A1 was based on a No4 action).

But by all account the P14 snipers were sound rifles, and the Pattern 18 a very reliable scope.

Tony

Once again you leave very little to argue with. However the P14 was in service with the US Army before the British decided to have a dedicated sniper rifle. I'm in no way trying to depreciate the SMLE it did splendid service. The point I tried to make was that it was not considered up to the mark before the war by the military establishment. They wanted a rifle to compete with the German Gewehr 98 they were not the only ones the US army also copied much of the same rifle for the Springfield 03.

The Germans of both wars would not accept that the SMLE was in anyway comparable to the Gewehr 98 or the K98. But the British were thinking ahead and maybe were a little ahead of their time by even considering the .276 inch round. I always think there is an echo of the P13/SMLE controversy in the E1 .280in Assault rifle and the SLR 7.62mm debate of the fifties and we all know at the end of the day British Army ended up with the SA 80 .223in/5.56mm rifle

[TonyE]

Arnie

You have either misread my comments regarding the Pattern 14 or misunderstood them.

Taking each of your points in turn:

I did not say the British were responsible for the Ross scandal, merely that the refusal to supply rifles was ONE of the reasons Canada decided to set up an indiginous rifle industry. Unfortunately I cannot quote source documents regarding the refusal but I see no reason to doubt it. Australia complained about exactly the same thing to Lord Haldane a few years later in 1907. The incident is quoted in the Ross Rifle Story and I respect that work. I knew one of the authors, Frank Dupuis, well and spent a lot of time with him when he was researching the book in the UK many years ago. I am sure I could find the relevent record in the National Archives had I time.

I did not say that the Pattern 14 would not have gone into service in the British army. I said it would not have entered service in 1914. Had the war not occurred, I am sure with time the problems with the ammunition would have been overcome and the rifle may well have replaced the SMLE with an improved or different cartridge. Remember there were very many different .256 and .276 cartridge designs at the time, not just the RL18000C trial round.

I agree that the P14 was better suited to mass production but would dispute the assertion that the SMLE was largely hand built. Had this been so then the Peddled Scheme in WWI and the Dispersal Scheme in WWII would not have been possible.

With regard to the Pattern 13, all of the 1050 troop trial rifles had the three finger grooves. There was no later mass production of the P.13 after that as you suggest. What mass manufacture of the P13 do believe had a single long finger groove?

The P.14 was not in service with the United States forces, it was the Model 1917. That is not just a pedantic point, but important to avoid confusion.

Neither did I say that the P.14 was not good enough for British service. What I said was that the state of development of the .276 cartridge was not good enough for service. The decision to not use the P.14 as a front line weapon was due to a number of factors. They were very late in arriving and by the second half of 1916 when deliveries started the situation with repect to the supply of SMLEs had improved considerably. Another factor was to avoid having two different rifles in service at the front from a logistic standpoint.

The P.14 was a fine rifle, but was a child of the war. With no war the P.14 would not have been born and the same applies to the Model of 1917. Who knows, by 1916 or so the P.13 may well have come into service.

Regards

TonyE

[Arnie]

Arnie

You have either misread my comments regarding the Pattern 14 or misunderstood them.

Taking each of your points in turn:

I did not say the British were responsible for the Ross scandal, merely that the refusal to supply rifles was ONE of the reasons Canada decided to set up an indiginous rifle industry. Unfortunately I cannot quote source documents regarding the refusal but I see no reason to doubt it. Australia complained about exactly the same thing to Lord Haldane a few years later in 1907. The incident is quoted in the Ross Rifle Story and I respect that work. I knew one of the authors, Frank Dupuis, well and spent a lot of time with him when he was researching the book in the UK many years ago. I am sure I could find the relevent record in the National Archives had I time.

I did not say that the Pattern 14 would not have gone into service in the British army. I said it would not have entered service in 1914. Had the war not occurred, I am sure with time the problems with the ammunition would have been overcome and the rifle may well have replaced the SMLE with an improved or different cartridge. Remember there were very many different .256 and .276 cartridge designs at the time, not just the RL18000C trial round.

I agree that the P14 was better suited to mass production but would dispute the assertion that the SMLE was largely hand built. Had this been so then the Peddled Scheme in WWI and the Dispersal Scheme in WWII would not have been possible.

With regard to the Pattern 13, all of the 1050 troop trial rifles had the three finger grooves. There was no later mass production of the P.13 after that as you suggest. What mass manufacture of the P13 do believe had a single long finger groove?

The P.14 was not in service with the United States forces, it was the Model 1917. That is not just a pedantic point, but important to avoid confusion.

Neither did I say that the P.14 was not good enough for British service. What I said was that the state of development of the .276 cartridge was not good enough for service. The decision to not use the P.14 as a front line weapon was due to a number of factors. They were very late in arriving and by the second half of 1916 when deliveries started the situation with repect to the supply of SMLEs had improved considerably. Another factor was to avoid having two different rifles in service at the front from a logistic standpoint.

The P.14 was a fine rifle, but was a child of the war. With no war the P.14 would not have been born and the same applies to the Model of 1917. Who knows, by 1916 or so the P.13 may well have come into service.

Regards

TonyE

Tony

Sorry but your inference that the British were in some way involved in the scandal, which was purely Canadian The Australian complaint was the same as the British Regulars complaint, the Lee Metford was out shot by the Boar Mauser, but not only accuracy but the speed of shooting. Simply the Mauser could be reloaded faster. At the start of the Boar war the British had put 200,000 Lee Enfields in to reserve and had only issued 25,000 to some reserve units and finally the Yeomanry. The Excuse of we could not get rifles from the British was simply a ploy to reduce blame on those involved in the scandalous 'goings on'.

The British Army was determined to have a rifle that could match the Gewehr 98 in open warfare, hence the Rifle having Mauser parts, as did the Springfield . In 1913 I don't think the Army thought they would be fighting the Germans so soon . And therefore after mobilization, there was neither time or resources to develop or manufacture sufficient rifles to reequip the army. Also of course the SMLE, had proved itself in France, but more to the point warfare itself had changed, no more Platoon volley fire, no more engaging targets at 1000yds. Nor was its 38% better accuracy a great issue anymore (except for sniping )The ability to snap shoot at 200yds was more important. A sight with a large aperture (battle sight) or a 'V' notched backsight was an important requirement.

Incidentally in 1914 the UK purchased no less than 130,000 Japanese Arisaka service rifles of assorted types, all in 6.5mm calibre, a designation Anglicised into .256". This calibre remained in service with Japan until 1945. So a viable cartridge was available. But, perhaps the burgeoning issue of Vickers and Lewis machine gun, both firing .303 in and the .256in not being suitable for a machine gun ( a factor not considered in 1906)also put the knockers on the P13.

The British Infantry had originally objected to the length of the SMLE, considering it put 'Tommy' at a disadvantage in Bayonet fighting, so the gave it a longer bayonet. I think probably the SMLE/P13 were the last rifle that length of rifle and bayonet were design factors.

Believe it or not Tony, the SLR 7.62 Nato Rifle was the last rifle in British service that did not have a majority of hand made components.

The US 1917 was the P14 rechambered and to say it was another rifle, just as the P14 was the P13 re chambered and with slight cosmetic changes. To say otherwise is being pedantic

Regarding the grooves Sorry I got the US 1917 model mixed up. But they were taken off for mass production purposes

Arisaka Rifle 6mm 1905 model

Best wishes

Arnie

[TonyE]

Hi Arnie

It seems we will have to agree to differ on this!

You seem to read too much into my comments. I don't want to labour the point but I merely stated that the problem Canada had with getting supplies of rifles from the UK was a contributing factor to their decision to equip themselves with a Canadian made rifle. I agree the "scandal" of the Ross was a Canadian affair.

Yes, I am fully aware of the purchase of the Arisakas, I have written a book on the British use of the these.

To say though that the Japanese 6.5mm (or .256") was an available "viable" cartridge is misleading. The original Japanese Type 30 round had a 170 grn round nose bullet with a velocity of 2300 fps, and even the updated Type 38 (1905) spitzer with the 139 grn bullet only achieved 2450fps. Compare this with what we were trying to achieve with the .276" P.13 cartridge, which was a high capacity case with a 165 grn spitzer bullet doing around 2800fps (although the intention was to get up to as near 3000 fps as possible).

The Japanese Type 38 was really an intermediate power round and the Japanese partially replaced it with the 7.7mm for many applications. The Russians used the 6.5mm Arisaka in the Fedorev Avtomat in 1916 as a relatively low powered assault type cartridge.

I did not understand your comment that the .256" was not suitable for machine guns (or did you mean the .276" P.13 round?) Either one, what was the problem with using a rimless or semi rimless round in a MG? Both the Vickers and Lewis proved themselves perfectly capable of using both rimmed and rimless cartridges.

Finally did you mean that the SLR was the FIRST rifle in British service that did not have hand made parts or that it was the last that did? Either way I am afraid I disagree. I do not think that Savage, Maltby and Fazakerly were busy hand filing and fitting No.4 parts to a couple of million rifles in 1944.

All the best

Tony

[Arnie]

Hi Tony,

I bow to your superior knowledge of small arms. But, I cannot let you have the last word totally.

Further research into the Lee Enfield controversy would lead me to believe even more it was a 'Red Herring' put up by the Canadian Government.

The Lee Metford and Lee Enfield were practically identical. For the lay man it would be fair to say that the difference was the barrel. The Lee Metfords barrel life had been reduced from 10,000 to about 4000 rounds because of the introduction of the new smokeless ammunition. I would say 4000 rounds would see the 'hostilities only soldier' through is whole military career.In fact the Lee Enfield had sighting problems when first issued, in that it fired so low it could not be 'zeroed' onto the target without workshop support. Why? I don't know.

In the early 1900s when the work first started on the smaller, more powerful round, the Machine Gun was treated as an interesting 'toy' not worth considering as a serious weapon of war. Not much use against skilled rifleman and cavalry! Even in 1915 FM French's generals considered they had more than enough machine guns. After the machine guns came finally into its own, its ammunition development had to be considered along with the rifle.

Two important features of the Machine gun is the beaten zone and the trajectory. The beaten zone gives it an area weapon facility and the trajectory allows you to engage target behind obstacles and fire over the heads of friendly forces. A more powerful round does not produce such big beaten zone and the flat trajectory means you can only hit targets in line of sight.

The Vickers machine gun was able, finally to hit targets 4000 yds away. Machine guns firing the smaller round are pushed to exceed 800 to1000yds

The smaller round does not have the punch to destroy enemy target behind protection such as logs & brick walls.

No present day army have been able to produce a sustained fire machine guns in 5.56mm. Even the present NATO 7.62mm GPMG in the sustained fire role as not the range or the beaten zone of the Vickers and certainly require a barrel change more often.

There are a number of LMGs firing the smaller cartridge like the:-

L86 Light Support Weapon (LSW) 5.56mm

That produces higher volumes of fire and is effective at longer ranges. An infantry section consists of two four-man fire teams armed with SA80s: three IWs and one LSW. Range approx 1000yds

5.56mm Light Machine Gun 5.56mm

Minimi belt fed 5.56mm Light Machinegun (LMG), is entering service on a scale of one per four-man fire team. The Minimi has been used operationally by British troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Range approx 800 yds

The British together with other NATO Armies use machines guns firing a cartridge that would not have been out of place in WW1 7.62mm

7.62mm General Purpose Machine Gun

The General Purpose Machine Gun (GPMG) can be used as a light weapon, mounted on a bipod. It can also be seen in a sustained fire role, mounted on a tripod and fitted with the C2 optical sight. In this role , it will be a two-man team who grouped in a specialist Machinegun Platoon to provide battalion-level fire support. Versions of the GPMG are mounted on most Army vehicles and some helicopters.Range in Sustained Fire role is approx 1800 yds. Although I have engaged targets over 2000 yds

.5 Inch Heavy Machine Gun

The powerful L1A1 12.7 mm Heavy Machine gun (HMG) is an updated version of the Browning M2 'Fifty-cal' - recognised as one of the finest heavy machine guns ever developed. Currently, the HMG provides integral close-range support from a ground mount tripod or fitted to a Land Rover TUM using a Weapon Mount Installation Kit (WMIK) and a variety of sighting systems. The performance of the HMG has recently been enhanced with a new 'soft mount' (to limit recoil and improve accuracy) and a quick change barrel.

Pictures to follow

Best wishes

Arnie

[Arnie]

Tony

Together with a proper machine gun they have still not being able to develop a sniper rifle using the smaller sound

Sniper Rifle

Designed to achieve first-round hit at 600m and harassing fire out to 1100m, the superb Accuracy International L96 sniper rifle has been upgraded with a new x3-x12 x 50 sight and spotting scope. Selected units also field the L115A1 Long range Rifle (LRR), which fires an 8.59mm bullet, heavier than the 7.62mm round of the L96 and less likely to be deflected over extremely long ranges.

Light support weapons 5.56 mm

L86 LSW

Minimi 5.56mm LSW

[TonyE]

Hi Arnie

We can't keep meeting like this! Yet again I am going to be curmudgeonly and disagree with you, but first let us get a couple of minor points out of the way.

The problem with the barrel erosion when cordite was introduced in 1891 was to do with the profile of the Metford rifling, which had smooth lands. The problem was largely overcome by the introduction of Enfield rifling which had sharper edged lands.

The sighting problem was caused because the backsight beds of the new rifles were calibrated for an expected velocity from the Cordite Mark I ball ammunition of 2200 fps, but in fact it only achieved 2000 fps. Consequently it shot low and the backsight ramps and sights had to be re-calibrated to the correct velocity.

Now, as to your comments regarding the new "smaller" round. To say that no one has successfully built a sustained fire gun for the smaller round and start discussing the L86 and Minimi guns in 5.56mm is a complete red herring. I can only assume you have never seen a .276 Pattern 13 round. It may be "smaller" in calibre (7mm as opposed to the 7.7mm of the .303), but it is in no way comparable to the modern 5.56mm, being a far more powerful round.

In the attached picture the top round is the 5.56mm used in the L86, the centre is the .276" P.13 round and the lower one of course is a .303". I think you will agree that the .276 is a tad larger than a modern 5.56mm!

Also I cannot accept your assertion that the beaten zone would be smaller with a more powerful round, since to a large extent the size of the zone is a function of the gun and mount, as well as the consistency of the ammunition. The same applies to the long range fire. Even with a flatter trajectory (which the army wanted to increase the danger space), at 4000 yards the trajectory woould easily be high enough for overhead fire or indirect fire. The Vickers was converted to the new .276 during trials and there is no reason to believe that had the round been introduced the Vickers/.276 combination would not have been a perfectly serviceable weapon.

Modern LMGs like the L86 (not a good example due to its split group problems) cannot be compared to the Vickers in its sustained fire role. They are designed to a completely different set of parameters so it is comparing apples with pears. A better comparison would be the Russian PK family which is generally regarded as being the best weapon of its class in the world.

That's about it for now,all the best.

Tony

[2ndCMR]

Just thought I'd comment on some of the design features of the Lee-Enfield action.

The fact that the bolt locks at the rear, behind the magazine well, is often criticised, or at least commented on, as undermining the accuracy of the rifle. In some senses this is true, as it means that the steel 'straps' on either side of the well are placed in tension by the backward force on the bolt at the moment of firing. Because that tensile stress is applied on such a long length of material, a certain amount of elastic stretch will occur, and small variations in charge and pressure will have an exaggerated effect compared to a much more rigid action like the Mauser or P14 which locks at the front of the bolt. For that reason, a Lee-Enfield action needs to be very precisely set up to get accuracy close to that available from standard production Mauser actions. Even so, a good No.4T made a perfectly adequate sniping rifle.

In fact the flexing of the LE action has been proven to 'compensate' for variations in cartridge loading, bullet weight etc. giving the LE a distinct advantage at longer ranges over most rigid actions. LE No4 actioned target rifles were used in world-class competition into the 1990s.

The No4(T) was more than adequate, and the L39, L42, Envoy and Enforcer variants are comparable in performance to most modern rifles and better than many.

As for the P14 business, the irony is that if the War Office had licensed Ross' .280 cartridge design, the first really modern high velocity (over 3000fps) design, they would have probably had a workable and highly 'modern' Mauser-type action as many of the rifle club types and Boer War veterans thought was needed. Ironically, though Sir Charles Ross Bt. was thoroughly British, they chose to snub his cartridge and try to go it alone with a .276 design that proved a failure.

The Germans, thankfully for many an Allied soldier, abandoned the smooth and quick action of the M96 Mauser which cocked on closing, for the clumsy and awkward M98 which cocked on opening. The War Office was not so foolish this time, and the P14 cocked on closing, as did all it's variants such as the US M17.